Holder's non sequitur
Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder stoked the fires of racial resentment over a Florida jury's acquittal of George Zimmerman. In an address to NAACP leaders Tuesday, Holder attacked Stand Your Ground self-defense laws.
“Separate and apart from the (Trayvon Martin) case that has drawn the nation's attention, it's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods,” Holder opined. He then baselessly claimed that such laws are creating “more violence than they prevent” and used his platform to promote citizens' “duty to retreat.”
So, what exactly do Stand Your Ground laws have to do with Zimmerman and Martin? Absolutely nothing. Outside your own home, common principles of self-defense dictate that unless you have reasonable fear of deadly force or harm, you must flee if possible rather than use deadly force. But a “duty to retreat” rests on the ability to retreat. And “duty to retreat” was irrelevant in Zimmerman's case because — pinned to the ground with Martin on top of him, bashing his head on the concrete — he was unable to retreat.
This didn't stop the NAACP crowd from cheering their heads off when Holder tossed out his red meat. Holder's racial-grievance-mongering agenda has also been bolstered by media outlets, which have been bashing Stand Your Ground regardless of the facts.
The New York Times falsely claimed in an editorial that the jury “reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman's actions in light of the now-notorious Stand Your Ground provision in Florida's self-defense law.” Rolling Stone made a similarly inflammatory claim.
All nonsense. The jury received standard instructions. Zimmerman did not invoke the Stand Your Ground provision.
Even the prosecution rejected the cynical attempt to tie Martin's death to Stand Your Ground. Prosecutor John Guy made it clear during the trial: “This case is not about standing your ground.”
In short, Stand Your Ground did not kill Trayvon Martin. Stand Your Ground did not sway the jury. Stand Your Ground saboteurs don't have a leg to stand on. Columnist Jacob Sullum observed drily: “You might think that, given all we now know about Zimmerman's actual defense, critics of ‘stand your ground' laws would have to find a different, more apposite case to illustrate their concerns. Instead they just barrel along, citing the same phony example again and again, without regard to the facts. It does not inspire confidence in their argument.”
Nope, it inspires exasperation and contempt. Holder now vows to “continue to fight for removal of Stand Your Ground laws” that had nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial. He promises to ban “racial profiling” in the aftermath of a local crime incident that — according to Holder's own FBI employees — had nothing to do with race.
The Obama administration's cynical campaign against Stand Your Ground laws is a racially charged weapon of mass distraction. The goal isn't public safety or community harmony. The goal is for conservative political opponents to Surrender Your Ground.
Silence, as always, is complicity. Political self-defense, as with physical self-defense, begins with self-assertion.
Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2009).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- CDC’s misinformation spreads faster than Ebola virus
- Pirates must weigh risk, reward in attempt to sign Martin
- Syrian border town emerges as pivot point in Islamic State fight
- Starkey: Chryst missed his only shot
- Penguins rebound with shutout of Predators
- Penguins’ Crosby OK with Neal comments about trade
- Pittsburgh Mills mall stability questioned
- Pa. Supreme Court in ‘sad state’ as scandals tarnish reputation
- Penn State succumbs to No. 13 Ohio State in double overtime
- Steelers notebook: Ex-Steeler Sanders living up to his word
- Inappropriate dress wears thin in schools, courts, jails, elsewhere