◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

The people crusading against Florida’s Stand Your Ground (SYG) law readily admit that SYG had nothing to do with the Zimmerman or Michael Dunn cases – and then blame SYG for Trayvon Martin’s and Jordan Davis’ death.

Commentator Dennis Trainor Jr. [in the video above] does the SYG two-step with the best of them: “They’re also angry at the ALEC-written Stand Your Ground laws that – while it played no direct role in your not guilty verdict – played a very direct role in the culture that empowers you to cruise around packing heat in the first place.”

So even if the law’s right, it’s wrong. Over to you, Al Sharpton . . .

“To have laws that tell people that they can shoot first and then ask questions later is a violation of our civil rights. I believe that law is inherently wrong,” Sharpton said before the march began. “The law in effect says based on your imagination — if you imagine I’m a threat — you have the right to kill me.”

Sharpton’s misrepresentation of the facts was so blatant that ABC News felt obliged to sum up the actual law in their otherwise obsequious report on the march.

“Florida law says people who are not involved in illegal activity have the right to stand their ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if they reasonably believe it’s necessary to avoid death or great bodily harm.”

The bit that the protestors always seem to miss: it’s up to the police, prosecution, judge and perhaps jury to decide what constitutes a “reasonable belief.” Truth be told, SYG is a logical, indeed relatively minor extension of “common sense” laws regarding the use of lethal force. It simply removes the obligation to retreat from a lethal threat and protects victims from civil lawsuits after a successful adjudication.

Which make one wonder what exactly the anti-SYG protestors are protesting about. Oh wait. Racism.

“What the law is actually saying is this country doesn’t value the life of black and brown kids. We want our kids to understand their lives are equal value of anybody else life,” the elder Martin said.

Quick question: what was the point of the Civil Rights movement? I thought it was a crusade by African-Americans to claim the economic, political and personal freedoms enshrined in the United States Constitution. To my mind those “civil rights” include the Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms.

At what point did that noble crusade turn into a mindless jihad against a law that protects all Floridians from violent assault, regardless of their race, creed or color?

The way I see it, the SYG march was a cynical attempt to paint African-Americans as victims. In some ways, it was successful. Which made it a miserable failure.

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

79 COMMENTS

  3. Agree with jwm, enough with this guy already. What happened was done and over with, let it be.

    To Mr. Sharpton: Stop race baiting, I’m considered a “minority”(thats an annoying word) as well and agree with every bit of the SYG law. Nothing in the text of the law says anthing about “race”.

    • If he were to stop race baiting the good Reverend would have to retire. That means no more spotlight, and God knows THAT’S not going to happen…

      • [With apologies to Mel Brooks]

        Social services worker (SS): What’s your profession?

        Al Sharpton (AS): Civil rights activist.

        SS: Pardon me?

        AS: When racial injustice comes to my attention, I reach out to local leaders in order to help them mobilize community resources to put pressure on public officials until the injustice is appropriately addressed.

        SS: Oh, a race baiter. Did you race bait this week?

        AS: [Grumbles] No.

        SS: Did you try to race bait this week?

        • NICE! Mell Brooks History of the World Part 1 reference!

          (By the way, I AM a Stand-up Philosopher)

      • If he were to stop fanning racial hatred the Rev would have to get a real J-O-B. Perish the thought! I don’t believe he has any marketable skills.

    • Luckily for all of us Stupidity is not a criminal offense. We all have had our moments. And if you are saying no, then you just haven’t had yours yet.

  6. There is the actual racism of the SYG law in Florida. It costs $200 plus to get the required training and licensing fees for the Florida concealed weapons and firearms license. Which is not easy to come by for poor minorities who would need it. It is easily fixed by allowing constitutional carry of both open and concealed with no license provided you are allowed to purchase a firearm from an FFL, which they would never support

    • It also discriminates against poor non- minorities. What does being poor have to do with having a particular skin color?

    • Incorrect. The education requirement of the permit can be done for free through a hunter safety course. Permit itself is right around $120. And how in the world does being a minority automatically result in a lower income. Statistically yes it’s true but they are just that, statistics. If you can’t save $120 you have some budgeting issues. However I do agree with you on constitutional carry.

  7. One thing I can almost agree with President Obama on is that he said has close to zero tolerance for “professional blacks” (not black professionals) like Sharpton, Jackson, and their ilk whose whole careers revolve around throwing down the race card at every opportunity. Nevermind that he is one himself.

  8. Sharpton said:

    “The law in effect says based on your imagination — if you imagine I’m a threat — you have the right to kill me.”

    If that was truly the case, I don’t think the Rev would be around to make such statements. On the positive side, it seems like some people are starting to disagree with his “guns are the only problem” sophistry.

    • Don’t be too hard on him. Stand your ground is based on the supposed actions of a reasonable man. The good Reverend has no point of reference in that area.

  11. “What the law is actually saying is this country doesn’t value the life of black and brown kids. We want our kids to understand their lives are equal value of anybody else life,” the elder Martin said.

    Was he talking about abortion just now??? Oh, wait, this article is about SYG. Move along, nothing to see here.

  12. I don’t really see much difference in SYG or DTR. If I have the ability to retreat/resolve and still use deadly force I’m pretty sure my defense wouldn’t hold up under SYG either, but at the same time if I can’t retreat, and I’m forced to use deadly force my defense would hold under either. In the aftermath it just changes who has the burden of proof, but if you situation was legitimately justifiable, it should hold under either statute. Of course I support SYG completely because of the defense against antis in the aftermath trying to crucify you.

    • “If I have the ability to retreat/resolve and still use deadly force I’m pretty sure my defense wouldn’t hold up under SYG either”

      Unless I vastly misunderstood your point there, I don’t think you understand Stand Your Ground laws.

      SYG laws take the ABILITY to retreat out of the equation completely, and place all the justification for lethal force on imminence of threat. As it should be.

      In other words, don’t waste what could be the last seconds of your life wondering if there’s a way to retreat and if you should try or not.

      • “..SYG laws take the ABILITY to retreat out of the equation completely,”

        More specifically it removes the ability for someone, like a prosecuting attorney, to ask you why you didn’t just retreat. This, of course, is being asked by people who weren’t involved in the situation, have had plenty of time to look at the options, lots of photos of the scene where it can be scene that there was an ‘exit’ right behind you/around the corner/over to your left by 50 feet/etc…..

        It returns the focus to the incident, not the ways it could have been escaped.

      • What real world situation would you have the ability to retreat and have justification of deadly force? I understand SYG and that it allows someone using justifiable self defense to be protected from loophole prosecution saying “Why didn’t you decide this instead in the 5 seconds you had to think while fearing for your life against an armed criminal?”, but to me it doesn’t change anything related to the situations you can use deadly force in because I wouldn’t use deadly force unless other options were not avalible.

  13. I am sorry but George Zimmerman appearing at a gun show just seems tacky and inflammatory to me. My opinion is this: The man made some foolish decisions. Those decisions have cost another person their life and ruined his. George Zimmerman should be the example of what gun owners & carriers do not want. He was found Not Guilty, indeed he should not have been charged with a crime but his life is a shambles and his choices helped make this so. Please leave the public eye George Zimmerman, you are not helping Gun Owners or yourself.

    • I doubt very many life insurance companies would have lined up to provide coverage to the young Trayvon. He wasn’t long for this world, anyway. As for Georgie boy, here, well he doesn’t have many options now, either. All he has is this infamy to trade on.

      I think a lot of people hammrring this guy could fairly easily have wound up in such a situation themselves. Consider there’d been a very frustrating rash of robberies in the complex. These victims are people who aren’t wealthy and cannot afford the losses. And that’s all aside from the personal violations they felt and the sense of powerlessness they perceived on the part of the local police.

      GZ just wanted to help people out, probably not unlike others here would do.

    • The man was protecting his neighbohood while others cowered in fear and the jellies ignored the crime spree. Regrets? He may have a few, but he did it his way and never looked back. Rock on, GZ.

  16. Why do people think unequal application of the law can be resolved by changing the law? It’s never worked that way. Prosecutorial discretion means the “right sort” of people get leniency; Zero-tolerance means the “wrong sort” of people get the book thrown at them.

    At least this time they’re honest about this being about culture – or rather their perceived right to use the blunt instrument of criminal prosecution to promote their cultural vision.

  17. SYG is the codificaiton of the traditional common law principle that says the honest man has the right of way over a law breaker. DTR laws reverse this tradition and give the attacker the right of way. The hidden agenda of the opponents of SYG is to turn the streets over tthe criminal element and use the them as tool for social control.

  18. Whenever I see Al Sharpton’s name I now remember this “http://youtu.be/kcpE2XeUjlg” and just assume he stole it from somebody else that said it first.

  19. Nowhere in his diatribe does he address T Martin’s actions that led to his own death. But what can you expect, they can’t even get the earth’s rotation correct.

    • You mean like circling Zim”a truck like a wolf around its prey? Or the fact he went home and came back to confront Zim? Don’t get me wrong, I am sure Zim only got out if the truck because he was packing. But isn’t that why it’s there in the first place?

  20. I don’t speak for the world but enough with the fat guy being put upon a pedestal, the 15 minutes are up, move out of the spotlight and stop wasting time. There are lots of people stopping serious crimes (without defying a police order and confronting someone on the street) who aren’t being given any attention at all.

    • What police order? The non-emergency operator’s “We don’t need you to do that?” You realize that guy is as much a police officer as the fellow who mops the police station’s floors at night, right? Also, that operator testified at trial that that was not an order.

    • Hmmm…. am afraid your bias is peeking through again! No “police order” was issued to GZ, despite what Sharpton and MSNBC have parroted for the last year. Details….

    • There was as much of a police order given on that night as there was “iced tea” purchased. You knew the fix was in on this case as soon as the media started lying about thug drug boy’s Arizona brand watermelon cocktail for his sizzurp.

  21. I’d pay big money to see a Celebrity Death Match between Al Sharpton and George Zimmerman. BIG money. But none of that claymation sh1t — it’s gotta be for realz.

  22. Zimmermann needs to move to somewhere that doesn’t know or care about him and shut up and live his life and count his blessings.Sharpton needs to do the same thing!

  23. So to use a Ben Shapiro strategy, the way to respond to this : ““What the law is actually saying is this country doesn’t value the life of black and brown kids. We want our kids to understand their lives are equal value of anybody else life,” the elder Martin said.”

    is this: “What you are saying, then Mr. Martin, is that it is mostly black and brown kids finding themselves on the wrong end of a lawful gun owner’s muzzle. Why do you think that is, Mr. Martin, and isn’t that the real problem we should be looking to solve?

    If the problem is black and brown kids finding themselves considered the aggressor in the majority of these types of assault situations, then why aren’t we figuring out how to re-direct these kids’ energy into productive things by helping them before they get to that point i.e. helping them make basic lifestyle changes?

    What’s the big difference between a dead young black man and that same young black man who knows that no one he assaults has the right to defend himself? The difference is that the first scenario the innocent victim gets to live and in the second scenario the innocent victim gets to die (or be mortally injured/wounded). Why do you get to choose that the life of a young black man who is willing to assault someone is worth more than the life of an innocent person? When did the rights of criminals become more important than the rights of law abiding citizens?”

    • When did the rights of criminals become more important than the rights of law abiding citizens?

      When the criminals started running the country, that’s when.

      • Of course. Another good rule of debate: Never ask a question to which you don’t already know the answer.

        But … let him answer it. He has to answer it.

        The answer is that the innocent life is worth just as much as the criminal’s life, arguably more but at least the same. His policy proscriptions elevate the worth of the criminal’s life above the innocent’s life. And that is morally reprehensible and in direct conflict with our collective values.

        Then you go on to point out that this debate therefore has nothing to do with the color of anyone’s skin but the respective worth of two lives locked in battle for a moment in time. Why does Al Sharpton get to decide which one should win (has value) and which one should lose (has no value)?

        He bases his argument for deciding the outcome of this battle on the belief that the majority of the kids who find themselves on the wrong end of the muzzle of a gun belonging to a lawful gun owner in this situation are black.

        He’s the racist. He’s the one taking rights from one and giving to someone else on the basis of the color of their skin. He’s the one elevating the worth of person on the wrong end of the gun above the worth of the person wielding the gun on the basis of the color of their skin.

        When we don’t attack him on the truth of his false premise and we don’t attack him for the base logic on which his argument rests, both of which show that it is not us but HIM who is morally in the wrong here, who is the racist in the room – well, we lose. Again.

        • I was scanning the comments to see if any one had touched on what I wanted to say.
          You nailed it exactly.
          In doing so you also set up a dilemma for the Rev.
          Have him explain what should happen when two young black thugs have pistols pointed at each other, which one has the moral high ground to stand on since the race issue is distilled out of it?

        • Exactly right. In short is he suggesting that black and brown kids tend to be violent criminals? And as such they should be protected ?

  24. Without stand your ground a black person could be legally and peacefully spending time in a predominantly white area and a group of white people could attack him and it would be his responsibility to not meet force with force and defend himself. Rather he should do his best to run away because if he does fight back and injure or kill one of the white aggressors, then he could be brought up on charges so it’s better not to even try. Think about that AL Sharpton and for that matter, thinking that this is a law that targets blacks is racist by assuming that blacks will be the aggressors threatening someone’s life.

  25. Zimmerman is a moron. I would not invite him to a gun show to be a guest at all. He can browse guns like any other person who wishes to exercise their RKBA, but no way would I do anything else nor acknowledge him in any official fashion.

    Now this guy on Acronym TV in the video. I love how he just neglects all of the facts and calls Martin a child. He was not a child. I know Martin was not a small person either. He was still not an adult but he was the size of one. If he had killed Zimmerman instead, Trayvon would have probably been charged as an adult.

    I have no sympathy for Zimmerman and can see no justification for Martin’s actions. When I’ve been followed by people before growing up I GTFO. The whole Zimmerman situation sucks, but to repeal SYG because of this one situation is idiocy.

  26. “To have laws that tell people that they can shoot first and then ask questions later is a violation of our civil rights. I believe that law is inherently wrong…”

    I strongly agree with Al that the law as he described it is morally wrong. Such a law might indicate to the novice that the point of shooting the perp is to initiate a conversation.

  27. “To have laws that tell people that they can shoot first and then ask questions later is a violation of our civil rights. I believe that law is inherently wrong,” Sharpton said before the march began. “The law in effect says based on your imagination — if you imagine I’m a threat — you have the right to kill me.”

    Sharpton is proving, once again, that he is an idiot. SYG is not about killing someone because you imagine them to be a threat. It is about the state not being able to persecute someone because they capped the bad guy in their living room without having to retreat to the back yard. It is about self defense but that defense must be reasonable.
    What Demented Al does not realize is that the right, an inherent one at that, to self defense is a civil right. He is factually incorrect both in the law and the civil rights application.
    SYG is a good law that needs to be in place in all jurisdictions. Trayvon called the tune and paid the bill with his life. It is not the fault of a lw that was not proffered as a defense in any event. This is b.s.

  28. A syg law is only needed because there are laws requiring retreat that are unreasonable. Get rid of the duty to retreat and we don’t need syg.

  29. Yeah sharpmouth, George was just imagining the beating he was taking. Thousands of people imagine they are victims of Black crime, My friend imagined he was killed. Thats a nice attempt at turning this upside down rev. Think equality though, drop the special people shit, & you won’t have no limits gunned down.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here