Another anti-gunner falsifies her arguments

A journalist lobbies against "stand your ground" laws for Idaho by lying through her teeth about the Zimmerman case.

Florida.

A young boy with dreams of becoming a pilot is gunned down in 2012. On his person: Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice. A package of candy Skittles.

. . .

In Florida, Zimmerman pursued Martin. He fatally shot the seventeen year old, and promptly was protected under Florida’s “stand your ground” law. In trial, Zimmerman would claim a defense of self, despite aggressively following and tackling Martin. And according to Florida law, he had the right to do so. The jury could not charge him, and Zimmerman would walk free. One juror said Zimmerman “got away with murder” precisely because how Florida’s “stand your ground” was written.

. . .

Laws like “stand your ground” provoke racial bias and racism. According to TakePart, nearly 20 percent of homicides are deemed justifiable when the shooter is white and the victim is black. This compares with the 1 percent of shootings where the victim was white and the shooter black.

This structural racism at its finest: a modern-day lynch law.

There's more at the link.

Let's count the inaccuracies, omissions and lies in just that short excerpt.

Trayvon Martin wasn't a "young boy", but a 17-year-old young adult. Furthermore, he wasn't carrying juice and candy for separate consumption, but as ingredients for "Purple Drank", an illicit narcotic mixture. His social media posts confirm he was a frequent user.
The judge in the Trayvon Martin case advised the jury that Florida's "stand your ground" laws meant that Zimmerman did not have a duty to retreat, and had the right to defend himself. However, that was not the cause of his acquittal on the charge of second-degree murder brought against him. The charge, and the "not guilty" verdict, did not reference that statute at all. The verdict was based on the (lack of) sufficient evidence to convict him.
"The jury could not charge him"? Juries don't charge anybody. They assess guilt or innocence on charges brought by prosecutors.
"Laws like 'stand your ground' provoke racial bias and racism". Says who? That's her opinion, not a statement of fact. The statistics from TakePart that she cites refer to shootings that are found justifiable. That justification does not rely on "stand your ground" laws, but on the whole panoply of criminal versus justified homicide. No "stand your ground" laws allow or excuse the shooting of innocent persons. Why does the author not comment on the actions of the people who were shot - actions that would justify regarding them as a threat, irrespective of their race?

Looks like yet another journalist prepared to twist facts and dance in the blood of the victims of crime as she inveigles against common sense and in favor of moonbat shibboleths. I won't wish for anyone to be a victim of serious crime, to wake them up to the reality of which they clearly know nothing . . . but sometimes I'm sorely tempted!