• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Control and self defense: Zimmerman and other examples

Zimmerman didn't claim self defence, and so the burdon of proof rested on the state to prove murder. If Zimmerman had claimed self defence it's highly likely he would be in prison now.

The world is a better place with T in the ground.

Actually.., yes he did.

George Zimmerman, set to stand trial in the 2012 shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin, on Tuesday waived his right to a "stand your ground" pretrial immunity hearing. Zimmerman's attorneys have decided they will try this as a self-defense case.

Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, acknowledged that he shot the unarmed 17-year-old, but said Martin physically attacked him and he fired in self-defense. Initially, no charges were pursued, and the case soon became the center of a national controversy.
 
Last edited:
Mainly, he apparently had an opportunity to go indoors and avoid the confrontation, and chose not to take it.


Second, overconfidence in attacking an armed man while unarmed.

He did not have an opportunity to go indoors as he was a ways away from where he was staying and he was in a residential neighborhood.

And overconfidence or desperation? Like you stated.. you would done something rather than let the person draw their gun and shoot.
 
He did not have an opportunity to go indoors as he was a ways away from where he was staying and he was in a residential neighborhood.

And overconfidence or desperation? Like you stated.. you would done something rather than let the person draw their gun and shoot.


It's been a while, but IIRC there was one point where he had gotten out of sight of Z and had an apparently clear path home, and didn't take it.





Also, I've been in this situation before, that is being followed by a suspicious character. I tried changing directions a couple times to confirm the person was actually following me, then I picked a good spot and turned to confront them verbally.

Confront them verbally. Nobody died. No shots fired. I didn't just jump them. I didn't know if they were armed or not (and we have no indications that M knew Z was armed until they were already engaged physically, necessarily).


They both had opportunities to let this go before things went crazy. Neither took their shot. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
It's been a while, but IIRC there was one point where he had gotten out of sight of Z and had an apparently clear path home, and didn't take it.





Also, I've been in this situation before, that is being followed by a suspicious character. I tried changing directions a couple times to confirm the person was actually following me, then I picked a good spot and turned to confront them verbally.

Confront them verbally. Nobody died. No shots fired. I didn't just jump them. I didn't know if they were armed or not (and we have no indications that M knew Z was armed until they were already engaged physically, necessarily).


They both had opportunities to let this go before things went crazy. Neither took their shot. :shrug:

Who knows whether it was a conscious decision by Martin... maybe he didn't realize he "had a clear shot home".. in the dark,, in a neighborhood that he probably doesn't know by heart..

Legally, by the way.., he has no duty to retreat.

At the end of the day.. the responsibility rests on Zimmermans head as the armed individual.. as the one that did the pursuing.

Tell me.. when you confronted the person.. did you confront them because YOU FELT THREATENED? Obviously, you reasonably felt threatened by the person you confronted... which means THEY bore a greater responsibility.

That's a point that needs to be made...when we decide to about armed.. we bear more responsibility than if we are not armed.
 
Who knows whether it was a conscious decision by Martin... maybe he didn't realize he "had a clear shot home".. in the dark,, in a neighborhood that he probably doesn't know by heart..

Legally, by the way.., he has no duty to retreat.

At the end of the day.. the responsibility rests on Zimmermans head as the armed individual.. as the one that did the pursuing.

Tell me.. when you confronted the person.. did you confront them because YOU FELT THREATENED? Obviously, you reasonably felt threatened by the person you confronted... which means THEY bore a greater responsibility.

That's a point that needs to be made...when we decide to about armed.. we bear more responsibility than if we are not armed.


Mmm, no. Those of us who go armed SHOULD act even more responsibly and with greater care, but we do not bear more responsibility legally. Legally, each actor is responsible for his own actions, which were either justified under law or not.

Martin did not have to retreat, but whether he was justified in attacking Z is debatable and hinges on information we do not possess.


This is one of those cases where it is impossible to get a clear-cut distinction between perp and victim, because we have no certain knowledge who assaulted whom first, other than the survivor's testimony, which is of course subject to question.

However our system of jurisprudence indicates that if there is reasonable doubt, we must acquit. Thus Z walked.
 
Mmm, no. Those of us who go armed SHOULD act even more responsibly and with greater care, but we do not bear more responsibility legally. Legally, each actor is responsible for his own actions, which were either justified under law or not.

Martin did not have to retreat, but whether he was justified in attacking Z is debatable and hinges on information we do not possess.


This is one of those cases where it is impossible to get a clear-cut distinction between perp and victim, because we have no certain knowledge who assaulted whom first, other than the survivor's testimony, which is of course subject to question.

However our system of jurisprudence indicates that if there is reasonable doubt, we must acquit. Thus Z walked.

Actually we do bear greater responsibility legally. You pointed that out when you presented the legal requirements of self defense... and that's ability to be a threat. When you bear arms.. you are more likely to be seen as a threat simply because now you have means. that must be recognized by gun owners because its part of the law. If you get into a fight with someone... its reasonable for them to fear for their lives since you are armed.

As far as Zimmerman.. we have no evidence that Martin initiated aggression... and honestly.. that does not matter legally.

You cannot shoot someone simply because they started a fight and you are losing it.

Zimmerman had to meet the bar that he was reasonably in imminent fear for his life or grave bodily harm... which the evidence does not support. He got lucky that the DA "missed" a lot of things and that the jury was sympathetic...
 
Actually we do bear greater responsibility legally. You pointed that out when you presented the legal requirements of self defense... and that's ability to be a threat. When you bear arms.. you are more likely to be seen as a threat simply because now you have means. that must be recognized by gun owners because its part of the law. If you get into a fight with someone... its reasonable for them to fear for their lives since you are armed.

As far as Zimmerman.. we have no evidence that Martin initiated aggression... and honestly.. that does not matter legally.

You cannot shoot someone simply because they started a fight and you are losing it.

Zimmerman had to meet the bar that he was reasonably in imminent fear for his life or grave bodily harm... which the evidence does not support. He got lucky that the DA "missed" a lot of things and that the jury was sympathetic...


Nonsense.

First of all in most states you carry concealed. If you're doing it right nobody knows you're armed, so they have no excuse to over-react.

Secondly, there is a difference between "getting in a fight" and defending yourself. The two are not the same, one is mutual one isn't.



It DOES matter who initiated the aggression, legally.


You can absolutely shoot someone who "starts a fight with you" if you are losing, IF they are attempting to do something to you that puts you in reasonable fear of grave bodily harm or death. Like beating your head on the pavement, or trying to get your gun.



These are FACTS. Not opinion.
 
Nonsense.

First of all in most states you carry concealed. If you're doing it right nobody knows you're armed, so they have no excuse to over-react.

Secondly, there is a difference between "getting in a fight" and defending yourself. The two are not the same, one is mutual one isn't.



It DOES matter who initiated the aggression, legally.


You can absolutely shoot someone who "starts a fight with you" if you are losing, IF they are attempting to do something to you that puts you in reasonable fear of grave bodily harm or death. Like beating your head on the pavement, or trying to get your gun.



These are FACTS. Not opinion.

nope.;. not nonsense... most states have higher penalties for folks if they violate the law while carrying openly or concealed. For example.. in one of the states I carry being intoxicated while carrying a firearm carries more penalty that simply being intoxicated. The same for verbal assault, battery etc.. even though the weapon was never drawn or used.
So obviously under the law.. carrying a weapon carries greater responsibility.

And legally who initiates the aggression DOES NOT matter when it comes to the use of lethal force. Certainly you are not going to argue that if I get slapped by a woman in a bar.. I can shoot her. "but she started it"...

What matters is what you just posted.

IF they are attempting to do something to you that puts you in reasonable fear of grave bodily harm or death

Yep...

Like beating your head on the pavement, or trying to get your gun.
and if one was using enough force to beat your head against the pavement such that you feared death... you probably would have more than a scratch on your head.

And how would a person "try to get a gun"... that was concealed? How would they know you had one to "go for?" Maybe because you exposed it or tried to draw it as a threat? NAW...
 
nope.;. not nonsense... most states have higher penalties for folks if they violate the law while carrying openly or concealed. For example.. in one of the states I carry being intoxicated while carrying a firearm carries more penalty that simply being intoxicated. The same for verbal assault, battery etc.. even though the weapon was never drawn or used.
So obviously under the law.. carrying a weapon carries greater responsibility.

And legally who initiates the aggression DOES NOT matter when it comes to the use of lethal force. Certainly you are not going to argue that if I get slapped by a woman in a bar.. I can shoot her. "but she started it"...

What matters is what you just posted.



Yep...

and if one was using enough force to beat your head against the pavement such that you feared death... you probably would have more than a scratch on your head.

And how would a person "try to get a gun"... that was concealed? How would they know you had one to "go for?" Maybe because you exposed it or tried to draw it as a threat? NAW...


You're half right, and half wrong.

How would a person try to get a gun that was concealed? If they've knocked you on your ass and jumped on top of you, it may not be so well concealed anymore.
 
This isn't going anywhere. It is just turning into another Martin/Zimmerman who did what who was in the wrong BS fest. Nothing really new or relevant to most SD laws/issues is being brought forward.


In short, this is turning into just another M/Z rehash, which I was sick and tired of a couple years ago.


I'm done here.
 
You're half right, and half wrong.

How would a person try to get a gun that was concealed? If they've knocked you on your ass and jumped on top of you, it may not be so well concealed anymore.

Really? Lets think about this for a minute... so I take down a guy and have enough weight on him to hold him down.. while I am simultaneously "bashing his head".. on the concrete at the same time I am "going for his gun"...

Wow.. that seems pretty hard since my body weight is largely on his torso in order to keep him down. Basically covering any weapon on the waist or lower. And I am supposed to be "beating his head on the concrete".. now A shoulder holster? You might have a point. A behind the back, behind the waist band or belly holster? Pretty unlikely.

A person would have to suspend all disbelief to believe that's the way this went down.
 
Really? Lets think about this for a minute... so I take down a guy and have enough weight on him to hold him down.. while I am simultaneously "bashing his head".. on the concrete at the same time I am "going for his gun"...

Wow.. that seems pretty hard since my body weight is largely on his torso in order to keep him down. Basically covering any weapon on the waist or lower. And I am supposed to be "beating his head on the concrete".. now A shoulder holster? You might have a point. A behind the back, behind the waist band or belly holster? Pretty unlikely.

A person would have to suspend all disbelief to believe that's the way this went down.


Sigh. Well-trodden ground...

Someone brought up this dilemma, so my adult son and I gamed it out by actually physically assuming that position, with a belt holstered gun.

It is entirely possible. It involves reaching around or under, yes, but it is entirely do-able. You can't head bash and gun grab at the exact same time, but it is perfectly feasible to do one followed by the other.

Still nothing new.
 
Sigh. Well-trodden ground...

Someone brought up this dilemma, so my adult son and I gamed it out by actually physically assuming that position, with a belt holstered gun.

It is entirely possible. It involves reaching around or under, yes, but it is entirely do-able. You can't head bash and gun grab at the exact same time, but it is perfectly feasible to do one followed by the other.

Still nothing new.

It wasn;t a belt holstered firearm by the way.

Do able yes? Likely?... No...

Try your test again... and try having your son try to draw that gun while you are trying to retain it. See if you are struggling if he can remain on top. I think you will find that grabbing for the weapon while its in the holster exposes him to all sorts of attacks and reversals... particularly if you are trained in MMA as Zimmerman was.

At the end of the day... a person has to go through all sorts of logic contortions to support Zimmerman's version of events.
 
It wasn;t a belt holstered firearm by the way.

Do able yes? Likely?... No...

Try your test again... and try having your son try to draw that gun while you are trying to retain it. See if you are struggling if he can remain on top. I think you will find that grabbing for the weapon while its in the holster exposes him to all sorts of attacks and reversals... particularly if you are trained in MMA as Zimmerman was.

At the end of the day... a person has to go through all sorts of logic contortions to support Zimmerman's version of events.



Everything that can be said about M/Z has been said at least twice. There's nothing new here, and beating dead horses isn't my thing.
 
See if you are struggling if he can remain on top. I think you will find that grabbing for the weapon while its in the holster exposes him to all sorts of attacks and reversals... particularly if you are trained in MMA as Zimmerman was.

At the end of the day... a person has to go through all sorts of logic contortions to support Zimmerman's version of events.

Zimmerman was not truly trained in Mma, or in anything else given his academic failures and job retention skills.

Arguments against z man centered on whether or not he could or could not have done "x" while pinned involve too many variables. Given the evidence and the fact that Martin is dead, the only was to convict z man of a charge would be to hold that his pursuit of Martin after being advised to stop constituted negligence.
 
after being advised to stop constituted negligence.

Still pedaling that false narrative huh?
He wasn't advised of any such thing.
A suggestion was made. A suggestion that he acknowledged and followed.
 
Everything that can be said about M/Z has been said at least twice. There's nothing new here, and beating dead horses isn't my thing.

Sure... just to point out.. only Zimmermans DNA was found on the guns grip.
 
Zimmerman was not truly trained in Mma, or in anything else given his academic failures and job retention skills.

Arguments against z man centered on whether or not he could or could not have done "x" while pinned involve too many variables. Given the evidence and the fact that Martin is dead, the only was to convict z man of a charge would be to hold that his pursuit of Martin after being advised to stop constituted negligence.


Actually he was truly trained in MMA.

And the way to convict Zimmerman is to show that he failed to prove that his actions were reasonable in that he was in reasonable fear of imminent death or grave bodily injury. THAT is the requirement of the law.
 
Sure... just to point out.. only Zimmermans DNA was found on the guns grip.


Which only means TM wasn't successful in getting the gun, which we already knew.
 
Which only means TM wasn't successful in getting the gun, which we already knew.

It means that he never went for the gun.. until it was drawn and he was trying to save his life..

Otherwise there would have been prints and DNA on the grip.
 
It means that he never went for the gun.. until it was drawn and he was trying to save his life..

Otherwise there would have been prints and DNA on the grip.




See, this is why the M/Z forum was CLOSED. Same old same old, over and over.
 
Back
Top Bottom