Trayvon Martin and Some Thoughts on Gun Laws

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.

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 post 1,118 more words



Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “Trayvon Martin and Some Thoughts on Gun Laws

  1. Vic78

    I keep asking what justifies stupid getting out of that car. Travon’s case comes out stronger in every scenario from Zimmerman not staying in his damn car. The police don’t give civilians instructions because they like hearing themselves. Every self defense instructor tells you to avoid confrontation if possible. That asshole was looking for trouble that night. The trial was some bullshit. I saw at least manslaughter from this case. Nobody has a right to approach someone because a person looks suspicious. Who the fuck is Zimmerman?

    • The prosecution couldn’t make second degree murder or manslaughter stick. However, there has got to be something that covers “provoking a deadly situation” that can be used in a wrongful death civil suit.

  2. aquagranny911

    I well remember the diary you wrote back when we still did not know that much about Trayvon’s murder (and yes, I will use the word “murder.”) The Zman had not been charged & there was much debate about gun toting & the so called “Stand your Ground Law.”

    I have read a lot since then & I watched every moment of this sham of a trial. Zman & his defense team did not invoke the SYG defense because they feared losing. They went for self-defense which put all the burden of proof on a reluctant prosecution. They did their best to judge shop, taint the jury pool, play the race card & drag Trayvon & his family through muck of media & public opinion. I do realize that the lawyers had a responsibility to defend their client as best they could but these went way beyond that.

    In short, while I do consider this a gun issue, I consider it primarily a race issue, a failure of law enforcement & the district attorney. Some of what has come out of one juror who made herself public also makes me suspect jury tampering as well. This will be for the DOJ to sort out. IMHO, this whole thing is a travesty of our justice system & a public example of racism at it’s ugliest.

    I don’t want us to lose sight of these painful issues as we also deal with the lax gun laws. I could write way more than 1,229 words but I will stop now.

  3. aquagranny911

    Forgive me Norbrook! Will you please edit because some how my post repeated itself twice in the comment. I had a problem with Word Press. ♥ mi Hijo.