Just thougt you all might be interested in this…
commentary on the state of race relations and the battle over gun rights in America today.
Op-Ed New York Times.
Certainly it is about race — ask any black man, up to and including President Obama, and he will tell you at least a few stories that sound eerily like what happened that rainy winter night in Sanford, Fla.
While Mr. Zimmerman’s conviction might have provided an emotional catharsis, we would still be a country plagued by racism, which persists in ever more insidious forms despite the Supreme Court’s sanguine assessment that “things have changed dramatically,” as it said in last month’s ruling striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act. (The Justice Department is right to continue its investigation into whether Mr. Zimmerman may still be prosecuted under federal civil rights laws.)
The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute.
Absoultely false. This case did not involve SYG. It was the basic self-defense law.
Under that law, versions of which are on the books in two dozen states, a person may use deadly force if he or she “reasonably believes” it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm — a low bar that the prosecutors in this case fought in vain to overcome.
Sorry, that’s not SYG. That has always been the basic self-defense law— you are justified in the use of lethal force if a person in that situation would reasonably believe they were in imminent fear of serious bodily harm.
These laws sound intuitive: who would argue that you may not protect yourself against great harm? But of course, the concept of “reasonable belief” is transformed into something deadly dangerous when firearms are involved.
No, the concept is not changed at all. Either you are justified in the use of lethal force or you are not. What does change, is if the victims have the ability to be armed, have access to effective means for self-defense, their odds for survival increase greatly. An 80 year old woman, a petite woman have are at a physical disadvantage if they are restricted from the use of firearms in self-defense.
And when the Stand Your Ground laws intersect with lax concealed-carry laws, it works essentially to self-deputize anyone with a Kel-Tec 9 millimeter and a grudge.
Again, the incident did not involve SYG law. The author doesn’t define lax concealed carry or point out the drop in violent crime in those states. (Property crime tends to go up, criminals have even more incentive to avoid confrontation). It certainly doesn’t deputize anyone or give anyone additional authority. That’s hyperbole and emotionalism. The rules don’t change, either lethal force in defense of your life is legal in the situation, or its not.
It has been a bad year so far for gun control. But if anything, cases like this should be as troubling as the mass killings that always prompt a national outcry and promises of legislative remedy. We were heartened that President Obama, in his statement after the verdict was issued, took the opportunity to denounce once again “the tide of gun violence” sweeping the country.
Yet where victims are denied effective means to defend themselves we get more victims, more deaths, not less.
In the end, what is most frightening is that there are so many people with guns who are like George Zimmerman.
I’d like to know what his definition of George Zimmerman is. An innocent man trying to help out in his neighborhood? Looking out for other folks? Actually getting involved-- which was what everyone says we need- people willing to step up and volunteer in their neighborhood. A black/hispanic man admired by his neighbors, the kind of guy standing up for a homeless black man who’d been beaten by a policemans’ relative. I don’t have a problem with the law abiding having the means to effectively defend themseleves. Why is that a problem for this author? Its not based on who the real GZ, or the real CCW holders---- its based on his straw men, his projection of what he thinks they are vice what they really are.
Fear and racism may never be fully eliminated by legislative or judicial order, but neither should our laws allow and even facilitate their most deadly expression.
Another author projecting their own biases into a situation. A person incapable of seeing things without inserting race into it.
Trayvon Martin was an unarmed boy walking home from the convenience store. If only Florida could give him back his life as easily as it is giving back George Zimmerman’s gun
Ignoring the evidence indicating this unarmed boy probably attacked someone. It would be nice if this author could give GZ back his life that has been ruined by what was most likely a politically motivated prosecution.
the Church allows one to defend themselve.