Just one simple question. Has it been addressed as to why Zimmerman was carrying a gun with him on that night?
I thought it boiled down to “He has a right to”. But why anyone carries a gun around is simple, Fear.
He was a licensed concealed carry permit holder. He carried a gun every day for personal protection.
He was exercising his Second Amendment rights and Florida’s liberal gun laws. If your question is inferring a specific premeditation, I don’t see it here.
Thousands of U.S. citizens carry a handgun, either concealed or openly, on a daily basis. It’s for personal protection.
Duckster it the only one who kind of answered my question in his second sentence so let’s try this again.
Was it ever answered why Zimmerman took a gun with him out specifically that night on his neighborhood patrol? Was he physically attacked before? Were there known threats like gangs in the area? Did he just like to have a gun with him because he could?
I’m assuming it’s because (a) he was licensed to so (b) he almost always did.
If the prosecutor had evidence that he did not habitually carry one, we have not seen it.
We’ll skip the comments about carrying a gun, much like driving a large loud vehicle, being expressions of feelings of male inadequacy. (oops, we didn’t).
Your question really has no relevance to the issues in the trial. Zimmerman was lawfully carrying his gun. He does not have to explain why he was carrying.
Maybe not, but a jury member may think that without a good reason, he was carrying the gun looking for trouble. You know that’s how jury members think.
No, I don’t know that jury members who live in a state with concealed carry and stand your ground laws think that way. Neither do you. It would be interesting to know if any of the jury members have concealed carry permits, though…
Like I said, unless there was evidence to the contrary, licensed carriers are carrying a lot more often than not; especially if they have the cop wannabee mentality.
I’m sure if the prosecutor could find evidence that Zimmerman normally did not carry, it might have been raised. OTOH, a jury member might not find it surprising that an American in some areas, out on their own at night, would carry a licensed weapon.
Juror profiles: http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/zimmerman-trial-juror-profiles/nYQnr/
Why carry? Insurance.
Another question, related to the following conflicting assertions, heard recently:
“Zimmerman’s actions were quite obviously motivated by racism.”
“There’s no proof that racism was behind anything Zimmerman did.”
My question (having not followed the trial closely): What evidence did the prosecution present of a racist motivation for Zimmerman’s actions?
Zero. It appears to me that the only evidence of racism came from Martin, with his characterization of Zimmerman as a “cracker”. In fact, the only reference to Martin’s race by Zimmerman was in response to a question from the 911 dispatcher. The dispatcher asked him if the person was white or black. I can’t see any intent of racism by Zimmerman. (of course I haven’t seen 100% of the testimony, so if I’ve missed something I’m sure someone will correct me.)
No mention of any permits, but one juror thinks the required training is inadequate and another mentioned responsibility if one “bares” (sic) arms. I’d have probably challenged both jurors for cause, and if that failed, used a strike on them unless the candidates before them were even worse.
My wife and I both took the required four hour course in Florida last month that is required to get a concealed weapons permit. I am a very strong supporter of the right to bear arms and a member of the NRA, but I’ll have to agree with this juror. I was actually shocked at how simple the for hour course was and how (in my opinion) it was woefully lacking in training someone to carry a weapon. There was zero practical training and very little information on when it is proper to use your weapon for defense. By practical training, I mean we were only required to fire a single round from a pistol, one that want even ours. And while the instructor did cover when it is legal to use your weapon, he didn’t go in depth about it, leaving many many questions.
I think that citizens should be able to arm themselves for self defense. However the State needs to do more to train those they are granting permits to.
A little bit off topic, but I highly recommend the book “In The Gravest Extreme” by Masaad Ayoob to anyone thinking of taking the step to carry a weapon. In fact, I think it should be mandatory reading for anyone applying for a permit.
On Behind the Music, Ted Nugent, mentioned when meeting his idol, Jimi Hendrix, after first declining Jimi’s offered joint (Ted Nugent has other vices), Jimi asked him, “What’s that for?” pointing to Ted’s gun. Ted says its not “for” anything – he has a handkerchief and toenail clippers too, they’re all just tools a man could use. Jimi, presumably, left it at that.
So there you go, for perhaps the thousandth time today. Handguns are legal, in at least some situations, in the US. And you’ll see them. And people will show them off. And even use them, to kill a varmint, shoot a target, kill a human. You have to demonstrably prove that its all completely unnecessary. But that is at least a little hard to do. It certainly can’t be done with random innuendo.
I learned today that the training in FL isn’t really standardized.
Here, the instructors all have the same syllabus, same exams, and all of us in the class have to shoot at least 50 rounds at the target, and pass a minimum score.
I don’t think we need yet another thread rehashing issues in the Zimmerman case or stating personal opinions about guns and gun laws. This thread will inevitably edge even further into debate. Any factual questions can be asked in the existing threads. This is closed.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator