The plain meaning of so-called Stand Your Ground Laws is not racist. "Stand your ground" is a self-defense, criminal defense raised at trial that allows for the use of deadly force when it is reasonable for a non-aggressor/victim to do so. In states which have variations of this law a person does not have a legal duty to retreat before using self defense to defend themselves under life threatening conditions that are reasonably apparent to the victim. Most states, including D.C. have a version of the law. [MORE]

That such laws allow white people to execute non-white people is deception or a phantom created by the media. The operating system of White supremacy is the cause and effect of white people's genocidal conduct towards non-whites; the recent incidents are part of this observable pattern.

Unfortunately, misled advocates are now unknowingly convincing non-whites to rally against their own rights to self-defense. If white men began drowning Black children those deceived by white supremacy would blame the water and advocate for its regulation! Rodrigo Abad Diaz was murdered yesterday by a racist suspect (white person) while he was trying to retreat [MORE].

(In photos, left to right, All were the Aggressors: -Michael David Dunn, a white man who shot an unarmed Black teen to death in December in Jacksonville and then fled [MORE]; John Spooner, a white man accused of murdering an unarmed black 13 year old in front of his mother in an unprovoked shooting in the front of her Milwaukee home on May 31 and then deceiving the police [MORE], Daniel Quinnell, a white man who shot an unarmed Black man in the face multiple times with a pellet gun outside of a Walmart on January 3rd b/c he thought he was "a muslim" & then called him a "nigger with a white girl," (ironically the Black man retreated even though he had a gun in his pocket [MORE] George Zimmerman, a white man who shot an unarmed 17 year old in Florida after stalking & approaching him [MORE], and yesterday, Phillip Walker Sailors, a white man who killed an unarmed Latino man as he drove away because "he felt threatened" when he pulled into his driveway.[MORE])

The Reasonable White Supremacist/Racist Man Standard. The white defendants pictured above may raise a stand your ground defense in their respective trials but such defenses are a long shot & not likely to be supportable by the facts in any of those cases. None of the white defendants appear to have been facing imminent life threatening conditions or where danger was immediately present and unavoidable -- to a reasonable person/juror.  But - to the extent that Racists/White Supremacists have anything to do with the administration (investigation/police/prosecutrial decisions) or application of the law (Judges/jurors) in those cases, racism/white supremacy and its collective white power will be the cause & effect for any unjust verdicts upholding such psychopathic decision making. 

It would seem that only a white supremacist/racist juror or Judge, could be convinced that Michael David Dunn had a reasonable belief that he faced an imminent death as he sat in the driver seat of his running car which was not blocked in at a gas station before he shot Jordan Russell Davis 8 times in the backseat of a car parked next to Dunn's. After he killed him he fled the scene. In fact, in all the mentioned cases the white killers approached their victims - making them the initial aggressors not victims. 

Failing to comprehend the environmental context of the white supremacy system and its ultimate goal of white genetic survival, Black people fail to grasp the deeper sense of what actually is occurring in front of our eyes. [MORE]. Racism is mistreatment of non-white people by white people on the basis of color. Racism is not merely a pattern of individual and/or institutional practice; it is a universal "operating system" of white supremacy and domination in which the majority of the world's white people participate.

Neely Fuller explains that race is "organization." [MORE] The goal of the white supremacy system is none other than the establishment, main­tenance, expansion and refinement of world domination by members of a group that classifies itself as the white "race." This system dominates all areas of people activity (economics, education, entertainment, labour, law, politics, religion, sex and war). 

Why? According to the "Color Confrontation theory" White people practice racism to survive. 1) White people are color deficient - they lack melanin & all attributes associated with it. White people are genetic recessive - as the white race cannot reproduce itself when it intermingles or mixes with non-white persons. In other words, White can be genetically annihilated. White plus Black equals Colored. White plus Brown equals Colored. White plus Yellow equals Colored. [MORE] 2) White people are numerically inadequate. 90% of the world's population is non-white and the white population is declining.[MORE] and [MORE] and [MORE]. This also suggests that white skin is abnormal. 

If you understand that Racism is a strategy for white genetic survival then you can see that what the White Collective is doing on the planet is engaging in behaviors—in economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex —in order for them to survive by any means necessary and to prevent white genetic annihilation.

The global white minority must act genocidally against people of color for the purpose of white genetic survival. This is the "kill or be killed" mentality. [MORE] In their relations with Non-white people, racists/white supremacists function as psychopaths. [MORE] In a white supremacy system White life is more valuable than non-white life; Racists must be able to more easliy get away with murdering non-white people. To the extent that a white supremacist/racist has anything to to do with it, any law will do to advance this purpose.

Take for instance driving while Black. Do you think that the seat belt regulations in "urban areas" are enforced the same way for non-white & white drivers? Of course not. The answer is not to do away with seat belt laws. White supremacy will also be the unjust cause & effect when a racist Judge upholds the racist actions of a police officer during a pretextual traffic stop and refuses to find a 4th Amendment violation. The Supreme Court has also said that pre-textual stops even based on malicious reaons are legitimate so long as there was independent justification for the stop [MORE]: such logic supports the underlying operating system of white supremacy and its genocidal imperatives, such as the Greater Confinement of as many non-whites as possible. 

(Analyzing why white people are motivated to practice racism is not hate. Thus far, all attempts by the victims of white supremacy to attain justice have failed. People who classify themselves as White, who wish to be taken seriously, and who are righteous and responsible, will only talk about ending White Supremacy (Racism) and replacing it with Justice. [MORE] and [MORE]) It is the duty of those white persons who are not racists, to speak and act to eliminate racism. 

Self Defense

From [HERE] Although the right to protect oneself from an aggressor has never been held to be a fundamental constitutional right, every state in the United States recognizes self-defense, including the use of deadly force in self-protection, as a justification defense. 

At common law, a person who is not an aggressor is justified in using force upon another if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force by the other person.  However, deadly force is unjustified in self-protection unless the actor reasonably believes that its use is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful use of deadly force by the aggressor. And, in some jurisdictions, a person may not use deadly force against an aggressor if he knows that he has a completely safe avenue of retreat.

Self-defense is based on reasonable appearances, rather than on objective reality, "that is, a person is justified in using force to protect himself if 1) he has reasonable grounds for believing, and 2) actu­ally believes, that such force is necessary to repel an imminent unlawful attack, although appearances prove to be false. The defense is unavailable to one whose belief in this regard was genuine, but unreasonable. Therefore, in a murder prosecution involving the use of deadly force, the traditional rule is that an unreasonably mistaken actor is guilty of murder, notwithstanding his belief that he was acting in legitimate self-defense.

The general rule is that self-defense "is measured against necessity," i.e., that deadly force may not be used to repel aggression if such force is unnecessary. One potential exception to this principle is the "no-retreat" rule applied in most states.

Only a minority of states provide that an innocent person threatened by deadly force must retreat rather than use deadly force, if he is aware that he can do so in complete safety.  In fact, even in retreat jurisdictions, the duty to retreat is not triggered unless there is a place of complete safety to which the non-aggressor can turn. Furthermore, the issue is not simply whether a place of such safety exists, but rather whether the person under siege is aware of its existence.

The practical effect of these two conditions is that people under attack rarely are compelled to retreat, especially when the aggressor is armed with a gun: there is almost never a place of complete safety to which a person can turnwhen confronted by a gun: and even if a person is apt to be unaware of it because of the attendant excitement of the situation. 

"Imminent"

At common law, deadly force may only be used in temporally narrow circum­stances, i.e., when deadly force by the aggressor is imminent. In the context of self-defense, force is "imminent" if it will occur "immediately," "upon the instant" or "at once." Force is not imminent if an aggressor threatens to harm another person at a later time. Until the threat is imminent, use of force is premature (think: the war in Iraq).

The Reasonable-Belief Standard

The law of self-defense represents a compromise. The right of self-defense is not based on objective reality, but neither is it based solely on the actor's subjective impressions: a person may defend himself if, and to the extent that, a reasonable person would believe it is appropriate under the circumstances. The crux of the issue, therefore, is: Who is the "reasonable person" with whom the defendant is compared? But, where does such a subjective standard leave the law?

The risk is that the normative message of the criminal law will be lost if the reasonableness of an actor's conduct is measured by the standard of one who may be unreasonable by nature. At some point, the defendant's real claim is not (or should not be) that he is acting justifiably, but rather that he should be excused because of his unusual mental characteristics (racism).

For example, in State v. Simon,the defendant, an elderly white man, fired a weapon at Steffan Wong, a young Asian-American male, although Wong was not acting aggressively. According to some testimony at trial, Simon was a "psychological invalid" who feared persons of Asian ancestry, and who believed that by virtue of Wong's racial heritage the young man was an expert in martial arts. If a judge were to instruct the jury to incorporate Simon's beliefs and mental characteristics into the "reasonable person," would it not be inviting the jury to measure him by the standard of a "reasonable psychological invalid who fears Asian-Americans and believes that they are all experts in the martial arts"? Is this not equivalent to a standard of the "reasonable unreasonable person," "reasonable racist," or "reason­able mentally ill person"? [MORE]