Moms across America, regardless of color or political affliliation, have endorsed and enacted a rule of law that applies to the Trayvon Martin murder case. Yet no one seems willing to apply it. While the Floridian idiots who sponsored the ‘Stand Your ground” law, Rep. Dennis Baxley and Senator Durell Peaden, are both stammering that the SYG law does not apply to George Zimmerman in this case. In a Fox News op-ed, Baxley wrote: “There is nothing in the Florida statutes that provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense.” Likewise, Senator Peaden told the Miami Herald that the law does not apply to Zimmerman, because he followed the child),  neither have suggested that the law did apply for the protection of the aforementioned child, who was stalked, and then killed.

Standard media analysis of this incident begins and ends with The Man’s claim of self-defense, whether or not he was threatened, and the applicability of SYG to his self defense claims. According to The Man’s lawyer and family members, The Boy had managed to pin The Man to the ground, pummel him, smashing his head into the concrete for so long and with such force that, had he not shot The Boy, The Man would have ended up “in diapers and unable to feed himself”. Pretending for a second that these preposterous claims are true, then The Boy – under the Florida statute – clearly had  the legal right to bang The Man’s head into the concrete, as hard as and for as long as he wanted, as he had every right to feel threatened by this strange, armed man, who had been following him.

Based on all accounts and the 911 calls, The Child was walking through an affluent neighborhood, holding a soda and a bag of candy and talking on a cellphone. An SUV began to follow him. The Boy loses sight of the SUV for a while but then sees it reemerge and continue to follow him. Behind the wheel of the SUV is a stranger, an adult man. The Man, 28 and nearly twice The Boy’s size, stops the SUV. He gets out of the car and approaches The Boy. The Man has a gun.

Under SYG, the unarmed boy who was being followed was permitted to stand his ground and use force to defend himself. If The Man’s gun was visible as he approached The Boy, The Boy would have been allowed to use deadly force against The Man, as it was The Man who was clearly and unequivocally the aggressor. That us based on the facts:

On the 911 call, the police dispatcher had instructed The Man not to follow or approach The Boy.

On the 911 call, The Man initially said that he was concerned about “break-ins in the area”. Deadly force is not legally authorized to protect property. The Man said that he thought the “suspect” might be using drugs, an offense that does not warrant the use of deadly force in apprehension efforts.

The Man said, “those assholes always get away”. Clearly he had made the decision that this particular boy was guilty of something. Hence, The Man wasn’t approaching a “suspect”, but rather a “criminal”. Whether or not The Man’s gun was concealed, his actions would be considered aggressive. The Man is a threat.

The Man was a stranger to The Boy. The Boy was being followed through an empty neighborhood by a big, kidnapping-friendly car. The Boy was approached on an isolated street by a strange adult, with a gun.

Every child on earth has been taught to fear the strange man in a car. It is the oldest mandate in the parental playbook:

Do not talk to strangers.

Do not accept a ride from a stranger.

If a stranger in a car approaches you, you need to fight for your life.