Just about every aspect of why and how George Zimmerman came to fatally shoot an unarmed teenager on Feb. 26, 2012, is open for debate. But one conclusion ought to be obvious: If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that night, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.My view:
OPPOSING VIEW: Armed Zimmerman was no Dirty Harry
An unarmed Zimmerman probably would have heeded police advice to stay in his truck after seeing someone he believed was "up to no good." And even if the neighborhood watch volunteer had left the vehicle, his altercation with Martin is unlikely to have turned deadly if a firearm had not been involved.
Viewed from that perspective, the Zimmerman case is a byproduct of a society that in the past three decades has made it easier for people to buy guns, to carry concealed guns, to take guns into more places, and to bear less responsibility to retreat from dangerous situations.
Opinions are like .. rectums; everyone has one.
I've tried to stay away from the Florida trial and its ramifications, but this one hits straight into one of what are two of my most personally important ideals: Personal Responsibility, and the Second Amendment.
I want to address each statement in this opening paragraph (the rest of the article is no better) to demonstrate the difference between "guns are bad" and "each situation must be considered in view of the facts" philosophies.
Point 1: If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that night, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.
Counterpoint: If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that night, George Zimmerman may not be alive today.
It has been proven in court that Zimmerman was being savaged by (the bigger, stronger) Martin, who had the Neighborhood Watch Captain on the ground, underneath him, and who was beating Zimmerman's head against a concrete sidewalk. The Florida Courts and a jury were willing to accept that Zimmerman was in fear for his life .. especially in view of Martin's shouted threat that "you're going to die tonight". Zimmerman at that point had the option of thinking that Martin was merely speaking insincerely, or believing that Martin intended he would die that night.
Point 2: An unarmed Zimmerman probably would have heeded police advice to stay in his truck after seeing someone he believed was "up to no good."
Counterpoint: I concur that Zimmerman made a monumentally bad decision. Two stupid people made stupid decisions. The one with a gun failed to die before he could be beaten to death by his attacker. Zimmerman should not have allowed the confrontation to occur, but how was he to know that the 'suspicious person' would turn violent?
Point 3: And even if the neighborhood watch volunteer had left the vehicle, his altercation with Martin is unlikely to have turned deadly if a firearm had not been involved.
Counterpoint: Disagree. As was accepted at the trial, Martin had voiced a death threat while he was in a position to make it happen, and he was obviously doing his best to beat Zimmerman to death. Zimmerman was physically overwhelmed and, with no apparent other recourse, used his legally carried pistol to stop his assailant from murdering him.
Point 4: Viewed from that perspective, the Zimmerman case is a byproduct of a society that in the past three decades has made it easier for people to buy guns, to carry concealed guns, to take guns into more places, and to bear less responsibility to retreat from dangerous situations.
Counterpoint: Suddenly, this 'dialogue' shifts from specific allegations to societal/political issues. This society has, in the past three decades, begun to pay attention to the nuances of the Second Amendment; it has ceased to abridge the right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms.
The fallacy of the Opinion published in the USA Today article is demonstrated in the last phrase: "... and to bear less responsibility to retreat from dangerous situations."
This statement completely ignores two of the most significant facts of the trial of George Zimmerman:
- Zimmerman's attorney never raised the question of the Florida 'stand your ground' law;
- The 'stand your ground' law was not applicable, because Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat. He was on the ground, being pressed against the sidewalk by his larger, more aggressive attacker, who was trying his best to beat Zimmerman to death. He could NOT retreat!
I have offered before that both actors in this tragedy were idiots. But they at least had the small defense that they were acting in the heat of the moment, and had NO time to consider their actions in a calm, reflective manner.
The author of this Opinion article in the newspaper, however, has no defense against his careful statement which he has apparently been considering for days, if not months.
There is nothing more dangerous than a careful, reasonable idiot; the danger is that someone may not recognize him for one of the class of politically "Useful Idiots" to which he so obviously, proudly and cluelessly belongs.
3 comments:
GZ has every right to be walking the streets of his own neighborhood. Martin did not live in that neighborhood, and was not a resident, he was merely visiting.
Martin was not a child.
Bottom line, there is one less hoodlum thug roaming the streets of Florida.
Liberal's opinions are like hemorrhoids only rectums have them.
This over-reaction to a proper due-process decision tells me that the Left is getting desperate to end the 2A and the human right of armed self-defense.
The only way that this desperation makes sense is if the Left means to take over the Nation by force, as in "coup d'etat".
Without making sense, the least we can take from this new desperation of the left is that mass psychosis has set in. You can call it a "zombie apocalypse" if you want, but what we will shortly face will be more like the world's largest insane asylum just had it's walls fall down and all the dangerous inmates will be on the loose.
We will not survive this outbreak unless we are well-armed and well prepared to use those arms.
Post a Comment