Now that the mainstream media has jumped on board the Trayvon Martin bandwagon, it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one their narrative is the exact same, no matter where you go (what a remarkable coincidence that is!) That this case represents the failure of Florida’s “stand your ground” doctrine. (Note: I said “doctrine” and not “law.” Referring to it as a law implies that it forbids certain activity, which it does not. Stand your ground is a doctrine in that it merely clarifies how existing laws on homicide will be interpreted.) That policies allowing citizens the right to defend themselves from deadly force WITH deadly force somehow resulted in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
This claim is completely absurd on its face, because the alleged injustice in all of this is that Trayvon did not use deadly force, nor make any threats of deadly force, against his killer, George Zimmerman. Therefore, stand your ground does not apply to this case. At all.
Stand your ground is an if-then proposition. IF you are confronted with deadly force, THEN you can respond in kind, even in a public place. George Zimmerman was, according to Trayvon Martin’s family and those objecting to the outcome of the case thus far, NOT confronted with deadly force. Therefore, the issue of whether he is allowed to “stand his ground” or has a “duty to retreat” is not relevant. The question of whether this occurred in his home or in a public place is not relevant. The IF was not satisfied, so the THEN is not an issue. If this case ever goes to trial, Zimmerman’s ONLY defense can be that he was confronted deadly force, or a much weaker case, that he BELIEVED he was being confronted with deadly force. He can attempt the same defense that the police always use whenever they shoot somebody, that they thought the thing in the victim’s hand that doesn’t resemble a gun whatsoever was a gun. (Note: Police get away with this defense all the time, even in cities and states where laws restricting firearm availability, use, and self-defense for private citizens are incredibly restrictive). If the case goes to trial, the “stand your ground” doctrine would most likely not even come up, as it has no bearing on the events that unfolded.
The right to defend one’s self against threats of deadly force is a natural right. No government, whether city, state, federal, or global, has the authority to restrict it. Any such attempts to do so are tyranny and are unjust by nature. Having a “stand your ground” doctrine embedded in state criminal codes is merely a codification of natural rights, which makes it more difficult for the government to lock you in jail for exercising them. But don’t hold your breath waiting to hear that from the mainstream media. They’re just going to stick with doing what they do best. Exploiting a tragedy in order to try and convince you to willingly surrender more of your freedom. Don’t fall for it.
This CS Monitor piece links the case and “stand your ground” right in the headline. An example of media shenanigans at work.
Wikipedia clarifies exactly what the stand your ground doctrine entails.