• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Would OC deterred Travon's attack?

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
This is an intriguing discussion. Just like I think the proper verdict of Z not being guilty. If M was on trial because Z died and his testimony was Z was trying to grab a gun so I jumped on him and hit him till he stopped.....I would say a not guilty verdict would be appropriate too.

My common sense tells me if I am unarmed and someone has a gun they are touching, I will either do what they want or run. In this case it was so dark that it was near impossible for TM to see a gun. Unless Z drew down on TM there still was no need for a attack. Once the attack began and TM refused to stop, and that IMO is the most important part, lethal force was justified. Also remember that RJ told PM that TM thought GZ might be security or police, so no it would not have justified the attack.

But this is why I did not bring it up until now. If one of the TM worshipers were to have seen me post, it may have made it back to the prosecution.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Also remember that RJ told PM that TM thought GZ might be security or police, so no it would not have justified the attack.

Dude, she never said that.

What she said is that "cracker" is slang for someone who is acting like a cop or security, which is her way of lying/twisting the fact that it's actually slang for "a white guy".

Right after that she talked about how they were talking about Z possibly being a rapist, not a cop or security guard.

Also, doesn't matter what the guy's job is, someone "stalking" you or following you isn't justification to assault and batter them.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
My common sense tells me if I am unarmed and someone has a gun they are touching, I will either do what they want or run. In this case it was so dark that it was near impossible for TM to see a gun. Unless Z drew down on TM there still was no need for a attack. Once the attack began and TM refused to stop, and that IMO is the most important part, lethal force was justified. Also remember that RJ told PM that TM thought GZ might be security or police, so no it would not have justified the attack.

But this is why I did not bring it up until now. If one of the TM worshipers were to have seen me post, it may have made it back to the prosecution.

Maybe so and I will make clear I am not a TM supporter or a GZ just discussing this on a scenario your new angle brought to my mind and to explore the implications of all the possibilities.

Common sense may say that, I am imagining a scenario where a guy is only a few feet away and goes for a gun, I don't think I'd run to get shot in the back.

An ex vet I know was at a party on a second floor of an apartment, he opened the door and he saw a gun pointed at his face he attacked disarmed the guy in a quick maneuver that also disabled him, uh oh guy was a cop, charges were fortunately dismissed. Unfortunately I feel they were because of him being a recent veteran and a ranking enlistee.

So if I was a jury and had limited information and the story was presented by TM that Z went for a gun and I feared for my life, I may not believe it but would have to take the reasonable doubt standard into consideration.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Good question. Only problem is, there are no hard and fast answers, for two simple issues:

1) Just because you have a firearm in plain sight, it doesn't mean the potential assailant will see it.

2) Even if the potential assailant sees your firearm, it doesn't necessarily mean it will deter them from attacking.

Let's take a look at each of these issues, in turn.

I open carry most of the time, but my firearm is black, my holster's black, and I wear black jeans. Even in well-lighted conditions, such as Walmart, some people simply miss it. I don't OC to "flash my power." For those who do, more power to you, and I know of at least one person here with the personality to carry it off. I would expect to see nothing less than a nickel-plated .45 1911 strapped to his side. As for me, it just doesn't suit my personality.

Back to the first issue: I OC primarily for the ability to draw and fire in the minimum amount of time. I think the recent robbery in Texas at Denny's is a prime example of why speed and accuracy are so important. It wasn't a shooting spree. They were definitely after the money, as they robbed the patrons immediately afterwards, then fled. Given their tactics, it's apparent at least one of them had either military or law-enforcement training. Unfortunately, being aware that some people in Texas carry firearms, they probably agreed to shoot anything that moves. From a tactical standpoint, that's a horrible decision, as they wound up killing one innocent person and wounding another. As they "entered the restaurant and immediately fired several shots," one would have to be very quick and accurate to counter such a threat.

In this circumstance, it's unlikely they would have spotted anyone OC-ing, unless that someone were standing outside. Even then, this was a determined attack, with full knowledge that someone might be shooting back, so this might be the rare instance where OC-ing will get you noticed in a bad way.

On to the second issue: Statistics show that given a chance, a criminal who knows beforehand that a citizen is armed, will tend to avoid the citizen and the business being frequented by that citizen. To what extent is anyone's guess, but stitching together the various reports, it appears to me that if they see it and have enough time to reconsider before making their move, 80%-90% of them will curb their criminal activity. The reports seem to indicate the less time they have to think about it the less likely they are to halt their criminal activity, and roughly half the time, if fired upon, they will fire back.

In the case of Denny's, I think the only deterrent would have been a marked police cruiser parked out front.

Now, let's examine what we know in light of the Trayvon Martin case: Dark, rainy night. Teenager on drugs. I strongly doubt Trayvon would ever have noticed an OC firearm like mine, and a nickel-plated .45 1911 would probably have escaped his notice as well. On the other hand, had Zimmerman been paying attention, he could have drawn as Trayvon walked up to him. Better yet, stay in the car. It's difficult to break into a moving vehicle.
 

Tackett

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
54
Location
Charleston, wv
Can someone explain to me exactly what happened?

All I know is a white dude shot a black kid and it was deemed self defense.

What happened exactly?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Can someone explain to me exactly what happened?

All I know is a white dude shot a black kid and it was deemed self defense.

What happened exactly?

Cliff notes:

1. Z (shooter) sees M (guy who got shot) walking home late at night, seemingly taking an indirect route and wearing a hoodie.

2. Z calls police, meanwhile M is on phone with gf.

3. M decides to teach Z a lesson for following him (a contention supported by his regular bragging over beating kids up "cuz dat ***** snitched on me" and how one victim was going to need to "see me again" because M was unsatisfied that his victim "didn't breed enough" (sic).

4. M sucker punches Z, a struggle ensues. At some point the gun comes into play.

5. Z shoots M, ending the attack.

6. Jesse showed up.
 
Last edited:

Tackett

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
54
Location
Charleston, wv
Cliff notes:

1. Z (shooter) sees M (guy who got shot) walking home late at night, seemingly taking an indirect route and wearing a hoodie.

2. Z calls police, meanwhile M is on phone with gf.

3. M decides to teach Z a lesson for following him (a contention supported by his regular bragging over beating kids up "cuz dat ***** snitched on me" and how one victim was going to need to "see me again" because M was unsatisfied that his victim "didn't breed enough" (sic).

4. M sucker punches Z, a struggle ensues. At some point the gun comes into play.

5. Z shoots M, ending the attack.

6. Jesse showed up.

Damn. Thanks.

So this Martin youth was a wannabe thug? Why was that fact never mentioned by the news?
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Damn. Thanks.

So this Martin youth was a wannabe thug? Why was that fact never mentioned by the news?

Rest assured this all came out in trial – the defense trounced the prosecution. Unfortunately, during the entire trial the media did nothing more than convene "panels" of bloviating "experts" to give their worthless opinions, carefully avoiding any coverage of the actual goings-on in court.

The media picked the "racist shoots innocent teenager" angle as the most sensational, then decided to double down and stick to that narrative as the facts came out, likely because acknowledging the facts is an admission that they have no credibility.

Zimmerman is actually suing NBC for their initial report, wherein they edited his conversation with the police dispatcher to make it sound as though he volunteered the race of Martin (the dispatcher explicitly asked him about the suspicious person's race, in fact). NBC clearly has interest in poisoning future jury pools by maintaining the narrative, but it seems the other outlets simply favor sensationalism and the bottom line over journalistic integrity.
 
Last edited:

Tackett

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
54
Location
Charleston, wv
The media picked the "racist shoots innocent teenager" angle as the most sensational, then decided to double down and stick to that narrative as the facts came out, likely because acknowledging the facts is an admission that they have no credibility.

Zimmerman is actually suing NBC for their initial report, wherein they edited his conversation with the police dispatcher to make it sound as though he volunteered the race of Martin (the dispatcher explicitly asked him about the suspicious person's race, in fact). NBC clearly has interest in poisoning future jury pools by maintaining the narrative, but it seems the other outlets simply favor sensationalism and the bottom line over journalistic integrity.

I hope he wins then.

Can't stand mainstream news media.
 
Top