[lbo-talk] Obama Speaks Out on Trayvon Martin Killing

[Wojtek S]

Jordan: "I disagree with your characterization that the Castle
Doctrine is a license to kill (lynch if you like).  It is specifically
to be invoked in cases where the claimant did not instigate the
situation in which they then came to kill their opponent.  This is
*not a change* in the multi-hundred-year-old right to self-defense
(cue: Hobbes?).  The Stand Your Ground laws are only designed to
remove the onus on the attacked to retreat in the face of an attack.
If grants no new powers to instigate an attack."

[WS] I said that I  misused the "license to kill" phrase and you keep
repeating this.

Taking your position that the castle doctrine does not grant new
powers under the existing self defense rights - this begs the question
why such laws were necessary?  I mean, if a person acted in
self-defense, he or she would be acquitted by a jury even in the
absence of the stand your ground laws, no?  So why passing them?
Given what Alan said about overwhelming public support for such laws,
it seems like a way of placating public prejudices and legitimating
vigilante violence, no?  On the one hand, it makes it easier for cops
and prosecutors to let guys like Zimmermann off the hook without even
bothering to go to a trial, and on the other hand it sends the message
that it is ok to shoot first and ask questions later.  So even if it
does not expand the existing powers under the right to self defense,
it certainly does  legitimate violence, one would think.

I apologize for overposting (and hyperboles ;)) - this is the last one.

Wojtek