Posted on 04/14/2012 9:52:22 AM PDT by CottShop
I want to know if trayvons prints are on the gun
If these “experts” are the two eyewitness that saw and heard Martin pummeling Zimmerman, then I’m all ears.
Very bad idea. If you ever find yourself in mortal danger you need to use as much force as you can bring to bear so as to end the confrontation as soon as possible and in your favor. Shooting "to wound" is definitely a bad idea, suppose your assailant is high on PCP, or suppose you wing him which really pisses him off, suppose you waste your last round and miss, what then? Your always better off to put your assailant down as fast as possible, two shots center of mass. If nothing else it makes you the author of the ensuing narrative.
Don't take my word for it, check the literature on the subject and you will find 100% endorsement for the "shoot to kill" strategy. Doing less will inevitably shorten your life span.
Same advice goes for firing "warning shot(s)". Don't do it, it wastes ammo and could very cause unintended collateral damage to innocents not involved in your confrontation (all bullets must come down somewhere!).
Regards,
GtG
Oops!
very cause = very well cause
G
yeah me too- Accordign to George, Trayvon spotted the gun, went for it, and he was shot duringg the struggle fro mearly reports o nthis htat I heard-
Thanks Airedale- it does seem as htough, like hte lie detector test, that it woyuldn’t be admissable in court, especially where they don’t have similiar cries from either zimmerman or trayvon to judge the cries o nthe tape to- which they would need in order to make an informed descision
Thanks cunningham- that’s exactly what I was lookign for- I’ll read through it tonight and tomorrow (over 400 posts lol) and see what everyoen is saying about it- Thasnsk for looking that up for me- I ssearched FR and even went back several pages but was unable to find anythign significant until you broguht this to my attention- thanks
It is admissible if you have the exemplars (exact words said as close to the way it’s on the exemplar as possible and analyzed by a court approved service.).
I’m a little behind hte times I guess- no wonder UI couldn’t find links to the story here if it was 2 weeks ago- thanks for the link- readign it now
I don’t know if I’d have found it by looking for keywords or words in the title — I googled for the guy’s name plus freerepublic.
I’ve heard the 911 call tape maybe twice as part of news article videos. To me, and it is just my opinion, the screams are indistinct and convey mostly a sense of terrible fear. They could be “Help” uttered in a fearful voice or they could just be cries of terror. Take your choice. The one thing I did note was that the interval between the third scream and the shot was very short - seemed like just a second or two - and that would imply that they were still close enough together for Trayvon to be a danger to George when he fired his weapon.
So, as I wrote, I don’t KNOW but, as I also wrote, it really doesn’t matter whose screams they were.
It’s pretty clear from one 911 caller’s account of what they SAW that Trayvon was the aggressor in the moments immediately before he was shot. If the screams were Trayvon’s, it doesn’t matter; he was still the aggressor and still close enough to George Zimmerman that George feared for his life enough to shot when he finally gained control of the pistol. You don’t immediately switch from aggressor to victim just because you scream out of fright.
If, as you state, the screams were possibly George’s, then they simply bolster the claim that the shooting was a last, final resort after his cries for help went unanswered. But as the intervals are pretty short, could a person actually crying for help reasonably expect - especially while being pummelled - a nearly instaneous arrival of help and forego taking the first opportunity to shot? Memory, especially under stress, is a tricky thing. Did George really call for help or did he just cry out indistinctly in struggle and later think he called out for help? I don’t hear an intelligible cry for help in the 911 recording but it doesn’t matter; cry for help, gutteral cry of terror, or no cry at all, George is still the person on the ground being beaten in the moments prior to the shooting.
(In fact, Georges’s brother has stated in broadcast interviews (Piers Morgan, IIRC) that George related to him that he did call for help. He has also said that George has been very disappointed by the fact that none of his neighbors came to his assistance.)
I have seen a version of this neighborhood chart with Zimmerman parking his car and starting to follow Martin on the same path (not taking a shortcut), turning around when told to break off by the 911 operator to return to his car (and meet the responding officers), then being overtaken from the rear by Martin who has doubled back to confront him.
The catch, search, hold scenario has Zimmerman way outside the bounds of a neighborhood watch member and acting more like a security guard/police officer. Possible, but it doesn't jive with Zimmerman's reported response to the 911 operator (he broke off and turned around) or what the father's girlfriend reported Trayvon saying to her on the cellphone(he was going back (to confront) which implies he was aware of being followed, not intercepted. Being followed puts Zimmerman on the Trayvon path behind him.
Again, Trayvon had only to go home to still be alive.
I writing what I did, my assumptions are:
That, since the police station video of his arrival doesnot show him with spatter from blowback, Zimmerman probably did not shot Trayvon while he was in very close physical contact with him.
That the lack of blowback spatter means Trayvon drew off a slight distance in the instant between the last cry/scream and the single shot shot fired by Zimmerman.
That Trayvon did not immediately flee but rather was still close enough to menace and cause Zimmerman to fear another attack.
That Zimmerman had, at most, maybe a second or two to bring into action the pistol they had been struggling over.
That Zimmerman was dealing with the effects of being punched and having his head pounded on the sidewalk.
That it was dark and cold.
That the single shot fired was probably not particularly well aimed.
That Zimmerman had not set out to shoot Trayvon or anyone and his only intention in shooting was stopping the attack.
That when the attack stopped with a single shot, Zimmerman stopped shooting.
That Zimmerman really wishes Trayvon Martin was still alive. He probably wished that immediately on the shooting but considering the impact of the shooting has had on his life in the last 60 days, he REALLY wishes it now.
******************************************************
Now, having said that, the defensive handgun shooting advice you provided is pretty standard in the community. But, as you no doubt know, it is based on an idealized engagement. Idealized with respect to the clarity of the threat, idealized with respect to getting your weapon into action, idealized with respect to target presentment, etc. It is also idealized with respect to how the post-shooting judical process will unfold.
The George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin shooting incident has none of those idealized elements. In fact, the one thing that may actually help in the defense, if it even goes to trial, is that he only shot once and only after being pummeled - not exactly evidence of the depraved indifference/reckless disregard state of mind needed for a Murder2 conviction. Two shots (or, as I wrote about myself, most or all of the clip) would be harder to defend.
Anyway, my 2 cents.
That, since the police station video of his arrival doesnot show him with spatter from blowback, Zimmerman probably did not shot Trayvon while he was in very close physical contact with him.
Eyewitness testimony has Marten sitting on Zimmerman's upper body while slamming his head into the pavement, That continued until the shot was fired, there was no separation. The police station video did not show a close up frontal view. In any event, entry wounds bleed very little if at all. The gory stuff shows up at the exit wound, in this case there was none (the bullet hit the bone!).
That the lack of blowback spatter means Trayvon drew off a slight distance in the instant between the last cry/scream and the single shot shot fired by Zimmerman.
Assumes facts not in evidence, entry wounds do not bleed profusely. He could not have "drawn off a slight distance" with Martin sitting on his chest.
That the single shot fired was probably not particularly well aimed.
It was aimed well enough to get the job done! Aim is not a big factor when you are close enough to smell your opponent's sweat.
That Zimmerman had not set out to shoot Trayvon or anyone and his only intention in shooting was stopping the attack.
I am in 100% agreement with you on this point.
Now, having said that, the defensive handgun shooting advice you provided is pretty standard in the community. But, as you no doubt know, it is based on an idealized engagement.
If you wait until you have an "idealized engagement" your friends are going to attending your funeral before too long.
Remember that mortal combat is intense, nasty, bloody, brutal, and more often then not, unanticipated. You are not about to pace off 25 steps, turn and fire. If you give the slightest quarter, expect your opponent to seize the initiative and you had best start paying attention lest you have your ass handed to you.
From what you have written I can see that you have a detached, analytical mind set, that would be a wonderful asset if you were a research chemist or such. However, if you are a concealed weapons carrier you cannot afford the luxury of step by step analysis.
You must practice drawing your weapon, practice dry firing, practice firing on a range. You need to keep at it until your gun, your hand, and your eye are wed into an extension of your mind. You need to practice from contact distance out to perhaps 15 yards.
Proficiency begins at the point where muscle memory has developed to the point where drawing and presenting your weapon does not require conscious thought at each step of the process. If you are going out in public with a lethal weapon on your person you owe it to the rest of us to keep your mind focused on your surroundings, evaluating potential threats (condition RED). You can no longer afford to mooch along day dreaming about the sweet young thing in accounting or your up coming golf outing (condition WHITE), not and carry a gun you can't! You're either in it all the way or you're out.
One last piece of advice:
He who resorts to dirty fighting first generally wins and gets to go home. There is no award for second place.
G
Look Gandalf, I was a Marine enlisted man and officer for over 20 years including in combat. So, during my time in the ranks, I’ve spent my days on the range doing the drills and and carrying a weapon in a combat zone ready for immediate deployment.
As any police officer will tell you, the rules for handling a weapon in a combat zone (including threat evaluation) are different than those for civilian police work and are different again for civilan concealed carry. In fact, one of the more difficult transitions for ex-military (non-MPs)is learning (in the muscle memory sense of the word) that a number of different rules apply when you put on a LEO uniform. Go around handling a pistol, shotgun, or rifle like a soldier as a plain old Mark One Mod Zero civilian and you are likely (at least in Virginia) to be arrested for brandishing even if no shots are fired. Afoot outside your dwelling, you’ve got to really feel threatend before the pistol even leaves its holster.
Think about your typical day running scenario drills at the shooting range and then think about the circumstances of the Zimmerman-Martin shooting incident. Have you simulated being attacked from behind after you think the incident is over? (Zimmerman brother interview account) Have you simulated wrestling for a loaded pistol with a younger, equally big, and probably stronger opponent? (Zimmerman brother interview account) Have you simulated shooting at a target after being punched pretty hard in the face? (Fact in evidence) Have you simulated all that when it is dark and you are somewhat cold? (Facts in evidence)
I’ll write more addressing the specifics in your post later, but right now I’ve got to get ready to go to work - not as a research chemist, I can assure you.
“It was pretty obvious to msot people who watched the trial all the way through enough evidence was presentred for conviction which is why a great majority of those hwo followed it were stunned at the verdict”
No, I don’t think so. It was more that people had the preconceived notion that the mother was guilty of something, based on someone having to dump the body and the mother not having reported her death for so long. Dispassionate review of the evidence was not part of it. Also, the public was misled by irresponsible commentators who pretended it was a slam dunk case when they should have known better.
Home viewers often have the “someone did it” mindset, which begs for the apparently guilty to pay whether or not there’s enough evidence to justify it. It was enough for Jane Couchpotato that a mother kept mum about a missing child for a month. Lock her up! Except that’s not a crime in itself, though perhaps it should be. It isn’t evidence that she’s guilty of murder, though it’s highly suggestive.
This prejudice overwhelmed the paucity of evidence presented. What did the prosecution have, when we really think about it? A piece of tape with sticker residue that may or may not have come from Casey; the smell of death emanating from Casey’s car, as detected by someone (the grandfather) who may have been an interested party; internet searches that the grandmother most likely perjured herself about. You can try a person for capital crimes without a body, even. This is not that. This does not pass muster. This is not only circumstantial, it is below the reasonable doubt bar.
What if, as the defense theorized, the grandfather covered up an accidental death? How do we know that didn’t happen? It jives with the evidence at least as well as the prosecution’s theory. There’s no overwhelming evidence tying Cassey to the body, nor the body to her car. If the car had a death smell, why didn’t they find decomposition in the trunk? Why couldn’t they find evidence of the chloroform she allegedly searched for? Why was the tape/sticker evidence not the smoking gun the prosecution seemed to pretend it was? Where is the evidence you think made it “pretty obvious to msot people” that Casey was guilty? I don’t think it exists.
It is a phantom. It is a figment of the imagination of people under the “someone did it” mindset, blinded by Casey not reporting her death.
“it was also obvious to those watchign that Cindy lied repeatedly and was coverign up for her daughter”
Yes, but you don’t convict someone because you think someone else lied for them. It casts at least a little doubt that Casey was the one searching for chloroform. And like I said, even with the searches, they don’t have anything to tie Casey to actual chloroform. Knowing she searched the internet is not enough to convict.
“Even some of the jurors who voted not guilty were doubtful of their own convictions abotu hte case, and cited crap and false reasons as their excuse for voting liek htey did”
This is neither here nor there. One man’s “crap and false reasons” is another man’s reasonable doubt. As for them being doubtful, you mean doubtful about their doubt? If that’s the case, they should still acquit. You have to be certain about guilt, not doubtful about doubt.
“As a juror, they will be takign hteir lives in their hands sitting on this case because htere is only one verdict that will be allowed by the left- guilty”
Yes, I agree. It may not be so personally dramatic. By which I mean, I don’t think it’s common for jury members to be targetted after verdicts. Tampered with while a trial’s ongoing, yes, but not afterwards. What they should worry about are possible riots, etc. depending on how they decide. That would weigh heavily on any shoulders.
I said: “Even some of the jurors who voted not guilty were doubtful of their own convictions abotu hte case, and cited crap and false reasons as their excuse for voting liek htey did”]]
You said [[This is neither here nor there. One man’s “crap and false reasons” is another man’s reasonable doubt. As for them being doubtful, you mean doubtful about their doubt? If that’s the case, they should still acquit. You have to be certain about guilt, not doubtful about doubt.]]
Well it IS here and htere- because thsoe statign that voted not guilty but they were unsuire of why trhey voted that way in itnerviews after the trial- they gave conflicting answers that conflicted with their descisions- apparently they weren’t smart enough to realize that-
[[Yes, but you don’t convict someone because you think someone else lied for them]]
I didn’t say that you do, you DO however convict someoen when enough circumstantial evidence makes it clear that there really is no other alternative than to find the person guilty- As I mentioend above- the jurors when asked abotu the verdict later only seemd to concider evidences in a singular manner isntead of cumulatively as they shoudl have- the evidences by themselves of course were not enough to convict anyone- however, them ore lies that were told, them ore it becanme evident that the case for circumstantial evidences was painting a devestating picture- however, this was florida, and apaprently even a video of the murder wouldn’t have been enough to convict
[[No, I don’t think so. It was more that people had the preconceived notion that the mother was guilty of something, based on someone having to dump the body and the mother not having reported her death for so long. Dispassionate review of the evidence was not part of it. Also, the public was misled by irresponsible commentators who pretended it was a slam dunk case when they should have known better.]]
ou just misconstrued everythign I said there- I said I watched the whole trial, listened to lal the evidences, all the arguments, all the coutner arguments, and it was pretty clear enough evidence was given and why so many peopel were absoltuely stunned when the verdict came in, and even more stunned when they listened to the excuses the jurors gave afterwards as to why htey voted the way they did- Our stunned reactiosn had nothign to do with the media hyping anyhting nor with any preconcieved notions abotu hte case-
[[Home viewers often have the “someone did it” mindset, which begs for the apparently guilty to pay whether or not there’s enough evidence to justify it. ]]
you are udnereswtimating the intelligence and fairness of msot people I’m afraid- painting us all with a big broad brush- We who were stunned also listened to lawyers conclusions after the trial and even the lawyers were agreeign with us that he reasons ggiven by hte jurors didn’;t add up to a not guilty verdict-
[[It was enough for Jane Couchpotato that a mother kept mum about a missing child for a month. Lock her up! Except that’s not a crime in itself, though perhaps it should be. It isn’t evidence that she’s guilty of murder, though it’s highly suggestive.]]
Again you are underestimating the viewers- makign it appear that msot every viewer isn’t capable of follwoing a trial and makign informed descisions- suggestign htat bias clouds most viewers minds- and you are3 again suggesting that single evidences are what the home viewer was basing hteir opinions on- yet again, it is accumulated evidences that made up our minds, not single incidents- and listenign to the trial and the prosecution we thought that they gave a pretty darn good case for circumstantial evidences- and qwere quite stunned when learned the jury voted the way they did-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.