- Transcript reveals confusion over ferry evacuation in South Korea
- Militants kill 14 Algerian soldiers in ambush
- Unbeliebable: White House turns Bieber petition response into immigration screed
- Obama signs law denying Iran ambassador’s visa, but says law is ‘advisory’
- Mich. judge to laughing convicted killer: ‘I hope you die in prison’
- Man charged in Kansas City-area highway shootings
- Keystone XL pipeline still on hold after State Dept. decision
- Fla. man charged with killing 16-month-old son to play Xbox undisturbed
- Drones from the deep: Pentagon develops ocean-floor attack robots
- Michigan mayor slaps back atheists’ try to erect ‘reason station’ at city hall
LAMBRO: Making a case for Trayvon Martin
The polarizing debate over race and politics begins
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
Women losing coverage under Obamacare, too
Get Breaking Alerts
- Scalia to students on high taxes: At a certain point, 'perhaps you should revolt'
- Former Ranger breaks silence on Pat Tillman death: I may have killed him
- Special Forces' suicide rates hit record levels casualties of 'hard combat'
- Feds approve powdered alcohol; 'Palcohol' available later this year
- EDITORIAL: Mark Warner running scared?
- CHARLES: Holder's undermining of the law deserving of contempt
- Army goes to war with National Guard, seizes Apache attack helicopters
- Justice at last: 'Evil woman' outed for grabbing girl's game ball
- 'Deport Bieber' petition draws no comment from White House
- Critics rail against liberal bias for commencement speakers