Wait, So Al Sharpton Wants MORE Trayvon Murders?

1. Trayvon was killed in self-defense
2. The Mexican who killed him was an aggressor
3. These allegations are mutually exclusive

If you get into an argument and are --->.<--- this close to being stabbed, but the other guy goes away for whatever reason, you are no longer in danger and no longer acting in self defense if you go after him. This is an American legal doctrine: you are only acting in self-defense if there is a current threat.

So: we have a young black man being followed, then he confronts the guy following him. The guy could have acted in self defense but the black man backed off. Then the black man goes on his way and the guy with the white-sounding name went after him. You know what happens at this point? Trayvon acts in self-defense and beats the sh*t outta the guy, is what happens.

In England, if you are assaulted and end up kicking ass and taking names, YOU get in trouble. The person who was a victorious victim ends up in prison for assault! In America, if you kick the booty of an aggressor, you are your own hero and the Police give you a thumbs-up and tell you "self-defense, no charges filed."

What are you driving at, VFD?

The race pimps are currently trying to use the blood of Trayvon to convince you that 24 States with "stand your ground" laws should revoke those laws. The effect of this, if they allege the truth, would be as follows:

The guy attacks Trayvon and Trayvon gets killed, because Trayvon knows he has no right to stand and fight.

Hold on there.

Is that really the law you want? REALLY? Sure, if the truth is that the guy had turned to leave and Trayvon attacked him, the guy was acting in self defense and oh it's so horrible that he has the human legal right to defend himself instead of running away. Right, sure, fine, but what if your preferred story of Trayvon-the-victim is true? Then you want to repeal the right of young black men everywhere to defend themselves against the White Aggressor!

How perverse is this?