Three Teens Killed In Possible Stand Your Ground Case in Georgia

There is another case involving a possible “Stand Your Ground” defense in the headlines this week. The latest case comes out of Georgia where three teens were shot and killed by a home owner. Stand Your Ground laws have been part of the national consciousness since George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, even though Zimmerman did not ultimately rely on the Florida SYG law. The initial account seems to be a classic case for the common law rule that you are not required to retreat in exercising the privilege of self-defense.

Reports indicate that three teens approached the home wearing masks and attempted to rob three people in the front yard. One of the teens reportedly had a handgun and fired shots before one of the home owners returned fire — hitting all three teens. One died immediately and two died at the hospital.

Many people believe that SYG was used as a defense by Zimmerman. In fact, the defense elected to present a traditional case of self-defense. SYG was waived pre-trial by the defense, which did not seek immunity under the law. As the Florida Supreme Court has stated, it is the immunity provision is generally referenced as the Stand Your Ground law. Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (2010) (discussing “immunity from criminal prosecution pursuant to section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2006), commonly known as the ‘Stand Your Ground” statute.’”) The point of the law was to avoid the need for a criminal or civil trial entirely due to the immunity grant. Id. (“While Florida law has long recognized that a defendant may argue as an affirmative defense at trial that his or her use of force was legally justified, section 776.032 contemplates that a defendant who establishes entitlement to the statutory immunity will not be subjected to trial.”).

However, the common law does not impose a duty to retreat. It preexisted the SYG law in most states. If it didn’t, hundreds of thousands of cases of self-defense would have had different results after people defended themselves rather than flee. Indeed, this is a point that I often made in opposing these laws: you already have the right to defend yourself and not to retreat.

Georgia has codified the SYG defense.

O.C.G.A. 16-3-21 states that:
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other ́s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

You are unable to use this defense if you are the aggressor, but early accounts suggest that the use of lethal force followed an attempted armed robbery and the discharge of a weapon by the robbers. If those facts withstand scrutiny, there would be a viable SYG defense under either the common law or the statute.

91 thoughts on “Three Teens Killed In Possible Stand Your Ground Case in Georgia”

  1. No charges have been filed as of yet. I am unsure where the controversy lies.

    3 masked people tried to rob homeowners on their property at 4 AM. A robber fired upon the homeowners, who returned fire and killed all 3. Why would they be arrested? This is just a case of self defense.

    Why were they out front at 4 am. I am curious what was going on.

    The only issues I could see is if any of the robbers were shot in the back while fleeing, or if the armed homeowner was prohibited from possessing a firearm.

    Other than that, what were they supposed to do, roll over and die? Hope the guy shooting at them wasn’t trying to kill them? You can’t outrun a bullet.

    I don’t get it. Why is this being presented as a possible homicide in the news? Armed robbers have no guarantee of their safety when they fire upon strangers. I’m sorry these boys went down the wrong road in life. Their families must be in great pain. Yet this was caused by their own criminal actions.

  2. has anybody heard from Peter Shill? is he alright?

    I betcha justice will be all over this one given the Left’s vigorous protection of Lady Liberty… unless if she’s carrying a few baggies of tina, that is, then dealers get treated better than Supreme Court Justices!


    Ed Buck, Democratic Donor, Is Charged With Operating Drug House

    A third man suffered a methamphetamine overdose at the Los Angeles home of the longtime activist last week.

    Sept. 18, 2019
    Updated 1:21 p.m. ET

    Ed Buck, a Democratic donor and activist whose West Hollywood apartment was the scene of two methamphetamine overdose deaths since 2017, was arrested on Tuesday after investigators said a third man suffered an overdose in his home last week.

    Mr. Buck, 65, who has not faced charges for the earlier overdoses but was subject to a wrongful-death lawsuit, was charged on Tuesday with battery causing serious injury, administering methamphetamine and maintaining a drug house. He faces up to five years and eight months in prison.

    The charges relate only to the most recent incident, on Sept. 11, when the Los Angeles district attorney’s office says Mr. Buck injected a 37-year-old man with methamphetamine in Mr. Buck’s home. The man, who was not identified, survived the overdose.

    1. OK, so I had to do an Irish Poem on Ed Buck! (Or Peter Hill, if that is him.) Anyway, lawyers should enjoy this little play on proximate cause, and legal cause.

      The “Butt-For” Test???
      An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm

      There once was a fellow named Buck!
      And his lovers, they all had bad luck!
      Cuz he loved them to death.
      With a hot shot of meth,
      But you can’t say “He didn’t give a f—!”

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. I read this to my wife, with tears running down my cheeks. She is still laughing.

        (Full disclosure: I’m of Irish descent [but I don’t claim victim status].)

        A thousand thank youze for my laugh of the month!

  3. First of all, self-defense is a right, not a privilege. Second, George Zimmerman was not ‘standing his ground’ when he shot Trayvon Martin, he was lying on his back and getting his head slammed into the pavement by Martin.


    I’m not sure why Professor Turley presented us with this column. If the masked teens were armed and fired a shot, they were fair game for return fire. Even without Stand Your Ground, the homeowners were justified. They didn’t know the masked men were teens, and it doesn’t really matter. Nothing to argue here.

  5. This shooting is a nonissue. Zip. Nada. Zilch

    Obesity…thats a far greater menace. Bring back fat shaming

    Bill Maher: “In August, 53 Americans died from mass shootings. Terrible, right? Do you know how many died from obesity? Forty-thousand.”
    “Fat shaming doesn’t need to end. It needs to make a comeback. Some amount of shame is good. “We shamed people out of smoking and into wearing seat belts . . . shame is the first step in reform.”

    1. young,

      in some states there have been such leftward deviations from common sense especially in tort law. criminal defense based on fear of grave bodily harm or death has stood up better under the test of time

    2. If you live here in CA, an armed robber might sue you.

      A 90 year old ex-cop was held captive at gunpoint, and used a ruse to get to the bathroom where he had a gun hidden. The robber shot him in the jaw. When the homeowner pointed his gun at him, the robber pled for his life, which turned out to be a trick. The homeowner shot him, the robber tried to shoot him in the head but it was empty.

      The robber was charged with attempted murder, but sued the homeowner for his injuries.

      Robbers can also sue for slip and falls and other injuries.

    3. In police academy, we were told of a case in Massachusetts where a woman with a toddler in her arms was chased by a man invading her home all the way down to the basement. It was there she shot the home invader. She was convicted of manslaughter for not pushing her young daughter through a casement window, then crawling through after her – in retreat from her own home.

  6. I oppose any laws which infringe on the slightest one’s right to defend themselves in their homes, on the street or elsewhere. It is the most fundamental of human rights and forcing retreat does nothing except incentivize the bad guys to be even badder. You come onto a man’s property in the night with masks, guns and mal intent, you assume the risk you might get carried away on a stretcher.

      1. Squeeky:

        My experience is that most people live the same lives in terms of interests, sensibilities and ethics. I watched that video after I wrote what I did and this confirms my position. Feels good.

        1. Squeeky:

          I’d take this guy as my neighbor anytime, anywhere. The victim here loved his momma and wanted to protect her. Who’d take issue with that:

          1. Me too. Even though I am a horribly racist Klan-loving whatever. Yes, I feel sorry for decent black people who have to put up with this kind of trash. We see them a lot in Penelope’s office. A lot of older blacks are just lost. They no longer know what to do with young blacks.

            A near 80% illegitimate birth rate will do that to a race.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

    1. I agree that self defense is a basic human right.

      Throughout most of human history, people did not have the right to defend themselves – slaves, servants raped or abused by their masters, serve under the feudal system, people living under tyrants, female slaves of Vikings…

      Here in the US, we are all equal. The poorest among us has the right to defend himself against an assault by the richest.

    1. I don’t think the reporters could have presented the story from a more sympathetic bias for the perps if they were the pastors at these fine upstanding citizens’ funerals.

    2. “OK, so two of the dead thugs were People of Crime, oops I mean People of Color.”
      You know who hates black violent criminals the most? Yep, black victims who are most usually their prey.

      1. @mespo727272

        I feel sorry for decent black people who have to put up with rampant black criminality. I particularly despise white liberals who make excuses for them but don’t have to live there and the poverty pimps (ie Al Sharpton types) who profit from keeping them poor and dependent.

        I recommend you read the “Color of crime” which can easily be found online or check out Colin Flaherty.

        We have the same thing in the Hispanic communities and my feelings are the same for virtue signaling white liberals and the la raza types. What is interesting is that I don’t have many hispanics who give me a hard time for my views but it is almost always a white liberal, if it occurs. They seem to take it personally when they discover you don’t hate Trump or not a leftist.


        1. I have had a lot of exchange with Hispanics from the lawn mower guy level to high caste foreigners and all along the way in between. One of the things I generally like about Hispanics of every nation, caste, and color, is that they have a lot of common sense when it comes to racial and tribal things. I include the average Hispanic American in this too.

          However, i have witnessed exceptions. The rare ones who I have met who do spout idiotic stuff like some white liberals often do, are those who have are trying to show off for their liberal neighbors in the country club. It’s usually a class-climber arriviste

          And that pattern holds with white liberals too. A lot of the most aggressively antiracist ones have the hidden internal feeling that they are parvenues perhaps, and to cement their new higher social position they need to denounce white people “less fortunate than themselves.”

          another thing I like about Hispanics is that they like guns. We usually can find common ground on this simple subject.

  7. All the work the SJWs did to desegregate the masses and these common sense laws are working to reverse all of the wonderful “progress”.

    1. The US Congress with the leadership of the President desegregated the nation in the 1960s after 300+ years of slavery and subjugation. True Americans celebrate this just cause. Nazis and racist don’t.

      1. The US Congress with the leadership of the President desegregated the nation in the 1960s after 300+ years of slavery and subjugation.

        1. The country wasn’t the South, the Upper South wasn’t the Deep South, and the Deep South wasn’t Mississippi. The Southern regime in race relations was disagreeable. However, there was not, prior to 1915, much northward migration, and when you began to see northward migration, it had a familiar pattern – a stochastic event, pioneer migration, and chain migration. Net migration petered out when the differential in real income levels between north and South fell below a certain thresh-hold and when there was some renegotiation of the rubrics of everyday life.

        All of which should tell you that there are a number of vectors which influence people’s quality of life and their sense of that quality at any one time. Read George Schuyler’s reminiscences or Thomas Sowell if you want to understand how that played out in the lives of individuals.

        2. And all you have to do is track descriptive statistics on comparative real income levels since 1955 (and other phenomena) to realize that Edward Banfield spoke the truth in 1969 when he said the economic condition of most blacks would be about the same were there no discrimination at all.

        3. It was predicted at the time (and is manifest now) that the main result of various sorts of ‘anti-discrimination law’ that it’s main effect has been to make people from various walks of life more and more subject to the power drives and involuted mental worlds of the legal profession. The proliferation of ‘rights’ erodes freedom. Which is why the whole edifice should go.

        1. With all due respect mespo, BS.

          1. The south was the south. I lived there and still do. A black person could not eat at restaurants, stay in hotels, go to school, or even buy at some stores unless maybe they used the colored entrance. Lynchings occurred into the 1950s and sheriff contracting – busted blacks and then farmed them out to white farmers and businesses to work it off – continued slavery. Yes the north was better, but not under he same force of law, and not without sin.

          2. BS, blacks economic position is much better than prior to the 1960s. In 2018, the 2nd lowest 5th of black households made $31,800 in adjusted 2018 dollars. In 1967 they made $3,300. The other 5ths are proportionally the same.
          There are also safety nets in place, including SS and Medicare, which keep many from the poverty that typified black households earlier.

          3. Ask any black man who lived through segregation and was not in the black top 5% if they agree with you on that silliness. Are you kidding me? You think you’d be fine with using the back door your entire life and staying out of restaurants, hotels, and the back of the bus?

          I think not.

          1. 1. The south was the south. I lived there and still do.

            You live in Gainesville, the university town where River Phoenix’ hippie parents found a home when they returned from Venezuela. Alachua County has voted Democratic in 11 of the last 14 presidential elections. As for the other three contests, the Democrats had their best showings in Gadsden, Alachua, Jefferson, Dade, and Broward Counties (in that order).

          2. Anon1:

            I lived through the bad ol’ days, too. What you fail to mention is the bad actors were a discrete small group of rednecks who hated not only blacks but anyone else not like themselves. Thankfully, they were few and far between. Most of us lived quite peacefully with our black fellow citizens. In fact, my family’s grocery store and later a restaurant catered to just as many black Virginians as white ones. We looked on these cretins who discriminated on race as the low life they truly were because we knew, for them, “wop” substituted quite nicely for “ni**er.” I don’t recall lynchings in the 50s though I’m willing to believe there were some but not around our area. I just had a similar conversation about the 60s with a black client of mine and we agreed that desegregation was a mixed bag for black America gaining some rights but losing a lot of family and religious culture not to mention HBCs.

            1. No mespo. The entire state governments, county governnments, local governments, and the most prominent citizens in town all enforced this century old discrimination It was completely institutionalized.

              I was there.

              1. I know that local restaurants– certainly most but not all, definitely most– up here in the Midwestern Yankee “Rust belt” often excluded blacks right up until the 64 CRA

                often there would be a side or back carryout window or door practice.

                signs would say “we reserve the right to seat our customers” and that was understood to mean they excluded black customers from the front.

                business ownership did not really have a choice in this. the choice was stay do it and stay in business, or consign yourself to being a black clientele only type shop.

                I suspect the habit of segregated clientele was strongest in restaurants because you still see that segregated dining habit today. Not only in jails but even in universities. By pure free choice of association. Barber shops and hair salons are like that too. in some things black people prefer their own company. Churches too often. I have no problem with this. I do not feel the need to apologize for my own preferences either. I am ok when I walk into a public place and it’s all whitey. Rare now but sometimes you see that at sports events. Anyhow I’m ok with it.

                I’m also comfortable as a minority among nonwhite hispanics. Or asians. I will be honest and say I will never be comfortable as a minority among blacks. I suspect a lot of white people feel the same but are afraid to say so. Well, for me, I am “in touch with my feelings” about such things. I am still in contact with a few of my long time black friends and they get this about me and don’t hold it against me at all. It’s generally just white liberals who do. So I am left with divided feelings about my own kind most of all, ironically, perhaps because I am sometimes more comfortable with them, than they are with me. Perhaps this disqualifies me from being a racist. I sometimes feel more like Dirty harry– “he hates everybody!”

                Anyhow, in some ways 64 CRA that forced integration had as big an impact on Yankee establishments as it did on Southern ones.

                1. No doubt Kurtz, you would not like being forced to use the back door, not sit down, not stay in hotels or motels, sit in the back of the bus, and go to s.. underfunded schools.

                  Where I live, there are no racially segregated restaurants, by choice or otherwise, and mixed social groups, which were non-existent here back in the day, are increasingly common.

                  Healing after 400 years of slavery and persecution will not be easy or free, for whites or blacks. Don’t even think it could or should be otherwise – that would be exceedingly naive. Be patient and constant, things are measurably improving.

                  1. What planet are you living on??? Have you been in any low-income black areas lately??? It’s a frigging jungle full of savage chimps. It is like every racist stereotype of the 1950s/1960s has been adopted by the last few generations of blacks. Rosa Park may have deserved to sit anywhere on the bus she wanted, but most black people today should consider themselves lucky to ride on the step up fender.

                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                    1. Some on get this racist a..h… off this board.


                      I think i can safely say JT does not want this crap on his board.

                2. business ownership did not really have a choice in this. the choice was stay do it and stay in business, or consign yourself to being a black clientele only type shop.

                  St. Joseph County Indiana’s population in 1940 was 2.2% black. The black proportion in Indiana as a whole did increase between 1940 and 1960 (by about 75%). It’s a reasonable inference that < 4% of the county's population was black ca. 1960 (and a smaller share of the population with the spare cash to be eating out).

            2. PS mespo – I don’t doubt or denigrate the sincere good feelings and acts of your family during segregation. That however in no way justifies that regime. Would you be satisfied to live at the mercy and good graces of your neighbors without equality before the law?

              1. here is a good question for us all:

                “Would you be satisfied to live at the mercy and good graces of your neighbors without equality before the law?”

                I would say that equality before the law is a good ideal and as a lawyer I am required to adhere to it. so i do.

                However I observe that Americans are very comfortable with inequal justice which is the consequence of different levels of income or assets. We all know that who brings a bigger war chest to court will often prevail. This disparity is accepted commonly as some sort of ineradicable evil and perhaps it is! But other evils get us really exercised even as that one is ignored.

                As a lawyer it really troubles me. I have tried to help by both providing some pro bono services and contributing to legal aid groups that provide assistance to low income people.

                I feel that the emphasis on race, race, race, is generally unfair to the poor. The poor of all races.

                I can go one further and say the poor white people are in the worst position of all sometimes, because there is no special care or caution to avoid the appearance of racism when they are being shoved under the carpet.

          3. A black person could not eat at restaurants, stay in hotels, go to school, or even buy at some stores unless maybe they used the colored entrance.

            MBITRW, the quantum of time enrolled in school among blacks was in 1928 about 1/3 lower than that among whites. The quantum was about equal 30 years later. Yes it’s insulting to be told you’re not welcome. At the same time, there was a class of businesses which accepted black custom and there were guidebooks to tell you where to find them. Please note that people were comparatively impecunious in 1948. They spent less of their time in hotels and restaurants than they do today.

            Lynchings occurred into the 1950s and sheriff contracting – busted blacks and then farmed them out to white farmers and businesses to work it off – continued slavery. Yes the north was better, but not under he same force of law, and not without sin.

            That’s not slavery, that’s a labor service obligation. Your sort is fond of ‘community service’ as a sentence. Your real objection is that they did farm labor rather than busy work dreamed up by social workers.

            The criminal justice system in the South has never performed comparatively well (though recall John Grisham’s assessment that the prosecutors and police officers he dealt with in Mississippi ca. 1980 were honest and professional). That having been said, most lynchings in this country were recorded prior to 1903. The practice went into rapid decline after 1893 and had all but disappeared outside the Deep South by 1925. There were only a scatter in the South after 1946, with the last in Mississippi in 1959.

            2. BS, blacks economic position is much better than prior to the 1960s. In 2018, the 2nd lowest 5th of black households made $31,800 in adjusted 2018 dollars. In 1967 they made $3,300. The other 5ths are proportionally the same.

            Guess what, stupid? Blacks benefit from economic growth.

            There’s been some modest improvement in the relative position of the black population since 1960 in re real income levels. (Per capita income streams in 1960 might have been about 50% as large as those of non-black households then v. 63% today. You have a number of factors at work there, among them the convergence of Southern and northern income levels, some population redistribution within the country at large, and improved levels of human capital among blacks. We could look up the literature in labor economics, but I don’t think you’re going to find robust evidence of improvement attributable to anti-discrimination law.

            There are also safety nets in place, including SS and Medicare, which keep many from the poverty that typified black households earlier.

            Which would be there if there were no anti-discrimination law at all.

            3. Ask any black man who lived through segregation and was not in the black top 5% if they agree with you on that silliness. Are you kidding me? You think you’d be fine with using the back door your entire life and staying out of restaurants, hotels, and the back of the bus?

            You could have asked Ralph David Abernathy. By his account, the most vexatious part of every day life in the South prior to 1955 was the refusal of whites to use ordinary courtesy titles when addressing blacks. Everyone was addressed by their 1st name as if they were children. It’s a charmingly retro complaint. You could have asked George Schuyler (who grew up in Syracuse, NY), who had an on-the-one-hand-on-the-other assessment about the world in which he grew up (where the primary restriction on blacks was where you could buy or rent real-estate). (“People were realistic about it”). You could ask Thomas Sowell, who has quite fond memories of Harlem in the 1940s. You could ask Ann Wortham, whose view it was that there were a lot of rubrics governing race relations in Tennessee as she knew it in 1950; she later met contemporaries from the Deep South. She said they had this anger; she couldn’t feel the anger herself, but she could try to understand it.

            People’s subjective sense of well-being has a number of vectors. To a great extent, race relations have been made simpler and less disagreeable over a period of 70-odd years. At the same time, new pathologies have been added. If you’re honest, you’ll look at the pathologies and also make a hierarchy of concerns. I’m not concerned about people exercising their freedom of contract except in very odd circumstances (e.g. the services of monopolistic common carriers). We went from one situation where state law dictated one state of affairs to another where federal law was dictating another without an intervening period wherein private vendors were left in piece by state and federal inspectors.

            1. TIA, that’s ignorant apology making. You couldn’t be more wrong on all 3 points. I’ll stand by my post which your’s doesn’t touch.

              There is no comparison between America before the CR Acts of the 1960s and that is a very good thing.

          4. “BS, blacks economic position is much better than prior to the 1960s.”

            The Black family unit is gone. Thanks to Democrats.


            The Black Family Is Worse Off Today Than In the 1960’s, Report Shows

            A new report released by the Urban Institute finds that the African-American family has declined across almost every measure since the 1960’s.

            According to a report released by the Urban Institute, the state of the African-American family is worse today than it was in the 1960’s. Before you become offended and charge, “What about the White family?!” The report also discloses that families of all ethnicities are showing a decline; however, the African-American household has suffered the worst decline. Plus, offers you news specifically about the state of Black America, so, our focus will be on the state of the African-American family.

            In 1950, 17 percent of African-American children lived in a home with their mother but not their father. By 2010 that had increased to 50 percent. In 1965, only eight percent of childbirths in the Black community occurred out-of-wedlock. In 2010 that figure was 41 percent; and today, the out-of-wedlock childbirth in the Black community sits at an astonishing 72 percent. The number of African-American women married and living with their spouse was recorded as 53 percent in 1950. By 2010, it had dropped to 25 percent.

            The original report titled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” was released in 1965 by the late New York Sen. Daniel Moynihan. Moynihan, who was the assistant labor secretary at the time of the report’s release, laid out a series of statistics on the African-American family. Moynihan, in his report’s conclusion declared, “at the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family. It is the fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community at the present time.” Sadly, the outlook of the African-American family is more bleak than when Moynihan wrote his conclusion.

            “An analysis of national data indicates that little progress has been made on the key issues Moynihan identified,” wrote Gregory Acs, of the Urban Institute, in a statement released with the report. “Further, many of the issues he identified for Black families are now prevalent among other families.” The Urban Institute’s report also added to the original scope of the Moynihan report to include the rate of incarceration, employment, and educational attainment in the African-American community. “Since the Moynihan report was released, another major social trend has put further strains on Black families — the mass incarceration of Black men,” Acs said. “By 2010, about one out of every six Black men had spent some time in prison, compared with about 1 out of 33 white men.”

            A demographic breakdown by race was not available for the 1965 report, but numbers beginning in 1974 showed disproportionate numbers of African-American men being sent to prison. In 1974, it was nine percent of Black men compared to one percent of white men. By 2010, that had risen to 16 percent of Black men and three percent of white men. The report did note that number has started to decline slightly among Black men.

            Unemployment for African-American men remains more than twice as high as among white men. For white men in 1954, unemployment was zero. For African-American men in 1954, it was about 4 percent. By 2010 it was 16.7 percent for African-American men and 7.7 percent for white men. In 1954, 79 percent of African-American men were employed. By 2011 that had decreased to 57 percent. For Black women the numbers rose. In 1954, 43 percent of African-American women had jobs. By 2011 that had risen to 54 percent. The trend among African Americans was mirrored among whites, but in both cases white men and women fared better in terms of employment. Although the earnings gap between African-Americans and their white peers has narrowed, it still persists with Black men earning about 70 percent what white men do. In 1960, Black men earned about 60 percent what white men did.

            There is one area of improvement: High school graduation. In 1964, fewer than half of African-American students finished high school. That compared to roughly 70 percent of white students. That has since risen to about 85 percent for both Blacks and whites. But, the number of Black students that repeat grades or were suspended was higher than for whites. Half of Black male students have been suspended, compared to 21 percent of whites.

            The report was released in December 2012, but a video presentation including a roundtable with various experts was unveiled this week.

            1. I have news for you: family relations have grown more discombobulated in every racial category over 60 years. It’s worse among blacks, but, then again, their family relations had a weaker architecture then as well.

              Various public policies had bad effects on blacks and on others, but the breakdown in family relations occurred at every social level.

      2. @anon1

        “Nazis”? I’ve never met one. In fact, the NSDAP went out of existence in 1945. Of course, like most leftists you probably are using the term in the wider sense, kind of like the antifa does. To a leftist anyone who is slightly to the right of Mitch McConnell qualifies as such. Oppose mass immigration, you’re a “nazi”. Oppose affirmative action, you’re a “nazi”. Support traditional marriage, you’re a “nazi”. Believe there are only 2 genders, you’re a “nazi”. I’m afraid that dog won’t hunt.

        By today’s leftist definition, most who came to adulthood before 1980 would qualify as such.

        Same for being a “racist”. I will make it easy. A racist is anyone who disagrees with a leftist on any of their social issues or anyone who is winning an argument with a leftist. Or anyone who doesn’t feel guilty for being white.


        1. antonio, 1 poster here today has made indisputably ugly racist comments, something she has bumped up against doing on previous posts. There is no ambiguity in her remarks.

          Another spoke disparagingly of our history regarding desegregation, implying a wish for a return to segregation..

          I don’t know – or care – if these people are simple racist or Nazis since the latter do surprisingly exist in America today. Their presence was unmistakable at Charlottesville as was the advertising and build up to that event. I believe historical accuracy is important and I don’t use terms like that for idiots like McConnell or Trump. I do use it where similar beliefs indicate that possibility.

          1. @anon1

            Oh, I forgot another category of “nazi”. If you do not support the removal of Confederate Monuments, you’re a “nazi”. Dwight Eisenhower honored the decency of men like Robert E. Lee. I guess Eisenhower qualifies as one now.

            If the mere support for keeping Confederate Monuments in place makes one a “nazi” (and it doesn’t), there must be millions walking around, including this writer.

            As for Charlottesville, I suggest you read the Hutton and Williams report as to what happened that day. You can easily find a pdf online but I doubt you’ll read it, doesn’t fit the leftist narrative. The overwhelming majority of violence was caused by the antifa and that’s a fact. The authorities deliberately created a situation throwing the lawful demonstrators in the path of the antifa and refused to protect them.

            As for segregation, that fight was before my time. Can’t say I support legal segregation but also support complete freedom of association and freedom to contract for any reason or no reason.

            Tell me sir, how has forced integration worked? Anyone who has the means spends lots of money to avoid it in their schools and neighborhoods, no matter how much they profess otherwise. When it comes to mating and migratory habits leftists are usually no different than the KKK. I look forward to the day when upper middle class liberals have to endure the same things with regards to their schools and neighborhoods as working class people due to changing demographics.


            1. Antonio, no. There were hundreds of real self proclaimed Nazis in Charlottesville chanting “Jews will not replace us” while marching by torch light and sieg heiling.

              Look near the end of this Vox piece for the Nazi promotionals before that rally. It was an alt-right national event, well publicized on neo-Nazi boards, not some local concerned “fine” citizens.


              1. @anon1

                No, actually the chant was “you will not replace us”! Not like the MSM doesn’t have an agenda, right? They just want to give us the facts.

                If Anderson Cooper or Stacey Abrams talk about whites becoming a minority by 2050, they are praised, if someone like me mentions it, I am a kooky conspiracy theory guy.

                Read the Hutton and Williams report, I dare you! Again, I know you won’t but others reading this blog might. BTW – Hutton and Williams are as mainstream as one gets.

                And please don’t pontificate your moral superiority to me. And yes, I’m familiar with the vox story. I don’t melt by exposing myself to opinions I don’t share as do leftists.

                I sincerely hope you get all of the diversity you can stand up close and personally. Hey, I know just tell the them you’re a good leftists and have always tried to help.


                1. antonio, Charlotesville nazis shouted “jews will not replace us”, carried Nazi flags, and the ads in the Vox article are indisputably Nazi. It’s not a Vox “story”, it’s the actual march organizer’s posters. It’s the marcher’s flags and Nazi helmets. You can pretend this is an exagerration of normal citizens, but we both know that’s a lie. Quit saying it.


                  1. I dare you to read the report by the Hutton and Williams law firm specifically prepared for the government. Of course you won’t because you’re a chick@@it. Leftists are all knowing in addition to being the moral bettors of us lesser people. Plus it might upset the narrative.

                    I thought you only used the term “nazi” for actual card carrying members. I love how leftists enlarge the goalposts when needed.

                    Many of the people you call “nazis” and “racists” fought the nazis in WW2 or their ancestors did.

                    Being a leftist means never punching left or ever having to say you’re sorry. That’s why you won’t condemn the antifa.

                    Again I hope you have a close, personal encounter with the diversity you so claim to love.


                    1. antonio, I’m sorry you’re out of answers that make any sense.

                      Why don’t you explain to us the great secrets your mystery source knows. I don’t go chasing BS on dares, especially from someone acting as unhinged as you.

                      I do only use “Nazi” for people who are Nazis, and waving a Nazi flag while partly dressed as a storm trooper qualifies for me, though apparently you think that’s too judgemental.

                      I condemn antifa or any political group that seeks or encourages violence against fellow Americans. Maybe you could try that pledge sometime.

                      Anything else?

                    2. @anon1

                      The Hunton and Williams LLP independent report was commissioned by the City of Charlottesville and is 219 pages. An executive summary is near the beginning of the document and covers pages 1 – 20. It is considered the authority on what actually happened that day, from beginning to end.
                      And I’m sorry, it shatters the heroic, leftist narrative a bit.

                      On a side note, page 1 of the executive summary quotes the demonstrators chanting “blood and soil” and “you will not replace us”, not “Jews will not replace us”. but why let the facts get in the way of your narrative.

                      Again, I know you won’t read it, Hunton and Williams is probably a “nazi” law firm but others reading this blog might. Easy to download in pdf form.

                      I wasn’t there but am acquainted with several that were.

                      Out of answers? Not hardly.


                    3. Thanks Antonio. If I have time I’ll read it.

                      You can hear the chants “Jews will not replace us” in the video I linked and marchers are wearing Nazi regalia and waving Nazi flags. The posters and ads advertising the event on the web – see the VOX article – are Nazi propaganda. THERE WERE NAZIS IN CHARLOTTESVILLE. They were part of the marchers and not ostracized by them.

                  2. nsdap were nazis, anybody since end of ww2 who advocates the NSDAP platform one might more properly call a neonazi, but who cares, eh>? So these were not Hitler’s SS Veterans so in some sense it is inaccurate to call them nazis.

                    Certainly some would fairly have been called neonazis. And perhaps some were kooks and criminals. Oh and yes perhaps some were decent people. I would not know– I certainly was not there.

                    Whether they were good or not, these were a large number of Americans from all over the country, with viewpoints who had a right to free speech and assembly like you and me. I am not sure how many. Likely more than a thousand. From many different points of view and walks of life.

                    The local cops essentially denied those rights, and allowed the antifa to attack them, and indeed green lighted and facilitated violence against them, and then presumed to “cancel” their demonstration, due to the very violence which they abetted

                    yeah, read the report

                    Come clean Anon and just say that you don’t approve of free speech for white racists.

                    Am I right? Or not?

                    1. Leftists only supported free speech when it was pornographers and anti-war protestors being persecuted/prosecuted. As a rule they do not support free speech for those with whom they disagree. Otherwise, why all of the speech codes, safe spaces, trigger warnings, etc? The current makeup of the SC has shown no indication of wanting to ban certain kinds of speech but politics lags behind culture. It will come here when the demographics of the country resemble those of Brazil and the country takes a much further leftward turn.

  8. Oh, and here is another good thing about this:

    “Another neighbor ran out to help after he heard what sounded like five shots from a handgun, he said.
    “Then I heard somebody have an assault rifle,” Carlos Watson told WSB. “And it was a slew of shots that came out.”

    This is why regular people need an AK47 or AR15 type gun. Because the black savages are attacking innocent people in hordes. Like in Minnesota just recently.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  9. I wonder what color the three teenagers are??? My GUESS is that them and the shooter are all black, or else the Race Hustling Brigade would be raising heck, just like with the thug, Trayvon Martin. But whatever race, the world is better off to some small degree.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  10. I think it is a Castle if they stayed inside, but Stand Your Ground if they moved into the Yard. I have always thought Castle should extend to the yard.

  11. You need to do your due diligence. Though I now live in a state with SYG, I spent most of my life in NJ where there is no common law right to defend yourself. Decades ago the line was entry into your home. If you were outside you had to retreat till you could no longer retreat. Local LEO friends would tell you that if you shot some criminal outside your home make sure you drag them into the house before they arrive. (Obviously this was long before CSI was a commonly known and practiced concept).

    Today it’s worse. Even if the violent criminal makes entry into your home you must retreat till you can’t retreat any further. That includes running out the back door if need be.

    It’s absurd on its face. It defies common sense. But in NJ there is no common law right to stand your ground to defend yourself and I imagine there are other Liberal leaning states that are similar.

    You also miss the main point of SYG. An automatic defense. No charges. This puts the onus on the prosecutor who just may be the zealous type.

    Without SYG it was common to arrest the person defending themselves and ‘letting the court sort it all out’. When that occurred the victim gets to experience the jail process until and if they make bail. They incur thousands of dollars of legal fees. If they can afford them. Their life is turned upside down. Likely lose their job so no income. Family potentially destroyed. All their weapons are seized and likely never to be seen again even if found innocent. (That’s an ongoing issue in itself across the nation, seizures and refusals to return when the event causing seizure is ruled legal).

    All because they were a victim and defended themselves.

    I’m sorry but this column indicates the writer is out of touch with reality.

  12. I encountered a similar situation in my own driveway last week. Sorry, but I am going to defend my and my neighbor’s property if there hasn’t been time to alert the authorities. That’s all there is to it. This is getting truly absurd.

  13. ? If he shot them on his property, would that not be a Castle Doctrine, defense, rather than a Stand Your Ground defense?

    (George Zimmerman was on his back while Trayvon Martin was practicing his MMA moves on him, so he didn’t have the option to retreat).

    A disinterested witness who apparently attended to one of the wounded youths mentions the masks, so the precis the professor offers above may check out.

    For those interested, that particular suburb of Atlanta has a black majority, with whites about a quarter of the population. The block it occurred on appears to be biracial. The smart money says this was a black-on-black robbery or perhaps a black-on-white robbery. The dead youths appear to have been around 16 years old. Too bad, but you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

    1. Georgia imposes no duty to retreat prior to use of force in self-defense. I think you’re right and castle doctrine would apply. But Stand Your Ground, if ti applies, precludes any trial, while castle doctrine gives only an affirmative defense which still must be proven in court.

  14. Here is the bottom line. If you break into my home, and I am present I will shoot you dead. It’s that simple. And I don’t care what some blue haired SJW thinks about me or that statement.

    I say this as a law abiding professional with no criminal record, not some low IQ, low functioning, “bitter clinger” as the left loves to portray people like me.


    1. Stop the shameless self-promotion…it serves as a reason not to click on your repeated links

      1. @anonymous

        It’s called “virtue signaling”. Not to be confused with actual virtue. Doesn’t require getting one’s hands dirty, it only requires saying the right things in order to be seen as a “good person” and get invited to the right cocktail parties.

        Reminds of those trendy “no one is illegal” signs in upper middle class neighborhoods. These folks would react differently if section 8 housing or refugees were being placed down the street.


    2. If you want to stop this violence, you have to have in place a regime in law enforcement which deters, punishes and incapacitates reliably. Give feral young men a choice: go straight or live your life in the pen.

      1. I wholeheartedly agree. Nothing will change until we actually start incarcerating offenders again.

        1. We do plenty of incarcerating. However, police forces are understaffed, not optimally deployed, and not nurtured in such a way as to encourage them to do their work and not retreat to Dunkin to avoid trouble.

    3. It’s vanishingly unlikely anyone reading this needs a pandit, much less one they found on the Web. Namaste.

Comments are closed.