LOL, a man twice the size of the boy? Martin was 6' tall 160lbs, hardly a "boy", and a fistfight can VERY easily turn deadly, especially when you start using pavement as a weapon. Let me smash your head into the pavement and let's see if you feel your life is in danger. LOL at you people who don't understand the concept of initiating physical contact. You do NOT have the right to assault someone just because they are making you uncomfortable. Had Martin killed Zimmerman that night and tried to claim SYG or SD because he felt his life was in danger because Zimmerman was following, he'd have been convicted in a New York minutes, and it wouldn't have been close.
Uh, there may or may not be a group of them. I don't need special training to know that the guy who walked in waving a gun demanding money has committed a crime and is putting everyone in that store's life in danger. LEOs are NOT going to try and arrest a guy like that, they are going to end the threat - they are going to put lead into him until he is no longer a threat. Lots of lead. And they are often very sloppy about it. So, you'd rather have even *more* people putting *even more* lead into that store than I would? Really? I thought your fear was it would turn into a shooting gallery? Also, let's address the likelihood that the cops won't even get there until after the event is already over? They are really great at gathering evidence and calling the coroner to get bodies. I'd rather not be one of those bodies.
We'll never truly know the true sequence of events, since Martin died, and Zimmerman is still alive---and GZ has lied before. With that said, as much as you are alleging that TM played with fire---GZ played with fire. When law enforcement officers tell you to stand down, you stand the f**k down, especially when you're pursuing someone under the suspicion that they will commit a crime (what the hell is that).
Your theory is based on the notion that the guy is a rabid killer---you clearly said he was a robber. You, citizen X trying to blow his face off will probably incite him to blow off a couple of bullets---otherwise, he has quite a few powerful incentives NOT to fire at people (upgrade to murder charges chief among them). Those incentives multiply when it's a group of professional law enforcement officers that are looking to make it an arrest, and not go down in CCW Hall of Fame as one-shot Joe. The whole point of the affair is to make sure people DON'T fire their weapons. I'm not exactly sure how you see yourself sneaking off and firing out a gun without any identification will help any matter---other than turning a robbery into multiple homicides.
LOL Let me bang your head against a concrete pavement repeatedly and see what kinda damage that would come of it. It sure wouldn't look like what happened to Zimmerman's head.
You make a pretty big assumption that a robber isn't interested in killing anyone when in fact there are plenty of cases where a robber has shot and killed people. Even if the majority of the time they don't, it sure sucks to be the minority that dies in a robbery because the only people allowed to protect your life are the police and they aren't there.
A robber by definition isn't trying to kill anyone. They want your stuff, and they're willing to use force to get it, but both sides lose if people die. The whole point of a robbery is bringing a gun to not use it. Now, that calculus shifts significantly if some guy in a t-shirt tries to blow your face off, to the detriment of all involved. that's kinda the point.
So how do you, the victim, know whether this guy is only interested in getting stuff or whether he is going to shoot your baby in the face while it's sleeping in the stroller?
you're talking about something really messed up if someone comes in and freezes everyone, steals some candy, then shoots a baby in the face in front of several witnesses, for um---baby-killing reasons confused:) I can see why America's culture is so gun rabid if that's what the average person thinks of crime. that's GTAish. too bad it has such rampant public policy implications.
That incident happened recently so... In your opinion if someone wants to rob me and take my money and my personal belongings they should be allowed to do that without any fear of something happening to them. Heck, a guy breaks into my home and steals my computer, my wedding pictures, my dog, etc. the police won't even come out. They just write up a report and file it away. No investigation, nothing. The guy has nothing to fear unless he steals things that are valuable enough to matter to the police.
For starters, Zimmerman was not told to "stand down", the dispatcher asked if he was following Martin and he said yes, dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that", and Zimmerman said "OK" and reportedly started heading back to his vehicle. And the dispatcher is not a LEO. You need to get your facts straight before you comment on this. Go listen to the actual 911 call, not the doctored one NBC played. Your ignorance is biasing your arguments.
If someone walks into a store waving a gun around you do not KNOW what sort of person he is, whether he's just a robber or a killer, too. Very often they decide they don't want witnesses. You are assuming that the individual is going to act rationally. Why? His first act - armed robbery of a convenience store - is an irrational act, why assume his thought process is rational? Unless a LEO just by chance happens to show up while the incident is occurring, no LEOs are likely to show up until it is over and the BGs are long gone. They are 8always* at least 5 minutes away. You are on your own, so stop factoring them into it. The cavalry is not coming. I am NOT going to simply stand by and be a victim. I am NOT going to wait for LEOS, who will almost certainly show up too late to save me. I am NOT going to stand idly by and watch someone else get murdered if I have a chance to stop it. I will bet quite a bit of money that I have given this exact subject and scenario *MUCH* more thought than you have. I have been carrying for years, I am familiar with the laws, I have been through quite a bit of training. Frankly, I don't see how you are remotely qualified to discuss this matter.
Yes, because robbers are always rational, and people never die as a result of armed robberies. Dude, you're getting stupid here.
Hit it once or twice and it probably would. Smack my head once on the pavement and I will damned skippy put one in your chest, and any jury in Texas will take my side.
You don't understand. Banging your head on concrete is not deadly force unless the guy does it enough times to actually kill you. If Trayvon had banged Zimmerman's head on the concrete until he died or had brain damage, then it would have been OK for Zimmerman to shoot him. Until that happened though, he was supposed to take the beating like a man.
I don't exactly see you citing any evidence---very irrational of you. As it is, CCW is correlated, if anything, with higher robbery rates, according to the research I posted. We've been talking in gangland fantasy scenarios (a problem with debating these gun scenarios)---but the simple fact is that a preponderance of research indicates CCW has little to no effect on crime, and may actually increase crime---so I'd like to see, beyond you beating your chest on being well-trained enough to take down gunmen, why exactly you're so adamant for defending these things? rationally speaking of course.
Yes, I know. I understand the silly argument we're dealing with here. The other side in this argument almost uniformly A) has no actual knowledge or expertise of firearms, their use, their function, B) has little to no understanding of principles of use of force, including SYG and CD, C) has no idea whatsoever what it's like to actually carry and use a weapon, D) has NO CLUE what people who do carry and are knowledgeable about the subject are actually like or how they actually think. And I also know that they are not at all interested in learning about it. It's all about the agenda. Guns = bad, personal defense + guns = bad, white people = bad, white people + personal defense + guns = really bad, probably worse than "white hispanic" + personal defense + guns...
NEW YORK -- Stevie Wonder says he won't perform in Florida and other states with a "stand your ground" law. In a video posted on YouTube, the 63-year-old singer said at a concert in Quebec City, Canada, on Sunday "that until the 'stand your ground' law is abolished in Florida, I will never perform there again." Wonder added: "Wherever I find that law exists, I will not perform in that state or in that part of the world." The "stand your ground" law allows people to use deadly force if they believe their life is in danger. George Zimmerman shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin during a February 2012 confrontation in Sanford, Fla. Zimmerman said he fired his gun in self-defense. A six-member jury acquitted Zimmerman of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges on Saturday. Wonder's representative said the singer had no further comment. don't know if this has been posted or not
woah, I didn't know we had to be qualified to discuss these matters on an internet forum. well, my qualifications are a read-through on the empirical research around CCW, including Levitt. Does that pass muster, or do I have to take a PHD in muskets.
