<chirping>
But why so quiet, NRA?
Unless the law you championed in Florida promoting deadly force in cases of "self defense" is differential. Depending on who's involved in the deadly force.
Back when it was passed, Florida’s wonderful self-defense law was lauded by the NRA for providing that
if a person is in a place he or she has a right to be—in the front yard, on the road, working in their office, strolling in the park—and is confronted by an armed predator, he or she can respond in force in defense of their lives.
Seems clear enough. But it could lead to some wrong conclusions.
Like for instance how Trayvon Martin had a right to be strolling. And how he would have been justified in responding with force to the armed predator who had followed him. Hell--like how he would have been justified in shooting George Zimmerman.
But maybe the law only means, “if a white person is in a place he or she has a right to be.” Strange Florida did not to make that explicit when they had the chance, though.
Or maybe Florida meant to allow response “in force in defense of their lives—unless it is with fists, and then the armed predator is permitted to shoot without consequence.”
Because it certainly seems that otherwise Trayvon could never be faulted for taking a swing at a presumed armed predator with a gun. Might even be praised.
But it's the other way round. Sidewalk guy, who wasn’t armed, must be the one who was the “predator” for maybe taking a poke at the guy who was armed. Hmm.
But wait, maybe “armed” isn’t the crucial distinction here, Maybe it’s “predator.” And the definition of “predator” may only mean “suspicious guy walking on sidewalk,” not “suspicious guy following in vehicle.”
Still, this is getting a little confusing. Let’s go back to the NRA for clarity.
Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law does the following:
It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked.
There's the key. It's the
criminal thing. Zimmerman plainly was not a criminal. Oh, sure, he may have
done some things. But he was a Neighborhood Watch guy. So he’s the Man, and his actions, no matter what they were, couldn’t constitute attack.
On the other hand, although it cannot be definitively shown (and Zimmerman could not know) that Trayvon Martin was a criminal, was about to act criminally, or was considering it, turns out later he had done some things. So for him, the “criminal” tag actually is warranted, most especially when you add in that Martin appeared to be somewhere he “was not supposed to be.”
Which is to say, not his neighborhood. Not where his kind of folks lived. Or where they should have been living. (Neighbors complained about “those people” moving in. Where they weren’t wanted. ““We didn’t build quarter-million-dollar homes to have a project a mile away,” said a Sanford resident in response to a proposed affordable housing project.)
As the NRA explains,
you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.
And what could be more harmful than those people moving in? What if they steal something and stuff? Because black people had stolen stuff in that neighborhood. So Trayvon—and any other black person—was suspicious. And Hispanic people had stolen stuff in that neighborhood. So, Hispanics are suspicious, but not G. Zimmerman, who claims to be Hispanic. For him, it only proves he's no racist.
Wait, I'm getting confused again. Let me clear my head a minute. Okay. I got it.
Know who is not suspicious? White guy (or white-looking guy) with gun. Who may meet force with even greater, even lethal, force because he is the Legit Guy. Chasing a person from a neighborhood where he is Not Wanted.
Black guy with a gun? Obvious criminal.
So here’s the rule. If you are black and being chased by an armed stranger who is white, assume this. He is not a criminal. He is either the Man, or someone working on behalf of the Man. You are the criminal. And the courts will see it this way, so you should just submit to the white guy with the gun.
Because if you go off on him, you will land in jail.
Even if Florida’s law provides that
persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.
But not you, if you might decide to punch a guy who came out of the dark and drew down on you. But anyway, you’re dead, so shielding you from prosecution would be kind of pointless, right?
The NRA believes Florida’s law is great, because it
gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims.
And they don't have to defend Trayvon Martin because in Florida the right kind of people still get to define what “law-abiding” and “victim” mean.
Adlai Stevenson used to mock his opponents by saying their attitude was, “Here is the conclusion on which I base my facts.”
The NRA is busy supporting the legal conclusions Florida authorities reach when your hoodie is pulled back from your dead face and you are discovered to be black.