Yesterday’s decision by Florida prosecutors to put George Zimmerman on trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin may serve to calm some of the racially charged anger about the incident in which an unarmed African-American youth was killed. Though some are already claiming the Zimmerman case will resemble the O.J. Simpson murder trial in the way it divides the public, it’s clear most Americans are content to let the justice system sift through the evidence and hope that justice will be done. Outside of the usual suspects seeking to inflame racial tensions (i.e., Al Sharpton, a veteran huckster whose efforts along these lines received the bizarre praise of Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday), there is another political agenda that is being pushed forward by the Martin killing: derailing efforts of the National Rifle Association and other conservative groups to enhance the right of self-defense via “Stand Your Ground” statutes or the “Castle Doctrine.”
Though we have yet to learn the full account of what happened between Zimmerman and Martin on the night of the latter’s death, it’s fairly clear that neither of those legal principles had much to do with the neighborhood watch volunteer’s shooting of the young man in the hoodie except in the most general sense, as the shooter asserted he was attacked first. But the effort to associate laws that back up citizens’ rights to defend themselves on their own property with Martin’s killing is becoming a touchstone of liberal rhetoric and reportage, as today’s New York Times feature on the subject illustrates. The conceit of the piece is to pin the nationwide drive to enact such legislation on the NRA and along with it the responsibility for any innocent blood shed because of these measures. Yet, what the Times and liberal critics of the laws fail to understand is that the popularity of such laws has to do with what most Americans believe is the defense of their liberty and safety and not race.
It needs to be understood that nothing in the “Castle Doctrine” or the “Stand Your Ground” statutes that have been passed in Florida and many other states would make it permissible for a person to seek out a suspected intruder and shoot him as it is alleged is the case with Zimmerman. But though liberals look askance at the laws, the reason why they have been passed with such ease has more to do with the fact that a majority thinks it is reasonable that citizens have the right to use force to defend themselves in their homes, backyards or even inside their cars.
The left-right ideological divide over gun rights in this country is fairly clear. Conservatives feel Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms and to use them in self-defense. By contrast, most liberals disagree with the Supreme Court about the meaning of the Second Amendment and would like to see gun rights severely restricted if not functionally eliminated, as is the case with some cities where regulations make it difficult if not impossible for most citizens to legally own a weapon. This is an ongoing debate in which both sides often talk past each other and feed into each other’s worst fears. Indeed, some of the NRA’s efforts to derail even the most sensible efforts at controlling the use of guns that are not necessary for either sport or self-defense — such as assault weapons — stems from a not entirely unfounded belief that the ultimate goal of any such measure is the banning of all guns.
This is, at best, a divisive debate, but it needn’t be exacerbated by the injection of race into the discussion. The attempt to brand self-defense laws or gun rights as a function of racism does nothing to advance racial harmony or a sensible resolution of issues arising from the use of weapons. Most Americans are satisfied with letting the courts deal with George Zimmerman. Liberal ideologues would be well advised to let the case resolve itself without attempting to turn it into a referendum on gun control or seeking to demonize the NRA.
"Yesterday’s decision by Florida prosecutors to put George Zimmerman on trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin may serve to calm some of the racially charged anger[...]" I would change the word "put" to "sacrifice". n"The left-right ideological divide over gun rights in this country is fairly clear." nWe Jews should know better. The greart Jabotinsky certainly did.
Exactly, after all the mobs and, racehustlers need satisfaction. nI'm dumbfounded at the proscecutors statement to the Martin family, thanking them etc…what is wrong with picture? nWhile your article is focused on the NRA, I find the race baiting/hate issues more important at this time; after all white people are being threatened everywhere these days; incl but not limited to the black panthers and, their outright incitement of violence against whites. Not a peep form our racebaiting president nor chief law officer holder. What gives? n nSo far, the only one appearing to be rail roaded is Zimmermann; he has been found guilty before found innocent by a hack media, racehustlers sharpton, jackson, holder, obama black panthers and, the rest. He will not receive a fair trial, no matter what; a sacrifice is needed to keep the mob satisfied. n nI hope that my comment are not again either deleted, censored or moderated!
“Liberal ideologues would be well advised to let the case resolve itself without attempting to turn it into a referendum on gun control or seeking to demonize the NRA.”r nr nWhy should liberal ideologues do that? One might consider the possibility that they are using this case to attack self-defense rights precisely because they have been unsuccessful in doing so legislatively.
They tried to blame the NRA for the Oklahoma City bombings, too. n nAnd every now and then someone gets it into their head that because the Democratic Party dislikes the NRA, it must follow as night the day that the NRA is a racist organization. Never mind that the NRA board of directors, as well as its membership, includes Americans of every race. And never mind that in the days before the civil rights act, at least one black community in the deep south enlisted the NRA's help to organize a rifle club so that they could get marksmanship training and Army surplus Garand rifles, which they used to stop the KKK's frequent violent night rides through their neighborhood.
Self-defense is not the issue. Maybe if Zimmerman had received proper training (I am assuming he did not) then he would not have put himself in a situation where he felt compelled to use his gun to kill someone. (I am giving him credit and assuming he did not intend to kill a black man that night for some other reason). He was not a policy officer and I don't know "stand your ground" laws are intended to immunize wanna-be cops patrolling their neighborhoods.
I don't think the NRA has anything to worry about. The radicals and the sinking NY Slines will find a rough road. Ask Bill Clinton.
So perhaps we could find a way to associate the New York Times with Al Sharpton and prosecute them for the massacre at Freddy's. If the Times has no limits; it should be subject to none either.
What kind of stupid prosecutor claims she isn't pressing charges just because of the pressure of such as Black Panthers and Al Sharpton and kind – when witnesses testified that 6'2" thug was slamming Zimmerman's head into the pavement and telling him he was going to kill him. n nIf Zimmerman didn't have a gun on him, Zimmerman would be dead and the Black Panthers would still be making a hero out of Trayvon.
The prosecutor is far from stupid. You should be so stupid. n nYou don't know the evidence. Why do you feel the need to make pronouncements with such loaded language? Ideological reflex rather than thought is manifest in your comments. They're as bad as the screeching left's screeching when it too doesn't know what it's talking about. n nLet the evidence come out and let the judicial process unfold. And in the meantime try to keep your reflexive ideological powder dry, I suggest, only humbly and with the deepest respect.
Tobin, I actually don’t know if most Americans are happy to let the court system take care of this, so I won’t dispute it, but I myself am extremely unhappy, as it is my profound belief that the evidence publically available does not support. The afadavit made available today does nothing but increase that feeling.
So what we have here is a situation where certain groups, traditionally who have been bested by members of another group and some of whom appear to have a profound dislike for that second group, have made accusations to the rest of the world that the evidence does not fully support, but the world, thanks to political correctness, is making sure to pay every attention to the complaints, because a young member of the first group was in fact killed, regardless of whether justified or not. Some think that the first group is just trying to blood libel the entire second group and that no real crimes are involved, but apparently most Americans are happy to let Al-Jazeera determine the narrative about Israel.
I wish you a good day.
it's pretty clear that toobin, sharpton, the new black panthers, the msm and ag holder are at the head of a modern day lynch mob intent on souring the jury pool in order to deny this man a fair trial. to those people who haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with anything other than the misleading and factually inaccurate headlines in the msm but have joined the bleating masses of sheep declaring this man guilty, SHAME ON YOU for being so gullible. i don't know the full facts of this case…and neither does anybody else at this point. if you think you know enough to convict this man already, then thank god you are not on the jury and i certainly hope you are not in a position of any authority. i also hope you are not in a similar situation where you are tried and convicted in the media by race baiters and charlatans out only to advance their own cause and their own careers. social justice is not justice, as real justice is blind to color and social position. shame on all of you. history will not look kindly on you and i, for one, will make sure you never forget the truly disgusting behavior exhibited by the despicable cast of usual characters.