General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBill Cosby on Trayvon Martin shooting
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/07/460195/bill-cosby-on-travyon-martin-shooting-power-of-the-gun-mentality-to-blame/Bill Cosby on Trayvon Martin shooting:
‘Power-of-the-gun mentality’ to blame | Respected comedian Bill Cosby weighed in on the Trayvon Martin shooting in an interview with the Washington Times’ Deborah Simmons. “We’ve got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to be on neighborhood watch,” said Cosby. “Without a gun, I don’t see Mr. Zimmerman approaching Trayvon by himself. … The power-of-the-gun mentality had him unafraid to confront someone. Even police call for backup in similar situations. When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody,” he said.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)that Zimmerman was looking for someone to confront. That he had conversations with people that in retrospect were probably a good indication that he would eventually kill someone.
spanone
(135,958 posts)
LAGC
(5,330 posts)They actually teach you in the required Florida concealed-carry permit training session that you aren't to go out of your way to confront suspects, that your permit doesn't make you a deputy of the law, that you aren't to be a vigilante.
Zimmerman violated that cardinal rule and should have had his concealed-carry permit revoked right from the get-go.
The vast majority of concealed-carriers are responsible and obey their training and don't go looking for trouble like he did.
The permit is a license to carry a weapon designed specifically to shoot people. Do people seriously believe that it is not going to naturally lead to incidents where people shoot people?
Why does a person carry a gun- in case they feel like they need to shoot another person. Clearly the lines that define that need are blurred because they will never be objective as long as people are operating with their own fears and biases.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Far more incidents of self-defense involve merely brandishing the gun, just the threat of violence is enough to diffuse most situations or scare potential rapists/robbers away.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Are the bullets and shooting capacity just coincidence?
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Sure, nuclear weapons are designed to potentially kill millions of people and devastate infrastructure, but who in their right mind would dare use them? They are far more useful as a deterrent to foreign invasion than they are as offensive weapons. Which is why I'm not too worried about Iran obtaining them. Just showing the world that you have the weapon deters anyone from being aggressive against you, which is why the Republicans are so desperate to stop Iran from arming themselves, because invasion would be off the table.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)hole blown out of it? Maybe we should all be able to carry nuclear weapons. After all, bombs don't kill people...people do!
LAGC
(5,330 posts)cavalier in approaching him and provoking a confrontation.
In all these incidents of mass-shooting sprees, they always happen in "gun-free zones" like schools and office buildings.
Pretty inviting targets, when you know your victims likely won't fight back.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)negative interactions with their fellow office workers and students. Not because they are "safe"there. Only a true gun extremist would try to extrapolate gun free zones being at fault for people killing their friends and co-workers. More people are shot in their own guns in their own homes and they (and everyone else in their house) are free to arm themselves to their teeth.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)(And that is how it should be in my opinion.)
Can you use a gun against a military invasion? No. A gun against the powerful equipment that a country invading the US would have to have would be useless.
Can you use a gun against a home invasion in the middle of the night? Theoretically yes. But chances are you will be disarmed in your sleep and not have a chance. There are instances of this, but they are unusual.
Can you use a gun against a burglary that takes place when you are away? Do I need to answer that one?
Can you use a gun to defend against a robber on the street? Probably not if the robber is also armed. The robber will use his gun first. You won't have much of a chance.
Are guns sometimes successfully used for self-defense against criminals? Yes. But not nearly as often as gun-lovers would like to think.
Most dangerous people such as rapists, burglars and thieves strike those who could not have a gun or when homeowners are absent. They seek out people who appear weak. That is why many rape-prevention and rape-response courses teach women how to appear confident, strong and assertive.
Guns are useful for hunting deer and other game. Nobody needs an open-carry permit in a city.
It only takes one mistake in judgment for a well-meaning person carrying a gun, legally or not, to make himself into a criminal.
ornotna
(10,810 posts)Really?
It's a good thing George Zimmerman didn't have one.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Would it have happened if Japan had the ability to retaliate in turn?
Probably not.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Subjective feelings like "fear" are honestly comparable and there are so few gun users who are so hot headed that they might have an inclination to use weapons under sketchy circumstances? Is it possible that even police officers who carry them as part of their job might be triggered so easily that an innocent person might be shot- maybe 41 times?
How often does it happen with guns vs. nuclear weapons?
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Unfortunately, the government isn't very good at figuring out who those people are until after they've committed a crime.
From what it sounds like from Zimmerman's past arrest record, he probably should have never been issued a permit in the first place.
Lots of nepotism going on here, in terms of his ex-judge daddy.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Those are the people who are attracted to them in the first place. Guns don't wind up in the hands of blood thirsty individuals with violent tendencies by accident.
Zimmerman's personality went for the gun. The USSC and the state of FL helped him get it. Then FL went a step further and handed him a self serving justification to use to try to talk his way out of his behavior being considered a crime.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Both of their lives and those of their loved are destroyed.
My BNL tried to teach my sister to handle a gun for her personal safety when a lot of crime was sensationalized in the media, but gave up. She didn't have 'the killer instinct' he said, making her more likely to have the gun taken away by an assailant and used against her. You have to maintain a certain state of 'kill or be killed' to be an effective gun carrier.
He said, 'Never carry a gun if you are ready to quickly use it on another human being.' He was a weapons expert, but knew retreat is the answer for most people and decided that would be the right option for her.
I was taught in Taekwondo that retreat is an honorable course of action, and the first, no matter if someone thinks you are a coward. Zimmermann did not retreat to safety, when he could have easily done so.
n/t
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Had there not been a gun involved Trayvon would be alive. What's so hard to understand about that?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)With the media-induced mentality wherein black = chaos. But to get strictly to your point:
“We’ve got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to be on neighborhood watch,” said Cosby. “Without a gun, I don’t see Mr. Zimmerman approaching Trayvon by himself…
The power-of-the-gun mentality had him unafraid to confront someone. Even police call for backup in similar situations. When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody,” he said.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002530434
Which is what I was trying to say in my own way...
lunatica
(53,410 posts)So I agree with you and Bill Cosby. His son was killed by a drive by shooter when he was stuck on an freeway off ramp with a flat tire or car trouble of some kind. It was very sad.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)nt
The Magistrate
(95,272 posts)Most incidents where people claim they scared off potential robbers and rapists by displaying a gun owe more to the delusional metal state of the fellow with the gun than to any actual threat.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
druidity33
(6,452 posts)LAGC stands for Liberal Against Gun Control.
Am i right?
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Very perceptive, you.
obamanut2012
(26,201 posts)Both the attorney who taught in our CCW permit class, and the firearm instructor (a retired Marine) both stressed that brandished is just not a felony charge, but is stupid.
The other poster is right. We conceal carry for protection, which involves the knowledge we may someday have to defend ourselves by shooting someone.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)
spicegal
(758 posts)cause over reaction. Put yourself in the shoes of an unarmed 17 y/o approached by a much larger adult stranger in the dark. People who brandish firearms should darn well know what they're doing, and unfortunately, far too many do not. The pro gun lobby (NRA and others) create a false sense of security in the way they champion unrestricted gun ownership. It's gotten to the point that in order to remain relevant, they just keep upping the ante, ramming through increasingly lax laws with absolutely no push back. I say enough is enough. It's time to start pushing back.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I've heard of that, and how does it fit in?
LAGC
(5,330 posts)But when the would-be criminals flee after seeing the gun, its a win-win situation. Crime averted, and no one has to be killed.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Most bizarre gun post I've seen here, and the bar's pretty high on that.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)No one "brandishes' guns except maybe insane gang bangers as a prelude to the firefight.
You never threaten with a deadly weapon, you use it as it was designed, to kill, not to display as if it is on sale on QVC.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Two guys came in to the store just before closing at midnight, displayed knives and demanded money.
My friend whipped out his 1911 and pointed it at them, didn't say a word.
The robbers froze for a few seconds, one of them yelled "OH SHIT, lets get out of here!" and they fled.
My friend never had to fire a shot. The situated was diffused and a crime was averted, without anyone having to be killed.
Police arrived shortly thereafter, asked him a few questions, he never got in any trouble as far as the law was concerned.
Yet if we listen to people around here, supposedly brandishing like that is a felony. Funny the cops didn't see it that way when used in a self-defense role.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Show some relevant, valid data or admit it.
sarisataka
(18,947 posts)The permit is to carry. There is no permit to use. That is covered by other laws...
Why does a person carry a gun- in case they feel like they need to shoot another person.
If that was the case I would go through a box of ammo every commute...
MN609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)However, people who are so inclined are more likely to acquire the gun and permit. Most people who kill have the mental capacity to pass the tests and operate normally.
Citing the law only points to the language that is to be interpreted- unless there has been a dramatic change in our system of government. Key language "reasonably believes" injects the subjective interpretation of circumstances into the equation.
That law enables individuals who have violent tendencies who have legally acquire the means to let loose. to justify their behavior in the context of their "reasonable belief." That is the entire basis for SYG and the Castle Doctrine is to protect the self identified "defender" of their person or belongings.
sarisataka
(18,947 posts)Such as Zimmerman- (I am trying to be charitable and keep an open mind but it is hard)
For most who are violently inclined- will they curb their urges if they do not get a piece of paper? If so we such require a license for every crime.
The law I mentioned lists the ONLY justification for using lethal force. That being a gun, knife or large rock... The interpretation of that is what decides if you go to jail.
Correct- judged against were their actions reasonable given what they knew
For the record- I believe the FL law is poorly written. It puts too much in the hands of the police to pass judgement. It should be written so any ambiguity of the justification e.g. there is only one living witness, the case should go to a grand jury.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)"For most who are violently inclined- will they curb their urges if they do not get a piece of paper? If so we such require a license for every crime."
Thus, we should make it easier by making an effective tool that can be used with little personal physical risk as readily available as possible?
I know a person who was arrested for firing a handgun without a permit. The story given was that a person was trying to rob him. He said he went to get his checkbook and returned with a gun instead. Fortunately, he didn't shoot the person who waited leisurely for him to get his checkbook. Unfortunately, he has since been issued a permit and carries a gun which also sits loaded on the nightstand.
That person has a tendency to be paranoid. Not in a they're out to get him way- more in a crime has gone up there are more minorities in the city - therefore, under Murphy's law, I am going to eventually get robbed way.
Accident waiting to happen when his blood boils about how he can't get ahead because all of the NGRs have taken the jobs. His and Zimmerman's stories and attitude are very common. There's an unfortunate number who legally own and carry guns.
obamanut2012
(26,201 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Have been given an open opportunity to be prepared to do so with little physical risk to themselves.
get real. with america being a hate crime, what can one expect.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)is beyond me. The sole purpose of a firearm is to take a life. Palin and simple, you pull the weapon, you aim it at the human being you are INTENDING to kill and you pull the trigger.
I agree with the OP, Zimmmerrman only had balls becausehe was armed and reeady to kill an innocent teenager. The same way he allegedly threw a female down in a fit of rage as a security officer.
The vast majority of concealed carry are too afraid to walk the streets without their "safety blanket".
Kablooie
(18,648 posts)if you shoot and claim self defense, the police, by law, are required to walk away and you get off scott free. Only if there is compelling evidence to the contrary at the time the police investigate are they allowed to continue to investigate.
There is a strong presumption of innocence for the murderer.
This encourages murder as oppose to deter it.
indepat
(20,899 posts)the major branches of government with little more than a simpering whimper, but each of the three branches know better than to mess with Americans' right to legally strap a cannon on their hips. This nation has a violent history and is laden with more than its fair share of Jesus-loving, gun-wearing, and vagina-obsessed true-believers. :patriot
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The anti-choicers, the war fanatics, the fundies...Big Media and Hate Radio run these propaganda onslaughts to convince the low-info voters that Dems will force people to have abortions, let the country be overrun by commies or Muslims, or take all of their guns away. With the degradation of education and complete media takeover by the far right, they are able to convince the dimmer bulbs that voting for far right candidates will prevent these phony threats from becoming reality. The gunsters used to claim that having unlimited access to guns would prevent fascism from overtaking the US, but the last 20 years have proven that to be a lie too. At least they've stopped making that claim.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,235 posts)
hunter
(38,354 posts)In the aftermath of Cosby's death, America's Most Wanted and The National Enquirer offered a reward for information leading to the killer's arrest. One of Markhasev's co-workers phoned the Enquirer, giving them Markhasev's name and telling them that Markhasev had bragged on the night of the killing that before work he'd shot a black man and that it was on the news.
Initech
(100,155 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)I have legally carried a firearm for 15 years and the last thing I would ever want to do is to shoot another person.
I have known a large number of people who have carry permits. Most of the people I know who carry on a regular basis have been shooting handguns for many years. A good percentage of these people are retired police or military. Admittedly since I enjoy shooting at pistol ranges I have far more exposure to experienced shooters than the average person does. My knowledge of those who have carry permits is not representative of the majority of most people who have such permits.
However I believe the statement that, "When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody,” unfairly stereotypes those who legally carry concealed. We don't carry our firearms in order to kill or harm. We carry them in order to have the ability to stop an attack by a person who intends to inflict serious injury or to kill and has the capacity to do so. We have a legal right to defend ourselves in such situations although we try to avoid confrontations. While a firearm should be the last resort in such an event it can often be the most effective. I personally carry pepper spray as a nonlethal alternative. In many situations pepper spray can prove to be quite effective and would enable me a chance to stop and escape an attack. My particular brand incorporates a piercing alarm and a strobe light to enhance its ability to deter an attack. (Visit http://www.gettornado.com/videos.html?vidID=001010 and click on the link for the Tornado® 5-in-1 to view the device that I carry. I recommend that those who would never consider carrying a firearm as well of those who are licensed to do so check out this product.)
A very few of us may be cop wannabes but such an attitude is rare. Such people sometimes lead others to believe that all people who legally carry concealed are looking for a fight in order to kill or are vigilantes. This is far from the truth. If we all did have such a disposition, incidents similar to the Trayvon Martin shooting would be everyday events. Remember in Florida alone over 800,000 citizens have Concealed Weapons Permits.
Perhaps the explanation for why shootings involving those who are licensed to carry is rare is that in Florida we have to pass a background check which eliminates most who have anger management problems or have had been convicted of violent crime. People with a clean record are usually nonviolent and if you don't have a history of violence it is unlikely that you will suddenly change. Many of us also practice "situational awareness" which means we are alert to our surroundings and don't walk down dark streets with a cell phone glued to our ear. That alone makes us a far less desirable target to a street predator looking for an easy target.
It's easy for those who have little familiarity with the gun culture or with those who carry concealed to form misconceptions. The news media which is biased against gun ownership helps foster such views. Movies and TV dramas also often paint us in a bad light. We not all beer drinking rednecks filled with racial prejudice looking for the chance to blow someone away. We represent a broad cross section of society and many of us are well educated professionals such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, lawyers, accountants, preachers, nurses and teachers. Some are blue collar workers who work in factories or in stores or as plumbers, electricians carpenters or taxi cab drivers. While the media tries to portray us as all conservative evangelistic Republicans who only watch Fox News, many of us are progressive and very liberal Democrats.
If you live in some large cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles or Washington D.C., you may have little contact with those who legally carry or even own firearms. If you live in cities such as Tampa, Dallas or Atlanta you may find that some of your co-workers and neighbors have permits and carry. In some cities your only experience with gun owners is the criminal element that misuses them to murder. In others you might develop a far more balanced view.
Some who post on DU seem to feel that handguns have only one purpose and that is to kill. I personally have been shooting handguns for over 40 years and have never killed or injured any living creature. I have enjoyed punching hundreds of thousands of holes in paper targets and a few tin cans. Its a challenging but often satisfying hobby and sport. I also have found pleasure in reloading my own ammo and tailoring these rounds to produce the best accuracy in the individual handguns that I own.
I do fully realize that firearms can and do cause tragedy if misused or mishandled. Firearms are not for everybody and I don't advise anyone to own one without safety training as well as careful thought and a realistic appraisal of their own weaknesses. If you have anger management problems, tend to drink to excess, suffer from mental problems or live in a volatile relationship with a significant other, then firearms are not for you. Even if you are level headed and nonviolent as well as well trained, you have to realize that a firearm will do exactly what it is designed to do and if you point a loaded weapon at something you do not wish to destroy and purposefully or accidentally pull the trigger it will function as designed. A firearm can ruin your life in an instant. If you own a firearm and have young children or even teenagers in your home or they visit, you have to realize that you have the responsibility to secure your firearms. Even if you don't have younger people in your home, it is wise to lock your firearms in a safe to prevent theft. It is also a good idea to keep your loaded self defense weapon in a lock box that will take you a little time to open. There have been cases when a person woke up from a nightmare, grabbed the weapon under their pillow and shot their significant other who was returning from a trip to the bathroom.
Currently much attention is focused on the Trayvon Martin shooting. I am merely trying to point out that Zimmerman is an aberration among those who legally carry. To form conclusions about all those who legally carry concealed based on this incident is at the best unfair and foolish. Of course we don't have the results of the ongoing investigation. I feel that Zimmerman should be arrested and charged based on the information that I have. I would never follow a suspicious person and confront them. I would merely call the police and report my concern. I would then follow the instructions they gave me. 99.99 percent of those with a Concealed Weapons Permit in Florida would do the same.
sarisataka
(18,947 posts)carried today, had no urge to shoot anyone. Same for yesterday, day before etc...
Two years ago I came upon an assault in progress. I had no idea who started it or why. Both participants were equally matched. I stayed back, called the police and gave my statement after they arrived and secured the situation.
I never considered drawing my pistol...
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)
I own guns and have no urge to go out and shoot someone!
Zimmerman is NOT representative of me.
Edited to add: Although I must say I have long hoped Bill Cosby would run for President...
surrealAmerican
(11,370 posts)First you say, "the last thing I would ever want to do is to shoot another person", and then you go on to explain that you would use the gun you carry to "stop an attack by a person who intends to inflict serious injury or to kill". In other words the actual "last thing you would ever want to do" is let somebody hurt you without shooting them. If you seriously wanted to be sure never to shoot another person, you wouldn't be carrying a gun.
The problem here is that people make mistakes all the time in assessing the intentions of others, especially when fear is involved. You may feel completely certain that the person you are pointing that gun at intends to "inflict serious injury", but there is always the chance that you are wrong.
spin
(17,493 posts)As I said, "The last thing that I would ever want to do is to shoot someone." That simply means that such an action would be the last and only choice available to stop an attack that would result in serious injury or my death.
Let's set up a scenario. I am walking down a street and my "situational awareness" has totally failed me. I find myself faced by a mugger who has a gun or a knife and he demands my money. I appraise him and I believe that he looks entirely rational and he will only use his weapon if I refuse to hand over my wallet. I simply give it to him as I can always replace my money, my credit cards and my ID. Replacing my health is far more difficult and I can't bring myself back from the dead.
However if the mugger appears irrational, angry or filled with hatred toward me and I am certain that even if if give him my wallet he will attempt to put me in the hospital or six feet under, I have little to lose by resisting his attack. Depending on the situation I might try different tactics. If I was fleet of foot I might just run like hell. (Unfortunately that is not a good option for me as I am a candidate for a hip replacement.) I might attempt to disarm him using what remains of the skills I learned in a marital arts class years ago. I carry pepper spray and I might chose to use it. Of course, I might decide that my best and only chance of success would be to draw my concealed weapon and shoot the mugger before he attacked me.
It is true that I could make a mistake his assessing his intentions. For example I could feel that the mugger was rational and hand over my wallet and then realize that he still wasn't satisfied and planned on killing me anyhow. I would then have little alternative but to attempt to defend myself using one of the tactics I have described.
Of course it is also possible that I might find myself attacked by an individual who had the desire to seriously hurt or kill me and no interest in robbing me. If a person who is armed or is much larger and in far better physical condition is in the process of attacking, then I will use force to stop his attack and that well might be deadly force.
I don't intend to ever point a gun at someone. If I draw my weapon and do not shoot, then it could be argued that I didn't truly feel that the other person's threat required my using deadly force. I follow the advice of an individual who taught Concealed Weapons classes in Florida. He said, "If you ever pull your weapon, it better come out smoking." If I simply drew my snub nosed revolver and threatened another person, the authorities could view my action as escalating the level of violence in the situation.
Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense
***snip***
Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don't use it?
A. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
I should point out I feel that the chances my getting mugged or attacked on the street very slim. Violent crime in our nation has fallen to levels last seen in the mid 60s. I also practice "situational awareness" which simply translated means that I am alert to my surroundings and don't walk down dark streets with a cell phone glued to my ear. Being alert will often deter street predators who look for the easiest prey.
The Magistrate
(95,272 posts)The incident will begin with display of a deadly weapon ready in a man's hand or bodily contact, often both, and more often by far will be initiated by more than one person. You will be shocked and frightened, and in no state to rationally appraise anything. If you are going to reply with deadly force, you will have to do it immediately, without a blink's space of hesitation. If you have never fought before as an adult ( dojo training does not count ) the chances your response will be quick enough is pretty slim.
A rough rule of thumb is that if you have time to think, and are able to think, you are not in any real danger....
spin
(17,493 posts)and why merely practicing this technique will make you far less of a target for a predator than the average person who walks around with a cell phone glued to their ear oblivious of their surroundings. Street thugs love to take advantage of the element of surprise and it's difficult to surprise an alert individual.
It's hard for many people to understand situational awareness and often they consider it to be excessive paranoia or fear. It's probably easiest to explain it and how it works by comparing it to driving a vehicle.
A good driver constantly practices situational awareness on the highway. People who talk on cell phones while driving or even worse text while driving are a real danger to other drivers because they are far less alert. Many drivers only watch the driver directly in front of them. They are totally unprepared to take action if something unusual happens behind or beside them.
Because I am alert to traffic, I have learned to anticipate problems. I not only watch the cars immediately around me but I scan up the highway as far as I can see and if I see red tail lights I go to a higher state of readiness. I watch my rear view mirror and if a car that is approaching from one side hides in my blind spot, I either speed up or slow down. I am constantly scanning 360 degrees around my vehicle. I observe other cars and if I see one weaving all over the road, I suspect that the driver is drunk or texting on his cell phone.
If I have a tailgater, I either speed up to create more distance between us or gradually slow down to get him to pass. I have an excellent driving record and the only accidents that I have been involved in were when I was stopped in traffic and some fool rear ended me. Even then I was not caught unaware, I just didn't have any opportunity to get out of his way. One time I did notice a driver approaching my stopped car and realized that there was no way that he could stop. In this incident, I drove my car onto the shoulder of the road and the other driver stopped one foot from the bumper of the car that had been in front of me. Had I been too close to the car in front of me, I would not have had the room to make this maneuver.
Now I have often been accused of having a lead foot. I do tend to drive rather fast but I have rarely received a speeding ticket. I don't even have a radar detector in my car but I am alert to the places where the cops love to hide and suspicious of anybody standing on the shoulder of the road who might have a radar gun and be part of a speed trap. Sometimes I just get a strange feeling and I slow down. Frequently when I do this, I pass by a cop hiding and waiting for a speeder a mile up the road.
My father once told me that professional speeders rarely get caught because they are alert. Perhaps that advice started me to realize the importance of situational awareness while driving and I adapted it to those times when I am on foot.
Now some people might say that I was a paranoid driver or overly fearful just as they accuse and insult those who legally carry concealed. I can point out that I love driving and enjoy the hell out of driving a fast vehicle and, if anything, being alert adds to my enjoyment. My concentration while driving is focused on other drivers around me and other drivers are fascinating. I love it when I have anticipated a driver doing something such as suddenly changing lanes when most drivers would be caught off guard.
Therefore, it was very easy for me to transfer my situational awareness while driving to those times when I am on foot. The basic principles are the same. I keep my radar out and I notice things about those around me that many other people would be unaware of. It can be a fun game to practice alone and even better when you are walking with another person. It adds to my enjoyment of life and it might just possibly save my life or my health. It enables me to also notice the beauty of nature that many who are less alert often fail to see. I might admire a simple flower or a bird landing in a bush near me while many would be lost in thoughts about work or busy texting on their phone
You say ...
A rough rule of thumb is that if you have time to think, and are able to think, you are not in any real danger....
I agree and as I have often said that if you merely practice situational awareness you should never have much reason to carry a weapon. However there are times when you might do everything right and still find yourself in harm's way. In such situations it could be a good idea to be prepared to take action and that could include non lethal tactics such as the martial arts or pepper spray and as a last and final alternative deadly force. If you value your life and feel that others that you love also feel you are a positive influence on their life, you might be wise to have options available to preserve your existence or to not suffer such injury that you become a burden for those you love and love you.
I have a theory that those who prepare as much as possible for any eventuality will walk through life with far fewer problems than those who merely passively accept whatever fate chooses to throw at them.
I was never a boy scout but I believe in their motto, "Be prepared."
The Magistrate
(95,272 posts)If it is real, you almost certainly will not; you will act, and succeed or fail, or not. If you have not done it before, and are not champing at the bit to do it the instant you get the chance, odds are very good you will find yourself gripped in an odd mental paralysis. You can be as 'situationally aware' as you care to be --- it will not alter the ugly fact of the thing, should you ever find it upon you, and my wager would be placed on the practiced assailant, not you, if there book being made on the matter.
spin
(17,493 posts)that I would be totally incapable of reacting in a rational manner if I found myself in such a situation.
You might be right and I am willing to admit that. However we may well have walked different paths in our lives and so far my reactions in tight situations have been appropriate and rational. While it is true that I have never had to use lethal force and also the first time a person has to do so is the most difficult, it is my opinion based on my own past experiences that I am capable of using a firearm for legitimate self defense if there is absolutely no other choice.
You might well find yourself in an "odd mental paralysis" and be incapable of action. I might not. This doesn't make me superior to you by any means.
I abhor violence and avoid confrontations when at all possible but there are people who depend on me and that makes my life worthwhile of defending. Obviously I would feel fear in such a situation but fear actually be a valuable asset that can be channeled into an effective response.
People and their reactions to a serious threat vary. Some survive, some do not. Some run and others stand their ground and fight. Running is not a sign of cowardice, it might well be the best option in a situation. The object is to survive a violent encounter with an attacker who intends to seriously harm or to kill you. If you walk away unharmed or alive after the encounter ends, you have succeeded. All else is irrelevant. After the event if you ran, you might be considered by some as a coward. If you stood your ground and fought and won, you might be considered by some to be a "hero". Also irrelevant. It is also a possibility that in one situation an individual might be considered a "hero" and in a different one a "coward".
Let's hope that neither of us finds ourselves in such a situation where we have to make such difficult decisions under stress.
The Magistrate
(95,272 posts)Having been in several punch-outs as a grown man, my view remains that unless you have had some experience in violence, your reactions to it are likely to be poor, in both speed and effectiveness.
spin
(17,493 posts)and while they do have value worth considering, you are making the assumption that I have the same training, ability and life experiences that you do.
People differ. While I have never been involved in a "punch out" as an adult as I have successfully resolved several such encounters without the use of violence, let me assure you that with, my training, if absolutely necessary in order to prevent serious injury or my death, I can use appropriate force up to and including deadly force.
My son in law, who I live with, has stated that I am someone you do not wish to "fuck with". He says that while I am nonviolent I am cool under pressure and that I don't tend to panic. Let me assure you that my son in law is far from nonviolent and has been involved in several fights during his adult life which he won. His actions were considered appropriate by the authorities. When he was younger he used to participate in bull riding competitions and I consider him to be one tough SOB. I would also describe him as a person that you would also never want to fuck with, however I feel that he also would use only the appropriate level of force necessary in any given situation.
As I said, people differ. My son in Law is, in my opinion, less likely to approach a situation and resolve it without the use of violence than I am. For example, if some fool tried to mug him on the street and was armed with a knife or a gun, he might likely pull his own legally concealed weapon and use it in self defense to stop the attack which the authorities in Florida would consider legitimate. In the same situation I would probably simply appraise the mugger and if I believed that all he wanted was my wallet, I would give it to him. If the mugger was extremely angry and aggressive and also appeared to be be high on drugs or inebriated, I might decide that he would not be satisfied with my wallet and after I turned it over, he would attempt to harm or kill me. In such a case I would use what remains of my skill in the martial arts, my pepper spray or my legally concealed firearm in order to defend myself. My object is not to "win" the encounter but to survive unharmed. Others caught in the same situation might panic or freeze and be incapable of taking appropriate action.
Of course I could be wrong and I would find myself totally unable to use a proper response if attacked. However for you to assume that everybody would be incapable of employing appropriate action solely based on your own personal experience is foolish. Numerous examples of people successful defending themselves when caught off guard exist.
In my posts above, I mentioned the value of practicing "situational awareness". This alone might be enough to prevent an individual from having to learn the truth about how they would react in a true life or death encounter. I would suggest that it would be wise for you and anybody who happens to be following this thread to try practicing this technique. We all imagine how would react in such a situation but it would be far better if we never have to learn the truth. If a person ever finds themselves facing an attack where it is necessary to use deadly force in order to survive unharmed, even if it is totally appropriate, they will find that it can haunt them for the rest of their life.
obamanut2012
(26,201 posts)I have a CCW permit, but I certainly don't carry every day. Mainly when I travel and when I go hiking or running. I had to take a class, which included firearm-handing and safety and knowledge of gun laws. And, a rather extensive background check.
I know many good Dems and other liberals who own guns and conceal carry.
I do carry pepper spray almost every day.
mainer
(12,038 posts)but it seems this case has made too many gun owners take sides with a guy who makes you all look bad.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Then why do you carry a weapon unless it is to kill someone? That is the sole reason for the manufacture of firearms, to kill nother, plain and SIMPLE. why try to sugar coat it?
Jesus, In my line of work, I've made untold enemies, people who've threatened to kill me is they see me.
I've pissed-off gang drug dealers who tried to scare me off and I NEVER felt the need, urge or necessity to carry a fucking firearm into Safeway, the mall or downtown.
PS: ex-NRA for over 20 years here! still own firearms...don't need to carry.
spin
(17,493 posts)if attacked by an individual who intends to put me in a hospital or six feet under. I don't carry a snub nosed .38 caliber revolver to kill but hopefully to stop an attack. If you have any knowledge of firearms (and you claim to own some) you should realize that handguns are not particularly lethal. You can shoot an assailant numerous times with a .45 auto and he can survive if he gets treatment in time. Much depends on shot placement, penetration and chance.
Movies and TV programs are not designed to reflect reality but to entertain. While some consider their offerings to be educational and realistic most who understand the reality of firearms laugh while watching.
Those organizations which oppose firearm ownership or concealed carry often publish totally false propaganda just as the NRA-ILA or the Gun Owners of America does.
I often see your argument here on DU ...
That is the sole reason for the manufacture of firearms, to kill nother, plain and SIMPLE. why try to sugar coat it?
And I point out that firearms can be used for many purposes. I have never killed or injured another living creature with any of the firearms that I own. I have punched several hundreds of thousands of holes in paper targets and a few tin cans through the years. I've enjoyed target shooting as a sport and a hobby and it has been both very challenging and very enjoyable. If firearms are only designed to kill, than mine are defective or I have been totally misusing them over my 40+ years of shooting.
Many of the people in the rural and poor area of Florida where I live hunt deer and feral hog to put meat on their table. It is fair to say that their firearms are designed to kill but I could point out that the meat that they would buy at a store also involves the death of an animal and contains far more chemicals than the game that they harvest and may well be less healthy. Also the fact that they hunt game helps to control the deer population and increase the health of the surviving herd. When there is an overpopulation of deer in an area, they can present a significant hazard to drivers. I know several people within a block of my house that have had a traffic accident involving a deer. My son in law who drives an 18 wheeler regards deer as large rodents and once had damage to his semi when one ran out in front of him. My daughter hit one at twilight but the damage to her vehicle was minor. A neighbor totaled her vehicle a couple of years ago. I nearly hit three deer in the road while driving four months ago.
Feral hogs are not native to our nation and do considerable damage to the environment. They reproduce at a fantastic rate and are considered pests by the state of Florida. They are very tasty when prepared properly. I actually prefer the taste of feral hog to pork that I buy in the grocery store. If you have ever seen the damage that they cause to the environment, you might agree that hunting is not a bad idea to control their proliferation.
Some Olympic sports involve shooting. Surely you don't believe that the firearms designed for such games are designed to kill.
Shooting at the Summer Olympics
Shooting sports have been contested at every Summer Olympic Games since the birth of the modern Olympic movement at the 1896 Summer Olympics except at the 1904 & 1928 editions.
Men's
Men's shooting was one of the nine events at the first modern Olympic Games in Athens, in 1896. In the Paris Games in 1900, live pigeons were used as moving targets. After the 1900 games, the pigeons were replaced with clay targets. In 1907, the International Shooting Sport Federation came into existence and brought some standardizations to the sport.
When shooting was reintroduced in 1932, it consisted of only two events. From this, the number of events have increased steadily until reaching the 2000-2004 maximum of seventeen events. The 2008 games had only fifteen. Events marked as "Men's" were actually open events before the inclusion of separate women's events in that discipline. Two women won medals in such mixed events: Margaret Murdock, silver in Rifle 3 positions (1976) and Zhan Shan, gold in Skeet (1992).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_at_the_Summer_Olympics
Biathlon
Biathlon is a term used to describe any sporting event made up of two disciplines. However, biathlon usually refers specifically to the winter sport that combines cross-country skiing and rifle shooting. Other popular variants include summer biathlon, which combines cross-country running with riflery, modern biathlon and biathle, which combine running with swimming.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/index.php
I have absolutely no problem with the fact that you own firearms, are an ex member of the NRA and have no desire to carry a concealed weapon. Those are your choices. My choices are to be a member of the NRA as I believe that this organization does a lot of good for the shooting sports and also provides training for police and civilians. I do not send donations to the political wing of the NRA, the NRA-ILA, and it is my understanding that very little of my membership fee goes to support the activities of the NRA-ILA and its propaganda.
I legally carry a concealed weapon and I also carry pepper spray as in some circumstances it may prove as effective or more effective than my snub nosed revolver.
Those are my choices and I feel that they are every bit as valid as yours. People and their approach to life often differ. I would never say that your decisions are foolish nor would I expect you to suggest the same. I am a law abiding citizen as I suspect you are. In this nation at this time and in the state where I live, I can obtain a Concealed Weapons Permit. If you lived in Florida you would chose not to. Why is your decision more valid than mine or why is my decision more valid than yours?
pnwmom
(109,028 posts)Whether or not the earlier charges against him had been dropped, he shouldn't have been allowed to carry a gun. And why haven't his gun privileges been revoked yet?
He killed a man he was stalking, after 911 told him to stop. No matter what happens with this case, he shouldn't be allowed to carry ever again.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
What are you reading ???
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)that Martin is looking at him, then Martin starts walking toward him, holding something. Simultaneously, Martin is on the phone with his girlfriend. She says that Martin said he's being followed. Girlfriend tells him to run. Martin says no, he's going to approach the guy or something like that. Then she hears him ask "Why are you following me?"
It sounds like GZ was following Martin at a distance, in his car, and then Martin notices and walks back toward GZ to confront him.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)I think zimmerman was indeed fearful of Martin but he wasn't stalking him.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)following him.
You can hear his labored breathing on the 9-1-1 call.
If Zimmerman had stayed in his car and not pursued Trayvon on foot, and just waited for the cops, all of this could have been avoided.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)was walking toward him with something in his hand.
Martin had every right to approach whoever was following him. I'm just saying that, so far, what I've heard, GZ was following Martin but did not actually approach (confront) him. Martin, after noticing he was being followed, walked back to approach (confront) GZ.
I was just clarifying. Some people seem not to know this.
babylonsister
(171,113 posts)Part of Cosby's contention is if 'Neighborhood Watch' volunteers didn't have guns, this wouldn't have happened.
You're defending Zimmerman because a black kid walks toward him. Wow.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)facts is somehow defending the shooter.
The facts are as I stated, unless there's another 911 call out there that is contradictory.
According to teh 911 call, and the contemporaneous phone call the girlfriend had with Martin that she reported, GZ was following Martin. Martin noticed and decided to go back and approach (confront) the man who was following him.
GZ did not actually approach (confront) Martin.
If you think that is a defense, that is disturbing. That means you don't care about the facts. But let me assure you that the fact that GZ didn't approach/confront Martin doesn't matter, legally. And Martin had every right to confront whoever was following him. It wasn't a wise thing to do, but he was very young. GZ's decision to follow Martin with a loaded gun wasn't wise, either.
As I said, I'm merely pointing out some basic facts. Some people don't seem to realize that GZ didn't actually approach and confront Martin. Having the real facts is always a good thing. I'm sure you'd want the real facts stated, if you were involved in an incident.
dpibel
(2,896 posts)You lose.
Actual reported statement from the girlfriend: She tells Martin to run. He says "I'm not going to run--I'm going to walk fast."
So your account is accurate so long as "Martin says no, he's going to approach the guy or something like that" means "Martin says no, he's going to walk fast." Otherwise, you just made something up to help your story.
In addition, you've got your chronology all, to put it kindly, mixed up. On the 911 tape, Zimmerman says "He's checking me out" early in the call, well before he gets out of the car, well before the dispatcher says, "We don't need you to do that" when Zimmerman admits to following Martin.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)To suit the story she/he wants to believe.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)when she tells him to run, he just says no, then she hears the phone jostle, and she hears Martin say, "Why are you following me?"
If that's incorrect, then I've got that part wrong.
Yes, I agree with your 2nd paragraph that GZ reports, while in his car, that Martin is looking at him, then GZ reports that Martin is walking toward him and carrying something in his hand.
It was earlier that the cop asked if GZ was following Martin, and GZ admitted he was, to which the cop responds "We don't need you to do that."
As I said, GZ was following Martin. Martin notices, is looking at GZ, then it seems Martin approaches/confronts GZ.
The facts are important. Some people seem to think that GZ was like running after Martin with his gun pulled out, like he was going to shoot him down. That doesn't seem to be the way the incident happened.
The real facts are bad enough. They don't let GZ off the hook at all. He's toast. But I think the facts of any incident are important. There's no need to twist the facts to make GZ seem more of a bad guy than he is; he's bad enough with the cold, hard facts merely stated outright w/o twisting.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)As I said, GZ was following Martin. Martin notices, is looking at GZ, then it seems Martin approaches/confronts GZ.
BASED ON WHAT? WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE OF THIS?
Links, and evidence at the links, would be helpful. Essential, in fact.
You are really making things up, which deserves no respect.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Drive away. Especially if you are in fear as alleged.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)He was armed and in his car.
Why engage with a pedestrian? He should have stayed his murdering ass in his car and called the police if he was so concerned.
He needs the book thrown at him.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)among many of the african american youth to be spot on but on this one I think he is wrong.
I have a concealed carry license and carry daily and the furthest thing from my mind is intentionally having any confrontation with anyone. They teach in the classes you have to avoid confrontation at all costs.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)That might be in his thoughts as he speaks of another unarmed black male minding his own business.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)
That was in the course of a robbery though.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)I just don't agree with them this time.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)that dosen't mean I WANT a confrontation or to kill someone as many who post here will say.
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)
NOLALady
(4,003 posts)concerning education, pregnancy and the culture among many of the white American youth?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Can you direct me towards some?
NOLALady
(4,003 posts)about many Black youth applies to many White youth in similar socioeconomic conditions. I am sure that he's aware of that. I have never understood why his comments weren't directed at youth.
I have not seen any comments by Bill about white youth. But, I know that his comments about some Black youth applies to some White youth as well.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)As you said, it all has to do with the socioeconomic conditions.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)you feel the need to carry daily?
I am a gun owner and when traveling long distances that require me to stay in a motel alone I have my gun with me but I can't imagine feeling the need to carry every day.
mainer
(12,038 posts)If you advocate responsible gun ownership (and yes, I do believe there are responsible gun owners, having one in my own family) I think you would want to point out that ZM is NOT like you. You'd use him, instead, as the worst example of a gun owner.
It would go a long way toward showing the public that gun owners have principles.
beemer27
(463 posts)I do not belong to the NRA ( I did in the past, and quit some time ago-that would be a different story). The problem was that Zimmerman was NOT supposed to be carrying a firearm while on watch. Anyone, in any state, who has a permit, is NOT supposed to confront anyone when there is no threat to human life. He broke the rules of both SYG and CCW. Zimmerman is a wannabe, who has gotten away with dumb acts in the past, and pushed too far this time. It blew up in his face, and he should answer for it. If he hires sharp lawyers, and keeps his mouth shut, there will probably be a "deal" cut to satisfy the protesters, and punish him. Don't expect much-his dad is a judge, and is probably giving him advice, and looking for a way out for his kid. You would try to help your kid too, even if he really screwed up like this yo-yo did.
This should not be a referendum on stand your ground laws. They really do not apply to this case. Many people are trying to push their agendas and personal opinions by clouding the waters with arguments about SYG. It is also not about CCW. Had Zimmerman obeyed the rules, the cops would have responded, asked Trayvon AND Zimmerman some questions, and sent everyone home. Zimmerman did NOT follow the rules of CCW or SYG. Neither of these should be used by his defense.
the antichristie
(34 posts)Not Neighborhood COP, not Neighborhood PURSUE, not Neighborhood SHOOT, not Neighborhood DIRTY HARRY.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And let them handle it. They are trained to do that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Though they can be wrong, you don't assume it.
PCIntern
(25,662 posts)maybe not...good post, however.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)BlueIris
(29,135 posts)This response is right on.