And therein lies a major flaw in the argument that Williams is trying to make. While SYG laws has been used as a defense by a law enforcement officer regarding a shooting, the primary purpose is to protect ordinary people who use lethal force to counter an attack. The authority of police to use force or otherwise to carry out their duties comes under a different heading.
And I figure Greg Camp was restricted in the number of words because this article in the Nation is chock-full-of lies and distortions, it would make for half a book on corrections alone. Let’s begin with the title:
You kinda lose respect for the author and the editor when you resort to Click-&-Race-Bait. But since we are now living in the era of Black Lives Matter And We Will Lie When We Want To, it is to be expected. I selected a quote about Castle Doctrine from the article because it only takes all of 3 minutes worth of Google search to confirm or deny the statement.
Harvard professor Caroline Light has traced the history of our romance with legalized vigilantism. She dates it to the Reconstruction era, “when post-war political and economic turmoil and the enfranchisement of African American men fed late-19th-century gender panic, and the legal terrain shifted to characterize a man’s ‘castle’ and the dependents residing therein as an extension of the white masculine self.” Light (whose excellent new book Stand Your Ground: A History of America’s Love Affair With Lethal Self-Defense is forthcoming from Beacon Press next spring) asserts that current policies, including defunding basic public services, have led to a situation in which “the state’s retreat from the protection of its citizens creates a perceived need for (do-it-your)self-defense.” The supposedly race-neutral idea of “reasonable threat” actually encourages a “lethal response to black intrusions into spaces considered white.”
What in the good name of Martin Luther King is this crap about? I looked up Harvard professor Caroline Light and she turns out to be a Lecturer on Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality (Or as we call them in Real Life, a degree in “You want fries with that? I have Student loans to pay”) so not even a Law Professor or even a paralegal. But you don’t need to be a Supreme Court Justice to do a basic Google-Fu and find out that Castle Doctrine comes from English Law and dates back to 1628.
it has been a legal precept in England, since at least the 17th century, that no one may enter a home, which would typically then have been in male ownership, unless by invitation. This was established as common law by the lawyer and politician Sir Edward Coke (pronounced Cook), inThe Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628:
“For a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man’s home is his safest refuge].”
So basically “Professor” Light missed by just two centuries. That is what passes for accuracy in Harvard nowadays , I guess. And I am still trying to wrap my head to the idea that Castle Doctrine somehow just applies to white homes and not to every home. Does she have any statistics that proves that statement? Any law in the books that says something remotely similar?
Of course, this is just another attempt to confuse the understanding of Stand Your Ground laws by repeating the lie that it discriminates against Blacks when at least in Florida we know it favors Blacks .
People like Patricia Williams, the author of this “article” and Professor Light firmly believe that Stand Your Ground was a racist NRA/ALEC construct created in 2005 so White People in Florida could shoot Blacks with impunity. I have mentioned ad nauseam the Supreme Court cases of Beard v. United States – 158 U.S. 550 (1895) and Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), but I just want to add another SCOTUS SYG case that I happened to find not too far back. It is Rowe v. US (1896):
The testimony on the part of the government tended to show: That on the evening of the 30th of March, 1895, the defendant, David Cul Rowe, who is a Cherokee Indian, and the deceased, Frank Bozeman, a white man, a citizen of the United States, and not an Indian, met at an hotel at Pryor’s Creek, Ind. T., at the supper table…
(Court’s majority decision by Justice John Marshall Harlan.)
… The accused was entitled, so far as his right to resist the attack was concerned, to remain where he was, and to do whatever was necessary, or what he had reasonable grounds to believe at the time was necessary, to save his life, or to protect himself from great bodily harm. And, under the circumstances, it was error to make the case depend, in whole or in part, upon the inquiry whether the accused could, by stepping aside, have avoided the attack, or could have so carefully aimed his pistol as to paralyze the arm of his assailant, without more seriously wounding him.
Without referring to other errors alleged to have been committed, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.
So much for evil racist roots of Stand Your Ground.
I did write to The Nation pointing out the error on Castle Doctrine part of the article, but I haven’t and do not expect to hear from them.
If I had kids of almost College age, I would encourage them to go to some sort of Trade School as they would make more money after they graduate than many of these “Professors” and do not have to be infected with their political BS.