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

[Birds Away]

Seems like there are a lot of suppositions being made on very skimpy evidence. Trying to glean some meaning from this situation re OC/CC is ridiculous given the lack of solid information. It is equally ridiculous to assign guilt given that we lack so much information about what actually happened. But given that everyone else around the country seems to be doing it, jump on in I guess the water is fine.

 

[Dragon]

?? 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.

What did GZ tell the dispatcher in the 911 call? What did the dispatcher say back? Did GZ get out of his vehicle? Those are three facts we already know the answer to by his own accounts and the 911 call released. That is more than enough to tell me that he was on the offensive in the situation and thinking otherwise is simply ridiculous.

So you're telling me confronting someone isn't being on the offensive? ": to face especially in challenge : oppose <confront an enemy>" directly from merriam-webster.com for a definition of the word. I'd say that pretty well alligns itself with my belief of the word used in this situation.

Your example of your rape scenario is ignorant and disrespectful, never make assumptions about people you don't know.

 

[Birds Away]

never make assumptions about people you don't know.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

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.

So let me get this straight...

You think EoS WORKED for him BECAUSE he was attacked? :huh:

So you admit that TM wouldn't have attacked if he knew he was armed but it was still better to CC?

 

[Dragon]

So let me get this straight...

You think EoS WORKED for him BECAUSE he was attacked? :huh:

So you admit that TM wouldn't have attacked if he knew he was armed but it was still better to CC?

I never said it was better to CC in the situation. Let me clarify. I think that if GZ had initiated contact gun in hand, there wouldn't have been a physical altercation. The element of surprise did however occur because TM was murdered successfully by GZ. TM wouldn't have defended himself had he been presented with a gun in the first place.

 

[youngda9]

What did GZ tell the dispatcher in the 911 call? What did the dispatcher say back? Did GZ get out of his vehicle? Those are three facts we already know the answer to by his own accounts and the 911 call released. That is more than enough to tell me that he was on the offensive in the situation and thinking otherwise is simply ridiculous.

Absolutely nothing illegal about following or verbally confronting someone.

Attacking someone is wrong and started all this...who is guilty of that we may never truly know.

 

[BroadbandBrat]

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.

OMG!! This is why I love this forum!

Reps to you sir!!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Seems like there are a lot of suppositions being made on very skimpy evidence. Trying to glean some meaning from this situation re OC/CC is ridiculous given the lack of solid information. It is equally ridiculous to assign guilt given that we lack so much information about what actually happened. But given that everyone else around the country seems to be doing it, jump on in I guess the water is fine.

It seems like I'm always jumping your ass for one reason or another but I just wanted to say that you bring a very valid point to this discussion and one that I thought not really necessary to make.

I just wanted to use this as an example to get some thought going not really to draw any conclusive end to this argument.

 

[Somemedic]

What did GZ tell the dispatcher in the 911 call? What did the dispatcher say back? Did GZ get out of his vehicle? Those are three facts we already know the answer to by his own accounts and the 911 call released. That is more than enough to tell me that he was on the offensive in the situation and thinking otherwise is simply ridiculous.

So you're telling me confronting someone isn't being on the offensive? ": to face especially in challenge : oppose <confront an enemy>" directly from merriam-webster.com for a definition of the word. I'd say that pretty well alligns itself with my belief of the word used in this situation.

Your example of your rape scenario is ignorant and disrespectful, never make assumptions about people you don't know.

NO...

Confronting? I don't think so. Seems to me GZ persued, maybe in the intrest of being a good witness.

Can you quote Florida law that shows he violated anything up to the point where he used his weapon?

The problem is who turned the situation into a physical exchange. I believe there is compelling evidence that it was TM. I believe G pulled his weapon at the last moment fearing for his life. I believe he left it concealed as to remain in compliance with Florida law and and did not wish to shoot T .? Hats also why T was able to get the drop on him.

We can try using the reasonable man approach.

Had GZ displayed his weapon would a reasonable man escalate a confrontation to become physical knowing he himself was unarmed?

Do most people in public places expect other folks to be openly carrying?

Do you size up an opponent during a physical confrontation, noting not only his size of him but possible advantages and weapons at his disposal?

Open carriers don't always get noticed in regular public exchanges but I would bet during a heated exchange that a sidearm would most certainly not go unnoticed. In this instance we do get it both ways.

 

[youngda9]

^^ Don't rely on criminals being "reasonable".

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You don't know that.

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.

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

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

Seems to me he drew it quick enough.

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).


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.

A couple things I want to touch on here, of course I cannot know any otf this for sure, that should go without saying IMO since we were not there and there hasn't even been a verdict.

Florida law does not require his life to be threatened before he used deadly force, the FEAR of severe bodily injury is supposedly suffecient, so saying he pulled it at the right time or else he would be convicted of murder is a stretch. Though as it is even WITH his injuries he is standing trial for murder so there are obviously no guarantees when it come to the law.

OCers largely go unnoticed by people who aren't trying or attempting to attack them. This would likely be different when the person is sizing you up to decide if they are going to mug/assault/kill you.

Your point that it worked simply because he is still alive holds no merit since there are plenty of people that survive shootings and stabbings while being attacked/robbed so does that mean that those are successful self defenses?

More CC guys 'get the jump' on bad guys because there are statistically more of them. There are more guns used in self defense by people that don't carry than do when they are attacked at home.

 

[BroadbandBrat]

<snip>


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. While OC'ing you usually go unnoticed because you are doing the things as those around you, not trying to gank some dude thats hassling you.

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. Yes because we don't get to hear from the BGs that decide that oops this guys strapped and move on to the easier target. The CC'ers.

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

Agreed but, this case is recent and quite public. Gotta start somewhere.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I never said it was better to CC in the situation. Let me clarify. I think that if GZ had initiated contact gun in hand, there wouldn't have been a physical altercation. The element of surprise did however occur because TM was murdered successfully by GZ. TM wouldn't have defended himself had he been presented with a gun in the first place.

You have already convicted Zimmerman of murder when all the evidence at hand supports Zimmermans story so far. What am I missing here?

 

[youngda9]

Florida law does not require his life to be threatened before he used deadly force, the FEAR of severe bodily injury is supposedly suffecient, so saying he pulled it at the right time or else he would be convicted of murder is a stretch. Though as it is even WITH his injuries he is standing trial for murder so there are obviously no guarantees when it come to the law.

When did this "FEAR" start? (answer, you don't know...nor do you know how he processed it or if he knew the laws well enough to know exactly when he could legally draw up until the point he thought he was going to be killed). You claim that he was attacked. Well if he knew he was going to be attacked are you saying that the fraction of a second it takes to draw a CC gun vs and OC gun would have made a difference?

OCers largely go unnoticed by people who aren't trying or attempting to attack them. This would likely be different when the person is sizing you up to decide if they are going to mug/assault/kill you.

In the dark it may not have made one darn bit of difference. If he was jumped/surprised/attacked the firearm may not have even been seen. Nor may the attacker even cared if he did get the jump on the guy. Thugs aren't reasonable people.

Your point that it worked simply because he is still alive holds no merit since there are plenty of people that survive shootings and stabbings while being attacked/robbed so does that mean that those are successful self defenses?

His CC weapon kept him alive(assuming he was being beaten to death) so of course it worked. It may not have been used properly to deter the crime(or maybe it was and TM just didn't care and commenced with the beating and got shot for it, we'll never know), or it may not have been deployed soon enough...but it worked.

He shot to stop the threat and the threat was stopped = it worked.

Clearly his CC weapon didn't deter...but we have no knowledge if an OC weapon would have in this situation. Your argument based on a bunch of assumptions and what-ifs.

 

[Dragon]

NO...

Confronting? I don't think so. Seems to me GZ persued, maybe in the intrest of being a good witness.

Can you quote Florida law that shows he violated anything up to the point where he used his weapon?

The problem is who turned the situation into a physical exchange. I believe there is compelling evidence that it was TM. I believe G pulled his weapon at the last moment fearing for his life. I believe he left it concealed as to remain in compliance with Florida law and and did not wish to shoot T .? Hats also why T was able to get the drop on him.

We can try using the reasonable man approach.

Had GZ displayed his weapon would a reasonable man escalate a confrontation to become physical knowing he himself was unarmed?

Do most people in public places expect other folks to be openly carrying?

Do you size up an opponent during a physical confrontation, noting not only his size of him but possible advantages and weapons at his disposal?

Open carriers don't always get noticed in regular public exchanges but I would bet during a heated exchange that a sidearm would most certainly not go unnoticed. In this instance we do get it both ways.

Sure why not. Florida Statute chapter 776.013 states that "You may also use a lesser degree of force, “non-deadly force”, which is force that will not usually cause death or great bodily injury, to stop almost any crime so long as a firearm or other deadly weapon is not used by you. " which is excepted if the perp is committing a forcible felony, as per FL code. Also in 776.012 "A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force." only TM's actions weren't imminent use of force and you could argue that it had already occurred, the only problem is GZ initiated the contact by approaching him.

Now, here is the kicker, and I'm glad you asked. Also under 776.013 "(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or" but one could argue that GZ had right to use his firearm and had no duty to retreat because he had been attacked but I digress, he was on the offensive by starting the altercation. Although that last subsection didn't directly apply, it gave the exact example I'm trying to give in that TM had the lawful right to be where he was and doing what he was doing.

787.02 (1)(a) The term “false imprisonment” means forcibly, by threat, or secretly confining, abducting, imprisoning, or restraining another person without lawful authority and against her or his will. This is a Felony in the third degree by the way.

But then again you could argue that GZ had the right to stop TM, but what was he stopping him for? Did he believe that TM had committed a felony or was in the act of doing so? "A private citizen does have the common law right to arrest a person who commits a felony in his presence, or to arrest a person where a felony has been committed, and where the arresting citizen has probable cause to believe, and does believe, the person arrested to be guilty. Even though there was time to obtain a warrant, a private citizen may make such an arrest and justify his failure to obtain a warrant by proving the person arrested was actually guilty of a felony. " Suspicious behavior is a term I cannot find in Florida statute that is in any way culpable of a felony.

A citizen has the right to arrest someone who has committed a forcible felony in the state of Florida, however they do not have the right to investigate their own hunches or suspicions. Show me, via statute, what right GZ had to stop TM that night because I cannot find it. He didn't witness him in the act of committing a felony so common law is NOT a defense. Please, educate me.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Your argument based on a bunch of assumptions and what-ifs.

Aren't they all? Isn't that what discussion is about? To be crystal clear I know I am not going to reach any conclusions here just trying to get some brain juices flowing on a Monday.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Sure why not. Florida Statute chapter 776.013 states that "You may also use a lesser degree of force, “non-deadly force”, which is force that will not usually cause death or great bodily injury, to stop almost any crime so long as a firearm or other deadly weapon is not used by you. " which is excepted if the perp is committing a forcible felony, as per FL code. Also in 776.012 "A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force." only TM's actions weren't imminent use of force and you could argue that it had already occurred, the only problem is GZ initiated the contact by approaching him.

Now, here is the kicker, and I'm glad you asked. Also under 776.013 "(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or" but one could argue that GZ had right to use his firearm and had no duty to retreat because he had been attacked but I digress, he was on the offensive by starting the altercation. Although that last subsection didn't directly apply, it gave the exact example I'm trying to give in that TM had the lawful right to be where he was and doing what he was doing.

787.02 (1)(a) The term “false imprisonment” means forcibly, by threat, or secretly confining, abducting, imprisoning, or restraining another person without lawful authority and against her or his will. This is a Felony in the third degree by the way.

But then again you could argue that GZ had the right to stop TM, but what was he stopping him for? Did he believe that TM had committed a felony or was in the act of doing so? "A private citizen does have the common law right to arrest a person who commits a felony in his presence, or to arrest a person where a felony has been committed, and where the arresting citizen has probable cause to believe, and does believe, the person arrested to be guilty. Even though there was time to obtain a warrant, a private citizen may make such an arrest and justify his failure to obtain a warrant by proving the person arrested was actually guilty of a felony. " Suspicious behavior is a term I cannot find in Florida statute that is in any way culpable of a felony.

A citizen has the right to arrest someone who has committed a forcible felony in the state of Florida, however they do not have the right to investigate their own hunches or suspicions. Show me, via statute, what right GZ had to stop TM that night because I cannot find it. He didn't witness him in the act of committing a felony so common law is NOT a defense. Please, educate me.

Show me in any of the evidence provided that Zimmerman stopped Trayvon from doing anything.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Sure why not. Florida Statute chapter 776.013 states that "You may also use a lesser degree of force, “non-deadly force”, which is force that will not usually cause death or great bodily injury, to stop almost any crime so long as a firearm or other deadly weapon is not used by you. " which is excepted if the perp is committing a forcible felony, as per FL code. Also in 776.012 "A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force." only TM's actions weren't imminent use of force and you could argue that it had already occurred, the only problem is GZ initiated the contact by approaching him.

Now, here is the kicker, and I'm glad you asked. Also under 776.013 "(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or" but one could argue that GZ had right to use his firearm and had no duty to retreat because he had been attacked but I digress, he was on the offensive by starting the altercation. Although that last subsection didn't directly apply, it gave the exact example I'm trying to give in that TM had the lawful right to be where he was and doing what he was doing.

787.02 (1)(a) The term “false imprisonment” means forcibly, by threat, or secretly confining, abducting, imprisoning, or restraining another person without lawful authority and against her or his will. This is a Felony in the third degree by the way.

But then again you could argue that GZ had the right to stop TM, but what was he stopping him for? Did he believe that TM had committed a felony or was in the act of doing so? "A private citizen does have the common law right to arrest a person who commits a felony in his presence, or to arrest a person where a felony has been committed, and where the arresting citizen has probable cause to believe, and does believe, the person arrested to be guilty. Even though there was time to obtain a warrant, a private citizen may make such an arrest and justify his failure to obtain a warrant by proving the person arrested was actually guilty of a felony. " Suspicious behavior is a term I cannot find in Florida statute that is in any way culpable of a felony.

A citizen has the right to arrest someone who has committed a forcible felony in the state of Florida, however they do not have the right to investigate their own hunches or suspicions. Show me, via statute, what right GZ had to stop TM that night because I cannot find it. He didn't witness him in the act of committing a felony so common law is NOT a defense. Please, educate me.

Never in the history of INGO has it been harder for people to stay on task in a OC/CC argument...

 

[Bunnykid68]

Never in the history of INGO has it been harder for people to stay on task in a OC/CC argument...

Yep, I am guilty too. kinda weird if you think about it. Usually a thread derails into an OC/CC argument, not the other way around

 

[HICKMAN]

I'll defend GZ's CCing of the Kel-Tec PF9

I mean come on, we all know the joke... fatties are like mopeds... fun to ride until your friends see you....




anyone OC a Kel-Tec?