The recent Zimmerman case brings to mind a lot of issues we face as a society. Now personally, I feel like we should never have even heard about it. It should never have come to trial, it never should have been on national news, and we should have only heard about it in the NRA's "Armed Citizen." Regardless, there are a great many issues brought up by the trial that we can learn from.
One of these issues is our responsibility for our own safety. Now as we are all familiar, the law in Florida and Oklahoma says that as long as we are in a place that we have a legal right to be, we have the right to utilize deadly force to defend ourselves if we reasonably fear for life or limb. You've probably guessed by now that what I am getting around to is just because you have a legal right to be somewhere doesn't mean that it is wise to be there. I believe the prevailing consensus is that it was not wise of Mr. Zimmerman to exit his vehicle, despite having the legal right to do so.
It is this argument that I have heard from many people why he should have been convicted. As mind blowing as that is, I've hear a number of people say, "Well, it was very stupid of him to get out of his vehicle and follow Martin, so he had no right to defend himself when Martin attacked him, so he should be found guilty."
In my mind, that's like saying when a drunk woman in provocative clothing is walking down the street after midnight and is raped, it's her fault because of what she was wearing. I realize that's a potentially controversial statement, but it is the truth. A victim of an assault, who's in a place they have a legal right to be, is never at fault. However, that does not mean we aren't responsible for our own safety.
In the case of the woman above, it is not her fault a criminal attacked her. However, she could have mitigated the risk by traveling with friends, planning safe reliable transportation, and bringing a companion that will remain sober. In the case of Mr. Zimmerman, using a little bit of common sense would have resulted in a much different outcome. As the witnesses testified, Mr. Zimmerman was a wimp and wasn't going to be winning a fist fight with anyone. Not to mention he had no idea what kind of weapons Martin might have been carrying. Getting out of his vehicle that night he could just as easily have ended up dead himself.
Reiterating my points, we are responsible for ourselves. No one is more interested in your safety than you are. Avoiding dangerous situations, regardless of your right to be there, should be common sense. However, not using common sense, putting yourself in a dangerous situation does not make it your fault if you are attacked, nor does it mean you've forfeited your right to self defense.
One of these issues is our responsibility for our own safety. Now as we are all familiar, the law in Florida and Oklahoma says that as long as we are in a place that we have a legal right to be, we have the right to utilize deadly force to defend ourselves if we reasonably fear for life or limb. You've probably guessed by now that what I am getting around to is just because you have a legal right to be somewhere doesn't mean that it is wise to be there. I believe the prevailing consensus is that it was not wise of Mr. Zimmerman to exit his vehicle, despite having the legal right to do so.
It is this argument that I have heard from many people why he should have been convicted. As mind blowing as that is, I've hear a number of people say, "Well, it was very stupid of him to get out of his vehicle and follow Martin, so he had no right to defend himself when Martin attacked him, so he should be found guilty."
In my mind, that's like saying when a drunk woman in provocative clothing is walking down the street after midnight and is raped, it's her fault because of what she was wearing. I realize that's a potentially controversial statement, but it is the truth. A victim of an assault, who's in a place they have a legal right to be, is never at fault. However, that does not mean we aren't responsible for our own safety.
In the case of the woman above, it is not her fault a criminal attacked her. However, she could have mitigated the risk by traveling with friends, planning safe reliable transportation, and bringing a companion that will remain sober. In the case of Mr. Zimmerman, using a little bit of common sense would have resulted in a much different outcome. As the witnesses testified, Mr. Zimmerman was a wimp and wasn't going to be winning a fist fight with anyone. Not to mention he had no idea what kind of weapons Martin might have been carrying. Getting out of his vehicle that night he could just as easily have ended up dead himself.
Reiterating my points, we are responsible for ourselves. No one is more interested in your safety than you are. Avoiding dangerous situations, regardless of your right to be there, should be common sense. However, not using common sense, putting yourself in a dangerous situation does not make it your fault if you are attacked, nor does it mean you've forfeited your right to self defense.
