I am not going to weight in on whether Zimmerman was right or wrong. I was not there. I did not see it. I did not hear it. I know about what the media said went down and that is all. Sadly, however, apparently, the media did not expose all the details. As with anything else, it came down to ratings based on selective reporting.
But, I will say that I have been on both ends of a gun barrel.
The first time, I was one the dumb end. Invited to a party at a hotel. By the time I got there, it was in full swing and some folks had gotten out of hand. As I walked towards the building, the manager held a .44 to my head while he questioned me as to why I was there. I was unarmed. Upon learning of what the others were doing, I left.
On the other end, I was robbed while closing shop one day. I had a .32 in the desk. I could have legally dropped the bad guys. I never reached for it. I stayed calm and rationalized that its easy enough to replace the stolen cash. Them boys could not be replaced. Those same boys came back to steal ATV's. I used the gun then. I did not shoot them- just held them until the county cops showed up.
So, based on what I just explained, if you are looking into the flashing end of a gun, stay cool, don't fight unless its for sure it ain't going to end well anyway.
If you are on the trigger end, use common sense and weigh the options.
In the Martin/Zimmerman case, both were at fault and each shared responsibility for the outcome.
Now, do I support the "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" rules?? I must say I do. Again, use common sense and think clearly.
What are the differences?? Stand your ground represents protecting oneself and others with whatever force is required wherever you may be. The castle Doctrine provides you the ability to protect yourself and your family/visitors while inside your own home.
A particular case involving the castle doctrine is the one regarding Sarah McKinley. She shot and killed one of two intruders inside her home. They were armed, knew she was alone with her babies and that her husband had just recently died. Them boys was up to no good. Did she have the right to protect herself to that extent? Legally, yes. Now, imagine this is your wife and your babies in this case. Do you support her decision to kill??
A recent case involving stand your ground rule: Sherry West is taking her young son for a walk in his stroller. Two young men approach her demanding money. She had none to offer. One of the men shoots her 13 month old son in the face. Sherry is unarmed. OK, now, would you support the stand your ground rule here?? Sherry, had she been armed could have taken out one or both of the men. But, she had no money and no gun. Now, she has no son.
Since coming here, I've been told many times that the US needs to ban guns. That, it is said, will stop crime and all the shootings. But, will it?? Of course not. Anyone that thinks, for one moment, a criminal will give up his weapon because it is illegal to own is foolishly mistaken. All this will do is make every law abiding citizen an easy, unprotected target.
This is not to say that I think everyone should own a gun or should have a CCW. I don't. I think severe penalties for using weapons to commit a crime are in order. Currently, there are laws about this. But, let's face facts: if you get 10-15 years for robbery, is there much difference in committing armed robbery and getting 15-20? They are equal felonies. The biggest difference is early release. In armed cases, the convicted should do 20 years {or more} to the door.
While the rest of the world thinks we should not be permitted to own guns, it must be remembered that the US Constitution grants us that right. Not for street fights and not for crimes, but for hunting and protecting ourselves {even against the government} should the need arise.
Personally, I own weapons. Both here and there. Am I qualified? I would like to think so. I don't know how many marksmanship medals I earned while serving my time in the military. But, being able to shoot straight does not mean you are qualified for possessing a firearm- being of reasonable, calculable mind does.
I thought it odd that this, the most appreciable form of qualification, was never mentioned in the trial. There are too many unqualified, yet legal, people that own weapons. Not just in the US, but everywhere.