I saw this tweet from our “friends” of Everytown for Gun Control:
That leads to an article by the Fascists/Socialists (but I repeat myself) Antifa supporters of the Southern Poverty Law Center:
The spot where Dominic Jerome “D.J.” Broadus II died from four shots fired by his male paramour was about as secluded as could be.
Hidden at the end of a sandy, private road cut through the vast, ancient, scrub pine forest that surrounds Macclenny, Florida, it was the perfect place to do something that you didn’t want anyone else to see.
There, Gardner Kent Fraser, who is white and from a prominent local family, met Broadus, a Black man, and tried to keep their relationship hidden. Their relationship broke many taboos in this conservative town 28 miles west of Jacksonville.
But the 115 phone calls and over 100 text messages that investigators uncovered between the two men – many of them with sexually explicit photos – showed that their eight-month relationship had grown increasingly tense and troubled. Fraser – who also had a girlfriend at the time – feared Broadus would expose their secret, especially after Broadus played a prank in which he threatened just that.
‘Stand Your Ground’ laws reflect legacy of white supremacist vigilantism in Deep South (splcenter.org)
Of course, the results of the investigation paint a different picture:
“We have conducted an extensive investigation into the death of Dominic Broadus, Jr. and declined to bring charges against Gardner Fraser for the shooting of Broadus,” David Chapman, communications director for the State Attorney’s office said in a statement. “This investigation has determined that Broadus showed up to Fraser’s private residence – an isolated property in the middle of a rural area — unannounced and uninvited. Fraser asserted that Broadus attacked him on the doorstep of his home.”
The statement continued, “The investigation has not generated evidence to disprove Fraser’s claim of self-defense. The evidence in this case, Fraser’s unwavering claims of self-defense, and Florida law do not provide support for homicide charges. We are ethically prohibited from instituting criminal charges that we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.”
Florida man sentenced after killing Black man who was his alleged lover (yahoo.com)
What a surprise! Once again it was not Stand Your Ground but plain Self-defense and I would even add under the Castle Doctrine principle. But if you look around in other blogs and political sites, you will see a lack of mentioning Mr. Broadus actions in Mr. Fraser’s property.
And, of course, they have to bring back this old tidbit of incomplete information.
While there is no current, granular data to show how many Black men and boys have been killed in Florida by white people who have claimed self-defense, the Tampa Bay Times in 2013 published its analysis of 200 cases. It concluded that the law was not applied equally by race and that when the victim was not white, the killer was more likely to escape punishment. It found that “in nearly a third of the cases … defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim – and still went free,” and “73% of those who killed a Black person faced no penalty compared to 59% of those who killed a white person.”
We covered that same database by the Tampa Bay Times finding out that Blacks were favored over Whites in SYG claims, which might be the reason the paper suddenly dropped any further “research” on the matter and made the raw data hard to find.
And then there is that little constant lie the Stand Your Ground is an Evil Florida-born law when in fact there are at least three SCOTUS decisions upholding Stand Your Ground.
And one last item: Words have meanings but they love to twist them for their purposes. This was a killing of one man by an individual, yet it is called a lynching because it evokes a guttural reaction. It is the misuse of a tragic memory in the history of this country, applied specially against unarmed blacks, to make sure they remain unarmed and defenseless and hopefully we end up the same.
Bruen has hurt them a lot and the only thing they have now is to rehash old points in order to cloud issues with the public, gambling on their short-term TikTok memory. It is our duty to call them liars and show the evidence that favors the Truth.
6 thoughts on “Whent they end up grasping at straws of stupidity: Stand Your Ground is racist once again.”
IANAL warning, but these opinions are from people who know the law a lot better than I do.
You cannot claim “stand your ground” as a legal defense for using deadly force if you could “safely walk away.” Any prosecutor that is worth hiring would be able to convict you on any number of felonies if you could have walked away, but chose to use deadly force instead.
Not my opinion, shared by folks in the know like Andrew Branca and Massad Ayoob, etc…
In fact, by making the “safely walk away” statement, the gun “safety” people are actually making the world a more dangerous place. Yes, there are people out there that believe they can get away with murder because they read articles from reputable papers saying you can kill someone, but just need to say you were afraid and were standing your ground. And, the body count goes up.
But, Everytown does not care. In fact, the more dead, the better their narrative gets. They have zero interest in actually making the world safer, they are interested in placing themselves in charge.
“You cannot claim “stand your ground” as a legal defense for using deadly force if you could “safely walk away.” Any prosecutor that is worth hiring would be able to convict you on any number of felonies if you could have walked away, but chose to use deadly force instead.
Not my opinion, shared by folks in the know like Andrew Branca and Massad Ayoob, etc…”
Maybe in a shithole state. Not in IN, where I live.
From the Gun Owner’s bill of rights written by our AG:
“Q: Do you have a duty to retreat if threatened? A: The policy of the State, as enshrined in Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2, declares that an individual has a right to protect his or her home from unlawful intrusion, and to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime. Therefore, you have the right to protect yourself or a third person with the use of deadly force without the duty to retreat if you believe that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry into your dwelling or occupied motor vehicle. Moreover, you may use deadly force without the duty to retreat if you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent a deadly attack or serious bodily injury to yourself or another person. Under Indiana law, you may also use deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony – one that involves the use of physical force or violence against any individual resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability. These laws are sometimes known as Stand Your Ground Laws or the Castle Doctrine.”
So, one takeaway lesson from this discussion is: the law re self-defense and use-of-force varies significantly, and in important ways, from state-to-state. Learn it well for your own state; and there are resources that provide a primer for other states you might find yourself in; e.g. https://scharfflawfirm.com/self-defense-laws-u-s/
Careful there Birddog.
Just because you do not have a duty to retreat, that does not mean use of deadly force is justified if you do have a safe avenue to leave the scene, and you choose not to take it. A prosecutor, especially one that is anti-gun, can and will point out to the jury that you have more than enough opportunity to back away, but chose to use deadly force instead of stepping away from the encounter.
Please read that citation very carefully, from the perspective of an anti-gun prosecutor. Key words to pay very close attention to: “…you may use deadly force without the duty to retreat if you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent a deadly attack or serious bodily injury to yourself …”</b.
If you could have walked away safely, the police, DA, prosecutor, and eventually the jury will know that, and the verdict will not be in your favor. Being able to walk away safely means you were not in danger of your life, or grievous bodily harm.
There are plenty of people who can say it much better than I can. Take 15 minutes and watch the presentation Massad Ayoob gave at the Cato institute about SYG. Better yet, read the books from both Andrew Branca and Massad Ayoob about the laws involved in self defense.
I would also recommend that you talk with a lawyer in your state before you make a decision about when you can and cannot use deadly force. I got a lot of info at my CCW class from the lawyer (from the DA’s office) who briefed on the laws and regulations for carrying. Have been in contact with him several times since, and he is always helpful.
Final note, I do not live in a shithole state. We have had constitutional carry for decades, we were one of the first states to adopt a stand your ground law, and we have one of the highest percentage of EDC folks out there. And, even here, if you can walk away from the situation safely, you were not in danger of your life. Which means
“Just because you do not have a duty to retreat, that does not mean use of deadly force is justified if you do have a safe avenue to leave the scene, and you choose not to take it.’
Actually, that’s exactly what it’s saying. Why are you trying to argue otherwise? No where am I required to walk away if someone is intent on harming me if I am legally permitted to be where I am and am committing no crime.
Maybe in your state, not in Texas.
Login or register to comment.