Posted on 04/22/2012 6:27:04 PM PDT by marktwain
Lately, with Trayvon Martin’s death serving as a focal point for anti-gunners, Stand Your Ground laws have come under attack from every corner. Gun-grabbers of all stripes have voiced their outrage over the people’s right to bear the arms they keep, and to actually use those arms to defend their own lives. And while what happened that fateful night between Martin and George Zimmerman is being examined in a court of law — as it should be — the justification for Stand Your Ground laws will not stand or fall with the judge’s decision: rather, the justification for such laws is the same as the justification for the Second Amendment itself.
As I pointed out in another article for The Daily Caller, the denial of my right to bear arms is a denial of my humanity. In truth, it reduces me to the level of a dog that has to endure being kicked again and again, and whose only option upon being kicked is to try to outrun my attacker (or attackers). Denying me my right to bear arms communicates a simple, sad message — my life isn’t worth defending.
It also gives every advantage to the criminal, who quickly learns that he can attack his victims with impunity, for they lack the means to fight back. After all, what’s ultimately to keep a strong man from robbing weaker men, if not the pause he has to give himself in wondering if they too might be armed? Take away the option that the weaker men might be armed and everything they own is the criminal’s bounty for the taking, including their very lives.
This is why even some of the bluest of states, like California, have Stand Your Ground laws. California’s Criminal Code 3470 is quite clear: “[The defendant] is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself, and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of death or great bodily injury has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”
Whereas a disarmed public is a criminal’s paradise, and one in which crime victims are left no option but to flee in fear and trepidation, an armed public with the right to use those arms turns the tables on the criminal: forcing him to flee and face a bit of trepidation for a change. In this way, Stand Your Ground laws uphold the dignity of innocent life by allowing crime victims to fight back instead of seeking an avenue for retreat.
Perhaps the late Jeff Cooper, founder of the American Pistol Institute, put it best when he said: “An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing it.” In other words, fleeing an attacker doesn’t send a message about the value of human life or the merits of right and wrong, instead, it simply emboldens him to attack again without compunction. However, throw a Smith & Wesson .38 special into the mix, and when the person under attack fires it, both the attacker and the watching world are reminded of the value of innocent life and of the merits of right and wrong — of good over evil.
For the record, it should be noted that Republicans aren’t the only ones who recognize the need for Stand Your Ground laws. The list of past and present Democratic governors who have supported, or at least refused to veto, Stand Your Ground laws includes: Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Brian Schweitzer of Montana, John Lynch of New Hampshire, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, Phil Bredesen of Tennessee and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. (Also, included in that list is our current secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano. She signed a Stand Your Ground bill into law as governor of Arizona in 2006.)
Stand Your Ground laws are not a license to kill. Rather, they are an expression of our God-given right to defend our own lives, even when that defense involves the use the lethal force against another.
AWR Hawkins is a conservative columnist who has written extensively on political issues for HumanEvents.com, Pajamas Media, Townhall.com, and Andrew Breitbart’s BigPeace.com, BigHollywood.com, BigGovernment.com, and BigJournalism.com. He holds a Ph.D. in U.S. military history from Texas Tech University, and was a visiting fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal in the summer of 2010. Follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.
This is not as it should be. Self-defense, castle doctrine and stand your ground laws were intended to shield people from arrest, not just prosecution.
Law enforcement needs to assess, based on these laws, whether or not the person's actions were within these laws. If not, they should arrest. If it appears to be self-defense, let them go.
Angela Corey has just sent a message to Florida citizens that the state's self defense laws are null and void.
I always suggest to people who don’t believe in stand your ground self defense or weapons in general that they should move to NYC where they can be sophisticated and protected every moment of the day by the police. There is no violent crime in NYC because Mayor Blooming Idiot said so. What are you going to believe ... Mayor Blooming Idiot or your lying eyes?
If someone is beating on you, you can’t get away, and have a reasonable fear of getting seriously injured or killed, and you shoot your attacker, is that not simple self-defense?
Has GZ’s defense team actually stated that they will defend on the basis of SYG and not self-defense?
“Angela Corey has just sent a message to Florida citizens that the state’s self defense laws are null and void.”
Respectfully, I disagree.
Prosecutrix Corey IS making it clear that a prosecutor may make one’s use of self defense laws expensive and risky.
No, his defense team has not said anything about SYG.
For some reason the anti-gunners are doing their damnedest to drag SYG into this case.
Amen. The world doesn't need two Englands.
For some reason the anti-gunners are doing their damnedest to drag SYG into this case.
Well, we know their reason. The weird thing is, it isn't just the gun banners/anti SYG crowd - it's every single article from both sides, including this one. Once again we get sucked into letting the other side define the terms of the debate.
You nailed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.