|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 07 2013 06:19 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 06:10 heliusx wrote:
Not that it matters but zimmermans father is caucasian and zimmerman fills in the caucasian option on forms. He considers himself white and grew up white. Clearly you missed out on learning that the mob has carte blanch rule over ethnic identities.
Good point. You don't get to choose your racial identity, its thrust upon you by society. It's why racism sucks.
If immigrants could come to America and pick and choose their race we'd probably all bet on white, lol.
|
I've seen a lot of people freaking out over the fact that Zimmerman was carrying his gun with the safety off.
The gun he was using was a Kel-Tec PF9 which, like many other modern pistols such as Glocks, do not have external safeties.
Exactly what safety could he have had off? I'm confused.
|
On July 07 2013 11:46 Ettick wrote:
I've seen a lot of people freaking out over the fact that Zimmerman was carrying his gun with the safety off.
The gun he was using was a Kel-Tec PF9 which, like many other modern pistols such as Glocks, do not have external safeties.
Exactly what safety could he have had off? I'm confused.
The thing is that nobody needs to carry around PF9s. They're not even useful in eco rounds.
|
On July 07 2013 11:46 Ettick wrote:
I've seen a lot of people freaking out over the fact that Zimmerman was carrying his gun with the safety off.
The gun he was using was a Kel-Tec PF9 which, like many other modern pistols such as Glocks, do not have external safeties.
Exactly what safety could he have had off? I'm confused.
Maybe they are referring to the fact that he chose to get a gun without a safety, which one might interpret to indicate that he was not interested in a "safe gun". I remember there was a lot of discussion with an expert witness (some LEO or ballistics expert or something) about guns and about whether it was a good weapon for self-defense, and in particular whether the relatively heavy trigger pull ensured that you only shoot when you meant to shoot. The defense wanted to have her label this a safety feature, though I don't think she ever agreed to call a heavy trigger pull a safety feature. In any case it was clear that the defense wanted to present the idea that a heavy trigger pull could also make a gun "safe" in the sense that you didn't shoot accidentally, just like an external safety. I don't remember completely, and missed the beginning of her testimony, so I may be getting some details wrong.
|
On July 07 2013 06:31 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 06:19 farvacola wrote:On July 07 2013 06:10 heliusx wrote:
Not that it matters but zimmermans father is caucasian and zimmerman fills in the caucasian option on forms. He considers himself white and grew up white. Clearly you missed out on learning that the mob has carte blanch rule over ethnic identities. Good point. You don't get to choose your racial identity, its thrust upon you by society. It's why racism sucks. If immigrants could come to America and pick and choose their race we'd probably all bet on white, lol.
Also that hispanic isn't considered a race in census data. Hispanic has always been an ethnicity in comparison to white/Caucasian as a race. You can clearly associate with both because in general skin color doesn't have a clear link in ethnicity. There are people like Zimmerman's skin tone, then there is people like me, a pale as hell white boy. And then I also have family the same skin tone as Martin's family. All a giant mess.
|
On July 07 2013 11:46 Ettick wrote:
I've seen a lot of people freaking out over the fact that Zimmerman was carrying his gun with the safety off.
The gun he was using was a Kel-Tec PF9 which, like many other modern pistols such as Glocks, do not have external safeties.
Exactly what safety could he have had off? I'm confused.
Don't mind it much. Gun control nuts generally don't know how firearms work.
|
On July 07 2013 12:06 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 11:46 Ettick wrote:
I've seen a lot of people freaking out over the fact that Zimmerman was carrying his gun with the safety off.
The gun he was using was a Kel-Tec PF9 which, like many other modern pistols such as Glocks, do not have external safeties.
Exactly what safety could he have had off? I'm confused. Maybe they are referring to the fact that he chose to get a gun without a safety, which one might interpret to indicate that he was not interested in a "safe gun". I remember there was a lot of discussion with an expert witness (some LEO or ballistics expert or something) about guns and about whether it was a good weapon for self-defense, and in particular whether the relatively heavy trigger pull ensured that you only shoot when you meant to shoot. The defense wanted to have her label this a safety feature, though I don't think she ever agreed to call a heavy trigger pull a safety feature. In any case it was clear that the defense wanted to present the idea that a heavy trigger pull could also make a gun "safe" in the sense that you didn't shoot accidentally, just like an external safety. I don't remember completely, and missed the beginning of her testimony, so I may be getting some details wrong.
The "safest guns" don't have external safeties anymore. The safety is now built directly into the trigger mechanism to prevent accidental discharges. In other words, the gun is only going to fire if someone wants it to fire. You can't really ask for a better safety mechanism.
|
The above post is true. I have a Springfield .45 caliber and the safety is in line with firing the weapon. There is a lever on the grip and on the trigger, but have to be pressed 'down' for the guy to fire, it would be impossible to press them both down unless you were pulling the trigger while aiming the gun. The days of the 'thumb' safety seem to be long gone.
|
"White hispanic" is so funny, the media's need to push the racial angle (white people are racist!) causing this term to explode into the public consciousness.
Obviously they haven't taken a look at South-Central LA since the riots in '92, hispanics don't need to also be white to hate blacks.
|
On July 06 2013 23:52 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 21:01 plgElwood wrote:
Will there be rioting after Zimmerman leaves the courtroom as free person? It's a very real possibility.
I would be surprised if any rioting took place. This happened so long ago, the arguments in court are well-publicized...I find it hard to believe that people will assume Zimmerman was found not guilty purely because of racial bias or that, even if they thought that was involved, that it would be enough to push people over the edge. You would have to have some examples of systemic abuse against blacks for that to be possible, but to the best of my knowledge race is becoming less and less of an issue over time so people don't have much reason to riot as they did back in the '50s or so.
|
On July 07 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 12:06 rasnj wrote:On July 07 2013 11:46 Ettick wrote:
I've seen a lot of people freaking out over the fact that Zimmerman was carrying his gun with the safety off.
The gun he was using was a Kel-Tec PF9 which, like many other modern pistols such as Glocks, do not have external safeties.
Exactly what safety could he have had off? I'm confused. Maybe they are referring to the fact that he chose to get a gun without a safety, which one might interpret to indicate that he was not interested in a "safe gun". I remember there was a lot of discussion with an expert witness (some LEO or ballistics expert or something) about guns and about whether it was a good weapon for self-defense, and in particular whether the relatively heavy trigger pull ensured that you only shoot when you meant to shoot. The defense wanted to have her label this a safety feature, though I don't think she ever agreed to call a heavy trigger pull a safety feature. In any case it was clear that the defense wanted to present the idea that a heavy trigger pull could also make a gun "safe" in the sense that you didn't shoot accidentally, just like an external safety. I don't remember completely, and missed the beginning of her testimony, so I may be getting some details wrong. The "safest guns" don't have external safeties anymore. The safety is now built directly into the trigger mechanism to prevent accidental discharges. In other words, the gun is only going to fire if someone wants it to fire. You can't really ask for a better safety mechanism.
I have close to no knowledge of guns or gun safety so I wouldn't pretend to know what is safe, but this seemed to be part of what the prosecution wanted to focus on when interviewing Amy Siewert. After O'Mara's cross the defense asked the following series of question.
Q(uestion): Mrs. Siewert you were asked questions about whether that firearm could be used for self-defense, could it also be used to commit a murder?
A(nswer): The firearm can be used for any purpose...
[O'Mara objects that is is speculation and something else, sustained]
Q: You were asked about the trigger pull. Could you give the members of the jury an idea of whether 4 pounds or a little bit more than 4 pounds is a relatively light or relatively heavy trigger pull?
A: 4.5 pounds is within the normal range for trigger pulls that I see in my casework.
Q: So it is not a heavy trigger pull?
A: No, it is not.
Q: And you were asked questions about the firearm being fully loaded, can you explain to the members of the jury that if the magazine is full and there is a live round in the chamber. On that particular pistol what must a person do to expell a bullet?
A: Pull the trigger to fire the gun at that point in time.
Q: That's it? There is nothing they have to turn off or adjust? You just pull the trigger?
A: Correct.
Q: Allright, but they do make firearms with what you refer to as an external safety right?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you explain to the jury just briefly how they work and the purpose of those?
A: Sure. An external safety is typically a button, a knob, something you physically have to engage to prevent the firearm from engaging.
Q: And where are they typically located on the firearm?
A: More times than not you will find them right back here [pointing to the back of the pistol, above where your hand holds the gun]. On either the left or the right side. But those are typically referred to as thumb safeties as all you need is you thumb to disengage it. Or engage it.
Q: And that firearm does not have that type of external safety?
A: No.
Q: With the firearm in the condition it is right now: unloaded, are you able to demonstrate for the jury how to pull the trigger and make that sound.
A: Yes.
Q: Your honor may she do that? May she demonstrate? Pointing into the wall.
Judge: Yes.
[Demonstrate how to shoot. Makes it look fairly simple and as if it doesn't take any effort.]
Q: And that is all someone would need to do to fire a shot if it was fully loaded?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you madam, judge that is all I have
Source (my quote is from second video from about 15:50):
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 07 2013 12:06 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 11:46 Ettick wrote:
I've seen a lot of people freaking out over the fact that Zimmerman was carrying his gun with the safety off.
The gun he was using was a Kel-Tec PF9 which, like many other modern pistols such as Glocks, do not have external safeties.
Exactly what safety could he have had off? I'm confused. Maybe they are referring to the fact that he chose to get a gun without a safety, which one might interpret to indicate that he was not interested in a "safe gun". I remember there was a lot of discussion with an expert witness (some LEO or ballistics expert or something) about guns and about whether it was a good weapon for self-defense, and in particular whether the relatively heavy trigger pull ensured that you only shoot when you meant to shoot. The defense wanted to have her label this a safety feature, though I don't think she ever agreed to call a heavy trigger pull a safety feature. In any case it was clear that the defense wanted to present the idea that a heavy trigger pull could also make a gun "safe" in the sense that you didn't shoot accidentally, just like an external safety. I don't remember completely, and missed the beginning of her testimony, so I may be getting some details wrong.
MOM asked the witness about the heavy trigger pull. The witness clarified that it was actually a long trigger pull on the PF9. Neither mentioned that the "weight" of the trigger pull on the PF9 is about the same most other normal pistols.
They discussed briefly but I'm not sure if it was emphasized enough that the main reason the PF9 is "safe" is that the gun is fully double-action and has a safety internally. In its resting state the hammer is never left cocked and there is a metal plate in between the hammer and the firing pin that prevents the weapon from discharging from some sudden movement, e.g. being dropped. This makes the weapon safe(r) to carry with one in the chamber; there is no danger of sudden movement causing the hammer to strike the firing pin.
|
On July 07 2013 12:36 rasnj wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On July 07 2013 12:06 rasnj wrote:On July 07 2013 11:46 Ettick wrote:
I've seen a lot of people freaking out over the fact that Zimmerman was carrying his gun with the safety off.
The gun he was using was a Kel-Tec PF9 which, like many other modern pistols such as Glocks, do not have external safeties.
Exactly what safety could he have had off? I'm confused. Maybe they are referring to the fact that he chose to get a gun without a safety, which one might interpret to indicate that he was not interested in a "safe gun". I remember there was a lot of discussion with an expert witness (some LEO or ballistics expert or something) about guns and about whether it was a good weapon for self-defense, and in particular whether the relatively heavy trigger pull ensured that you only shoot when you meant to shoot. The defense wanted to have her label this a safety feature, though I don't think she ever agreed to call a heavy trigger pull a safety feature. In any case it was clear that the defense wanted to present the idea that a heavy trigger pull could also make a gun "safe" in the sense that you didn't shoot accidentally, just like an external safety. I don't remember completely, and missed the beginning of her testimony, so I may be getting some details wrong. The "safest guns" don't have external safeties anymore. The safety is now built directly into the trigger mechanism to prevent accidental discharges. In other words, the gun is only going to fire if someone wants it to fire. You can't really ask for a better safety mechanism. I have close to no knowledge of guns or gun safety so I wouldn't pretend to know what is safe, but this seemed to be part of what the prosecution wanted to focus on when interviewing Amy Siewert. After O'Mara's cross the defense asked the following series of question. Show nested quote +Q(uestion): Mr. Siewert you were asked questions about whether that firearm could be used for self-defense, could it also be used to commit a murder?
A(nswer): The firearm can be used for any purpose...
[O'Mara objects that is is speculation and something else, sustained]
Q: You were asked about the trigger pull. Could you give the members of the jury an idea of whether 4 pounds or a little bit more than 4 pounds is a relatively light or relatively heavy trigger pull?
A: 4.5 pounds is within the normal range for trigger pulls that I see in my casework.
Q: So it is not a heavy trigger pull?
A: No, it is not.
Q: And you were asked questions about the firearm being fully loaded, can you explain to the members of the jury that if the magazine is full and there is a live round in the chamber. On that particular pistol what must a person do to expell a bullet?
A: Pull the trigger to fire the gun at that point in time.
Q: That's it? There is nothing they have to turn off or adjust? You just pull the trigger?
A: Correct.
Q: Allright, but they do make firearms with what you refer to as an external safety right?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you explain to the jury just briefly how they work and the purpose of those?
A: Sure. An external safety is typically a button, a knob, something you physically have to engage to prevent the firearm from engaging.
Q: And where are they typically located on the firearm?
A: More times than not you will find them right back here [pointing to the back of the pistol, above where your hand holds the gun]. On either the left or the right side. But those are typically referred to as thumb safeties as all you need is you thumb to disengage it. Or engage it.
Q: And that firearm does not have that type of external safety?
A: No.
Q: With the firearm in the condition it is right now: unloaded, are you able to demonstrate for the jury how to pull the trigger and make that sound.
A: Yes.
Q: Your honor may she do that? May she demonstrate? Pointing into the wall.
Judge: Yes.
[Demonstrate how to shoot. Makes it look fairly simple and as if it doesn't take any effort.]
Q: And that is all someone would need to do to fire a shot if it was fully loaded?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you madam, judge that is all I have Source (my quote is from second video from about 15:50): + Show Spoiler +
Yep, that line of questioning is designed to sway people who don't understand how firearms work. Personally, I think it's a very low percentage play in a state like Florida. It's especially dumb when there's at least one juror who knows exactly how modern firearms work (the one who had a CCP).
|
On July 07 2013 12:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 12:36 rasnj wrote:On July 07 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On July 07 2013 12:06 rasnj wrote:On July 07 2013 11:46 Ettick wrote:
I've seen a lot of people freaking out over the fact that Zimmerman was carrying his gun with the safety off.
The gun he was using was a Kel-Tec PF9 which, like many other modern pistols such as Glocks, do not have external safeties.
Exactly what safety could he have had off? I'm confused. Maybe they are referring to the fact that he chose to get a gun without a safety, which one might interpret to indicate that he was not interested in a "safe gun". I remember there was a lot of discussion with an expert witness (some LEO or ballistics expert or something) about guns and about whether it was a good weapon for self-defense, and in particular whether the relatively heavy trigger pull ensured that you only shoot when you meant to shoot. The defense wanted to have her label this a safety feature, though I don't think she ever agreed to call a heavy trigger pull a safety feature. In any case it was clear that the defense wanted to present the idea that a heavy trigger pull could also make a gun "safe" in the sense that you didn't shoot accidentally, just like an external safety. I don't remember completely, and missed the beginning of her testimony, so I may be getting some details wrong. The "safest guns" don't have external safeties anymore. The safety is now built directly into the trigger mechanism to prevent accidental discharges. In other words, the gun is only going to fire if someone wants it to fire. You can't really ask for a better safety mechanism. I have close to no knowledge of guns or gun safety so I wouldn't pretend to know what is safe, but this seemed to be part of what the prosecution wanted to focus on when interviewing Amy Siewert. After O'Mara's cross the defense asked the following series of question. Q(uestion): Mr. Siewert you were asked questions about whether that firearm could be used for self-defense, could it also be used to commit a murder?
A(nswer): The firearm can be used for any purpose...
[O'Mara objects that is is speculation and something else, sustained]
Q: You were asked about the trigger pull. Could you give the members of the jury an idea of whether 4 pounds or a little bit more than 4 pounds is a relatively light or relatively heavy trigger pull?
A: 4.5 pounds is within the normal range for trigger pulls that I see in my casework.
Q: So it is not a heavy trigger pull?
A: No, it is not.
Q: And you were asked questions about the firearm being fully loaded, can you explain to the members of the jury that if the magazine is full and there is a live round in the chamber. On that particular pistol what must a person do to expell a bullet?
A: Pull the trigger to fire the gun at that point in time.
Q: That's it? There is nothing they have to turn off or adjust? You just pull the trigger?
A: Correct.
Q: Allright, but they do make firearms with what you refer to as an external safety right?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you explain to the jury just briefly how they work and the purpose of those?
A: Sure. An external safety is typically a button, a knob, something you physically have to engage to prevent the firearm from engaging.
Q: And where are they typically located on the firearm?
A: More times than not you will find them right back here [pointing to the back of the pistol, above where your hand holds the gun]. On either the left or the right side. But those are typically referred to as thumb safeties as all you need is you thumb to disengage it. Or engage it.
Q: And that firearm does not have that type of external safety?
A: No.
Q: With the firearm in the condition it is right now: unloaded, are you able to demonstrate for the jury how to pull the trigger and make that sound.
A: Yes.
Q: Your honor may she do that? May she demonstrate? Pointing into the wall.
Judge: Yes.
[Demonstrate how to shoot. Makes it look fairly simple and as if it doesn't take any effort.]
Q: And that is all someone would need to do to fire a shot if it was fully loaded?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you madam, judge that is all I have Source (my quote is from second video from about 15:50): + Show Spoiler + Yep, that line of questioning is designed to sway people who don't understand how firearms work. Personally, I think it's a very low percentage play in a state like Florida. It's especially dumb when there's at least one juror who knows exactly how modern firearms work (the one who had a CCP).
That might be assuming a bit much. It's definitely likely, but let's not pretend that everyone who gets a CCP is by definition informed as to how guns work.
|
On July 07 2013 12:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 12:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 07 2013 12:36 rasnj wrote:On July 07 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On July 07 2013 12:06 rasnj wrote:On July 07 2013 11:46 Ettick wrote:
I've seen a lot of people freaking out over the fact that Zimmerman was carrying his gun with the safety off.
The gun he was using was a Kel-Tec PF9 which, like many other modern pistols such as Glocks, do not have external safeties.
Exactly what safety could he have had off? I'm confused. Maybe they are referring to the fact that he chose to get a gun without a safety, which one might interpret to indicate that he was not interested in a "safe gun". I remember there was a lot of discussion with an expert witness (some LEO or ballistics expert or something) about guns and about whether it was a good weapon for self-defense, and in particular whether the relatively heavy trigger pull ensured that you only shoot when you meant to shoot. The defense wanted to have her label this a safety feature, though I don't think she ever agreed to call a heavy trigger pull a safety feature. In any case it was clear that the defense wanted to present the idea that a heavy trigger pull could also make a gun "safe" in the sense that you didn't shoot accidentally, just like an external safety. I don't remember completely, and missed the beginning of her testimony, so I may be getting some details wrong. The "safest guns" don't have external safeties anymore. The safety is now built directly into the trigger mechanism to prevent accidental discharges. In other words, the gun is only going to fire if someone wants it to fire. You can't really ask for a better safety mechanism. I have close to no knowledge of guns or gun safety so I wouldn't pretend to know what is safe, but this seemed to be part of what the prosecution wanted to focus on when interviewing Amy Siewert. After O'Mara's cross the defense asked the following series of question. Q(uestion): Mr. Siewert you were asked questions about whether that firearm could be used for self-defense, could it also be used to commit a murder?
A(nswer): The firearm can be used for any purpose...
[O'Mara objects that is is speculation and something else, sustained]
Q: You were asked about the trigger pull. Could you give the members of the jury an idea of whether 4 pounds or a little bit more than 4 pounds is a relatively light or relatively heavy trigger pull?
A: 4.5 pounds is within the normal range for trigger pulls that I see in my casework.
Q: So it is not a heavy trigger pull?
A: No, it is not.
Q: And you were asked questions about the firearm being fully loaded, can you explain to the members of the jury that if the magazine is full and there is a live round in the chamber. On that particular pistol what must a person do to expell a bullet?
A: Pull the trigger to fire the gun at that point in time.
Q: That's it? There is nothing they have to turn off or adjust? You just pull the trigger?
A: Correct.
Q: Allright, but they do make firearms with what you refer to as an external safety right?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you explain to the jury just briefly how they work and the purpose of those?
A: Sure. An external safety is typically a button, a knob, something you physically have to engage to prevent the firearm from engaging.
Q: And where are they typically located on the firearm?
A: More times than not you will find them right back here [pointing to the back of the pistol, above where your hand holds the gun]. On either the left or the right side. But those are typically referred to as thumb safeties as all you need is you thumb to disengage it. Or engage it.
Q: And that firearm does not have that type of external safety?
A: No.
Q: With the firearm in the condition it is right now: unloaded, are you able to demonstrate for the jury how to pull the trigger and make that sound.
A: Yes.
Q: Your honor may she do that? May she demonstrate? Pointing into the wall.
Judge: Yes.
[Demonstrate how to shoot. Makes it look fairly simple and as if it doesn't take any effort.]
Q: And that is all someone would need to do to fire a shot if it was fully loaded?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you madam, judge that is all I have Source (my quote is from second video from about 15:50): + Show Spoiler + Yep, that line of questioning is designed to sway people who don't understand how firearms work. Personally, I think it's a very low percentage play in a state like Florida. It's especially dumb when there's at least one juror who knows exactly how modern firearms work (the one who had a CCP). That might be assuming a bit much. It's definitely likely, but let's not pretend that everyone who gets a CCP is by definition informed as to how guns work.
You can't get a CCP in most states (including Florida) without taking a basic firearm safety class that teaches exactly how modern firearms and their safety mechanisms work. I have no doubt that she knows.
|
On July 07 2013 12:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 12:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 07 2013 12:36 rasnj wrote:On July 07 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On July 07 2013 12:06 rasnj wrote:On July 07 2013 11:46 Ettick wrote:
I've seen a lot of people freaking out over the fact that Zimmerman was carrying his gun with the safety off.
The gun he was using was a Kel-Tec PF9 which, like many other modern pistols such as Glocks, do not have external safeties.
Exactly what safety could he have had off? I'm confused. Maybe they are referring to the fact that he chose to get a gun without a safety, which one might interpret to indicate that he was not interested in a "safe gun". I remember there was a lot of discussion with an expert witness (some LEO or ballistics expert or something) about guns and about whether it was a good weapon for self-defense, and in particular whether the relatively heavy trigger pull ensured that you only shoot when you meant to shoot. The defense wanted to have her label this a safety feature, though I don't think she ever agreed to call a heavy trigger pull a safety feature. In any case it was clear that the defense wanted to present the idea that a heavy trigger pull could also make a gun "safe" in the sense that you didn't shoot accidentally, just like an external safety. I don't remember completely, and missed the beginning of her testimony, so I may be getting some details wrong. The "safest guns" don't have external safeties anymore. The safety is now built directly into the trigger mechanism to prevent accidental discharges. In other words, the gun is only going to fire if someone wants it to fire. You can't really ask for a better safety mechanism. I have close to no knowledge of guns or gun safety so I wouldn't pretend to know what is safe, but this seemed to be part of what the prosecution wanted to focus on when interviewing Amy Siewert. After O'Mara's cross the defense asked the following series of question. Q(uestion): Mr. Siewert you were asked questions about whether that firearm could be used for self-defense, could it also be used to commit a murder?
A(nswer): The firearm can be used for any purpose...
[O'Mara objects that is is speculation and something else, sustained]
Q: You were asked about the trigger pull. Could you give the members of the jury an idea of whether 4 pounds or a little bit more than 4 pounds is a relatively light or relatively heavy trigger pull?
A: 4.5 pounds is within the normal range for trigger pulls that I see in my casework.
Q: So it is not a heavy trigger pull?
A: No, it is not.
Q: And you were asked questions about the firearm being fully loaded, can you explain to the members of the jury that if the magazine is full and there is a live round in the chamber. On that particular pistol what must a person do to expell a bullet?
A: Pull the trigger to fire the gun at that point in time.
Q: That's it? There is nothing they have to turn off or adjust? You just pull the trigger?
A: Correct.
Q: Allright, but they do make firearms with what you refer to as an external safety right?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you explain to the jury just briefly how they work and the purpose of those?
A: Sure. An external safety is typically a button, a knob, something you physically have to engage to prevent the firearm from engaging.
Q: And where are they typically located on the firearm?
A: More times than not you will find them right back here [pointing to the back of the pistol, above where your hand holds the gun]. On either the left or the right side. But those are typically referred to as thumb safeties as all you need is you thumb to disengage it. Or engage it.
Q: And that firearm does not have that type of external safety?
A: No.
Q: With the firearm in the condition it is right now: unloaded, are you able to demonstrate for the jury how to pull the trigger and make that sound.
A: Yes.
Q: Your honor may she do that? May she demonstrate? Pointing into the wall.
Judge: Yes.
[Demonstrate how to shoot. Makes it look fairly simple and as if it doesn't take any effort.]
Q: And that is all someone would need to do to fire a shot if it was fully loaded?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you madam, judge that is all I have Source (my quote is from second video from about 15:50): + Show Spoiler + Yep, that line of questioning is designed to sway people who don't understand how firearms work. Personally, I think it's a very low percentage play in a state like Florida. It's especially dumb when there's at least one juror who knows exactly how modern firearms work (the one who had a CCP). That might be assuming a bit much. It's definitely likely, but let's not pretend that everyone who gets a CCP is by definition informed as to how guns work.
Many jurisdictions require you have certification in some firearms classes to get a concealed weapons permit but there are also many who hand 'em out like candy, so who knows if this juror knows anything about guns or not.
EDIT: State law is usually less important than the attitude of the sheriff in your county or whoever by law has the authority to give out concealed carry permits.
|
On July 07 2013 12:34 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 23:52 Tewks44 wrote:On July 06 2013 21:01 plgElwood wrote:
Will there be rioting after Zimmerman leaves the courtroom as free person? It's a very real possibility. I would be surprised if any rioting took place. This happened so long ago, the arguments in court are well-publicized...I find it hard to believe that people will assume Zimmerman was found not guilty purely because of racial bias or that, even if they thought that was involved, that it would be enough to push people over the edge. You would have to have some examples of systemic abuse against blacks for that to be possible, but to the best of my knowledge race is becoming less and less of an issue over time so people don't have much reason to riot as they did back in the '50s or so.
you are 100% wrong. have you never heard of the 1992 LA rodney king beating riots?
|
On July 07 2013 12:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 12:42 farvacola wrote:On July 07 2013 12:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 07 2013 12:36 rasnj wrote:On July 07 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On July 07 2013 12:06 rasnj wrote:On July 07 2013 11:46 Ettick wrote:
I've seen a lot of people freaking out over the fact that Zimmerman was carrying his gun with the safety off.
The gun he was using was a Kel-Tec PF9 which, like many other modern pistols such as Glocks, do not have external safeties.
Exactly what safety could he have had off? I'm confused. Maybe they are referring to the fact that he chose to get a gun without a safety, which one might interpret to indicate that he was not interested in a "safe gun". I remember there was a lot of discussion with an expert witness (some LEO or ballistics expert or something) about guns and about whether it was a good weapon for self-defense, and in particular whether the relatively heavy trigger pull ensured that you only shoot when you meant to shoot. The defense wanted to have her label this a safety feature, though I don't think she ever agreed to call a heavy trigger pull a safety feature. In any case it was clear that the defense wanted to present the idea that a heavy trigger pull could also make a gun "safe" in the sense that you didn't shoot accidentally, just like an external safety. I don't remember completely, and missed the beginning of her testimony, so I may be getting some details wrong. The "safest guns" don't have external safeties anymore. The safety is now built directly into the trigger mechanism to prevent accidental discharges. In other words, the gun is only going to fire if someone wants it to fire. You can't really ask for a better safety mechanism. I have close to no knowledge of guns or gun safety so I wouldn't pretend to know what is safe, but this seemed to be part of what the prosecution wanted to focus on when interviewing Amy Siewert. After O'Mara's cross the defense asked the following series of question. Q(uestion): Mr. Siewert you were asked questions about whether that firearm could be used for self-defense, could it also be used to commit a murder?
A(nswer): The firearm can be used for any purpose...
[O'Mara objects that is is speculation and something else, sustained]
Q: You were asked about the trigger pull. Could you give the members of the jury an idea of whether 4 pounds or a little bit more than 4 pounds is a relatively light or relatively heavy trigger pull?
A: 4.5 pounds is within the normal range for trigger pulls that I see in my casework.
Q: So it is not a heavy trigger pull?
A: No, it is not.
Q: And you were asked questions about the firearm being fully loaded, can you explain to the members of the jury that if the magazine is full and there is a live round in the chamber. On that particular pistol what must a person do to expell a bullet?
A: Pull the trigger to fire the gun at that point in time.
Q: That's it? There is nothing they have to turn off or adjust? You just pull the trigger?
A: Correct.
Q: Allright, but they do make firearms with what you refer to as an external safety right?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you explain to the jury just briefly how they work and the purpose of those?
A: Sure. An external safety is typically a button, a knob, something you physically have to engage to prevent the firearm from engaging.
Q: And where are they typically located on the firearm?
A: More times than not you will find them right back here [pointing to the back of the pistol, above where your hand holds the gun]. On either the left or the right side. But those are typically referred to as thumb safeties as all you need is you thumb to disengage it. Or engage it.
Q: And that firearm does not have that type of external safety?
A: No.
Q: With the firearm in the condition it is right now: unloaded, are you able to demonstrate for the jury how to pull the trigger and make that sound.
A: Yes.
Q: Your honor may she do that? May she demonstrate? Pointing into the wall.
Judge: Yes.
[Demonstrate how to shoot. Makes it look fairly simple and as if it doesn't take any effort.]
Q: And that is all someone would need to do to fire a shot if it was fully loaded?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you madam, judge that is all I have Source (my quote is from second video from about 15:50): + Show Spoiler + Yep, that line of questioning is designed to sway people who don't understand how firearms work. Personally, I think it's a very low percentage play in a state like Florida. It's especially dumb when there's at least one juror who knows exactly how modern firearms work (the one who had a CCP). That might be assuming a bit much. It's definitely likely, but let's not pretend that everyone who gets a CCP is by definition informed as to how guns work. You can't get a CCP in most states (including Florida) without taking a basic firearm safety class that teaches exactly how modern firearms and their safety mechanisms work. I have no doubt that she knows.
All I am saying is that if taking a class translated into guaranteed knowledge this world would be a different sort of place.
|
Regardless, 4 lbs of pressure is more than enough for a "safety." You're not going to put 4 lbs on a trigger without physically wanting to shoot the gun. A switch is no safer. The second that he went to get his gun he would've removed the safety. You don't bring a gun and keep it on safe. You're bringing it for a reason. Just like you wouldn't go to a fight with a gun and not have a round in the chamber. By the time you cock it you're dead. It's just trying to sway people who have never touched a gun before.
|
On July 07 2013 12:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2013 12:44 xDaunt wrote:On July 07 2013 12:42 farvacola wrote:On July 07 2013 12:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 07 2013 12:36 rasnj wrote:On July 07 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On July 07 2013 12:06 rasnj wrote:On July 07 2013 11:46 Ettick wrote:
I've seen a lot of people freaking out over the fact that Zimmerman was carrying his gun with the safety off.
The gun he was using was a Kel-Tec PF9 which, like many other modern pistols such as Glocks, do not have external safeties.
Exactly what safety could he have had off? I'm confused. Maybe they are referring to the fact that he chose to get a gun without a safety, which one might interpret to indicate that he was not interested in a "safe gun". I remember there was a lot of discussion with an expert witness (some LEO or ballistics expert or something) about guns and about whether it was a good weapon for self-defense, and in particular whether the relatively heavy trigger pull ensured that you only shoot when you meant to shoot. The defense wanted to have her label this a safety feature, though I don't think she ever agreed to call a heavy trigger pull a safety feature. In any case it was clear that the defense wanted to present the idea that a heavy trigger pull could also make a gun "safe" in the sense that you didn't shoot accidentally, just like an external safety. I don't remember completely, and missed the beginning of her testimony, so I may be getting some details wrong. The "safest guns" don't have external safeties anymore. The safety is now built directly into the trigger mechanism to prevent accidental discharges. In other words, the gun is only going to fire if someone wants it to fire. You can't really ask for a better safety mechanism. I have close to no knowledge of guns or gun safety so I wouldn't pretend to know what is safe, but this seemed to be part of what the prosecution wanted to focus on when interviewing Amy Siewert. After O'Mara's cross the defense asked the following series of question. Q(uestion): Mr. Siewert you were asked questions about whether that firearm could be used for self-defense, could it also be used to commit a murder?
A(nswer): The firearm can be used for any purpose...
[O'Mara objects that is is speculation and something else, sustained]
Q: You were asked about the trigger pull. Could you give the members of the jury an idea of whether 4 pounds or a little bit more than 4 pounds is a relatively light or relatively heavy trigger pull?
A: 4.5 pounds is within the normal range for trigger pulls that I see in my casework.
Q: So it is not a heavy trigger pull?
A: No, it is not.
Q: And you were asked questions about the firearm being fully loaded, can you explain to the members of the jury that if the magazine is full and there is a live round in the chamber. On that particular pistol what must a person do to expell a bullet?
A: Pull the trigger to fire the gun at that point in time.
Q: That's it? There is nothing they have to turn off or adjust? You just pull the trigger?
A: Correct.
Q: Allright, but they do make firearms with what you refer to as an external safety right?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you explain to the jury just briefly how they work and the purpose of those?
A: Sure. An external safety is typically a button, a knob, something you physically have to engage to prevent the firearm from engaging.
Q: And where are they typically located on the firearm?
A: More times than not you will find them right back here [pointing to the back of the pistol, above where your hand holds the gun]. On either the left or the right side. But those are typically referred to as thumb safeties as all you need is you thumb to disengage it. Or engage it.
Q: And that firearm does not have that type of external safety?
A: No.
Q: With the firearm in the condition it is right now: unloaded, are you able to demonstrate for the jury how to pull the trigger and make that sound.
A: Yes.
Q: Your honor may she do that? May she demonstrate? Pointing into the wall.
Judge: Yes.
[Demonstrate how to shoot. Makes it look fairly simple and as if it doesn't take any effort.]
Q: And that is all someone would need to do to fire a shot if it was fully loaded?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you madam, judge that is all I have Source (my quote is from second video from about 15:50): + Show Spoiler + Yep, that line of questioning is designed to sway people who don't understand how firearms work. Personally, I think it's a very low percentage play in a state like Florida. It's especially dumb when there's at least one juror who knows exactly how modern firearms work (the one who had a CCP). That might be assuming a bit much. It's definitely likely, but let's not pretend that everyone who gets a CCP is by definition informed as to how guns work. You can't get a CCP in most states (including Florida) without taking a basic firearm safety class that teaches exactly how modern firearms and their safety mechanisms work. I have no doubt that she knows. All I am saying is that if taking a class translated into guaranteed knowledge this world would be a different sort of place.
Fair enough. However, O'Mara had the point explained by the witness on the stand. I'd very surprised if no one on the jury gets it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
16197
425
224
211
174
EPT
