18 May
Who Starts the Fight?
This is related to the Zimmerman/Martin kerfuffle because I started thinking of the many comments made about that incident.
Comments like ” Zimmerman shouldn’t have been following Martin, that started the whole confrontation”. Or ” Martin was afraid for his life because Zimmerman was following him.”
Those type of comments are common; that following someone or that questioning someone is starting the fight.
I just wonder if the people have really thought through the implications of what they are claiming. I don’t think they have.
Situation #1
A woman walking down the street at night; it is late and she is alone. Somedood makes a comment about her appearance or lets loose with a wolf whistle as she approaches. As she walks by, he starts to follow.
Situation#2
A college student walking through the neighborhood on his way home from a late class. Somedood stops leaning against at light pole and starts following him.
Situation #3
Walking down the street, you notice a homeless person sitting on the curb. As you walk down the street you notice he is now walking along behind you. You are the only two people on the street.
Situation #4
Walking through the store, you notice someone not in uniform following you around. As you pay for your merchandise and start to depart, he yells for you to stop right there.
Now did anyone of the people following the others do a single thing wrong?
Nope, not a single thing wrong. A Neighborhood Watch volunteer following someone through a neighborhood wouldn’t be doing anything wrong. It could be taken as unfriendly or even as if that person was suspicious but hey, that is what a neighborhood watch is supposed to be right?
Now imagine if it goes further
Situation#1
The dude yells out “Hey Sexy, Wanna go have some fun?
Situation#2
The dude following catches up and asks “Hey, what are you doing walking down my street?”
Situation#3
The homeless person starts ranting and raving about demons and devils taking over people’s bodies and only he notices.
Situation#4
The guy says “I need to see what is in your purse”
This is what I’m struggling with — is stopping a person, questioning a person enough to be considered starting a confrontation, enough to justify the person being questioned using violence?
I don’t think so but according to those vilifying Zimmerman it is. Could each of those situations be a set up for a crime, absolutely yes. But they could also just as likely to be an encounter completely devoid of malicious intent.
This is why I think it is important for gun owners, especially those who carry outside the home, address the case and the details of the encounter. We can show people that we understand the law. We can show people that we can distinguish between an innocent encounter and a crime. We can show people that we seek to avoid violence; look at the number of blog posts and articles about how to avoid situations.
It is also important that we continue to discuss the ethical and moral factors involving when, why and how a person should defend themselves. Our discussion of the incident can (and does) show that we gun owners are very aware of the full impact of our decision to carry. That the vast majority of gun owners have thought through the legal, practical and moral aspects of self defense.
It seems to me that the anti-rights cultists want to avoid discussions like that because it flies in the face of their claims. Claims that we are just blood-thirsty vigilantes, that we are racist, that we are unaware of the law, etc.
In the above scenarios, I don’t know a single gun owner that would have even pulled a firearm based on the information provided.
So does it help or hinder our rights by discussing incidents like Zimmerman? Please join the discussion.


Recent Comments