The gun-hating media is at it again, wallowing in ignorance as they attempt to claim that a South Carolina man who killed two alleged home invaders and then set their bodies on fire is claiming a “stand your ground” defense as he goes to trial.

That isn’t his defense claim at all.

A Goose Creek resident panicked earlier this year after fatally shooting two intruders in his home, so he burned and buried their bodies in his backyard instead of calling police, his attorney said.

James Edward Loftis’ eagerness to make the self-defense argument in court helped sway a judge Monday to grant bail to the 39-year-old as he prepares for trial on a pair of murder charges. He fatally shot taxi driver Guma Oz Dubar, 46, and James Cody Newland, 32, on March 5 at his house on South Pandora Drive.

Loftis was expected to post $250,000 bail and be freed sometime this week, said his attorney, Stephen Harris of Charleston.

The case poses new questions about the S.C. Protection of Persons and Property Act, a “stand your ground” law that gives homeowners the right in many circumstances to use deadly force against people breaking into their houses.

Authorities have said Loftis’ account of the episode has varied, but his attorney insisted that one aspect has remained constant: the two people he shot had confronted him in his own home. He did, though, call his client’s actions afterward “heinous.”

A footprint on the front door of the Loftis home, blood on the doorjamb, and the preliminary crime scene  showing that the men were shot inside the home seem to provide at least partial corroboration for Loftis’s claim that the men forced their way into his home. The Goose Creek Police even admit that Dubar and Newland forced their way into the Loftis home

Folks, he has the right to use armed self-defense to stop someone attempting to invade his home. That’s castle doctrine. It’s been that way since we picked up the terminology from the Britons, and the concept dates back even further to the Romans.

“Stand your ground” (SYG) laws are different from, but related to castle doctrine. The concept behind SYG laws is that you have no duty to retreat from where you are legally entitled to be. SYG is an extension of the legal protections of castle doctrine so that you don’t have to give up your back and attempt retreat when under a deadly force attack.

The duty to retreat imposed on the person under attack was a deep flaw within the criminal justice system. It put people already under attack at a greater risk of being severely injured or killed by, requiring them to try to retreat before using lethal force to defend their lives.

SYG laws removed that dangerous and deadly requirement to attempt retreat, which only served to protect violent predators.

The vast majority of journalists either can’t grasp this basic concept, or simply don’t care.

Reporters have routinely mischaracterized any unpopular self-defense stories as a”stand your ground” case, even when SYG was never part of the defense.

That’s what we’re seeing in this gruesome Loftis case in South Carolina. Loftis is claiming that Dubar and Newland forced their way into his home and that he shot them in self-defense. That’s a straight-up, unambiguous castle doctrine defense. It’s possible that he may be lying and may have murdered the men, but his defense claim is clear.

The media similarly and spectacularly lied about the shooting death of Trayvon Martin at the hand of George Zimmerman.

The media and pro-crime activists (let’s recognize them for what they are) repeatedly lied about George Zimmerman’s case, claiming that he was using a “stand your ground” defense, before, during and after the trail.

Zimmerman’s lawyers never used that claim in his defense. Zimmerman’s case was always one of straight self-defense.  He was confronted from behind, sucker-punched, mounted, and beaten by drug-abusing illegal gun-dealer Trayvon Martin. He had no chance to retreat. “Stand your ground” was never even an option.

Why do the media continue to lie about stand your ground law, and attempt to insert them into controversial cases where the law clearly does not apply?

Many reporters deeply loath firearms on ideological grounds. It’s hardly a surprise that they’ll misrepresent laws that enable citizens to use those firearms to defend their lives.