mnealtx 0
Recommended Posts
winsor 236
QuoteQuoteOnce the decision is made to shoot, you need to shoot to kill. Sometimes shooting people in non vital areas just agitates them and they then take you weapon and don't show you the same common courtesy you tried to show them.
I have to beg to differ here. The only legal and moral justification for shooting when attacked is to stop the attack, and the same is true if using lethal force to halt an attack on an innocent.
The difference is significant; the purpose is to incapacitate, not kill.
Yes, it may be most accurate to say to shoot to stop...but it becomes nearly a semmantical difference between that and shoot to kill, Two shots to center mass followed by (if attacker still progressing) one to the head is going to kill.
Semantics is the study of meaning, and the difference in meaning is significant.
If someone is still progressing after two body shots, one to the had is not necessarily going to halt the attack.
In one case, someone had a .25acp emptied into his face and went back to drinking; he only found out that he had been hit when his head hurt worse than usual the next day (tequila is wonderful stuff) and he had blood in his beard.
There is also the case of someone who had a .25acp emptied into him and beat the shooter to death before he died on the operating table.
The image of people getting shot and immediately crumpling is largely a product of Hollywood. Sure, it happens, but there are all too many cases of people walking to the Emergency Room with bullet holes in them.
I have heard of a Kodiak bear being killed by a "golden BB" .22LR into the optic nerve channel, and someone still standing after a solid body shot with a .44RM. Of course, I would bank on neither of these outcomes, but they happen.
The bottom line is that the sole purpose of using a firearm in self-defense is to stop an active (not incipient) attack, period. Intent matters, and to shoot to kill is strictly proscribed.
BSBD,
Winsor
AMax 0
QuoteQuote***
QuoteOne thing that confuses me, and in all the replies in this thread I don't think I've seen it, is why shoot to kill?
I realise the torso (where I believe M was shot) is the biggest target and while you're busy having your head hit on the pavement (if we're to believe the witnesses and Z) you might not take time to aim, but surely at that close range it'd be just as easy to go for an arm or leg shot which would have incapacitated M and avoided this controversy - assuming Z's story is correct and he didn't just kill the guy so that there was only one side of the story left to tell?
Once the decision is made to shoot, you need to shoot to kill. Sometimes shooting people in non vital areas just agitates them and they then take you weapon and don't show you the same common courtesy you tried to show them.
I wonder, what kind of combat experience do you have ? Have you ever seen people shot in limbs or other non vital areas from short distances ?
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Self-defense is still in play. SYG never was.Zimmerman was on his back,
>on the ground - there was nowhere to retreat
Sounds like we don't even need the jury; Mike has already determined the facts, which laws apply and the innocence of Zimmerman.
Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor - you've already created the scenario, which laws apply and the guilt of Zimmerman.
Irony score 10/10
Just go back and read your own posts to see who exactly has made up his mind about what happened.
Like where he states Zimmerman was chasing him with a gun?
Like where he states that Zimmerman said "time to die" to Martin?
Like where he *KEEPS* mis-stating the law even after the statutes have been quoted?
Since my comments are pretty well supported by information that is already in the public domain, how about you provide the evidence supporting bill's version, first.
NOPE. You are *ass-uming* information in the public domain to be the same as evidence. It isn't. Your BIAS comes through with every post you make.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Self-defense is still in play. SYG never was.Zimmerman was on his back,
>on the ground - there was nowhere to retreat
Sounds like we don't even need the jury; Mike has already determined the facts, which laws apply and the innocence of Zimmerman.
Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor - you've already created the scenario, which laws apply and the guilt of Zimmerman.
Irony score 10/10
Just go back and read your own posts to see who exactly has made up his mind about what happened.
Like where he states Zimmerman was chasing him with a gun?
Like where he states that Zimmerman said "time to die" to Martin?
Like where he *KEEPS* mis-stating the law even after the statutes have been quoted?
Since my comments are pretty well supported by information that is already in the public domain, how about you provide the evidence supporting bill's version, first.
NOPE. You are *ass-uming* information in the public domain to be the same as evidence. It isn't.
While Bill makes his up out of thin air.
QuoteYour BIAS comes through with every post you make.
It does - I'm biased against thugs and criminals. If you're trying to claim a race issue, I'll remind you that it was YOU that made a statement connecting abortions with reduced crime rates, so I'll thank you to kindly stop projecting YOUR prejudices onto me.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Give it up Mike.
The people you are telling are not listening. They have their own little story made up and statements from participants and witnesses are not getting through to them.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Have you noticed that some seem to know more about what happened than the participants, the witnesses AND the police know?
And then there's the "what-if" people who dream up all sorts of off the wall stuff and eventually start believing it themselves.
And then there's the naysayers who know nothing at all and who cannot believe anything at all but sure seem to be very vocal about it.
You're being led around by the bozos.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think it was aliens. Little green men made up by Spielberg and Lucas to promote their next movies.
Hey! Why not? It's just as likely as some of the "scenarios" presented in this thread?
Hey! Why not? It's just as likely as some of the "scenarios" presented in this thread?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
devildog 0
QuoteI think it was aliens. Little green men made up by Spielberg and Lucas to promote their next movies.
Hey! Why not? It's just as likely as some of the "scenarios" presented in this thread?
http://tinyurl.com/7cz3bjc ?
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Your BIAS comes through with every post you make.
Well, cut him a little slack. He's still angry that even with his point by point explanations of exactly what happened and why Zimmerman is the victim of an evil teenager bent on violence, the prosecutor didn't go with his story. Stupid justice system.
Well, cut him a little slack. He's still angry that even with his point by point explanations of exactly what happened and why Zimmerman is the victim of an evil teenager bent on violence, the prosecutor didn't go with his story. Stupid justice system.
Quote>Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor . . .
Why? She did her job.
well, we won't know that for some period of time. Since she did not state her rationale, we don't know if she punted due to laziness or political considerations, or because of her analysis of the complete body of evidence.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote>Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor . . .
Why? She did her job.
well, we won't know that for some period of time. Since she did not state her rationale, we don't know if she punted due to laziness or political considerations, or because of her analysis of the complete body of evidence.
I'd say we do know
She stated in her press conference that she wanted justice for Martin
That seems to show a clear bias
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Zach 0
QuoteQuoteQuote>Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor . . .
Why? She did her job.
well, we won't know that for some period of time. Since she did not state her rationale, we don't know if she punted due to laziness or political considerations, or because of her analysis of the complete body of evidence.
I'd say we do know
She stated in her press conference that she wanted justice for Martin
That seems to show a clear bias
Isn't her job to win the case?
Zach
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuote>Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor . . .
Why? She did her job.
well, we won't know that for some period of time. Since she did not state her rationale, we don't know if she punted due to laziness or political considerations, or because of her analysis of the complete body of evidence.
I'd say we do know
She stated in her press conference that she wanted justice for Martin
That seems to show a clear bias
No, that statement of yours shows YOUR clear bias.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,991
>She stated in her press conference that she wanted justice for Martin
>That seems to show a clear bias
You're right. Wanting justice for someone demonstrates a clear anti-conservative bias.
>That seems to show a clear bias
You're right. Wanting justice for someone demonstrates a clear anti-conservative bias.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Guess they should have made you the special prosecutor . . .
Why? She did her job.
well, we won't know that for some period of time. Since she did not state her rationale, we don't know if she punted due to laziness or political considerations, or because of her analysis of the complete body of evidence.
I'd say we do know
She stated in her press conference that she wanted justice for Martin
That seems to show a clear bias
Isn't her job to win the case?
Zach
That's her job now. But her first job was to determine 1) if a crime had been committed and 2) if she can prove it successfully to a jury.
Based on the publicly available evidence, I find both aspects unmet. But since we've been fed a lot of bullshit by media sources to promote both sides, she may well have better, more conclusive material to make the case. I read a tiny blurb today where her office asserts that GZ was profiling the kid, though you can't read any detail out of an elevator news crawl.
wlsc 0
...The affidavit statement of facts presented in yesterday’s hearing conflicts with Zimmerman’s claim that Trayvon Martin attacked him as he was returning to his vehicle. It states:
Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.
And:
Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn’t know why. Martin attempted to run home but was followed by Zimmerman who didn’t want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.
Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.
Also:
Trayvon Martin’s mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin’s voice...
Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.
And:
Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn’t know why. Martin attempted to run home but was followed by Zimmerman who didn’t want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.
Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.
Also:
Trayvon Martin’s mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin’s voice...
Quote
Trayvon Martin’s mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin’s voice...
there's evidence....snort.
That's like asking her to identify the killer out of a lineup of GZ and TM.
kallend 2,027
Quote
Based on the publicly available evidence...
Evidence? Publicly available CLAIMS, more like.
What is actual, hard, admissible evidence remains to be seen.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
wlsc 0
QuoteQuote
Trayvon Martin’s mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin’s voice...
there's evidence....snort.
That's like asking her to identify the killer out of a lineup of GZ and TM.
So she doesn't know the sound of her own son? You think she's lying.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites