This is not Stand Your Ground.

But it is a tragedy.

Point 1:  As is usually the case, when there is a law, a right, a behavior that you don't like and want to see eliminated, the first step is to associate it with every heinous and stupid act you can - relevant or not.  So we heard and continue to hear about so-called Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws and their association with Trayvon Martin (his mom continues to make the circuit - if only as much attention had been paid to him when he was alive) and now here in this sad case as well.

On one's property, in one's home, there never was a duty to retreat - this is the Castle Doctrine and it has been part of common law for centuries.  SYG laws were an extension of this to other places that one "has a right to be" - the street, their car, wherever.  Of course, this emerged because of the difficulty in determining when one could safely retreat, as was required by previous law.  But in the case of one's own home, SYG is not an issue. 

But is it simply ignorance that leads the term to be so often and grossly misapplied?  Well, yes, it is likely that those using the term do not know what it means.  But it is also strategic - find a tragedy and quickly link it with SYG - it played no part in the Zimmerman case and has no role here.  This then also capitalizes on people's ignorance.

Point 2:  The misinterpretation of the law and the use of this tragedy for larger purposes will potentially distract from its import for firearms owners.  It is not the law - any law (even the misapplied SYG) - that caused this.  It is not the firearm.  It is the person. 

People have to realize that you cannot automatically shoot someone just because they come on your porch or to your door.  Now I have talked to people who say they would "Shoot through the door" and told them to be sure they were ready for prison if they did.  Well, hell, there's even Joe Biden, Mr. Gun Control for the Obama administration who was quoted as saying "[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."  I guess maybe he should be called as a witness for the resident in this case.

But such advice aside, firearm owners need to accept that, as good guys, as law-abiding citizens, we cannot be preemptive, we must show restraint.  We are, because we are following the law and not committing assault, likely to start any such confrontation at least one step behind - because we are not initiating it, we are reacting to it.  Sucks, but it is the way it is.

What this citizen did was initiate, preempt, attempt to stay ahead of the loop and, thus, committed a grievous error.  Tragically, for both his victim and her family, as well as for him and his family, this mistake was and will be costly.  No one's life will ever be the same.  Even the Castle Doctrine does not say we can indiscriminately shoot people who come on our front porch, to our door.  It is clear that, should their lethal intent become evident, we have no duty to retreat, but we must ascertain that intent, even if doing so puts us at some potential risk of being second.

Please - law-abiding armed citizens - stop being irresponsible with your rights or you will destroy them.  There are forces out there who want to take them away and will use any and all means necessary to do so, including misleading the public and making you an example of all.  Yes, we must battle this attempt with our hearts and souls, but also with our minds, we must be smart.  Yes, we all believe - molon labe - no matter, we are not going to be like the British or Australians who lined up to turn in their arms because someone passed a law that said to do so.  The attempts to take our rights, our firearms, away will never come to fruition, even if they succeed in changing law, in legislating them away.  We will resist.

But let us do all we can to make sure it never gets that far by not only abiding by all laws, but by being responsible.  Do not give them the ammunition they some strongly desire to use against us.