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

[Somemedic]

Following someone in this instance isn't a crime. GZ sounded like he was giving facts to the police as to be a good witness.

This isn't a crime. Walking behind someone isn't aggressive.

Hitting them in the face, repeatedly, is.

 

[dyerwatcher]

My popcorn sure is good.

 

[tucker]

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.

It's a railroad job He has the same right to walk around the area without getting mugged. If the 17 yr old felt he was being followed for purpose of getting mugged he should have gone home and not confronted. Lots of info the police and press are withholding tinting public opinion. Sneaky bastards

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Since we're going to continue this discussion with quotes of mine then all of you please answer this. If I'm so stupid, and my assumptions are so completely retarded, why is he being charged with murder by a special prosecutor who has everything to lose by charging an innocent man and losing the case? That person did the investigation with a team of more than a dozen others and together they felt there's reason enough to charge him with murder. If I'm so ridiculously stupid then why do people more educated than any of you (assumption) put the man in jail and charge him with a crime?

Apparently you're all MUCH more educated on the subjected than I am, let alone the prosecutor and investigators involved. I apologize, I wasn't aware how many people here had JD's and PhD's.

I'll show you my JD, if you can show me yours! I also spend a lot of time in studying self defense law, not just believing what the biased media wants YOU to think... try to think for yourself....
GZ is still innocent at this point (at least he used to be in this country) regardless of what Jackson Sharpton or the media (who have their own self interests involved as known race baiters) say about it... Just the portrayal as a White rather than part Hispanic says a lot...

I stand by the previous post and response...

 

[Dragon]

I'll show you my JD, if you can show me yours! I also spend a lot of time in studying self defense law, not just believing what the biased media wants YOU to think... try to think for yourself....
GZ is still innocent at this point (at least he used to be in this country) regardless of what Jackson Sharpton or the media (who have their own self interests involved as known race baiters) say about it... Just the portrayal as a White rather than part Hispanic says a lot...

I stand by the previous post and response...

Are people still quoting me in this thread yapping their traps? I haven't touched this thing in what, 4-5 weeks? I'll show you my JD in a couple of years but if you'd like to compare the size of anything else beforehand, please let me know.

I do think for myself, thus why I've stuck to my guns as such in worthless threads like this against people like you who only believe that one opinion is the correct one. Anything else while I'm here?

Let me correct myself here, I haven't been in this thread since June 4th..

 

[GBuck]

Ok, this thread has clearly gotten off topic. Whether Zim was able to obtain the "Element of Surprise" was the original question, not whether he is guilty or not, and certainly not "who started it".

The "EoS" argument is often referred to in specific instances: bank robbery, gas station robbery, random active shooter situations, etc. You cannot compare the Zim case to any of those types of situations. There was already a direct one on one fight in progress, not something that Zim was going to go unnoticed in anyways.


And for what it's worth... If people are so deterred from fights by the gun in plain sight....... WHY THE HELL DO SO MANY PEOPLE FIGHT COPS?! They have guns, tazers, batons, OC spray, etc. in plain view, yet people (lots of them) fight cops on a daily basis.


Can we PLEASE just stop arguing over who's way is better (mine is bigger than yours) to carry a gun and move on?!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Ok, this thread has clearly gotten off topic. Whether Zim was able to obtain the "Element of Surprise" was the original question, not whether he is guilty or not, and certainly not "who started it".

The "EoS" argument is often referred to in specific instances: bank robbery, gas station robbery, random active shooter situations, etc. You cannot compare the Zim case to any of those types of situations. There was already a direct one on one fight in progress, not something that Zim was going to go unnoticed in anyways.


And for what it's worth... If people are so deterred from fights by the gun in plain sight....... WHY THE HELL DO SO MANY PEOPLE FIGHT COPS?! They have guns, tazers, batons, OC spray, etc. in plain view, yet people (lots of them) fight cops on a daily basis.


Can we PLEASE just stop arguing over who's way is better (mine is bigger than yours) to carry a gun and move on?!

I bet if you didn't count all the posts where you are complaining about other posters you wouldn't have very many...

It is a DISCUSSION. Typically there are dissenting sides to the discussion or it gets pretty boring. this thread was a direct response to all the bull**** posts about OC being wrong because you need the EoS that CC gives you. My ENTIRE point is that 1 on 1 encounters do not favor the EoS because you are either in mutual combat or they are the ones who took YOU by surprise.

FYI 1 on 1 encounters are way more common than being in a robbery hero scenario like the old guy in Florida. Damn, Florida has a lot of shootings...

 

[ViperJock]

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

You have no proof. It's all conjecture. It sounds reasonable but data often proves reasonable arguments to be false. You have no data. This guys problem was not cc it was stupidity on many levels.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You have no proof. It's all conjecture. It sounds reasonable but data often proves reasonable arguments to be false. You have no data. This guys problem was not cc it was stupidity on many levels.

There IS no data, likely will never be. I was not making a point, merely a counterpoint to show that the EoS is not the Holy Grail of carrying a weapon.

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

Are people still quoting me in this thread yapping their traps? I haven't touched this thing in what, 4-5 weeks? I'll show you my JD in a couple of years (YEAH RIGHT...) but if you'd like to compare the size of anything else beforehand, please let me know. now That, shows a mature and non-juvenile response.... You need to realize Dragon, that maybe, just maybe there MIGHT be someone on here who DOES know the laws regarding firearms better than you, and that personal attacks (ie. yapping traps etc.) do NOT add to the value of the discussion. If you are simply trying to take a media based, non factual position to inflame others, you really ARE acting like a 'troll', and not basing it on any known facts.

I do think for myself, (then discuss the original Purpose of the OP, not tossing in your biased talking points..) thus why I've stuck to my guns as such in worthless threads like this against people like you who only believe that one opinion is the correct one. (my opinion was... you can not judge and condemn someone, when you weren't there, no one, NO ONE has all the facts, and then only base your arguments on what the media has told you. ) Anything else while I'm here? Nope... you are a very concrete thinker... all mixed up, and permanently set...)

Let me correct myself here, I haven't been in this thread since June 4th.. (We missed you so much... )

Reviewing even back to the first page, the question was whether the
element of surprise was any factor in how the shooting occurred, and whether it played a part in the eventual outcome. YOU were the one (not "the trap yappers") that turned it into an argument about guilt or innocence of another person who has not even been to court. If this is your idea of "justice" be sure to ask me for a 'recommendation' when you apply for the California Bar....

 

[MickeyBlueEyes]

can i hear an amen?

?? 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.

I'm seeing a lot of good things from this lawsuit, specifically the true colors of the supreme leader. Race baiter, anti gun zealot and destroyer of the country and the american way of life. OC has as many advantages as cc. They both work after practice the element of surprise shouldn't be a fumble in the dark with your preferred method of carry. You should draw your weapon from all situations on the range and deploy it to stop the percieved threat.

 

[GBuck]

Saying that EoS didnt help him here is like saying the ladder truck didn't help the firemen cut the dying guy out of a car accident. That doesn't mean that the ladder truck is useless or wrong, it was just the wrong application.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Man, bacon is really good on the grill

 

[GBuck]

Also, TF, you never responded to why cops get into fights if OC is such a good deterent.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Also, TF, you never responded to why cops get into fights if OC is such a good deterent.

Cops get into WAY less fights since people know they are armed. Comparing police who get paid to enforce laws and take criminals into custody instead of just shooting them opens them up to astronomically greater risk of an altercation.

Apples to oranges which is why I ignored it the first time... But you are a squeeky wheel aren't you?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Saying that EoS didnt help him here is like saying the ladder truck didn't help the firemen cut the dying guy out of a car accident. That doesn't mean that the ladder truck is useless or wrong, it was just the wrong application.

Not quite. Take it in its most general form: A CCer was in a phyisical confrontation with someone and they nearly get beaten unconsious before he could deploy his weapon. Also either before he deployed it or after there was a struggle for the firearm.

Lesson: Letting your attacker gain the upper hand will NOT help you in a fight. There is no EoS in a 1 on 1 fight. You cannot "surprise" someone who is already attacking you it just becomes a struggle.

My point: Quit using EoS as a reason to bash on OCers. (I think it worked because after this thread there was a drastic drop in the EoS being used in arguments here )

 

[Double T]

I think it worked. Surprise! Struggle stuggle. Head hits pavement, Bang, mag disconnects in recoil. Aggressor on the ground.

This is not an issue with EoS, but use of force against an "unarmed" assailant. Hands ARE weapons, and if they hit you when you are down then lethal force is warranted.

Also, it's kind of hard to not "stand your ground" lying on your back. nowhere to retreat really right

 

[Inyomau5]

Zimmerman got D's in his criminal justice classes lol...

Records show George Zimmerman got D's in criminal justice classes | www.palmbeachpost.com

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I think it worked. Surprise! Struggle stuggle. Head hits pavement, Bang, mag disconnects in recoil. Aggressor on the ground.

This is not an issue with EoS, but use of force against an "unarmed" assailant. Hands ARE weapons, and if they hit you when you are down then lethal force is warranted.

Also, it's kind of hard to not "stand your ground" lying on your back. nowhere to retreat really right

Tactically, he failed. He never should have ended up on his back in a struggle for his gun.

 

[GBuck]

Not quite. Take it in its most general form: A CCer was in a phyisical confrontation with someone and they nearly get beaten unconsious before he could deploy his weapon. Also either before he deployed it or after there was a struggle for the firearm.

Lesson: Letting your attacker gain the upper hand will NOT help you in a fight. There is no EoS in a 1 on 1 fight. You cannot "surprise" someone who is already attacking you it just becomes a struggle.

My point: Quit using EoS as a reason to bash on OCers. (I think it worked because after this thread there was a drastic drop in the EoS being used in arguments here )

I've never once used EoS to bash on OCers, as I OC about 20% of the time I carry. I just think people ASSUME that people are bashing just because they don't agree.

My point is no one tries to use EoS as a point once an altercation has begun. Your statement that you cannot "surprise" someone once an altercation has begun is my point.

My other point is that in this case CC gave him the option of when and where to deploy his gun. He successfully defended himself. It's just a matter of mindset.