Please - take this somewhere else

So yesterday the Right Reverend Al Sharpton (of Tawanna Brawley fame) brought his know-nothin' media circus to Florida.

"It's a flawed law," Sharpton said. "Because you don't need an actual threat. All you've got to do is believe a threat and you can use deadly force."  Al's wrong and not for the first time (see Tawanna Brawley above).  His description is not an issue of SYG, but an issue of the right to self-defense and, although I sure Al does not know it (in fact prefers not to know it), there are elements that must be proven in that belief of threat.  the law doe snot allow anyone to kill someone else because I felt threatened - there are matters of fact that are considered.  There are elements of ability, opportunity and jeopardy that must be shown and there is the criterion of the "reasonable person"  (as in, a reasonable belief).  As much as Al might want to make it seem so because it fits his narrative, just saying I felt threatened is not enough; the assailant must have means and opportunity to present lethal force and create jeopardy of loss of life.

Trayvon Martin did all three in attacking George Zimmerman; he had the means based on his size, skill (disparity of force) and the position he had Zimmerman in, he had the opportunity based on being in full mount and banging Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk, and the culmination was he placed Zimmerman in lethal jeopardy.  Thus, Zimmerman was acquitted because the jury considered it reasonable that, in those circumstances, he was in fear for his life (in essence, they realized that they would be, too).  That is the law - but not SYG.

How many times does one have to define SYG; it says that, given all of the above conditions being met (that is, that lethal self-defense is justified), one need not first attempt to flee, to retreat.  they can meet force with force.  So Al is arguing a law he is not protesting and protesting a law that is not relevant.

Of course, Tallahassee.com is just stupid enough to agree with him; "It allows individuals to use of force to defend themselves if they feel threatened and has been at the root of two high-profile deaths of 17-year-old teens in Florida over the past two years."  It is not just a matter of "feeling threatened".  That "feeling" must be substantiated by the above elements and criteria. But that is still not SYG.

Of course then they seem to acknowledge that they know what it is:  "A full repeal of the law was shot down by the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee in November; other bills, still potentially in play in the Legislature, would tweak Stand Your Ground to include, primarily, a necessary obligation to retreat, using force only after that option has been exhausted."

So, you do know that SYG is about retreat, not about defense.  So then, riddle me this; how could Zimmerman have retreated when he was on his back with Martin pounding his head into the pavement?  He could not have, hence that option would be off the table, SYG or not.  Zimmerman was sucker-punched and mounted; no retreat available.

This all comes down to the same thing I said yesterday:  If Zimmerman had been killed that night, no one would know his name or much care.  He would be another nameless corpse that died a victim of crime in a crappy neighborhood.  Too bad, life sucks, move on.  What Sharpton, Martin's parents, and others are telling us is that they value Martin's life more than Zimmerman's, that Zimmerman should have died that night a nameless victim rather than kill Martin in self-defense. 

Now the pessimists among us can only imagine that part of this charade is racially motivated; that a young black male is now worth more than an pudgy middle-aged Hispanic male.  That somehow we have come to excuse the Martins of the world, that their assault of the Zimmermans is to be allowed, that such behavior is acceptable.  Somehow, it seems inevitable that efforts to change the law (whatever ignorance of that law those efforts are based on) are meant to allow young thugs, regardless of color, to do as they wish with impunity and to strip everyone else of the right to defend themselves against them.  If that sounds racist, then it is only because the arguments Al and his protesters make are inherently racist in nature, that one life is worth more than another.

SYG or not, the right of self-defense is a basic right not created by the Constitution or our government.  As can be seen in reading it, it only says it shall not be abridged; it exists as a basic human right.  Those who would take it away do so because they do not value our lives.