The aftermath of the jury verdict in the Trayvon Martin case has not been well received by the public.

On one end of the spectrum are those who feel George Zimmerman should be held legally responsible for the death of Martin.

The other end of the spectrum includes those who feel Zimmerman's actions were legally justified in defending himself.

Last February, Martin who was shot and killed by Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch coordinator, in Sanford, Fla. after Zimmerman alleged Martin attacked him by knocking him down and banging his head multiple times into the ground. Zimmerman claimed self-defense, arguing he had a legal right to use deadly force to defend himself.

Regardless of where these people or you as a reader may stand, a young person just 17 years of age is dead.

The verdict has created a rather deep gulf between Zimmerman's jury approved innocence and anger over the verdict that has led to heated consternation and debate across the country, along with recent incidences of violence.

For instance, early last week, riots broke out in Los Angeles and Oakland, Calif. fueled by the verdict. In Los Angeles, a reported peaceful vigil turned into rioting resulting in trash set on fire, windows smashed and the protesters assaulting a television news crew.

In Oakland, about 250 protesters converged on downtown streets and vandalized cars and businesses.

While disappointment, anger and sadness are natural reactions to the death of a young person (or the death of anyone person), is this really the course that should be taken in the name of justice?

As thoughtful, responsible and educated members of a civilized society, what we should be doing is asking honest and serious questions involving the possession and use of weapons, the legally justifiable excuse for defending oneself from harm or death from another and the impact gun usage may have whether intended or not on our society.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1791, protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. While this right is a constitutional "right," with rights come duties and obligations on our part as citizens.

In addition to asking how we, as a nation, can reduce crime within our cities and delve into the results and consequences of committing crime, we must also ask, under what circumstances, one, with a weapon, may use force in defense of his or her self?

Another issue worth exploring is considering the inconsistencies within the 50 states regarding laws similar to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. Although the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants states powers not reserved or prohibited by the federal government, are state stand your ground laws consistent with or diametrically opposed to one another? Is there a benefit to a federal "Castle Doctrine" law that would eradicate these inconsistencies?

Under Pennsylvania's "Stand Your Ground" statue (18 PA consolidated statutes 505(b)(2.3)), adopted two years ago, a person in any lawful place outside his home "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force if ... (he) believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat."

Moreover, the Pennsylvania statue stipulates, deadly force may not be used unless the person against whom force is used displays or uses "a firearm" or "any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use."

Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" (776.013)(3) states "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

So, where does the inconsistency lie between the Pennsylvania and Florida laws? In Pennsylvania, before you can defend yourself without retreating, when possible and shoot a suspect because you are in reasonable fear of life, the suspect must possess a lethal weapon.

It is these inconsistencies between the individual states that tend to muddy the waters. Would a federal, universal law help to clear the inconsistencies?

Would a federal law offer more protections to both the victim and the citizen defending himself or herself?

Or, does it simply come down to personal responsibility and following the laws of this land?

As we ask questions like these and others and debate the law and attempt to move forward, let us replace fear, paranoia, violence and hatred with love for all, regardless of one's political persuasions or skin color.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

Mark Reccek

editorial assistant

Whitehall-Coplay Press

Northampton Press

Catasauqua Press