Why didn't the 'Element of Surprise' help Zimmerman?

[Titanium_Frost]

Those of you who continually rehash the tired 'Element of Surprise' reasoning for CC need to explain why it did not work so well for George Zimmerman when he was attacked by Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman suffered extensive injuries and IMO was lucky to remain conscious while drawing his pistol from concealment in the midst of an attack. Is THIS the type of 'Element of Surprise' we can all expect when we are attacked and CCing?

ETA: I meant the thread title to be "Thread #2" but I forgot

 

[jeremy]

 

[shortyforty]

The element of surprise for Zimmerman is simple, he was being attacked and beaten he used his firearm to defend himself . Jesse Jackson Al Sharpton and the media decided what he did was wrong with out knowing all of the evidence so now "SURPRISE" he's in jail facing murder charges .

 

[Mr. Habib]

While Zimmerman was required to CC per Florida law, you bring up some good points. If Martin had known that Zimmerman was armed would he have attacked him? Had Zimmerman been able to OC this incident may have never occurred and Martin would still be alive. We need to have OC for Tayvon shirts printed.

 

[Westside]

While Zimmerman was required to CC per Florida law, you bring up some good points. If Martin had known that Zimmerman was armed would he have attacked him? Had Zimmerman been able to OC this incident may have never occurred and Martin would still be alive. We need to have OC for Tayvon shirts printed.

didn't see that one coming. nice turn of the logic there.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Thanks! Now, who do we know with experience designing shirts?

 

[youngda9]

The sample of one logic proof...LOL.

TF...you started your own OC/CC debate thread.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

The sample of one logic proof...LOL.

TF...you started your own OC/CC debate thread.

I brought it up in the OC/CC argument thread but it was overlooked in the midst of more commonplace arguments so I figured it deserved its own thread.

My point is exactly what Mr. Habib alluded to: namely that if GZ was OCing this may never have happened.

My other point is that the so called 'element of surprise' is NOT a tactical advantage and is in fact a liability for injury. The injuries GZ suffered before deploying his weapon indicate either...

A. He did not perceive the threat in time and was overtaken by TM.

B. He was not willing to draw his weapon/communicate his intent to defend himself or it was ignored and he was unwilling to pull the trigger.

C. More likely he was simply unable to draw his weapon from concealment quick enough and therefore was attacked before he could defend himself and he is lucky he was still conscious to pull the trigger.

 

[Dragon]

Explain to me exactly HOW Zimmerman was defending himself when he was the aggressor? Explain to me how, please. If I approach you and you turn to defend yourself against me, how can I be defending myself against you?

He caused the altercation. He took the aggressive posture by approaching someone he shouldn't have. He got his ass kicked by a 17 year-old because of it. Now he's facing a murder charge for killing someone who was not guilty of any crimes at that time. I'm sick of seeing people talk like Zimmerman did the right thing by shooting that kid while his ass should've been sitting inside of his vehicle waiting for the police to do their job.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

The element of surprise for Zimmerman is simple, he was being attacked and beaten he used his firearm to defend himself . Jesse Jackson Al Sharpton and the media decided what he did was wrong with out knowing all of the evidence so now "SURPRISE" he's in jail facing murder charges .

The point, you are missing it.

Many vocal opponents of OCing in Indiana claim a tactical advantage offered by CCing outweighs the better drawspeed and deterence of having your weapon in plain view. They call this mystical paradox the 'Element of Surprise' and with it you can 'surprise' your attacker with a quick draw when they are not expecting it and gain the upperhand.

The reality IMO is that YOU are the one who is surprised when you are attacked and your attacker has no idea you are armed. There is no deterence factor, and your pistol is harder to get to than on your belt in the open. Even an IWB with a loose shirt over it presents a challenge compared to an unobstructed OWB holster.

The evidence in this case is my "Exibit A" if you will in the case that there is no tactical advantage to CCing in a real life 1 on 1 violent encounter.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Explain to me exactly HOW Zimmerman was defending himself when he was the aggressor? Explain to me how, please. If I approach you and you turn to defend yourself against me, how can I be defending myself against you?

He caused the altercation. He took the aggressive posture by approaching someone he shouldn't have. He got his ass kicked by a 17 year-old because of it. Now he's facing a murder charge for killing someone who was not guilty of any crimes at that time. I'm sick of seeing people talk like Zimmerman did the right thing by shooting that kid while his ass should've been sitting inside of his vehicle waiting for the police to do their job.

My point is being made has nothing at all to do with who started it or who is guilty. An unarmed 17 y/o got the drop on an armed man who was CCing. If GZ started it, why didn't he pull his gun out earlier and just shoot him if that is what he was going to do the whole time?

 

[Dragon]

Maybe he didn't intend on killing him initially? Maybe he didn't think he would get his ass kicked, or maybe he thought he would have the upper hand against someone smaller than him?

I'm just sick and tired of seeing people calling Trayvon Martin the attacker when he didn't follow George Zimmerman, nor did he get out of a vehicle and approach him.

Just because he had a deadly weapon doesn't mean he absolutely had to use it. I have a car but it isn't my only mode of transportation, if you get my drift. I believe Trayvon "Got the drop on him" because Zimmerman's initial intent was merely to stop/hold Martin either verbally or physically. I'd imagine he attempted both due to a quick escalation and began having his ass handed to him on a 17 year-old platter.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Maybe he didn't intend on killing him initially? Maybe he didn't think he would get his ass kicked, or maybe he thought he would have the upper hand against someone smaller than him?

I'm just sick and tired of seeing people calling Trayvon Martin the attacker when he didn't follow George Zimmerman, nor did he get out of a vehicle and approach him.

Just because he had a deadly weapon doesn't mean he absolutely had to use it. I have a car but it isn't my only mode of transportation, if you get my drift. I believe Trayvon "Got the drop on him" because Zimmerman's initial intent was merely to stop/hold Martin either verbally or physically. I'd imagine he attempted both due to a quick escalation and began having his ass handed to him on a 17 year-old platter.

None of which is a point of this thread, go to one of the other 15 threads on the subject.

 

[dom1104]

I think this is a great thread.

Great topic idea.

Cant answer it, because I wasnt there when Z shot T.

 

[Dragon]

I believe I very much answered the original post in this thread, unless you misread what I typed in my final sentences. I'll quote again for ease of re-reading. "Just because he had a deadly weapon doesn't mean he absolutely had to use it. I have a car but it isn't my only mode of transportation, if you get my drift. I believe Trayvon "Got the drop on him" because Zimmerman's initial intent was merely to stop/hold Martin either verbally or physically. I'd imagine he attempted both due to a quick escalation and began having his ass handed to him on a 17 year-old platter."

Now I will translate for those who aren't as adept at reading comprehension. Zimmerman's element of surprise wasn't an issue because he initiated the altercation without using the handgun. The initial contact was most likely verbal, then physical, then involving a weapon, therefore the element of surprise did come into effect late in the event.

 

[youngda9]

My point is exactly what Mr. Habib alluded to: namely that if GZ was OCing this may never have happened.

You don't know that.

My other point is that the so called 'element of surprise' is NOT a tactical advantage and is in fact a liability for injury. The injuries GZ suffered before deploying his weapon indicate either...

Doesn't disprove that. He waited until he was in a deadly situation(head banged on ground) to deploy his weapon. If he had done earlier and shot there would be no doubt he was at fault.

A. He did not perceive the threat in time and was overtaken by TM.

OC wouldn't have changed this (if it's even true).

B. He was not willing to draw his weapon/communicate his intent to defend himself or it was ignored and he was unwilling to pull the trigger.

OC wouldn't have changed this (if it's even true).

More likely he was simply unable to draw his weapon from concealment quick enough.

Seems to me he drew it quick enough.

and therefore was attacked before he could defend himself and he is lucky he was still conscious to pull the trigger

Seems to me he drew it quick enough. No evidence that he tried to draw before being attacked(if that's even how it happened).

My point is being made has nothing at all to do with who started it or who is guilty. An unarmed 17 y/o got the drop on an armed man who was CCing. If GZ started it, why didn't he pull his gun out earlier and just shoot him if that is what he was going to do the whole time?

Technically the element of surprise worked in the Zimmerman case. He may have waited a bit long to deploy, or not(only 2 guys know the real facts and one of them is dead). He waited until the confrontation turned deadly(head banged on ground, before that there was nothing deadly going on) and then he showed his teeth. Exactly how it's supposed to happen IMO. Would his OC gun have been seen in the dark by Trayvon, we'll never know. OC guys say all the time how they go around completely un-noticed...well now you want to have it both ways.

More CC guys have gotten the jump on bad guys than OC guys, we read about it all the time. And there is NO way to factually determine how many instances OC deterred crime, NONE.

Sorry but sample of one logic doesn't work with me.

 

[Sailor]

Only one person knows what happened, who knows maybe it did help him he is alive after all.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I think this is a great thread.

Great topic idea.

Cant answer it, because I wasnt there when Z shot T.

Thanks, and I agree that we cannot know the whole story but we can and should be using it to better own defensive awareness.

I believe I very much answered the original post in this thread, unless you misread what I typed in my final sentences. I'll quote again for ease of re-reading. "Just because he had a deadly weapon doesn't mean he absolutely had to use it. I have a car but it isn't my only mode of transportation, if you get my drift. I believe Trayvon "Got the drop on him" because Zimmerman's initial intent was merely to stop/hold Martin either verbally or physically. I'd imagine he attempted both due to a quick escalation and began having his ass handed to him on a 17 year-old platter."

Now I will translate for those who aren't as adept at reading comprehension. Zimmerman's element of surprise wasn't an issue because he initiated the altercation without using the handgun. The initial contact was most likely verbal, then physical, then involving a weapon, therefore the element of surprise did come into effect late in the event.

Ok, I see where you are going but I disagree that his 'EoS' had nothing to do with the encounter. At the end of the day we KNOW that:

A. There were two people involved.

B. GZ was armed with a CC handgun.

C. GZ suffered severe wounds at the hands of TM before he was able to pull his pistol and shoot him.

This leads me to believe that the EoS is not in fact a tactical advantage no matter the situation in a 1 on 1 scenario. Even if GZ was the agressor he was still taken off guard (and wounded) before he could deploy his pistol. Had TM had a weapon (even a knife) GZ would be dead.

 

[Dragon]

If you don't initiate contact with your weapon, then you aren't using the element of surprise. I agree with youngda9 in that the EoS absolutely worked in his favor because I doubt the physical altercation would've taken place had TM known GZ was willing to shoot him over it.

 

[drillsgt]

Explain to me exactly HOW Zimmerman was defending himself when he was the aggressor? Explain to me how, please. If I approach you and you turn to defend yourself against me, how can I be defending myself against you?

He caused the altercation. He took the aggressive posture by approaching someone he shouldn't have. He got his ass kicked by a 17 year-old because of it. Now he's facing a murder charge for killing someone who was not guilty of any crimes at that time. I'm sick of seeing people talk like Zimmerman did the right thing by shooting that kid while his ass should've been sitting inside of his vehicle waiting for the police to do their job.

?? Explain how you got this from the evidence that's been presented so far. For one if you are going to confront someone in your neighborhood that you think is suspicious that's not necessarily being an aggressor. If you are being confronted that's no reason to "turn and defend yourself". If you are merely confronting someone and they in turn attack you then yes defend yourself. Blame the victim much? You're the same person that would say rape was justified because her skirt was too short.