Wa?
This is weird.
Much of the ‘liberal’ commentary I have seen - by far the majority - is discussing the problem with laws like Floridas: not Stand Your Ground, but with the actual self defense laws. TPM had a defense attorney email in about this, and it’s pretty much what I’ve seen being critiqued and discussed:
——————————————————————————————————-
I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony. I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?
———————————————————————————————————
This idea that liberals have been conflating the moral, causal and legal issues, is only true if YOU conflate their discussions about society with their discussions about he Trayvon Martin case.
Your claimed understanding of what liberal bogs and commentators(this is all with the presumption that there are only two ideologies/teams in the debate, which I disagree with)have been discussing this case seems to be either contrarian wishful thinking, or you just haven’t looked at many liberal blogs. I don’t mean to sound too combative , but I see this kind of caricaturing of liberal blogs all the time - and it just seems lazy to me. It’s part of the same old media attempt to suggest that both ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ are as bad as each other - both sides do it and all that.
Regardless of the empirical evidence.
This new kind of political correctness gives so much license to be dishonest - and it gives legitimacy to the resurgent and proud sociopathy of the right.

Oh - and please show us where MLK says that somebody walking back from the store to home is relevant at all to his theories regarding organized protest. That people should not defend themselves when they are in a totally different context to the one which MLK is talking about. TRAYVON MARTIN WAS NOT ENGAGED IN A CIVIL RIGHTS MARCH!
And to suggest in any way that he was the aggressor, rather suggests that you’ve fallen for the right wing/defense argument. Which is patently bogus.