If you kill someone

[memoriesbymichelle]

Its never ok to murder someone...but in extreme situations...it is permissible to kill someone . Big difference. We kill others legally, in times of war and if our life is truly in danger by another who wants to kill us or very seriously hurt us (self defense) .

Re: the Zimmerman trial ---- Those of us who carry concealed weapons legally, have the responsibility to forego our 2nd Amendment Rights if necessary and instead do everything we can to prevent a potentially dangerous situation from coming about in the first place. And this is where Mr. Z . dropped the ball big time. He phoned the Police for assistance, yet he didnt follow thru with that by waiting for them to arrive to investigate the situation. Instead, he was emboldened by the power of having a gun legally / was sick n tired of bad guys getting away with crime in his neighborhood / and racially profiled the black kid he highly suspected was on the prowl for no good. This was a dangerous recipe for disaster . When these kinds of tragic events occur, we must ask ourselves what could have been done in the beginning to avoid what eventually occured in the end ? If it were solely up to me...i would have found Z. guilty of homicidal negligence or whatever the legal term is for that. I would have sentenced him to approx. 5-10 years for his irresponsibility, egotism, racism, and vigilantism .

Even when we are justified in killing someone in self defense despite our best efforts to avoid doing so ...the Shooter always suffers in a variety of forms ; most notably : Litigation fees bankrupting him/her , permanently damaged reputation, low liklihood of getting employed , and retribution from the deceased Family and Friends. In short, the Shooters life becomes of much less quality from having to defend himself with no other choice. So in reality, no one wins. Neither does society as a whole.

Being a concealed carry Person, legally, I could kill someone if i absolutely had to ...and would do so . I only hope and pray that i can never be put in that circumstance because it is forever life-changing for all involved.

Is that such a bad thing? A "suspicious" man walks through the neighborhood. If he commits no crime, all you have is a suspicion that he "may" have been up to no good. Right now, we really have no way of knowing what Trayvon would have done if he had been left unmolested. He may have just crossed the neighborhood and gone home-- some testimony seems to indicate that was his initial intention.

Any stranger passing through your neighborhood might qualify as a "suspicious person" simply by being a stranger passing through the neighborhood. If you report the person to the police and they come the next day to take the report, where exactly is the problem? Can you prove the "suspicious person" was up to no good, or were you just having a case of the "nervous Nellies" because someone you didn't know was passing through?

Thank you gentleman. I believe he (Z) should be held accountable because he was the one with the gun. Also his story doesn't make sense. He got jumped and punched and "forgot" he had a gun until he saw Trayvon going for it? Really? How do you "forget" you are carrying? My dad and I were talking on the phone about it, and my dad believes that Trayvon jumped out of the bushes and attacked Z even though there was no definite proof of that and he almost had to hang up the phone til I changed the subject because he so firmly believes Z was justified. I can agree to disagree and not be mad at anyone, but I was beginning to feel alone in my opinion. And even IF Trayvon jumped out of the bushes he (Z) could have said he was Neighborhood watch or whatever, but he never even claimed he did that, WHY? And when he pulled his gun, why didn't he shoot it over his head instead of exactly into the heart of Trayvon? He could have shot him in the leg or foot too.
I don't think when he started out following him, that he intended to kill him, but he should not have been following him and he should have told him up front he had a weapon unless Trayvon did sucker punch him but even in that event he should have said stop! I'm just a neighborhood watchman and I don't know you! or something! JMHO.

Also he (Z) didn't "remember" how Trayvon was slamming his head like where was he holding him by his ears? by his sides of his head? "I don't remember" was his answer. Most people that survive an attack that they are in fear of their life remember details. He didn't. Oh well, doesn't matter now, he got away with murder IMO. And God knows the truth anyway. I didn't want him to get life or death, but I did expect him to be held accountable. But that's Florida for ya.

 

[blackribbon]

The problem is that suspicious people don't commit crimes when they are being watched. I have had neighborhood watch call the police on me. My parents moved while I was at college and I arrived at my new home when they weren't home yet and I didn't have a key. I was parked in the driveway waiting for them and probably got out to see if I could find a way into the house. I was a skinny 19 year old college student and white and a girl. Instead of being offended, I recognized that neighborhood watch was working. I thought it was funny.

The cops don't come for hours on a non-violent call in the evening. The hope of neighborhood watch is to prevent a crime because people are WATCHING and not to wait until someone has already been victimized. There had been a series of crimes taking place in that neighborhood. There was a reason to be concerned. By following the 17 year old , he could observe what the teen was doing. If the boy had simply returned home like a normal law-abiding perons would do, nobody would be dead. My reaction would have been to return home in the path with the most light if I was worried about someone following me.

And YES, any visitor IS a suspicious person until they prove they belong there. Isn't the premise of the million of gated communities that exist in this country.

 

[blackribbon]

And when he pulled his gun, why didn't he shoot it over his head instead of exactly into the heart of Trayvon? He could have shot him in the leg or foot too.

Zimmerman was jumped. He was knocked down on the ground with Trayvon on top of him pounding his head into the concrete. He pulled out his gun and shot upward to stop the attack. Upward happened to be into Trayvon's body. The evidence was shone to match this kind of close contact and that the gun was FROM the bottom position.

Not much room for discussion or warning shots.

 

[BlueLioness]

Its never ok to murder someone...but in extreme situations...it is permissible to kill someone . Big difference. We kill others legally, in times of war and if our life is truly in danger by another who wants to kill us or very seriously hurt us (self defense) .

Re: the Zimmerman trial ---- Those of us who carry concealed weapons legally, have the responsibility to forego our 2nd Amendment Rights if necessary and instead do everything we can to prevent a potentially dangerous situation from coming about in the first place. And this is where Mr. Z . dropped the ball big time. He phoned the Police for assistance, yet he didnt follow thru with that by waiting for them to arrive to investigate the situation. Instead, he was emboldened by the power of having a gun legally / was sick n tired of bad guys getting away with crime in his neighborhood / and racially profiled the black kid he highly suspected was on the prowl for no good. This was a dangerous recipe for disaster . When these kinds of tragic events occur, we must ask ourselves what could have been done in the beginning to avoid what eventually occured in the end ? If it were solely up to me...i would have found Z. guilty of homicidal negligence or whatever the legal term is for that. I would have sentenced him to approx. 5-10 years for his irresponsibility, egotism, racism, and vigilantism .

Even when we are justified in killing someone in self defense despite our best efforts to avoid doing so ...the Shooter always suffers in a variety of forms ; most notably : Litigation fees bankrupting him/her , permanently damaged reputation, low liklihood of getting employed , and retribution from the deceased Family and Friends. In short, the Shooters life becomes of much less quality from having to defend himself with no other choice. So in reality, no one wins. Neither does society as a whole.

Being a concealed carry Person, legally, I could kill someone if i absolutely had to ...and would do so . I only hope and pray that i can never be put in that circumstance because it is forever life-changing for all involved.

I pride myself in the fact that I have never killed anyone...

 

[blackribbon]

You never killed anyone or never were in the position to actually have to decide whether or not you needed to kill someone?

I have lots of friends and family who are military and law enforcement who probably have had to kill in order for you to have the luxury of saying that.

 

[dayhiker]

I think both men were at fault, neither appeared to be good a deescalating the situation.

Yes, I am thankful that in 4 yrs as a Marine I wasn't sent to Nam and didn't have to face pointing a rifle at anyone.

I just had to sit with my tenant who had a lady friend threaten to send her BF over to beat her up. She is the artist type and so many of the people she has hung around are into drugs and do things that aren't healthy. Pretty sad to hear some of what its like to live in that world. The BF never stopped by, Praise God.

 

[mjmcmillan]

I think both men were at fault, neither appeared to be good a deescalating the situation.

Yes, I am thankful that in 4 yrs as a Marine I wasn't sent to Nam and didn't have to face pointing a rifle at anyone.

I just had to sit with my tenant who had a lady friend threaten to send her BF over to beat her up. She is the artist type and so many of the people she has hung around are into drugs and do things that aren't healthy. Pretty sad to hear some of what its like to live in that world. The BF never stopped by, Praise God.

Quickie note: The BF was probably not likely to stop by. My gut instinct, of course. The likely outcome of that would have been for angry lady to ask/demand that her BF beat up artist lady, BF says whatever he has to to defuse the situation and get out of there for the moment, has no intention of hitting a woman-- and especially a woman he has no personal beef with. Even in that crowd, it's "not manly" to hit a woman, and the guys who WOULD hit women-- well, angry woman would have some welts and bruises of her own if she's running with that kind of guy. Let's just say that it was not likely that he would agree to be her "hit man". But, of course you and artist lady couldn't know that and couldn't take that chance so you had to stay with her to offer whatever protection you could. That's IF angry woman ever did ask her BF and wasn't merely using that as a threat-- she may never have mentioned it to BF.

 

[mjmcmillan]

Second quickie note: I've never lived in a gated community. I've been in them as a delivery person, but never lived in one. I've lived in apartment complexes which can be filled with assorted odd characters, I grew up in a house in the suburbs on a quiet side-street, lived in a couple of places on Chicago's West Side that could take the cake for supplying suspicious characters, and right now I live in a house on a major arterial street in a Western 'Burb. If I reported every strange galoot who passes by here, the police would have to be here more than they would be at Dunkin' Donuts.

Now, if someone passes through by way of the back yards-- that's different. All of the back yards round about here have fences, so anybody passing by that way has a major occupation climbing fences to get from one yard to another. That would be strange by any standard.

During the winter months, I could probably pass as a suspicious character. I'm a white guy, driving a cargo van that may or may not be marked (I use magnetic signs, they're not always displayed since this is both my business and my personal vehicle) and I wear a hoodie when it's cold. Better follow me around and call the police, no telling what I might be up to.

 

[blackribbon]

During the winter months, I could probably pass as a suspicious character. I'm a white guy, driving a cargo van that may or may not be marked (I use magnetic signs, they're not always displayed since this is both my business and my personal vehicle) and I wear a hoodie when it's cold. Better follow me around and call the police, no telling what I might be up to.

And if I saw you driving through my neighborhood, yes, I would hope I would take note of you and keep an eye on your until you delivered something or were invited into a home and proved you had business in my neighborhood. Is that terrible? Or is that being a good neighbor?

I also check the credentials of any service man I invite into my home.

Maybe the fact that I have lived in a mixed race neighborhood that had a high level of smaller crimes makes me more wary. My 10 year old car was stolen out of my driveway between my husband's 6am first morning smoke and his departure for work at 7:15am. And my next door neighbor woke up to two bullet holes in the side of his truck from what must have been a drive-by shooting. And a gang had marked the driveway of the 80 year old lady who lived across the street. (I don't know if it was protection or otherwise, but I am pretty sure it was proof that her grandson was in one of the area gangs.) And this wasn't a "bad" neighborhood...it just wasn't a "good" one anymore.

At our civic club meetings, cops told us to call anything in because often our calls are what gave them access to find more major stuff. I have called in because I believed I was watching a theft in action and the police arrived the next afternoon to take my statement. REALLY? I'm sure they caught those guys, NOT.

We live in a society where nobody wants to get involved...crimes get witnessed everyday and yet nobody will step up and be a formal witness. That is basically what we are saying that Zimmerman should have done. Seen something/someone that made his gut say "something isn't right", but we want him to then assume that nothing was amiss and go home and mind his own business...because unless he actually SAW a crime, he shouldn't assume that one could take place.

My mother lives in a suburb of Denver where you cannot wear a hood of your jacket on your head when you enter any banks. There is a reason why "hoodies" get a bad rap. If the teen had walked to the store and walked home completely on the sidewalks or in the streets, he would be alive today. Being black wasn't a crime in that neighborhood because it was a mixed race neighborhood...(and Zimmerman isn't white either, but rather identifies himself as hispanic)....the issue was it was night, he was alone, and he didn't actually live in the neighborhood.

 

[dayhiker]

mjm .. I too felt that the guy wouldn't beat her up. But I didn't think she would believe me so I didn't say anything about that.

 

[mjmcmillan]

mjm .. I too felt that the guy wouldn't beat her up. But I didn't think she would believe me so I didn't say anything about that.

Under the circumstances, you did the right thing. It would have been unmanly to leave her on her own that night.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Possibly life ending for the person you shoot. I would rather die than kill.

No you wouldnt because except for suicide Bombers, we all have a very strong desire for self preservation (wanting to survive and live) . If you were in War or faced with an intruder coming at you with a long knife...your normal reaction would be to defend yourself by flight or fight and if you couldnt flight...then you would indeed fight (you wouldnt just lay there and be unmercifully murdered) .

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Thank you gentleman. I believe he (Z) should be held accountable because he was the one with the gun. Also his story doesn't make sense. He got jumped and punched and "forgot" he had a gun until he saw Trayvon going for it? Really? How do you "forget" you are carrying? My dad and I were talking on the phone about it, and my dad believes that Trayvon jumped out of the bushes and attacked Z even though there was no definite proof of that and he almost had to hang up the phone til I changed the subject because he so firmly believes Z was justified. I can agree to disagree and not be mad at anyone, but I was beginning to feel alone in my opinion. And even IF Trayvon jumped out of the bushes he (Z) could have said he was Neighborhood watch or whatever, but he never even claimed he did that, WHY? And when he pulled his gun, why didn't he shoot it over his head instead of exactly into the heart of Trayvon? He could have shot him in the leg or foot too.
I don't think when he started out following him, that he intended to kill him, but he should not have been following him and he should have told him up front he had a weapon unless Trayvon did sucker punch him but even in that event he should have said stop! I'm just a neighborhood watchman and I don't know you! or something! JMHO.

Also he (Z) didn't "remember" how Trayvon was slamming his head like where was he holding him by his ears? by his sides of his head? "I don't remember" was his answer. Most people that survive an attack that they are in fear of their life remember details. He didn't. Oh well, doesn't matter now, he got away with murder IMO. And God knows the truth anyway. I didn't want him to get life or death, but I did expect him to be held accountable. But that's Florida for ya.

Z shouldnt have been accountable because he simply had a gun on him ; he should be accountable because he didnt avoid a highly dangerous situation when he could have by waiting for the Police to arrive after his phone call to the Police. There is nothing shameful about suppressing your Rights as a Gun Owner in order to avoid something very catastrophic like the very real possibility of putting yourself in a life threatening situation. Even Jesus who is God, chose to willfully put his Rights and Authority on a very low level ... how much more for us.

It takes a humble Gun Owner with good reason and rationale to think like this --- something that doesnt exist with a good many Gun Owners today because they feel empowered with a Gun . Pulling a Gun out is supposed to be the absolute last resort with no other options, but, for Z...he didnt heed the initial option of staying put.

 

[bhsmte]

Z shouldnt have been accountable because he simply had a gun on him ; he should be accountable because he didnt avoid a highly dangerous situation when he could have by waiting for the Police to arrive after his phone call to the Police. There is nothing shameful about suppressing your Rights as a Gun Owner in order to avoid something very catastrophic like the very real possibility of putting yourself in a life threatening situation. It takes a humble Gun Owner with good reason and rationale to think like this --- something that doesnt exist with a good many Gun Owners today because they feel empowered with a Gun . Pulling a Gun out is supposed to be the absolute last resort with no other options, but, for Z...he didnt heed the initial option of staying put.

Sure, in hindsight, Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck. With that said, would most people expect to be attacked for simply walking down a sidewalk in their neighborhood to get an address for the police? I don't think so. If Zimmerman expected to get attacked, I really don't believe he gets out of his truck.

In regards to his gun, I don't care for concealed weapons myself, but they are legal and he was legally carrying. From the evidence, it certainly appears he did not take using his weapon lightly and yelled out for 40 seconds basically begging for someone to break up the fight which had him on the bottom. If you have ill intent, you certainly don't call the police and have them come to your location and or yell for help if you intend to do something that is not justified.

 

[dayhiker]

I personally prefer open carry myself.

 

[bhsmte]

I personally prefer open carry myself.

Well, I'm not crazy about any average citizen carrying a gun in public, but that is just my opinion.

You do raise a valid point. If Zimmerman was "open carrying" and Martin saw his weapon, would Martin have punched him?

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Zimmerman was jumped. He was knocked down on the ground with Trayvon on top of him pounding his head into the concrete. He pulled out his gun and shot upward to stop the attack. Upward happened to be into Trayvon's body. The evidence was shone to match this kind of close contact and that the gun was FROM the bottom position.

Not much room for discussion or warning shots.

no proof of that, only his word. And if I was being followed (and it did happen to me once in broad daylight) I would NOT go home because I would not want the person following me to know where I lived. When it happened to me, I thought I would go up to any random door, but then I thought what if bad people lived THERE. But there was absolutely no proof that he got jumped. I watched the entire trial and all the police videos.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Sure, in hindsight, Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck. With that said, would most people expect to be attacked for simply walking down a sidewalk in their neighborhood to get an address for the police? I don't think so. If Zimmerman expected to get attacked, I really don't believe he gets out of his truck.

In regards to his gun, I don't care for concealed weapons myself, but they are legal and he was legally carrying. From the evidence, it certainly appears he did not take using his weapon lightly and yelled out for 40 seconds basically begging for someone to break up the fight which had him on the bottom. If you have ill intent, you certainly don't call the police and have them come to your location and or yell for help if you intend to do something that is not justified.

Again, no proof that he got attacked. Also no proof that it was him yelling. Also no fingerprints of Trayvon on his weapon. The incident "could" have happened because Z tried to detain Martin we will never know but there was no proof of Z's story that he got jumped or attacked. Just his words and he had reason to lie IMO but again, the jury has spoken and he is free. I don't consider him a responsible gun owner. How many of you that carry concealed or not, "forget" you are carrying? Especially in the light of supposedly getting your head bashed in.

 

[mjmcmillan]

There wasn't much in the way of proof either way. The way this works out, the jury came back with the only decision it could since the state couldn't prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". That doesn't mean that GZ wasn't as guilty as they come, it only means the state wasn't able to prove it. Right now, nobody except Zimmerman really knows, so all we're doing here is guessing and thinking how would we react under similar circumstances.

Edit; add-on: I note that in many of these threads, there's a tendency for the "gun-ho" crowd (apologies to String, over on the My Opera Debates and Discussions forum for borrowing that term) to somehow assume that packing heat makes you invulnerable to learning to handle problems by any means other than shooting at it. If GZ hadn't been packing that night, you can bet the rent he would have handled the situation much differently than he did. As it is, there's every reason to believe he let his "wanna be cop" side get the better of him, and making a citizen's arrest appealed to him since he thought he could do it. Somehow, packing a hidden firearm makes you more likely to take risks you would never dare take if you had to rely on other means to handle a situation.

 

[bhsmte]

Again, no proof that he got attacked. Also no proof that it was him yelling. Also no fingerprints of Trayvon on his weapon. The incident "could" have happened because Z tried to detain Martin we will never know but there was no proof of Z's story that he got jumped or attacked. Just his words and he had reason to lie IMO but again, the jury has spoken and he is free. I don't consider him a responsible gun owner. How many of you that carry concealed or not, "forget" you are carrying? Especially in the light of supposedly getting your head bashed in.

There is no absolute proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman, but there is circumstantial evidence that supports this claim.

According to Martin's friend's testimony, we know Martin had lost Zimmerman and he was right next to his house, but instead, chose to circle back to where the confrontation happened. If someone is truly scared because someone is observing them, do you really make a decision to go back to an area where that person may be? That makes zero sense. I understand about the thought you don't want the person to know where you live, but Martin had lost Zimmerman and he could go in his house and call the police. We also know Martin made racial remarks against Zimmerman according to his friends testimony, which may lead one to believe that Martin may have in fact profiled Zimmerman, because he thought he was white. Zimmerman also passed a lie detector test (which he took risk in taking) and one of the questions was whether it was him that engaged Martin and his answer was no.

If Zimmerman had plans to confront Martin or do something with ill will, it makes no sense he calls the police to notify them and have them come to the scene where he is planning something sinister and also stay on the phone with them for as long as he did.

I don't like citizens carrying weapons in public period, but in this case, all the evidence points to the fact the weapon was used legally, in self defense.