Let me reiterate my point that I am not on one side or the other, neither pro-Trayvon Martin, nor pro-George Zimmerman in the case of the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. I do think that there must be lessons taken from this incident, and I acknowledge that these lessons come at far too high a price. In this case, the price is the destruction of two lives, but if those lives are not to have been lost in vain, we must learn something. My particular lessons are focused on how to deal with the law as it now stands, not how some perceive it should be.
When George Zimmerman got a concealed weapons permit, he was granted a privilege. He was authorized to carry a firearm. He had, within easy reach, the means to take the life of another. There are those that would argue that, under the Second Amendment, it was his right to carry a firearm. Regardless of whether it is a right or a privilege, when you choose to carry a gun, you have a certain responsibility. Whether you are a private citizen with a concealed weapons permit or a police officer, you have a far greater responsibility than someone that does not carry a gun. Not even the most diehard NRA Life Member would disagree with this statement.
I have, over the years, adopted certain absolute rules for the carrying of a firearm.
1. Never mix firearms and alcohol.
I would think that this would go without saying, but the number of beer-drinking hunters that shoot themselves and others every year would say I am incorrect and it must be stated. If driving a car while drinking is dangerous, multiply the problem ten fold when the expressed purpose of the item being discussed is to kill.
2. Never go anywhere or do anything with a gun that you would not go or do without a gun.
Here is where George Zimmerman probably made a crucial error. He probably chose to confront or follow Trayvon Martin, in part, because he had a gun and could defend himself, if necessary. Unfortunately, George seems to have put himself into a situation where it might, and ultimately did, become necessary, at least in his mind. I was a cop. I wore a bulletproof vest and a gun. Let me assure you there were situations I did not want to go into knowing I had both, but it was my job. I had received a lot of training and had a lot of experience, and I could call a lot of back-up on the radio if need be, but I still would have preferred not to have gone into these situations.
George was a civilian volunteer. At the risk of making inaccurate assumptions, I doubt he was properly trained and/or properly equipped to deal with the situation that developed. Had he been, he would have followed a basic rule; wait for back-up to arrive. If there are multiple people dealing with a “suspicious” person and the guy gets violent, it is doubtful he will be able to overpower two or more people you have summoned on the radio.
No radio, no back-up, no training and no judgment made for a fatal situation in this case. George ran out of good options real quick when he decided not to disengage himself from the situation and just leave.
3. Remember, every encounter you have with every individual is an armed encounter.
This is puzzling to many people. It is an armed encounter because you brought the gun! In the “good” armed encounter, the person with whom you are dealing never knows it is an armed encounter. Your firearm remains concealed; you do not tell anyone you have a gun, and there is no need to pull, display, brandish or otherwise produce your firearm, because when you do, there are generally only bad options.
Really, really bad option one, you pull your gun, it is taken from you and used to shoot you. It does not get much worse than this. Police spend hours and hours in police academies all over this country training in “firearms retention”. Holsters are made for police officers that make it as hard as it can be for someone to take the gun out of it if you are not the police officer carrying it. (I have actually seen holsters torn from the gun belts of police officers by the grips of the gun with the gun still in the holster. The gun could not be fired because the trigger was not accessible to the guy that had torn the holster off the belt. In the case to which I refer, the gentleman was immediately rendered unconscious by a nightstick over the head.). I am willing to bet that George Zimmerman did not get any of this training and had none of this equipment.
I have no particular sympathy for someone that pulls a gun, not in self defense, but as a means to enforce their will on someone or attempts to gain compliance and then ends up having to shoot someone because they were trying to take the gun away from them. “I had to shoot him to prevent him from shooting me with my own gun?”
Bad option number two, you pull your gun and the guy looks at you and says, “Go ahead, shoot me!” Ridiculous you say? I beg to differ. I learned this lesson the hard way, several times. I pointed a gun at a few people in my career that literally looked at me and said, “What are you gonna do; shoot me? “ Since they did not have a gun and posed no imminent threat to my life, I uttered an obscenity, holstered the weapon and, as they say, the fight was on. Fortunately, the back-up I had called for on the radio arrived before I got my ass kicked too badly.
Bad option number three, the “bad guy” does exactly what you tell him to do. Now you are standing around wondering what to do next. The bad guy puts his hands up, lays face down and now poses no threat to you. What do you do? The problem with this scenario is that it can turn into bad option one or bad option two quickly. My personal policy is that if I carry a gun, I carry a pair of handcuffs. I cuff the guy to a tree, light pole or some other immovable structure and then I can notify the authorities without having to worry about being attacked. I will warn you that cops spend hours and hours and hours learning how to cuff a bad guy, because you have to do so up close and personal. It is really easy to get overpowered in this situation and end up fighting over your own gun.
Bad option number four: you have to shoot and maim or kill someone. I don’t care who you are, I’ll bet there are very few people that don’t believe that George Zimmerman, had he to do it over again, would never have confronted, much less shot, Trayvon Martin.
4. Never use deadly force or the threat of deadly force unless your life is in imminent danger.
You have to legitimately be able to say, “Sh*t! I am about to die, and right now, if I don't do something!!” Note; I said legitimately. As I said, I have no particular sympathy for a guy that encounters an individual and, because he mismanages his firearm, finds himself fighting for his life.
Had George Zimmerman been properly trained, properly equipped and used proper judgment, we would not be having this discussion. I do not understand why a Neighborhood Watch Captain would be carrying a gun in the first place, but that aside, George Zimmerman, in my humble opinion, exercised horrible judgment. I do not know whether that bad judgment rises to the level of criminal culpability, but it set into motion a series of events that led to the death of one young man and the destruction of two lives; Martin’s and Zimmerman’s. The only thing we have left to do is to learn something from it, otherwise the destruction of those lives was truly in vain.
2 comments:
Outstanding article with one exception. There's no reason any permitted person shouldn't carry a handgun for self-defense just because they're a neighborhood watch captain. Like you said, apply the same or more cautious judgement you would if unarmed. No reason not to retain the option if the necessity is forced on you, just as any other time you'd carry.
The Neighborhood Watch Program, if administered by the police, specifically prohibits participants from carrying firearms. Most police departments require participants to sign forms indicating their understanding of this no-firearms requirement. This is mostly for reasons of liability, but there are practical reasons as well. The question as to whether or not they should be required to give up carrying a gun in order to participate is another matter, but if it is part of the program, then obey the rules or don't participate in the program.
The nature of neighborhood watch is, and always has been, observe and report. It is specifically not a confront and question program. The neighborhood watch person is trained to avoid any contact with person(s) engaged in suspicious activity. Thus, carrying a firearm would seem to unnecessary. I would argue that they are more prone to do stupid things and get themselves into trouble because they have the firearm option available to them, much as I suspect George Zimmerman did. An armed neighborhood watch person does not have the training and experience, as a rule, to be placing themselves into a situation where they are exponentially more likely to need to use a firearm for self protection. While they may have the means to protect themselves, they also lack any perceived authority and this can, in and of itself, create problems. The exchange starts with, “Who the hell are you to be asking me anything?” It goes downhill from there.
If a person wants to carry a firearm and actively participate in a program in which they will be confronting, rather than merely observing and reporting suspicious activity, then a huge amount of training needs to be obtained. I would suggest that a person in this situation should get into a reserve police officer program. They will attend the police academy, in its entirety, and then have all the necessary training to engage in this activity. They can engage in regular patrols of their neighborhood, confront persons, and will have radios, weapons and uniforms. They can even make arrests. They are police officers in every sense of the word, except they do not get paid. This is a program that anticipates more than just the observe and report role of the neighborhood watch person, and with most things, knowledge is power.
Post a Comment