Ted Nugent, The Zimmerman/Martin Case, and SHTF

So I’ll admit, I hadn’t been playing very close heed to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, even though it conceivably could have a direct effect on certain firearms laws and how people view “Stand Your Ground” laws in the future. I believed that the case was an extreme example of media sensationalism and I really didn’t feed the need to pay much attention; hell, it felt like the media in general was trying to distract the public away from other things. But that’s neither here nor there at this point; things have somewhat run their course.

However, a friend sent me this article by Ted Nugent (that I read with a touch of salt, even though I generally like what the Nuge has to say). In it, (you should really read the article for the context of this post) he basically pulls for the Zimmerman side of the case, where he was on patrol, phoned the cops, followed Martin, was attacked, and had to fight for his life, which ended up with a single shot fired in the essence of self-defense. He, of course, runs with the racism card, which I won’t really speculate upon, as it has really no course in this post for you fine SHTFblog.com readers.


Yeah, the article was interesting, and it provided me with some background. However, it also got my wheels turning. Let’s transpose the basic premise (under the Nuge’s article – you haven’t read it yet?!? Cripes!) onto a SHTF scenario, shall we?


The scenario can be whatever you choose: Post-apocalyptic Mad-Max type, political-economic breakdown, EMP burst and a fried power grid, massive natural disaster, zombies. Pick your favorite and run its course a bit in your mind: You. Your family. Your stores that you’ve built up. Your property, your house, your generator. Your precious water supply. Your hard work that’s taken you years to accomplish. Your very peace of mind. Hopefully you’ve teamed with a few people you can trust, and you have a small community built up, with mutual support, protection, and knowledge. With enough people, and a treasured area that you utilize that needs defending, localized patrols will always be a good idea; to scrounge, find survivors, keep an eye out for looters, whether they be a single person or a band of aggressive people. With me so far?


According to the article, George Zimmerman was on a neighborhood watch patrol when he was attacked. This, to me, does not seem far-fetched once desperation sets in after a SHTF scenario has been catalyzed. People who need drugs, water, food, guns, alcohol – you name it – will go whatever lengths they have to to get what they need. Hell, they have nothing to lose! I personally believe that the sheer outrage and desperation of people in a post-SHTF world will be one of the very hardest things to deal with to the prepper – but I digress.


You are out on a patrol, keeping an eye out, looking for any items of interest in the local area and securing the locale. You see a straggler, and cautiously approach him. There are no police to call – they’re not coming. The National Guard won’t send the cavalry. Maybe you’re merely in your home, keeping an eye out the window when you see someone pumping out your rain barrel. You have the best of intentions when you approach this person, to help, give him directions or shelter, but you are blindsided and brutally attacked. What the hell do you do? Your attacker is in it to win it; he’s hit a gold mine. You are caught off-guard and on the wrong end of the proverbial sharp stick. How will you react?


How far will you go to protect what you have in a SHTF world?


We all want to hear what you have to say about all this; discussion encouraged in the comments below!


Stay safe!


31 comments… add one
  • Tchat par webcam July 17, 2013, 5:16 am

    Amazing things here. I am very happy to look your article. Thanks a lot and I’m looking ahead to touch you. Will you kindly drop me a e-mail?

  • j.r. guerra in s. tx. July 17, 2013, 7:01 am

    Given the scenario you gave above (attacked by a stranger who is on your property stealing YOUR materials), I think self defense is a clear choice. If you pull a gun and the person continues to attack you, he clearly means you harm. If he turns and runs away, shooting in back would NOT BE self defense. But that is just my opinion.

  • The Road Warrior July 17, 2013, 7:16 am

    Just playing the devil’s advocate here: say you DO thwart the hypothetical attack; how can you be sure he won’t be back again- with friends? You have something he needs.

  • irishdutchuncle July 17, 2013, 8:54 am

    in this scenerio, if you were “blindsided” , your straggler must have had an accomplice…
    (or a competetor) in this situation, you need to shoot the person who hit you, right away. he didn’t leave you the option to retreat. (and if it’s two, or more against one you’re under no obligation to
    “fight fair”, ever) but hope to GOD that your attacker doesn’t turn out to be a family member.

  • Brad in South FL July 17, 2013, 8:57 am

    If you are attacked you must do WHATEVER is necessary to not only survive but win at all costs! It doesn’t sound pretty but given the scenario you gotta do what ya gotta do! Remember you have a family that is depending on you!!! My 2 cents worth.

    Stay safe all!!

    • jimmy in s. florida July 17, 2013, 9:32 am

      couldn’t agree with you more brad.

      Being the “security chief” for my family, I don’t have the luxury of taking a chance of being attacked in close combat as in the scenario presented. Security threats must be dealt with using extreme prejudice. better be sure there is no chance of the return of the rule of law though, not just a localized disaster.

      -good luck with the hurricane season brad! looks like we may be in for a busy season – 3 named storms already. ugh

  • BM July 17, 2013, 9:01 am

    Your scenario isnt much like what happened to GZ. An interesting thought exercise, but nothing to compare.
    The media is doing an awesome job of not being impartial and actually creating the news. NBC is being sued for doctoring the 911 tapes to enrage people into believing GZ was racist. ABC should be charged for running an article saying ‘If GZ says he was attached, why does this video show do injuries on him’. In fact, they had heavily edited/selected grainy dark CCTV footage to ‘prove’ this statement, and would have had to have seen the footage in other parts of the video that did show injuries, but still chose to ignore it and run the story.
    And, the one that really gets me, because YOU are saying it too:- Stand your Ground played NO PART in this case. No special Florida rules were invoked. The laws are the same for every state when it comes to self defense.
    Also, i heard he wasnt ‘on patrol’ but was coming home from a shopping trip. Didnt see that information come up again though.

    • The Road Warrior July 17, 2013, 9:15 am

      BM, thanks for the insight. As I said, I haven’t been following it much…I was just writing about my thought processes in reaction to Mr. Nugent’s article. There is a possibility for MANY ugly scenarios after TSHTF, I’m just trying to get people’s minds to go in an unpleasant direction to see what they come up with.

  • Navy91 July 17, 2013, 9:30 am

    In a full-on SHTF situation, I shoot first and ask questions later. If I get blindsided I’m going to assume that my assailant is prepared and willing to finish the job. Defend yourself as if your life depends on it, because it just may.

  • Spud July 17, 2013, 9:34 am

    In the Zimmermans case he should have just staid in his vehicle and used law enforcement for what it is paid for.
    On the other hand in a SHTF condition it would certainly depend on whether we were in a WROL sitution or not.
    Without WROL then you are on your own and must defend your property and family then force might be justified. Might I say because even tho in a SHTF situation and WROL we still must answer to a much higher authority for our actions. Given that thought ,it would depend on the circumstance at the time.
    Certainly WROL one need approach everything with caution and be ready to defend oneself.
    From this perspective, can any one of us say how we will react ?
    Hopefully we use good judgement when that day arrives.

    • psycho July 22, 2013, 5:11 pm

      The problem with everyone saying Zimmerman should have just stayed in his truck is that he was asked by the operator to tell them where Martin was and to get an address. These items required Zimmerman to get out of his vehicle as Martin had gotten out of view and Zimmerman could not see the house numbers.

  • Wild Weasel July 17, 2013, 10:04 am

    If this is an exercise of what we would do and there is no support (law enforcement, national guard, ect), then I say the responsibility falls on me to take care of my family and community. I hope I never have to take a life but this exercise should not be limited to this hypothetical situation. If you carry a firearm daily, as I do, then one should mentally also be prepared to protect himself and the ones he loves. One of the things I have been taught is to mentally practice these events in your mind and practice how you will react. The hardest thing will be the mental aspect of the actions you may have to take one day to protect your loved ones and their survival.

  • ThatguyinCA July 17, 2013, 11:37 am

    This is a really good exercise RW. If attacked (or even on a threat of attack), I’d drop him, no question. In this situation, I would have my gun out and in my hand when confronting this individual (that is if I even confront and didn’t just plug him outright). Part of me says it’s better to just tap him. Let him go and he could come back (maybe in force). But at the same time, I’m thinking, maybe he has a kid or two that are relying on him and he is doing whatever is necessary to ensure their survival. It’s a tough call. Something to think about for sure. Better to analyze it in advance to develop some type of “protocol.” Thanks for getting this one bouncing around in my head.

    • The Road Warrior July 17, 2013, 12:04 pm

      Thanks,ThatGuy. Of course, the flip side of this coin is: would you raid someone else’s community to provide for your family if it was the only way ?

      • ThatguyinCA July 17, 2013, 4:53 pm

        I would do what I must. I would try to see if there was a way for me to join the community and earn my keep but if it wasn’t possible, and it came to down to stealing to keep my kids alive, then the answer is absolutely. Any parent who wouldn’t isn’t worth their weight as a parent. I certainly would because it would be either that, or just take my kid’s lives with my own hands to spare them the suffering and I’m not quite sure I could do that unless there was no other hope.

  • Jason July 17, 2013, 12:41 pm

    First off, extrapolating this to the mythical SHTF scenario is pretty pointless because the entire context would be changed radically. When you realize that no law enforcement exists or courts to enforce laws are vacated the mindset(s) become far more acute AND self centered.

    In that fantasy presented, you find a Treyvon wondering the neighborhood, you do one of 2 things – do nothing OR approach with gun drawn ready to fire.

    The Martin/Zimmerman case was nothing more than racism & yet just another, in the continuous efforts to keep separated & hating one another. The capper to it all was when Obama, the leader of the free world, publicly condemning Zimmerman. Are you effing kidding me??

    Then out comes Jesse the raciest Jackson & Al not so Sharpton DEMANDING the DOJ file a civil suit against Zimmerman. Are you effing kidding me?? These hate filled morons with a combined IQ of a turnip actually came up with this divisive idea?

    Do you remember when OJ murdered, I mean butchered, the mother of his kids & an innocent man, ran from the police then hid behind the best legal defense money could buy? The jury found this obvious murderer innocent & did the white community come out lead by Billy Graham & start riots or scream racism? Did Jesse & Al call out for the DOJ to go after Simpson? No, he was hailed as a hero & justice was served & the Goldman’s had to pursue the civil suit on their own dime & sole efforts.

    The Lame Stream Media depicts Treyvon as a sweet little boy eating Skittles, minding his own business & Zimmerman as this being bad, nigger hating thug with a gun ready to shoot the first person that wonders the neighborhood after dark. (If you are offended by the N word, get over it – the MSM is far worse with their inferences).

    I wonder what these people were really like & what actually happened …


    This case was about one thing & one thing only – keeping people separated people with race & hatred.

    • T.R. July 17, 2013, 6:58 pm

      It never occurs to most PC libs , but it is human nature to Dislike another tribe that is too different than your tribe . This happens at all levels . Humans self segregate , they prefer to generally stay around their own ” tribe ” . Humans separate themselves because its natural for them to . This doesn’t by any means say we cant coexist peacefully , but separation is something we as humans are naturally going to do , weather we are conscious of the fact we are doing it or not . Uniting everybody is an idiotic concept , that only works in science fiction societies . Human nature will undo all things , that can be good or bad .

      • Jason July 19, 2013, 3:15 pm

        “Humans separate themselves because its natural for them to . This doesn’t by any means say we cant coexist peacefully , but separation is something we as humans are naturally going to do , weather we are conscious of the fact we are doing it or not . ”

        I disagree & say it is a learned behavior. If you ever see children under 6 years old, they never separate themselves because they do not view life that way. They will play with each other irrespective of race, color or socioeconomic conditions. I fully believe that keeping people hating each other is the best way to control the groups. Remember, it is divide & conquer.

    • bama July 31, 2013, 6:16 am

      I think the president has no place in any circumstance calling guilt with an active trial still in progress. Even if he was right, and think he rarely is, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? How is it just for our leader to sway jurors with his point of view? This entire trial is nothing more than a three ring circus.

  • brad July 17, 2013, 2:28 pm

    How far will I go? You ask as if there are other options. There are no other options. I will go all the f@#$%^g way. As anyone would.

    • Jason July 17, 2013, 3:13 pm

      It all depends upon the situation Brad – you have no idea how fight & flight takes over & changes things. You are a LEO & have the good ol’ boys club as backup but if the situation was reversed, I doubt you’d do anything less than run because NOBODY is that stupid to defend possessions to the death against insurmountable odds.

      If it were family, that would take on a whole different thought process & doubt you or anybody would put their family in a position of peril AND would have fled the scene before things escalated.

  • BQuad July 17, 2013, 5:21 pm

    We need to understand the distinction between legality and morality. There is a credible argument to be made that Zimmerman put himself in the situation (there is also a good argument to the other side) and so although legally not guilty he is not morally not guilty. In the situation you describe, there is no opportunity for the homeowner to withdraw – and therefore the moral compass slews strongly to the homeowner. We cannot allow ourselves to lose our moral bearing when the bad times come.

    • T.R. July 17, 2013, 6:40 pm

      True , but they are sometimes a luxury you cant afford to have depending on the situation . No authorities ……perhaps no one in charge of anything for a long time makes things different , we may have to be just as ruthless as the other side to make it . Shooting a man I woud have no problem with as far as protecting my home , shooting a woman or kid I would have an internal issue with .

  • T.R. July 17, 2013, 6:34 pm

    You have to kill him , you dont have to like it , but you have to kill him , if he stops and tries to run , shoot him . By this time hopefully your side will be up and around because of a noise …..fights are not very quiet most of the time . If you dont , he will be back , most likely with friends and you may not be as lucky . Oh ! almost forgot , after you drop him , search the body for anything useful he may have been carrying , as well as knock out any gold fillings he may have before you bury , this is where a wood chisel will serve well .

  • Ray July 17, 2013, 10:40 pm

    Well right now I’d only shoot as a last resort. Even with clear Self de-fence laws(yes I know how I spelled it) you still have to contend with rabid left wing lawyers -prosecutors that don’t care about anything but the next election and way to many goofy cops. If the SHTF and someone crosses my deadline- he or she gets a free 155gr. .308 ticket to the afterlife-no argument- no fight-no warning passed the “turn around and go home” sign at the deadline. Then just get rid of the meat before it stinks. If It ever gets so bad that “dog eat dog” is the rule, Then God ,Budda, Jesus, Mary, Krishna and Elvis had better all be on our side, cause it will get bloody FAST . The first shot will be the one that wins.– Guys we talk about TEOTWAWKI all the time, but are any of us really ready to see children starve ? Or shoot their desperate parents? How many out there will become so hungry that they use the kids as human shields? Is their a better way? If their is we had better find it Most Ricky Tick cause I don’t think the guys running the world have left us much time.

  • gat31 July 17, 2013, 10:45 pm

    As l understood things with this case, Zimmerman was already out of the truck looking for an address. It was dark and raining so l can see him needing to do this. l also understand (Brad u being a LEO can verify if l’m wrong) under the gun training if it looks like you might go unconscious because of the “fight” you should try to stop the assailant so they cannot A) get your gun and shoot you with it. B) not get your gun and shoot others/commit other crimes with your gun. So if that is correct l can see why he drew the gun to stop the attack. Seems to me he was stupid yes for getting out of the truck, but stupid is not illegal. However he didn’t even draw the gun or threaten the gun until it got to that point which means to me he never had intention to use it. The act of carrying the gun says l am able to use it but not necessarily saying l am going to use it.
    Now in a SHTF situation can l shoot another to protect my own family? l would like to say yes l can. In a way isn’t that what Zimmerman did? He was in his own SHTF situation possibly an avoidable one but either way he was in it. By not letting the attacker get him to unconsciousness he was protecting himself and potentially other people that could have been hurt by his gun. Had this whole thing been reversed in races l would still think the person with the gun was justified in stopping the attack. (and also think they were both stupid for letting it get out of control.) If they would have just had a conversation l can almost bet money Zimmerman would have probably given the boy a ride home instead of letting him walk in the rain. JMHO

  • Anonymous July 18, 2013, 11:49 am

    Easy answer, play to win.

    In the real world of survival, the loser lives if the winner allows it. If the winner allows it, they may have to play again. 2 out of 3 is great in rock, paper, scissors.

    • Jason July 19, 2013, 5:13 pm

      Finally, a great answer – simple, to the point & minus all of the macho, chest beating baloney.

      • TANK August 1, 2013, 8:07 pm

        I agree

  • al July 18, 2013, 2:15 pm

    Ted Nugent is a fucking asshole.

    • Jason July 19, 2013, 3:19 pm

      Outspoken, understands the condition, bold & exercises the true American spirit of freedom is intimidating & feel sorry for you that you do not get it. He may not be liked by weak people like you but he is respected AND is unafraid to dive in to get to the heart of the matter.


Leave a Comment