Isn’t it amazing: If Zimmerman forgot he had his gun with him, it’s proof that he had no intent to do any harm; on the other hand, if Zimmerman did know he had his gun with him, it’s proof that he had no intent to do any harm.
It’s like the perfect defense!
So…say I realize that I can’t find my shotgun. I search the whole house. Turns out it was locked in my safe the whole time, but for seven minutes, I didn’t know where it was.
I should go to prison for that?
Where’d you get that? It’s just not a claim that requires being “incredibly gullible” to find plausible, if you’ve actually carried a pistol and thus might know what you’re talking about.
Zimmerman firing when he did is evidence that he showed restraint, which could have resulted from forgetting he had his pistol, or a conscious decision on his part. There’s no way to know which it was.
No, actually it’s like: If Zimmerman forgot he had his gun with him, then he is guilty of murder, whereas if he didn’t forget he had his gun with him, then he is guilty of murder.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually it’s more like this: if Zimmerman said he forgot he had his gun with him, then he’s fucking lying, because he never would have gotten out of his truck to chase down one of the asshole fucking punks who always get away with out it in the first place.
Actually, just to close this off: Anything Zimmerman says is a lie, because he is a murderer. We know he is a murderer because everything he says is a lie.
Regards,
Shodan
Your psychological profile aside, if Zimmerman were so determined to stop Martin from getting away, why would he stop running and take a couple minutes to talk to the NEN dispatcher? That’s ample time for the asshole punk to escape.
If he anticipated capturing the asshole punk, why not draw his pistol first? A Kel-Tec 9mm is a lot more persuasive than a 5’ 7.5" 200 pound man.
You tell me. You’re the tough guy who’s always packing.
All I know is that if you’re walking through Walmart shopping for some lard-covered butterballs or whatever, you may not be paying much attention to the problem solver you’re hiding on your person. But if you just spotted a drugged out maniac walking through your neighborhood, you’re going to know what you’re bringing to the patrol area. Don’t try to convince me otherwise, Serpico.
I know I didn’t spell out all the specifics in my earlier proposal, so I do apologize for my ambiguity.
If I were to write it in better (probably not in full but hopefully enough to get the gist):
[QUOTE= In my opinion what a Law might look like (not really in legal terms though)]
The owner of a firearm is responsible for the safe disposition of their firearm at all times. If an owner fails to keep track of said firearm and does not report it as stolen and the firearm is used in the commission of a crime, the penalty is punishable by:
If damage to property = Fine
If injury to livestock = Fine
If injury to people = Fine, community service
If death to people = Fine, revocation of license for a period for not less than 1 year. After 1 year, owner may complete a gun safety course to reattain license.
[/QUOTE]
This isn’t punishment for the crime that was committed, this is punishment for not being responsible with your weapon, which allowed it to be used in a crime.
And I don’t really want people who have stuff stolen from them held responsible for what was stolen.
But if you are careless with the gun, or forget where it is, and something happens, yes you should face punishment. In my opinion.
Let’s see - you’re the neighborhood watch captain. You carry your gun around with you 24/7 (didn’t he say he almost always had his gun on him?) You’re tracking a real suspicious guy, you think he’s up to no good, you think he’s possibly on drugs, possibly armed, and you got out of your car to follow him.
Do you really think he’d ‘forget’ he was armed?
Eh, I’m medium-tough at best. You flatter me.
The point should be clear: Zimmerman’s actions are not consistent a refusal to let Martin escape: he stopped for several minutes, during which time Martin would be long, long gone if he was a the burgler Zimmerman suspect him to be.
His actions are not consistent with an attempt to capture Martin: his pistol was holstered, if it was not, then Martin either wouldn’t have punched Zimmerman at all, or there’d be bruises and scratches on Zimmerman’s hands from a struggle for the gun.
His actions are not consistent with a desire to kill Martin: he didn’t fire until about 30-40 seconds into a fight where he was losing badly, and he fired only one.
Those facts eliminate second-degree murder all on their own, though not manslaughter.
I’d say it’s more likely to be the reverse, that you’d forget information, even important facts like “my gun is on my hip”, during a time of stress, and novel stress at that, rather than a tranquil afternoon’s shopping.
I concluded some time ago that you were immune to contrary reasoning, but I try anyway.
Zimmerman was on his way to Target, not Wal-Mart. But it is good to know that you now understand why Zimmerman would not have immediately remembered that he had the pistol with him.
That apparently isn’t going to work - all we have to convince you are facts and logic.
Regards,
Shodan
Ok, I understand your reasoning. Some areas do have laws similar to that, though the owner’s reasonable efforts at securing the weapon, such as a gun safe, are generally a defense: you’re not liable if someone breaks open your safe, as you did all you reasonably could to prevent the theft of the gun.
I’m confused as to how this would apply to Zimmerman, though. His gun wasn’t lost or stolen.
It’s certainly possible, yes, be it from the gun being so routine as to be below conscious thought, or from stress affecting cognition. I don’t understand the mortal certainly from some posters that it’s not.
Do you carry a concealed firearm?
Gah, about two dozen typos in that post. Sorry, Jack Batty, some days I’m borderline illiterate.
When you talk about a fight, and you call one party immoral and cowardly and (even though you think the other party is) omit calling the other party immoral and cowardly, your biases are showing.
So, as Zimmerman did not, in fact, chase down anyone, does that prove he’s not lying?
Still wanting everything both ways, I see
Well, Zimmerman claims he forgot where the gun was. That means the gun wasn’t at the scene on purpose. Zimmerman didn’t bring it there intentionally, it was there because Zimmerman forgot where it was.
Now since Zimmerman didn’t realize the gun was at the scene, he didn’t think twice about getting into an altercation. What’s the worst that can happen?
Suddenly Trayvon sees the gun and Zimmerman is like, “Oh shit, I bit off more than I can chew!”
If Zimmerman had secured the gun before engaging Trayvon, the shooting couldn’t have happened.
I know it’s all speculation, and I’m not saying carrying the gun was wrong, but carrying the gun when you forget it’s there so you don’t know that you need to keep it out of other peoples hands until it’s almost too late screams of negligence to me.
Human action, almost everytime I read one of your posts, the term ‘both ways’ comes to mind. Have you ever practiced gymnastics?