Lessons Learned From Mr. Zimmerman.

[Kramer1113]

As a Carry Community what have we learned from Mr. Zimmerman's Lessons Taught?

I now know for a fact having a round in the chamber is a must (Always has been but nice to be reminded).

This does make me wonder what would be happening if Mr. Zimmerman was coming to the rescue of an innocent being attacked.

My Gun and Ammunition know no color and my decisions darn well better be made in the same way.

If I have to make a decision in a split second whether or not to use my gun, make the choice that saves your life.

 

[Rhino]

I've learned that no matter how innocent or well intentioned the act, even many fellow concealed carriers will nitpick and deconstruct almost anything you've done in order to find fault with your actions in a self defense scenario, even if you're innocent of what you're accused of and even if it means you'll go to prison for the rest of your life.

 

[Jay]

Be very familiar with your State's laws regarding use of deadly force. Indiana's "Castle Doctrine" (not named that), does NOT authorize pursuit. While the whole situation is tragic, in my opinion, Zimmerman became the aggressor when he initiated pursuit of Martin, and if memory serves, the 911 dispatcher told him that police would rather he didn't pursue. Just my two cents.

 

[FN1910]

Be very familiar with your State's laws regarding use of deadly force. Indiana's "Castle Doctrine" (not named that), does NOT authorize pursuit. While the whole situation is tragic, in my opinion, Zimmerman became the aggressor when he initiated pursuit of Martin, and if memory serves, the 911 dispatcher told him that police would rather he didn't pursue. Just my two cents.

This is something that keeps coming up over and over. The dispatcher told Z they did not need him to follow M and Z said OK. There is no evidence whatsoever from any source that says that Z followed M after that. Basically the entire trial is based on Z following M but there is no evidence showing that he did.

 

[Jay]

This is something that keeps coming up over and over. The dispatcher told Z they did not need him to follow M and Z said OK. There is no evidence whatsoever from any source that says that Z followed M after that. Basically the entire trial is based on Z following M but there is no evidence showing that he did.

Then how did the two become close enough for there to be a confrontation? The way I see it, if Zimmerman had stopped when it was suggested that he do so, and let law enforcement handle it, there would have been no confrontation. IF Zimmerman ceased the pursuit, and THEN Martin turned on him, that's a different story.

 

[Kalamity023]

To the OP's first point about a round in the chamber; the Zimmerman trial brings up an interesting question. Is it better to carry +1 or to pull the 1st round out of the magazine? Reason I propose the question is that the prosecution made it a point to note that Z was carrying +1 that night. The majority of the prosecution made the case for the SYG application in this case. The issue is that the prosecution is playing the emotions of the jury. He should be acquitted IMHO. Whether he followed M or not. No law says you can't follow someone. It's if he initiated the confrontation is he in the wrong. I don't think the prosecution can make that case.

 

[ArmoredG22]

Was Z right? Who knows we weren't there. What it seems like though is Z was a desperate wanna be LEO. Applied to a few out of state departments to get a job (nothing wrong with that). I believe Z was an overzealous wanna be cop who's closest connection to the profession is being a neighborhood watchman. Most likely suspicious of every person who strolled by past 10 pm. But that doesn't mean TM wasn't a thug who caught a look from Z and had to "be a man" for no reason by attacking him. Whole thing is jacked up. Glad it's not me.

 

[Kramer1113]

To the OP's first point about a round in the chamber; the Zimmerman trial brings up an interesting question. Is it better to carry +1 or to pull the 1st round out of the magazine? Reason I propose the question is that the prosecution made it a point to note that Z was carrying +1 that night. The majority of the prosecution made the case for the SYG application in this case. The issue is that the prosecution is playing the emotions of the jury. He should be acquitted IMHO. Whether he followed M or not. No law says you can't follow someone. It's if he initiated the confrontation is he in the wrong. I don't think the prosecution can make that case.

I do not carry +1. I pull from the magazine at least once per day Generally twice a day. I don't like not knowing my Magazine is seated correctly. I don't like not knowing everything is feeding, sliding, cocking correctly. All of this and pulling from the magazine relieves a little pressure on the Mag spring. I only rotate mags about once a week. I also have my favorite magazines that tend to work their way into the rotation most often.

Lesson: Through this thread I Have also learned that I don't care what the state law is concerning what is or is not a "Good Shoot". A Good Shoot is much like a pilots good landing.
(Test to see who knows the saying).

 

[Stengun]

Howdy FN1910,

This is something that keeps coming up over and over. The dispatcher told Z they did not need him to follow M and Z said OK. There is no evidence whatsoever from any source that says that Z followed M after that. Basically the entire trial is based on Z following M but there is no evidence showing that he did.

Actually if you look at the facts of the case there is plenty of evidence that proves that George did in fact follow Martin.

Look at where George's vehicle was parked and where the incident took place and the only way George could have got to where the incident happened was if he was trying to follow Martin.

Based on the girl that Martin was talking to on the phone Martin said George was out of breath from chasing him and the girl said she could hear a man the was breathing heavily.

Since George was 5' 7.5" tall and weighed 204lbs and was NOT muscular it's a safe bet to say he was very out of shape at the time of the incident.

Back to the OP's question:

When I was a SP in the AF we covered the use of deadly force as part of our training. The instructor told us that if we used deadly force to make sure that after hearing your side of the story a review board would say "Yep, I would have done the same thing.".

A few years ago I had to take the recertification class for my CHL and the instructor told us the very same thing about the use of deadly force, make sure a grand jury would say "Yep, I would have done the same thing.".

Pretty simple.

Paul

 

[Kramer1113]

Was Z right? Who knows we weren't there. What it seems like though is Z was a desperate wanna be LEO. Applied to a few out of state departments to get a job (nothing wrong with that). I believe Z was an overzealous wanna be cop who's closest connection to the profession is being a neighborhood watchman. Most likely suspicious of every person who strolled by past 10 pm. But that doesn't mean TM wasn't a thug who caught a look from Z and had to "be a man" for no reason by attacking him. Whole thing is jacked up. Glad it's not me.

There are a lot of ways to express your need to be a cop. I was an MP for 4 Miserable years and I didn't even want to be a cop. I wanted to fly combat but my eyes sucked, so, being that at the time (1979) I was head long into Drugs and Alcohol I decided to "Clean It Up". WRONG. I went from hair down to my @ss, riding a Harley and getting wasted every day, to Hair high and tight driving a jacked up Plymouth with an interceptor motor and being wasted every day.
The point is, if someone is a wanna be they can express it in the "Exciting world of armed security" "Military Police" or even Nuclear security.
This was a high crime area and neighborhood watch programs can be very helpful.
Lesson: If your a Wanna Be Cop, find an outlet for it. There are lots of companies who need people who will put their a$$ on the line for their property.

 

[apvbguy]

the biggest lesson to be taken away from this whole incident is that once you have pulled the trigger and whatever the results of that action is, is to get legal representation immediately!
the sequence should be 911 to report the incident, then call your lawyer who's phone contacts is already in your phone. when the police arrived give a minimal account of what happened, ie: he attacked me, I was in fear for my life and I shot him to end the threat to my life. in addition provide your name and address and then invoke your right to remain silent and SHUT UP! do not say another word until your legal representation is present.
a lot of the grief zimmerman is having now is because of his own big mouth!

 

[apvbguy]

I do not carry +1. I pull from the magazine at least once per day Generally twice a day. I don't like not knowing my Magazine is seated correctly. I don't like not knowing everything is feeding, sliding, cocking correctly. All of this and pulling from the magazine relieves a little pressure on the Mag spring. I only rotate mags about once a week. I also have my favorite magazines that tend to work their way into the rotation most often..

with all due respect, this is idiotic

 

[Blackbird48060]

Food for thought...yes the last operator GZ talked to state they didnt need him to do that (follow him). But the first 2 operators' testimony on the stand, stated they instructed him to "keep an eye on him" and "let them know if the suspicious person did anything different". So by the time he was ask to not do that it was already too late, he was keeping an eye on him. TM was the agressor, if he was truly worried he was being followed by this creepy ass cracker, he could have A) went home instead of attacking GZ, or B) he had a phone, he could have also dialed 911 and report that he was being followed. NOT C) confront him, punch him in the face, get him on the ground and continue to punch him, hitting his head into cement..
Trust me I'm not attempting to be confrontational, just sharing facts as I've seen while watching this trial..we as carry usa supporters, need to pay very close attention to this case, as it could affect all of us in the future, and affect life or death decision making in a split second, whether we should choose to pull the trigger at an imminent threat or take a chance of spending the rest of our lives in prison..

 

[Kramer1113]

with all due respect, this is idiotic

There is no respect in that Post.
Obviously you have never had to carry a sidearm in the line of duty.

 

[AndyF]

Lesson: Through this thread I Have also learned that I don't care what the state law is concerning what is or is not a "Good Shoot". A Good Shoot is much like a pilots good landing.
(Test to see who knows the saying).

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.

 

[apvbguy]

There is no respect in that Post.
Obviously you have never had to carry a sidearm in the line of duty.

are you trying to tell me that you work in a job where you carry a sidearm for defensive reasons and you are not carrying with a round chambered?
All I can offer in response is that in a gunfight he who gets lead on his adversary fight usually is the winner, and that there are no winners or losers after a gunfight only a dead person and a survivor (hopefully I will be the latter)
Anyone who carries a pistol and does not have a round chambered is IMHO quite foolish

 

[Sir Diealotz]

This is something that keeps coming up over and over. The dispatcher told Z they did not need him to follow M and Z said OK. There is no evidence whatsoever from any source that says that Z followed M after that. Basically the entire trial is based on Z following M but there is no evidence showing that he did.

Then how did the two become close enough for there to be a confrontation? The way I see it, if Zimmerman had stopped when it was suggested that he do so, and let law enforcement handle it, there would have been no confrontation. IF Zimmerman ceased the pursuit, and THEN Martin turned on him, that's a different story.

Your IF us exactly what happened based on all the evidence to date.

 

[BluesStringer]

Lesson 1) No matter what the law actually says about following, observing from a distance, duty to retreat (or not), conjecture will proliferate to levels adequate to shout down those trying to analyze the case from a purely legal and academic perspective.

Lesson 2) I now know as much, if not more, about Florida's laws concerning use of deadly force as I know about my own state.

Lesson 3) The prosecution in the OJ Simpson trial was not, unfortunately, as bad as it gets.

Lesson 4) Even concealed carriers have no earthly concept of the legal axiom that provides for conversion from aggressor to victim in specific circumstances. I personally don't think it applies in this case, as I think the only aggressive thing GZ did was aggressively pursue his stupidity by not identifying himself and casually offering to help TM find an address or some such, but even assuming he made the first move, the aforementioned legal axiom (and specific FL code section 776.041) relieved him of the obligation to lay on his back taking blow after blow while screaming for help and not landing a single strike on Martin, evincing his withdrawal from the fight. The eye-and-ear-witness said it was Zimmerman screaming for help. Combine that sworn testimony with the 911 call from the woman whose recording is the only recorded source for someone screaming, and you have a minimum of 45 seconds worth of Zimmerman screaming, causing several neighbors to call 911 at generally the same time, the whole time with him trying to withdraw from the fight. That is exactly what section 776.041 was meant to protect people against. Self-defense, end of story, this trial is a freakin' politically-motivated, Sharpton/Jackson-inspired sham, and the judge is as much against Zimmerman as Sharpton is.

As sad and unnecessary as nearly every single lesson from this event is, #4 is one of the worst, because it demonstrates the devolution from a country of laws to a country of political pawns we have become.

OK, all those who know next to nothing about FL law concerning use of force can have the floor back now.

Blues

 

[XD40scinNC]

There is no respect in that Post.
Obviously you have never had to carry a sidearm in the line of duty.

Military; you also had a dozen other guys with you, and a rifle.

LEO; never seen or heard of a LEO that didn't carry chambered.

Or you were basically an unarmed security guard.

 

[Kasper]

Originally Posted by Kramer1113
I do not carry +1. I pull from the magazine at least once per day Generally twice a day. I don't like not knowing my Magazine is seated correctly. I don't like not knowing everything is feeding, sliding, cocking correctly. All of this and pulling from the magazine relieves a little pressure on the Mag spring. I only rotate mags about once a week. I also have my favorite magazines that tend to work their way into the rotation most often..

with all due respect, this is idiotic

Say I would agree with you but we don't know what type of gun he has. It might be a pos that jams and has problems so he has to keep checking the feed from the mag twice a day. In any event if that is the type of firearm he is carrying I feel better knowing he is not carrying with one in the chamber. As most of us know carrying a gun that is not ready to be used is not safe and might cost you your life while trying to get it ready to defend your life.