A textbook definition of “stand your ground” is to “refuse to change your opinion or move your position despite attempts to make you.” And that begs the question — can you “stand your ground” when the option of not standing ground, or retreat, isn’t available?
According to conservative commentator Ann Coulter, author of “Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,” in the Trayvon Martin case, retreat was simply not possible. That was a point she argued on Sunday’s broadcast of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on ABC.
“That is completely wrong, this has nothing to do with ‘Stand Your Ground’ rule,” Coulter said. “You have two completely different narratives of what happened, including one in which the hoodie was not relevant, and certainly not the race. We know basically what the two narratives are. In neither one is the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law relevant.”
Coulter explained the two scenarios, one of which would fall under stalking, and the other that would be considered self-defense.
“Because in one case, you have the ‘white Hispanic,’ Zimmerman, tracking down the suspicious looking kid just because he’s black, blowing him away,” she continued. “The question is: Did he have to retreat? No, he’s the one doing the stalking. In the second narrative, he’s on the ground being beaten up by Trayvon Martin. There is no possibility of retreating while you’re on the ground. All 50 states in the union have a law that you need it for self-defense. This does not implicate the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law. The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law only says you have to retreat, but you can’t retreat if you’re on the ground. It’s not relevant.”
Despite the objections of ABC’s Terry Moran, the co-
“The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law is only relevant if someone had the opportunity to retreat, and the law said that you don’t have to retreat,” she said. “In neither narrative is retreating an option. It has nothing to do with the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law. This is simple self-defense, on at least George Zimmerman’s narrative.”