My letter is prompted by a letter by Catherine Loeb in the August 2, 2013 paper. Ms. Loeb stated that she is “not opposed to hunting and recreational shooting” and that she wants to see guns made “safer.”
I may be wrong, but this seems like another way of saying that she would like to see gun control and that the Second Amendment only is applicable to hunting and recreational shooting.
This rhetoric is common among advocates of gun control. Maybe Ms. Loeb is unaware of the history behind the Second Amendment. King George III attempted to disarm the colonists to continue to impose his tyrannical rule over them. The Second Amendment is a direct result of this attempted disarmament and created as a means for the citizens to protect themselves should the new government once again attempt to exercise tyrannical power over the people and deny them their rights. The founders knew this was a key component to maintaining a free society.
Ms. Loeb also strongly criticized Stand Your Ground laws and suggested, by citing Florida law prior to enactment of SYG, that Zimmerman would have been convicted under that law.
The previous law stated that a person must attempt to retreat and attempt to avoid the use of force. Ms. Loeb may have failed to apply this old law to the Zimmerman case because even a jury using the old law would have to acquit.
There is nothing that suggests Zimmerman wasn’t returning to his vehicle as directed by the 911 dispatcher. Furthermore, there was no confrontation to retreat from since he lost sight of Martin. As Zimmerman returned to his vehicle he was attacked by Martin, his nose broken and Martin on top of him slamming his head to the ground.
At that point he would have been in a position where he was unable to retreat and great bodily harm and possibly death were probable, which would justify the use of force in self-defense.
Had Zimmerman been unarmed and grabbed a rock, hit Martin in the head and killed him, would we even be having this discussion?
The fact that Zimmerman was carrying a gun for protection does not nullify the fact that he acted in self-defense.
Finally, I will address the race issue brought up in the original editorial and many letters since.
Mike, I agree with you that Sharpton and Jackson use the race card for personal and financial gain. If these two were truly fighting against racism, they would fight against all racism, not only when a black person is the victim. I don’t see these two standing up against the New Black Panther Party when they call for the killing of white men, women and children.
I have to ask myself this question, If the races were reversed and Zimmerman was black and Martin white, would Sharpton, Jackson, Obama and others who have made an issue of this still called this an act racially motivated?
I don’t believe they would have. There is a good case to illustrate the reverse of the Zimmerman case, the case of Roderick Scott in 2009. Just a few years prior to the Zimmerman case, Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed a white teenage boy in Greece, New York.
There was no media coverage, no cries of racism, and no Sharpton or Jackson playing the race card.
There was no investigation into civil rights violations by the Justice Department. Scott was acquitted as acting in self-defense.
New York is not a SYG state and the Scott case is very similar to the Zimmerman case, though Scott was not actually attacked.
Jackson and Sharpton are not fighting for an end to the racial division in this country, they are perpetrating it.
We have come a long way in changing attitudes about race in this country, especially views of white people toward blacks.
The key to continuing the progress we have made is to continue to bring everyone together as human beings, not continuing to divide us on the basis of differences in physical characteristics.