Case has created more questions than answers

Published: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 at 02:36 PM.

Bubba Fasbenner was an all American boy! He was a quiet person with a kind heart and a generous soul. Although he loved his family and friends, he was quick to help a stranger when they needed it. He has never been known to be violent in any form or fashion. Up until the day he was killed I have never heard anyone speak an unkind word about him.

His death has torn a huge hole in our hearts that’s not likely to ever completely heal. For me and those who knew Bubba, it has created more questions than answers.

I have always been one to believe in the right to bear arms. The right to defend yourself against deadly force. But because I know that Bubba was not a violent person, it has brought the whole "Stand Your Ground" law into question. I have not seen the evidence that would convince me the Stand Your Ground law applies in this case.

Shouldn't there be a burden of proof on the part of the shooter that indeed an act of violence ever occurred? The only thing that indicates someone’s life was in danger was the word of one man. The other witness in this case states that she was in the house and could hear them talking on the porch. Talking? Since when does talking constitute an act of so violent that you have to shoot someone?

We don't know for sure why Bubba was in his yard. Perhaps he was lost? But if this was someone you loved, would you consider it enough of a reason to shoot them? According to the media, the shooter said Bubba smiled and then he shot him. Since when is smiling considered an act of violence?

This really concerns me. I feel like the Stand Your Ground law has opened the door for people to kill for little or no reason at all. It is sad to think we have come to this. Are we as a people ready to go back to the old West way of living?

Since this awful thing has happened I have read the Stand Your Ground" law, the Second Amendment law and the laws for probation over and over again. It’s hard to look at the Stand Your Ground law without looking at the Second Amendment law because they are so closely written. But both say that one must be in reasonable fear of bodily harm or death in order to use deadly force. My question is this. When no clear proof is given, who gets to decide what is true and what is not?

1 2

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.

▲ Return to Top