You know the story: From his ‘neighborhood watch’ car George Zimmerman spots a suspicious-looking (black) kid walking down the street, probably up to no good. He calls 911 to report a suspicious person and is told, by the 911 operator, NOT to confront the kid.
Repeat: The 911 operator told him NOT to confront the kid.
Hey, what good is carrying a gun around if you can’t use it on bad guys? Zimmerman gets out of his car, and confronts the ‘suspect.’ (Note: Since no crime had been committed, there were really no ‘suspects’ anywhere, except in Zimmerman’s head.)
For some crazy reason 17-year old Travon Martin is frightened by a total stranger running up on him waving a gun. Presumably, and according to Zimmerman’s version, Martin started to beat up Zimmerman, so George shot Trayvon in self-defense. (Needless to say we don’t get Martin’s version of the events.)
Since Zimmerman was found not guilty we can make this determination about the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law: In Florida it is legal to ‘defend’ yourself if you have a gun, but wrong to defend yourself if the other guy has the gun. Deadly wrong.
The defense successfully argued that the person without a weapon, the one simply walking down the street after a trip to the convenience store, was the aggressor. On Anderson Cooper one juror said “both were responsible, both could have walked away.” Really? The boy with the gun pointed at him could just walk away?
I would love to see that juror just turn and walk away when someone points a gun at her.
Try this on for size: A 17-year old white kid is walking home on a quiet street when a black guy walks up and pulls a gun on him. The white guy fights back but is shot dead by the black man.
How does that trial end?
This is what we call a rhetorical question.