Thread: Trayvon Martin (pardon me if this subject is verboten.)

Very True.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

That stupid old saying "I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6" well George made his choice...

I hate that saying and I am glad you call it stupid. I sometimes hear it in martial arts discussions as well.
It is a stupid saying because it puts people in the mindset that those are the only 2 options.

They're not. The saying should be amended to something like:
Better not to put myself in a risky situation than be judged by 12 or carried by 6.
Or.
Better to put your ego aside than be judged by 12 or carried by 6.
Or
Better to both go home than be judged by 12 or carried by 6.
Or

...

You get the idea.
Guns (like other weapons) should only come out if someone is going to be killed anyway, and you'd rather it not be you.

Why does everyone immediately think if Zimmerman didn't shoot, he would have been dead or damaged goods?

This:

Does not look like a guy on death's door who fired to stave off certain death. I've looked worse than that after sparring...

I heard something interesting today. The ONLY wounds Travon had was the gunshot wound and to his knuckles. This doesn't look like he was trying to defend himself, only attack.

The severity of Zimmerman's wounds means nothing. Zimmerman was knocked to the ground. His nose was broken. His head was bashed on the concrete. His back was injured. He was being physically attacked. NO ONE should be required to surrender to a beating. The law is clear. That's what stand your ground means. We are not sheep, we are men. It does not matter what your feelings are on deadly force. Travon should have known that when you attack someone your life is forfeit.

Zimmerman had more than enough justification to use deadly force. In Texas he would be a free man. They should drop the case.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

I heard something interesting today. The ONLY wounds Travon had was the gunshot wound and to his knuckles. This doesn't look like he was trying to defend himself, only attack.

The severity of Zimmerman's wounds means nothing. Zimmerman was knocked to the ground. His nose was broken. His head was bashed on the concrete. His back was injured. He was being physically attacked. NO ONE should be required to surrender to a beating. The law is clear. That's what stand your ground means. We are not sheep, we are men. It does not matter what your feelings are on deadly force. Travon should have known that when you attack someone your life is forfeit.

Zimmerman had more than enough justification to use deadly force. In Texas he would be a free man. They should drop the case.

You should go tell them that you know exactly what happened and they should drop the case

I don't think anyone should have to surrender to a beating either...that's why I punch back. It may make me more of a sheep than shooting someone, but I'm not dead or on trial...fair exchange in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Mephisto

I was teaching a class on Media and Ethics when the story hit. I actually made a decision to avoid the Trayvon subject even though it would have been the perfect real world example. The tensions were too high in the class so I avoided it.

The word "Ethics" should never be used to the media in the US.

Originally Posted by ryanjewell

You should go tell them that you know exactly what happened and they should drop the case

I don't think anyone should have to surrender to a beating either...that's why I punch back. It may make me more of a sheep than shooting someone, but I'm not dead or on trial...fair exchange in my opinion.

I am not in good enough health to punch back. If I had been in Zimmerman's place I would expect a heart attack during or immediately after the attack no matter if I had shot Travon or not.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

Got to be an easy class to teach there are no ethics in media or anywhere else these days.

Agreed, it is pretty sleazy. I rarely watch TV anymore, especially the news outlets. The book I was teaching out of stated that there are 'no right or wrong answers just well reasoned ones.' Basically ethics, to the book, comes down to you can do what you want just cover your butt and be prepared for the consequences of your actions.

( QUOTEC=CW Advocates say many things and I agree with your comments on Columbine & V Tech. It’s just that the Anti-Gun Crowd hits us hard with their BS also. We have to try and take a foot of ground where ever we can find it.)


Huh? Name me one anti gun group that has even 10% of the political muscle that the NRA has. They pretty much own Congress and get passed any bill they want. The anti gun people mostly make a lot of noise which leads nowhere. I wouldn't be worried about losing any gun issues.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

If you notice, a lot of these mass killings are taking place in "gun free" zones. The killers are going where they have the least chance of being confronted by an armed defender.

Forget about the talking points and the rhetoric about guns. Criminals take the easy route. if no one has guns they use knives to commit crimes. If that ain't enough they carry guns and if there is a chance they will encounter an armed person then they get bigger guns AND they assume the armed person will act so that armed robbery with the threat of self defense on the part of the victim turns into a situation where the bad guy will shoot first in self defense himself. You see these things can go either way. Sometimes the bad guy worries about what might happen to him too and ramps up his violence.

You know, when that congresswoman in Arizona was shot there was a guy coming out of the mall armed and what did he do to stop the violence? Nothing. He didn't have a clue who the bad guy was which is a very common situation in such cases so you take cover and watch until you can figure out what is going on. Ask any cop who has been involved in responding to a gunfight in progress about that and he'll tell you.

As far as claims that places where folks are armed have lower crimes rates there has never been any statistical correlation indicating that to be the case. In general violent crimes in this country have been decreasing for years. it doesn't seem like it but that's because of the news cycle we have these days where everything gets blown out of proportion.

I'm just saying having a gun isn't what it seems to be to many people, the universal answer to something bad happening and can in and of itself cause problems.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

( QUOTEC=CW Advocates say many things and I agree with your comments on Columbine & V Tech. It’s just that the Anti-Gun Crowd hits us hard with their BS also. We have to try and take a foot of ground where ever we can find it.)

I'm just saying having a gun isn't what it seems to be to many people, the universal answer to something bad happening and can in and of itself cause problems.

I agree. I don't go around with John Wayne syndrome. I'm still paranoid and try to be aware of what is going on around me. I hope to God that I never have to pull it. If I hear a gunshot inside a store I'm not going to run up to find out what is happening. I think I would have to see the robber pull his gun out and point it at the clerk to actually pull mine.

There are specific instances where having one is life itself. The incident in Texas that caused our CCW law to be passed is a perfect example.

Belton Texas, a man rammed his truck through the wall of a Luby's Cafeteria. He then started randomly shooting people. Reloaded and continued to shoot people. Workers ran outside pleading with anyone that might have a gun. No one did. Lives could have been saved.

One of the safest places to be in the world is at a gun show. Everyone is polite.