Briana Lanza Kyle
T. Thomas
English 102
21 February 2013
Is it Guilt or Misconception? Sometimes in life we face the situation in which you need to defend yourself from someone you felt was a threat to you or the people who you care about the most. This is a subject that has been discussed by people in the United States since 1877. The discussion has come from the idea of what is okay to defend yourself, what determines whether that person really as dangerous as they seem, when does it become an area where it’s a police officer’s job to take of it and not your own. From these questions laws have been formed that could be used to justify the actions in which you use to defend yourself. One of the many laws used for the rights of your protection is the Stand Your Ground Law. This law allows you to protect yourself whenever you feel as if your life is at risk, no matter of your location of property. Normally laws are created where you are allowed to protect your home or property but this law does the complete opposite. This law has not deterred crime but has increased the crime within the states which have the law (Vedantam). One of the many states with this law is Florida, and this is where the entire up roar of the law seems to be coming from. In the past year, killings using the Stand your Ground Law as justification have tripled to an astonishing 35 “justified killings” since 2005 when the law was enacted (Miami). One of those many astonishing killings was of Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old male who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman in a private complex. Zimmerman used the Stand Your Ground law to justify his killing of Martin. The story roared throughout the country in support of Zimmerman and in opposition of Zimmerman. Many people were upset with the fact that Martin was killed and Zimmerman was allowed to go free because of his claim of self-defense. After a month, Zimmerman was arrested and is currently awaiting trial for his altercation with Martin then resulting in Martin’s death by shooting. Many opinions have arisen about this instance; two people who have expressed their feelings on the killings are Mark NeJame and Kyle Scott. They use their article to express their opposing opinions on if Zimmerman should be found guilty. Although they both are opposed to persecution they look at the situation differently and this is shown in their words.
In Mark NeJame’s article, Trayvon Martin shooting wasn’t a case of racial profiling, NeJame discusses that he believes that Zimmerman’s case is one that has to do with once again someone taking too much power in their hands. In Zimmerman’s case after he was told not to follow him by the police. NeJame himself was a criminal defense attorney for more 30 years; he has handled many cases in this field and at first agreed with the uproar claiming that this was racial profiling, a truly ignorant killing but after time came to the realization that Zimmerman did not shoot Martin because of his race but because of the fact that he felt that he was in danger. This article does not have the support it could have needed to be truly persuasive to change someone’s mind who thought that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. NeJame mentions that Zimmerman used profiling of a person and not racial profiling to determine whether or not he thought that he was a danger to himself. The article could have been better if profiling was explained differently and his point seemed proven and not just left out to be considered. The fallacy that is used within this article is hasty generalization. In the article, he does not enough evidence to support his point of view. It would have been a more convincing article if he discussed the cases that should go towards misconduct rather than profiling. Although the argument in the article tries to prove a logical point it does not have the evidence I would need in order to really make an effect on the people reading it. This article was written last year a couple months preceding the killing and it could have been an opinion that was hard to prove at the time because of the unsure information they do have about the killing.
In the Kyle Scott article, Why George Zimmerman should not be ‘crucified’ for killing Trayvon Martin, Scott states that he believes that due process should let the people decide whether he is guilty or not and not the public. Scott noticed that the people in the media helped determine that he should be taken in and is going to affect everyone’s feelings with the case. Scott knows that the people are allowed to have their own opinion but they should not be allowed to determine his innocence. His statement is not well supported though because he does not explain what exactly he thinks they should do but only says that they should not judge that way and allow the justice system figure out whether or not he is guilty. The fallacy used in this paper was the straw man fallacy, it seemed from the outside that he could have some type of structure but in reality the paper just kept repeating the same thing over and over and not using any new proof with their arguments. Without strong argument and justified writing this makes it difficult for the person to believe what they have to say and for others to try and make something believable. This takes time and justification within your writing which makes you sound valid enough to get a point across. Improvement of the article would have come from the use of facts and statistics referring to the influence that the people had on their opinion of their guilty. A flaw to this paper comes from the article being written so closely after the event and not having the time to gather statistics and information.
When someone threatens your life you should have the right to defend yourself but at what expense does it become the police job to handle. When does it not become okay to defend yourself? When George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin he did it despite what the cops had told him. He had tried to take the place of the people who were supposed to protect us. I feel that if you have called the cops and still pursue knowing that you could be wrong and the person is not really a threat to you. George Zimmerman used profiling to say that Trayvon was a threat to the area but how much of a threat could he have been if it was only him walking at night time. No one deserve to feel unsafe on the streets, wondering if someone else finds them as a threat to society when they have done nothing to show that they were, you deserve to feel safe wherever you go without having to worry about being harmed in any kind of way. People’s safety is a huge problem having to be face while living in this country, I think it should be addressed and taken care of so people do not have to feel this threat while walking down the street.
