Boycott Florida? No.

Should Californians boycott Florida in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin? Assemblyman Chris Holden, a Democrat from Pasadena, says they should, and he will introduce a joint resolution on behalf of the Legislative Black Caucus calling for just that when the Legislature returns from its summer recess Aug. 5.

It's a bad idea.

Boycotts are generally directed at companies or societies (in this case, the state of Florida) instead of individuals, but they are analogous in some ways to criminal sentences: They are sanctions inflicted for unacceptable actions or practices. It should be obvious that to be just, criminal penalties have to be applied against the actual perpetrators, and they should be imposed, to the extent possible, equally and fairly against everyone caught committing the same crime and not just those who are especially unpopular or have a high profile. And just as a prosecutor or lawmaker has to determine what a sanction is supposed to accomplish, boycotters too should have some idea of what their purpose is.

What would be the goal of a boycott against Florida? Holden claims his target is Florida's "stand your ground" law, a statute similar to those on the books of more than 20 other states, which allows a person to use deadly force in self-defense without first trying to retreat from danger.

There is legitimate question about the wisdom and fairness of such laws, which, this page noted this year, encourage a dangerous shoot-first mentality. President Obama on Friday was one of many who called for a reconsideration of such laws in the wake of the Martin killing and the acquittal of Zimmerman. We join those who are concerned about "stand your ground" laws.

But if the wrong to be punished and corrected is the adoption of such laws, it would be odd and unjust to direct a boycott at Florida alone, and not other states with such laws, merely because Zimmerman's trial was racially charged and closely followed by the public. If the target was not the statute but rather this particular judge's handling of the case or this six-person jury's finding, a boycott of the entire state seems not merely wildly out of scale but wholly unrelated to the perceived wrong.

It's worth noting that Zimmerman did not invoke the "stand your ground" law in his defense. Jury instructions used language from the law, but on that point they were not much different from standard, common-law self-defense instructions used in many states without "stand your ground" laws, including California. Even without the law, the instruction ? and the verdict ? could easily have been the same.

Besides, how many laws has California passed, how many verdicts have its juries reached, that other people in other states consider unjust or vile and would like to punish with a boycott? Launching an economic war between the states is not something to be done rashly.

Source: http://feeds.latimes.com/~r/latimes/news/opinion/~3/aDbXsXlcjaY/la-ed-florida-boycott-california-legislature-trayv-20130721,0,2931633.story

Duck Dynasty sequestration Van Cliburn Sequester Miami Heat Harlem Shake Harlem Shake Miami Heat dr seuss