Eric Holder, whose idiocy and blatant partisanship is making me reminiscent of Ashcroft & Reno and their ilk, apparently decided to lash out at the stand-your-ground laws in a speech to the NCAA, in reference to the death of Trayvon Martin. While we can be pretty sure which side Holder & the NCAA come down on in that case, how can they be upset about those laws? The justification for BOTH parties is based on that law! According to Martin's advocates, he stood his ground when confronted by a nosy profiler, and was merely defending himself, and his only crime was having the audacity to win a fist fight. In fact, stand-your-ground makes more sense for Martin than for Zimmerman, it being notoriously hard to retreat when a larger man is on top of you. Having the upper hand in the physical confrontation, on the other hand, is generally considered to be the appropriate position from which to call a peaceful halt to the proceedings. But under the principles protected by stand-your-ground, Martin was under no obligation to back off or kowtow to some guy who initiated the confrontation by accosting him.

Of course there are those who might contend that either party retreating (fleeing like a little bitch) would have been the better outcome and that Martin's death is a result of one or both men electing to stand his ground in a state which protected their legal rights to do so, but such people are little bitches whose possessions and women we can take at our leisure and their point of view need not be considered. In all seriousness though, stand-your-ground is the counter to things like Jim Crow. The opposite worked so well at Munich, after all...