If there is one thing you have to give Obama credit for, it is consistency. Oh sure, he may lie about his intentions, and fool people into voting for him by hiding his true agenda, but it is really not that difficult to predict what he will do in a given situation. In Christian circles a few years back, “WWJD” were seen everywhere, which encouraged people to choose their behavior by asking themselves, “What Would Jesus Do?”
Obama was born to a communist mother, raised by “socialist” grandparents, and mentored by communist Frank Marshall Davis. Later, and apparently to this day, he was pals with communists like William Ayers and Bernadine Dorn and nominates communists like Van Jones for key government positions. So, if you ask yourself, WWSD (what would Stalin do), you can usually guess what his response will be.
In the aftermath of the trial and acquittal of George Zimmerman, which would never have happened without pressure from the Obama administration, where a jury of his peers declared that Zimmerman had every right to prevent himself from being killed by Trayvon Martin by using deadly force, how are Obama and his surrogate Eric Holder reacting? Are they doing a mea culpa, “Sorry, we went off half-cocked down the wrong path just as we have done multiple times before”, eg. In the case of Sgt. James Crowley and Henry Louis Gates Jr? Are they going to invite Zimmerman to the White House for some beer and snacks?
Hardly. Instead, they immediately started talking about rescinding “stand your ground” laws, which Florida has, but which was not even invoked in this case. This case, like Sandy Hook and any other case the administration learns about that have to do with guns, simply gives them another excuse to advocate for more gun control laws. As with all Second Amendment cases, your freedom is put in grave jeopardy by the administration’s desire to disarm America.
The history of “stand your ground” laws goes back to English law during the Middle Ages when the King claimed that he was the only person authorized to take the life of another man. The concept of self-defense was unknown, and was not accepted in court. As long as the prosecution could prove that a man took another’s life, conviction was mandatory. Pardons were later issued in some cases, but as people did not wait on death row for decades as they do now, that was little comfort to the convicted “felon”.
As English law developed, the concept of self-defense began to be understood, but the defendant always had the obligation to retreat. The only exception that was allowed was if the defendant was in his home at the time of the attack, the so-called “castle doctrine”. The idea behind it is twofold. First, the home is seen as the last retreat; once home, you can retreat no further. To require you to go into a different room is specious. Second, a home should be a place of sanctuary, and to make it not so encourages home invasion.
In America, unfortunately some states still adhere to the requirement to retreat. In most, however, the “True man” doctrine prevails, where a person who did not instigate the attack does not have to retreat from an actual or threatened attack if he is in a place where he has a right to be and he has a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury as a result. This was upheld in the famous Supreme Court case BEARD v. U S, 158 U.S. 550 (1895) which you can read here.
A relative of a farmer by the name of Beard had died and Beard received one of three of his sons,
Edward Jones, to raise, along with a cow to ease that financial burden. After some years with the Beard family, Edward decided to leave and join his older brothers, Will and John, and to take the cow with him. The three men showed up on the Beard farm, intent on taking the cow, but Beard told them out and never come back, and that he wouldn’t give them the cow unless a court decreed that he should.