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.
References:
This CS Monitor piece links the case and “stand your ground” right in the headline. An example of media shenanigans at work.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0316/Trayvon-Martin-killing-in-Florida-puts-Stand-Your-Ground-law-on-trial
Wikipedia clarifies exactly what the stand your ground doctrine entails.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
Dude, Where's My Freedom? 
Speech – Where America is still the freeest
Those of us with libertarian tendencies can occasionally become so obsessed with pointing out America’s flaws that we fail to consider the alternative. Sometimes, we get tunnel-vision on issues of property rights, social liberties, and taxation. Sometimes, it seems like we’re actually LESS free than those crazy socialist Europeans and that we should all be lining up to renounce our citizenship and move to Canada (less debt, stronger currency) or Switzerland (better gun rights) or Hong Kong (less regulation, less taxation).
But every once in awhile, you run across a news story that firmly establishes the one area of freedom in which the good ol’ US of A is still #1. Freedom of speech.
Our friends in merry olde England are always among the worst offenders of violating this fundamental natural right. Recently, a 21 year old student was sentenced to 56 days in prison for “offensive tweets.” Allegedly, they were racist. Of course, we don’t really know, because they won’t re-print them.
Most British people I argue with on the Internet regularly defend the practice of outlawing speech that is “offensive.” Most of them don’t seem to appreciate the inherent insanity of having a judge decide what speech is “offensive” and what isn’t. In any case, I would like to take this time to formally warn all of my British colleagues on the Internet: If you ever say anything that I deem offensive, I plan on alerting your government so that you can suffer the full consequences of your actions under the laws you so regularly defend. Luckily for you, I am a white, heterosexual male, so it is unlikely that anything you say about me would POSSIBLY be declared offensive by a English judge. So ask yourselves Brits… do I feel lucky? Well, do ya? Chap!
Fabrice Muamba: Racist Twitter user jailed for 56 days