Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheL8Elvis]

Which ignores how many were prevented due to having a firearm. Its pretty hard to capture a statistic for an event that is prevented.

I have a rock that keeps away lions

 

[Xulld]

I have a rock that keeps away lions

Actually throwing rocks is a very old way to keep aggressive animals at bay.

 

[Rare Truth]

Update: Zimmerman is waiving his right to a speedy trial.

His arraignment is scheduled to take place right now.

 

[Rare Truth]

The two motions filed:

05-08-12 | Waiver of Speedy Trial
05-08-12 | Motion to Continue

http://www.flcourts18.org/presspublic.html

 

[Giz]

Perhaps I'm missing something but isn't 15% statistically significant? I don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise.

I think he's saying that:

a) Most shootings happen at very close range (i.e. within 20 ft, or even less)

b) At that kind of point blank range, rubber bullets will still have a significant risk of causing serious injury/death.

 

[RandFan]

I think he's saying that:

a) Most shootings happen at very close range (i.e. within 20 ft, or even less)

b) At that kind of point blank range, rubber bullets will still have a significant risk of causing serious injury/death.

Um, yeah, I got that when he said it. My question is as whether or not that 15% is significant? The question might then become, is the 15% the result of the rubber bullets or commensurate with standard ammunition?

1.) ... mortality rate ... like 85% 0-20'
2.) LTLs would have no real difference in mortality than conventional loads.

How does the conclusion (#2) follow from the premise (#1)? Isn't 15% a "real difference"?

 

[Xulld]

Um, yeah, I got that when he said it. My question is as whether or not that 15% is significant? The question might then become, is the 15% the result of the rubber bullets or commensurate with standard ammunition?

How does the conclusion (#2) follow from the premise (#1)? Isn't 15% a "real difference"?

Your coming at this from the completely wrong perspective. Yes its significant, but you do not carry a gun for the off chance that the %15 subset of an already low % event will be what you need when seconds count.

You carry for maximum capability for all situations, anything else is foolish.

 

[Giz]

Um, yeah, I got that when he said it. My question is as whether or not that 15% is significant? The question might then become, is the 15% the result of the rubber bullets or commensurate with standard ammunition?

Sigh, you're still not getting it.

The 85% refers to the proportion of shootings (of whatever type of ammo) that occurred within 20 feet. It DOES NOT refer to the proportionate mortality of rubber bullets as opposed to metal bullets when fired at a person 20 ft away.

So:

a) Most shootings are at very close range (i.e. 85% are within 20 ft)
b) At very close range rubber bullets have significant chance (undetermined percentage) of killing and also have less chance (undetermined percentage) of stopping the aggressor when compared to metal bullets

 

[RandFan]

The 85% refers to the proportion of shootings (of whatever type of ammo) that occurred within 20 feet. It DOES NOT refer to the proportionate mortality of rubber bullets as opposed to metal bullets when fired at a person 20 ft away.

Okay. Thanks.

a) Most shootings are at very close range (i.e. 85% are within 20 ft)
b) At very close range rubber bullets have significant chance (undetermined percentage) of killing and also have less chance (undetermined percentage) of stopping the aggressor when compared to metal bullets

My question still stands. How many, if any, are saved by using rubber bullets? At the moment we only have an assertion. So, I concede that I thought that the 15% figure was for rubber bullets. Does the conclusion follow from the premise? Can rubber bullets improve the chance for survival? And, what is the relative risk to the person with the rubber bullets?

Statistics are being cited. Those figures do not justify the conclusion, IMO. So, I'll try again.

1.) ... mortality rate ... like 85% 0-20'
2.) LTLs would have no real difference in mortality than conventional loads.

How does the conclusion (#2) follow from the premise (#1)? What is the survival rate for rubber bullets. The argument makes an unwarranted leap and that is as follows:

The main consideration, I think, is that LTL rounds have a signifigant mortality rate at self-defense ranges.

What is that rate?

 

[crimresearch]

Okay. Thanks.

My question still stands. How many, if any, are saved by using rubber bullets? At the moment we only have an assertion. So, I concede that I thought that the 15% figure was for rubber bullets. Does the conclusion follow from the premise? Can rubber bullets improve the chance for survival? And, what is the relative risk to the person with the rubber bullets?

Statistics are being cited. Those figures do not justify the conclusion, IMO. So, I'll try again.

How does the conclusion (#2) follow from the premise (#1)? What is the survival rate for rubber bullets. The argument makes an unwarranted leap and that is as follows:

What is that rate?

Seeing if reality can be made to work in theory...

 

[Giz]

Okay. Thanks.

My question still stands. How many, if any, are saved by using rubber bullets? At the moment we only have an assertion. So, I concede that I thought that the 15% figure was for rubber bullets. Does the conclusion follow from the premise? Can rubber bullets improve the chance for survival? And, what is the relative risk to the person with the rubber bullets?

Well, another way to look at it is:

You would still need to believe that deadly force was warranted in order to justify shooting someone with a rubber bullet.


To expand, if deadly force was justified, is it better for the innocent party to use a less effective bullet (knowing that it could still be lethal to the bad guy) or the most effective bullet available (which would increase the chance of the bad guy dying but also increase the chance of the good guy surviving the confrontation)? My view is that, if the bad guy has created a situation where the good guy is honestly justified in using lethal force then the good guy should be doing whatever will be most likely to a) get him out of the situation safely, and b) not risk other innocent bystanders… so far that sounds like: i) don't fire unless you really really need to, and ii) use hollow-points.

(I guess that's my way of saying, the safety of an innocent victim outways the safety of a willful aggressor).

 

[a_unique_person]

. . anyone who has serious concerns about being in a fatal auto accident ought not drive in a vehicle.

Your argument.

The conclusion is untenable however, serious concerns or not basic standards of living require us to drive, and to interact in society where violent people may attack us.

Being prepared is different than disengaging. The real counter argument is that being prepared harms no one. Defensive driving harms no one, carrying a gun and following self defense protocols hurts no one. When a deadly situation occurs you can make the best of it, but I am going to be prepared.

Which ignores how many were prevented due to having a firearm. Its pretty hard to capture a statistic for an event that is prevented.

I find it interesting this argument from statistics. It seems the argument is that no one should carry a gun becuase of the statistical probability of needing one. Is this not the case?

Or ignores how many deaths were caused by the false security a gun brings. If GZ had not had a gun, would he have been so reckless in following TM when it was an inflamatory act in this instance. BTW, since it is so hard to provide statistics to prove this, I don't have to provide any evidence.

 

[LTC8K6]

Lots of less lethal ammo seems to be readily available to the public. Rubber buckshot, rubber slugs, beanbags, rubber/plastic/wax bullets, flash/bang rounds, pepper/mace rounds, etc.

Didn't realize the stuff was that common.

I do note that they tend to be called "less lethal" on the packaging, and not "less than lethal", which tells us something, I think.

I suppose one of the things you would say is that by loading a less lethal round first, you were trying not to kill, even if that round actually did kill the assailant.

 

[Cylinder]

Statistics are being cited. Those figures do not justify the conclusion, IMO. So, I'll try again.

I'm probably not particularly clear when I post, but it does distract me from being productive, so I got that going for me...

I was trying to assert that most self defense scenarios involve suprisingly close ranges. Comprehensive statistics do not exist, but ancedotal studies tend to bear this out. I'll have to pull out some actual cites for that claim. A comprehensive statistic that does exist is murder of LEOs. Those were the statistics I cited earlier, which tend to agree with ancedotal studies - though I think most people tend to agree that they are skewed a little close because LEO employ body armour. This is all murdered LEOs. Presumably the number of LEOs shot with LTLs are statistically insignifigant.

LTLs are not going to be LTL at close range. I would expect no signifigant difference of mortality between LTL and traditional ball loads at near-contact shootings like in the Zimmerman case. There probably will be a more signifigant difference at around 20'.

In my opinion, it's more important to teach people not to shoot when it's not an immediate neccessity than to promote LTL options that aren't really LTL at the ranges most likely encountered. I wish I had an LTL round should mean DO NOT UNHOLSTER YOUR WEAPON!!!! You can teach this to people with the assesment techniques I was talking about earlier. Stop, assess, react. Stop, assess react. Stop. assess, react.

 

[RandFan]

Well, another way to look at it is:

You would still need to believe that deadly force was warranted in order to justify shooting someone with a rubber bullet.


To expand, if deadly force was justified, is it better for the innocent party to use a less effective bullet (knowing that it could still be lethal to the bad guy) or the most effective bullet available (which would increase the chance of the bad guy dying but also increase the chance of the good guy surviving the confrontation)? My view is that, if the bad guy has created a situation where the good guy is honestly justified in using lethal force then the good guy should be doing whatever will be most likely to a) get him out of the situation safely, and b) not risk other innocent bystanders… so far that sounds like: i) don't fire unless you really really need to, and ii) use hollow-points.

(I guess that's my way of saying, the safety of an innocent victim outways the safety of a willful aggressor).

All that is well and good with one caveat. One can be reasonably in fear of one's life, and be mistaken.

So, this takes us back to my original post. What is the relative risk of being killed because you don't have a gun? Further, what is the relative risk of being killed because you don't have hollow points? If you are honestly that concerned for your safety then perhaps you ought to reconsider climbing into a car.

Please don't take the following as impertinent. It's not my intention to simply be provocative. First off, I think it prudent for anyone who carries a gun to take safety courses. That said, isn't concern for safety a bit overblown when it comes to carrying a gun? What I mean is this, given crime stats, does cost benefit analysis justify carrying a weapon like a gun? If the avoidance of taking a life is important then are there not better strategies and/or better technologies? What is the relative risk of dying for lack of a hand gun? According to the FBI, in 2010 there were 8,775 murders caused by firearms. For comparison, in 2010 there were 32,000 auto fatalities. Are the risks of having a gun greater than the risks of not having one? To be honest I can't say categorically either way. I don't fear riding a car and I don't fear being shot by someone. There seems to be a logical consistency in that. And yes, I get putting on one's seat belt, obeying the laws and defensive driving. But at the end of the day, no matter what you do, when you get into a car you are taking a risk. So, while I don't think people without the ability to carry a gun would live in fear, I think the concern a bit overblown.

If it is not clear then my point is this, anyone who has serious concerns about the possibility of taking the life of another person ought not carry a gun.

 

[LTC8K6]

Or ignores how many deaths were caused by the false security a gun brings. If GZ had not had a gun, would he have been so reckless in following TM when it was an inflamatory act in this instance. BTW, since it is so hard to provide statistics to prove this, I don't have to provide any evidence.

GZ wasn't doing anything reckless as far as I know of the incident.

If GZ had not had a gun he might be dead or very seriously injured. We just don't know.

I think if GZ had been open carrying, instead of concealed, TM probably doesn't get killed.

 

[Dan O.]

I think if GZ would have been OC'ing his firearm the altercation would have never occurred, but that is pure speculation on my part.

You could be right. If George was aware that following someone in the dark while displaying a firearm would appear threatening, perhaps he would have stayed in his truck and waited for the police. Otherwise, an open display of a firearm could simply have informed Trayvon that this stalker was in fact armed and not just potentially armed.

I believe Trayvon was hiding near one of the condos when George came through the cut. Trayvon comes out from hiding to confront George which would either be because George was searching the condos and would have discovered him or he thought George was waiting for the accomplice he was on the phone with to arrive. In order to close the gap with the potentially armed George, Trayvon would need a distraction. (did any of the witnesses report a noise befor the shouting started?) Then after equalizing the situation and gaining a significant first strike advantage, according to the girlfriend, Trayvon opens with dialog instead of a disabling blow.

If the weapon was exposed, the gun carriers here would tell you that the priority would be to eliminate the threat.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think if TM sees the gun on GZ's hip, he's out of there and calling 911 and not coming back. GZ certainly wouldn't have caught TM, imo.

 

[a_unique_person]

GZ wasn't doing anything reckless as far as I know of the incident.

If GZ had not had a gun he might be dead or very seriously injured. We just don't know.

I think if GZ had been open carrying, instead of concealed, TM probably doesn't get killed.

Following someone is going to make them fearful. If GZ had done nothing and done what he was originally going to do, rather than intimidating someone by obviously following them, no one would have been harmed. Having a gun, which everyone here has been telling me makes you safer because you can kill with it, just makes GZ reckless in this situation. He doesn't have to worry about intimidating the other person, he can just kill them if they don't like being followed.

 

[crimresearch]

All that is well and good with one caveat. One can be reasonably in fear of one's life, and be mistaken.

So, this takes us back to my original post. What is the relative risk of being killed because you don't have a gun? Further, what is the relative risk of being killed because you don't have hollow points? If you are honestly that concerned for your safety then perhaps you ought to reconsider climbing into a car.

Equating those who carry guns (which automatically includes the police), as falling into the category of having no concerns about killing people, is polemic baiting.

You are once again blatantly trying to derail the thread, and take advantage of the tragedy of Trayvon Martin's death to foment a pooh flinging 'debate'.