Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Atlantic.


Basically, if for some reason you are "afraid" of someone, it's OK to chase them down and murder them.  Like, for instance, if they happen to be a young black man carrying a package of skittles.


NY Times discussion


Remember all of those people arguing that laws against hate crimes were making people into criminals due to "thought crime"?  The "Stand your ground law" is the opposite. It makes murders into innocent people because they "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.” ...he can shoot to kill, regardless of whether the shooter is the one who initiated the hostile confrontation."  So "thought non-crime" saves the day.


I don't want to over-do emotion-ridden language, but where is the line between this and lynching?  Some details are different, but aren't the motivations and effects the same?  Just not an entire community involved in the act of the killing, but there is still someone chasing down another person and killing him. 


What states have "Stand Your Ground" laws?  Reuters.com  

MSNBC video on "Stand Your Ground" Laws.  These laws correspond to a 40% increase in "justifiable homicides"  According to the MSNBC report, 75% involve people of the same race.  That still doesn't justify Zimmerman's action.


These laws are favored by the NRA.  CNN.    "The statute has led to many nonprosecutions after investigations -- it is hard to find that a person did not act in self-defense when the person that was being defended against cannot refute the allegations, i.e., dead men don't talk. "

At the very least, it seems to me that Trayvon's murder was a hate crime.  I can't even comprehend that a white person walking through the neighborhood would have been killed in the same way.  He was killed in a racially motivated chase-and-murder. How is that not a hate crime?

Views: 99

Replies to This Discussion

Problem for me is, it looks like Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon, and had no reasonable basis for doing so other than his amateur profiling.  It looks like much of this is based on Zimmerman's version of the story.  We don't even know, really, if there was blood on him and if so, was the blood his or was it from the man he just killed.  If his head was really slammed into the sidewalk, and he got away without a skull fracture or a concussion, that's interesting.  DId the police take photos?  Since there was a murder involved, why wouldn't there be a photo of the supposedly attacked man / killer, before he was cleaned up?  Why would a murder not be investigated, instead of blowing it off as "yeah, probably stand your ground.  Well, take care, man.  Glad you didn't get hurt".


© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service