What I got out of the headline, and have seen in other cases, was that because the injuries aren’t so bad, Martin should not have been killed. You know, maybe shot in the arm to stop him from punching.
Sort of like a mugging where the perp gets killed, and his mom says “He didn’t even have a weapon, he was just down on his luck and needed some money”.
Even some Freeper’s comments over the various threads have that mentality - that you can only shoot if you are in fear for your life. Of course the law varies from state to state.
Except that handgun use doesn't work that way when one is under duress. If Zimmerman was a Navy SeAL, maybe such an argument could be made. I challenge any normal person to place a well-aimed shot into someone's arm when they're on their back being struck about the head and face.
Such an assertion by the writers of what you have read is absurd.
Another FReeper who knows nothing about concealed carry or the dynamics of armed confrontation.
You can't just "shoot him in the arm." Bullets don't just stop in your arm.
Plus, in a Condition Red situation, auditory exclusion and tunnel vision occur, along with loss of fine muscle control.
That's why people who are trained to survive gunfights are taught to shoot center mass. It may be all you can do, and it will STOP THE ENCOUNTER.
There's none of this Hollywood "shoot their toe off" crap in a real gunfight. I've talked to people who have been in REAL gunfights. They know.
>> , Martin should not have been killed. You know, maybe shot in the arm to stop him from punching.
We know very little about the nature of the gun firing.