George Zimmerman - Florida Unarmed Teen Shooting

[westberg]

So do you agree with the conclusion on the recent mn pistol whipping grocery store incident? Or does that guy need justice too?

If your referring to the incident behind the cub foods a while back, I think that shooter should have been charged with manslaughter. I agree with being able to carry a gun for protection, but not so you can play cop.

Thankfully, JeremiahMN that is your opinion. My opinion is your ideology is what's wrong with America. When people choose to live outside of the laws bad things can happen to them, whether it's cops or arm citizens doing it I don't care. You seem to feel you have taken the high ground position in this mess, where my opinion is you have taken a cowards position.

[Lunchbox]

Al Sharpton has become Obama's running mate.

April Fool's or not... For some reason or another I could see it happening.

[jdege]

Nope, I don't teach a permit to carry class. I don't even have a permit to carry. I would hope most carry instructors would advise people that just because they are carrying a gun, that doesn't mean they should be chasing down criminals, etc... I would bet most instructors would advise against repeating the actions of the cub foods shooter, and zimmerman's. Hopefully this situation will shed some light on the differences between carrying a gun for protection, and playing cop.

You've got a very odd view of what a police officer's role is.

Read this, and pay particular attention to #7:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

What is truly offensive about your position isn't your belief that the shooter in that case was wrong to intervene, but that you you refuse to recognize that he had an duty to intervene - as would you or I, were we to find ourselves in a similar situation.

[CraigJS]

Nope, I don't teach a permit to carry class. I don't even have a permit to carry. I would hope most carry instructors would advise people that just because they are carrying a gun, that doesn't mean they should be chasing down criminals, etc... I would bet most instructors would advise against repeating the actions of the cub foods shooter, and zimmerman's. Hopefully this situation will shed some light on the differences between carrying a gun for protection, and playing cop.

You've got a very odd view of what a police officer's role is.

Read this, and pay particular attention to #7:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

What is truly offensive about your position isn't your belief that the shooter in that case was wrong to intervene, but that you you refuse to recognize that he had an duty to intervene - as would you or I, were we to find ourselves in a similar situation.

1.Don't believe everything you read in wikipedia.
2. Get ready to have your shorts sued off of you.
3. Have a GOOD criminal lawyer on your cell phones speed dial.
4. Keep your mouth shut if you use your gun to defend yourself or your family.
5. "He had a duty to intervene", good luck with that defence..

[tman]

So would you advise your students to repeat the actions of the cub shooter, or zimmerman?

Take a carry class and find out.

I was extremely surprised to find that you don't carry, don't have a permit, and seem to be thinking that your opinion carries the weight of law. No wonder you're shocked that people can defend themselves. You apparently have no clue what self defense can be.

[JeremiahMN]

So do you agree with the conclusion on the recent mn pistol whipping grocery store incident? Or does that guy need justice too?

If your referring to the incident behind the cub foods a while back, I think that shooter should have been charged with manslaughter. I agree with being able to carry a gun for protection, but not so you can play cop.

Thankfully, JeremiahMN that is your opinion. My opinion is your ideology is what's wrong with America. When people choose to live outside of the laws bad things can happen to them, whether it's cops or arm citizens doing it I don't care. You seem to feel you have taken the high ground position in this mess, where my opinion is you have taken a cowards position.

Yep, and when vigilante permit holders start to think the are the law, bad things happen to people living within the law.

[Pinnacle]

@ Jeremiah.

ANd when it rains out I get wet... You are simply a trolling in waters unfriendly to your position. Let the law decide and your opinion is worth what we paid for it. Nothing, just like mine.

[tman]

Yep, and when vigilante permit holders start to think the are the law, bad things happen to people living within the law.

What part of this is actually "vigilante"?

The part that you refuse to accept is that following someone, and even talking to them, is NOT against the law, and DOESN'T negate self defense. And it DOESN'T fall under the definition of vigilantism.

And that is why you really should take a PTC class.


Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

[R.E.T.]

It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 0481.story

So the theory here is that it is not the guy on his back on the ground with someone sitting on top of him pounding his head on a cement sidewalk that is calling for help, but the guy on top?

What a lack of common sense.

[CraigJS]

There has been so much WRONG information either way, how can we be sure of ANYTHING. Time will tell the truth. Pitty the American people refuse to take the time to find the truth. Including many on this and other forums...

[tazdevil]

There has been so much WRONG information either way, how can we be sure of ANYTHING. Time will tell the truth. Pitty the American people refuse to take the time to find the truth. Including many on this and other forums...

Don't worry; the news media handles it so well, and is so good at showing guilt versus innocence, we'll be having lynch mobs and public hangin's soon enough!

[Pezhead]

[jshuberg]

Well, it appears that the stand your ground law is going to go under extreme scrutiny because of this event. Unfortunately, I believe that most people have a serious misunderstanding on what the law allows and what it doesn't. I've literally heard dozens of times that 'stand your ground doesn't mean you can chase someone down', etc.

The 'stand your ground' law does one and only one thing: It removes the duty to retreat from an individual who is forced to defend himself against great bodily harm or death.

Sitting in front of your computer in the safety of your home or office you may think that a duty to retreat (if possible) sounds like a reasonable condition to attach to a situation prior to using deadly force. I disagree with this, and I've unfortunately not heard what I consider to be the best reasoning for a 'stand your ground law to exist'. Below is why I believe this law is important:

When a person realizes that they are in a situation where there is a real possibility of being killed, the body and mind go into self defense mode. Higher level rational thought goes bye-bye, and the reptile brain (basal ganglia) takes complete control. A person in this situation is incapable of rational thought, and will go into fight or flight mode based entirely on instinct. Combat or self defense training will undoubtedly help a person in this situation, but there is still a complete loss of higher level brain functioning during the moments when a persons life in in danger. Whether a person chooses to run or to fight is an immediate, instinctual, primitive reaction that takes place. It is literally impossible to expect a person in this situation make a logical determination of the best way (or the legal way) to react. They will simply react.

Understanding this, when a person is genuinely under threat of great bodily injury or death, I believe that we should acknowledge the reality of the psychological and physiological state the victim is in. We should recognize that if a person reacts by using deadly force against his assailant, even if an avenue of retreat existed, that this was a reasonable response to the situation.

Stand your ground laws do not (and cannot) have any effect on the behavior of an individual who finds himself under threat of death. He will react however he will react, regardless of what legislation may have or have not been passed by his representatives in congress. My opinion of why 'stand your ground' is good law is that it prevents an unreasonable requirement from being attached to a persons actions months later in the safety and security of a courtroom. The notion that if a person fails to notice that an avenue of retreat exists at the moment they also realize that their life is in danger, and who responds by fighting off the attacker is somehow a criminal and needs to be imprisoned for his actions just seems wrong to me.

Could 'stand your ground' be misused as a defense by bad guys? Of course, but I do not see that a reason enough to pass legislation that would make victims into murders because they were physically incapable of making a rational decision required of them by law.

All this being said, Gov Dayton vetoed 'stand your ground' here in MN, so if you find yourself in a situation where you were forced to defend yourself with deadly force, only to discover afterward that an avenue of retreat existed, you might be in really big legal trouble. At least you'll still be alive to be in big trouble though.

The common misconception that 'stand your ground' has anything to do with a situation prior to it escalating to deadly force is just plain wrong.

[tman]

When a person realizes that they are in a situation where there is a real possibility of being killed, the body and mind go into self defense mode. Higher level rational thought goes bye-bye, and the reptile brain (basal ganglia) takes complete control. A person in this situation is incapable of rational thought, and will go into fight or flight mode based entirely on instinct. Combat or self defense training will undoubtedly help a person in this situation, but there is still a complete loss of higher level brain functioning during the moments when a persons life in in danger. Whether a person chooses to run or to fight is an immediate, instinctual, primitive reaction that takes place. It is literally impossible to expect a person in this situation make a logical determination of the best way (or the legal way) to react. They will simply react.

I call BS!

Were that true, we'd be having jet fighters crash all the time.

All men and women in combat would freeze and die in place.

Hell, I'd be dead already! (Thanks for reminding me to check the obits for my name again today)

Too bad it ruins the rest of your argument.

[Heffay]

The common misconception that 'stand your ground' has anything to do with a situation prior to it escalating to deadly force is just plain wrong.

According to your logic, I can go out and pick fights with people, confident in the knowledge that if I start getting my ass kicked, I can shoot the other guy with no criminal or civil risk.