Attorney General Eric Holder needs a shrink to prescribe a straitjacket and a bucket of meds. The Zimmerman verdict has sent him into a mental state that qualifies him for a looney bin.
Yesterday, speaking to the NAACP convention, Holder says he will actively pursue the repeal of so called stand your ground laws because such laws encourage violence.
The Attorney General of the United States is taking the position that the law should require that if you are confronted by aggression, even if a thug or robber or a killer enters your business with mayhem on his mind, you must leave, run, retreat.
Under such laws a person who is threatened on the street or in his/her business is a lawbreaker if he or she resists, and does not run.
This is exactly what he said, just to assure he is not being misquoted:
"There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if - and the 'if' is important - no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely."
That phrase "outside their home" is set off by commas. I'm not sure what he means. If he means "aside from their home", then he means a person has a duty to retreat if threatened on the street, in a shopping mall, in the grocery store, etc. Ridiculous on its face.
But if he means a duty to retreat (no comma) outside their home, in other words run outside their home, he's insane.
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume he means "aside from your home," that you have a right to defend your home, property, the lives of loved ones in your home.
But even under that interpretation of Holder's statement, we are left to this: A thug is coming to give you an "ass whuppin'"? You have a duty to retreat.
Defending yourself or your business would be a criminal act, punishable to the full extent of the law.
Let's focus. AG Holder claims there is a "common sense and age-old requirement" to retreat if threatened.
I don't believe there is any such "common sense and age-old requirement". I believe he is making that up out of pure political convenience. Many black people, including Holder and President Obama, are chagrined and embarrassed that a case they pushed, that they insisted be pursued, they lost.
So now the result of that embarrassment, humiliation, chagrin might be that anybody who feels threatened has no right to defend himself or herself, unless in their own home.
Mr. Bodega owner you are now required under the law to not fight back when that badass pulls a gun. If you make the mistake of defending your business, an orange jump suit and cell awaits your arrival.
What Eric Holder proposing is the worst possible outcome of the George Zimmerman verdict.
When Zimmerman was punched, held on the ground and pummeled, what means did he have to retreat? He was pinned down, subjected to an "ass whuppin'", in Rachel Jeantel's memorable phrasing. He was entirely unable to retreat. Holder's proposal has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the Zimmerman/Trayvon case.
But worse, what does it mean for anybody else? If you are in your home you would be required, under the Holder rule, to abandon your home and your possessions and perhaps even your loved ones to an intruder. It would be your duty, under the law, to retreat from your premises. It would be illegal to mount a defense of yourself, your property, your loved ones.
Duty calls! Run!
Holder is proposing that the law allow people who threaten the safety of others, who threaten lives and property, to have free reign until and if an officer of the law arrives, even if the chance an officer will arrive on time is zero.
This is a wanton and reckless and horrifying proposal from the chief law enforcement officer of the land. Let the thugs rule the day! Prosecute anyone who defends themselves if, in the opinion of the prosecutor, that person had an avenue of retreat.
If the result of the Zimmerman verdict is to put on the run any victim of a criminal, to put the responsibility of the safety of the criminal onto the victim, it is the worst possible outcome of this otherwise ridiculous trial.
Eric Holder should be fired for even suggesting such a thing.
But he won't be, of course. The politics of the moment demand absurd solutions to real problems.