With the emergence of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, predictably, the focus on the issue of who was at fault in a crime is now seriously distorted. First of all, nobody knows. If it was clear, there wouldn’t be the endless news show, comedian, “civil rights” activist talking heads, “racism” enthusiasts, gun advocates and opponents brawl going on now. And of course, much discussion has centered on the Stand Your Ground law in Florida.
To be clear, people are murdered daily all over the U.S. under a wide range of conditions. Few of the cases ever make it outside of state news. Many never make it outside local news. The Martin/Zimmerman case is a local case, the outcome of which will ultimately be decided by local and state authorities. But no, in this case, it’s become a national cesspool of pet issues being pursued by virtue of the case.
So what’s it all about?
Bill Cosby says, “It’s not about racism. It’s about guns.” Bill Mahr makes statements on his dishonest, foul mouthed show, that he states as facts that nobody has actually determined.
The “reverend” Al Sharpton who has the proven character qualities of a carnival sideshow hawk is shouting his usual racist garbage.
Gun rights advocates who are writing and speaking first, thinking later, are showing up everywhere from forums to Facebook to YouTube to spout their purported “facts” about the case. None of these is showing any intellectual sense whatsoever.
Nobody yet knows what was or was not justified, and why, in this case.
The Stand Your Ground law has been considered by police and has been invoked in this case. And of course now the law and it’s virtue or evil has been blathered all over the place between gun rights advocates and gun rights opponents. Neither has any warranted reason to start a public battle about it this over a case like this.
The issue is whether there has been a justified self defense shooting. Period. Whether the shooting was justified or not has nothing to do with the stand your ground law. It only has to do with whether Zimmerman was criminally assaulted under the danger of grave harm or death.
But it’s out there so I guess I’ll take my turn dealing with it here.
Here are the facts about Stand Your Ground laws, including Florida’s:
- Self defense shootings are still only justified if it is determined that the shooter was in danger of grave bodily harm or death.
- Stand Your Ground law does not give anyone more right to shoot someone than they had before passage of such laws. No less justification for a shooting will stand the test of law because of it.
- It does not “create” any trigger happy mentality like gun haters claim. That’s all it is; a claim. It does not turn otherwise decent, law abiding people into killers. It does nothing to any gun owner’s personality.
- What it does is gives victims of violent criminals the right to defend themselves with lethal force without having to make a half dozen different decisions about “retreating”.
- It adds a layer of validity to legitimate self defense without the fear of the victim becoming a criminal by that act of self defense.
And here’s just a point to make anybody stupid enough to claim it makes more law abiding people more violent. Do you really think that anybody that is being criminally assaulted, fearing for their or their family’s lives, is going to stop and think, “gosh the stand your ground law gives me the right” ….. so lets’ see, I think I can just stand in front of my wife and daughter and kill this person legally and without….
Come on! Nobody under the stress of knowing somebody is about to kill them or their loved ones thinks about anything other than stopping the assault. The law just protects people who validly defend themselves without taking the time to sort out which way to run.
And no, not even people who agree with me know
This is not a train for my gun owning, second amendment advocate friends to jump on to defend Zimmerman. The law may have applied to Martin. Nobody knows yet. This just clarifies the intent and value of the law.
*If Trayvon were in the neighborhood with criminal intent, came back at Zimmerman and accosted him, with the intent of great bodily harm or death, the law would apply to Zimmerman.
*If Zimmerman followed Martin and pursued him threateningly, to the point where Martin turned to defend himself, accosting Zimmerman, the law would not apply ….. for Zimmerman. But it would for Martin.
The law may apply in various scenarios here, but these two points seem to be the ones most in contention currently.
It should not be the law that is in question. It should be the application of the law based on what actually happened.
Media talking heads are an amazing lot. They become instant experts on everything news worthy only to be proven wrong again and again. Few media puppets know which end of a gun shoots, much less any dynamics involved in this type case or the intent of this type law. But speaking with authority on things they know nothing about is what they actually excel at.
What is my thought on this type law in general? It is way past due.
No victim of a violent criminal should have to make any decision, other than to defend themselves effectively and immediately.
There’s nothing wrong with the law. But like any law, it is will be abused and invoked deceptively. That is where law enforcement and the judicial system should come into play. To sort out the facts, in a scenario where they are not immediately clear in the application of the law.