Zimmerman Arrested for "Disturbance"

[ericinmn1970]

....

You make a very good point that I hadn't considered. Thank you.

I too thank you ironbear for pointing this out.

I had considered some of the factors you'd mentioned. However, I was of the understanding that Mr. Zimmerman was no saint. From my understanding and research, he had some previous issues with anger management and violence. He also did a lot of volunteer work in the community, so perhaps he was working to try and keeps things going in a positive direction for himself. I get that he was a neighborhood watch captain. But to me, the fact that this guy called into 911 about a hundred times (or more?) within a year, provides a little glimpse into a mindset that bordered on paranoia. He almost literally viewed everyone that passed through his neighborhood, except himself, as a criminal. I have to wonder, if I would have been walking through his neighborhood a year and a half ago, been looking around and at the houses, if I'd not have had the cops called on me by him?! Zimmerman being thrust into the constant spotlight now only exacerbates an already unstable psyche in my opinion.

[coltpython123]

Reports are he pointed a gun at his girlfriend.

If true, I'm embarrassed I defended this loser. His track record since his trial has been crappy. Sounds like he's the type of guy that makes me want to carry a firearm.

I think you would be a little distraught to if you were lambasted by the media the way this man was. Imagine being in his shoes cant get a job because of the negativity that fallows with him but also having everyone know you and anything bad you do going straight to the front page of the left wing medias home pages. The woman's probably just playing with him trying to get her 15 minutes. he did also rescue someone from a car wreck after Trayvon but of course that did get very little attention. just my two cents anyway

[Jackpine Savage]

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/11/20/george-zimmerman-set-up-if-it-walks-like-a-duck-looks-like-a-duck-quacks-like-a-duck-avoid-the-bill-dont-sleep-with-it/#more-72552

"Was George Zimmerman Set Up ? – If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck…..

For those who have followed the post-trial Zimmerama (Zimmerman + Drama) it’s fair to say stable judgment is not an excessive commodity.

Extending and accepting the baseline premise that no-one ever really knows what’s going on in the he said/she said world of emotional Ping-Pong nonsense.

There is however, something afoot; something amiss; something, well, sketchy with the latest “girlfriend” *quack* drama......................................"

[mrp]

anything bad you do going straight to the front page

Or anything neutral you do.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-guns-search-warrant-20131126,0,1278264.story
Headline:

Police find 5 guns, large ammo stash in George Zimmerman's home

Article:

more than 100 rounds of ammunition

[Holland&Holland]

anything bad you do going straight to the front page

Or anything neutral you do.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-guns-search-warrant-20131126,0,1278264.story
Headline:

Police find 5 guns, large ammo stash in George Zimmerman's home

Article:

more than 100 rounds of ammunition

ok, that is just pitiful. Does that even count as a gun owner?

[jshuberg]

Why is it that the news media considers 100 rounds to be some kind of huge amount? I mean seriously, 100 rounds is less than I usually shoot in a single range session.

I typically buy several 1000 round cases at at time, every other month or so. And that's just what I shoot, not to mention my stash I keep on hand to get me through the dry spells. It's not a bad idea in the current political climate to have 6-12 months worth of training ammo so you don't run out. I wouldn't think twice about someone having 15,000 rounds on hand.

The fact Zimmerman only had 100 rounds tells me he doesn't train regularly, which IMHO puts him on the border of being reckless by carrying a firearm in public.

Someone needs to let these idiots in the media know that 100 rounds is a pathetically small amount of ammo to keep on hand, and that they look like drooling on their shoes retards by making a big deal about it.

[TH3180]

The fact Zimmerman only had 100 rounds tells me he doesn't train regularly, which IMHO puts him on the border of being reckless by carrying a firearm in public.

I've never taken a training class and I guess I don't consider it training when I go to the range or shoot in a match. Are you saying I shouldn't carry a firearm?

[jshuberg]

IMHO a person should shoot at least once a month if they are going to carry in public. I have no doubt that many will disagree with this, but I believe that once a month is the minimum a person can train without their skills becoming rusty. Shooting is after all a perishable skill. If a person wants to be good at shooting, they should try to shoot as often as their finances and schedule allow.

If a person only has 100 rounds of ammo on hand for 5 different firearms, I would guess that he doesn't train as often as he should. Just sayin'...

[infidel]

Many would judge Zimmerman without the same microscope on Trayvon. It does not matter one bit what skeletons are in their closet. The only thing that matters regarding the Zimmerman vs. Trayvon case, is who ATTACKED who. The evidence presented at trial exonerated Zimmerman.

Some people would say one should shoot a specified amount of ammo in order to be qualified to carry a firearm in public. I am happy they are not making the laws. It is almost like saying if you don't have sex every hour, you shouldn't carry that gun in your pants. There are people who have never fired a weapon before yet they are smart enough to pull a trigger to defend themselves. Unfortunately there are many who would infringe on the right to defend yourself, because they think you are not qualified.

[jshuberg]

I never said I thought it should be a legal requirement, as I don't believe that. While its true that many people who are novices with a firearm have successfully defended themselves, it's also true that many people have inadvertently injured themself or others, or otherwise operated the firearm in a reckless or unsafe manner while attempting to defend themself.

It has absolutely nothing to do with how smart a person is. During a lethal force encounter the conscious mind either goes bye-bye, or worse spins out of control. If a person has to think to operate their pistol safely and effectively, there is a very likely chance they will be incapable of this level of thought. Many "smart" people simply cannot operate their weapon effectively during a lethal force encounter. The best evidence of this are police, who have an absolutely abysmal hit rate of < 20% during actual shooting incidents.

A person who finds himself in a lethal force encounter will be functioning almost entirely with their reptile brain, which is the primitive reactionary center of the brain. It controls the fight or flight reflex, but has no higher level capabilities. Unless a person has programmed the performance of an action into the subconscious, performing that action will be a significant struggle, regardless of whether they are capable of performing that action consciously or not.

It's going to be different for every person, but in general a person needs to shoot at least once a month to preserve their current skill level, and to reinforce the ability to perform that skill subconsciously. If a person wants to improve their ability, they need to shoot more than once a month.

If a person carries a firearm regularly, but doesn't train with their carry piece at least monthly, yes - I believe they are being reckless as their ability to operate their weapon safely and effectively under extreme stress is questionable. It should be legal, as self defense is a fundamental human right, but it's definitely not smart. I see it no differently that a guy zipping through traffic on a crotch rocket in shorts and a t-shirt and no helmet. It's just not a smart thing to do.

I suggest anyone who carries a firearm read the book "On Killing" by Lt. Col. David Grossman. It's the most extensive research into the psychological and physiological effects that occur before, during, and after a person finds himself having to take the life of another person. It's a very good read.

If a person carries a firearm for self defense, they should be psychologically prepared that if everything goes horribly wrong, that it may become necessary to kill another human being to preserve their own life or the life of another. Making the conscious decision that a person is going to carry a firearm is an incredibly serious and somber decision. It is potentially as serious as life and death itself. IMHO anyone who makes this choice has a responsibility to ensure that they are skilled enough to be able to operate their firearm safely and effectively under the most extreme levels of confusion and stress.

Carrying a firearm is a fundamental right, but it also demands a certain level of personal responsibility. The most important of those responsibilities is to develop and maintain proficiency in the operation of that firearm.

[msnden]

George should have hit the "Talk Show" circuit, maybe a movie or book deal, gotten rich!, but I don't think he is packed real tight. Guys like him are the reason I carry!













rv "Ta