The reason the local police have not prosecuted the shooter was for the reason of self-defense. To recap: Florida passed a law known as “Stand Your Ground” in 2005 that gives people who feel threatened the right to use lethal force. This idea, according to Slate editor Emily Bazelon and Harvard law professor Jeannie Suk, has its roots in domestic violence. The NRA spearheaded the law, focusing on the right of women to protect themselves and ultimately championing the second amendment rights using their influence as a large interest group. Recently, those who created this law claim that the shooter “negated his ability to claim immunity under the law by chasing Martin.” Many still doubt this law, calling for it to be repealed in light of these events, asking for better gun control if nothing else.
In addition, the US Department of Justice has announced that it will “open an inquiry into the shooting” including a civil rights probe and FBI investigation, responding to Martin’s parents’ and protestors’ pleas. While this may reflect how citizens believe more strongly in the power of the federal government to be impartial, this could simply be another power play within the checks and balances of federalism. In addition, acting based on the direct wishes of the citizens speaks to a plebiscitary version of democracy, except that no voting actually occurred.
Ultimately, what these citizens want is justice and an end to racial profiling. The Trayvon Martin situation, which has not been brought into court yet due to lack of charges, will end as either a moment of shame where racial prejudice triumphs proper justice or a moment of triumph where the death of a 17 year old boy is brought to justice and skin color does not cause fear and suspicion.
Rate this posting:
{[['
']]}
']]}