Home » Politics » Zimmerman Case: The Right to Self-Defense Upheld

Zimmerman Case: The Right to Self-Defense Upheld


At first I wasn’t going to blog about the Zimmerman and Martin case.  There has been so much race-baiting that really isn’t necessary or relevant, and the people who are upset about the verdict aren’t really open to reasonable debate.

Now that Zimmerman has been declared not guilty, the internet has gone insane.  There is so much bloodthirstiness and jokes in really poor taste.  I’ve already unfriended one person on Facebook, and there may be more of that in the future.

Honestly, if Zimmerman were black, I don’t think this case would have been national news.  It’s only national news because the young man who died was black, and the man who killed him has been described as white.  It wasn’t a sensational or shocking crime.  Skin color is the primary (if not only) reason the media and others assumed Zimmerman must be an evil, malicious person, and have been out for his blood.

It’s disgusting how many death threats and jokes about killing Zimmerman have been made.  I wonder how many people making those threats and jokes would, in other circumstances, claim to be against the death penalty.

The riots are especially appalling.  If you care so much about preventing violence, why would you go cause some more?

Zimmerman was legally carrying a gun.  He saw someone (Trayvon Martin), behaving suspiciously and started to follow him.  Zimmerman stopped and returned to his car.  Martin attacked him, and Zimmerman defended himself by shooting Martin.

What would happen if Zimmerman had been declared guilty?  Well, then we might as well follow the UK’s example and just outlaw self-defense.

Martin did not have a weapon.  Zimmerman had a gun.  Many have argued that, since Martin was unarmed, Zimmerman’s actions were unwarranted.

Such logic is ridiculous.  If someone attacks someone else with fists, then they can only use fists to defend themselves?  What if the attacker is bigger and stronger?

Some detractors have tried to explain away Zimmerman’s injuries, saying they weren’t really all that serious.  How serious do your injuries have to be before you’re allowed to defend yourself?  Is a black eye serious enough?  A broken nose?  A gaping and bleeding stab wound?  This line of reasoning is also ridiculous.

If someone physically attacks you, you need to have the right to defend yourself with deadly force.  Anything else is a complete negation of the right to self-defense.  If you can only defend yourself with the same type of weapon, or only after they’ve caused a critical injury, or any other type of restriction, the right to self-defense doesn’t really exist.

Side note: A petition to the federal Department of Justice says that Zimmerman violated “The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life…” when he killed Martin.  So…there is a right to life after all.  It’s not just some crazy idea the anti-abortion crowd has.

You know, there’s no prize for being the most hypocritical.


What do you think about it?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: