As I have heard Trayvon's parents say time and time again, they are not only fighting for justice for their son, they are fighting for all of us, especially those parents who have to live through the misery of burying their child and the sadness that comes after.
Their inspiring leadership has already led to action. In 2012, for the first time in 8 years, not ONE state in our nation passed a new "Stand Your Ground" law. The power of the NRA and their gun-toting cronies in business were stopped in their tracks by the Justice For Trayvon Martin movement. That is an incredible accomplishment. That is the mission we must continue after this trial is over.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-simmons/just-in-case-george-zimme_b_3566397.html
I don't know the author, and I hope that the author's genuine emotional engagement in this case will continue to focus on the positive as described in this article. But I wonder - does the author understand what "stand your ground" legislation means? Does the author realize it isn't a part of the TM/GZ case at all?
Does the author realize that "stand your ground" laws just mean that you or I do not have to run before defending ourselves from risk of grave bodily injury?
Each of us is granted the right to defend ourselves from grave harm at our birth. That right is more primal than the law. A law that requires one to run as the first measure of self defense is a violation of your right and mine.
Any law of self defense that requires one to first flee should be seen as an abrogation of our rights.
Their inspiring leadership has already led to action. In 2012, for the first time in 8 years, not ONE state in our nation passed a new "Stand Your Ground" law. The power of the NRA and their gun-toting cronies in business were stopped in their tracks by the Justice For Trayvon Martin movement. That is an incredible accomplishment. That is the mission we must continue after this trial is over.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-simmons/just-in-case-george-zimme_b_3566397.html
I don't know the author, and I hope that the author's genuine emotional engagement in this case will continue to focus on the positive as described in this article. But I wonder - does the author understand what "stand your ground" legislation means? Does the author realize it isn't a part of the TM/GZ case at all?
Does the author realize that "stand your ground" laws just mean that you or I do not have to run before defending ourselves from risk of grave bodily injury?
Each of us is granted the right to defend ourselves from grave harm at our birth. That right is more primal than the law. A law that requires one to run as the first measure of self defense is a violation of your right and mine.
Any law of self defense that requires one to first flee should be seen as an abrogation of our rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment