Your views on guns.

[garickman]

Originally Posted by camcojb

In California George did it by the book, at least as far as the shooting part if you believe Trayvon was on top of George and hitting his head on the ground. Here if an unarmed guy is attacking you, you cannot pull your gun and shoot him. Now if he has you on the ground and picks up a brick to smash your head in (or is pounding your head into the concrete) THEN you can draw your weapon and shoot. I guess they assume that because the guy is unarmed he won't knock you out before grabbing an object to smash you with........ You have to wait until the instant before he kills or mains you to pull the gun.

Now if you're 80 years old, or if he has a weapon of some sort all that changes. If you're a normal able-bodied person you have to take a few punches I guess and hope he quits or doesn't incapacitate you.

I am not so sure that George Zimmerman did it by the book because I don't have all the facts. I am pretty sure the police officers investigating this incident don't have all the facts either because one party is dead. I am not for or against George Zimmerman just as I am not for or against Trayvon Martin. It is very likely that Mr. Zimmerman approached this kid and simply asked him a question and Trayvon attacked him without provocation. If George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger than he was certainly justified in defending himself. However, with out knowing all the facts it is just as likely that Mr. Zimmerman approached Trayvon and asked him the same question while opening is jacket and displaying a firearm in his waistband. If that was the case than Trayvon Martin would have be justified in attacking George Zimmerman to prevent him from pulling a gun which he perceived as a threat to his life.

The only reason I reference this case in my previous post is because I believe this. As a private citizen of the United States you have the right to make a citizen's arrest when you believe a crime is being committed. As a private citizen, you have the right to arm yourself to effect that arrest. However, you do not have the right to stop random people you believe are "suspicious". When you confront people for no other reason except that they are "suspicious" bad things can happen and in the this case bad things did happen. The reason I say Mr. Zimmerman used his gun wrong is not because of the fact that he felt he was defending his life with it. It is because I believe he used is gun as tool to feed his courage. I could be 100% wrong, but my gut tells me that if Mr. Zimmerman was not carrying a gun he never would have approached Trayvon Martin, a person he described in his own words as "much bigger than him and intimidating looking".

You don't have to pull your gun out and brandish it or shoot it to be using it wrong. If you believe you are responsible enough to carry a firearm in public and you allow that firearm to give you the courage to confront a situation you would not confront with out it, then you are using it wrong.

[camcojb]

Originally Posted by garickman

I am not so sure that George Zimmerman did it by the book because I don't have all the facts. I am pretty sure the police officers investigating this incident don't have all the facts either because one party is dead. I am not for or against George Zimmerman just as I am not for or against Trayvon Martin. It is very likely that Mr. Zimmerman approached this kid and simply asked him a question and Trayvon attacked him without provocation. If George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger than he was certainly justified in defending himself. However, with out knowing all the facts it is just as likely that Mr. Zimmerman approached Trayvon and asked him the same question while opening is jacket and displaying a firearm in his waistband. If that was the case than Trayvon Martin would have be justified in attacking George Zimmerman to prevent him from pulling a gun which he perceived as a threat to his life.

The only reason I reference this case in my previous post is because I believe this. As a private citizen of the United States you have the right to make a citizen's arrest when you believe a crime is being committed. As a private citizen, you have the right to arm yourself to effect that arrest. However, you do not have the right to stop random people you believe are "suspicious". When you confront people for no other reason except that they are "suspicious" bad things can happen and in the this case bad things did happen. The reason I say Mr. Zimmerman used his gun wrong is not because of the fact that he felt he was defending his life with it. It is because I believe he used is gun as tool to feed his courage. I could be 100% wrong, but my gut tells me that if Mr. Zimmerman was not carrying a gun he never would have approached Trayvon Martin, a person he described in his own words as "much bigger than him and intimidating looking".

You don't have to pull your gun out and brandish it or shoot it to be using it wrong. If you believe you are responsible enough to carry a firearm in public and you allow that firearm to give you the courage to confront a situation you would not confront with out it, than you are using it wrong.

I am not (and don't want to) debating how that event played out. But most everyone believes the ending to be as I described, which is what I was referring to. In my state you'd have to wait to that point to pull your gun. How they got to that point is certainly up for debate.

[garickman]

Originally Posted by camcojb

I am not (and don't want to) debating how that event played out. But most everyone believes the ending to be as I described, which is what I was referring to. In my state you'd have to wait to that point to pull your gun. How they got to that point is certainly up for debate.

No debate from me Jody. But in the famous words of Tom Cruise "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove." And you have to give me some credit on the fact that I was able to implement a quote from A Few Good Men into this thread.