Stand Your Ground may be the only thing in the Trayvon Martin murder that goes to trial. The law is being scrutinized in the wake of George Zimmerman invoking it as his defense for shooting the unarmed teenager. The right seems more concerned about the law coming under fire than any black kid being killed and seem to be pushing back by denying its role in his murder.
I never pay attention to anything Ann Coulter says and am usually just perplexed by right wing rationalization, and ignore or move on because I simply can't understand their thinking. But this example of her take on the Trayvon Martin murder illuminates well their mastery at denial, and revisionism. This no doubt is how this racially motivated murder is being spun by people like Coulter, and her followers have no doubt absorbed her version of the 'facts'.
Laurence Lewis' excellent thought experiment diary, consisting of reversing the races of the two players in this tragedy, provoked interesting discussion of the refusal by freepers to admit this was a racially motivated act, and the reasons for the denial.
Unbelievably Coulter tries to argue that Stand Your Ground has no bearing in the racially motivated shooting murder of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. She tries to say that in neither of the two 'scenarios that were presented' does Florida's Stand Your Ground Law apply - either Zimmerman stalked and hunted down Martin, and shot him, or he was on the ground being beaten by Martin. So in neither of those scenarios could he have 'stood his ground' and self-defended himself. So the law is irrelevant in this case!
According to conservative commentator Ann Coulter, in the Trayvon Martin case, retreat was simply not possible.
“That is completely wrong, this has nothing to do with ‘Stand Your Ground’ rule,” Coulter said. “You have two completely different narratives of what happened, including one in which the hoodie was not relevant, and certainly not the race. We know basically what the two narratives are. In neither one is the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law relevant.”
Coulter explained the two scenarios, one of which would fall under stalking, and the other that would be considered self-defense.
“Because in one case, you have the ‘white Hispanic,’ Zimmerman, tracking down the suspicious looking kid just because he’s black, blowing him away,” she continued. “The question is: Did he have to retreat? No, he’s the one doing the stalking. In the second narrative, he’s on the ground being beaten up by Trayvon Martin. There is no possibility of retreating while you’re on the ground. All 50 states in the union have a law that you need it for self-defense. This does not implicate the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law. The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law only says you have to retreat, but you can’t retreat if you’re on the ground. It’s not relevant.”
“The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law is only relevant if someone had the opportunity to retreat, and the law said that you don’t have to retreat,” she said. “In neither narrative is retreating an option. It has nothing to do with the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law. This is simple self-defense, on at least George Zimmerman’s narrative.”
This is willfully ignorant. She completely omits facts that have been presented in this case through the media, including Zimmerman's account where he claims he shot Martin in self defense. Her two scenarios are not what have been presented and talked about. She 'invents' the first scenario of Zimmerman stalking and immediately shooting Martin, which obviously is her version of 'the left's' version of the incident. She totally ignores Zimmerman's own story of chasing after Martin, turning back, being pursued by him and shooting in self defense. And in the second scenario where there is a fight, come on, it's impossible to shoot someone if they're on top of you?
This is an excellent example of right wing historical revisionism at work. Select the facts that work for you, leave out the ones you don't like, repeat this to millions over the radio, and their truth is born. It is quite clear that they are nervous about this law being challenged and are inventing truth to limit the possibility that their right to shoot scary looking people might be infringed upon. The only saving grace here is that this case is so blatant that even the members of the conventional MSM have to acknowledge the racial nature of this murder and the tragically flawed Stand Your Ground Law. He talks over her and doesn't even acknowledge her laughable 'argument'.
I was incredulous when I first heard her and had to replay it several times to understand what she was saying. If you can bear to listen to her screech, here it is. (oh and you may have to restrain yourself listening to George Will claim - to Van Jones ! - that this has been forced into a white on black narrative, because 94% of black males that are killed, die at the hands of other black males.