Questions for the defense in Trayvon Martin case
To the editor:
Popular with gun aficionados, the “Stand Your Ground” law, allows a person to kill another if he feels his life is at risk. This senseless law allows anyone to kill, and if there is no one to either dispel that belief or support it, the victim is dead and the killer can give any story that buttresses his claim, absent witnesses.
In the Trayvon Martin case, specifics are unknown, but certain questions should be posed that destroy the self-defense plea. Why didn’t George Zimmerman just take his gun and point to the kid and tell him to stop, or else? Furthermore, if he was in fear of his life, having a broken nose or abrasions on one’s scalp have never caused anyone’s death. Moreover, an official medic described Zimmerman’s injuries as inconsequential. How could a grown adult man let a kid get the better of him. Was Zimmerman paralyzed by fear of a kid?
Much can be said about Zimmerman’s frame of mind, as when he called in to report a mysterious person in the area and described Martin in derogatory terms, not knowing that it was an innocent kid doing nothing. It proves ill will toward minorities and profiling in a harmless situation. We’ll never know how he approached the kid, who didn’t know with whom he was dealing. Zimmerman should have said to Martin, “I am a neighborhood watchman; can I ask you what you are doing here? Instead, Trayvon must have perceived hostility, and we’ll never know how a scuffle evolved because the other witness is dead.
It is also important to note that Zimmerman lied on national TV when he said he knew nothing about the Stand Your Ground law. The truth is that he took a course in it, as attested to by the professor who gave the course. Furthermore, Zimmerman lied to the court about not having enough bond money when he actually had almost $200,000 in the bank.