Yesterday, the President gave a very powerful speech about the Trayvon Martin case. One of the points he made was something that I’d thought about over a year ago:
And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I’d just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened?
It’s the thing that none of Zimmerman’s supporters ever seem to want to discuss, along with the role of racism.
Originally posted on Norbrook's Blog:
A lot of the blogs and news sites have been covering the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. The basic facts are that a young black man was returning from the store, when a “neighborhood watch volunteer” named George Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious. He called 911, and was told to wait for the police. Instead, he decided to accost young Trayvon. He had a “carry permit” from the state of Florida, and was armed. In the resulting scuffle, he shot Trayvon Martin, killing him. He has not been charged, since Florida has a “Stand Your Ground” law, which gave people who thought they were being threatened the right to use force. Which is what Mr Zimmerman claims, that he was “acting in self defense.” Here’s something I haven’t seen discussed: What if Trayvon had also been licensed to carry and had been armed?
View original 1,118 more words