Trayvon Martin revisited
I’m not arguing with the decision in the Trayvon Martin killing by George Zimmerman. I have heard conservative commentators and even local right wing bigots (you know who I’m talking about) who have defended Zimmerman and Florida’s laws. Fine, although in my opinion these laws are reckless and are merely licenses to kill and murder. Let’s not argue about the case since a jury found Zimmerman innocent. If some of your readers have been defending the decision and Zimmerman, what would be your opinion about the following scenarios?
First, we will assume Zimmerman’s story is correct right up to and including the physical confrontation. During the scuffle, Trayvon sees the gun supposedly on his belt and seizes it. He shoots and kills Zimmerman and claims he feared for his life and killed in self-defense. Second, under the same facts, accept Zimmerman leaves his truck without his gun. Trayvon is 18 years old and has a permit for a handgun although his mother has asked him not to carry the gun. Zimmerman confronts him and Trayvon tells him “Bug off, honkie.” Zimmerman attempts to prevent Trayvon from going to the house where he is a guest and a physical confrontation begins. Zimmerman tackles Trayvon and Trayvon hits his head on the sidewalk when tackled. Trayvon pulls his gun and kills Zimmerman and tells the police he feared for his life and killed in self-defense.
Sure, many of you will proclaim there is not a drop of prejudice in your body and will say they would acquit Trayvon, although deep in their hearts they will know it’s a lie. Would the poison pen of Morgan Liddick defend a black boy wearing a hoodie claiming to defend himself against a white man who was legally at the scene? We all know blacks are more aggressive and start more fights than decent whites and of course anyone can claim to be unbiased when they know it is Trayvon who is dead. In my opinion, the law allowed both Zimmerman and Trayvon to legally kill the other if they claimed fear for their life.