Who remembers the time when the policeman who beat Rodney King was acquitted and riots erupted in Los Angeles?
If George Zimmerman were to be acquitted, would riots erupt in Florida and possible elsewhere as well?
Is it necessary for society (the USA) to sacrifice George Zimmerman to jail to prevent riots and civil unrest?
Is the USA going to make a federal case out of this just to appease minority groups and enhance election chances for certain candidates?
Shouldn't the police be staking out the home of the elderly couple mistakenly named as George Zimmerman's residence via Twitter tweets and investigating suspicious persons going there?
We should not need to know what kind sof arrests or school suspensions or drug dealing Trayvon Martin was involved in.
We should not need to know what kind of following or stalking of Trayvon that George Zimmerman did.
All we need to know is how the fight started and progressed.
One big problem of United States justice is not putting more sanctions on aggressive behavior. Maybe the fact that most lawmakers are men has something to do with this. In reality the person defending should have a lot more rights and leeway compared with the person who is attacking. The idea that one may only use comparable force to defend himself is very flawed and actually encourages aggressive behavior.
Here are two simple examples:
1. In basketball if a player goes up to an opponent and simply grabs the ball resulting in a one on one tug of war, a "jump ball" is called for. It would be better if the player who had the ball can choose a teammate to do the jump ball while allowing the player who tried to grab the ball has to do the jump ball himself.
2. In the event of a road collision, "being there first," more properly "being further along in the intersection" carries a lot of weight in determining who is at fault. Better would be putting more weight on who should have yielded the right of way. Not to discount the concept of "being there first" completely but one who should have yielded should have to prove that the other driver had a clear chance to avoid the collision as late as when the collision became imminent as opposed to having to anticipate the chance of collision.
And we should not give the aggressor lenience because he was aggravated or provoked.
Getting back to the Martin-Zimmerman case, the concept of self defense should require less effort to prove, not more. We might notice that as far as applying the "stand your ground rather than flee" principle. George Zimmerman could not flee; he was held down by Trayvon Martin. Incidentally I do not consider George Zimmerman's following of Trayvon Martin as an aggressive act; rather the aggression and also any application of the "stand your ground" principle started at the time of the first physical contact. or brandishing of a weapon. In the actual case, Trayvon had the last clear chance to stop the fight and that chance was very long and very clear.
Last updated 3/28/12
Go to other, unrelated, topics
All parts (c) copyright 2012, Allan W. Jayne, Jr. unless otherwise noted or other origin stated.
If you would like to contribute an idea for our web pages, please send us an e-mail. Sorry, but due to the volume of e-mail we cannot reply personally to all inquiries.