In 1945 Canadian author Hugh MacLennan published Two Solitudes. The solitudes in the title are the French- and English-speaking Canadians and, in particular, the son of mixed parents who struggles culturally as a product of both English and French. It is a classic of Canadian literature that is still widely read today and included on the reading lists of many university courses.
While the two solitudes still exist today, I’d like to think that with increased immigration and education the divide isn’t as great as it was in the 1940s.
Given that only one shot was fired in the Zimmerman-Martin altercation, and that it was a direct shot to the heart from close range, not to a leg or arm, you’d have to wonder if Zimmerman was taking the advice of Mike from the S&W forum
I found it interesting that the concept of two solitudes was mentioned in a piece on the recent George Zimmerman trial by Steve Klingaman on open.salon.com titled The Zimmerman Verdict: When Justice Isn’t
It was racial animus talking. It was the America we cannot leave behind that is in fact the crux of a newer two-nation state. Two solitudes, one armed, according to, in Zimmerman’s words, “God’s plan.”
Was Zimmerman racist in his actions? Would he have done exactly the same thing had he seen a white kid? Did he say anything of a racist nature to Martin? Sadly we will never know the answer to the last question because Martin is not here to fill us in.
… that seems to be the underlying goal in self-defense, make sure the other guy can’t tell his side
I don’t believe that the jury was the problem, but rather the law that allows an aggressor to shoot an unarmed person and then claim self-defense. Wasn’t Martin merely defending himself? Again we will never know because we only have one side of the story, and that seems to be the underlying goal in self-defense, make sure the other guy can’t tell his side. While trying to get an understanding of the legal concept of self-defense I came across this post on the Smith and Wesson site:
If you shoot, shoot to kill- then it’s your word against a dead guys.. Makes it easier for you in a “Wrongful Death Suit”. With that said, out here in San Francisco and most of the left coast- where people vote for politicians with a ‘D’ after their name, the standard by which LE and in most cases, DA’s offices weigh shootings/ self-defense cases is “What was the perceived threat of the victim?”
Senario #1, 2am in the morning- you hear a noise, someone forcing entry into your home- You light him up protecting your property- bye-bye, you go to jail and you lose your house.
Senario #2, same event- you confront dick-head who is unarmed, and he says to you, “too bad you saw me- now I HAVE TO KILL YOU!! You light him up- all is right in the world—-if you killed him–if not, he refutes your sworn statement and you go to jail and lose your house.
You do not defend property with deadly force- only persons who are in immediate danger..
DEAD MEN TELL NO TAILS!!
PS. MAKE SURE YOU DRILL HIM WITH A LEGAL, REGISTERED TO YOU FIREARM THAT YOU DONT MIND LOSING, BECAUSE IT WILL BE TIED UP IN LITIGATION FOR YEARS…
RETIRED SERGEANT SAN FRANCISCO P.D.
I realize that this post may not reflect an entire nation, in fact several fellow posters on the S&W site criticized him severely. But it does show you that there are those out there who have it all planned out should they ever find themselves in a “self-defense” situation. Given that only one shot was fired in the Zimmerman-Martin altercation, and that it was a direct shot to the heart from close range, not to a leg or arm, you’d have to wonder if Zimmerman was taking the advice of Mike from the S&W forum.
Here’s hoping the two solitudes can come to some agreement!