If you feel scared and threatened by me, does that give you the right to kill me, even if I have not said or done anything threatening to you? I mean, if Arizona governor Jan Brewer said she felt threatened by Pres. Obama when she wagged her finger in his smiling face, does that give her the right to shoot him dead and get away with it, because it can be proven that she truly felt fear. The image showed the president posed no real threat to her, so her fear is irrational. Should she still stand a chance with the self-defence argument in a court of law? Under Stand-Your-Ground, the answer is yes. At what point does anti-black racism come into consideration when arguments of “threat or fear of blacks” is used as defense for killing unharmed blacks? At what point does your real fear gets challenged by my REAL behavior? Don’t know what I mean?
Take this youtube video as an example. I don’t dispute that the pitcher felt legitimate fear. But, if this scenario played out on a real life street in Florida instead of the baseball field, would he, the pitcher, be justified in shooting the black batter, if he had stood his ground with a gun instead of running? Consider that the batter poses NO REAL threat to the pitcher and does not even realize the cowardly pitcher fears and runs from him. In other words, the pitcher’s “very real fear” is IRRATIONAL.
Yet, not coincidentally, many of the comments fall along the racially biased fault lines of, “you’d run too if you saw a big black guy running toward you.” It fits perfectly in the “black people are scary because they’re black” theme that is common among many non-black people. That is to say, black people aren’t “threatening” because of anything they’ve done or their actual behavior, but because they’re black and are such associated with aggression/violence, etc. When non-blacks want to justify hurting/killing black people, their first defense is, “I felt threatened” and it’s automatically accepted as legitimate. The courts get to decide and often the killing of the black person is upheld, usually by white judge and jury who apply their own beliefs about the “scary nature” of black people. In other words, no justice.
As the video showed, the pitcher felt real fear, but the person he feared (the black batter) posed NO real threat to him. So, really, the point of consideration should not be whether the pitcher’s fear was real, but rather, did the batter pose a real threat to him? If that “big, black guy” is running to the bus in the direction of the “small Asian guy” and the small Asian guy sees him running in his direction and pulls his gun and shoots him, is this justice? After all, he was running to the bus behind the Asian dude, not running to him.
Who will apply common sense and serve justice to the batter’s family if he’s killed by the pitcher? Who will discuss the irrational fear of blacks as it often is the trigger for the “fears” or supposed threats felt by their killers? If Stand-Your-Ground’s main “escape clause” is determining if the shooter/accused’s fear is real, then by all means, it should be willing to ask if the perceived fear/threat is rational (did the victim really pose a threat to the accused which justifies the accused killing him?–did the unsuspecting batter deserve to be killed by the frightened pitcher?) The second question to ask is—how does a frightened/scared person behave? If you’re scared of someone, do you approach or confront them and demand they turn their stereo down? Is that how threat works—walk up to someone, bang on their car and demand they turn their music down. If they don’t then you return to their car and argue with them. Is this the behavior of a man who feels threatened?
Sadly, this is what Michael Dunn wants to the courts in Florida to believe about his shooting of Jordan Russell Davis.