Completely Defenseless

Posted by Larry Miller on July 17, 2013 under Why | Be the First to Comment

Extreme gun control advocate Eric Holder’s recent rant about the evils of the stand-your-ground laws in Florida and other freedom oriented states is a further indication that he does not believe the citizens should be capable of providing their own defense. Calling stand-your-ground laws “senseless” is indicative of the complete lack of understanding of the human psyche by the progressive left. People are more than simple animals that need to be cared for by the state and controlled so they do not hurt themselves.

It is clear he believes only the state should have access to the deadly force required to stop some harm to the individuals under his power. The problem with this is summarized by the answer one man gave when asked why he carried a .45 – he said because a policeman is too heavy.

Just as the current regime is doing its best to move us into a position where we are completely dependent on the state for our economic well being and health care needs, Holder wants the state to be in charge of protecting the people whose taxes pay his and all the other bureaucratic salaries. Following his plans would also mean the citizens would be in a less advantageous position to resist additional federal intrusions on their lives.

For a moment, though, let’s look at what stand-your-ground really means. I am not a lawyer so I will use terms normal people can understand. When I lived in Virginia, a state that does not have such a law, the theory was you would have to retreat as far as you could from the source of danger before you were authorized to use deadly force to save yourself or someone else. There are two points here. The first is that the use of deadly force does not mean you are trying to kill anyone. It does mean that there is a possibility of them meeting their maker, but that is not your intent unless made necessary by the immediacy of harm or death coming to yourself or another person if the criminal is not stopped instantly.

The second point is that the criminal is in control of the situation. It means that if he decides to pursue you, you are obligated to run. It means that the law says you have to run like a scared rabbit. Free men and women should never have to run like a scared rabbit – from a criminal or from the government.

Stand-your-ground, as defined in my current home state of Florida, simply means you don’t have to run. Some say this means that shooting your assailant becomes your first, rather than last, resort. There is an element of truth to this. However, we need to decide if an attacker should be afforded such respect. My personal belief is that when one decides on a criminal action, it should, by its nature, be a dangerous pursuit, unprotected by the law. However many do not share this line of thought, they need the votes.

As an aside, George Zimmerman’s attorney wisely did not use the stand-your-ground law to justify his actions. It simply did not apply. When one is on one’s back being pummeled by a larger assailant and having one’s head slammed into the sidewalk, running is not an option – surviving he encounter is the primary concern. When it comes to deciding who to support, the attacker or the victim, normal Americans always come down on the side of the victim.

Now, why would anyone be against someone doing all they can to escape a serious or potentially fatal beating? We may gain a little insight by considering a trial where I sat on the jury many years ago. I was a resident of Chesterfield County, Virginia at the time, and a man was accused of breaking into a local business. He was obviously guilty as the police, responding to an alarm, caught him as he was exiting the building.

During the sentencing stage, we learned that this man who was in his early forties, already had four felony convictions, but had served less than eight years in prison. How could this be? We found that each of these convictions took place in the nearby city of Richmond. Against the advice of his public defender attorney, the accused took the stand and admitted to his crime. He said he did it to supply the drug addiction he had, but that he had found the Lord and turned his life around. While I would like to have believed him on the last point, his demeanor just did not align itself with his words. It appeared to be same canned defense he used at various times in the past. As he went on and on, I actually felt sorry for the public defender who sat motionless with his head in his hands as he understood the difference between the urban Richmond juries and judges and the more security oriented suburban juries.

The point is that when this man was tried in the city courts, he faced juries that were more sympathetic to his situation. Many saw him as similar to their own sons or brothers and, while convicting him, did not recommend sentences sufficient to fit the crimes he had committed. Out in the county however, juries and judges were more inclined to identify with the victims – either they had been robbed at some point, or knew someone who had.

Because of the numerous times the accused had escaped prolonged sentences, the commonwealth attorney pushed us to recommend a forty two year term. Even for those of us who believe in law and order, that seemed beyond excessive, particularly in a state without parole. It could well have been life sentence for this man. Balancing the interests of getting this fellow off the streets with some common sense, we recommended a sentence of less than a quarter of that, still far more than he had received in the past.

I use this case to illustrate why Eric Holder and Barack Hussein Obama consistently come down on the side of law breakers and against the safety of their constituents. It depends on who you relate to, and it is plain that this entire regime is oriented toward the benefit of those using the system rather than those supporting it through their tax dollars and other confiscations. We got a glimpse of this early in their administration when Holder refused to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation, even though video evidence made it clear this is exactly what happened as white voters were turned away by menacing young black men in uniforms waving their night sticks.

So to these people, some crimes are justified based upon who is committing them. To hear them speak, Trayvon Martin’s aggravated assault on George Zimmerman was not a problem. Why did I say aggravated assault? Because the jury, in releasing Zimmerman, said in essence, that is what he did.

With other departments purposely targeting those perceived to be the president’s enemies, we see a corrupt administration favoring friends and attempting to destroy enemies. Then we move to the Attorney General – supposedly the top law enforcement officer in the land – turning a blind eye to crimes committed by blacks and ignoring crimes committed by illegal aliens taking a two pronged approach to stop the majority in our country from defending ourselves, we have an extremely dangerous situation at hand with potential to escalating further.

The reason people form neighborhood watches is because the police cannot be everywhere and many levels of government are not particularly interested in taking heat from some neighborhoods if they made a serious attempt to crack down on crime.

We now have a national government taking a two pronged approach to preventing the people from stepping into the gap to protect their families and property. First they don’t even want weapons in the hands of people not authorized and controlled by the government. Then, on top of then, even if we have them, they want to make it almost impossible to use them without having consequences almost as dire as being left defenseless. And that is their end game. If we cannot defend ourselves, neither can we resist the overreaches of a tyrannical government.

It’s been a protracted discussion over many years about the causes of crime in our country, and, as usual, the real causes are never addressed. All we are given is that we must fund and support another government program that is destined to fail a la midnight basketball. In reality, it is often these government programs that set up expectations and actions that lead to tragedies like the death of a misguided teenager who happened to attack the wrong “creapy-ass cracker” one rainy evening.

Bookmark and Share

Add A Comment