Skip to comments.Presence of firearm in Martin case woefully unaddressed (Heads full of mush alert)
Posted on 04/27/2012 10:12:27 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Since the Feb. 26 shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, racial backlash concerning the incident has consumed the media. Many suggest that Martins death stems from an inherent suspicion in this country of young black males. Others disagree with this assessment, citing that Zimmerman is Hispanic and therefore a minority himself.
While I do not deny the significant role race played in Martins death, a key element of the case has seemingly gone unnoticed 28-year-old George Zimmerman, Martins shooter, was unnecessarily armed with a 9 mm pistol.
Regardless of Martins race and Zimmermans intentions, why was a 9 mm handgun in play? Is this a necessary weapon to carry when on neighborhood watch? Zimmerman apparently thought so, but I beg to differ.
The instant a gun is introduced in any sort of altercation violent or otherwise the parties involved are invited to act with increased aggression, citing self-defense as their reasoning. Zimmermans defense, based on the Stand Your Ground law in Florida, follows this pattern.
According to the law, an individual without a weapon may react violently even if a gun isnt directly pointed at them. A mere glimpse at a hidden gun can leave one party feeling defenseless and as though the threat on their life has been raised.
Further, personally owned guns are notoriously turned against the very individual who owns them. According to a study done by Director of RAND Health Arthur Kellermann, a member of a household where a gun is present is almost three times as likely to be a victim of homicide compared to gun-free households. The question of malicious intent thus becomes futile because both parties are apparently operating under the pretenses of self-defense. In short, the presence of such a weapon elevates a dispute past the point of no return.
It is for these reasons that a gun has no place in a neighborhood watch program. Intent aside, my feeling of safety would greatly decline if I knew that an armed neighbor was patrolling the streets of my neighborhood.
Zimmermans use of a gun as a means of protection becomes all the more trivial with the knowledge that he was in close vicinity to his vehicle. Was this vehicle a too-passive form of defense in the event of conflict? Zimmerman apparently thought so, but again I disagree.
Its also safe to say that the added precaution of a fellow volunteer would have been more effective than the defense provided by a weapon. Zimmerman clearly felt that his volunteer position put him at enough risk to warrant carrying a gun. So how could he possibly be in a secure-enough position to be on duty alone?
The contradicting accounts of what actually happened on the night that Trayvon Martin was shot have left this case muddled and unclear. Police reports and witnesses from the Florida neighborhood, Martins girlfriend and Zimmermans father all cling to varying portrayals of the same story. What remains as the trigger of these events, however, is the faulty decision George Zimmerman made to carry a gun that February night.
Highly informative and interesting account of western hemispere history that I’d not ever heard or read about.
It IS heartening to read the comments, this college dipsh!t is being “taken to school” in a big way!;)
Don’t forget this is from NY, and I’m sure a lot of NY’ers think the Sullivan Act covers the entire state;) In NYC, you have to prove you’re being stalked or threatened before you can be armed (unless you’ve got connections;) /s
As has been noted previously, your screen name is appropriate. FYI, the Constitution for the United States GRANTS NOTHING to We, the People. It is our contract with the Several States which creates, then grants certain limited authority and power to FedGov and requires all levels of government to protect our God-granted, PRE-EXISTING rights. What government grants, government can taketh away, which is the Marxist position. What God grants, only He can taketh away. Which was the Founders’ position.
My clumsy phasing was politely pointed out and clarified by several kind posters.
And they saw no need for insults.
If you claim to be on God’s side, you should not conduct yourself as if you a minion of Satan.
Can’t anyone say “GOOD SHOOT”?
I don’t know whether it has been determined that Mr.Zimmerman shot Mr.Martin purposefully.
Mr.Martin may have grabbed for the gun upon seeing it and seized it by the barrel. Mr.Zimmerman, to prevent the gun’s seizure, grabbed the gun by its grip. The shooting may have been accidental.
The police, I suspect, would have fingerprinted the gun after the shooting as per procedure. If not then there is only Mr.Zimmerman’s word against the forensic evidence of a bullet wound.
I agree with you.
Mr. Zimmerman never said that he pulled the gun to shoot Mr. Martin.
He said that Mr. Martin sucker punched him in mid-sentence, jumped on him while he was on the ground, and proceeded to beat on him. He said that Trayvon then tried to take his gun, and then .... boom... Trayvon keeled over backwards, dead.
From all accounts, Mr. Zimmerman was upset over Trayvon being dead, and in the struggle I doubt whether Mr. Zimmerman knows WHO pulled/pushed the trigger.
I suspect Mr. Martin pulled on the gun barrel while it was pointed his way, or he reached for the handle and trigger, putting enough pressure on Mr. Zimmerman's fingers , squeezing down the trigger.
As has recently been made public, Mr. Zimmerman got the gun to protect himself from PIT BULLS at the ADVICE OF THE POLICE, and never had any intention of using it on humans.
This whole Obama is a Arab thing was stared with Kenneth Lamb. I’m surprised that there are still some people who believe him. Ask Beckwith how reliable a source Lamb is. Lamb never provided any proof. When Beckwith asked for some back in ‘08, not once but several times, Lamb to this day never responded.