A loudmouth female police cadet, Trayvon Martin, and the “Knockout Game”
In one of the police academies I attended we watched a video of a police shooting. Two officers in two patrol cars were on a traffic stop and tried to arrest a passenger who had given them a fake name. The passenger started swinging, punched both officers and knocked them to the ground, then ran toward the second patrol car. One of the officers shot him.
Several cadets expressed outrage at the shooting. I had already been a cop for a few years, and had a different view. I argued that the cadets should look at the incident from the officers’ perspective. The officers were making a lawful arrest, they had both been assaulted and beaten badly, and may have thought the suspect was running toward the second patrol car to retrieve a weapon. At that point, a few years into my career, I had already been knocked silly a couple of times, and I knew those officers probably had their bells rung and could have honestly believed they were in life-threatening danger. I didn’t argue that the officers were definitely right, just that the situation may have been more complex than the inexperienced cadets thought.
One female cadet blurted, “Just because you were already a cop, you think that whatever cops do is right!”
I groaned quietly. “No. I’m saying the officers got the crap beat out of them and may have thought the suspect was about to get one of their shotguns and shoot them.” Then I asked, “Have you ever been in a fight?”
“I’ve been in lots of fights!” she exclaimed. “I’ve been in fights at school and at clubs, I know what it’s like to get in a fight. Those cops had no reason to shoot that guy. All he did was hit them.”
The instructor shut our conversation down. I didn’t bring it up again. Until several months later, after the female cadet learned a hard lesson.
Toward the end of the academy we went through a very difficult training exercise. We had to run around the academy building, run up and down stairs several times, drag a dummy and a few other things, then get into a ring and fight an instructor for several minutes. The instructor was all padded up, and all we had was a soft foam baton and fake pistol. Most of the cadets got into the ring totally worn out, then got worked over by the instructor.
I was standing outside the ring when the female cadet went through. The instructor she faced was a very strong, female workout fanatic. The cadet ran into the ring panting and sweating, faced the instructor and yelled, “You’re under arrest! Turn around and put your hands behind your back!”
Without a word, the instructor threw a blindingly fast punch and nailed the cadet right between the eyes.
The cadet slammed onto her back. Her eyes were wide open and staring straight up, her mouth hanging slack. She was totally dazed from the blow. You could almost see the birds and stars swirling around her head.
Everyone screamed at her to get up. She eventually did, and did her best to put up a defense. But the fight was pretty much over after the first hit.
After the exercise, I casually said to the cadet, “So, I thought you had been in a lot of fights.”
She answered, “Yeah, but not like that! I was in girl fights. All we did was scratch each other and pull hair. That instructor hit me like a man.”
As I said, she learned an important lesson that day. If that instructor hadn’t knocked the crap out of her, she might have hit the street not knowing that one punch can completely disable someone. The cadet went on to become a very good officer.
During the uproar over the Trayvon Martin court case, I heard a lot of intelligent, educated people comment that “All Trayvon did was hit Zimmerman. That’s no reason to shoot someone.” And I saw in them the same ignorance of reality that the instructor had beaten out of the female cadet.
The people who made those comments have probably never been in a real fight. But, like the cadet, they think they have. They maybe had a few schoolyard scuffles, where neither side was trying to kill the other. They threw a few punches and kicks, without intending to really hurt their opponent, and their opponent landed a few blows without really hurting them. Worst case, someone got a bloody nose, or split lip. Maybe these people only watched others fight, and were never in one themselves.
But no matter. Even though their mental concept of a fight is two five year olds slapping each other under the monkey bars, they still believe their narrow experience with “fighting” makes them qualified to dictate when we’re allowed to use a gun to defend ourselves from someone who’s “only” throwing punches. They don’t seem to notice that no UFC or MMA fighters, people with real, actual fighting experience, are proclaiming “Your life can’t be in danger from being punched.”
Well, here’s some reality for those who think it’s always wrong to shoot an unarmed person, or who can’t fathom how George Zimmerman could have possibly been justified in shooting Trayvon Martin.
Last year an El Paso, Texas police officer was beaten to death by an unarmed 17 year old. The teenager punched the officer, knocked him backward onto the concrete, then straddled him and beat him severely. The officer never regained consciousness and died nine days later. He was a 29 year old Marine Corps veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/tablehome/ci_21708260/el-paso-police-officer-dies-from-sept-25
A few days ago an off-duty NYPD officer was knocked out with one punch. His attacker then repeatedly punched and kicked him while he was unconscious and helpless, and also slammed the back of his head into the concrete. The officer is currently in a medically-induced coma.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/off-duty-savagely-beaten-ozone-park-article-1.1519988
Here’s the video of the attack on the NYPD officer. Please watch the whole thing.
Unarmed teenagers playing the “Knockout Game”, which has suddenly become a subject of nationwide outrage, have killed at least three people.
Watch the video on the link. Tell me that none of those victims were in danger of dying from those attacks. If you can watch that innocent, unsuspecting woman get knocked unconscious at the 2:00 mark and say, “But the person who hit her was unarmed and therefore no danger to her,” you’re worse than “ignorant”. You’re willfully blind to an obvious truth.
“Knockout Game” victim Matt Quain
Incidents like the ones listed above should push good, decent people to not only arm themselves but to also be constantly vigilant and situationally aware. In the two incidents involving police officers, I don’t know if they were armed. As strange as it is to me, some cops don’t carry off duty. If these two officers were armed, they didn’t maintain distance and escalate their use of force (draw their weapon) when it was reasonable and prudent to do so.
Carrying a gun doesn’t make anyone invincible, and should never be anyone’s sole means of defense. But possession of a concealed pistol, coupled with good situational awareness and will to act, can be what protects you from being beaten to death by an unarmed thug. I carry a weapon so I’m capable of responding to several different types of threats: street criminals with guns or knives, terrorist mall attacks, active shooters. And unarmed thugs capable of killing innocent people with their bare hands.
No, shooting an unarmed person who threatens to hit you shouldn’t be your default response. But very often it is the right thing to do.
If you watched those videos and still feel that it’s always wrong to shoot an unarmed person, or that George Zimmerman, moron though he may be, could not possibly have been justified in shooting Trayvon Martin, I have a request for you. Put down your latte, step out of your insulated little academic/theoretical cocoon, walk into the real world and start a fight with the first street thug you see. After you awaken from your brutal beating, if you still believe deadly force against an unarmed person is never justified, then by all means don’t carry a gun.
Guys like me, on the other hand, will continue to carry our guns. And if we’re someday confronted by an unarmed scumbag who looks like he could beat us to death, or if we spot the signs that we’re about to become a playtoy for the “Knockout Game”, we’re going to draw, aim, and engage as necessary. Because we’re not clueless idealists who know nothing about real life and real danger.
Available in print and as an ebook from Amazon.com and Tactical16.com. Available electronically from iTunes/iBooks and Barnesandnoble.com.
Filed under: Writing | 259 Comments
Tags: george zimmerman, knockout game, trayvon martin, veteran writers
Very well said, Chris. Keep’em coming!
Thank you Scott, I appreciate that.
Amazing article. Thank you SO much for writing this. I am a 5′ 8″, 120lb female who lives alone in the city, you better believe that I conceal carry! I have over a decade of martial arts and boxing training, but me against a 6′, 200lb guy or even just multiple guys of smaller stature, odds are in not in my favor for hand-on-hand combat.
Audrey,
I’m also a little guy, 5’7″ and about 160. I’ve had some BJJ training on and off over the years, plus a lot of firearms training and experience, and a little knife training. I still know that I’m likely to be on the defensive against someone large, strong and aggressive. I just don’t see how anyone can think the 6’2″, 200 pound guy you’re talking about can’t be a lethal threat, whether he’s armed or not. Thanks for commenting, keep training and stay safe.
Very succinct and logical response to something I’ve been trying to explain to ignorant “fobbits” here at work who live and work in climate controlled spaces of comfort and have no clue about real danger or health.
The thing you forget to mention in the article is that Zimmerman asked for the fight. He wasn’t blindly going into a situation where he couldn’t defend himself. George Zimmerman started a fight , realized he couldn’t handle himself in that fight, so he killed his opponent. When he could have avoided it from the beginning . No one doubts he was getting his ass whooped, but injustice wasn’t served
Zimmerman is a wannabe policeman, but he definitely did not ask for the fight. If you watched the trial, Trayvon Martin could have went home, but doubled back to attack Zimmerman. Trayvon threw the first punch. There is absolutely nothing wrong with watching your neighborhood. When I was growing up, citizens used to come outside to watch us if our group of friends were walking around the neighborhood. I had long hair, and didn’t understand at the time why people were suspicious of us. I never used drugs or Purple Drank, I was an A student and never was arrested. It didn’t matter, homeowners were watching out for their own no matter who it was. I don’t fault Zimmerman one bit for keeping an eye on a stranger. Martins dad didn’t even live in the community, he was ‘staying’ with a girlfriend. I understand that it’s a different culture and some people aren’t used to concerned homeowners in areas where gangs control the streets and homeowners are scared to go out. Some cultures it’s considered a threat if someone is watching you, but in normal society, it’s expected. When I was younger I knew I looked like I was up to no good, my parents even told me that I’d be watched more than a kid in a polo shirt with khakis, but my dad didn’t have a “Crippin all the time” tattoo on his neck which was covered up by praying hands on advice from his lawyer. If Martin grew up in a culture where homeowners normally kept an eye on the neighborhood, he would have expected to be watched, but instead he felt “disrespected” and had to settle up
Interesting perspective, thanks Michael.
were you there Brent??? You are just another ignorant ,self righteous idiot…
Ignorant self righteous idiot? This coming from a person who couldn’t even put their thoughts into an intelligent response? Instead you verbally attack someone on the basis that you disagree with their point of view. Clearly, the ignorant one here is you, Maggie.
Erick 1, maggie ZERO.
Maggie is an liberal idiot.
Brent,
Without getting too much into an argument about justice, I’ll say that I don’t agree with all of your comment. However, my post didn’t claim justice was served. All I pointed out was that GZ could have been in danger of being killed when TM was beating him.
Sir
There’s no evidence presented that Mr. Zimmerman started a fight with Mr. Martin. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.
He was walking back to his truck when Trayvon jumped him. How is that picking a fight. Your ignorance is showing.
Very intelligent article. I’m going to share this in hopes that people read with an open mind and learn something. I’m also impressed that, with the exception of a few ignorant remarks, the replies to this article were intelligent, well-thought out, respectful, and interesting.
Got nailed on the forehead, wearing a boxing helmet (!), sparring with a friend. Stayed up, but got the slows, instantly. Glad I was among friends, because he could have taken me apart after that. I never have forgotten it.
I wrote about being in a fight with a suspect who had just punched another officer in the temple. The other officer was completely out of it for about 30 seconds. Had he been alone, he could have been disarmed and/or beaten to death.
When I was fifteen — *fifteen* mind you, not a slight fifteen but not particularly big, either, I probably weight about 150 @ 5’10” or thereabouts at the time. — I was in an alleyway at my high school. This guy, about the same size as me, decided he wanted to start a fight, so he was standing in my way preventing me from getting to class. I could not go around, the space was too narrow and he moved as I did if I tried to get past.
I stood there for a moment, realized there was going to be a fight no matter what, so I just swung at him. One pop, to the face.
To my intense surprise, he fell right to his hands and knees. I stood there for a moment, waiting for the fight to continue (it wasn’t a situation where I felt sufficient danger as to need to kick him while he was down). A classmate who was watching grabbed my arm and pulled me along to class. For once I did not get into any trouble for fighting. I saw him about two weeks later and he was still sporting a decently visible black eye. I bumped into him a couple years after high school, and it was… interesting. No anger, just respect.
One of the stupidest things you see in fights in movies is to grab the downed opponent by the collar, lift them towards you, and THEN punch. No, you leave them on the ground and hit them there — this denies the head any recoil, so it takes the FULL FORCE of the blow. This is why that situation — exactly the one Zimmerman was in — is so dangerous. The chances of a severe, even life-threatening, concussion is vastly greater. If Trayvon hadn’t been a complete lightweight with no real understanding of fighting and how to put your WEIGHT behind a blow, then Zimmerman would already have been out of the fight and unable to shoot him. Zimmerman could not risk him correcting that error.
As someone who has been in Martin’s situation — in a fight, on top of someone — I fully grasp how difficult it is to stop when your blood gets up — you’re NOT thinking rationally, “I’ve beaten him, I can slack off” — you’re in full fight mode, and the frontal cortex is NOT in charge. But the actions of others around the fight would have made the difference that night — the neighbors and others who just “called the cops” and didn’t pull Martin off of Zimmerman — those are the ones who, if anyone, caused Martin’s death — or would have likely caused Zimmerman’s if he had not shot Martin. Mind you, I’m not blaming them, I’m just saying that leaving it to the police is and will always be a problem. The police are there as much to record the facts for the courts so they can assess blame and lay reparations on the heirs of someone. They are often too late to actually do anything direct regarding the event they were called about.
Well done, Sir. I do not get the ones that say they were just going to steal your money, you should not use deadly force – if they want me at their mercy better disable me first.
e of the stupidest things you see in fights in movies is to grab the downed opponent by the collar, lift them towards you, and THEN punch. No, you leave them on the ground and hit them there — this denies the head any recoil, so it takes the FULL FORCE of the blow. This is why that situation — exactly the one Zimmerman was in — is so dangerous. The chances of a severe, even life-threatening, concussion is vastly greater. If Trayvon
Not true.
A concussion is caused by the brain bouncing off of the inside of the skull… if the head does not move then the chances of a concussion are much less. The first of the blow will go into disfiguring but it will not go to the brain. The force of the blow will be localized to the impact area will not transfer to the brain unless of course the impact area is compromised and crushed which is possible but not likely with a fist.
Though his reasoning may be false, the theory is true. A “ground and pound” scenario is far more likely to cause a concussion only because the jogging of the brain is more pronounced. Think about it like this, the sudden change of motion is what causes concussions. You punch someone who is on the ground, and their head will move back, hit the ground, and recoil. For every hit, there are now two major changes in motion, and thus, more likely to cause a concussion.
im not sure about concussion cause by blows, but what i do know is that u never want the back of your head on the ground when someone is hitting you. But i disagree about Zimmerman, the way he describes the situation of being mounted & punched, then having the magic ability to draw his weapon and accurately shoot is unlikely at best, most likely a straight up lie. police maintain a distance for a reason, to give them time to draw, aim and fire. If the person is on top how would one get access to the weapon let alone shoot accurately? outside of this i agree with the article and i would encourage all law enforcement officers to train regularly in martial arts (not bullshido ones) so u know how to defend your self and remain calm in a stressful situation. For everyone else remember what Chris said “be constantly vigilant and situationally aware”
Excellent piece as always Chris! Already shared, hopefully people will read and understand
Thank you Scot, hope your friends also enjoyed it.
word.
Sheepdogs for Life!
we don’t choose the fight, but we know the end game.
We’ve definitely seen what happens when someone can’t defend themselves against a beat down, that’s for sure.
Thanks for calling George Zimmermann a moron. BTW, it’s not politically correct to call someone a moron. Oh, well.
It’s politically correct to call someone any bad name you can think of, I’m pretty sure.
Oh good!
That’s only if you’re a liberal.
If you’re not, it’s politically incorrect to THINK of a bad name, or to LOOK like you’re thinking of a bad name, or to be SUSPECTED of thinking of a bad name.
Because then you’re guilty guilty guilty of, oh, racism, sexism, homophobia, and pretty much every other form of improper discrimination which Liberals feel like applying to their opposition.
*rolls eyes
People loooooove throwing around derogatory names for political affiliations. I’m pretty sure Liberals don’t get a pass for being racist, sexist, or homophobic.
N8,
I’d have to disagree with you a bit. Daniel Tosh made a “joke” at a concert, pointing at a female heckler and saying “Wouldn’t it be funny of like five guys raped her right now?”
Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made numerous anti-Jewish comments. Sharpton has also made anti-gay slurs.
Donna Brazile criticized a black man for marrying a white woman. Spike Lee has talked about his dislike of mixed race couples.
Yes, they’ve all gotten a pass.
During the trial he didn’t seem like too bad of a guy, but lately he seems to have embraced full dumbassity.
He had that shady lawyer who does controversial cases like his, pretty sure that guy was coaching him well on how to present himself during the trial.
I find myself in agreement with the left more often than the right these days on most things, but that problem you identified, “limited experience of reality but delusions of expertise,” which is so widespread among leftists, is why actually calling myself a leftist makes my stomach turn, and why I’d call myself a Progressive Republican a la Teddy Roosevelt, not a Democrat and not a Socialist.
I am pro-gun and in support of people’s rights to defend themselves; what’s disappointing is that the left as a whole was once fairly pro-gun, the unions especially. They had it right once, and lost their way. The left is supposed to be about ensuring the welfare of each and every person; how does stripping the common man (and woman) of the ability to defend themselves serve this goal? And what is particularly short-sighted is that the left wants us to leave more of our safety in the hands of the police, but then relentlessly attacks police forces and decries our fascist police-state.
I find this problem spills over into the sphere of the military especially; the left has big ideas about changing it, but there’s very little military experience or expertise to be found among the ideologues who draft those ideas.
The military is probably the most socialist institution America has right now. Leftists should not be distancing themselves from it, or from those who’ve served. Millions of Americans employed, housed, fed, clothed, educated, trained, and directed by the government. Government-sponsored healthcare, retirement, and family services. Our military is our country’s largest affirmative action program: it’s put more poor blacks and Hispanics, and yes, poor white people too, through college than anything else in our country’s history.
Too many leftists don’t care to learn and don’t make the effort to educate themselves on the military before advocating for major changes. They have a good time looking down on the conservative rank-and-file chanting dumb slogans like “USA! USA! USA!” but they’re tone-deaf as to the stupidity of their own chants.
“War is bad!” is what a lot of them amount to. Wow, you think no one else realized that? “Stop the military-industrial complex!” How, my friend? Vote for Obama, Clinton, whoever the Dems run? That doesn’t work, and we know it. And then there’s just drivel like “Abolish NATO!” and “Drones are evil!” and “Close all overseas military bases!”
They can see outlines of problems, but never the details necessary to solve those problems, since they don’t bother to learn. They know we spend far too much on our military, but they don’t learn enough to understand systematic defects, like our absolutely broken procurement system, which is simultaneously delivering us fiascos with the F-35, the LCS, the Zumwalt, the Gerald Fords, and a range of other miscarriages and boondoggles. Our country could still have a powerhouse military on two-thirds of its current budget, maybe even one half of it, but they don’t understand how.
Likewise, they recognize that the war in Iraq was a very bad idea, that the war in Afghanistan hasn’t gone as well as we hoped, that going to war in Syria would have been a bad idea, but they fail to understand the geopolitical factors that keep getting us into ill-conceived wars. They know our unconditional support of Israel is one of the main problems, but they don’t have a vision for what our new international stance should be.
I only hope that some day, those on the left who do care to listen to what reality and the people who’ve experienced it have to say will be calling the shots, not the ones who don’t.
Vendetta,
I’m in agreement with almost everything you just said. Well stated, and very insightful. Thank you for commenting.
}}} The left is supposed to be about ensuring the welfare of each and every person;
You’re confusing Classical Liberalism with the modern Left, which is PostModern Liberalism. Since at least the 30s, and probably the late 20s, Liberalism has been mutating into a societal cancer, with its sole goal the destruction of Western Civilization, especially its unique inheritance of Classical Greek thought merged with the ideal of Christian tolerance (yes, I know, many Christians FAIL on this, even badly. This does NOT damn the **ideal**).
Seriously — Deconstructionism, Moral Relativism, “Truth is in the Eye of the Beholder” — these are pernicious memes and destructive of everything that has made Western civilization, and, through it, all humanity — capable of so much more than being mere animals, by rejecting their underlying principles.
The sooner people grasp that Postmodern Liberalism is nothing less than evil, the better off humanity will be.
Let’s get real here for a minute, Bupkis. Postmodern liberalism as you call it is trying to erase and recreate America’s traditional culture; that’s not wrong.
What I find dubious is that idea that there’s some single grand Western Civilization that’s been going on since the time of the ancient Greeks and the early Christians that today’s liberals are out to annihilate.
There isn’t, I’ll just tell you that. The ancient Greeks are not the “forefathers of America” you might imagine them to be. They were a culture that would be completely alien to you if you actually saw them. And in many ways, the Greeks were a primitive bunch of hicks, even by the standards of their own time. The great Athenian democracy was a corrupt oligarchy that gave a say in government to only a wealthy minority of its citizens, and the Athenians owned huge numbers of slaves.
The Persians, who get a bad rap as tyrants, were the ones who established religious tolerance and officially abolished slavery. Neither of those are traditions we got from the Greeks.
If you want to argue this further, tell me exactly what pillars of Western civilization are under assault right now.
The left of today has in many ways become misdirected or just plain stupid, but not everything they stand for, or once stood for, is wrong.
I am a patriot, I am a progressive, I am a pragmatist. I believe in strengthening our country, in improving the lives of as many people as possible, and in finding solutions that will be effective even if not everyone enjoys them. These are all the things the left needs to be; its problem has been losing sight of #1 and #3 in pursuit of #2.
Vendetta, I really appreciate your positions. They mirror my own… though I’ve never been able to adequately articulate those positions as well as you have. Thank you!
I think that you are identifying with Classical Liberalism that was represented by Thomas Jefferson and not the current Socialist/Marxist agenda.
I identify myself a Constitutionalist with Libertarian ideals. I don’t think that debate belongs here even though I would love to engage in such a debate. If you have another web page that would fit such and argument post it and we can argue the fake Left/Right paradigm that has most of the Country confused and lost due to listening to liars and cheats from every direction, because even though I don’t agree with everything you said, I do like the way that you explained your take on it.
Send me an email at [email protected] if you want to have some discussion and debate, I’d be happy to answer.
I’m curios why you feel someone/anyone/everyone has to be politically correct, especially on their own website?
One of the many problems this country has is that everyone is trying to soften things up so as not to hurt anyone’s feelings. This is idiotic.The last i chekced, the Constitution doesnt protect anyones feelings. Life isn’t fair, nor easy. The sooner people realize this, the better they are in a position to cope with it, and be successful. Expecting others to treat you in a specific manner does nothing but weaken you, and empower them.
I was just joking about being PC. Just kidding… BTW, I’m from a different country with different problems and a much younger constitution so I don’t feel competent enough to comment on the other things you said. Except the bit about life not being fair – you’re right about that!
Ah, my misunderstanding then. I did not see that as sarcasm. My apologies :)
Fuck political correctness.
As you may know, Australia does not have Concealed Carry laws. One of the less intelligent arguments against it is that “If I carry a gun, a criminal might take it from me and kill me…” The counter is always the same… “If a criminal can take a gun away from you, he does not NEED it to kill you.”
Over 80% of the murders in this country are committed with wepons other than guns. More homicides are committed with bare hands than with guns, but still they ignoranti focus on guns…
I live in hope. We have just seen our first Libertarian, openly pro-gun Senator elected… But I don’t expect to see major improvements in my lifetime.
Peter
That’s not correct PeterW,
Murder Victims by Weapon
Total: 12,664
Total firearms: 8,583
Handguns: 6,220
Rifles: 323
Shotguns: 356
Other guns: 97
Knives: 1,694
Blunt objects: 496
hands, fists,
feet, etc.: 728
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Travis…..
A.U.S.T.R.A.L.I.A is not part of the US…. mate.
Do I have to explain further?
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
Sheesh!………. Peter
Travis,
Hey man, simple mistake. But you had me wondering why the FBI keeps tabs on Australian crime stats…
Chris, the FBI keeps crime stats on almost all countries, certainly our allies. Among other things, they use the stas as part of their behavioral sciences.
Thank you for posting this wonderful article!
Yeah, Grulks, but Travis wasn’t quoting Aussie stats, he was quoting US stats.
One thing to look at is the Canadian stats, in which “baseball bat” is a major weapon used.
Funny how the anti-gunners always focus on spree killers, as though they were a major part of homicides, anyway. And also how they ignore violent crimes, which the US is not even in the top 25, per capita, while the UK is at the top of all the “modernized” nations.
Seems to me that getting raped, at the least, is in the same league as getting murdered, and, in the UK, there were 15,500 cases that were reported to the police (presumably not all “violent” rape where a gun might have made the difference, but that excludes another 45k-60k that don’t get reported to the police for various reasons, which include a balance of ones where it may have).
So how many of those might have been prevented by a woman with a gun?
“Funny how the anti-gunners always focus on spree killers, as though they were a major part of homicides, anyway. And also how they ignore violent crimes, which the US is not even in the top 25, per capita, while the UK is at the top of all the “modernized” nations.”
The focus on spree-killers pretends that it is somehow less tragic if the same number of people are killed one by one. The focus on guns pretends that it is somehow less tragic if someone is killed with a knife, a blunt instrument, or with bare hands. I doubt that it is much relief to the victim or their family.
The issue with rapes is the same as the point I made about guns…. if a criminal can rape you, he can kill you. He Does… Not… Need… a gun to do so.
By focussing on guns, the controllers demonstrate that they are not concerned with safety, nor for the victim….. Bu, for them, seeming is more important than doing.
Bupkis,
The UK has the highest rates because they include ALL assaults and ALL sexual assaults in their violent crime statistics. Slap a chick’s ass at a bar? Violent crime. Punch someone? Violent crime.
In the US, the FBI UCR stats only reflect aggravated assault and forcible rape as violent crimes. If you strip the UK stats of misdemeanor offenses in the US, their crime rates per capita plummet.
Sorry, I should clarify. The FBI UCR doesn’t include simple assaults or sexual battery in their violent crime statistics.
My prior post makes it sound like the FBI only tracks two types of violent crimes when they actually track murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, and robbery as violent crimes.
If you strip the non-aggravated assaults and the non-forcible rape stats from the UK (in order to do an accurate apples to apples comparison) there are almost half as many violent crimes per capita in the UK compared to the US.
Doh! I was reading it on my phone at lunch and missed that.
No worries…. I know what that is like.
Cheers…. Peter
Peter,
Hey brother, you can always move to west Texas. The temperature and terrain are about the same as Australia. :)
Chris….
If there was a way to pick up and move 1800 acres, 300 sheep and a dozen dogs,,,, yeah, I just might head across. :D
Make that Three THOUSAND sheep. I am not a damned hobby-farmer.
Peter,
I remember in college, a professor asked me if I’d still believe in the right to carry a weapon even if we could guarantee that criminals would be unarmed. I said yes. A female classmate made the snarky comment, “If a criminal doesn’t have a gun, how could you possibly need one?” This girl was about five feet tall and 100 pounds, our professor was about 6’2″ and 250 pounds. I answered, “What the hell do you think you’re going to do if someone his size attacks you?” She didn’t have an answer.
I’m very confused by this post. Australia has banned firearms and you are pointing out that most murders in Australia aren’t a result of firearms? Doesn’t that mean that the firearms laws work?
ircpheonix
“I’m very confused by this post. Australia has banned firearms and you are pointing out that most murders in Australia aren’t a result of firearms? Doesn’t that mean that the firearms laws work?”
As I have two safes full of long-arms – all fully registered – I have to suggest that you have been misinformed.
The situation is as follows.
– All firearms must be registered.
– Handguns may only be owned by those with an appropraite licence, the qualification for which is active membership of a target-shooting club. Ownership for self-defence is not permiited. Ownership for hunting is not permitted.
– Semi-auto centrefire rifle may only be owned by licenced vertebrate pest controllers. Even though I own 1800 acres with some of the aforementioned pests, I don’t qualify.
– Semi-auto rimfires, semi-auto shotguns and pump-action shotguns may be owned by landholders. As a landholder, I cannot take my 10/22 to a range or to another landowner’s property in case I commit a massacre on the way…. go figure….
– Your average shooter/hunter may own your typical lever, bolt, single-shot or break-action rifles and shotguns. Qualification includes a clean criminal record, character references, a test on safety and the knowledge of the law and a “genuine reason”, such as membership of a club and/or permission from a landowner to shoot pests.
With me so far?
Now for whether they work.
Firstly , I have not and never will argue that murders are a “result” of firearms. Murders are a result of criminals, and – as Australia shows – criminals are deeply inventive when it comes to finding ways to commit murder.
If you think that the use of methods other than firearms – by criminals who neither bother to get licences nor register guns – to commit murder is a valid benefit of gun-control, then you have to explain to me this… “HOW IS SOMEONE KILLED WITH A KNIFE OR BLUNT INSTRUMENT LESS DEAD THAT SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN SHOT?” Why is it less tragic, and how much comfort can the victim’s family take?
What you need to know is that the current restrictions were brought into force in 1996. Prior to that, some states in Australia had very few restrictions on firearm ownership, yet homicide rates were still very low. Major studies comparing homicide rates before and after the introduction of these restriction have shown no change in the long term trends. Our homicide rate had entered into a gradually declining trend well before 1996 and any variation in that decline due to changes in gun laws has been statistically undetectable.
I will say it again….. NO DETECTABLE CHANGE in response to the abuse of the democratic process, the introduction of a large and expensive bureaucracy and the diversion of a huge amount of police time and resources into policing the people who aren’t the problem.
Get my point?…….. Peter
Peter,
As a reader of Chris’s blog, i just want to say thank you for taking the time to explain to us the intricacies of Aussie law pertaining to guns. It’s extremely helpful, especially in our country when people (anti-gunners) like to use you guys as an example of why guns should be *banned*.
Cheers
excellent comment Peter and thank you for the knowledge about guns in Australia . Very helpful and above all makes great sense which seems to be lost on some now a days .
http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/455.abstract
Semper Fi! Well said.
Semper Fi Al, thanks.
Great article!!
Thanks Angela. I was almost embarrassed to publish it, though. It’s so obvious nobody should have to point it out.
Chris,
There is a certain (ever growing) slice of our population that this is NOT obvious to. You, being who you are, are in a position that some of those people might listen to where they wouldn’t listen to those of us who they don’t see as “experts” (face it, I’m a computer programmer, basically a nerd. We are not known for our clear understanding of violence outside of a game console).
I know a number of people like the ones in the article who won’t look beyond Martin’s color and the fact that he was “unarmed” (never mind he did have arms… with fists on the end of them). For a few, your words might show them the light of understanding.
For the rest of us (who aren’t as articulate) you provide the service of organizing the argument for when we must engage the uninformed (not that most of them will listen anyway).
Thanks.
s
Hey, thank you, Stuart. Personally, I’d say you’re also pretty articulate too, so please feel free to speak out.
I had two stock replies when someone would claim Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin was unjustified because the latter was unarmed.
1) Incorrect. Martin was in the process of bashing Zimmerman’s head in with a 6 sextillion ton rock.
2) Irrelevant. There is a reason the English language contains the phrase “beat to death.”
Jeff,
I think I’m going to steal number 1. Thanks for commenting. :)
I can count the number of times I hear or read this level of common sense in the media, even from the conservative talking heads, on my thumbs.
This should be the front page editorial in WSJ the next time there’s another Trayvon-style civilian or officer-involved “unarmed suspect” shooting.
Aesop,
You wouldn’t happen to have any contacts at the WSJ, would you?
You want people to look at it from Zimmerman’s point of view, and believe me, I have. And I have been in many a fight, have also deployed, and am an instructor for MACP. I still say Zimmerman made the wrong call, and it was his racism and ignorance that caused him to shoot and kill a seventeen year old kid. This man was not a cop, or a soldier, he was an ape with a gun, he had zero experience handling these kinds of situations. If you ever call 911, they tell you never to follow anyone suspected of a crime, and if you listened to the 911 call Zimmerman made, they told him the same thing, which he ignored.
And before I hear “Oh, he wasn’t a racist, his lawyers proved without a doubt that his motivations had nothing to do with race.” He admitted to having seen a dark-skinned person in a hoodie, and then made an assumption based on nothing else that that person was going to break into someone’s house. I’m no liberal PC-subscribing pansy ass, but once you make an assumption of a person’s character or guilt based on nothing other than the color of that person’s skin, that is racism, plain and simple.
The way they purported it in the news was disgusting. As if Martin was some kind of gang-banger because he had trace amounts of marijuana in his system and didn’t get straight A’s. Why don’t you look at it from Trayvon Martin’s perspective: he had been followed down the street and into back alleyways by a man with a gun who did not identify himself as a police officer or a member of the neighborhood watch. If Zimmerman had done that, it might not have gone down the way it did, Trayvon might have been able to explain that he lived in the neighborhood. As it was, you have a lighter skinned gentleman following you with a gun in a Southern state, you don’t want to end up on a cross, fight or flight. Unfortunately, gun beats fists.
This disgusting asshole is in the news AGAIN for threatening his girlfriend with a shotgun, his wife admitted to committing perjury to defend him, and you’re defending his actions as if what he did was justifiable in any way. He is a racist, woman-beating basket-case, and he should be rotting in a jail cell for the rest of his life.
You are woefully uninformed. Or a pathetic liar.
1) Zimmerman is not racist. The man has helped black people on multiple occasions, including pressuring the police to investigate the son of a high-ranking police official in the beating of a black homeless man. Zimmerman followed the young black man peeking in windows because neighbors had previously reported thefts by a young black man. Remember, Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch. Reporting and confronting suspicious characters is what they do.
2) 911 doesn’t give orders to private citizens, they make recommendations. Was it a good idea for Zimmerman to follow Martin? No, but it wasn’t illegal and he doesn’t deserve to go to jail for it.
3) Martin was a thug. This isn’t based on the trace levels of marijuana, or the fact that he was killed with several ingredients for a common street drug, but rather on the fact that he was suspended for fighting on multiple occasions and his social media history of bragging about his prowess in beating up on people.
4) Martin had plenty of time to go home if he were truly afraid, or he could have called the cops himself instead of his girlfriend, or he could have gone to a neighbor and asked them to call the cops, or he could have simply asked Zimmerman why he was following him. Instead he decided to break the man’s nose and begin pounding his head into the concrete. Why? See 3). And Martin didn’t know Zimmerman had a gun until the latter was on the ground.
5) Your characterization of the South is 50 years out of date and an example of rank bigotry. You should be ashamed of yourself.
6) If you were paying attention to the real news, and not the Democrat propaganda on the news networks, you would know that Zimmerman’s girlfriend has admitted to making up the threats because she was angry that he was leaving her. His wife didn’t lie to defend him, she made an incorrect statement about an account not fully under her control during the pre-trial bail hearing and she pled guilty to avoid a merciless persecution by a DA desperate to pull some kind of win out of this mess.
Really, what it comes down to is a sad case of two stupid people who made stupid choices. Either one of them could have made some very easy decisions that would have avoided the situation they got into.
Once the situation escalated to the point of a fight to the death, I don’t particularlt blame Zimmerman for winning it. That’s what you do when you find yourself in such a situation.
Had Trayvon just been punching Zimmerman around a bit, and Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot him, I would not accept that as a legitimate act of self-defense. But severe blunt force trauma to the head crosses the line into life-threatening territory.
The left wails about Zimmerman being a racist cowboy vigilante, the right wails back about Trayvon being a dangerous thug, and in the end, they’re both just a couple of dumb wannabes. One’s a dumbass kid who thought he was street tough, the other’s a dumbass adult who thought he was a crime fighter.
The fact that the tale of these two star-crossed morons has so captured our national imagination speaks to me about the decayed state of our nation’s imagination, and the fact that one of these idiots has been made out as a martyr of racial prejudice and gun violence while the other has been made out as an icon of self-defense and responsibility tells me that we are beset by idiots on all sides.
Vendetta,
That comment deserves a blog post all its own. Thanks for posting it. Remind if I blog it?
Yeah, feel free to Chris.
Vendetta,
Well written!
I love your assumption that I only watched “Democrat propaganda” instead of the “real news,” by which I assume you mean Fox news. No, unlike 90% of people, I get both sides of any given story and formulate an opinion based on observed facts.
I take it you’ve never lived in the South, because my characterization of the South is accurate, and is based off of personal experience, but then again, there are Neo-Nazi compounds in the North too, so however you want to take it. I never said Zimmerman should go to jail for not listening to the 911 operator, but I see that you’re very adept at putting words in people’s mouths.
big·ot·ryˈbigətrē/ noun 1. bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
If you’re going to accuse someone of being something, you should probably know what it means, and shouldn’t be doing what you’re accusing them of.
You can report all you want, but as far as confronting suspects, that’s not what the neighborhood watch does. Any citizen can place someone caught in the act of committing a crime in citizen’s arrest, but they have to ACTUALLY be doing something wrong. What then was Martin doing wrong? Martin might not have known Zimmerman had a gun, but Zimmerman knew nothing about this kid other than the fact that he was black. And I’m POSITIVE that you never did any dumb ass stuff in your teenage years. Not ever were you involved in any fights or claimed you could beat up someone else. You’re Mr. Perfect. Congratulations, but those of us who didn’t grow up in Walgreen’s were suspended a few times for fighting, or maybe talked to our friends at length about our fighting prowess. That doesn’t mean we deserve to die.
In the act of following Martin, with a gun, and with the intent of harassing him over a crime he did not commit, Zimmerman was stalking him. That is a crime. I would undoubtedly try to confront the man myself, and it would likely escalate into violence. Fact is, we really have no idea what happened between Zimmerman ending the call and him shooting Martin less than two minutes later. I can tell you that Martin was just 70 yards away from his backdoor, so your statement that “Martin had plenty of time to go home if he were truly afraid,” he was almost there. Neither of us know whether or not he “simply asked Zimmerman why he was following him.” It’s entirely possible that Zimmerman pulled out his gun first, and then Martin attacked him. NEITHER of us know what exactly happened. All we have is the word of a killer, and two witness who actually saw the incident clearly, one who said that Zimmerman was on top, and one who said that Martin was on top. So I suppose Zimmerman could have acted in self-defense, but there is no reason why he should have put himself in that position.
I do know that he is currently sitting in jail for pulling a SHOTGUN on his girlfriend, after threatening his ex-wife and father with a gun two months ago! “Oh, the police didn’t find a gun.” Yeah, that definitively means there wasn’t a gun there. The absence of evidence is certainly the evidence of absence. I bow to your superior wisdom. Fact is, Zimmerman got away with murder, and was involved in two more domestic violence incidents in which he threatened someone with a gun! He didn’t pay attention to the OJ trials, I guess. I’m half expecting him to come out with a book entitled “I probably did it because I’m a racist asshole with little man syndrome.”
And when that happens, I suppose I’ll be back here listening to you defend him because the title has the word “probably” in it.
“I take it you’ve never lived in the South, because my characterization of the South is accurate, and is based off of personal experience…”
I’ve lived in the south more than 40 years. I’m a “minority”. My experience living here is nothing like you describe it.
” I never said Zimmerman should go to jail for not listening to the 911 operator, but I see that you’re very adept at putting words in people’s mouths.”
Well, let’s look at what you said in your first comment, directed toward me: “You want people to look at it from Zimmerman’s point of view…”
When did I say that? I said an unarmed man can be a lethal threat. I gave specific, rational explanations and facts explaining why that’s true. When did I say “Look at it from Zimmerman’s POV”?
“You can report all you want, but as far as confronting suspects, that’s not what the neighborhood watch does. Any citizen can place someone caught in the act of committing a crime in citizen’s arrest, but they have to ACTUALLY be doing something wrong.”
Zimmerman WAS watching and reporting. He didn’t try to arrest Martin.
“Martin might not have known Zimmerman had a gun, but Zimmerman knew nothing about this kid other than the fact that he was black.”
Bullshit. This statement is so blatantly illogical I’m surprised you made it, since you’re obviously not a stupid man. But unless you can read minds, you have no way of knowing what Zimmerman knew. Martin was walking slowly through the neighborhood in the rain, after several homes had been burglarized by young black males. Watching and reporting on someone you think is suspicious isn’t inherently racist, no matter what color the person you suspect.
“In the act of following Martin, with a gun, and with the intent of harassing him over a crime he did not commit, Zimmerman was stalking him. That is a crime.”
Really? Spotting someone under the influence of drugs, walking slowly in the rain in a neighborhood that’s been suffering a rash of burglaries, watching them and calling the police, is a crime? Do stalkers generally call the police to report the person they’re stalking?
” All we have is the word of a killer, and two witness who actually saw the incident clearly, one who said that Zimmerman was on top, and one who said that Martin was on top.”
Since Zimmerman had injuries to the back of his head, I’d be willing to bet he was on his back getting his head beaten into the concrete.
” So I suppose Zimmerman could have acted in self-defense…”
Wait, what? Didn’t you say this in your first comment to me?
“This disgusting asshole is in the news AGAIN for threatening his girlfriend with a shotgun, his wife admitted to committing perjury to defend him, and you’re defending his actions as if what he did was justifiable in any way.”
But now YOU are saying he could have acted in self defense?
““Oh, the police didn’t find a gun.” Yeah, that definitively means there wasn’t a gun there. The absence of evidence is certainly the evidence of absence.”
A shotgun isn’t a small, easy to conceal item. If it had been a pistol, I’d say yeah, the fact that nobody found it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there (been there, done that on a shooting scene). But a shotgun is different. If GZ was still on scene when police arrived, there isn’t much chance he successfully hid a shotgun from them.
When I said “the police didn’t find a gun” I was referring to when he threatened his ex-wife with a handgun.
“So I suppose Zimmerman could have acted in self-defense, but there is no reason why he should have put himself in that position.” goes along with this: “Zimmerman WAS watching and reporting. He didn’t try to arrest Martin.” If that were the case, why was he anywhere near Martin? It’s obvious that he continued to follow Martin after he hung up, did he confront Martin, or did Martin confront him? I was leaving room for doubt, but making it clear that MY belief is that even if he HAD acted in self defense, he never should have put himself in the position where he had to do so.
“Since Zimmerman had injuries to the back of his head, I’d be willing to bet he was on his back getting his head beaten into the concrete.” Having had my head slammed into a wooden surface, I am of the opinion that he injuries he sustained should have been worse if his head really had been slammed into a concrete ground multiple times.
“Spotting someone under the influence of drugs, walking slowly in the rain.” The levels of THC in his system were so minimal, he couldn’t have smoked marijuana within the week prior to his murder, so he wasn’t under the influence. I love walking in the rain, my wife and I dance in the rain. When did walking slowly make a person a criminal?
And as far as you asking us to try to look at this from Zimmerman’s perspective (which I did not think was unreasonable, hence “and believe me, I have”):
“…can’t fathom how George Zimmerman could have possibly been justified…”
“…If you watched those videos and still feel that it’s always wrong to shoot an unarmed person, or that George Zimmerman, moron though he may be, could not possibly have been justified in shooting Trayvon Martin…”
That implies that you think his actions were justifiable, and your article invites the reader to put themselves in Zimmerman’s shoe. It might not have been an outright statement like “Look at it from Zimmerman’s POV,” but it was implied.
The police found the shotgun, an assault rifle, and two handguns in his house when he threatened his girlfriend. He had them legally, that’s not even an issue.
[“So I suppose Zimmerman could have acted in self-defense, but there is no reason why he should have put himself in that position.... I was leaving room for doubt, but making it clear that MY belief is that even if he HAD acted in self defense, he never should have put himself in the position where he had to do so.]
==========================================================
Cruin,, I think we can all agree that Zimmerman and Martin could have BOTH taken actions to prevent this incident. But, this is like blaming a victim of sexual assault because she put herself in a bad situation.
If a girl wears a short dress in a bad neighborhood in the middle of the night and gets sexually assaulted…. there is no doubt that she put herself in a risky environment, but it clearly doesn’t excuse the SUSPECT from sexually assaulting her.
In the same way, Zimmerman may have went against good advice from the dispatcher and may have even chose to confront Martin. Both poor decisions…. but neither of which should result in having your head bashed into the ground or negating your right to defend yourself from such deadly force.
Oh, my bad, he posted bail. He’s not CURRENTLY sitting in jail. His girlfriend never admitted to making up threats though. All she’s said was that her and her daughters were not trying to set up Zimmerman for any reason, but I don’t doubt that she’s just an attention-grabbing idiot who just wanted to tap the Zimmerman keg for fame. I also don’t doubt that Zimmerman pulled a gun on her because SHE WAS KICKING HIM OUT. Seriously, do YOU watch anything other than Fox news? What sounds more likely to you, a woman dating a violent man with a history of domestic violence, who got away with murder, wants him out of her life, and he reacts violently; or that same woman doesn’t want him to leave her, lies about being pregnant in an attempt to keep him around, and then calls the police in an attempt to frame him for domestic violence and aggravated assault with a gun? If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is not a jaguar, my friend.
He will. For his next murder, unfortunately…Julst like OJ Simpson, who ended up in jail for something he did after the first crime he committed.
Cruinn,
First, what is MACP?
Second, this post was specifically to address the “there’s never a reason to shoot an unarmed person” fallacy. I didn’t (and don’t) claim Zimmerman is a wonderful person without a mean bone in his body. I was addressing the lethal threat an unarmed person can present.
I can tell you, however, that I strongly disagree with just about everything you wrote. Other readers have given specific points refuting your assessment of the situation, so I’ll leave that alone. But I will reply to your ridiculous “As it was, you have a lighter skinned gentleman following you with a gun in a Southern state, you don’t want to end up on a cross, fight or flight” statement.
I’ve lived in the South all my life. I’m a darker-skinned guy, and your insinuation that the south is a boiling cauldron of racism is ridiculous.
Modern Army Combatives Program… >.>
I know all too well that unarmed people can be just as lethal as someone with a gun.
I also know all too well that being a person with dark skin walking down the street in Missouri, or Florida, or North Carolina is just as dangerous as being a person with light skin walking down the streets of South Central L.A., or Detroit. If you want to pretend that the world is a big old happy place full of rainbows and unicorns, and that no one could possibly be murderously prejudiced in 2013, then go for it… Until you’ve had a friend get raped with a foreign object and killed because he was gay, or another get shot six times for wearing a purple shirt, or another curb-stomped and left mentally disabled because he was white and in the wrong part of town. And after that, I think your world view might change.
These are the stories that don’t get 24/7 media coverage. They aren’t interesting enough. Some of the nicest and most tolerant people I’ve ever known were Southerners, my grandfather being at the top of my list. Colloquially, some of the most intolerant, racist assholes I’ve ever met are Northerners. There are violent sociopaths everywhere, but based on my personal experiences, hate-crimes tend to happen more in the South, particularly against black people. When I moved to Idaho in ten tenth grade, the only person in my school that died before I graduated was this moron who was texting while driving.
You need to stop accusing others of putting words in your mouth. If you continue to do so, you’re just a hypocrite. At what point did I infer that the world is a “happy place full of rainbows and unicorns”? My entire post was about the need to arm, train and prepare yourself against lethal threats. To me, that doesn’t suggest I think the world is such a happy place.
If anyone is putting nonsense into other people’s mouths, it’s you.
My comment about the south wasn’t a claim that racism doesn’t exist. Please look it over, reread it, analyze thoroughly. What I said was, the south is not the horribly racist place you suggested it was.
As I said before, you’re obviously not a stupid man. Your claimed experience gives you more than enough credibility to contribute valuable insight to this debate. Yet you’re degrading your own argument by creating strawman opponents and knocking them down with emotional arguments.
Cruinn, you really need to invest in a dictionary so you can look up the PROPER definition of “racist!”
rac·ist – ˈrāsist/ noun: racist; plural noun: racists
1. a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
rac·ism – ˈrāˌsizəm/ noun: racism
1. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
French reader here, loved your french army articles !
It was a very interesting and mind working article right here. I never got into fights (though 2 times as a kid I used short but decisive blows on a bully or 2 that were smaller than me ! Being a big guy that doesn’t respond also attracts little idiots…) and I’m often warry of being caught off guard. I don’t mean to become a paranoid-looking-into-every-corner guy, but can one train reflexes ? I mean, that “knock-out game” could happen in the streets of Paris or in the suburbs I live.
We can’t have guns in France as civilians. So a citizen gotta rely on reflexes. I’m also bad as assessing threats… I might think someone’s pulling a joke, or just being provocative until *BAM !*, too late, I’m knocked down. I guess this is why I sucked at martial arts…
Advice, Chris ?
TG,
That’s a difficult question. Some things you can only get better at by doing them, like pushups. To be more situationally aware and prepared for a confrontation, you have to pay attention to your surroundings and prepare for a confrontation. Can you carry a knife? Do you know anyone who can give you basic instruction on knife defense?
Sounds like your country has put you into a pretty bad situation, defense-wise. What weapons can you legally carry?
Chris
p.s. Glad you enjoyed the French Army article, it’s one of my favorites. :)
France has the annoying “violence proportionnality system” regarding self-defense. To not be legally charged, you need to defend yourself with a same category device, or one of a lower category. That leaves knives (and “white weapons” like mace, schockers and batons) and bare-hands for most.
If you get a firearm, get attack by a guy with a knife and kill or wound him, you get charged, and if the aggressor survives, he can even sue you for “incapaciting” him and demand compensation ! That really sucks…
There are martial arts classes. Myself I’ve trained tae kwon do and aiki do for some time as a teen, and maybe it’s luck for me, but I was a poor fighter, often caught off-guard, and the senseis would never explained how to develop a “sense” of combat…
Well, I’ve been considering krav-maga or brazilian jiu-jitsu. Heard that the teachers really go to make people aware of their potential by challenging them, instead of boring theoritical sessions.
TG
A thug playing the “knock-out game” killed an elderly man in St. Louis two years ago.
The thug will likely die in prison for the crime.
Seconds after I posted this essay, I saw another article that said seven people have been killed by teenagers playing this “game”.
A lot of what you said is valid but the Trayvon Martin comments are dead wrong. First and formost, Trayvon was stalked by Zimmerman not the other way around, Zimmerman put himself in that situation as opposed to getting put into the situation, Zimmerman is not and was not a police officer, at lastly, since Zimmerman has been found not guilty he has repeatedly been in armed confrontations that he instigated!! Don’t let the truth get into the way of your bias opinion Sir!!!
Actually, cellphone pings have documented that Trayvon was prowling around and lying in wait for some time before he emerged and attacked Zimmerman. It took him a good chunk of an hour to make a walk home that amounts to a couple of hundred yards, which someone with a walker could accomplish in a few minutes. Oh, wait, the lamestream media “forgot” to tell you those factual details.
Zimmerman hasn’t been in so much as a single armed confrontation since.
His ex-wife made wild allegations she immediately recanted once video evidence surfaced. No word on when she’ll be charged with making false reports to the FL police. His current whackjob media-whore gf has made a similar accusation, accusing him of brandishing a shotgun. It was Zimmerman who called 911 first in this instance, and notably, the police found no shotgun, but the girlfriend has gotten a lot of media interviews and facetime.
So maybe don’t get your “news” from Jon Stewart and SNL.
But don’t let the truth get in the way of your biased opinions.
“Prowling around and lying in wait?”
Try hiding from a weird old dude who won’t identify himself and is following you around. His wife never “recanted” that he threatened her with a gun, and there was no video evidence! They DID find his shotgun, and an assault rifle and two handguns. Maybe YOU should get your news from office gossip or tabloids.
Marvin,
My comments weren’t about the entire Trayvon Martin incident. I wrote specifically about the danger an unarmed person can pose.
Having said that, I’d ask you to read Aesop’s response to your comment. That, and the fact that Zimmerman was accused does not mean he’s guilty.
Very good article! As a police officer I have read case law regarding using deadly force (gun) against an unarmed suspect. There was a time when an officer would be hard pressed to legally defend himself for such action unless there were extenuating circumstances like size disparity. A 5′, 140 lb female could more readily justify shooting an unarmed assailant who was 6,2, 250 lbs, then a male officer of similar size to the assailant. This article makes a good case why this is just not so anymore! A lot of guys, large and small are into MMA and can do a lot of damage without a weapon (nothing againsy MMA). Fighting saps your strength within minutes, how much more if you’re fighting a trained aggressor while wearing full duty gear! There’s a reason why officers carry weapons!!!! Thanks for bringing attention to this fact!
RD,
No problem, thanks for reading and commenting. The days you referred to, when officers would be hard pressed to defend themselves for shooting an unarmed person, were also the days when officers routinely beat the snot out of anyone who resisted in any way. As our level of nonlethal violence has dropped and we’ve transitioned to nonlethal or less lethal options. Officers are no longer trained or expected to be fistfighters. This means, when Tasers, spray and batons fail (which is often), officers may rely on deadly force rather than brute physical force.
Glad you enjoyed the essay, and stay safe out there.
I remember a time when every pursuit ended in an ass-whupping. Lots of adrenalin and not a little anger flowing. Cameras and Street Survival School put an end to that.
Yet, very often, a person who chooses to use a firearm to protect him or herself from a thug who *only* has bare hands with which to assault him/her, will be convicted or acquitted by a jury of 12 – none of whom has any experience in a real fight. As a woman, I’ve been saying for the last four decades that a man doesn’t need any weapon other than his bare hands to hurt me very badly. That this is not readily apparent to all *people* is just astonishing to me.
Rab,
We have otherwise intelligent, educated people insisting that people are better off being unarmed in an active shooter incident. Some stuff that should be ridiculously obvious, isn’t.
I find it interesting that almost no one, with the exception of you, speaks about Officer Molina. Certainly not the media. I have mentioned him to several people in the past; no one had heard of him. I guess his death is inconvenient to the various narratives. God rest his soul and comfort his family. What a tragedy.
Les,
The weird thing is that this case was ignored even during the entire Martin/Zimmerman furor. You’d think it would be kind of pertinent to the discussion.
I think it was ignored because it was pertinent.
Wounds to the back of GZ’s head were pertinent, and they were photo-shopped out.
Very interesting article. I can’t imagine the case for justified deadly force made clearer than this.
Thanks Chuck, I appreciate that.
This is one more example that the whole Zimmerman/Martin debacle is going to be endlessly re-litigated in people’s minds. It’s also pretty obvious many people have very strong opinions (as do I) about motives, and have decided whether GZ is an evil, racist cop-wannabe, and whether the “little Tray” of the ubiquitous childhood photographs was an innocent child cruelly murdered before the prime of his life. Opinions and interpretations are subjective and folks are free to believe whatever they want (including the goofy, foolish, or misinformed), but some things can be established with high confidence. And before anyone pulls the “Fox News” card, I generally watch neither MSNBC nor FOX (and can’t abide either) — this was from direct trial feed, albeit from memory (this is called an honest disclaimer) since I can’t be arsed to go over all those hours of testimony again.
1. Zimmerman was NOT “patrolling” the fatal night. He was on his usual weekly run to Target for lunch fixings for the upcoming work week. Plus, this was a gated community, and GZ was not only part of the neighborhood watch, but also a member of the homeowner’s association. That makes it a very different situation from, say, me deciding to hop into my station wagon (at my suburban home) and heading to downtown Boston to “fight crime.”
2. GZ’s call was NOT to 911, he called the non-emergency number (NEN) as he was supposed to, because it was a report of suspicious activity, but at the time of the call, NOT an emergency. The NEN operator (not the 911 operator, damnit people get it straight) telling him “we don’t need you to do that” (follow) is a piece of routine boilerplate to absolve the NEN people of responsibility if anything bad should happen. GZ was never ordered to ‘stand down” and NEN does not have the authority to do so even if it wanted to. Further, after it became clear that GZ had left his car, the NEN operator continued to ask things such as “now what is he doing?” thus clearly giving tacit approval to GZ’s actions at that point.
3. Trayvon Martin had plenty of time to get home, if he was truly afraid of the “creepy ass-cracker*” as he had at most a few hundred yards to cover in several minutes (easy for a healthy 17-yo male). Plus, as Aesop noted, cell phone pings (not to mention the call to Rachel Jenteal) show that he got home and doubled back to confront GZ. Even if TM felt endangered and this somehow justified committing assault, you do NOT get to arrive at a place of safety, then go BACK to confront. Self defense doesn’t work that way. Note also that GZ was on his way back to his car when he was jumped.
* Almost certainly the comment was “creepy-ass cracker” (note where the hyphen is) but changed to “creepy ass-cracker,” as in homosexual anal rapist (and implied pedophile), by the prosecution. Note also that Rachel Jenteal in her testimony referred to Zimmerman as a “cracker” (ironic considering that GZ’s grandfather was Afro-Peruvian), and when called on it in cross examination attempted to justify her racism by saying the term was normal “in my culture.” (Yeah, and cross burnings are a quaint white-people folkway and must be respected.)
4. Martin was not the cheerful little waif in the popular photos. The coroner’s report stated he was 158 lbs and 71 inches (bearing in mind that the height was measured post mortem by that incompetent pathologist Bao and he was almost certainly 1-2 inches taller in life — the convenience store video of TM buying the famous Skittles shows TM clearly taller than the clerk, and the clerk was 5′ 10″ tall). The whole thing about TM having a BMI of 22 kg/m^2 making him weak and scrawny is utter bullshit. TM’s height and weight placed him firmly in the category of a middleweight fighter. A BMI of 22 is NORMAL for a healthy, athletic male. The fact that the average American has a BMI north of 25 just means we are a fat nation (about 1/3 overweight, 1/3 frankly obese, and the remainder “normal”).
5. TM was well on his way to being a bona fide criminal. No one rational gives a shit about traces of THC. The real issues were B+E and assault. He would have had priors (stolen goods from a break-in were recovered from his possession), had not the local municipality changed the classification of teen-aged malfeasance to behavorial (and hence medical, and hence confidential and protected from public scrutiny) rather than criminal issues. Supposedly this was because reporting youth crime straight up would have made the region look not only bad but racist due to the number of incidents associated with persons of color. (And before anyone throws the “Racism!” card at me, I’m sure as hell NOT white.
6. Stuff and nonsense has been spouted about how GZ had joined a “fighting gym” which placed him at parity with TM. Again, bullshit*. GZ is 5’7″ or 5’8″ and even at the time at least overweight if not frankly obese (I think at the time GZ had a BMI above 30 which is the threshold for obese – and it sure wasn’t muscle). TM had height (and thus reach), youth, fitness (and almost certainly more mental preparedness, viz his cell phone and social media fighting videos) than GZ. Basically GZ was (and is) an overweight schlub without any warrior instinct. The gym owner’s testimony was memorable: he sneered describing GZ’s utter lack of fighting prowess (or athleticism) and IIRC made some remark about how he worried that GZ could hurt himself shadow-boxing.
*”Bullshit” is an emphatic way of saying “that happens not to be the case.” Feel free to substitute the latter if the former offends.
——
As to the thing about “Oh, if TM was only going to knock GZ around a bit ….” One never knows how far an assault is going to go. If someone hits you hard enough to break your nose you’d be a complete fool (and soon a brain-damaged or dead fool) to think to yourself, “Oh, this is okay, he’ll stop any second now” as you’re getting your head slammed on concrete.
I’m not an admirer of GZ. I think he made a number of suboptimal decisions that fatal night. However, I have no doubt that he not only believed but WAS in mortal danger that night, and was fully justified in shooting TM, even if it meant the latter’s death. Opinions differ, but GZ’s attorney Mark O’Meara IMO showed a lot of class and restraint, despite the obvious bias of the judge, and especially during his cross examinations of hostile witnesses. Subsequent to his acquittal, GZ seems to have been drinking from the firehose of stupid. Man needs to change his name and move the f*ck out of Florida if not the US altogether. Barring that, he needs to lay low (leave rescuing families from SUVs to someone else, George) and not get involved with anyone for quite some time.
Mike,
Thanks for the info. I am NOT an expert on the GZ/TM incident, or what happened before and after. I intentionally limited the scope of my comments to the threat TM posed to GZ when he was beating him.
I agree with you that GZ made bad decisions (short of breaking the law though), and continues to make himself look stupid with his seemingly unending chain of bad decisions.
You’ve got your head shoved so far up your rear, I’m amazed you can breathe. Zimmerman was not obese, or even close to it. He gained 125 pounds before the trial. Whether that was stress related or an attempt to seem like a doughy pushover is anyone’s guess, but if it’s the latter, it would appear as though you’ve fallen for it. He was a perfectly healthy man, and being 5 inches taller than someone does not grant you any kind of advantage in a fight except a longer arm/leg span, but having weight over someone proves incredibly useful… That’s why they separate fighting sports into different weight classes. The “stolen” goods they “recovered” from his locker were never proved to have been stolen, and were only ever thought to be because he had a screwdriver in his locker, as if that makes someone a criminal. Regardless, even if he was “on his way to being a bona fide criminal,” are you suggesting that we execute people based on crimes they MIGHT commit later on in life? Or are you just saying that the world is a better off without him? I’m not sure you’re qualified to make those judgements. I doubt severely that you can see the future.
If you want to talk about past criminal behaviors, how about Zimmerman hitting an undercover cop, buying alcohol for a minor, or his prior domestic violence dispute with his ex-fiance? The man already had a violent and paranoid history before the shooting. Why don’t you Google just how many times GZ called the cops to report the “suspicious” behavior of black males in his neighborhood? Keeping in mind that he only “supposedly” saw ONE guy looking in windows.
And as far as these continued claims that cellphone “pings” showed that Martin made it home and then left again (to which I can’t find any legitimate sources, either “left” or “right”) do you even know what a cellphone ping is? When you ping a cellphone, all that that tells you is which cell towers a phone is currently connected to. You can get a general idea of where that cellphone is located, and that’s how the police and FBI can track down people, but it’s not a GPS coordinate. It’s a range of locations that that person can be at, and it depends on the distance between the towers involved, and the range those towers have. You end up with a big-ass circle, and the person can be anywhere in that area at that given time. Here’s the kicker: you have to actively be pinging the cellphone to do this. You can’t determine the origin of the previous calls placed with this method.
Frankly, I don’t care about the character of either person. Trayvon could have been a gang-banging drug dealer, and Zimmerman could spend his weekends at a soup kitchen and donated all his money to charity, and I would still see this for what it was: a man saw a person who fit the description of someone who was robbing houses, grabbed his gun, chased the kid down, a scuffle occurred, and he shot him. The kid had done nothing wrong at the time, and was just walking home from the store. He did not deserve to die, regardless of past actions. Whether or not he attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman should never have gotten out of his car, or followed Martin.
I don’t care what news stations you purport to watch, your argument is… how did you put it? “Goofy, foolish, or misinformed.” I’m going to go with all three.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, except for one very important detail: George Zimmerman was not attacked by some random thug, he attacked Trayvon first, chasing him down. None of this would have happened had Zimmerman not given chase. And that is the sole reason he does not deserve to be acquitted on “self-defense.” This detail changes the whole story. When you tell people to put down their latte and go start a fight in the street, are these people defending themselves? No, the person in the street is. It makes the situation very different. Nobody ever considered Trayvon’s right to defend himself, and that is the real problem. The rest of this piece that you have written is rock solid.
Jet,
My post was not a defense of everything GZ did, or an expression of any belief that GZ is a wonderful or even intelligent person. I specifically limited the scope of my comments to the threat TM posed to GZ when he was hitting him.
Likewise, the comment about putting down the latte and starting a fight wasn’t meant to suggest the people I was referring to would be justified; I was half-jokingly inviting then to get the crap beaten out of them so they’d know that “just getting punched” can actually be a lethal threat.
I think you’re reading things into my post that I didn’t say, and misinterpreting some of what I did say. However, I appreciate your comments and hope you come back to post more of your thoughts.
Jet….
With respect, I have to question your interpretation of events.
It hardly seems fair to call following and observing a person “chasing him down”.Especially as there is good evidence that Martin had ample time to reach a refuge, but chose to not do so.
There also appears to be sufficient evidence that it was Martin who attacked Zimmerman, not the other way around. At least, that that is how the court saw it.
Why should we give credence to your version of events?
Bear in mind that I don’t have a dog in this cat-fight.
If you were being chased by some random dude, would you want that person to see your house? Personally, I would not. I’d probably either confront the man or hide any available shrubbery until he left.
Very good article, but I think this paragraph leaves too much room for a wrong interpretation,
“No, shooting an unarmed person who threatens to hit you shouldn’t be your default response. But very often it is the right thing to do.”
The key words being “threatens” and “very often”. These would require a situational caveat.
David,
Thank you for the compliment, but I would say using lethal force against an unarmed threat definitely IS situational. I’ve faced pissed off little old ladies who acted like they were about to swing at me, and I’ve had to defend myself from children who were trying to stop us from arresting their mothers. I absolutely did not need to fire on those people, even though they were trying to hit me. In my blog post “What police work is really like, episode IV: The Christmas Gift”, I told a story about getting chased around a gas station parking lot by a big guy who was high on drugs and had almost knocked out another officer. In that case, deadly force would have been justified, but I still chose not to use it.
One very important lesson I’ve been taught is “never say never, never say always.” Even in cases with armed suspects, it’s situational. I’ve been on a scene where a woman was pointing a gun at people from her apartment window; nobody shot her, because she was elderly and apparently suffering from Alzheimer’s. I was in a shooting where an intoxicated man pointed a gun at me through a window. I didn’t shoot because I was standing to the side of the door, and if I fired at him and missed I didn’t know what my rounds would hit. Another officer was in the courtyard looking at at the suspect, and he knew his rounds would go into the ceiling if he missed. So he fired. In that case he was right to shoot, and I was right not to shoot.
Just about every deadly force rule is situational.
If I’ve misunderstood you, please let me know. Thanks again for your comment.
I’m going to have to go with David here… Except I don’t think shooting an unarmed person who *threatens* to hit you is ever the right thing to do. At least not lethally. Kind of reminds me of this episode of Titus: http://youtu.be/54sDnt1t_qY?t=3m
Which is mostly funny because I own guns… but I blame the army for that.
Cruinn,
I can imagine many scenarios where a very small man or woman is being threatened by an unarmed, aggressive, extremely large person who appears to be under the influence of an intoxicant.
How about the face-eating dude in Florida? Should someone wait until he is making physical contact before using deadly force?
Also, if you’re advocating deliberately firing non-lethal shots, I’d say you don’t understand deadly force encounters very well.
I doubt the face eating guy in Florida threatened to eat the person’s face before he did. If he had, I doubt that person would have stuck around to see if he was serious.
I’m advocating deliberately firing non-lethal shots in situations where my life isn’t immediately endangered. Someone’s charging me with their fists or some sort of melee weapon, I would shoot them in the leg. That would stop their forward progression, would it not? If he has a gun, or an explosive of kind, by all means shoot to kill. I understand deadly force encounters very well. There’s a progression of force. Verbal warning, raise your weapon, then fire. Not “I’m going to knock you out!” Blam blam blam!
What I’m saying is that I think you chose your words poorly. A threat does not constitute being shot. I’ve found that 99% of the time, when the barrel comes up, the person backs down. It’s the universal sign for “back the F*** up.”
Cruinn.
Based on your last comment, I feel confident saying you DO NOT understand deadly force encounters. Your suggestion that an innocent person under stress should shoot their attacker in the leg, and the fact that you believe a shot in the leg would “stop their forward progression”, shows me that you have a theoretical rather than realistic understanding (which is to say, no understanding at all).
In one of my posts I wrote about a call I was on, where a teenage girl reported that she had been assaulted. After I had talked to her for several minutes, she calmly informed me she had been shot through the leg. I hadn’t noticed, and it apparently hadn’t bothered her at all. In another post I linked a video of a suspect being shot by an Oregon State Police officer. That suspect flinched, but kept moving and firing, and eventually drove away and died. Even with a mortal wound, he kept attacking. One of the suspects in the infamous Florida FBI shootout sustained a non-survivable wound in the first few seconds of the fight, but still killed two FBI agents and wounded several more.
Besides that, how would the average shooter hit a leg when the suspect is moving, the shooter is scared and experiencing the physiological effects of stress, and dealing with the various other factors certain to be present (reduced light, bystanders beyond the target, etc)? Trained and experienced people don’t expect to shoot attackers in the leg, and know (as I do) that under stress they’re more likely to miss a limb shot, which is why they shoot center mass. Advocating a leg shot is no more realistic than the old “just shoot the gun out of their hand” nonsense.
I can’t state this clearly enough: if you advocate “shooting to wound”, you do not understand deadly force encounters.
“I’m advocating deliberately firing non-lethal shots in situations where my life isn’t immediately endangered.” As in, not a deadly force encounter. I believe that I said if the person in question has a gun, or an explosive device of some kind, then shoot a few rounds into his chest and face.
How would the average shooter miss a person’s leg if the person was running straight at them? Average implies some level of training. Your everyday Joe with no experience at all would probably miss a moving target running straight at them, but your average shooter should be able to perform such a minor task. With your experience in the Marines, you should know that in these situations, stress dissolves and training kicks in.
Cruinn,
This is in response to your comment that begins with “‘I’m advocating deliberately firing non-lethal shots in situations where my life isn’t immediately endangered.’ As in, not a deadly force encounter. I believe that I said if the person in question has a gun, or an explosive device of some kind, then shoot a few rounds into his chest and face.”
Here’s the problem with that: firing shots at someone is deadly force, period. If someone is shooting at my arms or legs, my life is in danger. Shooting to wound is a bad tactic that doesn’t work, which is why no LE agency trains their officers to do that. Please find ANY law enforcement, military or legitimate private tactical instructor who advocates shooting to wound. I’ve never heard of one.
“How would the average shooter miss a person’s leg if the person was running straight at them?”
For real, player? People with more than average training frequently miss close range shots, especially against moving targets. That’s why the 7 round limit is such a bad idea; people miss under stress, and even when they hit rounds often aren’t effective. How much experience with weapons can you have, if you make statements like that?
As a former Marine and current soldier, as a longtime cop and as a two time combat vet, and as a former Active Shooter instructor who participated in a lot of Simunition training, I know that under stress in a dynamic environment people’s skill level goes to shit. People experience tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, loss of fine motor skills, altered perception of time and other effects. I’ve been shooting a long time, and had a lot of training, and I know that if I’m ever in a shooting it won’t be easy. I’d be stupid to think anything about a shooting would be simple.
“People with more than average training frequently miss close range shots…” I’d love to see some sources for this claim.
I’m no hawkeye, I can’t hit dogtags from 500 meters in one shot, but I have been placed in the position where I’ve had to shoot moving targets at close to intermediate range with shit popping off in every direction. I’ve seen others do it. It’s not nearly as difficult as you’re making it out to be. I can’t pretend to know how they do it in the Marines, but we trained in high stress environments. If you crack under stress and your skill level “goes to shit,” you shouldn’t be in the military or law enforcement. At that point you’re a liability.
Really? What Chris is explaining is common knowledge to anyone that has gone through force on force training and combatants training. You NEVER shoot to wound! You seem to think that your some sort of Audi Murphy or something and that is all ego.
FBI crime Statistics over the last 20-25 years show that FBI Agents and LEO’s only hit 20% of their shots under stress as compared to what they hit when in training. So if you hit 8 out of 10 on the line during qual what are you most likely to hit when the SHTF?
The whole concept of shooting someone in the leg is so Hollywood that it is laughable and shows you have not been in any serious combat or situations. You pull it, you shoot to kill. Plain and simple. Then you go home, hug the wife and kids and move on to the next day.
Sorry Chris, I was getting very annoyed.
Cruinn,
This is in reply to your comment starting with “I’m no hawkeye, I can’t hit dogtags from 500 meters in one shot, but I have been placed in the position where I’ve had to shoot moving targets at close to intermediate range with shit popping off in every direction.”
You’re talking about soldiers. I’m talking about cops and private citizens, who do not have the same level of training or support (i.e. teamwork with other soldiers).
Jason, I don’t recall ever saying that I would shoot an insurgent in the leg. I was not referring to being in a combat situation.
“FBI crime Statistics over the last 20-25 years show that FBI Agents and LEO’s only hit 20% of their shots under stress as compared to what they hit when in training.”
Did you know that 97% of statistics are made up on the spot? It’s true, I said so, and don’t need to provide any sources.
If I shot you in the leg with my .357, you would not be able to keep running at me, you wouldn’t be going anywhere. I’m pretty sure you’d faint from the sight and/or loss of blood. That you think it’s Hollywood is amusing to me, because it means that you’ve likely never fired a gun outside of a range.
Cruinn,
There you go with the “math problem” thinking again. :)
No, even someone shot in the leg with a .357 isn’t guaranteed to go down and pass out at the sight of blood. In real life people don’t react to pistol rounds like they do on TV. Based on ALL the people I’ve seen shot with pistols over the last 19 years, I don’t expect a single pistol round anywhere to be an immediate showstopper. Not even a round in the head.
First of all, I figured that you might be intelligent enough to look up the stats yourself. Second of all, if your good enough that you can shoot a person in the leg while he is running at you full speed with intent to kill you, I figured that you would have maybe been through some training where they give you such numbers, all in an attempt to get those who play to much Black Ops to realize that Jack Bauer is a fictional character. Not to mention that I don’t save everything I read just so that I can provide “proof” to every keyboard cowboy that thinks real life is like a video game.
You seem to think that shooting a small moving target under duress is easy. I have shot qualifying drills with many LEO’s and back in the early and mid 90’s I got to run through said drills with SF from a couple of different branches and they said and taught the same thing that Chris is saying, and I can tell you they would have loved to take you out on the range and put you to the test. I currently try and get out with some guys from my local PD and run drills with them as often as I can, but work keeps it to every other month or so, they like the “toys” that I bring since the department is on a budget as usual, and they are taught the same thing.
You have obviously never been in such a situation to even understand what we are talking about, so I will give you a link to a book that most of us read when we were young and being taught to not think like you or we would die in a defensive situation.
http://www.twistedwiretactical.com/Twistedwire/Book_Club_files/Principles_of_Self_Defense.pdf
Chris… seriously?
“As a former Marine and current soldier, as a longtime cop and as a two time combat vet, and as a former Active Shooter instructor who participated in a lot of Simunition training, I know that under stress in a dynamic environment people’s skill level goes to shit.”
“I’m talking about cops and private citizens, who do not have the same level of training or support (i.e. teamwork with other soldiers).”
If you aren’t talking about the military, then you should have left off the “As a former Marine and current soldier” and the “as a two time combat vet.”
Cruinn, seriously, it’s obvious to everyone that you haven’t had the slightest idea what you’re talking about with anything you’ve said. Stop making things up.
Cruinn,
In reply to your comment: “If you aren’t talking about the military, then you should have left off the ‘As a former Marine and current soldier’ and the ‘as a two time combat vet.'”
Yes, my experience overseas is pertinent to this discussion. My combat service, in addition to my time as a street cop, has taught me a lot about how people respond to stress. In my opinion, you think soldiers overseas are the standard for how armed private citizens or cops should react to stress here. I don’t. We both know that soldiers get good tactically through constant training and significant real-world experience; they’re not good at combat because combat is “easy”. Our most effective units are as good as they are because of the neverending cycle of training and deployments. Private citizens and cops don’t get that. Nor do they have the equipment, team structure or support system of soldiers overseas.
I’ve seen a lot of cops and soldiers in high stress training environments. Generally speaking, their skill level goes to shit (at least initially). Then they get retrained, recall previous training, and do better on their second or third training iterations. As a Marine, I saw guys in my unit screw up basic skills that they hadn’t practiced for a year. As a soldier, I saw tank crews screw up tank gunnery every other year because qualifying every other year wasn’t sufficient to maintain gunnery skills. As a senior NCO in a support unit, I see soldiers screw up annual rifle qualification because they don’t do it enough. I’ve made all these training mistakes myself. I don’t believe combat is as easy as you describe it; yes, training kicks in, fear goes away and those of us who are well-trained and experienced fall back on muscle memory. But cops and private citizens as a rule don’t get that training.
Cruinn,
I mean absolutely no disrespect in my statement. I would like to point out that you have repeatedly gone back to the FBI stats, the one that interest me is the one pertaining to the hit ration under stress. Your argument sir is to shoot to wound or non-leathally, however when you apply the hit/miss ratio to your argument would we not be putting even more people in harms way?
Perhaps you’ve never been hit hard enough to realize that there are folks out there that can and will inflict serious damage with one strike. I’ve been victim to being jumped by 9 youth. The first one broke my jaw with the first shot only to be followed up with a pummeling by his friends. Had it not been for a good samaritan I wouldn’t be posting this right now. My point is just this, it didn’t matter that this kid had eight other friends to help him out. I was in jeaporady after the first hit and could not collect myself to defend in time to mean anything had it only been him. I thank God everyday that I’m still here and feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude for the kind passer by. I was much younger then and have trained for three decades to feel the confidence I do today. But I am not a fool and I do realize it only takes one strike to incapacitate a person.
What you should do if someone is pummeling you is shoot him between the second and third knuckle of his fist, about a quarter inch down the finger from the joint. That will render him incapable of punching with that hand. Should he make an attempt to punch you with the other hand, shooting the same location on the other hand as a defensive measure as his punch speeds to your face with stop him from punching. Should he follow up with kicks, then shoot him just below the knee, a little to the inside, to prevent his ability to kick without causing serious harm….
When you start to say things like that, it becomes obvious how ridiculous it is for an injured person dealing with a dangerous, agitated, aggressive moving target to evaluate his targets, determine probable long term repercussions, evaluate background possible collateral targets while aiming for nonlethal target points, aim and fire. Frankly, it’s hard enough to hit center mass under immediate threat from a close-proximity attacker.
At least that’s my perspective. Others may have that level of skill. I’m happy to give them an airsoft gun and let them demonstrate, though.
HEo2is divine, you’re confusing me with someone else, the only statistic I’ve mentioned was that 97% of statistics are made up on the spot. I’ve been hit hard enough to be dropped in one shot, I even said earlier that a good hit to the ear or temple will knock anyone except Christopher here on their ass.
Scot, you’re just being a childish smartass. I said that you can shoot an oncoming attacker in the leg to prevent them from charging at you. That is a true statement, I’ve seen it at work. Here’s a better rule for you, if a person is within 20 feet of you, you’ll have a better chance defending yourself physically then trying to get a shot off. And if you have trouble hitting a target at center mass from 25 feet, you should go back to the shooting range for some practice.
Lazy Fat Ass,
Why don’t you shut your cock-holster?
Awww, don’t be that way. Plenty of kids your age play Call of Duty. Granted, you’re the only one who seems to think it’s real, but I’m sure you’ll have it figured out by the time you get to high school.
Careful the kind of things you say online, your mom might take your Xbox AND your Playstation away and make you play outside.
I’m not the one with Lazy in my screen name. Just because you still live in your mom’s cellar doesn’t mean everyone online does….[and many more insults from Cruinn].
Cease fire. On another web site someone commented that many readers here make extremely intelligent comments, unlike on other sites where people just scream at each other. Let’s not screw that up.
This applies to anyone making personal insults .
-Chris
Chris,
This is a very good article and my comments are as follows.
Before I retired from the Nevada Dept of Corrections, I was a Defensive Tactics Instructor for the Department in the Southern part of the State. Also an Instructor for the Batons, Use of Force and Handcuffing Techniques.
I have to disagree with you on the term Unarmed. Webster’s Dictionary Meaning: having no weapons, esp. firearms, or Armor; Defenseless.
Before each Defensive Tactics Class, I would always ask the Class if anyone had brought any weapons with them into class today. I would always get a “No Sir” from the class.
I would then ask the Class “Why are you lying to me”. I would then go on to tell them “You’re never UNARMED”. I would show them a fist and ask what is this? It’s a weapon. Show them a knee and ask, what is this? It’s a weapon. As is your feet, elbows, head and hands.
If you’re naked and in the shower, “You’re not UNARMED”, you still have weapons.
As for shooting one of the Gang Banger’s that are going around knocking people out, etc. If you believe that your life is in danger, by all means do what you think is best for you.
Me, I’d rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6.
Skip,
Hey man, that’s one way to look at it. :)
I absolutely understand your point, but the immediate reaction I have is that although we all have those “weapons”, many (maybe most) people are absolutely incapable of using them as weapons. I’d have a hard time describing an old woman as armed, simply because she had the capacity to punch or knee me.
I’m not arguing with you, I just think that if we paint with too broad a brush, we actually denigrate the real threat.
Very well said.
If someone has never truly been in a life or death struggle, then they really have no clue. And each situation is different. I am not a cop. I was a Corpsman 93′-96′ and I went into Nursing when I got out and have worked in inner-city Level 1 Trauma ER’s all over the Nation. I have my licence to carry and have carried since I got out. I have had Instances where I needed it and others were I didn’t and even others where I could have, but chose not to because I had the ability and the knowledge in the situation to not to. Those situations would be different for others.
That off duty cop in NY might not have been able to carry off duty. I know that some places in NY and DC in the past even the cops and Feds are not allowed to carry unless on duty or with special permission. I don’t know if it still this way or not.
I would also add that the same situational awareness is a must for Citizens dealing with Law Enforcement in today’s society. I live in Indiana where we just passed a law a couple of years ago that reiterated the fact that you don’t have to let a cop do anything to you that he or she wants to just because they are cops. We had a horrible Supreme Court decision that basically took away or 4th Amendment Rights and suspended our Right to self defense from Law Enforcement in situations where they were completely wrong and committing crimes. And this Law was not just a response to a hypothetical situation. It came about because of actual situations. But now we have not only those cops that have no ability to critically think and only became a cop to bully and feed their ego, we have the same type that are not cops that are going to try and use that as defense when they were clearly in the wrong. I don’t think the new law was wrong, I just think that it should have been common sense that it does not matter who is committing a crime against whom, if someones life is in danger, they have the Right to defend themselves and let the courts determine if it was justified. But common sense is not common anymore and those who have it are condemned to have to put up with the rest that don’t.
Jason.
One of the most memorable scenes I was on, we had a guy who had been kicked in the head repeatedly by a guy wearing cowboy boots. The first officer on the scene thought the guy’s eyeball was hanging out (his scalp had been torn so badly a flap of skin was hanging from his forehead and it looked like an eyeball, I guess). Even the ER doctors initially thought the guy had been shot through the head. No weapon involved, just run-of-the-mill cowboy boots.
I get your point about the Indiana law. No question, there have been some egregious incidents where LE was clearly at fault. I also see the other side of the argument though; generally speaking, no matter what they’ve just done or how guilty they are, people still believe the police are illegally arresting them. One night I ran across a robbery suspect while he was in the act of burglarizing a car; he jumped into his car, fled to his house and then repeatedly screamed “Why are you doing this to me?” as another officer and I wrestled him into cuffs. He KNEW he had just robbed someone, broken into a car and then run from the police, yet he was convinced we were somehow victimizing him.
And don’t even get me started with drunk drivers. Almost every single one of them is positive their rights are being violated. I’ve even had two of them place me under citizen’s arrest.
While I believe that police don’t have a right to jack with people for no reason, I also know that the real criminals who have committed a real crime might still think, “He’s arresting me for no reason, so I’m justified in shooting him.”
I see both sides of it also. Working in the ER’s when those drunks and scumbags got brought in, they would all be screaming ” Your violating my Rights!” When they were brought for dealing drugs, on a warrant or much worse. I also saw some really shady and out right “Boss Hog” types of stuff from some of the LEO’s, but in general, the rest of the guys didn’t like those guys and weren’t going to have their back, and THAT in Law Enforcement is a death sentence, so to speak. The Law here has it’s place, but it is for serious criminal offenses, which do happen and have been happening more and more across our Nation of late. Most of our Officers already have the mindset like any of the Constitutional Carry States and assume that everyone is armed, but most cops do that anyway. It’s the Liberal Anti-Gun States LEO’s that seem to have so much trouble because they end up concentrating on something minuscule and not taking care of the main problem in many circumstances. I’m hoping that just having the Law in place is enough of a metaphorical 2×4 over the head for it not to have to be used, because unless some cop is as bad as some Hollywood movie, that defense is not going to hold up.
And yes, the drunk drivers are the worst in that regard.
Meh. Cop ran his mouth and got what he had coming. Fuck ‘im.
Franklin,
Which incident are you referring to? I assume it would be the NY incident, since the El Paso incident started with the officer’s car being keyed. In the NY incident, I only have the video. Do you have anything to back up the claim that the officer instigated the incident. I don’t doubt a cop, or anyone else, could run their mouth and deserve an ass-beating. But all I can see on the video is that the officer appears to be backing off when he’s punched. The suspect’s actions of continually beating an unconscious man, and trying to break the car window out to (apparently) attack the officer’s wife, doesn’t suggest to me that the officer was the aggressor.
If you have any information to back up your statement, please post it. If you’re just making a jab at a cop because you don’t like us, feel free to do so on another forum.
ChrisHernandez, I was there. I live about a mile away in Jamaica. Naturally, Franklin is a pseudonym. The officer began the confrontation, and reached for his gun, forgetting apparently, that he had not worn it. At this point Holder commenced the physical assault. His actions after Deen was unconscious on the ground, and his assault of the BMW are inexcusable. But Deen brought that ass-whuppin’ on himself.
I left before the cops arrived. In full disclosure: I don’t like them.
Franklin,
Gotcha, thanks for offering your perspective. I can’t accept it as unquestionable truth, but it’s certainly not out of the realm of possibility.
It’s the internet man, it’s pretty much impossible to accept anything without triplicate sources as unequivocal truth. However, Holder stated he didn’t know Deen was a cop. He has now jut witnessed deen reach for a gun which is not there. It is your (Holder’s) perception that his opponent has attempted to escalate to the level of deadly force. What response would you say is appropriate?
Franklin,
If your version of events is correct, then yes, Holder could have been justified in hitting the officer. On the other hand, if the officer was trying to back away (as he appears to be in the video) and Holder continued to close distance, then he’s not so justified in hitting the officer for trying to draw a weapon. If you’re the physical aggressor, your right to claim self-defense degrades substantially.
Regarding your comment about the “assault on the BMW”, I’d have to call you out for that one. Holder wasn’t assaulting the car. He was trying to assault the woman inside, and the car was in the way. Regardless of what words were exchanged before the assault, Holder is a scumbag for attempting to assault an innocent, defenseless woman.
Again, based on the totality of the circumstances, Holder does not seem to be the innocent party in this case.
Chris, the critical flaw with this reasoning is that Zimmerman was not a cop, was told not to pursue, and entered into a confrontation while armed (which he probably would have avoided were he not armed). The exact events of that night remain in question, but the events since then pretty much confirm he was a hothead spoiling for a fight because at the end of the day he’s a bully. Maybe he it off more than he could handle, and as a result he ended up shooting someone. In any other jurisdiction in the civilized world, that’s still manslaughter. Zimmerman provoked a conflict that ended up in someone being killed when he should have stayed the hell outage when he probably would have stayed out were he not feeling empowered by a weapon, that is the real issue. Don’t liken him to a cop, he doesn’t deserve that level of respect (especially after being denied entry to the force on multiple occasions).
Michael,
I promise you I am not likening GZ to a cop. As I’ve stated before, I intentionally limited my post to the threat TM posed when he was beating GZ. While I don’t think GZ broke any laws that night, I don’t think he made any good choices after he left his vehicle. I was simply pointing out that if you’re getting punched, your life may in fact be in danger, despite what uninformed people might think.
I agree with a lot of what you said, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
The fact that you attribute gun fire and a punch as equal force makes me very nervous you are a police officer.. Why not wear headgear of somesort if you are so afraid of being punched all the time? It is a cowardly position to hold that you must always retaliate with a sure fire killing response. Quick question on average how many single punches are as deadly as a gunshot to the head? I understand that your ego won’t let you lose the occasional brush up but deadly force is rarely required in a fight by a trained professional.
“Deadly force is rarely required in a fight by a trained professional.”
Major, major unsupported assumption you’ve just put forth. If you’re going to make so broad and fundamental an assertion, support it for God’s sake.
I do my best to keep my responses civil, because I don’t expect or want everyone to agree with me and I value intelligent debate. However, since you’ve either failed to read what I actually wrote or you’re deliberately misrepresenting it, and insinuating that I’m a coward, you’ve pretty much demanded that I respond to you in an insulting manner. Challenge accepted!
Please calm your nervous, racing heartbeat. I’ve been punched several times in my almost 20 years as a cop, I’ve come close to being punched many more times, and I’ve never shot anyone. In fact, I wrote nothing even remotely resembling “you must always retaliate with a sure fire killing response”. Nor did I write that a punch is equal to gunfire.
I’m pretty sure I wrote this entire post in English; please read it again. Show me where I stated a punch was equal to a gunshot, or that one must always use gunfire in retaliation for a punch. Please quote me. And please take a second look at these sentences, which I wrote in plain, impossible (I thought) to misunderstand English: “No, shooting an unarmed person who threatens to hit you shouldn’t be your default response. But very often it is the right thing to do.”
Could I have made that any clearer?
Also, I appreciate your insight into my ego. I haven’t been this well understood since I went to a VA counselor. It’s like you looked straight into my heart!
Please come on back and respond anytime. And thanks for the comic relief. :)
“No, shooting an unarmed person who threatens to hit you shouldn’t be your default response. But very often it is the right thing to do.”
You are literally saying that very often, the right thing to do to someone who is *threatening* to punch you is to shoot them, which implies that they haven’t swung yet. It’s pretty clear. Are cops not allowed to physically defend themselves without a gun? Why isn’t the right thing to do to someone threatening to punch you is to restrain them?
Cruinn,
Did I say this applies only to police? The “Knockout Game” hasn’t been played against cops, it’s been played against civilians. I don’t write just about LE matters, I write about citizen self-defense.
No, not every person is capable of or should even be expected to try to go hand to hand against an unarmed person threatening them. If you’re a MACP instructor, you should know that a small-framed, untrained, physically weak man or woman has no reasonable chance of resisting a large, strong, trained and/or experienced fighter.
Do you think the woman in the series of photos at top should be expected to restrain the guy who is walking up intending to knock her out?
I think the woman in the series of photos at the top didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. She got sucker-punched, didn’t see it coming. Have you ever been punched in the ear or temple? You’re going down, plain and simple. Cartoon birds.
As a MACP instructor, I know that a well-equipped, small-framed, physically weak man or woman has a decent chance of fending off an attacker of any size or talent with a taser or mace. Have you ever been tased? You aren’t getting up anytime soon. And God help you if the person who tased you is carrying zip-ties.
I’ve of the opinion that you should be prepared to defend yourself in any situation, but that you should be able to discern the difference between what level of self defense is necessary for the situation you’re in. I’ve had to defend myself with lethal force. It was necessary, and there was no question about it. I’ve also had to defend myself or others in situations where lethal force was unnecessary. I’ve rendered people unconscious, or held them in a submission until help arrived, and there were broken arms or wrists, but those people walked away alive. My niece was almost a rape victim last year, my brother makes her carry mace, a taser, and a bundle of large zip-ties with her everywhere she goes. She used to complain about it, but she knows now how lucky she is to come from this family. My niece is 5’3″ and 115 pounds, the guy she hogtied was 6’2″ and 230. He’s still in jail, and she has a new sense of security.
There’s a lot of “what ifs” and “do you thinks” floating around. We can argue semantics until hell freezes over, these victims of the “Knockout Game” don’t seem to have much of a chance. A lot of times, it seems like they were completely unsuspecting, and there was more than one attacker. There are no threats being issued, they just run up and beat the shit out of the person. In that instance, if you have the time, sure, unholster and fire, but I don’t think these people had that chance.
That being said, this has no bearing on the GZ vs TM argument. Zimmerman wasn’t some poor, unsuspecting fool who got sucker-punched. He was in pursuit of Martin, he said so on the NEN call. Even if Martin attacked him first, I feel as though Martin would’ve been justified. If you were being followed by the police, and you ran, they’d throw on the lights and identify themselves, and ask you to stop. As a cop, would you not do that? He was being chased by an unidentified man. Zimmerman put himself in that position.
Cruinn,
this reply is in response to your comment that begins with “I think the woman in the series of photos at the top didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.”
As a cop, I’ve used Pepper Spray many times (like about 30). I know it works on everyone…eventually. Guys who are super drunk or high usually aren’t affected for a while. I would not trust my life to spray. I’ve fought through being sprayed in the eye by a field training officer, while we were trying to cuff a suspect.
Likewise, I know that Tasers work on most people, most of the time. But they fail; they don’t work sometimes, one dart misses, or a suspect is wearing thick clothing that the darts don’t penetrate. And sometimes just plain weird stuff happens, like with one of my rookie partners who had a Taser cartridge on his belt discharge from static electricity.
Don’t get me wrong, if I couldn’t carry a gun, I’d rather carry a Taser or spray than nothing. But I’m extremely familiar with their capabilities, and I’d figure I’d have about a 60% chance of having them work as intended if I was under attack.
Regarding your comment about the woman being sucker punched, yes she was. And if you’re caught off guard, it doesn’t matter how well-armed you are. If you’re asleep and someone drops an anvil on your head, too bad. So no argument with that point.
However, the second part of your statement is false. “Have you ever been punched in the ear or temple? You’re going down, plain and simple.” Yes, I have been punched in the temple, during a fight with a very strong dope addict who was high on PCP, I think. He nailed me in the temple with a roundhouse and knocked my head sideways, but I didn’t get stunned. I don’t know why. For three days afterward, I had lines on the side of my head from the punch.
You’re acting as if self defense is a math problem; “If you’re hit here, you go down. If you shoot someone in the leg, they stop advancing.” You’re not taking into account all the myriad factors that determine how severely anyone will be affected by a punch, Taser, spray or a gunshot.
You sound convinced that spray or a Taser will stop an attacker. Based on my experience, I don’t even trust a gunshot. If I’m ever in a shooting, I know that I will likely have to place multiple gunshots into critical areas before the threat ceases.
My daughter is 4’11 and about 90 pounds. Do you think she’s safe if I give her a Taser, spray and zip-ties?
I also agree that you have to discern what level of force is appropriate to each specific situation. Which is why I’ve never shot anyone as a cop. I haven’t had to.
I’ll agree for the most part with your last statement about this not really being pertinent to the George Zimmerman case. And again, my only point in the original post was that GZ could in fact have been in danger of being killed when TM was punching him.
Besides, you already agreed with me about that. You said it was possible GZ could have been justified, which is the same thing I said. :)
He was in danger of being killed… because he was chasing somebody and did not identify himself. He put himself in that danger.
I would never trust a ranged taser either. They’re notoriously inaccurate. Get a close combat taser, and put it on skin. Exposed hands or face even.\
Mace works on your average Joe, but it’s like CS gas, some people plain aren’t affected by it, or can build up a tolerance. I haven’t really had a problem with it on drunk guys, but again, people react differently. I went in the CS chamber terrified, but literally all that happened to me was that my skin felt a little itchy.
I don’t know about fighting being a math problem, but it is a series of scenarios. If he swings here, I’ll do this, if A happens, I’ll do B. As far as being shot in the leg… You’d have to be coked out of your mind to keep running after taking a .357 slug to the thigh.
If you took a roundhouse kick to the temple and stayed vertical, quit your day job and go fight crime, because you’re a friggin’ superhero.
Cruinn,
This is in reply to your comment that begins with, “He was in danger of being killed… because he was chasing somebody and did not identify himself. He put himself in that danger.”
Regarding that above comment, he did put himself in that danger. However, he didn’t break the law when he did it. If, for example, some douchebag from the Westboro Baptist Church pickets a soldier’s funeral and someone decides to beat him to death, said douchebag still has a legal right to defend himself. Yes I think he’s an asshole, yes I would prefer that the attacker destroy his punk ass, but if he hasn’t broken the law then he still has a right to defend himself.
About the “close combat Taser”, you’re going back to the “just hit him in the head/hand/arm/leg” problem. Under stress, are people going to do that? Our officers get Taser training and have to qualify with them annually, and sometimes they still miss close center-mass shots. Reality is a bitch, and simple tactics sometimes just don’t work.
Your comments about CS are pretty much what I was talking about, even though I was referring to pepper spray. I wouldn’t go to spray if I thought my life was in danger, unless I had absolutely no other options.
Also, this reminds me of your previous comment about escalation of force. That is another fallacy, that there must be an escalation. As a cop, I was originally trained that the “Use of Force Continuum” steps were officer presence, verbal commands, empty hand control, intermediate weapons (spray or Taser), impact weapons, deadly force. Since then LE has changed to “Force Options”, because it’s just stupid to suggest that an officer has to go through every step before using deadly force. If I respond to a loud music call, knock on the door of an apartment and someone starts shooting at me through the window, I don’t have to stand there (officer presence), shout “stop shooting at me!” (verbal commands), try to grab the guy through the window (empty hand control), pepper spray and/or Tase them (intermediate weapons), hit them with my baton (impact weapons) and then shoot. I can immediately go to whatever force option is most appropriate for that specific situation.
Regarding “being coked out of your mind” to keep going after being shot in the leg with a .357 magnum”, you’re simplifying again. People get shot in the legs all the time; if it’s a big round that hits the artery or breaks the femur, the person who gets shot is probably going to stop. If the round passes through flesh without hitting bone or major blood vessels, it’s not likely to stop them. And if we’re talking about citizen concealed carry, they’re probably not going to be carrying a .357. That’s a large, inconvenient weapon to conceal (generally speaking). Most CHL holders are carrying 9mm or .380 pistols, not likely to cause the massive tissue damage that would make an attacker immediately stop.
I’d ask you to look into the Miami FBI shootout. The suspect I was referring to earlier took a round in the heart at the beginning of the fight. He was still on his feet killing people several minutes later.
And a correction to my earlier comment: I took a haymaker punch, not a roundhouse kick. Sorry, I used the wrong term.
I open carry a .357 S&W. A 9mm pistol has the stopping power of a wet noodle.
I looked into the 1986 Miami case you’re referring to, because I found it hard to believe that a man could be shot in the heart and not die immediately. I was right:
“one of Dove’s 9 mm rounds hit his (Platte’s) right upper arm and went on to penetrate his chest, stopping an inch away from his heart.”
Which would explain why he was still up and running around.
“I can immediately go to whatever force option is most appropriate for that specific situation.” Duh. Full agreement. When I was referring to escalation of force, I was referring to someone running at me either unarmed or with a melee weapon:
“Someone’s charging me with their fists or some sort of melee weapon, I would shoot them in the leg. That would stop their forward progression, would it not? If he has a gun, or an explosive of kind, by all means shoot to kill. I understand deadly force encounters very well. There’s a progression of force. Verbal warning, raise your weapon, then fire.”
I didn’t say that by putting himself in that position was illegal, aside from being borderline stalking (despite being on the phone with the police at the time.) What I am saying is that it’s bullshit that he got off on self defense when he was the one who chased Martin down. The man is waiting to go on trial for threatening a woman with a shotgun, after threatening his ex-wife and father-in-law with a handgun not three months ago! He’s a criminal who got away with murder. Following in OJ’s footsteps.
When I said quit your day job and become a superhero, I wasn’t being sarcastic (this is why I hate internet discussions, you can’t hear someone’s tone.) Even taking a hay maker to the temple and staying upright is impressive. I’ve only been knocked out twice, and both times I took a shot to the ear and went out like a light.
Cruinn,
This is in response to your comment that begins with “I open carry a .357 S&W. A 9mm pistol has the stopping power of a wet noodle.”
Regarding Platte’s wound, I found this on Wikipedia (which is on the internet, so it can’t be wrong): “As Platt climbed out of the passenger side car window, one of Dove’s 9 mm rounds hit his right upper arm and went on to penetrate his chest, stopping an inch away from his heart. The autopsy found Platt’s right lung was collapsed and his chest cavity contained 1.3 liters of blood, suggesting damage to the main blood vessels of the right lung. Of his many gunshot wounds, this first was the primary injury responsible for Platt’s eventual death.” In the first academy I went to, we watched a training video about the shooting that stated this gunshot wound was non-survivable. So yes I was mistaken that it hit Platte’s heart, but it was a lethal wound which did not stop him from continuing his attack.
In the situation you’re describing with a “melee weapon”, maybe you’d have enough time to give a verbal warning before firing. I’ve practiced Tueller drills before, and someone charging at you can cover 21 feet pretty damn fast. I agree that you should warn an unarmed person if possible. But in some situations it won’t be possible.
I’m not defending the entirety of GZ’s actions. I don’t agree with your assessment of what he did, especially your characterization of his actions as “stalking” and “chasing TM down”. Legally speaking, that was not stalking. As far as I know, fat/slow/dumpy GZ didn’t chase TM down; he lost him, and TM came back.
Thanks for the compliment about taking the punch. As a kid I was knocked out twice by accidents, but as an adult I’ve taken the punch from the crackhead, run into a steel pole (at night) and slammed heads with a guy as we both ran toward each other around a corner, all without getting knocked out. Not sure why that is, as I sure as hell am not any kind of tough guy.
I hate that argument “fat/slow/dumpy” George Zimmerman. The man gained 125 pounds before his trial, if you look at the photos of him the night of the shooting, he’s no fatter than I am. He looks to be a perfectly healthy adult male.
Seriously, tights and a cape. We’ll call you “Non-Unconscious Man”!
DUN, DUN DUN DUUUUUN!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/unarmed-man-is-charged-with-wounding-bystanders-shot-by-police-near-times-square.html?_r=1&
This is what I’m talking about Chris. This man was allegedly jumping in front of cars to commit suicide, and the police were called. He apparently reached into his pocket for his wallet (that honestly sounds fishy, but he was not armed), and the police opened fire on him. They missed him completely (seriously, get these guys a roll of quarters and send them to the arcade, or something), and hit two women in the crowd. Now they’re trying to charge the man with assault because they claim it was his fault the women were shot.
And, oh by the way, he was eventually brought down with a taser. This is why I’m arguing against your statement: “No, shooting an unarmed person who threatens to hit you shouldn’t be your default response. But very often it is the right thing to do.” Shooting first and asking questions never is a horrible policy.
Cruinn,
Clearly you forgot to consider just how much the dietary habits of Guinea pigs impact used Corvette sales during the winter in Pakistan.
Why did I say that? Because it has about as much connection to this discussion as what you just said.
At what point in my essay did I advocate “shooting first and never asking questions”? Once again, I made the point, and illustrated it with real-world examples, of how an unarmed criminal can in fact be a lethal threat. You even stated emphatically that KO game players need to be shot in the face. No, I have not, EVER, advocated stupidity or bad judgment in lethal force situations.
Sometimes I wonder what the hell is going on in your head.
“I can’t state this clearly enough: if you advocate “shooting to wound”, you do not understand deadly force encounters.”
“No, shooting an unarmed person who threatens to hit you shouldn’t be your default response. But very often it is the right thing to do.”
If you don’t advocate shooting to wound, and believe shooting an unarmed person who threatens to hit you is the right thing to do, then that person would be dead, and you wouldn’t be able to then question that person. You wouldn’t know why they were doing what they were doing or to what end. That’s shooting first and asking questions never.
This article has everything to do with the topic at hand, and everything to do with our discussion. These officers shot at a man because they BELIEVED he was armed. They saw no weapon, because there wasn’t one, but they opened fire anyway, despite the crowded area, and instead of hitting this man, hit people behind him in the crowd. If they had killed this man, it more than likely would’ve been considered suicide by cop, but they probably would’ve gotten away with it because he was endangering lives by jumping in front of traffic. That is not justice. Despite his actions, the first attempt to bring this man down should’ve been non-lethal measures, not the last.
Except that you’re ignoring where I wrote “engage as necessary”. I don’t advocate shooting everyone who’s trying to hit you. As I’ve stated before, I’ve been punched several times as a cop, and have never shot anyone (as a cop, I may have as a soldier).
The NY incident was about cops responding to a person they thought was armed and at a distance. It has nothing to do with my point about unarmed people being capable of beating someone to death.
Cruinn, that story was all over the place when it happened. That has nothing to do with the argument. Hell, that has more to do with the stats that I posted that you can’t even look up. NY is notorious for that kind of Police State behavior. That is piss poor judgement and training, but that is what they seem to be after in NY. Did you and Chris hear that NYPD released a statement that they will not accept anyone that scores over a 100 IQ on their entrance test? They say that that those with an IQ over 100 have more of a tendency to question orders and procedure.
As far as I can find, those cops were not only NOT reprimanded in any way, but promoted and Bloomberg praised their bravery.
And seriously, I want you to show me one “expert” or well known self defense instructor that teaches to shoot to wound. I have been to All the Major ones and worked with many LEO and Military and not only do they not teach that, they specifically talk in class as to how that is the STUPIDEST thing anyone can do. Please tell me who taught you this in all of your extensive training.
I don’t know anything about NYPD’s reputation, but absolutely agree that the incident Cruinn referenced has nothing at all to do with my point about unarmed people being able to pose a lethal threat.
And it’s also true that no professionals train people to aim for arms and legs. That’s just silly.
Thanks Jason.
My only issue on the Zimmerman thing is his claim of self-defense, when from the perspective of Martin, Martin was simply stand your ground, as he felt threatened by Zimmerman following him. Zimmerman wasn’t an officer, and would have had no lawful authority to detaining Martin. He had contacted the police.
If someone follows a woman, and she feels threatened that she might be raped, and fights the guy off because she can’t lose him, can the guy then claim self-defense?
Patrick,
As far as I know, and I am NOT an expert on the case, GZ didn’t detain TM. He spotted him, followed him in his vehicle, called the police, then got out of his vehicle to chase when TM ran. Again as far as I know, GZ had lost TM, and TM came back to initiate the assault. As others have pointed out, both of them made terrible decisions that night. Since the witnesses are so vague on what they saw and heard, and only GZ is alive, we only have a general idea of what happened. And based on the bit of information we do have, GZ did not do anything illegal that night. If he had actually tried to arrest or detain TM, I’d agree that TM would have been justified in using force against him. If TM did in fact lose GZ, then circle back and attack him, GZ would have been justified in using deadly force to defend himself.
You have very valid points, but the “fights the guy off because she can’t lose him” part doesn’t seem to apply. My understanding is that TM did in fact lose GZ, then came back and attacked GZ.
I’ve read several of the depositions and the probable cause affidavit and followed the GZ case fairly close. Just reading the witness testimony during the trail was pretty informative. I thought he did what one would expect of a neighborhood watch, no more and no less. He came off to me as a community oriented person who tried to help his community.
I think marriage problems and other problems are to be expected after surviving a murder attempt, killing his attacker, being bankrupted, publicly lynched by the media, with death threats and bounties placed. That would cause more than a little stress on a personal life. The Florida Prosecutor’s office came off looking as if they were trained in the same school as the Italian prosecutors of Amanda Knox.
Any citizen of the United States can place a person caught in the act of committing a crime under citizen’s arrest. The kicker is that they actually have to be doing something wrong, and if they detain someone who isn’t doing anything wrong, they can then be sued for false arrest. If Zimmerman had waited for Martin to commit a crime, he would’ve had every right to detain him, legally, regardless of the fact that he wasn’t a member of law enforcement.
I’d like to comment as someone who is not a cop, not a military veteran, not a martial artist, and who could conceivably find themself in the sort of situation we’re supposed to be discussing here- the use of greater force to defend yourself against an “unarmed” assailant.
I don’t get my “news” from any mainstream source- CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. I don’t trust either, and neither reports news. They tell you what they want you to think about what they’re willing to tell you happened. I seek out as many independent outlets that report facts as I can and draw my own conclusions about what happened and why.
I hold no inherent ill-will towards anyone, regardless of their skin color, their geopolitical ancestry, where they live, or how they dress. I have met as many kind, good-hearted, intelligent, poor-as-fuck black people as I have mean-as-shit, racist white people who are dumber than rocks. I have met as many racist black people as I have white people who don’t care what color melanin you inherited. I care about how you act- what you say and what you do. That said, If you’re leaning against the front of the gas station, smoking a blunt and following me with your eyes as I go to my car, I’m locking my door as I get in, even if you’re white. Especially if you’re not alone. Even if you’re in a dress shirt and tie. That’s called “situational awareness.”
I’ve spent the entirety of the last 27 years of my 30 years of life in poor neighborhoods in Virginia and Florida. Don’t try to tell me what the South is like. Now, I hope we’ve headed off all the accusations of being a FOX news-obsessed racist moron. I’ve also taken the last hour and read every single comment made here, so if you want to rehash your ignorant, petulant statement from earlier, save it. I don’t have time for, or interest in, any of this non-constructive BS.
___________
I remember the most severe fight I was ever in back when I was still subject to bullying… I was surrounded by a group of kids on the playground in my babysitter’s neighborhood, impoverished military kids I didn’t even know. They beat the crap out of me for no reason other than they felt like it, or because I was a stranger in their “turf”, or who knows (red hair and bugeye glasses don’t help make friends when you’re a kid >_<). I was used to having to physically defend myself by then, and decent at it for someone who'd never been taught, but these kids still overwhelmed me. They weren't bigger or older or even particularly strong, and none of them was armed. They were just determined. And it was terrifying.
Let me tell you, if I found myself in a situation like that again, and I had so much as a rock or a heavy stick at hand, you're damn right I'd use it, use it like my life depended on it. Most times when I go out by myself, especially at night, and ALWAYS when I'm geocaching, I have a big knife in my back pocket. You're damn right I'll use it. If I didn't have an innate terror of guns, I can't imagine that I wouldn't carry one, these days- and you're damn right I'd draw it on someone coming at me, regardless of whether I thought they were packing.
If you've never found yourself suddenly in a situation where you felt like your safety was in direct, intentional danger at the hands of another person, sit down and shut your damn mouth.
Kristi,
Thank you for your comment and insight, and especially this line: “If you’ve never found yourself suddenly in a situation where you felt like your safety was in direct, intentional danger at the hands of another person, sit down and shut your damn mouth.” That pretty much says it all.
I remember, many years ago, a young lady in my academy class, very slender and not tall, made the statement, that if some guy knocked her down, she would just get back up. I wished her luck.
Your post was excellent and helpful.
You’re a moron for this sentence “…walk into the real world and start a fight with the first street thug you see…”
Starting a fight is an insane concept. Men, unaffiliated with law enforcement, or the armed forces, carry for one reason: They HOPE some shit goes down, so they can just shoot someone.
That fat, pathetic little man STARTED a fight, with a smaller boy that he couldn’t finish. But because he had a gun, he did it anyway.
He was looking for a opportunity to use it.
The only thing worse than a murderer, is a lazy murderer.
Use your brain.
Yes, I’m a moron. Sure. And you’re not very good at spotting sarcasm.
My suggestion for certain people to put down their lattes, leave their academic/theoretical worlds and start a fight just so they’d get their asses kicked wasn’t meant literally. No, I really don’t expect latte-sippers to walk away from their computers to start a fight and get beaten down. My statement was kind of like, “If you think alligator wrestling isn’t dangerous, go to a Florida swamp and hug the first alligator you see.” No, I really wouldn’t expect anyone to really do it.
I know a LOT of people who carry, and who aren’t LE or military. Most of them have never drawn their weapons, even if they’ve carried for decades. I’m curious how you think you know the mindset of every single person who isn’t LE or military and carries a gun. That’s at least several hundred thousand people whose minds you can read.
As far as your comments about Zimmerman, I don’t think much of the guy. Maybe you’re right, but there’s no way you can know exactly what he was thinking.
Your comment is in the running for the stupidest response to my post thus far.
Trolls will be trolls Chris, kudos for staying so polite when responding to them! Also glad to know i’m not the only one with a running tally of the dumbest comments!!!
Um, wow.
So I suppose that if someone is knocking your butt out you would rather that us “Civilian Sheepdogs” not come to your aide because you think we just *want* to shoot someone?
Those of us that are law abiding, licensed (where needed) conceal carry citizens carry not because we want to have to use the firearm. We carry because we recognize that there is a tangible threat from deranged and criminal individuals. And no one knows where or where those incidents will occur. We carry to protect ourselves, our family, and people like you who are ignorant of the potential dangers of the world; where it takes time for law enforcement to arrive and where every second counts toward surviving a violent encounter with a criminal or lunatic.
In case you missed the court rulings, LEOs have no Constitutional requirement to provide protection to citizens. That is not their job although it does happen to a degree by association with their arrest and investigatory duties.
Excellent article. We had an incident like this in NW Wisconsin a few years ago. A DNR officer stopped to help someone who had gone in the ditch during the winter. The driver knocked him down, took his baton and made a serious effort at beating him to death with it. The officer was finally able to draw his weapon and shoot the man, but required many months of rehab before he was able to return to duty. Just being unarmed does not make a person peaceful or less dangerous.
Thanks Dave. I wish I had added a link to the video of the female police officer getting beaten unconscious on a traffic stop by parolee who was a former boxer.
And wtf is up with that little douchbag who is filming the officer getting beaten and laughing?
I think you answered your own question. “Douchebag” pretty much says it all.
For the MILLIONTH time……….Zimmerman did not have to be in the situation. He should have asked Trayvon from the get go did he love there or need any help. Not automatically accuse him of being a criminal and calling the police before he had any facts. So NO he should not have shot Trayvon. He is a racist Coward. Know as far as the other instances….. Point well taken! Arm yourself and be prepared for any situation. All it takes is one blow!!
J,
Again, I wasn’t commenting on all of GZ’s actions, I was simply pointing out that when he was getting beaten, his life was in danger. I don’t know that he’s a racist, since he’s mixed-race himself and had apparently gone out of his way for blacks in the past. I’m not a fan of the guy, but I do think it’s BS that the media tried so hard to paint him as racist, while at the same time glossing over TM’s past behavior.
Thanks for your comment.
“Put down your latte, step out of your insulated little academic/theoretical cocoon, walk into the real world and start a fight with the first street thug you see. After you awaken from your brutal beating, if you still believe deadly force against an unarmed person is never justified, then by all means don’t carry a gun.”
I don’t understand this. I don’t think you mean this literally. But it doesn’t make sense figuratively either. If I’m to start a fight, I should have a gun on me? So if I realize I’m losing, I can pull it on the person? That doesn’t make me “enlightened” or in some way more connected with reality because I know that the street is a concrete jungle. It makes me a fucking asshole, even if I don’t shoot and/or kill the person I was attacking. This is exactly what George Zimmerman did.
The knockout game is terrifying with people who carry weapons. Let’s say I’m playing “good guy with a gun” and looking out for any suspicious activity when all of a sudden, WHAM, I get knocked out. It is immediate and completely unexpected. I’m unconscious. And I have a gun that is exposed. Now, the kids—who spend their free time punching people in the face for fun—HAVE A GUN.
That said, I still think LE should be able to carry when off-duty. But it’s still really scary either way.
Mitch,
I appreciate your comment, and the way you presented itI do think you read way into my post, however.
I did not, in any way, suggest that people should arm themselves and go start fights. The part of my post you quoted was a sarcastic invitation to the proverbial “latte-sippers”, meaning people with little to no real life experience outside of a classroom, to please go out and get the shit beaten out of them at least once.
I’m honestly at a loss as to how you deduced from my writing that I want people to arm themselves, start fights and then shoot the people they’re fighting with.
My guess, and it’s just a guess, is that you’re generally against citizens carrying guns, and your view of armed citizens is that they’re troublemakers with guns out looking for excuses to shoot people. Your points about armed citizens being disarmed by attackers, and “LE should be able to carry off duty” lead me to this suspicion.
Your comment, “The knockout game is terrifying with people who carry weapons”, is telling. One thing I’ve noticed as a trend among those who support gun control or oppose citizen concealed carry is a belief that resisting criminals, or even having the means to do so, just makes the situation worse. “Just cooperate and nobody will get hurt.”
Do you believe it’s better for the intended victim to be unarmed and at the mercy of those who would randomly attack them? Keep in min that in some of the attacks, as in the attack on Matt Quain, it wasn’t a one-hit knockout. Quain was assaulted by a group of teens who beat him severely. He had time to react to the attack, but was unarmed and helpless.
Thanks for the great read, Chris. A friend of mine linked me this article just a bit ago, and I even read through all the comments… though I feel like a few of them sapped my intellect and faith in humanity.
I have never been in a situation like this since I have become an adult, and I hope I never have to, but I like to think I understand the fear that people must feel in a situation like this. My friend is a security officer at a university in Texas, and has worked very closely with the local PD for some time, with the intent to join when he is done with his education. If any of these situations were to happen to him, I can only hope that he would have the presence of mind to react with justifiable force. Even I know that if you are going to shoot someone, you shoot to kill. Some of this nonsense here about wounding just boggles me.
Scott,
Other than as a kid, I hadn’t been in fights until I became a cop. I had, however, seen a few, including one that turned into a stabbing. None of us watching even knew the victim had been stabbed until it was over.
The one thing I’d give you a clarification on, you don’t shoot to kill. You shoot to stop. The best way to do that is center mass hits until the threat ceases. When we as cops shoot, it’s not with the intent to kill, it’s with the intent to eliminate the threat.
Thanks for commenting, and good luck to you and your friend.
True but dangerous.
There is a persuasive truth within the argument. It is true that lethal violence is justifiable. The argument provides situations wherein officers are hit with an initial devastating punch which then followed by lethal assault. It has the necessary elements where lethal force is justifiable: Surprise; the officer was not able to prepare for a lethal attack; Lethal intent; destructive harm was clearly not used for the purpose of evasion but for lethal effect; Post-facto knowledge; the event resulted with debilitating or lethal results.
However true, where the author fails to be specific poses a dangerous result. Specific circumstances are used to impose ‘police culture mentality’ wherein lethal response is the safest, self-preserving response a police/person can do when a person is ‘perceived’ as violent-to-lethal risk.
The type of situations provided is where lethal force is justified. However, persuading an ‘inexperienced’ person’s mindset to a singular, police/person mentality by providing specific situations while neglecting to provide a nuanced argument will most likely lead to a slippery slope of Police Culture.
Does the author say that all ‘knockout game’ perpetrators need and deserve to be shot down? Yes
Does this mean that serious perceived threat justifies lethal force, even having limited knowledge of intention and what will happen in the future? Yes, as the author implies.
Let’s say you perceived a person swing a punch at you with no reason. According to the author he is justified to use lethal force.
What if the situation is not according to what you perceived?
tl’dr: Persuasive truth in non-nuanced argument leads to hasty generalizations.
Joe,
Interesting comment. I didn’t say that all Knockout Game players need to be shot, nor do I think I’m pushing anyone into a police mentality, but otherwise you’re pretty much on target. All I can say in response is that this was a blog post, not a detailed essay. I provided a basic premise and backed it up with real-world situations. With another thousand words or so, I could delve into the nuances you’re referring to.
I did point out that deadly force should not be anyone’s default response to being punched. You’re concerned that my point will be overgeneralized as “Shoot everyone who tries to hit you,” whereas I’m concerned that innocent citizens will overgeneralize the other way with “Just getting punched is no big deal”.
Thanks for your perspective, it was pretty interesting. Please come back and offer more of your opinions.
OMG, you replied. awesome!
The reason I raised up the issue of possible generalization is because of these last statements:
“And if we’re someday confronted by an unarmed scumbag who looks like he could beat us to death, or if we spot the signs that we’re about to become a playtoy for the “Knockout Game”, we’re going to draw, aim, and engage as necessary.”
When the argument describes an act, especially involving a firearm, as a follow-up to a perception that a person simply “looks like he could beat us to death” or signs of possibly “becom(ing) a playtoy for the “Knockout Game” without specifying on somethings are among the things that are dangerous. The last statement is really dangerous because why lethal looks of potential capability? Or, what are the signs of “Knockout Game”?
I have been stopped before by a person because I looked liked I was about to do something bad and I lived in a bad neighborhood. The law enforcer stepped out of his vehicle and reached for gun because I had a lethal look. However I the sun was just in my face and I wasn’t really gifted with good looks. I have received similar remarks before.
Majority of the readers will agree with the argument. But the last statement needs to be revised. If “deadly looks” or unspecified signs of possible attack justifies a person to “draw out a gun, take aim, and engage as necessary” are the basis on the use of possibly lethal, which the majority of the people here agrees, then dark male, minority guys (like me) who have already been stopped and threatened with firearms by law enforcement, will continue to be stopped and threatened simply by our looks.
I agree with intention of the argument, but there are somethings that causes me to worry.
tl;dr: “someone who looks like he could beat us” and “signs” are not enough and dangerous if not elaborated. I do not look like Bradd Pitt.
Joe…..
Even as a resident of a country that does not allow ownership of firearms for self-defence, there are a couple of things that I know.
(1) The use of lethal force is justified if you (or another reasonable person in your place would) genuinely believe that you are in danger of death or serious physical harm. That would cover a situation in which there is someone who appears to have both the means and motivation to do so, while you lack the means to retreat (adequately).
(2) Chris specifically said “engage AS NECESSARY”. That does not mean simply opening fire on suspicion. The literature on self-defence indicates that the MAJORITY of cases are resolved by simply presenting the firearm, thereby allowing the potential threat to cease threatening.
One of the major points that Chris is trying to make, is that it is perfectly reasonable for a person to believe themselves under threat of death or serious injury, even when the (potential) aggressor is not apparently armed.
…… and as a big bloke myself (and no movie-star for looks), one of the things that I have had to learn is that people can find my physical presence intimidating. We have to learn to deal with that.
Cheers…. Peter
Peter (who also do not look like Bradd Pitt),
1) State laws regarding use of firearm for self-defense differ from state to state. They are legislated with bounded rationality. Some are ambiguous on many things and requires revisiting. The application of gun laws differ from person to person. Judicial application of laws that allow for use of firearms differ from race to race. Policy intention and policy implication are two different things.
2) He did say “engage as necessary” but it was preceded and predicated also upon profiling that the person “looks like he could beat us to death.”
I understand the essay’s intention but the language of the argument was not able to fully address.
Cheer,
Joe
Joe….
Excuse me if I argue from principle.
Firstly, if – as you state – there is a differential in the application of law on the basis of race, that does not invalidate Chris’ post. It only demonstrates that there is a problem with justice in certain jurisdictions..
Secondly,… While “profiling” is considered politically incorrect, in practice it is something that we must do if we are to rationally assess threats to our personal security. The white-haired old lady with the walking stick MIGHT be more dangerous than the bloke in the wife-beater and the prison-tatts, but that’s not the way to bet.
The core of Chris’ argument – at least as far as I read it – is not about racial profiling, but about the fact that not seeing a weapon is not much of an indicator that you will not need to use lethal force if attacked.
Joe,
The signs I was referring to aren’t regarding a potential attacker’s physical characteristics. The signs are behavioral. Pre-assault indicators like someone quickly looking around (to ensure no witnesses/threats are around), pulling a hood up or hat down (to obscure their face), changing direction toward you for no apparent reason (for example, an potential attacker crosses the street toward you even though all the stores on your side of the street are closed), and other similar signs are what I’m talking about.
Yes, physical traits can come into play. However, skin tone or attractiveness aren’t factors to consider.
I’ll say it: All Knockout “Game” players deserve to be shot. In the face. It’s not a “game,” it’s assault, and it is in no way funny.
Almost 40 comments to my post, and NOW you finally say something that makes sense? :)
I say plenty that makes sense, we just have experience bias. We’ve both seen things that we swear work (or don’t work) despite the other’s instance to the contrary. The majority of our debate have points that are situational.
How about we agree to disagree on the flak that doesn’t really matter, and leave it to this: George Zimmerman is a douche bag, along with anyone who would randomly sucker punch someone as hard as they can for absolutely no reason.
No argument there, we do agree on those two points.
LOL chris , you finally said what everyone else has been thinking .
As a martial arts master, one of the big challenges is to help untrained people understand that anyone can be taken down by one lucky shot, even me. Even my 12 year old son could beat me if he was lucky enough for me to slip, and if I bang my head on a bad fall, none of my training will help much after that.
Interestingly, when offered a chance to test their theory, none accept. I’ll offer them headgear with a facemask so they can’t get hit, let them tuck a gun in their belt and give them a chance to stop me. I promise to only move like a brawler, not a martial arts master, and they can try to defend themselves. At any moment, they can either draw the gun or even just shout “bang!” and the match will be over.
Zero takers so far.
Scot,
One of the more interesting training exercises I’ve participated in, and one which I’m pretty proud of, was a drill where I had to draw and empty a magazine into a target while an instructor with boxing gloves was behind me beating me in the head. We also had to do it while being choked out from behind. It’s damn hard to get rounds off accurately at any distance while you’re being beaten senseless.
I love how some people feel that they have the whole truth to something, even when those “truths” have been presented to you through the media. I did not realize that the media was an omniscient being. The only ones who know the whole story are George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. One is dead and the other’s account cannot necessarily be relied upon. Memories become hazy over time and can be easily manipulated. Therefore, regardless of whatever news source you watch/read, you don’t know everything. It’s like a game of telephone. Truths get exaggerated and/or distorted. Therefore, I think it’s a little harsh to attack the author about this issue. Especially since it wasn’t the point of his post in the first place.
To the author:
I felt that your post was very informative. And I thank you for that. Although, it’s a little scary to know that this “Knockout Game” exists. Being a petite female with no fighting experience, I better keep an eye out…
EWA,
Thanks very much for that, I appreciate it.
You wrote a very good article. I was an MP and I got knocked around a bit and one punch can disorient a person sufficiently enough that someone can inflict great harm and injury to another. I pray for every member of law enforcement when they assume duty.
Having said all of that, I will respectfully disagree about the “fight between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin is not alive to provide his side of events and George Zimmerman’s side is questionable. Also, let us not confuse trained law enforcement personnel with untrained civilians participating in a neighborhood watch.
Michelle,
Thanks for your comments, and your service. Believe me, I am not equating GZ with trained LE. The only point of my post was to illustrate the threat an unarmed person can pose when they’re beating someone.
Very good piece on the importance of having situational awareness and the means to keep yourself safe, whatever that may be.
I started training in Krav Maga in April of this year and it has changed how I view the world. I think everyone should learn an equivalent skill.
N8,
Good on you for taking KM. I haven’t taken BJJ for several years, and I need to get back into it. It definitely was an eye-opener. And I really think everyone needs to get their ass kicked at least once, just to learn reality and humility.
Let me know how KM works out for you, I’ve heard nothing but good things about it.
Amazing article! My bf is a police officer and Marine. He always carries off duty. I also want him to teach me to shoot. He made me get my foid card.i think this article is extremely true and helpful.
Thank you Amber, I appreciate that.
And allow me to compliment your taste in boyfriends. :)
I understand the general meaning of what this article is trying to say. I have always looked at things from all angles and being a police officer is a risky job. You certainly can kill someone without a weapon and it happens often. True that the general public doesn’t get a whole picture. Police officers put their lives in danger on a regular basis and split second decisions need to be made.
However… there was no need to insert the Treyvon Martin / Zimmerman case into this piece. They are completely different. There were no police in danger, no one was resisting arrest and showing themselves to be dangerous. It was a waste of an example and did not play into the point being made.
It’s a shame that you took a very important point with very informative information and tainted it with a poor example of what you were trying to express.
Faelyn , IT HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH TRAVON MARTIN , what part of getting beat up possibly to death dont you understand ?
Faelyn,
Of the three examples I linked to, one with several incidents had no connection to police officers. My post wasn’t about the threat unarmed attackers can pose to police, it’s about the threat they can pose to anyone. The Knockout Game hasn’t been played against police, it’s been played against private citizens. The Trayvon Martin mention was to show how uninformed some people are when they claim an unarmed person can’t be a threat.
Thank you for your comment.
Excellent article I learned a lot . I actually was a block watch person in Phoenix , Az , we did patrols to protect our neighborhood and we carried guns . We closed 11 crack houses and cleaned up our neighborhood because the police dept failed to do so. One of the questions that never seems to be a dressed here is “why and what puts citizens in the position to have to defend their neighborhoods in the first place ?? What city isn’t meeting its responsibility in the first place ?
what we did was address the issues that were causing the high crime and the lack of interest by the city mgt from the mayor to the police chief. What did happen as the result of our civilian patrols is the city FINALLY STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE and the Chief of Police took it upon himself to address the problem which he instituted a special program called “operation blue sky ” where special details were put in our neighborhood , they initiated outstanding warrants in the area , put CAP officers in the area , had 24 -7 special details in the area , made over 100 arrests , high profile of law enforcement and worked with community in every way they could and not with words but with action.
We had meetings with the police dept , much intel information was given on the area , we took pictures of drug dealers for them , we had our own bike patrols that took pics of the prostitution participants in the area ( both the johns and the hookers ) threatened to send to their wives . .It wasn’t easy but we did it and IT WORKED ! the DIFFERENCE HERE WAS WE HAD A POLICE CHIEF THAT WAS A GREAT OFFICER OF THE LAW . I had over 20 news articles done on our “civilian patrols ” and won the most read article of that year . WE had marches , we had groups of 50 people march to each drug dealers house and with mega phones told them to get out of our neighborhoods while we played the ” Cops ” theme “what are ya gonna do when they come for you ” We wrote letters to the judges that had the swinging door policy of letting prostitutes out again if they continued with that policy we would bus them into their neighborhoods to pimp their profession . We actually got a judge fired because of his policies .
The real point to be made here is this ? Why was that neighborhood over run with crime and the city did nothing about it ? Why were neighborhoods so neglected by its mayor that this had to happen in the first place ? Those were the questions printed as headlines in the Arizona Republic … and the city management had to answer to the community . I have been in Zimmermans shoes and have held criminals at gun point til the police arrived but I tell you this if anyone attacked me and I felt my life was threatened in anyway I would have shot them. I am a 5’2″ woman that didnt want to be in this position but met the challenge to protect my children from criminals .I have a natural God given right to defend myself and my babies and no one has the right to take that away from me .Thank you Chris for your blog we all appreciate it .
Outstanding! Well done Ruth.
Ruth,
You really should write a long and detailed blog post about how you and your neighbors helped your neighborhood. That is one hell of an inspiring story.
“I have been in Zimmermans shoes and have held criminals at gun point til the police arrived”
Except that Zimmerman wasn’t chasing a criminal. Not to mention, I’m positive that everything you just posted was bullshit, because if you really “had over 20 news articles done on our ‘civilian patrols’ and won the most read article of that year”, you’d think I could find a single one of them online. The only articles about “civilian patrols” in Phoenix, Arizona involve those “militia Minutemen” trying to be Border patrol.
Thanks you, Chris! I ve been recommended to your article by my husband, Joshua Franke-Hyland who you know from Afghanistan. Thanks for your service to our country.
[Deleted by Chris Hernandez]…Try these : Wednesday Dec 30, 1992 Arizona Republic or the Phoenix Gazzette ( not sure which paper it came out of I just have cut the articles out and saved them Titled THEY SAID IT IN 92 ” Heres another one “residents taking back their blocks ” By Ryan Konig staff writer .. North community section of the Arizona Republic the phoenix gazette Wednesday February 10, 1993. title ” ANTI – CRIME PATROL SURPRISES FLEEING SUSPECT ” ,
[Deleted]…If you really have the need to prove my claims by all means give a contact address and I will send them to you :). Or if I really see the need and right now I am just not feeling it I will find a way to put them on here . You have a good day Cruinin :)
Ruth,
Let’s keep the conversation on track, rather than letting it get personal. Thanks,
Chris
oh and by the way crunin , I was also down at the border with the minute men when they first went down to the border years ago . We went to Tombstone , Az. met up with Chris Wilcox of the Tombstone Newspaper and about 200 of us met down there . I also was the treasurer for Protect Arizona Now (PAN) where we had initiated into law Prop 200 . .By the way we weren’t trying to be border patrols we were observing and taking pictures of all the illegals coming across the border. you have such away of twisting words .
I’m going to assume you’re responding to me, even though you couldn’t spell my name right a single time. I mean, it’s on the screen right in front of you. You’re one of those people that has to look at the keyboard when you type, yet I’M the moron? Tell me, why would people who were merely observing and taking pictures need firearms, and not have cameras in their possession?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/sheriff-joe-arpaio-warns-desert-militias-drop-weapons-article-1.1432561
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/21/famed-arizona-sheriff-sends-ominous-verbal-warning-shot-to-armed-militias/
The men admitted in interviews and to the police that their purpose was to keep illegal immigrants out of Arizona. One of the men held a police officer at gunpoint. I’m not twisting anything. I’m also not saying what they were doing was at all wrong, other than the whole “pointing a gun at law enforcement, and then refusing to lower said gun” bit. Yeah, I’M the “wing nut,” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean…[deleted by Chris Hernandez]…YOU have a good day, Mrs. Childress,
Red man can open some eyes can’t it Chris? There’s a part of me that wishes that only people that are overly critical of others exercising their right to self defense were the the victims of violent crimes. It’s amazing how finding oneself on the receiving end of that kind of violence can alter one’s perspective.
I remember taking one into custody after a chase and a fight and having a resident ask me if I didn’t think I was too rough with that man as I was taking him back the car. The perp screamed an expletive at the “concerned citizen” and spit blood and saliva in his face, so I asked, “you were saying?” He just looked at me, said, “nevermind” and walked back into his house. I almost wanted to thank the perp for that at that moment.
Terry,
Fortunately, before red man I had almost had my ass handed to me a few times, so I went into that ring with humility. Two things I did in there that I’m proud of: I managed to keep my distance most of the time, and when the instructor finally did knock me down and go for my gun I grabbed the grip, rolled fetal onto my holster and didn’t let him take it.
That spitting story is epic. Please share it whenever you can.
When I was just out of high school I regularly competed in martial arts. At that time I could put my fist through five to seven concrete roofing tiles. If I hit someone in the head with a strike like that just one time it would shatter their skull and likely kill them. These “Knock Out” thugs have even been punching out mothers in front of their children…they don’t care or even have a sense of remorse over what they are doing.
Likewise don’t underestimate an opponent with a blade if you have a firearm. They can cut you in all your major arteries in a matter of seconds if they get close.
Now for the real truth: A human charging at you from a standing stop can close a 20 foot distance so fast that you would not even be able to draw a weapon in defense before they got to you. So you cannot rely on any single defense method for your safety. You need to know hand-to-hand methods even if you are proficient with a pistol. And, you must keep your situational awareness at all times and know how to buy yourself time while keeping someone at a distance. Strangers can ask a question from twenty feet…they don’t need to move in close. If they insist on approaching, escalate accordingly to keep them outside your defensive perimeter. Otherwise you could end up a victim.
Methusselah,
One of the most interesting training videos I’ve ever seen was a “knife vs gun” demonstration. A Filipino master knife fighter was inside a building playing the “suspicious male” suspect. Officers would then go inside and approach him as they normally would on that kind of call. In every case, the suspect managed to close distance, pull his knife and slash/stab the officer multiple times before the officer could draw his weapon.
If I’m in contact or within contact distance of an attacker, my first move probably isn’t to draw my weapon. I need to create distance if possible, deflect blows or slashes with my non-gun hand (even if that means sacrificing that hand in order to draw and fire with the other), draw my weapon but keep it tucked in close to my torso, and fire controlled rounds into the attacker’s torso.
Bottom line: maintain distance. And like you said, your plan better be something more than just “I have a gun”.
Thanks Methusselah, I appreciate your comment.
especially for a woman ( non trained ) she should always have a “safe zone ” perimeter . When she is alone walking to a car to her house etc and especially when someone is approaching her . I have actually said to someone late at night walking to my car “please stop right there do not get any closer to me we can talk from there . ” if they do not respect that distance you probably need to start running or think of your next step. When I am walking my German Shepard ( trooper ) LOL he sets that perimeter for me :) guessing here but its usually about 12 feet..
A good friend, current Chicago cop, shared this blog. Great read. Great debate amongst the comments as well. As a 5’6, 155lb, guy, living in Detroit, I know I’m not physically strong enough to defend myself against the majority of thugs/perps & I’m not LE or Armed Forces trained…the idea that common citizen like me put in the situation with an on rushing attacker that I would be able to shoot a leg or other body part to non- lethally stop the attack as some of your posters suggest, is laughable. I would hope and pray under that stress that I simply hit the target.
Greg,
Thanks and agreed on almost all points. But I’d point out that training works better than hope and prayer combined. :)
Hilarious and totally agree…I have a long way to go in my training before I’m ready for the responsibility to actually carry. Have my CPL in MI, but not enough time with my firearm where I feel confident with it…and even when I do, it won’t equate to the training LE/Armed Forces have. I promise not to close my eyes and pray, but I can promise you I won’t be aiming for a calf muscle to slow down the attack. If forced, I will shoot as trained and that is to stop the threat. Be safe out there, and thank you for the insightful conversation.
I fight in real MMA and have had over 20 mma fights! Most importantly I have been knocked out lol. Now I will admit MMA nor my experiences in bare knuckle karate or muay thai competition are parallel to a fight on the street without rules and a referee and a doctor cage side. But when I have been dazed and confused whether from a knee to the kidney, punch to my nose, or even a spinning hook kick to my abdomen, whilst on the ground I am able to control some aspect of the fight and pull guard, knee shield; something to keep my opponent off of me and the ref from calling the fight. If i can do that another human being can and resort to using a firearm like Zimmerman did.
Mike,
If someone is conscious while under attack, and the attacker doesn’t know they’re armed and isn’t trying to stop them from drawing, then they can probably draw and engage (depending on how/where they’re carrying). The “average” attacker is just throwing punches, not watching their victim’s hands.
Thanks for the insight, and good on you for the MMA fights. I worked security at a UFC event a ways back, and seeing the fighters after their matches was eye opening. I know it takes a hell of a lot of bravery to step into that ring.
A few years ago a Galveston police officer shot someone who “only” had a knife. You should re-run that story showing how much damage a suspect can do with “only” a knife.
William,
That’s a good idea. Most cops I’ve talked to about it are more scared of being stabbed than shot. I’ve seen quite a few knife wounds, and when I was a teenager I saw a fight where a guy got stabbed without anyone realizing it. I don’t even think the victim knew until it was over.
What a fantastically written and poignant article that really gives people a reality check about violence sans a firearm…. and why Justifiable Use Of Force can occur for reasons you might not have otherwise considered!
Your comments show again, why George Zimmerman’s story of what happened during the confrontation with TM was indeed a “story” which hardly coincided with reality.
First, George Zimmerman was not a police officer, wasn’t trained as a police officer, had none of the obligations or benefits of being a police officer. If he had been a police officer, in a police cruiser instead of a civilian truck, when he first saw Trayvon Martin, TM would no have wondered who he was or what is intent was, which is very important.
The behavior that Zimmerman thought was “suspicious” may well not have been considered to be so by a police officer or even given that officer “probable cause” to investigate. Had the police officer chosen to investigate, he could have simply rolled down his window and asked Trayvon Martin what he was doing or going. Would Trayvon Martin had run from him or her? Well we will never know, but there would have been no reason for him to. He was not doing anything illegal and could have simply told the officer I am heading “home.” He had every reasons to “run from” George Zimmerman since he had no idea why Zimmerman was staring at him or following him!
That’s one of the reasons why NW rules dictate that volunteers call the police, not carry firearms and not follow “suspects.” Of course George Zimmerman simply ignored these regulations which led directly to a confrontation which would not have taken place but for his actions!
You state:
“During the uproar over the Trayvon Martin court case, I heard a lot of intelligent, educated people comment that “All Trayvon did was hit Zimmerman. That’s no reason to shoot someone.
Last year an El Paso, Texas police officer was beaten to death by an unarmed 17 year old. The teenager punched the officer, knocked him backward onto the concrete, then straddled him and beat him severely. The officer never regained consciousness and died nine days later.”
Now, that is quite similar to what Zimmerman claims Martin did to him, yet he didn’t die, far from it. He had 2 scratches on the back of his head and a bloody nose. No coma, no concussion, no loss of consciousness, no hospitalization, no skull fracture, not even any necessary secondary medical care. Common sense, not to mention forensic evidence, shows that Martin did not pound Zimmerman’s head into the pavement 12+ times, and probably didn’t even do it once. Does anyone really Zimmerman is telling the truth about that?
Well, Trayvon may have hit Zimmerman, but outside of Zimmerman’s self-serving story, there is no evidence that Trayvon hit him first or at all. http://mysteryquest1.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/267/ Consider Zimmerman’s own videotaped interviews, he followed TM first in his truck and then on foot and when TM asked him what he wanted, he did not identify himself or his intent and reached quickly into his pocket? Zimmerman’s actions were aggressive and provocative and if TM hit him at that point, it would have been in self-defense.
“Put down your latte, step out of your insulated little academic/theoretical cocoon, walk into the real world and start a fight with the first street thug you see. After you awaken from your brutal beating, if you still believe deadly force against an unarmed person is never justified, then by all means don’t carry a gun.”
Well anyone risks getting beaten or shot by anyone (not just a young thug) they “start a fight with.” So you are suggesting that you carry a gun so that if you “start a fight”, and in anticipation or the possibility of losing that fight and being severely beaten, you shoot the person you “attacked”? … in self defense, before anything can happen to you? Basically what the evidence shows Zimmerman did!
So, that’s “self-defense”? Initiating a fight, then killing the person you attacked before they can hurt you? Well that’s exactly what Zimmerman did! Let’s look at the law:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Well in the scenario provided by you, it would not be self defense, since you advocate shooting the person before trying to escape any danger!
Mysteryquest,
Thank you for commenting. I’m going to break your comment into sections and respond to each.
1) “Your comments show again, why George Zimmerman’s story of what happened during the confrontation with TM was indeed a “story” which hardly coincided with reality.”
First, I have no vested interest in GZ’s defense. My post was about the threat unarmed people can pose.
2) “First, George Zimmerman was not a police officer, wasn’t trained as a police officer, had none of the obligations or benefits of being a police officer. If he had been a police officer, in a police cruiser instead of a civilian truck, when he first saw Trayvon Martin, TM would no have wondered who he was or what is intent was, which is very important.”
Again, I’m not claiming GZ did everything right. Nor did I, at any point,claim GZ was or was acting as a police officer.
3) “The behavior that Zimmerman thought was “suspicious” may well not have been considered to be so by a police officer or even given that officer “probable cause” to investigate. Had the police officer chosen to investigate, he could have simply rolled down his window and asked Trayvon Martin what he was doing or going. Would Trayvon Martin had run from him or her? Well we will never know, but there would have been no reason for him to. He was not doing anything illegal and could have simply told the officer I am heading “home.” He had every reasons to “run from” George Zimmerman since he had no idea why Zimmerman was staring at him or following him!”
I’ve been a cop almost 20 years, I have a good idea of how a police officer would have handled it. They may have done what you said, maybe not, depending on the particular officer and what he or she observed. However, one does not have to be a police officer to investigate suspicious activity. I agree that GZ should never have gotten out of the truck; however, he didn’t break any laws by doing so.
4) “That’s one of the reasons why NW rules dictate that volunteers call the police, not carry firearms and not follow “suspects.” Of course George Zimmerman simply ignored these regulations which led directly to a confrontation which would not have taken place but for his actions!”
NW rules aren’t law. Most convenience store clerks are also prohibited by store rules from confronting robbers; if they choose to fight back, the “house” rules they broke are immaterial. I agree with you that GZ exercised bad judgment. In my opinion, he should have observed and reported, and nothing more. But his decision to get out and talk to TM, if that’s all he tried to do, does not make him criminal.
5) “Now, that is quite similar to what Zimmerman claims Martin did to him, yet he didn’t die, far from it. He had 2 scratches on the back of his head and a bloody nose. No coma, no concussion, no loss of consciousness, no hospitalization, no skull fracture, not even any necessary secondary medical care. Common sense, not to mention forensic evidence, shows that Martin did not pound Zimmerman’s head into the pavement 12+ times, and probably didn’t even do it once. Does anyone really Zimmerman is telling the truth about that?
Well, Trayvon may have hit Zimmerman, but outside of Zimmerman’s self-serving story, there is no evidence that Trayvon hit him first or at all. http://mysteryquest1.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/267/ Consider Zimmerman’s own videotaped interviews, he followed TM first in his truck and then on foot and when TM asked him what he wanted, he did not identify himself or his intent and reached quickly into his pocket? Zimmerman’s actions were aggressive and provocative and if TM hit him at that point, it would have been in self-defense.”
I never claimed GZ was badly beaten, and that doesn’t really matter to my argument. By your logic, someone must wait until they’ve suffered significant injury before using deadly force to protect themselves. Based on facts and experience, I know that if someone waits until they’re grievously injured before taking decisive action in self-defense, they may be so badly injured they can’t effectively resist. The point of self-defense is to prevent harm to yourself; it’s not to allow however much harm the uninformed believe are sufficient. Officer Molina in El Paso had not even a minor scratch before he was stunned and disabled with one punch. An unarmed attacker beat him to death before he could respond. You, and several others, assume that this post is a full-throated defense of GZ. It is not. It’s an illustration of the very real threat an unarmed person can pose.
And just as an aside, citing your own blog post as evidence doesn’t do much for your argument.
6) “So you are suggesting that you carry a gun so that if you “start a fight”, and in anticipation or the possibility of losing that fight and being severely beaten, you shoot the person you “attacked”? … in self defense, before anything can happen to you? Basically what the evidence shows Zimmerman did!
So, that’s “self-defense”? Initiating a fight, then killing the person you attacked before they can hurt you? Well that’s exactly what Zimmerman did!”
Asked and answered in comments above. I’ll quote myself, with an answer I gave to someone else who managed to twist that interpretation out of my post:
“My suggestion for certain people to put down their lattes, leave their academic/theoretical worlds and start a fight just so they’d get their asses kicked wasn’t meant literally. No, I really don’t expect latte-sippers to walk away from their computers to start a fight and get beaten down. My statement was kind of like, “If you think alligator wrestling isn’t dangerous, go to a Florida swamp and hug the first alligator you see.” No, I really wouldn’t expect anyone to really do it.”
I appreciate all the time and energy you expended researching law in a futile attempt to refute a point I never made. Please re-read what I wrote. Quote me. Show where I suggested anyone start a fight and then shoot the person for hitting them. Re-read it again, very carefully. You’ll notice I suggested the latte-sipper start a fight, then “after he awakens from his severe beating”, re-evaluate his belief that unarmed people are no threat. There is no suggestion anywhere in my writing for people to start fights as a justification for shooting people.
You’re obviously intelligent and articulate, so the stupidity in this part of your comment surprised me.
Thanks for responding to my comment and your concern regarding time and energy, I may have expended on research. Fortunately, I didn’t have to expend any, as I’m already quite familiar with the law.
It was not at all clear to me that you did not literally mean what you said regarding “latte-sippers starting a fight”, however, if you say you were employing some kind of rhetorical device regardless of how inartfully I feel it was done, that’s fine with me.
As concerns Zimmerman’s injuries, or lack of them. The issue here is credibility which is very important when you have killed the only other witness to a deadly confrontation which has led to criminal charges. I realize that a person might have a reasonable fear of death or bodily injury without or before actually suffering the same and of course, they would need to act before such an occurrence.
However, Zimmerman claims to have been hit in the face hard enough to have his head slammed into the concrete over a dozen times. His lack of commensurate injuries simply defies common sense and there was no forensic evidence or independent evidence that supports his position. The fact is the forensic evidence contradicted it.
He didn’t say I shot Martin before he had a chance to slam my head on the concrete. He didn’t say he might have been hallucinating, delusional or was in anyway unsure of what had occurred. He was examined by a medical professional (though it was only because his employer demanded it) and was found not have suffered any form of head trauma.
I drew the comparison between what happened to the officer you mentioned and to Zimmerman because what happened to the officer and what Zimmerman claimed happened to him are quite similar. This served to point out the absurdity of Zimmerman’s claim and the fact that his account and therefore he, is not even close to credible, under the best of lights.
I was not implying that you thought Zimmerman or his accounts of what Martin did to him in his “testimony” are credible.
Yes, I referenced my a post on my blog as a basis for a position I took in my comment. In that post I simply laid out what evidence was presented at the trial. Of course, the potential for bias is clear. I can cite to other analysis or to the actual testimony to support my position if you’d like.
Mystery,
Here’s what I actually wrote:
“If you watched those videos and still feel that it’s always wrong to shoot an unarmed person, or that George Zimmerman, moron though he may be, could not possibly have been justified in shooting Trayvon Martin, I have a request for you. Put down your latte, step out of your insulated little academic/theoretical cocoon, walk into the real world and start a fight with the first street thug you see. After you awaken from your brutal beating, if you still believe deadly force against an unarmed person is never justified, then by all means don’t carry a gun.”
In this second comment you’ve changed your accusation. Earlier you claimed I wanted people to start fights and then shoot the people they’re fighting with.
“So, that’s “self-defense”? Initiating a fight, then killing the person you attacked before they can hurt you?”
But now you’ve toned it down to “It was not at all clear to me that you did not literally mean what you said regarding ‘latte-sippers starting a fight’, however, if you say you were employing some kind of rhetorical device regardless of how inartfully I feel it was done, that’s fine with me.”
My rhetorical suggestion was not meant to be “artful”. I’m a very blunt, literal writer. While I would in fact like to see proverbial latte-sippers start a fight just so they’ll get some ignorant idealism beaten out of them, sadly enough I don’t expect them to actually do it. And you’ll notice that in my rhetorical suggestion, all I talked about was starting the fight, waking up after a severe beating and then reevaluating their belief that unarmed people aren’t dangerous. Nowhere, not once, not in any way, did I suggest they start a fight and then shoot people for engaging in the fight. You pulled that interpretation out of your head, not out of my writing.
Again, I’ll point out that you’re wasting your time rehashing the GZ case. I never claimed GZ’s testimony was honest. I stated an unarmed person can in fact be a lethal threat. I didn’t even claim GZ was definitely justified, I simply argued against those who believe there was no way he could have been. I get your point that his claimed attacks didn’t match up with the physical injuries. However, he was in fact on his back, TM was in fact at least trying to beat his head against concrete, and TM did in fact punch him. My point is that even unarmed, TM could have posed a lethal threat to GZ.
As for your claim that GZ’s testimony was false because the injuries he had didn’t match up with his claims, I’d ask if you’ve ever been in a real fight. In most of the fights I’ve been in, I couldn’t tell you how many times I swung or how many times I got hit. There were times I found injuries afterward, even a day afterward, and had no idea how I got them.
People in life-and-death stress situations often experience “survival stress reactions”. They’ll have tunnel vision, auditory exclusion (loss of hearing), loss of fine motor skills, and critical incident amnesia. I’ve experienced all of these myself and have seen them in others. In “live fire” training exercises with Simunition rounds, I’ve seen officers expend a full magazine in a gunfight with one suspect, subsequently engage a second suspect, then totally forget about the first suspect when we debriefed them afterward. One of the reasons attorneys advise people not to give a statement to police without a lawyer after a justified shooting is that people often forget critical details in the immediate aftermath.
Is it possible GZ actually believed he had been hit more times than he actually was, and made honest statements about his perception of the fight? Yes. Is it possible he was intentionally inflating the number of strikes, in order to make him appear justified in using deadly force when he knew he wasn’t? Yes.
As you stated, the only other witness is dead. Neither of us were there, and the physical evidence isn’t definitive.
I also get your point that the entire incident was GZ’s fault. Actually, I agree. He was mistaken about TM’s intentions, he exercised horrible judgment in getting out of his truck, and when he wound up engaged in the fight he was unable to handle it without resorting to deadly force. I don’t hold GZ up as an example of what to do. But I do understand how he could possibly have been justified, which was one of the points of my post.
“Damn dude, why you gotta hit so hard?” Heard that one before too. I think mysteryquest1 pulled their theory out of their ass, not their head as you stated Chris. You realize this is considered a verbal fight in the world of academia, you won this round. SS J.R.Valdez *
“Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.”
*THANK YOU! For deleting my email address and any other email addresses from this message if you plan to forward it . PLEASE use “Bcc:” for lists and group mailings, INSTEAD of “Cc:” or “To:”. If you help keep our addresses private, we will be able to cut down on computer identity theft and annoying, unwanted emails.
I get the strong impression that positions taken by people like “Mystery” are driven more by the Who, than the What. Tribalism is trumping evidence.
One of the essential pillars of our shared legal system is that for GZ to be convicted of murder, the Jury would have to be convinced “BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT” that he had not been in fear of his life.
In regard to this, we have to remember that the criteria is NOT the extent of GZ’s wound, but the state of GZ’s MIND.
One thing that even Australians like myself know is that you cannot claim self-defence against a person who is disengaging and retreating, unless there is an over-riding circumstance (such as still being under the effects of a physical assault). The available evidence is that – GZ was disengaging at the time that physical contact was initiated, and that physical contact was initiated by TM.
No matter what we might personally think about people and behaviour that merit an “ass-whupping”, there is no justification under law for assaulting a person who is moving away from you having committed no other crime than making you nervous by observing you.
That is the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. Some may choose to personally doubt GZ’s testimony, but we should fear a legal system that would discard it without strong evidence to the contrary. There is reasonable doubt that GZ initiated physical contact. There is reasonable doubt GZ’s actions leading up to the event were motivated by a desire to kill TM, or even a callous disregard to TM’s safety…. and there is reasonable doubt that GZ was NOT in fear of his life or serious injury at the time that he fired that fatal shot.
We may speculate, but we are not entitled to convict a man of murder on nothing more solid than our speculations. This appears to be a hard lesson for some people to learn…..
The determination to declare GZ guilty smells more like pay-back than a dispassionate desire for justice.
Peter.