Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Case study
Christopher Garcia
Persuasive Essay
Mrs. Burris MWF- 10 a.m.
18 November 2015
Murder or Self-Defense
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified on December 17, 1791, stating, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This gave people the right to defend themselves with weapons if being threatened, but the Second Amendment holds the distinction of being the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that essentially goes unenforced. Self-Defense is defined as "the protection of one's person or property against some injury attemped by another," and murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of another human being without
…show more content…
As is often the case, the witnesses’ had conflicting stories as to what occurred, making it difficult to prove or disprove the justice in Zimmerman shooting Martin in self-defense. Zimmerman did not face any criminal charges, but many believe that it was not self-defense. “Angry at Mr. Zimmerman and feeling threatened, Mr. Martin pushed him to the ground, punched him and slammed his head into the pavement, leaving visible wounds, defense lawyers said. Mr. Zimmerman, flat on his back, took out a gun and killed Mr. Martin. He told the police it was self-defense” (Alvarez). Was Zimmerman’s reaction understandable? Being beaten and thrown against the cold hard pavement creates a situation in which self-defense is necessary. However who felt the need for self-defense first? Martin was angry that, a man who did not even know him, was accusing him. Martin being younger and smaller than Zimmerman felt threatened by the mere fact Zimmerman was prosecuting him. By killing in self-defense, people are putting themself in a situation to either be a convicted murderer or a victim in a nasty
The case involved a neighborhood watchman, who happened to be on duty when he saw a young black man wearing a sweater jacket called a “hoodie”, walking through the neighborhood. George Zimmerman, the watchman, who was twenty-eight years old at the time, called authorities about a suspicious character walking around in his neighborhood. The authorities told him not to do anything; just continue with his rounds and not worry. Zimmerman, however, decided he would take matters into his own hands. He confronted the young man; they got into a brawl and Zimmerman pulled out a gun and shot and killed Martin. That premise will play a role in this paper as an argument as to why George Zimmerman should have been convicted of committing a crime. Even if the jury could not have reasons to convict him of the second degree murder of Trayvon Martin; they had other choices.
On March 12, 2012 Bill Lee, the Chief of Police for Sanford Florida, explained Zimmerman had not been arrested because the police found no evidence to refute Zimmerman’s self-defense claim (Timeline of events: Trayvon Martin shooting case). Then the media decided to bully the state of Florida into bringing Florida by influencing public opinion. One of the ways the media achieved this was by making it seem like the reason there was no evidence to refute Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense, and Zimmerman’s eventual acquittal, was because of the controversial law in several states, including Florida, known as “Stand-Your Ground.”
The Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Whether it is Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and person of the like, you may have a bad feeling about them due to their ill past. This is not due to an inner judgment of the person on your part, more than likely it is the media that has skewed your views of a serial killer. The news media is just playing their role in society and that is to inform people but they do so in a way that frightens people into coming back to view the media that they produce. The other types of media such as movies, television shows, radio stations, and books also portray serial killers as monsters to entertain people. Although it may be a great way to entertain and inform people, it is not the least bit true and gives serial killers a worse image by labeling them as monsters.
The Second Amendment states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This statement basically means that people should be able to own guns for their own security and that right should not be taken away. The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution because the creators of the Constitution wanted to make sure that it protected basic rights, including the right to bear arms. It was also added to the Constitution because shortly after it was ratified, James Madison wanted to give more power to the state militia and to give more power to the people to give them the ability to fight back against the Federalists and the tyrannical government they were creating. After fighting off the British, the Second Amendment was created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against controlling government and protect themselves with their own weapons.
The Second Amendment is often misinterpreted because of the wording; people believe it only applies to the military or militia. The Second Amendment reads; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” On June 26th, 2008, the Supreme Court established, in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, that citizens are the militia and the Second Amendment is an individual right. McDonald v. Chicago, set the precedent that the amendment covers every state and locality—not just federal enclaves (Levy 1). The Second Amendment has two clauses, the Operative Clause and the Prefatory Clause. The Operative Clause is the actual protected right and the Prefatory Clause is t...
As present in the Zimmerman case of 2013. 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was an unarmed teen wandering around in Sanford, Florida. Zimmerman had called 911 to inform them of a suspicious character around the neighborhood. The police informed him to stay in his car and not approach Martin. Zimmerman did not listen to the police. When the police arrived at the scene, they arrived to a dead body belonging to Martin, an African American teen, who was unarmed. Zimmerman was injured in the encounter. Immediately claiming that it had been an act of self defense. In the beginning, he was not tried as there was no proof to disprove his story. Later it is recommended that he be tried for manslaughter as he did not identify himself to Martin. In a recording of the 911 call there is a voice heard saying, “Help! Help!” It seems the voice is that of Trayvon Martin. Shortly after gunshots are heard. In the end, Zimmerman is found not guilty of murder as it was an act of self
According to www.archives.gov, the second amendment of the United States Constitution reads that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment is
For example, according to Dara lind “Officer’s aren’t supposed to shoot to kill. They’re supposed to do whatever is necessary to disable the threat”(Lind). Whenever an officer gets caught up in a difficult situation where deadly force is needed for the most part officers do shoot to kill because they feel like there life is in danger themselves. Yes like they said they are supposed to do whatever is necessary so therefore if shooting to kill someone is necessary to them then for police officers it is the right thing to do. But in reality in some occasions deadly force by a cop resulting in someone’s death is not needed and there should be other alternatives to handle difficult problems like that. In addition, “Usually, the point from where the officer believes he has to use deadly force to the point where he uses deadly force -- where he pulls
Written on December 15, 1791 was the second amendment of the constitution. It states that "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."(Cite)? United States citizens have used guns for various reasons that include protection, hunting, and sporting reasons. The topic on gun control is a very complex topic that is discussed daily. It is such a big issue that it has both the democrats and republicans firmly established in their positions. One of the main reasons this has been such an important topic in recent years is because of all the murders and massacres that have happened recently in the United States. As our newly nominated president, Donald
The Second Amendment “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This timeless phrase, the Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution, is an enduring example of the principles and ideals that our country was founded on. With this statement, the founders of this country explicitly and perpetually guaranteed the American individual the right to keep and bear arms. An incomparably crucial element of this country‘s origins, the Second Amendment and the rights it guarantees have proved vital to the growth and success of our nation. The Second Amendment has often been the subject of debate, and over the years varying speculations and interpretations of its intended meaning have forced this significant phrase into a controversial spotlight.
The second amendment states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Founding Fathers included this in the Bill of Rights because they feared the Federal Government might oppress the population if the people did not have the means to defend themselves as a nation or individuals.
The Second Amendment of the United States protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The United States Government should not infringe on those rights by the enforcement of gun control against law-abiding citizens. Gun control does not reduce crime, does not stop criminals from obtaining guns, and does not address the real issue of violent crime. There is no evidence that gun control affects the crime rate.
I was a firm believer in the death penalty when I was younger. Not fully understanding the severity and backlash that comes with it. I actually believed that lethal injection was a privileged way of dying for some crimes. I even supported the harsher punishments such as stoning or execution by firing squad. I use to think an eye for an eye. I felt that way from the pain of losing someone. As I grew older and became more open minded and seeing the world around me I oppose the death penalty. I feel the way I do for what may be common reasons, but also for reasons that might be less common. We are taught to think do people deserve to die for the crimes they’ve committed, but the real question is do we deserve to kill?