Skip to comments.George Zimmerman is NOT the Typical Story of Defensive Gun Use
Posted on 07/26/2013 2:34:53 PM PDT by marktwain
The trial of George Zimmerman over the shooting of Trayvon Martin has stirred national debate on race relations and on guns and violence in America. President Obama, who by many accounts has lost politically in his push for tighter gun control, has exploited the incident stating after the not-guilty verdict that We should ask ourselves if were doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis.
Anecdotal stories are interesting because theyre relatable; they help us see the human side of things by putting names and faces to what can otherwise be boring information. But no serious scientist, researcher, or analyst will rely on anecdotes because for every one that makes a certain conclusion seem right, theres another that makes a conflicting conclusion seem right. In many ways, coverage of the Zimmerman trial is about moving one agenda or narrative forward, and the gun control narrative is no different; but the facts demonstrate that citizens plus guns is not bad for society. In fact, its quite the opposite both anecdotes as well as the substantial body of hard data demonstrate that the Zimmerman narrative of reckless gun use is the aberration, not the model, of defensive gun use
In contrast to the anecdote evidence that guns embolden overzealous neighborhood watch members to harm innocent people, consider this: In January this year, Melinda Herman shot Paul Ali Slater, an ex-con, while defending herself and her two 9-year old children in their Loganville, Georgia home. Though she shot at him six times, striking him five times, he survived. CNN reported that Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman whose office responded to the shooting
(Excerpt) Read more at thebelltowers.com ...
B U M P
Heavier caliber and better shot placement would have righted THAT wrong!
“the Zimmerman narrative of reckless gun use”
WTF are these people talking about!
I am so sick of this kind of crap. Since when did it become “reckless” to use a gun to save yourself from some out of control jackass.
They can’t rationalize self-defense because they are so use to the thug winning, so they can’t help but make him out to be reckless or “he got away with murder” or “he is responsible”. It’s all baloney. Like I said, Trayvon committed his own murder. He chose suicide by proxy. He put an individual in a situation where he had no choice.
Just what exactly did Zimmerman do to him? Look at him? Walk in his general direction? Oh wow so I better watch where I look and walk from now on. If I look at a black man or walk in his general direction, that means he has the right to try and kill me, and if I refuse his attempt then I am racist.
If George Zimmerman had been a woman of equal height and stature, would we be even talking about this case?
What is not mentioned is something liberals NEVER get: “deterrence”. Something that cannot be measured, but which can be inferred, is how many times violent crimes were averted due to the possibility of the victims being able to employ firearms.
On a similar vein, today there was a story about an attempted robbery of a gun store by a man wielding a baseball bat and a knife. You certainly don’t see that sort of thing very often.
This whole controversy concerning the “guilt” of George Zimmerman is based on the malicious and perverted reasoning from the premise that Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon Martin, when the testimony and later statements of the witnesses and other interested parties indicate that it was Martin stalking Zimmerman.
George Zimmerman stands charged with “self defense”. Even in the most tortured sort of political correctness, this is not a criminal act, in and of itself. In the context of the situation as it has been reconstructed through testimony and verified through examination of the circumstantial evidence, the use of deadly force to stop the attack, in the heat of the moment, was entirely justified. That the deadly force was just that, deadly, in no way negates the immediacy of the judgment call to stop the assault.
Trayvon Martin was, in the vernacular of certain of those persons who choose to pontificate upon the matter, “acting stupidly”.
And stupidity can get you killed. The Universe is an unforgiving and relentless taskmaster, dispensing judgments that may seem callous or excessive, but the delicate balance is swiftly restored.
The only real aberration is the extent to which some corrupt government officials decided to drag George Zimmerman over the coals for a clearer-than-average case of self-defense.
The events surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting in the real world were pretty much typical of defensive gun use: someone attacks a person with a gun in a fashion which is clearly intended to create in that person a fear of death or severe bodily harm, and that person prevents such harm by incapacitating the attacker. Further, the events surrounding the shooting in leftist fantasyland were pretty much typical of leftist-fantasyland "defensive" gun uses. To be sure, the events surrounding the shooting in leftist fantasyland aren't typical of defensive gun uses that happen in the real world, but such discrepancy is hardly an aberration.
I wish George Zimmerman's supporters would focus on the fact that tangible physical evidence clearly shows that for at least 45 seconds Trayvon Martin was deliberately preventing Mr. Zimmerman from retreating to safety and was attacking Mr. Zimmerman in a fashion which would clearly be felonious if performed on a non-consenting target that was simply trying to disengage. The evidence further makes clear that during those 45 seconds Trayvon Martin could not plausibly have believed that Mr. Zimmerman was consenting to the attack nor do anything but disengage.
Those facts surrounding that 45 seconds, in and of themselves, would be sufficient to prove the shooting justified almost regardless of anything that could even theoretically have occurred before then. If GZ had engaged in a pattern of persistent harassment that eventually caused TM to snap, that might undermine the legitimacy of his self-defense claim, but other evidence makes clear that there's no way GZ would have had enough time to harass TM sufficiently to justify TM's behavior.
That principle/problem applies not only to things like self-defense, but also to many economic scenarios as well. Fear of severe economic loss should serve as a deterrent to financially-risky behavior. Bailouts undermine that deterrent effect, encouraging more people to engage in risky behavior. Consequently, the total level of harm to people engaging in that behavior (i.e. those who were supposed to be helped at the expense of everyone else) will be increased. Since those who have to pay for the bailout will also be harmed, the net effect is that bailout policies hurt just about everyone and should thus be regarded as just plain bad.