I started writing this as a comment to Skip’s post (here) but then realized it was too long.
Stand Your Ground was never brought up at the Zimmerman trial but I think that was intentional. It was never about Zimmerman. It was always about Stand Your Ground and the left’s anti-gun agenda. He’s just a vehicle for the narrative. They just had to get someone to put him on trial. Win or lose the narrative has got legs.
If they lose the case this leads to low info-voter-racially motivated public protest, which equals the appearance of public support for the real agenda. If the Win–if Zimmerman was found guilty–then they use that as a catalyst to move against stand your ground and castle doctrine, and self-defense in general.
The Obama admin’s mission from day one was to find someone to charge him and try him. The outcome was irrelevant to the real goal. And so they applied pressure where needed to make a trial happen.
Perhaps this was the goal after all and a small town tragedy was seen merely as another version of the same thing – to render us less dependent on ourselves.
Yes. Yes it was.
I’ve been saying, and again, at least twice in the past week, that at its root this was always about the anti-gun narrative. And I think they left that out of the court case intentionally. They knew (KNEW) getting Zimmerman convicted was a long shot. At best his being found not guilty would serve as a call to action which they could use to fuel the real motivation for trying him under these circumstances; agitating the base yes, but why? They wanted protests and riots so it would appear that there was public support for their real agenda–Zimmereman used “Stand Your Ground” to kill poor little Trayvon Martin, right? And were it not for Stand Your Ground poor little Trayvon would still be alive. George Zimmerman might be dead but so what? If Zimmerman dies this case never sees the national light of day (because it does not serve the narrative).
Facts don’t matter, clearly, or they never could or would have brought this to trial. They needed the catalyst for the anti-gun agenda. It’s fast and furious in complexion. Create the circumstances to demand action.
But if they pushed the Stand your ground issue in court as well, given what little case they had, a not-guilty verdict would have made the anti-gun hill even steeper, maybe impossible to climb. So they never brought it up.
And now, after the verdict, we have AG Holder doing what? Talkng about Stand your Ground. And that is exactly where they wanted to be.