Quote of the Morning

“Well, ‘Stand Your Ground’ is not doing what this man did. There’s a difference between ‘Stand Your Ground’ and doing what he did. And it’s a horrible case. It’s chilling to hear what happened, and of course the fact that law enforcement didn’t immediately go after and prosecute this case is another chilling example of horrible decisions made by people in this process.” Rick Santorum in Louisiana

Wow. Never expected that.

  • balvynije

    yo obamatron, you did go today kid. ya did good.

  • bphoon

    (sigh…) I happen to live in one of the “Stand Your Ground” states, Kansas, so I can only speak to the way the law is written here.

    In this state, so-called “Stand Your Ground” simply means that a person has no legal obligation to retreat, whether in her private residence or in public, if under attack where a reasonable fear exists that if the attack continues unabated great bodily harm or death is imminent. It also allows a person to act to thwart an attack on another innocent person where a reasonable threat of imminent great bodily harm or death is present. Period. That’s it.

    It validates the idea that a person has the right to defend herself. For example, let’s say I’m on the street and a person attacks me for whatever reason. If the nature of the attack is such that I fear that if I do nothing I’ll suffer great bodily harm or death and that threat is imminent, I have no legal obligation to retreat and can use whatever force is necessary–including deadly force–to thwart the attack. If I say, “Boo!” and the attacker runs away, that’s all the force that was necessary to thwart the attack. Done and done. Anything I do after that against this attacker doesn’t, in this state, qualify as self-defense.

    Another scenario: I get into an argument with someone on the street and end up picking a fight with him. He gets the better of me and now I fear imminent great bodily harm or death. Can I use deadly force and claim self-defense? No–I picked the fight and therefore created the situation that resulted in my fear of imminent great bodily harm or death.

    This law doesn’t authorize anyone to pursue or hunt down an aggressor. All it does is allow a person to thwart an attack serious enough to put a reasonable person in fear of great bodily harm or death against herself or another innocent person.

    In the Florida case, as I understand it, the perpetrator pursued the victim for some distance after being told not to by the 911 dispatcher. He then accosted the victim and shot him. In Kansas, he’s not able to claim self defense because he pursued his victim. At the least this would be voluntary manslaughter.

    That’s why people like Santorum are saying this case isn’t about “Stand Your Ground”. The perpetrator didn’t act under that law since he gave chase. That the police did no forensic investigation, that they didn’t at least detain the perp and impound his weapon is a gross miscarriage of justice and, in my opinion, constitutes willful malfeasance on the part of the officers at the scene as well as the sheriff.

    The actions of the perpetrator in this case would not, at least in Kansas, constitute self defense. His actions were inconsistent with the letter as well as the spirit of the law. He acted outside the “Stand Your Ground” law and should therefore not be allowed to try to use it as a defense.

  • Victor_the_Crab

    Even a broken clock can be right twice in a 24 hour period.

  • muselet

    Maybe it’s me, but I think Rick Santorum’s statement is simply the defense of the indefensible.

    Well, ‘Stand Your Ground’ is not doing what this man did. There’s a difference between ‘Stand Your Ground’ and doing what he did.

    “The law’s fine and dandy, but this one guy didn’t follow it.”

    And it’s a horrible case.

    “This is an isolated incident.”

    It’s chilling to hear what happened, and of course the fact that law enforcement didn’t immediately go after and prosecute this case is another chilling example of horrible decisions made by people in this process.

    “Stop acting like there’s a larger issue here. The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law isn’t the problem. The problem is that the authorities in this specific, isolated incident did some procedural things incorrectly. That’s no reflection on ‘Stand Your Ground’ or race relations or any of those other things the liberals want to talk about. Now, can we please talk some more about how people are having sex wrong?”

    I see very little, if anything, admirable here. That he didn’t blow the racial air raid siren—it’s not a dog whistle if everyone can hear it—like Newt Gingrich did doesn’t earn Santorum any Good Guy points from me.


  • andrewdski

    Unlike many Republicans, Rick Santorum does seem to have some moral principals, and he demonstrates that here.

    What many find objectionable in Romney and Gingrich is that they have no core beliefs other than a desire for power. The problem with Santorum on the other hand, is that many of his core beliefs, I regard as actually immoral. So +1 for the morality of this position, -100 for, say, his position on the immorality of birth control and a host of other issues.

    I will say this. It appears with Santorum what you see is what you get, and sometimes his core morality leads him to an understanding that seems to evade more cynical Republicans.

  • missliberties


    Now we have to show folks that this law is decidedly unconstitutional. It circumvents the constitutional right to a trail by jury. This law is a travesty and a license to murder.

  • gobrooklyn

    Sorry, I still call bull sh*t. The GOP doesn’t want Stand Your Ground to be tied to this killing so they are going around saying it had nothing to do with it.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    If I were really cynical, I’d think that Santorum and the other GOP candidates spent most of the week trying to figure out how they could spin this incident to make the President, Democrats, Liberals™, &c. look bad and rile up their deranged base, and when they realized there really wasn’t any way to do that, they came out and said the right things.

    Except Gingrich’s bizarre freakout over Obama’s “If I had a son…” comment.

  • DarNamell

    Pointed difference is that it is a horrible decision made by horrible people whom he just happens to embrace as his base. He only is saddened by the incident, not the rationale that laid the groundwork for it to happen. Let’s not lose sight of that.

  • kushiro -

    I’m sure they’re working on some way to explain how Obama’s job-killing healthcare socialism is responsible for this incident. Also, somebody involved was probably a Muslim.

  • Arleen J. Rutten

    Major cynic, here. When will Ricky Dicky “walk it back”?

  • JackDaniel07

    Before we hyperextend our own arms patting him on the back, I’m sure its safe to say he went on to lie about everything else he spoke about

  • eaglesfanintn

    I HATE that I have to actually agree with He Who Must Not Be Googled on something.

    • missliberties

      I don’t mind agreeing with Rick because it is good for the country.

      This law is awful. I can’t believe so many states of passed it.

  • Doran

    Indeed. But that said, in personal conversation I’m finding this incident transcends politics. Very conservative people I know are very pissed off about what happened. Good to see Santorum on the right side of this.