Zimmerman's handgun was designed to be concealed, carried, and ready to shoot. Will that affect his trial's outcome?
Post by: Anderson Cooper, David Mattingly
Filed under: Crime & Punishment • George Zimmerman
Anderson Cooper goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from many points of view, so you can make up your own mind about the news. Tune in weeknights at 8 and 10 ET on CNN.
Questions or comments? Send an email
Want to know more? Go behind the scenes with AC361°
I believe Zimmerman was holding his gun during the whole altercation. Witnesses said that Martin was straddling Zimmerman in MMA style: it has to be next to impossible to pull a gun from a holster with somebody's legs on top of said holster while you're getting hit (just watch the positions of MMA fighters when one is in full mount, no access to the waist area for the fighter on the bottom). Gun in hand would also explain why a bigger adult man ended up on the ground while fighting a lighter teenage boy: he only had one hand to defend himself with and it was his weaker hand since the gun had to naturally be in his stronger hand. Having a weapon in his hand gave Zimmerman the balls to go after a "suspect" as he put it himself in a dark and rainy night.
Keith–it would have been the only thing Zimmerman could have done, lying on his back with a strong person sitting atop him, pounding his head on the cement–think about it–
Pat–great comment, so.true–has anyone asked the question of why, when Martin lost Zimmerman, he did not continue to the safety of his house, only a few yards away from where the incident took place?–it was a dark, rainy night and Martin was dressed in dark clothing–he would have been almost invisible to Zimmerman under those conditions–so it's clear that he came out of the darkness and safety to confront Zimmerman-his statement of 'why are you following me' is the first voice on the taped call–it was not Zimmerman confronting Martin, but the opposite–case closed in my opinion–
Anyone can shoot anyone. Stand your ground and claim self defend. What if you were the receiving end of this law, you'd too dead to testify against your attacker.
common sense...common sense...i have to believe one buys a weapon to defend them selves....so that weapon should be ready immediately at all times, to sit around and play monday morning qb and procrastinate the yeas and nays is extremely ignorant and a complete waste of time.
Yes. I think we as veterans need to stand up and say. In the Constitution the accused is guaranteed a trail in a court of law not public opinion. You should the system to work. Military enlisted people swear in and part of the swearing in states to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic or aboard. These attacks against Mr Zimmerman rights are wrong. Why do guys like you think you have the right to try this man in the court of public opinion?
Trayvon didn't have a hand book to tell him how to handle the matter, but George did.
Mary–Martin had his 'common sense'–You don't need a manual–his girlfriend gave him good advice, to run, but he said, Nah!–if he had done that he would have been safely in his house, saving his life–
He placed the gun up to the clothing of the victim at his heart when a struggle was occurring? If it was a struggle, this would not have been the case.
As a longtime firearm owner I would have to say that in the interest of safety I would not generally keep a weapon with one in the chamber. I would only do so if I was intent on encountering a threat and therefore having to use the weapon in a lethal manner.
Why not ask an expert on concealed carry. Here is some logic if he is carrying a concealed weapon for self protection, wouldn't he want a weapon to be carried, concealed, and ready to shoot. That is in fact the most common method in the United States for concealed carry. Perhaps the most illogical statement I have ever seen. A great example of ignorance and arrogance. Interviewing a single person knowledgable about concealed carry would make this whole premise a non-starter. Kathy, owning a firearm says nothing about your knowledge of how to carry concealed for self-protection.
Very good analysis, Trevor–just common sense
He had a license to carry weapon. Law doesn't stipulate what kind or that it cannot be loaded. This is not enough to constitute ill-will, profiling, or state of mine. I carry a loaded and concealed weapon because the law says I can under constitution. Can you tell me what my intent my intent may be? Same gun as Zimmerman does that make me guilty of anything , other than in invoking my constitutional right
"It wasn't necessary for the defendant to rack it, it was ready to go". Well, yeah, that's how you carry a defensive handgun – ready to go. It takes two hands (or one hand and something immobile to push against) and some small amount of time to cycle the action and load a round, and it's quite likely in a situation where you need the firearm to defend yourself you won't have the luxury of either of these things, instead you'll need the gun to work, NOW.
I wonder – does the prosecuter WEAR his seatbelt when he drives ('ready' to have an accident), or does he plan to wait until he's sure he's going to crash to then reach up and put it on? Idiocy.
Carrying with one round in the chamber is the recommended method of carry. This is the way all law enforcement carries their handguns. The defense needs to bring in an expert witness to clarify this to the jury.