This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Eric Holder Slams "Stand Your Ground" Laws, Claims Self-Defense May "Sow Dangerous Conflict"

Tyler Durden's picture


US AG Eric Holder, who it appears is not busy committing perjury before Congress, or failing to prosecute one single TBTF bank due to their systemic nature, or eavesdropping on the AP, or recording every American electronic communication, or selling weapons to Mexican drug cartels, or generally using the constitution as one-ply toilet paper, has found some time to peddle his thoughts on the Trayvon Martin shooting at an NAACP convention in Orlando. So what did the head of the US department of justice say? He proceeds to blast "Stand your ground" laws, because, you see, having the right to self-defense is dangerous and may lead to escalations. No really: "Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation's attention, it's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods." In other words, Holder is spreading a very christian message: when slapped, present the other cheek.

But it gets even more ridiculous: "By allowing—and perhaps encouraging—violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety." Ideally, in Holder's world all Americans should just hand over all self-defense rights (because you never know - someone's eye may be poked out) and wait for the government to rescue them.

More from the WSJ:

Attorney General Eric Holder blasted "stand-your-ground laws" in the wake of the acquittal of George Zimmerman for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin—saying such laws cause more violence than they prevent.






Twenty-five states, including Florida, have adopted some version of stand-your-ground laws. While the law was a factor in the initial investigation of the Martin shooting, lawyers for Mr. Zimmerman didn't base their defense on the law, arguing instead that their client had no option of retreat, and therefore the stand-your-ground principle didn't apply.







And the punchline:

"These laws try to fix something that was never broken," Mr. Holder argued, saying pre-existing self-defense law allowed the use of deadly force if no safe retreat is possible. If a person is attacked in their own home, there is no duty to retreat.

In other words, to Mr. Holder, the best defense when fighting for one's life, when the option of running away even if chased by a bunch of rabid zombies, is harsh language.

Frankly, how this man still gets a taxpayer-paid salary is a mystery.


- advertisements -
