Dispelling Post-Shooting Myths – Massad Ayoob Speaks the Truth

I carry a gun, everyday, to be prepared for an incident that may require it. However, I, like all firearms owners I know are loathe to use it. If my firearm breaks its holster, it’s because someone is being or will be seriously injured or killed shortly. The thought is not something I relish, but it is something I train for.

Unfortunately, most training provided is for prior to an event (like verbal judo, de-escalation, getting out of dodge…) or how to comport oneself during an event. Typically, a few minutes are given to instruction on how to handle oneself around police, but rarely is the true post-event aftermath discussed in detail. In many cases, the long-term can be just as bad as the short-term and while one may keep their life, they may lose everything else.

Massad Ayoob, one of the best intellects I know on deadly force encounters has taken the time to dispell myths about the aftermath of a “good shoot,” with Myth #1 to be dispelled “A Good Shoot is A Good Shoot.” Sad to say, a “good shot” can be far from it, just look at the case of George Zimmerman who now lives his life in constant fear for his own and families.

For the full article, head over to Personal Defense World and prepare yourself for the not just “before” and “during” but also the “after.”





Nathan S.

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

Nathan can be reached at Nathan.S@TheFirearmBlog.com

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • Gun Fu Guru

    Why do people still listen to Ayoob?

    “Myth #1: ‘A Good Shoot Is A Good Shoot'”
    This is a classic strawman argument. The shooting of Trayvon Martin was not a “good shoot.” It was an unprovable shooting either way and the charge of second-degree murder was way to high to gain a conviction.

    “An elected captain of the local neighborhood watch, George Zimmerman was attacked by a young man…”
    This shows the author’s inherent bias in the case. It is not proven either way who started the provocation. Even Zimmerman’s defense counsel stated that at trial. The only shred of evidence to say that Martin started it is Zimmerman’s own statements. I guess the author is ok that the victor writes story even though he can’t affirmatively prove it.

    “The evidence, then and later, clearly showed that the much taller 17-year-old had attacked Zimmerman, punched him to the ground and banged his head on a hard surface by the time Zimmerman drew his legally carried, semi-automatic pistol and killed him with a single shot.”
    While evidence showed a struggle, the author is very misleading as no evidence shows who started the confrontation. (See above.) If the usage of the word attacked is meant to signify that Martin engaged in a struggle with Zimmerman, then he is intentionally misleading as evidence also shows that Zimmerman attacked Martin.

    “Within the first 48 hours of the investigation, it was clear to the trained, professional detectives that there was no reason Zimmerman could be convicted of wrongdoing, and it soon became clear to the jurisdiction’s chief prosecutor that the same was true.”
    According to interviews with various news articles, the reason Zimmerman should not have charged is because the case couldn’t have been proven either way. It isn’t because they thought that this was a “good shoot.”

    “Myth #2: ‘If You’re Acquitted, It’s All Good'”
    The author insidiously tries to imply that people say the lack of a criminal conviction means that there are no civil/social/personal side effects attached. The only truth is that the lack of a criminal conviction has always meant that the business between the government and the accused is finished for the particular action. It has never been meant to say that societal pressures would be non-existent or even that that life of the accused wouldn’t be permanently altered.

    “[Zimmerman] is virtually unemployable, and he and his family live in constant fear from so many death threats that everyone seems to have lost count.”
    His post-case exploits contributed to much of the hatred and the belief that “he has to be guilty of something” in similar fashion to the hatred directed at Hillary Clinton. (This is not intended to spur a political debate.)

    “After reading this, can anyone seriously consider that a “good outcome” for the defendant?”
    It is certainly better than a life sentence in prison which is maximum penalty in Florida for committing second-degree murder. A post-case lifestyle may not be glamorous, but it is better than being locked up like an animal.

    “By the way, just about anyone can still file a lawsuit on just about anyone for just about anything. What these laws say is that once the lawsuit has been filed, there is a provision for the judge to throw it out if it is shown to have been determined self-defense. However, the showing of that determination will still have to happen in court, and you’ll still have to hire an attorney to make that happen.”
    Frivolous lawsuit happen in every area of law. It is not contained to wrongful death suits. Unfortunately, you will (almost) always need to hire an attorney to get rid of the suit. It is not uncommon. Anyone can be sued for anything (real or imagined) at the cost of the defendant.

  • USMC03Vet

    Translation: if you live in a corrupt cesspool and dare not be a victim of a precieved higher victim class you might get sacrificed under the alter of political correctness.

    • DanGoodShot

      Thats my biggest fear living here in Connecticut. I’ve actually questioned if it’s better to just get shot then carry my gun if the situation ever happened. But when I’m out with my kids, thats not an option.

      • Calavera

        It is never better to “just get shot.” The cost of recovery from gunshot wound (if you survive) far exceeds the financial cost of court defense. I personally know many who have lost loved ones to criminal violence. To say it is a life-altering experience for those left behind is simply an understatement. In the extreme. Let John Farnam’s “Layers of Response” be your guide:

        Layer One: Nonattendance.
        “A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills.”

        Mindset is everything. I determined years ago that I Iove me. I love my little family. I really, really do. We’re worth saving, protecting from lethal encounters. To that end, I adhere to Farnam’s injunction not to go to stupid places, and do stupid things with stupid people. Rule One of a gunfight: Don’t. Be. There. Failing that, I’m willing to face the high cost of staying alive. Thus, preventing my wife becoming a grieving widow, and my children becoming fatherless.

        • DanGoodShot

          The “better to just get shot” part of my comment was merely to get across the absolute absurdity of this States governance and laws when it comes to someone protecting oneself. That is not something I would never actually do. I have gun, will use gun if necessary.

          • Calavera

            Roger that!

      • iksnilol

        Shoot, shovel, shut up. Getting rid of a body isn’t that hard.

        • DanGoodShot

          I MAY have a shovel and a bag of lye in my trunk… 😉

          • iksnilol

            Smart man.

            *finger guns*

          • Brett

            You guys are doing it wrong. You put them in a 50 gallon barrel with some choice chemicals and want a weak or 2. Only thing left is some teeth and a nasty soup.

        • Don Ward

          If you are shoveling after shooting, you are doing it wrong.
          Always have a hole or two pre-dug and waiting. Just in case.

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, but then the earth settles in the pile and is hard when you gotta fill the hole.

            Rookie mistake, buddy.

          • TyrannyOfEvilMen

            That’s why God made wood-chippers…

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, that’s gonna clog like a motherlover. You’re better of just burning the entire woodchipper afterwards.

          • TyrannyOfEvilMen

            Also, it helps to have really stupid neighbors. ?

            “Some engine running all night? Hmm. Probably just the TV…”

          • iksnilol

            Stupid neighbours would just lead you t o having to use the woodchippper even more.

          • bjensen

            Quit buying the cheap chippers and you’ll be fine

          • iksnilol

            Harbor Freight is nothing but quality, my good sir.

          • Grey Beard

            Always have several dry wells/mine shafts GPS’ed. Why dig when somebody else has dug the hole for you? Brought to you by the coalition to work smarter, not harder.

        • DanGoodShot

          I have a nice swamp. No hard labor. Well except for draggin’ the sack o’ crap out to it.

          • iksnilol

            Trust me, never beef with a fat man.

          • DanGoodShot

            Oh god no. Than I gotta use the sawsall and like 5 or 6 batteries. Just a big, messy PIA!

          • Calavera

            LOL! You guys sound like some of my ex-girl friends’ fathers upon first meeting: “Howdy. Nice to me ya’. I own a backhoe and several hundred acres…”

          • DanGoodShot

            Yup. Got me a beat up ol’ Mossy 5 gooseneck I happen to be cleanin’ everytime they bring a new “friend” home. I just smile at em’ n nod. No words. Usually thats the last time I see them around.

          • Gary Kirk

            A “friend” of mine happens to know where a vent shaft for an old flooded coal mine is.. “Things that go in that hole, never come back”.. His words..

  • Bill

    Like Grossman, a lot of Ayoob’s material is strictly qualitative and anecdotal. I’ve never read a study adhering to quantitative methodology and peer review concerning the “aftereffects” of a shooting, good or bad, and there’s really no operating definition of what a “good” outcome is, other than the good guy still upright and not leaking. The “best” shootings are the ones that never happen.

    Zimmerman at best is an outlier, and a difficult case to use as an example of a clean shooting. We hear about those outliers, because clean shootings just aren’t that dramatic or newsworthy: “Robber pulls knife on wrong guy or gal, goes to surgery, then jail.”

    Highly recommended: “Left of Bang;” Van Horne and Riley, 2014, Black Irish Entertainment.

    • DannyBoyJr

      Until you or someone else can show us a workable quantitative analysis of post-shooting effects, I’d rather stick to Massad Ayoob’s anecdotes, since those tend to communicate real judicial precedents.

      Indeed, my impression is that you would rather put your head in the sand until you find this white elephant “quantitative analysis” that would be palatable to your pre-conceived notions.

      • Bill

        He is a paid professional witness and writer whose living is based on selling himself as such. The more he can sell the idea that shootings will result in a lifetime of legal trauma, the more money he makes.

        There’s your quantitative analysis. Don’t be a sucker.

        • d

          Bill,

          Your comment is one of the stupidest things ever said.

          • Scott Tuttle

            I think he makes a good point. consider your source and their motives. that’s his bread and butter.

          • d

            So every instructor that gets paid spreads useless info in order to get paid. Wow dude, just wow. What are you smoking?

            You are and Bill are in serious need of treatment for Dunning-Kruger Effect

          • Bill

            Somehow I’ll struggle by without your approval.

          • retfed

            I haven’t seen any quantitative analysis, but I’ve been around long enough to consider Ayoob (and Grossman) an authority.
            I once knew (slightly) a female plainclothes LEO who was attacked by an extremely unsavory individual. She managed to shoot him (not fatally) while he was straddling her on the sidewalk punching her, a la St. Trayvon (although this happened long before). She had no legal problems per se, but the next time I saw her, at a retirement party, she got completely shitfaced in twenty minutes. A few years later she was fired after a series of DUIs.
            That’s one of the reasons I always cringe when I see or hear armchair Rambos saying, “I’ll kill anyone who steps on my property” or “Shoot, shovel, and shut up.”

          • Bill

            I’m convinced the Grossmans and Ayoobs of this world have induced a bias; they’ve convinced people that shootings have bad outcomes, thus they have bad outcomes.

          • retfed

            You’re arguing the self-fulfilling prophecy, and I can see your point. But you can’t deny that taking someone’s life, lawfully or not, puts you under a legal microscope and it may cost you thousands of dollars to get out of it. If you’re in court, you’re in trouble.
            And, again anecdotally, lawfully taking someone’s life can make you a pariah at the HOA meeting and the Rhododendron Society, and cause your kids problems at school.
            Shootings do in fact have negative fallout. The point is balancing risks, and if you win the gunfight you’re alive to handle the fallout.
            The LEO I referred to above got zero help from her agency, and got a lot of crap from her office “Idas:” “Ida made sure he was dead.” “Ida killed him for sure,” etc. I’m no shrink, but I believe that the PTSD induced by being violently attacked, pulled by her hair to the ground, and beaten, and the lack of help by her supposed peers, pushed her off the edge.

          • Bill

            Could very well be, but my position still stands that there are a lot of assumptions about post shooting effects that are based on specifically picked cases.

            Taking someone’s life SHOULD put a person under a legal microscope. That’s why we have grand juries.

          • retfed

            I agree. We hear the man-bites-dog stories, not the dog-bites-man stories. But we have to be prepared for the worst, and not blithely assume that a prosecutor or a grand jury will see things our way. I think that’s the point.
            I think we agree in substance, but typing on the Internet is a lot different from having a face-to-face conversation.

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    I remember going over this in my concealed carry class. In my state it is estimated to cost $50-100k in legal fees just to maintain your innocence. It makes you have to ask yourself before you pull the trigger “is what I would lose by submitting to the offender worth at least $50k?” If its the life or good health of myself or a loved one then it absolutely is. I dont think I will ever own any object that valuable, and if I did it would definitely be insured against theft so even if I would be legally justified to shoot it would not be worth it to me. My pride is not that valuable.

    • Calavera

      In my state, ALL shootings go before a grand jury. At last estimate, about $25K. That’s why I have coverage from Law Shield. Unfortunately, these days you’ll likely be shot even if you cooperate with an attacker by surrendering your wallet, car, etc. If they’re not making any attempt to conceal their identities while attacking you with a lethal weapon, it’s a good indication they don’t intend to leave a live witness behind.

      • Bill

        You’re getting ripped off. Find a less avaricious attorney

        • Ranger Rick

          Criminal legal defense is not inexpensive, I’d be surprised at anything less than $10k as a retainer and $30k plus if charged. Depending on the charge(s), fees and expenses will quickly climb.

          Than there is the civil aspects…

          • Bill

            Do you understand how few self-defense shootings result in criminal charges against the shooter? It’s the sketchy ones. Having an attorney present during a police interview is common sense, but that cost can be defrayed through crime victim compensation funds. Your assigned victim’s advocate from the prosecutor’s office will walk you through the application.

            Guys like Ayoob have a vested interest in promoting this idea that a defensive shooting invariably leads to rack and ruin, when in many, many jurisdictions, mine included, you get an attaboy and cops slipping you replacement ammo.

          • Ranger Rick

            Bill, every place is different, where you reside is not the norm nationwide and perhaps in other parts of your state. As someone who’s efforts provide employment for defense counsel (public and private) I’m slightly familiar with the costs.

            Additionally the civil costs of a shooting can be quite surprising, liability insurance for those that carry, especially outside of the home is a really good idea, but to each his own.

          • Bill

            Yeah, it is the norm nationwide – talk to enough cops in enough jurisdictions and you’ll realize that. I’m well aware of the costs and keep a lawyer on retainer. I’ve also testified countless times in grand juries and know that getting an indictment is stupid easy. But it just doesn’t happen in the vast majority of justified shootings. They get investigated, referred to a prosecutor or state’s attorney just like any homicide and go in front of a grand jury. No doubt some prosecutors push for politically motivated indictments, while others push for politically motivated nolles. And no doubt mistakes have been made, in both directions. But thinking that it’s inevitable is exactly why lawyers, and Akoob, get rich.

      • Where the heck do you live that lets the accused present evidence before a grand jury? Must be nice.

        • Calavera

          Texas! And, yes. It’s nice. Very nice.

    • You’re probably not going to spend nearly as much if you only draw in situations where a prosecutor can look at the incident and decide it’s not worth bothering a grand jury.

      …Not an option some people have, true, but “shoot in self defense = $$$$$ out of pocket” isn’t exactly a guaranteed thing.

  • Ark

    Oh, look, the “Unsuspecting, upstanding citizen George Zimmerman was brutally attacked by a violent 17-year-old thug” narrative.

    He’s a wife-beating wannabe thug who went looking for a trouble and deliberately ignored clear instructions from a 911 operator to stay in his vehicle and wait for police to arrive. I am so sick of hearing about how this rotten person was the “real” victim when a 17-year-old bled out and died on the sidewalk as a result of his vigilantism.

    • DannyBoyJr

      Ignorant bullshit. I suggest you actually read about the case. The instruction by 911 was not clear, and when she told Z to stop he went back but was intercepted by the thug. He was a wife beater AFTER the shooting, that’s what PTSD will do to you. What vigilantism? He was a member of the neighborhood watch.

      Indeed, the best resource is to read Massad Ayoob’s multi-article analysis of the Zimmerman shooting. Unlike your lamestream-media-fed ignorance, Massad actually cited court documents.

      Stop being ignorant of the facts, kabayan.

      • Ark

        The second he decided to leave the car and start something, he was no longer acting in defense.

        And I guess we’ll never know, because he murdered the only other witness. How convenient. When the other guy is dead, you can invent whatever story you like.

        • Jack_A_Lope

          “The second he decided to leave the car…” I didn’t know leaving your car was against the law. I do it every day. I’m no fan of George Zimmerman (or neighborhood watch wannabes), but an analysis of the events, minute-by-minute, second-by-second show that Zimmerman didn’t break any laws, heeded the non-binding, non-LEO backed suggestion of the 911 operator, and was ambushed by Martin for that effort. He was getting his ass whipped by a 17 year old and defended his life. Like it or not, your HuffPo, gun control narrative of the facts in the Zimmerman-Martin case are as skewed as your opinion.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            “I didn’t know leaving your car was against the law. I do it every day.”
            You being disingenuous. Everyone knows the mere act of exiting a vehicle is not criminal in and of itself. However, getting out of the car is where he started the slippery slope of culpable negligence. Generally speaking, a reasonably prudent person would not seek to follow a suspected criminal but would rather try to get as far away as possible. Those two criteria are all the State needed to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. The special prosecutor likely upgraded it to a charge of murder in the second degree to save face and to garner political points. (Before you say “the jury could have found him guilty of manslaughter as a lesser included offense,” remember that the State didn’t present it’s case in that manner and that it is rare to be convicted of the lesser included charges.)

            “and was ambushed by Martin for that effort.”
            This has still not been proven other than Zimmerman’s statements to the police. His own defense counsel conceded that fact. Your TTAG, pro-gun narrative of the facts in the Zimmerman-Martin case are as skewed as your opinion.

          • Pedenzo

            “Generally speaking, a reasonably prudent person would not seek to follow a suspected criminal but would rather try to get as far away as possible.”

            Links to studies that back up your claim please? Or was your “Generally speaking….” just another generalization?

          • Gun Fu Guru

            Any “reasonably prudent” argument does not have to be a published study. I don’t need an article from Journal of Personal Finance to show that reasonably prudent people pay their rent on time when they have the finances to do so.

          • Pedenzo

            So….to qualify as “reasonably prudent” all I have to do is meet your “opinion” of what “reasonably prudent” actually is…..ok, makes sense….I have to bend to your will…or I am being unreasonable…..(massive rolling of the eyes…)

          • Gun Fu Guru

            My opinion? No. That rests with each juror’s opinion.

          • Pedenzo

            Point taken.
            If I ever find myself in front of a jury, I hope they are to a person…..reasonable…..but one man’s reason is another man’s insanity….

          • Bill

            If you ever find yourself in front of a jury, your attorney will have taken part in selecting the members as part of the voir dire process. While I know of jurors who have literally been grabbed off the street, they still have to go through the selection process and can be examined for prejudice, bias, and insanity, and excused from service.

          • Rob in Katy

            Actually it is the sum total of the Jury, a single juror doesn’t decide.

          • Single jurors quite often decide the fate of defendants who are found Not Guilty. Fortunately it’s a little more difficult to work in the opposite direction, but it can still happen if a Hangin’ Juror is convincing enough.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            Each juror votes. The jury jury doesn’t collectively vote.

          • Rob in Katy

            “Generally speaking, a reasonably prudent person would not seek to follow a suspected criminal but would rather try to get as far away as possible.” – Because that is what police or someone defending their neighborhood or family don’t do. I hope that I would protect my neighbors (rats I did one night and I was scared shitless) but for those times when I won’t defend what I believe in, I keep a tampon handy.

          • I carry a gun with me every time I leave the house, and yet, somehow, I’ve managed to call 911 from my cell phone while parked or driving and report around three dozen crimes and suspicious incidents– at least one of which later turned into a high speed firefight between a drunk scumbag and pursuing officers– without ever leaving my vehicle or chasing and following anyone because it was a little dark outside.

        • gunsandrockets

          One person was on the phone talking to the cops.

          One person was on the phone talking to his girl.

          Pretty clear who was the vigilante in this case. Pretty clear who was trying to “start something”.

          Live a Thug Life, earn a Thug Death.

          • Yeah, “walking back to his dad’s house from the convenience store” is street as fuh, yo. Bone thug woulda straight up got capped for them Skittles anyway if homeboy Bronson Z had kept on rollin’ through that hood he nominated his own self to protec’.

      • Bill

        You seem to be under the delusion that court documents contain “facts,” when they are actually a contest in creative writing and who has the better lawyers.

      • Rick Grimes

        Actually his ex-fiance filled a restraining order against him in 2005, well before the shooting, claiming that he attacked her. Does PTSD justify him beating another girl? Does it also justify him pointing a shotgun at her, bragging about killing Martin, or calling a waitress a “n*gger lover”?

        The guy is a piece of trash.

      • CommonSense23

        I would love to see a study where PTSD makes you a wide beater.

    • EdgyTrumpet

      How is the age relevant? Would you still try to appeal to emotion if he was 21?

  • M C

    An article containing the words “George” and “Zimmerman” – I predict 150 comments by the end of the day, 90% of which will contain at least 1 insult and a complete disregard for in-browser spell-checking .

  • Rick Grimes

    TFB: Fireams Not Politics:

    “George Zimmerman killing Trayvon Martin was a good shoot….”

    Ughh

    • RocketScientist

      How is that politics? From an objective study of the facts, as confirmed by the investigating police and a jury of 12, his shooting of Trayvon was justified, right? Say what you will about the decisions that lead him to that point, and how easily he may ahve been able to avoid the situation entirely… but the fact is at the moment he shot, he was justified in doing so legally, and he broke no laws to bring him to that situation which would invalidate his justificaiton. Whether you like it or not, thats a “good shoot”.

      • Rick Grimes

        How is it not politics? It was a highly controversial case that involved allegations of racial discrimination by the people involved in the shooting and the criminal justice system. It called into question the validity of self-defense laws. Politicians, including the president, commented on the case and was highly criticized for it. It is highly political.

        • skidmark

          This probably isn’t the forum for a reasonable argument, despite the blogsite’s name.

      • Gun Fu Guru

        You are equivocating a “good shoot” with a “justifiable homicide.” The two are not synonymous. Just because it’s legal does not make it right.

        If I leave my car window down, go into a barbershop, and see someone steal something out of my car, I am legally justified in murdering that person in my state regardless even in the absence of danger.

        • Calavera

          I’d really be interested in seeing a link to the relevant legal code on that. The only state I’m aware of that permits the use of deadly force to protect property is Texas, but only in the hours of darkness.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            TPC § 9.42 is what I referenced.

          • Calavera

            Ok. Got it. Thanks. Umm…better take another careful look at that before you drop that hammer on someone just for stealing something out of your open car (theft):

            Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

            (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

            (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

            (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

            (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

            (3) he reasonably believes that:

            (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

            (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
            ===================================
            Two words: reasonably believes. That will cause problems every time. The “reasonable man” legal concept. What would a “reasonable man” do?

          • Gun Fu Guru

            “Reasonably believes” is not synonymous with “reasonable person” doctrine.

      • What are the laws like in Florida when it comes to verbally harassing and taunting someone until they take a swing at you, then trying to use that punch as an excuse to shoot them? Because here in Texas that gets you sent to Huntsville, what with the harasser having deliberately precipitated an incident which would not otherwise have occurred.

  • How many defensive shoots has Ayoob been in, either as a participant, investigator, prosecutor, or defense attorney?

    • He’s sat next to defense attorneys a whooooole lotta times; he’d qualify as an expert witness just for showing up and seeing that many cases happen, even if he hadn’t been hired to testify in them.

      • Bill

        I sort of agree, but it’s easy to be an expert when you essentially set your own standards. He has done some good stuff, but it still falls essentially into the realm of legal work, which is based on argument and precedent, and not necessarily ground truth.

        He’s a paid advocate for whomever is writing the checks, and I give him props for making a successful career out of it, just like I do Gerry Spence and Alan Dershowitz, even though I can disagree with a lot they’ve said and done.

  • Don Ward

    This article puzzles me. Other than it being obvious clickbait with the name Zimmerman dropped, shouldn’t someone of Massad Ayoob’s talent who has every self defense and police shooting memorized and filed in a card catalog since 1897, be able to come up with some other anecdote other than Zimmerman shooting the President’s son?
    Or is Ayoob just getting lazy in his old age?

  • George Zimmerman is a sack of goat filth, yo. Even if you think it’s totally awesomecool for him to follow and harass a random teenager and deliberate provoke a dumb attack just so he could get his mall commando on, the scumbag is a wifebeater, and his kind deserve to get thrown down a hole and left there for 25 to Life.

  • mazkact

    I did not come away with the idea that Mas was in any way championing Zimmerman. Anyone who carries should look into this case for learning. I will say I believe that Zimmerman made some major mistakes no matter what His the reasons were. It is important to remember with either Constitutional carry or permit carry WE are not law enforcement and should never put ourselves into such a role. Actions have repercussions, personification of Newtons law. For me going to my carry gun is a last resort, that is my mindset and the one I advocate.