I found an article published by Reuters, authored by Barbara Liston and Martinne Geller, concerning Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, as well as the ColorOfChange organization promoting their own brand of racism. I found it in yahoo.com news. Yahoo published the column, so--by extension--Yahoo is supporting and promoting the advancing racist perceptions involving the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Here's what the authors had to say in their efforts to promote said racism:
"Trayvon Martin, 17, was killed on February 26 in Sanford, Florida, by George Zimmerman, 28, a white and hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer who has claimed he acted in self defense and has not been charged with a crime."
I'm sure that--if confronted--both Liston and Geller would make the claim that they are not racists and do not promote racism in their reporting. If that be the case, any articles they write on national politics might describe our exalted ruler as:
"Clown Prince" owe-bama, our negro and white exalted ruler, or
"Clown Prince" owe-bama, our white and negro exalted ruler, or
"Clown Prince" owe-bama, our cauca-negro exalted ruler, or
"Clown Prince" owe-bama, our Kenyan-caucasian exalted ruler, or
"Clown Prince" owe-bama, our negroid-caucasian exalted ruler, or
"Clown Prince" owe-bama, our half-negroid; half caucasian, with a smattering of other humanoid sub-races exalted ruler, or
"Clown Prince" owe-bama, the jug-eared, light-skinned negro exalted ruler, or
"Clown Prince" owe-bama, the jug-eared, brown-skinned caucasian exalted ruler.
Depending on your point of view, each 'Clown Prince' description is equally racist--or non-racist--as the "white and hispanic" description applied to Mister Zimmerman. Why is said "Clown Prince" not accorded the same descriptive deference--or lack, thereof--as Mister Zimmerman?!? I'm sure the "Clown Prince" would appreciate the inclusiveness!!
Now--if I might--I'd like to address the 'Stand Your Ground' law in general as well as specifically; I believe it DOES NOT APPLY in the Martin tragedy:
Every state has some 'self-defense' law on the books. The most common is that the victim must--while 'rolling-over-and-playing-dead--flee the attack, the scene if at all possible; a 'Duty To Retreat.' Another common law is the 'Castile Doctrine' wherein one has the right to use reasonable force--in some cases, deadly force--to be secure in one's home. 'Stand Your Ground' gives the victim much more latitude in defending himself, rather than continuing to be victimized by the miscreant. In Florida, once 'self-defense' is invoked, the onus is with the prosecution to disprove the claim. The Florida law is not as uncommon as I originally thought; 23 other states have some version of 'Stand Your Ground.' The most surprising inclusions are Washington (State) and Oregon, two bastions of liberal socio-fascism!! The liberals usually err on the side of the miscreant rather than the victim!!
Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law does not apply in the Martin tragedy, and here's why:
After ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, et al, admitted to--and corrected--their fu*king with evidentiary video tape, it's clear that Mister Zimmerman had been beaten about the head and face; Mister Zimmerman had suffered blunt-force trauma to the back of the head just as he claimed; blood clearly visible from both injuries. Further verification by the medical attention Mister Zimmerman recieved from on-scene EMTs.
When one is on one's back--on the ground/sidewalk--being beaten by a miscreant attacker, one can not exercise the 'duty-to-retreat.' Mister Zimmerman was unable to retreat even if he wanted to; Mr Martin was on top, beatin' the snot out of him! Mister Zimmerman had little choice but to use deadly force! Sadly, had both men made different--better--choices, this tragedy could have been reduced to a shouting match; reduced to a pushing-and-shoving match.