[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Tyr.

One of the instructors came flying out of the cupboard and launched himself at us, screaming "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!" but at the same time running straight for us. I was standing in the room corner, with my weapon at low ready (So in my shoulder, but pointing downwards). I got my weapon in the aim, released safety and double tapped him in the chest before he got halfway across the room. That was entirely subconscious. The after-action report on that building clearance was difficult - because I had theoretically shot and killed one of my own troops wearing our uniform. That's not something to be taken lightly.

Thing is, I couldn't even explain the rationale behind what I did. It wasn't the right thing or the wrong thing to do. I just instinctively reacted, and my body did what it did without having any input from the frontal lobe in my brain. There was no time to apply a conscious thought process. There is very sound psychological evidence behind this sort of behavior (If you want to read more, look for Deep Survival, by Laurence Gonzales) is actually a result of natural evolution.

A few problems with this. One, "subconscious" is a pop psychology term, not a scientific one - thought processes are either conscious (to admittedly varying degrees) or unconscious. There isn't really a halfway house. What you term as subconscious - that is to say, the quasi-reflex of aiming and firing - is still conscious as your brain is still involved in decision-making; the action is not confined to your reflex arc. It's more a case that you have conditioned your brain to process that information as quickly as possible on demand - without that initial, conscious response to the stimuli, the conditioned behaviour would not follow. Two, you are comparing two fundamentally different scenarios - the first, Martin-Zimmerman, being a situation with no prior knowledge, and the second, your training drill, being a situation entered into with knowledge of likely hostility and the assumption that those in the house are armed combatants. That prior knowledge informs your entire conduct and mindset thereafter, hence why you responded in the way you did. Such behaviour is incapable of being a true reflex response, instead following a particular conscious process in light of pre-existing conditions. Three, the course of action you describe is one which is the result of specific training and repetition in an effort to improve reaction time - this is somewhat different to the standard required by the Neighborhood Watch programme.

Originally Posted by Tyr.

If I had stopped at that exact moment, standing there with my rifle at low ready, and applied a conscious logical system to come to the appropriate reaction, I would have failed my teammates. The time it takes for the eyes to receive the right information (What is he doing, how fast is he moving, what is in his hands, what is his intent, what is his facial expression telling me, what is he wearing, what is going on around me?) is far too long. Had he been a hostile, in the time it would take for me to come to a conscious decision, I could have been killed. Or worse, my teammates would have died for my failure.

The mean reaction time to a visual stimulus is estimated at 180 to 200 miliseconds (or, if you prefer, 0.18 to 0.2 seconds). That is from registering the stimulus to carrying out the responding act, not just registering the stimulus. In light of this, I feel the claims that this is "far too long" or that death was a likely outcome is, with respect, stretching credulity somewhat.

Originally Posted by Tyr.

What we use instead, are emotions. Do not confuse me use of the term "emotions" with "feelings". I am not talking about happy, sad, angry etc. I am talking about an instantaneous emotional response your body has when you are faced with a specific situation.

I suspect you mean physiological rather than emotional, but fair enough...

Originally Posted by Tyr.

When you see a naked women, your body reacts by increasing blood flow to the genitals, pupils dilate, skin flushes etc. That all happens before you have the chance to actually apply a conscious decision making model to the situation. You don't see a naked women and apply a conscious decision making model, the end result of which is you decide to be aroused. Doesn't work that way. It's highly emotive. Stashed away in the primate part of your brain, you have instinctively and subconsciously red-flagged the sight of a naked women, and it has been paired with the response of "Arousal".

Again, this is not subconscious behaviour. It's totally unconscious, being as it is an instinct. Instinct has nothing to do with emotional response, either - instinct and reflex, being totally unconscious behaviour, operate within the reflex arc into which emotion does not operate. Emotional responses tend to be a consequence of such behaviour rather than a precursor.

Originally Posted by Tyr.

Because your brain does this sort of stuff subconsciously. When I was standing at low-ready in that kill-house room, my brain had already experienced close quarter combat, so it had red flagged the situation of "You are under attack" and my brain subconsciously knew that the response to that is "Fight back". I didn't need to sit there and think about it. My subconscious kicked into gear as soon as that door opened and somebody was coming at me. I was well trained in weapon drills, so my brain also subconsciously knew how to raise the weapon into the aim, release the safety and fire a double tap. That's why I faced the moment right afterwards of "Woah, what the fuck, that happened before I even had the chance to think". It's a survival mechanism that we all have.

Already covered the "no such thing as subconscious" point so won't repeat it again.

Originally Posted by Tyr.

Violence happens very, very quickly. It is not always a conscious process. When I first come into contact, the reaction of "Hit the deck" is not conscious. It just happens. That is not a conscious process. You react the way your brain subconsciously knows how to. That's why some people flounder, panic and stall when in dangerous situations. Because they have no emotional bookmark to refer to, and they end up just shitting themselves. Throw a ball at a sporty guy, and he'll probably either dodge it or catch it. Throw it at some non-sporty girl, and she'll freak the fuck out. A person will revert to their most base self during those moments.

Perhaps, but I feel claiming that shooting someone at close range is someone's "most base self" is with respect somewhat wide of the mark. Unless that person is a homicidal madman, I suppose. For most people, drawing a firearm would not be their default response, hence why I do not feel describing it as "instinctive" behaviour is correct.

Originally Posted by Tyr.

Now, I won't go on to talk too much about Martin vs Zimmerman. But think about what I have just said. The same way I highly doubt Zimmerman just decided to stop and kill a black man (The psychology of which I described in an earlier post) I also highly doubt there was much conscious thought process going on during any struggle. Personally, I doubt I would be capable of deciding during a close quarter struggle to go for a wounding shot. Especially when somebody is mere inches away. I personally just don't have the mental capacity to be doing that during a hand to hand fight. Some people might have a lot more experience and training than me, and they are capable of doing that without thinking too much. Zimmerman, though? No, I doubt it. I suspect all he knew was that he was under attack, and his instincts were screaming "USE THE GUN! USE THE GUN!". Nowhere in there was the logical thought of "Well, I better obey the law here. I should use a non-lethal combatives hold to subdue this opponent, because applying too much force would be immoral and illegal, and I might face consequences afterwards".

"USE THE GUN! USE THE GUN!" is incapable of being a true instinct behaviour, as it is learned rather than pre-existing. As such, some level of conscious decision-making did take place in the decision to use a firearm in this situation. Zimmerman did not, as far as I'm aware, enter a state of automatism and therefore was fully cogent when he took aim and fired.

Originally Posted by Tyr.

Yes, a groin strike would have been the logical thing to do. But you know as well as I do that (Unless you are well trained in combatives) if I came at you, and starting fucking your shit up, you wouldn't be able to properly execute a groin strike. If I asked you afterwards why not, you'd tell me it was just too difficult, couldn't think of how to do it, couldn't think while being attacked etc. Sure, maybe you'd pull it off. But you can't say that with certainty. (Hey, I don't know you that well, maybe you know how to handle yourself in a fight. Maybe you could manage it?). Hand to hand combatives isn't easy.

Having had to use a groin strike in a fight situation before, I feel it would not have been too difficult to execute unless his legs were immobilised. That would be different. All the same, other escape techniques not requiring specialist knowledge would have been available, such as going for the eyes - which, while not particularly pleasant, would have the desired effect and prevent a fatality. That is where I feel the "necessary" aspect of the self-defence argument encounters difficulty.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Basically. Poor tiny baby infant Trayvon got shot with a scary cop killing black deadly assault weapon of death firing baby seeking bullets while he was beating up big mean scary white supremicist (even though he's Hispanic and Jewish) Zimmerman because Zimmerman had the NERVE to ask him a question.

*facepalm*

Seriously, Ben, you're better than this.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

You know, the problem with this whole thing is that people KEEP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND THEN TREAT IT AS FACT.

With respect, the saying about pots and kettles springs to mind here. Your version of events - that Martin was a 6'3" varsity football in prime physical condition pummelling the living daylights out of Zimmerman - is not one I have found a shred of source evidence for, yet you keep asserting it as fact. On the one occasion I have asked you to back up your account with sources, you have declined to do so. As such, in the nicest possible way, I would ask you put your own house in order as well.

For my part, I feel the following may be worth reminding people of: the decision to charge Zimmerman means nothing more than that there is a case to answer and reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed - in this case, second-degree murder. Until such a time as a jury decides one way or the other, the presumption of innocence still applies to Zimmerman and it is for the court, and the court alone, to determine whether he did indeed commit the offence as charged. As things stand, therefore, while his character may have been attacked (which could in itself give rise to actionable cause) I feel jumping to conclusions on his guilt in either direction, without full recourse to the evidence, is highly presumptive. I would therefore advise we all give the court space to do its work, see how things turn out and then go from there.