Apparently two white supremacists shot bullets, at least two shots, at two bi-racial siblings (16 yo and 12 yo) who were walking on a footpath that is property of a local church and intended and maintained for public use. The evil white supremacists arrested for those shots are James Reidnauer and Brent van Besien. They don’t claim that the fired no shots, but they do insist that they fired the shots because the children were “meth heads”.
There’s little mystery about their future defense: they can claim erratic behavior on the part of the children that scared them, then invoke stand your ground. We know that Zimmerman claimed he thought Martin might have been high. We know that Zimmerman, despite being a violent, horrible jerkface ended up being found not guilty at trial. Why should the white supremacists neglect a winning strategy?
This. This is the evil that your government encourages when it passes a stand your ground law. Every single such law should be opposed in every single jurisdiction that has passed or considers passing such a provision. Do not retreat from this fight. Go on offense. The mere existence of stand your ground laws is a threat: treat it as such and never back down.
My home region, doing what it does best, getting on the national news for horrible things. If it isn’t racists, it’s vampire murders. North Lake County at it’s finest!
Um. “never back down” is basically the same as “stand your ground”.
(The irony is palpable)
#2 @John Morales
Because guns and politics are exactly the same thing.
Hmmm …
@John Morales:
That was deliberate. That was deliberate.
khms got it anyway.
khms, if you want to believe that “stand your ground” and “don’t back down” aren’t idioms for the same thing, go ahead.
Mmm-hmm.
CD, we crossed. 🙂
So, it was deliberate irony? Too subtle for me, then.
@John Morales:
Am I wrong, or are you thinking that there’s some moral equivalence between my encouragement to proactively overturn/repeal stand your ground laws and using physical violence without the most cursory attempt at retreat and/or deescalation?
The language I used was deliberately mirroring the language of stand your ground, but the actions I’m advocating are legal/legislative. Is something about that not clear? Or was it not clear before but is now?
Neither khms nor I think those are not synonymous idioms. We just think that lethal violence and court/legislative advocacy aren’t remotely comparable.
CD,
Neither of you think they’re not synonymous? I doubt that’s what you intended to express.
Pedantry aside, I know you’re cluey enough not to mistake the label for the referent.
But fine, you have clarified that you consider “stand your ground” as advocacy for lethal violence (due to USAnian terminology) and “don’t back down” as advocacy against “stand your ground”.
“Stand your ground” laws are an affront to morality, and especially those that govern interactions in public space as opposed to so-called “castle” laws for a person’s house. The only time that lethal force should be permitted for use is for the immediate self defense or the defense of others where there are no other reasonable options, such as retreating. I mention this, because my standard should also include police, who shouldn’t be allowed to shoot anyone except according to this same standard.
Morales, have you ever considered changing your behavior to make it more obvious that you aren’t a bigoted asshole?
Earlier this month, Arkansas lawmaker Sen. Stephanie Flowers gave an impassioned, moving speech in her state’s Senate regarding their continued attempts to pass SYG legislation. The measure failed. Absolutely worth a watch.
https://thegrio.com/2019/03/08/black-arkansas-lawmaker-stephanie-flowers-refused-to-be-silenced-in-heated-stand-your-ground-debate-with-white-colleagues/
John Morales it is quite clear that
is exactly what CD meant. It has already been pointed out to you that CD’s word choice was deliberate, do try to keep up.