Zimmerman/Martin shooting

[Risky]

The shoot-to-wound road is a tricky one to go down.

I believe that if you are in enough control of the situation to say you're going to dispense a gunshot with less lethal intent then you're not in fear of your life and probably shouldn't use deadly force, at all.

According to Zimmerman, he wasn't just wrestling around... he wasn't just not able to get away... he was getting beaten and afraid that he would lose consciousness and worse.

Plus, how do you know that first shot won't be your last? Especially considering that Zimmerman's gun only fired the chambered round and failed to cycle the next. There's no way to know your best shot is going to reliably stop the attack, why bet your life on a purposefully lousy one?

In my opinion it still stands that your first shots should be to the most effective area that they can reliably hit. If that's an attacker's foot and all you can get to for whatever reason, so be it... but when cross the threshold of deadly force and can place rounds to the vitals its a no-brainer.

 

[basicblur]

But honestly, if me, I would try to take make a shoulder shot, or a leg shot, or even shoot the person in the foot if I can.

Can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but in VA, there is a statute that says if you shoot to wound you have broken the law.

The state figures if you had time to aim/shoot to wound, your life was not in danger so you had no business shooting in the first place.

 

[Lost Sheep]

In one word, "Unwise"

Well-intentioned, perhaps, but unwise. Carry sublethal means if you feel that way (in addition or instead, but sublethal).

(edited for brevity)In terms of tactics, does anyone (besides me) think that a non-lethal shot would have been more approporate?

I know LEOs are taught to shoot to kill. I know that. I know why. I have heard all the logical and all the emotional reasons.

Any thoughts, in terms of tactics, for putting your first shot someplace else besides the chest?

Please give your source for the "LEOs are taught to shoot to kill" statement. I believe LEOs are authorized to use only whatever force is required to stop whatever threat there is that gave cause for use of that force. This may vary by jurisdiction, but I think that most in the U.S. and other democratic countries do not subscribe to that degree of "street justice".

On the tactics part of your question, when it comes right down to it, no matter what the range, a center mass shot is the most likely to stop a threat without the requirement for a second hole in the victim. One hole is generally more survivable than two holes, I think. Center mass is the best tactical choice. And perhaps the most survivable for the majority of gunshot victims.

Having said that, a leg or arm shot to Martin probably would have stopped the threat, but not as certainly. But how was Zimmerman to make that determination once he (and let me recognize that this fact is in dispute) determined that deadly force was appropriate. When you have to shoot, the time to decide, "center mass or leg" is a luxury few are given by their assailant.

Lost Sheep

 

[Davek1977]

In terms of tactics, does anyone (besides me) think that a non-lethal shot would have been more approporate?

Or does it always need to be kill or be killed?

I know LEOs are taught to shoot to kill. I know that. I know why. I have heard all the logical and all the emotional reasons.

But honestly, if me, I would try to take make a shoulder shot, or a leg shot, or even shoot the person in the foot if I can. Especially if I were shooting an unarmed person whom I considered to be a physical threat.

Even a gut shot in the Martin-Zimmerman conflict would have been more survivable than was the chest shot.

The chest contains the heart, and 5 lobes of the lungs. It's a deadly place to put your first bullet.

Any thoughts, in terms of tactics, for putting your first shot someplace else besides the chest?

A gun is a LETHAL weapon. You should not introduce it into any scenario that doesn't require lethal force. You are only allowed to respond with an amount of force necessary to stop the threat. If you are using a lethal weapon, the threat had better require lethal force to stop, or you've become a criminal. You can debate the logic of nonlethal shots, warning shots, etc all damn day, but at the end of the day, a situation either requires lethal force to stop, or it doesn't. Your freedom rests on being able to know the difference under periods of high stress. If the firing of a gun is justified, so is lethal force. If you use lethal force (a gun) in any situation that is not immediately a threat to your life, you may well find yourself in jail. Warning shots and shooting to wound are all iffy areas every expert warns against. You shoot to eliminate the threat, and if that threat happens to die as a result, so be it. You are free to play "I wonder what would happen if....." if you want to, but I'm not gambling with my life and or freedom in such a manner. If I'm justified in shooting, I'm going to be trying to put my bullets center mass and hope I do a damn good job of it, not shooting him in the right arm, only to find out he's a lefty who happens to be quite proficient with the pistol in his left waistband that I didnt notice previously

 

[Kleanbore]

But honestly, if me, I would try to take make a shoulder shot, or a leg shot, or even shoot the person in the foot if I can. Especially if I were shooting an unarmed person whom I considered to be a physical threat.

Even a gut shot in the Martin-Zimmerman conflict would have been more survivable than was the chest shot.

The chest contains the heart, and 5 lobes of the lungs. It's a deadly place to put your first bullet.

For general knowledge--forget about the case at hand.

Those who have not yet learned that trying to shoot to wound is a bad idea and why should at least understand one thing: a shot to a lung, or even two shots to the same lung, is often likely to be more survivable than a shot to the leg that strikes the femoral artery.

 

[rajb123]

Trayvon Martin was suspended from high school for carrying a plastic bag with pot residue and this is why he was able to visit his father who lives in a difference school district at the time of the shooting.

Is this FACT relevent to the Zimmerman Murder2 case, and if yes, will it likely be revealed in court?

If I was on the jury, this would be of interest to me. Why? Well, it shows Treyvon was not an angel, for one.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by rajb123: Trayvon Martin was suspended from high school for carrying a plastic bag with pot residue and this is why he was able to visit his father who lives in a difference school district at the time of the shooting.

Is this FACT relevent to the Zimmerman Murder2 case, and if yes, will it likely be revealed in court?

No, and no.

If I was on the jury, this would be of interest to me. Why? Well, it shows Treyvon was not an angel, for one.

The prior history of someone who has been killed or injured in a self defense case in Florida, and in forty seven other states for that matter, is not germane to the question of whether the actor had had a basis for a reasonable belief that deadly force had been immediately necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm, unless (1) it pertained to the liklihood that the person would heve attacked the defendant and (2) the defendant had been aware of that information at the time.

This was addressed in Post # 155.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Can we drive a stake...

to dispense a gunshot with less lethal intent

Once and for all through the heart of this vampire, and keep its evil from rising again? , but seriously.

If I (meaning me) shoot to murder someone, then and only then would I have lethal intent. If I shoot to stop, I have neither lethal nor "less lethal" intent. I have intent to stop, whatever it takes. As one instructor said, "We shoot COM not because it's the best; it's just the biggest."

First: ALL shots are lethal force. That even includes shots from standard firearms with "less-lethal" projectiles (unless you are LE properly certified and authorized in the use of that munition).

There's good reason for that: a shot to the arm or leg can be rapidly lethal. We should expect it to be. Even if it is not lethal, it can be permanently crippling. We should expect it to be. All of that is lethal force.

So, say you "shoot to wound", hit a major artery, and he dies. You didn't mean for that to happen? Great: you've just admitted to negligent homicide. Might mean manslaughter, might mean one fat civil suit.

As I've said elsewhere, the best nonlethal force is a shouted challenge from cover. After that, everything has its downsides.

The prior history of someone who has been killed or injured in a self defense case in Florida, and in forty seven other states for that matter...

I believe that, in the remaining two states, the past history also may not be introduced unless your condition 1 is met.

 

[Shoobee]

Martin died very quickly. That fact is reported by the witnesses and the LEOs at the scene. We have not seen the autopsy results yet. So we don't yet know exactly why.

I always keep my distance from a perp, and I have done so successfully half a dozen times.

The place I choose to stand while observing them is normally concealed or unapproachable easily to them. I told one guy to stop, as he approaced, and he stopped. Had he not stopped, I would have stopped him with a shot to his leg or foot. My S&W model 39 had 8 + 1 rounds in it, so I could spare one or two to take out his mobility. And it had never failed or jammed at the range, and I kept it quite clean and lubed. (I have since replaced it with a 45ACP 10 + 1.)

Legs have arteries, yes. They can also be easily tourniquetted.

Since we do have 5 lobes in our lungs, an outer chest shot could be survivable, if EMS gets there fast enough, and gets the victim to the hospital fast enough so that a surgeon can clamp the damaged arteries. Since Martin died quickly, it seems to indicate to me that he did not suffer an outer chest shot though. We will find out at trial.

With all the practice and practice that most of us put into shooting, it has always seemed to me that a nonlethal shot to the upper shoulder of a knife wielding perp, or to the legs or feet of an oncoming perp, warrants consideration. I have always been cool headed enough to consider it. When armed, I have never felt that my life was in danger. But then, tactically speaking, I *always* manage to keep my interval from the perp.

I have called-in three crimes in progress, two of which resuling in arrests by the LEOs, who arrived within a couple of minutes. The other guy got away. So in my experience they do not "always get away."

The other incidents I did not call in, because open loaded carry is normally enough to chase off any perp/perps in the night, when they see you. The problem I see with CCW is that it does not lend itself to deterrence. But that's just me. I prefer open loaded carry, in a holster, from which you can draw quickly if need be. Especially late at night after midnight when most people are in bed, and any metallic sounds coming from the parking lot or garage are going to qualify as a problem.

We here should all lighten up a bit until the trial. There aren't going to be any new facts coming out until then. And right now we are woefully short on facts. Keeping an open mind is the best thing, for now.

Regarding tactics, in the meantime, I am confident in what I now do, and what I have done before.

With crime in America getting worse and worse, it is becoming a lot like the Old West again.

 

[Loosedhorse]

They can also be easily tourniquetted.

Leg and arm wound close to the body cannot be tourniquetted.

And besides: who's gonna put the tourniquette on? You, the guy who just shot him? The guy you shot will tourniquette himself, perhaps? An innocent bystander? Or are you just going to assume that some EMS guy with a tourniquette will arrive in time--and if he doesn't, well, that's on him, not you?

Death from a lacerated major artery can occur in under a minute.

a nonlethal shot to the upper shoulder

For all intents and purposes for the person shooting, that phrase is a contradiction in terms. Not only is a "shot to the upper shoulder" considered a lethal force injury at law (and so carries all the legal weight attached to using lethal force), medically it is also a presumed lethal injury: it is exactly the type of wound that would reasonably be expected to lacerate a major artery in a place where no tourniquette could be applied.

But hey: do what you want.

 

[Godsgunman]

The whole thing is this, if you have time to give a warning shot or "non-lethal" shot to a limb to "slow up" the perps attack, then your life IS NOT in danger and lethal force is therefore not called for and you are in danger of excessive force or worse. We are taught to shoot COM because 1: it is the biggest part of the body and 2: it is the area that will stop the threat quickly. Sadly COM shots will most likely result in death, that is why a gun should NEVER be pulled unless it is absolutely the last resort to protect your life. Anything short of that is suspect at best. Again, if a shot to COM is not required, I question the need for a gun to be drawn in the first place.

 

[rajb123]

Is it possible that the autopsy will reveal the angle of the bullet wound? This could help determine if the shooter might have been on the ground with the shooting victom sitting on topof him; right?

 

[Kleanbore]

Is it possible that the autopsy will reveal the angle of the bullet wound?

Possible and likely....

This could help determine if the shooter might have been on the ground with the shooting victom sitting on topof him; right?

How?

We are getting into the realm of speculation here. Nothing to be gained by that.

 

[mortablunt]

Can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but in VA, there is a statute that says if you shoot to wound you have broken the law.

The state figures if you had time to aim/shoot to wound, your life was not in danger so you had no business shooting in the first place.

I'll have to let my father know that. He''s of the shoot to wound school.

a nonlethal shot to the upper shoulder

I don't think you've ever seen what a shot does to the human body. Shoulders have arteries, bones, tiny structures, and lots of cartilage. A shot to the shoulder will probably cripple somebody for life and not stop them that effectively.

 

[rajb123]

Speculation??? ..possibly, I suppose.

Fact: At least one eye witness reported to police that two people were on the ground and one person was sitting on the other persons chest.

If the bullet traveled in an upward direction, wouldn't that support the conclusion that the person with his back to the ground was the shooter?

 

[Kleanbore]

If the bullet traveled in an upward direction, wouldn't that support the conclusion that the person with his back to the ground was the shooter?

Upward with respect to what? Did the bullet penetrate through the victim?

Let's knock off the speculation. the defendant has bibber problems than the angle of the shot. Things like an unarmed opponent, for example.

 

[Godsgunman]

rajb123,
As a medical professional I've seen shootings and the only thing the autopsy would prove is if the bullet went from anterior to posterior or vice versa which would not prove as to who was on top and who was on bottom. The only way to prove is if the bullet were to pass through the body and then recovered either passed into the ground which would mean Zimmerman was on top or if the bullet was not recovered in the ground COULD POSSIBLY indicate Zimmerman was on the ground but would NOT prove without a doubt. If bullet didn't pass through then it is impossible to tell.

 

[rajb123]

godsgunman:

Ok - that is helpful. So the autopsy can only tell if M was shot in the back of the chest or shot in the front of the chest?

 

[Loosedhorse]

If bullet didn't pass through then it is impossible to tell.

There may be other signs: for example, if the dead person's knuckles and knees are full of abrasions or gravel, that would tell a different story than if his back and elbows are.

 

[Sam1911]

The place I choose to stand while observing them is normally concealed or unapproachable easily to them.

So you have control of position/cover in all your lethal force encounters? That's mighty convenient. And unusual.

I told one guy to stop, as he approaced, and he stopped. Had he not stopped, I would have stopped him with a shot to his leg or foot.

You do not have the authority to back up a command with lethal force. You only have the right to stop someone from hurting/killing you in the instant of the attack. No matter what you've seen on TV, someone who refuses to stop moving is not actually committing an offence for which you may SHOOT them. If you can articulate that you were a moment from being struck, stabbed, shot, etc, then your shooting may be justifiable. Shooting them "to wound" -- from a position of safety/cover/concealment, no less -- indicates that you did not believe your situation met the required standard for use of lethal force. That becomes assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, or murder.

Legs have arteries, yes. They can also be easily tourniquetted.

The effects of your shots, and whether they can be repaired easily, don’t much matter. If you shoot you have to believe that action was immediately necessary to save your life. Shoot him in some deliberately “less lethal” manner and your own actions will deny this.

The other incidents I did not call in, because open loaded carry is normally enough to chase off any perp/perps in the night, when they see you. The problem I see with CCW is that it does not lend itself to deterrence. But that's just me. I prefer open loaded carry, in a holster, from which you can draw quickly if need be. Especially late at night after midnight when most people are in bed, and any metallic sounds coming from the parking lot or garage are going to qualify as a problem.

So you’re investigating possible violent criminals, hoping to scare them off with your holstered weapon? What happened to the idea that you NEVER go anywhere with a gun that you would not go without one?

With crime in America getting worse and worse, it is becoming a lot like the Old West again.

What a fine collection of “old saws!” Crime in America is generally NOT getting worse, and the “Old West” was not anything like the lawless, violent place/time it has been portrayed to be in the movies.

 

[JRH6856]

When armed, I have never felt that my life was in danger.

In which case, you have never had a reason to fire a shot either to kill or wound.

 

[Fred Fuller]

"I can't imagine this case being tried within a year," O'Mara told Anderson Cooper. -- http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/13/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?iref=obinsite

Mark O'Mara is Zimmerman's current attorney.

From the same article: On Thursday, a Seminole County judge found probable cause to move forward with the case and set a May 29 arraignment.

If the arraignment doesn't happen until the end of May, it will indeed take a while for this to come to trial. The lesson to be learned here is that the courts operate on a schedule that will often seem glacial to people who are not familiar with it.

I keep being reminded of trainer John Farnams' reminder: This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the "penalty" for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable. -- http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2003/19Mar03.html

One of the several things which have indicated to me how unprepared Zimmerman was to deal with the aftermath his stated defensive use of deadly force was the fact that he expected the incident to "blow over" in a few days ( http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...yvon-martin-zimmerman-20120325,0,768039.story ). Whatever else we do, I don't believe that's an assumption any of us can afford to make...

 

[9mmepiphany]

...I have called-in three crimes in progress, two of which resuling in arrests by the LEOs, who arrived within a couple of minutes.

...The other incidents I did not call in, because open loaded carry is normally enough to chase off any perp/perps in the night, when they see you. The problem I see with CCW is that it does not lend itself to deterrence. But that's just me. I prefer open loaded carry, in a holster, from which you can draw quickly if need be.

...Regarding tactics, in the meantime, I am confident in what I now do, and what I have done before.

...With crime in America getting worse and worse, it is becoming a lot like the Old West again.

Would you address the question asked in Post #223 and #226?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Shoobee: I told one guy to stop, as he approaced, and he stopped. Had he not stopped, I would have stopped him with a shot to his leg or foot.

Gosh, I sure missed that one!

Sam's response to that bears repeating:

You do not have the authority to back up a command with lethal force. You only have the right to stop someone from hurting/killing you in the instant of the attack. No matter what you've seen on TV, someone who refuses to stop moving is not actually committing an offence for which you may SHOOT them.

(Emphasis added)​

Sam refers to the first part of the comment--'had he not stopped. I....'.

For the second part, let's turn to Loosedhorse; his comments also bear repeating:

If I (meaning me) shoot to murder someone, then and only then would I have lethal intent. If I shoot to stop, I have neither lethal nor "less lethal" intent. I have intent to stop, whatever it takes. As one instructor said, "We shoot COM not because it's the best; it's just the biggest."

First: ALL shots are lethal force. That even includes shots from standard firearms with "less-lethal" projectiles (unless you are LE properly certified and authorized in the use of that munition).

There's good reason for that: a shot to the arm or leg can be rapidly lethal. We should expect it to be. Even if it is not lethal, it can be permanently crippling. We should expect it to be. All of that is lethal force.

So, say you "shoot to wound", hit a major artery, and he dies. You didn't mean for that to happen? Great: you've just admitted to negligent homicide. Might mean manslaughter, might mean one fat civil suit.

If that is not sufficiently clear, let's reread how Sam explained it:

If you shoot you have to believe that action was immediately necessary to save your life. Shoot him in some deliberately “less lethal” manner and your own actions will deny this.

Posted by Shoobee: With all the practice and practice that most of us put into shooting, it has always seemed to me that a nonlethal shot to the upper shoulder of a knife wielding perp, or to the legs or feet of an oncoming perp, warrants consideration.

Practice and practice? Range shooting, it would seem.

Some quality training in defensive pistol shooting, designed to teach and develop the skills needed to react to a real encounter in which one or more violent assailants are attacking fast and require more than one handgun hit to stop them, would be a good investment for those who have not yet had the experience.

In the meantime, reflect upon this description by the late Jim Cirillo of his first gunfight:

"I was never so terrified in my whole life. They never told me in the academy that the targets were going to jump and move all over the place. There wasn't one three-foot-by-two-foot target to shoot at like on the police range."

Read Massad Ayoobs' latest book, Combat shooting with Massad Ayoob, for more.​

Yes, one might hit an attacker in the leg or the foot, but in the real world, that is not likely to be intentional.

And a little research will tell us that the large majority of handgun shots to center mass are not fatal.

 

[rajb123]

If it takes a year or so for the case to be tried, what happens to Zimmerman between now and then? I can't imagine a single reason why bail would be denied. Zimmerman is not a flight risk nor a danger to the community. Unfortunately for Zimmerman, the community is a danger to him.