Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws came to the public consciousness during the Trayvon Martin case. George Zimmerman, a Florida Neighborhood Watch Captain, was charged with murder in the death of Martin, a 17-year-old drug user, criminal and thug wannabe. Zimmerman, a Hispanic whose background included black relatives, didn’t fit the narrative, so the media branded him a “white Hispanic.” Zimmerman was exonerated—it was as clear a case of lawful self-defense as one can imagine–which made Martin a holy social justice martyr, a forerunner of Saint George Floyd.
Author” src=”https://images.americanthinker.com/ra/rabw0iq9biojk63m2oka_640.jpg” />
Graphic: X Screenshot
Neither the prosecution nor the defense raised SYG during the trial, but leftists and the media did, and thereafter another narrative was born: SYG laws allow racist whites—or white Hispanics—to murder blacks without consequences. Riding its coattails was another narrative claiming police officers murder scores of black men every year. Building on these false narratives, Democrats have unsuccessfully tried to ban or repeal existing SYG laws. As one might expect, the latest attempt is in California.
This time Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur—care to guess his political party?—is taking a slightly different approach. He wants to change the definition of justifiable homicide to make self-defense difficult if not impossible.
Opponents quickly seized on the proposal’s language — which would make killing someone illegal if a person uses more force than necessary to defend themselves or chooses not to disengage or deescalate a violent situation when they can — calling it a “criminal-first bill.”
This would obliterate the stand your ground doctrine, but California Democrats aren’t quite ready, at least not overtly and publicly, to obliterate the Castle Doctrine (CD). All SYG laws do is establish that someone lawfully present when attacked can stay where they are and use whatever force is reasonably necessary to defend themselves. They don’t have to run away or try to “talk down” someone trying to kill them. The law of self defense remains unchanged. One can’t respond to an insult with a gunshot, and SYG laws are entirely race neutral.
Castle Doctrine laws do essentially the same, though they’re specific to one’s home. If attacked in the home, they presume the attacker is not there for good purposes, and the homeowner does not have to abandon his home and family to criminals. Castle doctrine laws in many states also establish a presumption of innocence for the homeowner and may even provide immunity from lawsuits by the attacker or their heirs. Sane people wonder why anyone can think it should be otherwise for SYG or CD victims? Then there’s California where anti-liberty/gun cracktivists are trying to distract voters:
“This bill simply updates state law to make clear that if a person can safely walk away from a conflict, they must do so instead of escalating to using deadly force,” said Nick Suplina, Everytown’s [for Gun Safety] senior vice president for law and policy, in a statement to Playbook. “It doesn’t change the long-standing ‘Castle Doctrine,’ which provides extra self-defense protections in a person’s home.”
Suplina is misleading the public. There is nothing about any SYG law that prevents or discourages anyone from fleeing a deadly force attack if it can be safely done. Suplina also ignores reality. An attack can escalate from threats to deadly force in a heartbeat. Zbur’s law essentially says it’s inherently unreasonable not to run away, even if it costs a victim their life. Determinations of what was reasonable at the time are made in California often by Soros prosecutors who are as anti-liberty/gun as they are pro-criminal.
Bizarrely, Zbur is invoking Kyle Rittenhouse:
Author” src=”https://images.americanthinker.com/wv/wvudwgua5y9fwleg3iyq_640.jpg” />
Graphic: Twitter screenshot
The assemblymember tried to clarify things on social media, saying the bill is aimed at people like Kyle Rittenhouse, who fatally shot two people during a Wisconsin protest in 2020 and was acquitted of all charges in the incident, turning him into something of a far-right hero. But that only drew more vitriol from Rittenhouse and his supporters, extracting a promise from him to testify against Zbur’s bill.
Author” src=”https://images.americanthinker.com/uz/uzllqkgayuotdsovpckc_640.jpg” />
Graphic: X Screenshot
Kyle Rittenhouse was also as clear cut a case of lawful self-defense as one can find. Serially attacked by violent, rioting leftists, including one wielding a handgun, Rittenhouse showed remarkable restraint in engaging only his attackers while surrounded by hostile crowds who continually pursued him. My home blog Rittenhouse archive is here.
Gail Heriot of the US Commission on Civil Rights has produced a paper on how SYG laws are commonly misconstrued and how their opponents purposely mislead the public.
Some sources indicate as many as 27 states currently have SYG laws, though I suspect the actual number is somewhat higher as various laws that have the same effect don’t specifically say “SYG.” As one might imagine, those states that don’t are blue states.
Californians—surprise!–continue to flee the state in record numbers.
On a different subject, if you are not already a subscriber, you may not know that we’ve implemented something new: A weekly newsletter with unique content from our editors for subscribers only. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription.
Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
This article was originally published at www.americanthinker.com
