I think personal security on an individual level is often overlooked. I also think that individuals on a more frequent basis are at risk of harm in the United States because of poorly thought out gun laws. Gun control is a contested issue in the states, where many consider the right to bear arms one of the most important amendments, if not the most important. This entry is not really about gun control, because that is a topic that needs far more in depth analysis than is what allowed for here. I will say though, that the perception of Americans overseas as trigger happy cowboys is not alleviated any by the NRA and the so many Americans who place the right to bear arms above the security of others.
The tragic shooting death of Trayvon Martin has brought gun control back into the spotlight along with a controversial and widely unheard of law referred to as “stand your ground” (SYG). The SYG law differs state to state mostly in regards to the “duty to retreat” aspect of the law. In some states, you have a duty to retreat in a public place, but not your own home. In some states however, like Florida, you have no duty to retreat anywhere and can use deadly force if under a reasonable threat. This opens the door to an abuse of such an ambiguous law. A little research has revealed this defence has been used in many shooting deaths in Florida, including instances of gang violence and bar fights. It is extremely hard to prove someone was not under threat, especially if there are no witnesses and thus it is near impossible to convict someone of murder in many circumstances. Some have referred to this law as the “shoot first law”, perhaps accurately so.
On February 26 2012 Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a community watch coordinator. Trayvon was unarmed, and was shot after a supposed altercation. Zimmerman has not been arrested due to a lack of evidence and because he is protected by the law which says he did nothing wrong. Only in the United States could one individual shoot someone and kill them, and not be detained, at the very least for some serious questioning and witnesses were brought forward. The law needs to be re-evaluated immediately and I think it anything good comes of this tragic event it will be a change or abolishment of such a preposterous law. There is nothing wrong with self defence, nor is there anything wrong with laws protecting acts of self defence. However, there is definitely something wrong with shooting an unarmed teenager 70 yards from his home.
Another issue is why George Zimmerman was carrying a gun to begin with. He had the gun legally, but was not supposed to be carrying one as a community watch coordinator. You are not supposed to carry a gun as a neighbourhood watchman, but because he had it legally, he did not technically break any laws. He just broke a rule. There is no need for him to have a gun. It sounds bad if Trayvon did attack him or knock him down, the worst that would have happened was a physical altercation between two unarmed men. Arguably, being in a possession of a gun made Zimmerman more aggressive and confident in the situation which led to the altercation in the first place. In the end, there is no way this 17 year old boy should be dead.
The protests surrounding the case have brought mass media attention to Trayvon’s death. Unfortunately, politicians and civil rights leaders have used his death as an opportunity to gain attention and score cheap political points. However the protests have brought attention to the laws in question which is positive. Hopefully there will be some form of justice for Trayvon and his family. Even if he was being attacked there was no reason why George Zimmerman needed to shoot to kill as an act of self defence.
No comments:
Post a Comment