Liberal Harvard professor says “stand your ground laws” are used by states to “outsource violence”


The following editorial is written by a retired police officer and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today

CAMBRIDGE, MA- Do you want to know why we are seeing primarily college-aged people out protesting, rioting, destroying property and creating havoc?

Look no further than their college professors, and the latest story we have is yet another Harvard professor who is claiming that the legal system in the United States is “based on essential injustices” that originated in “settler colonialist violence,” in “racial capitalism through chattel slavery,” and “gender violence.”

Campus Reform is reporting that during a virtual event discussing “Race, Guns, and the Politics of Self-Defense” sponsored by Arizona State University, Caroline Light made those comments. In a surprise to nobody, Light is the senior lecturer on “women, gender and sexuality” at the far-left university.

During the initial discussion, the conversation turned to lethal self-defense laws, such as so-called “stand your ground” laws. Light answered that such laws are a means for states to “outsource” violence to citizens.

“In many ways, I see [‘Stand Your Ground’ laws], which have spread now to 33 states in some kind of version, as a way in which the state might outsource its violence to individual citizens who are marked as ‘law-abiding citizens,’” Light said.

“By definition, the legal system is based on essential injustices that originate with the very beginning of this nation in settler colonialist violence, in racial capitalism through chattel slavery, [and] gender violence.

So these essential exclusionary principles are baked into the legal system and the justice topographies that we deal with.”

The facilitator of the event, Alex Young, the honors faculty fellow at Arizona State University’s Barrett Honors College, asked Light a leading question, wondering why minority groups in particular might be “excluded  from laws pertaining to self-defense,” while also claiming that “people who own buns usually own ‘some kind of property.’”

He didn’t explain if that includes gangbangers in Chicago or Black Lives Matter activists who ambush two California sheriff’s deputies. Because clearly, they “own” guns.

Maybe not legally own, but own nonetheless.

“What we come to find when we really look carefully is that this state violence becomes outsourced into the hands of a select set of ‘law-abiding citizen[s]’ who [are] disproportionately white or white-passing, disproportionately male-identified, and usually a person with some kind of property,” Light replied and added that “Guns constitute a particular powerful form of property in our nation right now.

Not everyone gets to exercise their so-called Second Amendment rights equally.”

When the discussion turned to the topic of women and self-defense, Young claimed that the “gun lobby” and gun manufacturers changed messaging over time in order to target women.

“Towards the end of the twentieth century, [there was] an effort to market firearms to women, more specifically, for their self-defense based on gendered and sexual violence,” Light said.

“This is part of another reverberative effect of our history, our underacknowledged history, of framing ‘stranger danger’ and predatory criminality of these predatory, usually darker masculinities.

We see it with the invocation of the so-called savage native that was a threat to white and Christian womanhood. We see it in the invocation of the lynch mob to kill the so-called black rapists which was a mythology based on the so-called need to protect white femininity.”

In other words, gun manufacturers started marketing guns to women so that they could kill black men.

Light also hit the left’s talking points that modern law enforcement comes from “early slave patrols in many ways.” In other words, she’s a total left-wing nutjob.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Light seems to also have a problem with the president using federal law enforcement where local elected officials are refusing to protect their citizens. Simply curious what Ms. Light would think if these criminals were attacking her neighborhood.

“The fact that our President can deploy federal power and force into jurisdictions that are saying, ‘No, we have this under control, our local police can handle this, the fact that that’s happening is very concerning, because it’s done under the logic of a need, a desire to protect monuments and memorials.

And it’s done also in the guise of protecting a certain vision of history, a certain kind of history that some deem essential to our national identity.”

That last statement shows how truly clueless Light is. First of all, the federal troops that were deployed to “protect monuments and memorials” were deployed in Washington, DC, where those “monuments and memorials” stood on federal property, which IS under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Secondly, the federal troops and law enforcement officers who were deployed to Portland were sent there to protect federal property once again, where local officials refused to protect such property and where local law enforcement was being over-run by rioters and undermined by local officials.

So clearly, Ms. Light has zero idea of what she is talking about. In the case of Portland, it was obvious that the situation was not “under control.”

The fact of the matter is that where local officials refuse to protect their citizens, someone is obligated to step in and do so. President Trump said, and rightly so that if local officials would not protect their citizens (in an obvious political ploy), he would do so.

Her last statement, about “protecting a certain vision of history” was clearly a shot at Confederate statues and memorials, which the president did NOT use federal law enforcement to protect.

Nobody was trying to “protect” history that was part of what she called “our national identity” but as the old adage goes, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Preserving history, even that part of history we do not embrace, is still important.

Light was asked by Campus Reform what her feeling on the statement that guns are the “great equalizer” was, to which she replied, “While it’s very tempting to imagine that firearms will equalize people across various power differentials, e.g. gender, race, ability, etc., the leading public health and criminological data reveal that firearms are used far more frequently offensively, than defensively.”

She also claims that women who use firearms to defend themselves end up being targets of imprisonment instead of exoneration.

“[M]y research shows a long history of powerful actors invoking ‘protection’ and ‘self-defense’ to justify violence against less powerful or subjugated communities and individuals.

Similar claims (of protection and/or defense) continue to be weaponized today when powerful social actors feel their status or power is threatened or challenged,” Light said.

In other words, carrying guns for self-protection is, in Light’s book racist in and of itself.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

Related Posts