On my way back to the United States with fugitive Edward Snowden, I read about the Trayvon Martin murder trial. People seem to be pretty (and ugly) split in their defense of Martin or the defendant, George Zimmerman. I’m not a biologist, but I have two or more things to say:
1. Why the fuck are ‘citizens’ like Zimmerman becoming vigilantes running around suburbia with guns when violent crime statistics across the country have fallen precipitously over the last 40 years. (See the New York Times article “Steady Decline in Major Crime Baffles Experts“.)
3. Why did defense lawyers claim that Trayvon Martin used concrete as a weapon against George Zimmerman? If Zimmerman was stalking Martin, wouldn’t Martin thus have the right to defend himself using whatever means necessary, including concrete or karate. Does stand your ground only apply to people who are carrying guns? What about people who are unarmed? Are they the ones who have to justify their right to walk on any street in America at any time of the day?
4. Guns don’t kill people. People holding guns kill people. Limit access to guns in the hands of people who may kill people and maybe we can reduce the rising violent crime statistics of people using guns to kill people.
5. Why is it that Americans are presumed innocent before proven guilty in the court of law, yet we are allowed to shoot our fellow Americans down (especially in the State of Florida) on the streets without this same presumption of innocence?
6. Do people dress to kill and then buy skittles and ice tea instead or do people kill to kill regardless of the skittles or ice tea in one’s hands?
Anyway, like I said, I’m not physicist. I have to board my flight now from Vienna to an undisclosed location. I have Snowden in my purse and he has been a good sport about it. See you soon.