Stand Your Ground Laws are not the Problem. White Supremacy is.

In photo, George Zimmerman, a white man, treated like royalty by the police after killing a Black teenager. Stand your ground laws are not inherently racist. They are about as racist as the law enabling the Florida Voter purge. That is, any law applied by racist white people (judges, prosecutors, police, jurors, etc.) will lead to injustice for non-whites. In a system of white supremacy there is no justice. The bottom line is that in such a system, whites can more easily get away with killing non-whites.  

Cress Welsing says: Black males represent the greatest threat to white genetic survival. Black males must be attacked and destroyed in a power system designed to assure white genetic survival. In the white supremacy mind-set, consciously or subconsciously, Black males must be destroyed in significant numbers -just as they were in earlier days when there was widespread open lynching and castration o f Black males, or during the Tuskegee Syphilis Study from 1932 to 1972 when a large number of Black males were used and destroyed by whites.

The genocide of non-whites must be understood as a necessary tactic of a people (white) that is a minority of the world's population (less than 10% of the world is white) and that, because it lacks the genetic capacity to produce significant levels of melanin, is genetically recessive in terms of skin coloration, compared to the black, brown, red and yellow world majority. Thus, 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 photo, racist suspect, Michael David Dunn who shot an unarmed Black teen to death last week in Jacksonville and then fled. [MORE]  Self defense is intelligent. Stand your ground is simply a self-defense criminal defense that allows for the use of deadly force when it is reasonable to do so. In the last 7 years, 23 states have adopted “Stand Your Ground” legislation. [MORE]  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. On its face there is nothing racial about Fla. Stat. § 776.012 - Fla. Stat. § 776.013 (2012). Consider the Stand Your Ground law in Florida:

§ 776.012 (2012). Use of force in defense of person

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

In photo racist suspect John Spooner. He is accused of murdering Darius Simmons, an unarmed black 13 year old in front of his mother in an unprovoked shooting in the front of her home on May 31 in Milwaukee and then deceiving the police. The media ignores this story [MORE] 

§ 776.013. Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. 

Consider the Stand Your Ground law in Washington, DC. The D.C. Jury Instruction states,

"The law does not require a person to retreat or consider retreating when s/he actually and reasonably believes that s/he is in danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force is necessary to repel that danger. But the law does say that a person should take reasonable steps, such as stepping back or walking away, to avoid the necessity of taking a human life, so long as those steps are consistent with the person's own safety. In deciding whether [name of defendant] acted reasonably, you should therefore consider whether s/he could have taken those steps, consistent with his/her own safety."

The comment states, this instruction represents the "middle ground" between "the right to stand and kill, and the duty to retreat to the wall before killing," Gillis v. U.S., 400 A.2d 311, 313 (D.C. 1979), and may be given "when there is a truly relevant question as to whether a defendant could have safely retreated." Broadie v. U.S., 925 A.2d 605, 621 (D.C. 2007).

There is nothing racial about the above. To a racist, the application of Stand Your Ground to kill non-whites is about justifying psychopathic behavior that enables white genetic survival in a world in which the vast majority is non-white. Just as the voter purge is about the political survival of white Republicans in Florida, a state in which whites are the quickly vanishing majority.