What's new
By:
Filters

Zimmerman arrested again

He certainly seems to be developing a troublesome pattern.
 
Shocking. A loose cannon with a history of unpunished violent behavior acts like a loose cannon with a history of unpunished violent behavior.
 
GVC said:
Shocking. A loose cannon with a history of unpunished violent behavior acts like a loose cannon with a history of unpunished violent behavior.
Click to expand...

The problem was that the Martin case could not be proven beyond a doubt one way or the other. It is very possible that he stalked Martin, confronted him, started a fight starting losing that fight and then shot him in anger. That is murder. However that was not proven beyond a doubt and so he goes free.

His current behaviour does lend some more credability to that theory.
 
Stoked said:
The problem was that the Martin case could not be proven beyond a doubt one way or the other. It is very possible that he stalked Martin, confronted him, started a fight starting losing that fight and then shot him in anger. That is murder. However that was not proven beyond a doubt and so he goes free.

His current behaviour does lend some more credability to that theory.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about the case.

Dude's allegedly assaulted 3 women, a cop, his father-in-law, made additional threats, and killed a minor. Not sure what the solution is, but violent, anti-social behavior should not be tolerated.
 
GVC said:
I said nothing about the case.

Dude's allegedly assaulted 3 women, a cop, his father-in-law, made additional threats, and killed a minor. Not sure what the solution is, but violent, anti-social behavior should not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

Oh I know you didn't. I was just talking. Your post about his violent behaviour seemed like the best point to do so. I agree that his behaviour is unacceptable. With this new case maybe he will get convicted of something.
 
Shooting someone, even when justified (not specific to Zimmerman/Martin), has massive consequences for the shooter. I'm always appalled when I hear people say that if someone broke into their home they would kill them. They talk about it like they get a free pass to take someone's life. First, that's not what your rights are. Your right is to defend yourself. Seldom do I hear people talk about using deadly force as a means to self-defense. Usually they talk about it as a means to kill. Bragging about the caliber or ammo type of their weapon and how it would be sure to kill a person dead. Worse is when they say things like "two in the chest one in the head" as if to put the point on it that the goal is not to stop the threat but to kill a scumbag.

What I think they are entirely failing to realize is that regardless of their fantasies, they are not stone cold killers. The act of killing another human being will likely leave them severely traumatized. The act may be called into question, especially if they went beyond self defense and sought to make sure the person was dead, and they'll be defending them self against serious legal action. Their life will almost certainly not just return to normal even if the killing was justified.

Zimmerman was having marital problems before he killed Martin. His wife seems to have felt some sense of duty to stand by her man during his trial, but that's over now. Are Zimmerman's actions evidence that he's always been prone to violence and aggression? Or, are his actions evidence of the strain the using deadly force puts on a person coupled with the strain of a failed marriage? I don't think we can say.

What I can say, though, is that it is far better to use the least amount of force necessary to defend yourself than to seek out confrontations and use the maximum amount of force or equip yourself in a way that makes any use of force likely to be deadly.
 
Gameface said:
Shooting someone, even when justified (not specific to Zimmerman/Martin), has massive consequences for the shooter. I'm always appalled when I hear people say that if someone broke into their home they would kill them. They talk about it like they get a free pass to take someone's life. First, that's not what your rights are. Your right is to defend yourself. Seldom do I hear people talk about using deadly force as a means to self-defense. Usually they talk about it as a means to kill. Bragging about the caliber or ammo type of their weapon and how it would be sure to kill a person dead. Worse is when they say things like "two in the chest one in the head" as if to put the point on it that the goal is not to stop the threat but to kill a scumbag.

What I think they are entirely failing to realize is that regardless of their fantasies, they are not stone cold killers. The act of killing another human being will likely leave them severely traumatized. The act may be called into question, especially if they went beyond self defense and sought to make sure the person was dead, and they'll be defending them self against serious legal action. Their life will almost certainly not just return to normal even if the killing was justified.

Zimmerman was having marital problems before he killed Martin. His wife seems to have felt some sense of duty to stand by her man during his trial, but that's over now. Are Zimmerman's actions evidence that he's always been prone to violence and aggression? Or, are his actions evidence of the strain the using deadly force puts on a person coupled with the strain of a failed marriage? I don't think we can say.

What I can say, though, is that it is far better to use the least amount of force necessary to defend yourself than to seek out confrontations and use the maximum amount of force or equip yourself in a way that makes any use of force likely to be deadly.
Click to expand...

When I hear people, myself included, talk about shooting an intruder I assume it is that someone has broken into my home is coming at me in the dark. If you catch an intruder in your home and they turn and flee obviously you cannot shoot them as they are not presenting an immediate threat to you or your family.
 
I think this all goes to show that Zimmerman is nuts and should be in jail, but that he's probably not a racist.
 
margodydek said:
I think this all goes to show that Zimmerman is nuts and should be in jail, but that he's probably not a racist.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that you have to prove beyond a resonable doubt that he deserves to be in jail. That case has not been made. It is a very important line to draw. When you start putting who "should" be in jail versus who is proven needs jail you get on a slippery slope and one I oppose.
 
Stoked said:
When I hear people, myself included, talk about shooting an intruder I assume it is that someone has broken into my home is coming at me in the dark. If you catch an intruder in your home and they turn and flee obviously you cannot shoot them as they are not presenting an immediate threat to you or your family.
Click to expand...

If you have a gun and are in a position to use it if someone is in your home and threatening you then use it. Don't hesitate. I'm 100% in favor of your right to do that.

Just a couple anecdotal stories from conversation I've had within the last couple weeks.

Guy A: Purchased a Glock 22 10mm pistol. Showed everyone pics of the ballistics comparison between a 10mm and other common rounds (see below). Recently got a concealed carry permit and is using his 10mm Glock with a 15rd magazine as a carry gun...along with his two additional magazines. I ask him every time he brings it up if he's shot it yet. NO! He's carrying it around as a concealed carry gun and he's never even shot it. Oh, it's okay though because he's shot a Glock 22 before, so he knows how they are to shoot.

Guy B: Has a 12g shotgun with rifled barrel for use with slugs. Talks about how the slugs would take off limbs or create a huge crater of an exit wound. The downside...it's only effective up to 200 yards. Yeah, this guy thinks he might have to defend himself against bad guys with his shotgun up to and beyond 200 yards. Thinks it's important that if he does shoot someone that they be completely obliterated.

The reality, criminals don't want to get shot. Not even a little bit. Not even by a "small" round. Gunshot wounds require medical attention and are always reported to police. There are virtually no criminals so intent of raping your family or taking your ipad that they will continue to charge through a hail of bullets because the bullets aren't deadly enough to scare them. That's a fantasy. Show a gun the criminal will stop what they're doing and try to preserve their own life. If firing shots is required hitting them with any type of round will motivate them to take a different course of action. Killing them dead gains nothing.

That's not to say people should shy away from larger more powerful rounds. People should use whatever gun they are proficient and comfortable with. They should shoot center mass until they've stopped the threat if they do fire. If that results in the death of someone threatening your life then that's that. If it stops the threat but the person lives, well, hard to say that is not an even better outcome.

ballisticsfunny.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stoked said:
The problem with that is that you have to prove beyond a resonable doubt that he deserves to be in jail. That case has not been made. It is a very important line to draw. When you start putting who "should" be in jail versus who is proven needs jail you get on a slippery slope and one I oppose.
Click to expand...

The main point of what I was trying to say is that the Left loved to label him as a racist. From my point of view, this latest incident seems to counter that argument.
 
Stoked said:
When I hear people, myself included, talk about shooting an intruder I assume it is that someone has broken into my home is coming at me in the dark. If you catch an intruder in your home and they turn and flee obviously you cannot shoot them as they are not presenting an immediate threat to you or your family.
Click to expand...

Technically, you could legally still shoot them in most states as long as they are still on your property, but that doesn't mean you should.

I have a 9 mm for primary home defense (have more guns than that, but the 9 is the one I have available to me readily). My family can all shoot it, and most of us can shoot it well. It isn't hard to handle, it is a M9A1. I also have its cousin a Beretta 92FS. These guns are nice because they are a little heftier than a smaller CCW (also have a beretta cheetah for that), and we have found the added weight helps control recoil and makes it easier for my wife and daughter to shoot.

We started with a training course our local police department offered on home protection. They allowed us to bring our own weapons or they provided service weapons to practice with. It was a 5 week course (met once per week) and they let us use their range one other time during the week for practice. There was almost always an officer there practicing when we went to practice who helped us out. They talked about gun safety, what to expect in a home invasion, what to do for each family member, how to confront if we had to, and a lot about how to handle the weapon. It was a great program and we felt much better prepared afterward, and we now practice at least twice a month.

When we have practiced shooting we practice shooting "center mass", meaning on a human sllhouette that is in the middle of the chest or upper stomach area. That is what the police program taught, that and they recommended more than a "double-tap". The idea, if you are practicing for the possibility of such an event, is to hit the target somewhere that will neutralize the threat. Center mass does that very well. But it has the side-effect of often being fatal. It is awful hard to take home security seriously without considering the high likelihood of killing the intruder. I agree with GF that bragging about how good you are at double-tap/headshots is stupid at best, but I will tell you that if someone put my family at risk I will do what I can to stop them from hurting anyone. That means, for my family at least, more than a double tap.

We practice putting 5 bullets in an 8-inch circle from 20-30 feet with fairly rapid-fire. My 12 year old daughter is the worst of us at this, and she still gets 3, maybe even 4, of the shots in the circle before the recoil and fast trigger pull take her out of the circle, coincidentally she almost always goes higher on the last 2 shots or so and ends up in the head of the silhouette for her last couple of shots. My son and I can put all 5 bullets inside a 4 inch circle from 30-40 feet and sometimes further. From 20 feet my wife can put 3 bullets nearly in the same hole then the next 2 wander a bit. I don't plan on pissing her off any time soon.

Anyone who is seriously thinking about using a gun for self-defense in any way, whether home defense or concealed carry, needs to accept that using that weapons means neutralizing the threat, which almost always will carry a fairly high risk of inflicting a fatal wound. Only on TV and in the movies can people accurately shoot to disarm or wound, and firing a "warning shot" is foolish in the extreme.
 
@ GF and his ballistics table, I will tell you that my "fun gun" is a desert eagle .50 AE. Makes a very satisfying BOOM at the range and kicks like a mule on meth, but wow is it fun to shoot. It stays in the gun locker when not being taken to the range, so not a home defense gun, but man does it do a number on watermelons.

And if you can't tell, I am trying to collect the weapons used in the Matrix. DE was used by the agents, Berettea 92 was Neo's gun, and the Cheetah was Trinity's gun.
 
Yeah, I like guns and I like shooting them. It's therapeutic. Big boom guns are awesome and have their place. If one happens to be what you're most comfortable using as a home defense gun then I say use it. I enjoy talking about guns. I don't enjoy talking about killing people, which it seems so many others enjoy talking about and thinking about. Not pointing fingers here, I've just had several smh conversations with "gun enthusiasts" recently. It probably has a lot to do with my current profession and the education level of the people I'm talking to.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Technically, you could legally still shoot them in most states as long as they are still on your property, but that doesn't mean you should.

I have a 9 mm for primary home defense (have more guns than that, but the 9 is the one I have available to me readily). My family can all shoot it, and most of us can shoot it well. It isn't hard to handle, it is a M9A1. I also have its cousin a Beretta 92FS. These guns are nice because they are a little heftier than a smaller CCW (also have a beretta cheetah for that), and we have found the added weight helps control recoil and makes it easier for my wife and daughter to shoot.

We started with a training course our local police department offered on home protection. They allowed us to bring our own weapons or they provided service weapons to practice with. It was a 5 week course (met once per week) and they let us use their range one other time during the week for practice. There was almost always an officer there practicing when we went to practice who helped us out. They talked about gun safety, what to expect in a home invasion, what to do for each family member, how to confront if we had to, and a lot about how to handle the weapon. It was a great program and we felt much better prepared afterward, and we now practice at least twice a month.

When we have practiced shooting we practice shooting "center mass", meaning on a human sllhouette that is in the middle of the chest or upper stomach area. That is what the police program taught, that and they recommended more than a "double-tap". The idea, if you are practicing for the possibility of such an event, is to hit the target somewhere that will neutralize the threat. Center mass does that very well. But it has the side-effect of often being fatal. It is awful hard to take home security seriously without considering the high likelihood of killing the intruder. I agree with GF that bragging about how good you are at double-tap/headshots is stupid at best, but I will tell you that if someone put my family at risk I will do what I can to stop them from hurting anyone. That means, for my family at least, more than a double tap.

We practice putting 5 bullets in an 8-inch circle from 20-30 feet with fairly rapid-fire. My 12 year old daughter is the worst of us at this, and she still gets 3, maybe even 4, of the shots in the circle before the recoil and fast trigger pull take her out of the circle, coincidentally she almost always goes higher on the last 2 shots or so and ends up in the head of the silhouette for her last couple of shots. My son and I can put all 5 bullets inside a 4 inch circle from 30-40 feet and sometimes further. From 20 feet my wife can put 3 bullets nearly in the same hole then the next 2 wander a bit. I don't plan on pissing her off any time soon.

Anyone who is seriously thinking about using a gun for self-defense in any way, whether home defense or concealed carry, needs to accept that using that weapons means neutralizing the threat, which almost always will carry a fairly high risk of inflicting a fatal wound. Only on TV and in the movies can people accurately shoot to disarm or wound, and firing a "warning shot" is foolish in the extreme.
Click to expand...

This.

I don't get people who own guns but who don't take practice seriously. The guy who is carrying a gun he's never shot boggles my mind. I would never in a million years carry a gun that I hadn't fired at least a few hundred rounds through. That's one reason I wouldn't use a 10mm as a carry gun. The ammo is too damn expensive. Give me a low recoil 9mm round that can be fired from a compact gun comfortably and carried easily. The ammo is easy to come by and is relatively cheap. Makes practicing a little easier on the pocket book and on the wrist.

Yeah, shooting center mass isn't much different than shooting to kill. The difference is in the mind of the shooter, I guess. Stopping the threat should be the goal and the most reliable way to do that and to minimize the risk to innocent bystanders is to shoot center mass.
 
Gameface said:
Yeah, I like guns and I like shooting them. It's therapeutic. Big boom guns are awesome and have their place. If one happens to be what you're most comfortable using as a home defense gun then I say use it. I enjoy talking about guns. I don't enjoy talking about killing people, which it seems so many others enjoy talking about and thinking about. Not pointing fingers here, I've just had several smh conversations with "gun enthusiasts" recently. It probably has a lot to do with my current profession and the education level of the people I'm talking to.
Click to expand...

For fun guns I like .22s, .410s and the Judge.
 
Gameface said:
This.

I don't get people who own guns but who don't take practice seriously. The guy who is carrying a gun he's never shot boggles my mind. I would never in a million years carry a gun that I hadn't fired at least a few hundred rounds through. That's one reason I wouldn't use a 10mm as a carry gun. The ammo is too damn expensive. Give me a low recoil 9mm round that can be fired from a compact gun comfortably and carried easily. The ammo is easy to come by and is relatively cheap. Makes practicing a little easier on the pocket book and on the wrist.

Yeah, shooting center mass isn't much different than shooting to kill. The difference is in the mind of the shooter, I guess. Stopping the threat should be the goal and the most reliable way to do that and to minimize the risk to innocent bystanders is to shoot center mass.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Carrying a gun you have never shot is a recipe for epic disaster, especially one as powerful and unwieldy as a 10mm, which is nearly a useless round imo considering there are other rounds just as powerful with more manageable recoil and cheaper ammo. 10mm is a round to tell people you own because it sounds cool, but not much beyond that. I didn't even enjoy shooting them due to the very sharp recoil with heavy muzzle climb, it feels like it wants to flip out of your hand. And I have shot 10mm in 4 or 5 different brands, all with the same recoil pattern more or less.

I am with you, a 9mm that you can handle is perfect. My cheetah is a phenomenal CCW. Very light on recoil due to the excellent slide design, very reliable, and highly accurate, not to mention compact and easy to carry. If I carry, which is rarely, I usually carry the cheetah. My wife has a 380 she carries when she does (SIG P238), which is even more rarely than me, but it's recoil is just this side of non-existant and it is also very accurate, and being a SIG it is extremely well-made. Very very fun plinking gun, awesome CC, and highly customizable. It is kind of blocky but still a great-looking gun. Hers has contoured and textured wood grips, blued slide and receiver, glow in the dark sights, and expanded clip with a pinky-rest. Highly recommended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top