- Beretta leaves Maryland over gun laws, heads for Tennessee
- Neal Boortz defends Hillary Clinton for representing child rapist
- House task force to recommend National Guard on border, faster deportations
- Top federal judge uses pizza to explain complex Obamacare situation
- Obama, Biden overhaul job training programs
- Drought-plagued Californians turn to paint to keep lawns green
- ISIL now forcing Iraqi shopkeepers to veil mannequins in Mosul
- 11 parents of Nigeria’s abducted girls die
- Genetic mapping triggers new hope on schizophrenia
- Turkish P.M. Erdogan won’t speak to Obama, but he’ll take calls from Biden
LAMBRO: Making a case for Trayvon Martin
The polarizing debate over race and politics begins
Question of the Day
Florida legislators say that the state’s “stand your ground” law cannot be a defense for anyone to pursue someone else. State Rep. Dennis Baxley says, “There’s nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue and confront people.” Florida state Sen. Durrell Peadon, a sponsor of the law, flatly says Mr. Zimmerman “has no protection under my law.”
The president addressed this issue in his remarks last week. “I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened.”
Stand your ground laws are needed, but do they apply to Mr. Zimmerman’s case? Florida’s law — similar to the ones enacted in more than 20 states — says individuals may use deadly force if “he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.”
The law does allow people in certain instances to pursue and confront others, and those provisions may be in need of tightening. Did Mr. Zimmerman think such force was “necessary to prevent [his] imminent death or great bodily hard to himself”?
The medical examiner who looked at Mr. Zimmerman’s head wounds testified that neither they, nor the bloody nose he got from Trayvon’s blows, were “life-threatening.”
Besides, in this altercation, Mr. Zimmerman, who insisted he feared for his life, clearly had the upper hand: his gun.
He could have pulled out his gun during the wrestling match, stopped the fight, and called 911 for the police. But what would he have said? “I was following Trayvon, and he jumped me”?
With his gun trained on Trayvon, he could have left the scene and gone to the police to report what happened. He could have fired into his leg or his shoulder to subdue him. He had several defensive advantages over this unarmed, frightened youth, but he chose only one.
Mr. Zimmerman pressed the barrel of his gun into Trayvon’s chest just over his heart, pulled the trigger and killed him, because, as the prosecution said, he wanted to.
Donald Lambro is a syndicated columnist and contributor to The Washington Times.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
TWT Video Picks
The president could pay the full price for ignoring Congress
Get Breaking Alerts
- David Perdue defeats Jack Kingston in Georgia Republican Senate primary runoff
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- D.C. appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies
- 'Straight White Guy Festival' supposedly set for Ohio park
- Beretta moving to Tennessee over Maryland gun laws
- Gen. James Amos, Marine Corps commandant, slams Obama's handling of Iraq
- Pentagon team dispatched to Ukraine amid crisis with Russia
- BERMAN & MADYOON: An Iranian-Turkish reset
- MAY: Barbarians at Jordan's gate
- CARSON: Costco and the perils of mixing politics and business