Killing to obtain security?
by anthony.ethier on September 9, 2013 - 11:13pm
Today guns are extremly presente in our society, but do this owner of arms are going to use it for the good purpose ?George Botelho and Holly Yan from CNN discussed, in their article, the case of George Zimmerman who shot to death the young african-american Trayvon Martin. The 17 years old boy was walking back to his home, through the rain, after having left a store. He was eating candy and drinking a soda on his way home when the neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman saw him. According to Zimmerman, Martin was acting suspiciously due to the fact that he was covering himself with his clothes. Zimmerman and Martin had a physical altercation and, to this day, it’s unclear who was the aggressor. To protect his neighborhood from violence, Zimmerman used his gun for self-defense and killed the young man. During the trial of the case, the race debate came up to the discussion. What could have happened if the young man was Caucasian? Did Trayvon’s race influence Zimmerman’s decision ? After a long debate and case study the jury tells that Zimmerman was not guilty.
Security and justice are both values that represent the ethical issue of Is killing to obtain security is good ?’’ In this case, security his representing the side of Zimmerman, he was a volunteer neighborhood watch, who means to protect his neighborhood. His job was to maintain the happiness and the good living of his neighborhood and most importantly his family. He was allowed to keep a gun with him and use it for self-defense to protect anyone from any type of crime or violence . He was dedicated to this security because he was not making any money for being guardian, it is a volunteer job. On the other hand, the principle of justice that Traven Martin was suppose to have received by the neighborhood watch by asking him to identify him self and let him the time to explain what he was doing at this time. Martin was walking back to his house calmly and was not bothering anybody. He was alone, not with friends, which proves that he was not disturbing or creating insecurity in the neighborhood. Also it is not because someone is of a different race that he is acting like the bad one of is cultural group. We can not judge a book by it’s cover so we can not judge a person by his skin color. We have to be fair with everybody. It is not because some african-american are in a street gang that all the african-american people are in this bad group and are bad like them. In this particular case no justice had been made, just a lot of controversy and pain. Especially the brother of the accused who was feeling sad and was shock by this situation regarding the victim’s family.
In my opinion, we should not kill anybody to obtain security. It is non-moral to act like that, many other ways may be use to preserve the security of a neighborhood. It was the first time that Zimmerman saw this kid, so before shooting him he should have talk to him and see if he really was a danger for the neighbor. Martin was a simple teen with no interest of doing bad things at this moment; he was alone where no one can influence him. Furthermore, he was coming back from a store where he bought a soft drink and candies, this demonstrates he had no bad intention in his mind. Zimmerman had no rights to shoot the teen boy, he shot him by the pure principles of generality, where he thinks that if a black man has a hoodie on his head and his hand in is pocket that he is going to do something bad.Do we really need to use violence to solve somebody's mind ?
Botelho, Greg, & Holly Yan. "George Zimmerman found not guilty of murder in Trayvon Martin's death." CNN. 01 Jan. 1970. Cable News Network. 14 Jul. 2013 <http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial>.