TexasCHLforum.com

Had Zimmerman waited for a lawyer, he'd still be a free man today. There was no conviction because there were not enough facts to convict. The fact that he spoke early and without a lawyer isn't why he was exonerated.

Scott in Houston wrote:Had Zimmerman waited for a lawyer, he'd still be a free man today. There was no conviction because there were not enough facts to convict. The fact that he spoke early and without a lawyer isn't why he was exonerated.

Completely agree, but by not doing an on site reenactment and talking to investigators could have saved a major headache. Not guaranteed, but I don't think it helped him any.

fickman wrote:1. Choose common calibers, because you can find them anywhere, they're always available, and in a disaster, they'll still be manufactured.

In terms of long guns, I had very deliberately built my rifle collection around .308 and 5.56 for exactly those reasons, but it goes without saying that during the recent "troubles," finding either of those calibers in easy supply at a reasonable price was particularly problematic. I checked ammo stock a few times in Academy just out of curiosity and it was evident that there was plenty of ammo in the "none-tactical" calibers. It obviously occurred to me that it wouldn't hurt to have at least one rifle chambered in one of those calibers. I'm thinking about acquiring either a .30-'06 or a .30-30. I've also had my eye on a Marlin Model 1895SBL in .45-70, although that caliber is likely to be more rare..

I haven't worried as much about pistols, as I have several in different common calibers, not just 9mm and .45 ACP.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

fickman wrote:1. Choose common calibers, because you can find them anywhere, they're always available, and in a disaster, they'll still be manufactured.

In terms of long guns, I had very deliberately built my rifle collection around .308 and 5.56 for exactly those reasons, but it goes without saying that during the recent "troubles," finding either of those calibers in easy supply at a reasonable price was particularly problematic. I checked ammo stock a few times in Academy just out of curiosity and it was evident that there was plenty of ammo in the "none-tactical" calibers. It obviously occurred to me that it wouldn't hurt to have at least one rifle chambered in one of those calibers. I'm thinking about acquiring either a .30-'06 or a .30-30. I've also had my eye on a Marlin Model 1895SBL in .45-70, although that caliber is likely to be more rare..

I haven't worried as much about pistols, as I have several in different common calibers, not just 9mm and .45 ACP.

I think the .30-06 is a good choice. Decent selection of accurate rifles from many manufacturers. Wide enough range of bullet weights and styles for several different uses, from varmints up to elk I would imagine. And like you said, there was a pretty good bit of it around, even if it was fairly pricey a one point. I'm pretty happy with the .30-06 rifle my wife got me.

bdickens wrote:Better to sound rehearsed than experience diarrhea of the mouth and end up unwittingly incriminating yourself.

Yep.

I'd also like to point out that there are is a lot of research data now on officer-involved-shootings in the law enforcement community. Best practices for law enforcement include waiting until the next day to give a statement and legal representation for the police officer. There are simply too many things that go haywire with memory while still under an adrenalin dump, and diarrhea of the mouth is a common problem.

The same officer that wants to interview you immediately after a shooting without an attorney would never consider for an instant doing that himself if he was involved in a shooting. He knows that too.

Jumping Frog wrote:My strategy hasn't changed, and I think Zimmerman did himself a disservice by speaking without his attorney.

Massad Ayoob's 5 Critical Things To Do After a Shooting

Although the link provides a description of the thought process, in brief they are:

1. Officer, this man attacked me.
2. I will sign the complaint.
3. Evidence is here.
4. The witnesses are there.
5. Officer, you will have my full cooperation in 24 hours after I have spoken with counsel.

Too many things can be missed if the cops don't know where to look.

MasterOfNone wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:My strategy hasn't changed, and I think Zimmerman did himself a disservice by speaking without his attorney.

Massad Ayoob's 5 Critical Things To Do After a Shooting

Although the link provides a description of the thought process, in brief they are:

1. Officer, this man attacked me.
2. I will sign the complaint.
3. Evidence is here.
4. The witnesses are there.
5. Officer, you will have my full cooperation in 24 hours after I have spoken with counsel.

Too many things can be missed if the cops don't know where to look.

Especially pointing out the witnesses.

The witnesses are over there thinking could this be some drug shooting or vengeful gang-banger. They don't know what's going on. "Do we really want to get involved?"

f they leave, the testimony that would have proven you innocent leaves with them.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've also had my eye on a Marlin Model 1895SBL in .45-70, although that caliber is likely to be more rare..

I have been looking high and low for that exact model. I finally found one up in Idaho, but it was definitely from a batch with QC issues, so I grudgingly passed. Someday...

fickman wrote: Also, if such an event gets pulled into the media machine, expect all of our conversations, hypotheticals, and advice on this forum to end up as part of the prosecution's case against you.

It's the statement above that I've thougth about quite a bit and am surprised it's not been commented on more. When I read many responses/comments on here about what someone would do in a particular situation etc., I sometimes cringe. While many times the fundamental premise, rights, law back the person making the statement, the tone sometimes comes across as very cocky, very gung ho, very aggressive.

In a completely non-firearm related context, I recall hearing a lawyer say to never put anything in an email (or on the internet) that you would not want to see in large print in front of a jury. What I frequently cringe at is that while we may be very comfortable that our position is right and therefore would not have a problem with a jury seeing it, I also consider that it can be presented out of context and twisted to sound very negative. We are then left at the mercy of how a jury would think about it.