• 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.

New guy - A pondering I have had about the Zimmerman case.

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Even if he had been OCing it does not mean that the situation would have been different. It was night time so Trayvon would have been less likely to have noticed the OCed gun prior to the attack (this is assuming that Trayvon did attack Zimmerman as he claims).

Now it "could" have caused a different outcome, but there is no way to know if it "would" have caused a different outcome.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Open carry may deter some crime, but it also makes you a target in others. IMO if you have a concealed permit use it. I like the element of surprise.

Please point to five instances in the last 5 years where someone has been targeted for crime (non-military/LEO/security) because of their OCed weapon. If you can't find five in 5 years please say so and I'm willing to open it up to the past 10 years.

My guess is that one would be hard pressed (though they might be out there) to find five cases of this happening against your normal law abiding citizen (hence why those that carry as a part of their profession are excluded; also it is the job of those excluded to insert theirselves into situations a normal LAC would avoid, among other things) in even the last 20 years. So while yes, it "can" make one a target, there is simply a lack of evidence to show this to be the actual case in the real world. And for a lot of people that I've talked with that take the "better to cover it up" or similar attitude (such as "if you have a concealed permit use it"), they use the "possibility" of you being targeted to fear-monger for why it's a bad idea while ignoring the fact that there is a distinct lack of cases of OCers being targetted for crime specifically because of their gun.

Also I know personally I don't want the element of surprise. My goal with OCing is to prevent something from happening before I ever even have to draw my gun because it is already showing (compared to those that CC and have to draw or fire their gun before the criminal decides to go somewhere else).


As for OCers being targeted for crime here are the cases I know of:
1) In the past 6 months someone was specifically targeted for their gun and the criminal got the gun. The victim then chased after the criminal WHO HAD HIS GUN and the criminal turned around and shot him. He then killed someone else and it is believed to be with the stolen gun.
2) In 2011 an insane man who had a politically connected daddy saw an OCer at a restaurant. Insane man proceeded to claim he was DEA and attempted to gain control of the gun. A bystander managed to get a hold of the gun and secure it. Said insane man was somehow released from custody (most likely due to his connected daddy) and proceeded to be killed by cops roughly 2-4 months after this incident.
3) At a date I don't know but prior to 2011 (or maybe early 2011?) a man claimed to have been robbed specifically for his gun that he OCed. It supposedly happened while he was unlocking his door to his apartment. If you just look news stories this is likely all you will find on this case. A member of this board has contacted the police department where this took place and got a response from the police stating that the individual filed a false police report, his gun was never stolen, and was facing charges for a false police report at the time the individual from this board inquired about the incident.

That means that in the last 5 years I only know of a single successful gun grab on someone specifically because they were OCing, one attempt on an OCer (and by someone who was effectively crazy at that), and one flat out lie about a gun grab against an OCer. Personally I think those are some really good odds given that nothing we do in life is without risk and how often CCers are targeted for crime.
 
Last edited:

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Please point to five instances in the last 5 years where someone has been targeted for crime (non-military/LEO/security) because of their OCed weapon.

Thank you for posting this request. I was thinking the EXACT same thing when I read the post. Instead of regurgitating the same incredulous claim that a citizen OCing makes you a target provide a little proof.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,

some folks here dont like me to talk about OCers being attacked because they have guns...

there has been only one pure case of an OCer being attacked only to get his gun,
this OCer was then killed with his own gun.

I could go on and list 3 other cases of OCers that have been fisicaly attacked.

there are 3 reports I could list of verbal threats of violance because of an OCed hand gun.

the 1 report of the gun guy OCing being robbed at gun point to get his gun, wallet and watch.

all these have happened in the last 3 years all of them have been reported here and discussed on OCDO,
not all have police reports or documentation.

it is not a pleasant truth, but OCers are sumetimes targets for the bad guys, But
OCers probably stop THOUSANDS of BGs every day!!!!!
without drawing, or firing a single shot...

and another thing, the idea that an OCer will be shot first during a robbery,,,,
no report has ever come out that this has happened...
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
The precise manner in which a particular person happens to be wearing their handgun, and their demeanor are both important ingredients within the context of an envisioned, contemplated, or actually acted upon gun-grab attempt - and the operative word here I believe - is ATTEMPT.

Any relatively rational person would comprehend that a FAILED gun-grab could conceivably result in either a lethal bullet wound, or other serious bodily injury as the logical consequence of a failed effort.

My antagonist in the Pit Bull/condo episode a few years back had exhibited verbally menacing behavior directed at me personally in the presence of witnesses a total of 3 times during about a 5 minute time period.

I was confronted by this individual upon walking out my front door as he cruised by in search of his loose dog. He called out to me "Have you seen my dog ?" To which I replied that I hadn't. At which point he issued the first verbal threat as he turned onto a side street. ( " If you hurt my dog I'm gonna MESS YOU UP !) I was a bit taken back needless to say, and immediately concerned that the small children playing in the interior courtyard might be in harms way. I ran into the rear courtyard and began to warn nearby residents to get their children in doors, while the owner tried to locate his loose Pit Bull.

My holstered HG was somewhat covered by my jacket ,but I'm sure this guy had
previously observed the fact that I regularly open carried. This knowledge obviously led him to believe that given the right circumstances I could, and might in fact harm his dog.

I figure that his stressed out concern for his dog's life led him to conclude that it was necessary to threaten me. During this whole episode the dog owner was positioned behind the wheel of his vehicle while driving around the North-Eastern corner of the complex looking for his loose dog and issuing this threat on three occasions.

After advising other residents of the loose dog situation, I was conversing with a couple of the residents near the street when he drove up and once again delivered the same verbal threat for the 2nd time directed at me personally - word for word -in front of two witnesses. Having had all I intended to tolerate of this unnecessary ranting I respectfully approached his vehicle, placed both of my palms on top of his rolled down passenger-side window, and replied with " I beg your pardon ? "- upon which he repeated the threat - word for word - a 3rd time. Rather calmly, but sternly I then responded with... " I'm only trying to help you find your dog. As long as you keep your dog in the house, or on a leash I'm not a threat to either you, or your dog."

In my posture at that moment I was aware that my unzipped jacket allowed the unobstructed display of my holstered Glock. I did not intentionally "engineer" this display, touch my weapon, or refer him to its presence in any fashion. He already knew I was probably armed, but now the HG was "at hand" so to speak. It was at this point that this stressed out dog owner eased into "calm, cool, & collected" mode, disengaged from our encounter in passing, and idled down the street in search of his missing dog. I never crossed paths with him again. He shortly thereafter moved out of the condo.

I think my experience may be relevant to the current discussion regarding the pros/cons of OC, as well as the unique social dynamics of HOA town home/ condo living.

The point that COULD BE made - I suppose - would be that had I NOT previously engaged in open carry between my front door, the cluster mailbox, the dumpster, and other common areas of the condo - this individual would not have been on notice that I was likely armed thereby prompting him to fear for the life of his notoriously loose, and potentially very dangerous dog.

My question would be - Which scenario is more socially desirable - Should individuals predisposed to engage in menacing conduct, habitual negligence placing other members of the community at risk, and perhaps even acting out actual physical violence towards others - NOT be on put on notice that others living in the community are in fact armed - or to operate under the simple assumption that others are not armed ?

OC vs CC should not be an either/or issue. I believe there are occasions more appropriate for CC, and other occasions worthy of consideration for opting to OC . As far as we know Zimmerman wasn't OC'ing, but had he been doing so it is conceivable, and not unreasonable to suppose that given adequate ambient lighting Martin might have noticed Zimmerman's armed condition at some point prior to the physical confrontation - thereby improving the odds that he would still be alive, and we wouldn't even be talking about him and Zimmerman.
 
Last edited:

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
According to one of the many versions of this event which are being bandied about, Zimmerman had broken off his tracking of Martin and was returning to his vehicle when Martin "stepped to" him and asked if he had "a problem", and summarily began dealing out a beating.

Just this morning, the "Today" show ran a story on the latest developments in this case, and while the anchor (whoever she is, I don't really pay attention to these teleprompter readers anymore) was introducing the story the backdrop had a picture of lil' precious 12 year old Trayvon prominently displayed, thus betraying the bias of NBC in this case.

I'm only going to trust what can be verified as fact related under oath, and even in that case considering that if some people didn't lie onder oath there would be no such thing as a crime called "perjury".

What is going to be really interesting in this case is - this case having racial overtones, boy howdy - the jury will most assuredly be a mix of races. Personally I predict a series of mistrials caused by fist fights breaking out in the jury room, and additional trials stemming from those fights; and culminating in Florida dropping all charges and Zimmerman getting his gun back.

And then Zimmerman will be attacked again and forced to defend his life, and eventually some numbskull will kill him, and the whole mess will start again; and Zimmerman will have been the victim of capital punishment by reductio ad absurdem. The issue in this case is not firearms, nor is it open vs. concealed carry.

The issue, friends, is idiots.


n\n
 
R

raifle

Guest
I read all the comments mentioned above,Good point. I do agree that Zimmerman may have been just a wee bit overzealous in trying to catch a potential crimial.
 

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
Hello all, new guy here.

I have been lurking about for some time now, and have found this forum to be very informative and interesting. I have had my CPL for two years now and have occasionally OCd out of convenience, but have recently been considering OC as my primary method... which leads to my question:

If Florida laws had allowed OC and Zimmerman had actually been OCing when he was following Mr. Martin, could this whole incident have had a different outcome? (aka: Martin had a second thought and decided not to "attack" Zimmerman, and everyone goes home at the end of the day)

Grizz


Given Zimmerman's statement that Martin discovered his firearm, said, "tonight you're going to die" (or something to that effect), then went for his gun would indicate that if Zimmerman were confronted by Martin with an openly carried firearm that it very well may have become even more violent. Remember, the claim is that Zimmerman was ambushed, so the openly carried firearm would still wind up in a holster and completely useless until it could be retrieved. Martin allegedly had a clear intent once he decided to ambush Zimmerman.

It's like claiming that if he'd just stayed in his car this would have never happened.

Now that a new judge will be over the case, perhaps the case will be declared self-defense and the criminal aspect can end so that Zimmerman can start filing his own lawsuits against the multiple defendants for some very serious defamation, libel, slander, racism, causing his life to be threatened, failing to perform their duties, malicious prosecution, and a whole lot more. To truly be free of suit and charge, it must be declared in the court record that it was self-defense. Anything short of that leaves the door open to a potential wrongful death lawsuit from the Martins. Remember, they've already attempted to access a victim relief fund when it has yet to be determined if their son was a victim or an aggressor and we already know where the evidence is pointing.
 

The Wolfhound

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
728
Location
Henrico, Virginia, USA
Whatever the outcome, I have a bet...

I bet that the "Florida Stand Your Ground Law" never comes up in court. As Zimmerman has told his story, it would be immaterial to the case. If Zimmerman's story stands up to the jury's scruitany, he walks. If it does not stand up, "Stand Your Ground" won't help him. Time will tell.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I bet that the "Florida Stand Your Ground Law" never comes up in court. As Zimmerman has told his story, it would be immaterial to the case. If Zimmerman's story stands up to the jury's scruitany, he walks. If it does not stand up, "Stand Your Ground" won't help him. Time will tell.

Totally immaterial. But not to the media. They saw this as a chance to rail against guns and related law that supports the RKBA and the lawful use of them.

From day one, it was obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and a passing familiarity with the law that this was not a case of standing ground.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Every time I see a photo of Martin when he was twelve years old...

I have pointed out to people that the photo depicting Martin, is not up-to-date.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I at times view my going on 30 y/o son as if he were 12.....it's a parent thing I guess. In the Martin/Zimmerman case the photo of Martin at 12 is propaganda.
 

Mindcrime121

New member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
5
Location
Northern California
Welcome.

If you accept the premise that Martin attacked Zimmerman, even then, I don't see OC necessarily as a deterrent. Some people, even if they have a gun pointed at their face, continue forward.

Then again, one could argue that if a man is chasing you in the night with a gun at his hip, and he is not LEO, then you might be right in defending your life, limb, and grave bodily harm. I don't know about anyone else but a man is chasing me at night with a handgun at his hip, I am going to assume he is going to use it.

I'd have to disagree. Seems to me that a criminal, or criminal minded attacker, isn't going to OC in the overwhelming majority of cases, so if being confronted or followed by someone with a side arm in plain sight, my first thought would be that they are LEO, either plain clothed or off duty, or at least private security of some sort. I would think a court would expect that sort of reasonable determination on the part of someone using the claim "He had a gun on his hip!" as cause to act in "self defense" pre-emptively. The only time self defense would then come in to play is if the OC guy drew down on the other party without just cause to perform a citizens arrest, and/or without making it clear that this is their intention. Then it's just some ****** pointing a gun at you and you would have every right to kill them in any manner you could manage to do so, IMO.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Well I think Trayvon Doubled back to Z

map_600.jpg


See the clubhouse is referenced in the Z 911 call as where Trayvon was near initially, point A on the map is the clubhouse, point B is where Trayvon must have been.

Point C is Zimmerman's truck, now Z either gets out to talk to M or whatever and M takes off, from Z's description of the area he lost M it appears Z ended up at point E on the map. Now point D is the townhouse that was M's destination. noting locations why didn't M just head straight home?

Zimmerman's call concluded at point E most likely at 7:13, the first call to 911 begins with the fight in progress at point F, the site of the shooting at 7:16:11.

What happened in that missing 2 and a half minutes?
Why did Trayvon end up at F when he could've been at D?

I think Trayvon doubled back to Z's truck and challenged him.

this article from Wagist explains it pretty well
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/the-missing-230-and-deedees-testimony
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Looks like F is a sidewalk on the way to D.

Not enough information in this story at all.

It appears to me Both parties escalated something and only one party is now alive to tell his story.

I'd like to ask why should M just head home? I know if I had someone following me at his age I wouldn't lead them to my house.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Looks like F is a sidewalk on the way to D.

Not enough information in this story at all.

It appears to me Both parties escalated something and only one party is now alive to tell his story.

I'd like to ask why should M just head home? I know if I had someone following me at his age I wouldn't lead them to my house.


But if you read the link they also give a minute by minute based on time elapsed. Point E Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon, that's out on the road opposite that row of townhouses. The 911 call from Zimmerman concludes at 7:13 and the next call to 911 is from the neighbor located at point G three minutes later with the fight in progress. This gives us 3 minutes of time unaccounted for. Zimmerman claims he returned to his truck and trayvon doubled back and confronted him. Now trayvon is alive and well on the phone with his friend, she gets hung up upon as the fight begins at 7:15:30 there is no other explanation with those times other then trayvon doubled back. Remember Z lost sight of him at 7:13 at E and trayvon only had a 15 second run to his townhouse, but 2 minutes later he's fighting Z at point F
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
But if you read the link they also give a minute by minute based on time elapsed. Point E Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon, that's out on the road opposite that row of townhouses. The 911 call from Zimmerman concludes at 7:13 and the next call to 911 is from the neighbor located at point G three minutes later with the fight in progress. This gives us 3 minutes of time unaccounted for. Zimmerman claims he returned to his truck and trayvon doubled back and confronted him. Now trayvon is alive and well on the phone with his friend, she gets hung up upon as the fight begins at 7:15:30 there is no other explanation with those times other then trayvon doubled back. Remember Z lost sight of him at 7:13 at E and trayvon only had a 15 second run to his townhouse, but 2 minutes later he's fighting Z at point F

So? I wouldn't lead someone to my home who was trailing me.

Nothing illegal about either ones actions. Until the point of the fight. None of us where there I could not convict Z with the information at hand just like I wouldn't be able to convict T with the same information if the outcome was different.

I know people rarely have a middle ground on this issue, but the truth is none of us know what happened exactly and convictions we may have are based an assumptions and personal bias.
 
Top