Quote:

---

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.

Nonetheless, prominent African Americans including Holder and “Ebony and Ivory” singer Stevie Wonder, who has vowed not to perform in the Sunshine State until the law is revoked, have made “Stand Your Ground” a central part of the Trayvon Martin controversy.

Holder, who was pressured by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and other progressive groups to open a civil rights case against acquitted neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman in the 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Martin, criticized Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law in a speech Tuesday before the NAACP.

The law was not invoked by Zimmerman’s defense team but was included in instructions to the jury.

“We must confront the underlying attitudes, the mistaken beliefs and the unfortunate stereotypes that serve too often as the basis for police action and private judgments. Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhood,” Holder said to applause in his speech before the NAACP Tuesday.

“These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the ‘if’ is important — if no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common-sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety,” Holder said.

“The list of resulting tragedies is long and, unfortunately, has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation; we must stand OUR ground to ensure — (cheers, applause, music) — we must stand our ground to ensure that our laws reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent,” Holder said.

But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times. Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.

African Americans used “Stand Your Ground” defenses at nearly twice the rate of their presence in the Florida population, which was listed at 16.6 percent in 2012.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I haven't kept up on all the threads, but I personally haven't argued that the law itself is racist. It's just a bad law. Even if you're committing a felony, even if you provoked a physical altercation, you are entitled to a syg fatal shooting.

Let's see how this might work out. Suppose you're a rapist who doesn't have a record yet, and you're carrying a gun, and you go out one night on the hunt for a victim. Being somewhat experienced at this, you look for places that are dark and deserted, b/c, well, you don't want witnesses. So you find a likely target and stalk her for a while. But she does something unexpected. As you accost her, she breaks your nose and tries to take your eyes out. So you shoot her. And she dies.

What do you tell the police?

Are you going to say, well, I picked out this spot and brought my gun to get a good rape in. It always used to work out, but it didn't this time, so I shot her ---?

Or are you going to make up some story about you just happened to be out and she seemed kind of nervous about you and you kept trying to back away but she came after you so you shot her ---?

EVEN IF the police don't believe you, unless they have evidence to the contrary you get a free pass.



It gets even worse. Suppose the police KNOW you were committing a felony. But you tell them you were walking away and your intended victim hunted you down and put you in fear, so you shot them.

Unless the police have evidence to the contrary, you get a free pass.


Or let's say you are an armed man stalking another man at night. When he tries to defend himself from the threat you pose, you shoot him.

Unless the police have evidence that you shot him in cold blood, you get a free pass.



How does that make sense? How does it make sense that a stalker, an attacker, a provoker of the confrontation gets to shoot the victim and walk away b/c they claim 'fear'?



You seem so focused on black and white. My side, your side. You'd think the simple concept that laws should result in justice wouldn't be too much for you. But it apparently is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Big deal. It's still a stupid law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
It gets even worse. Suppose the police KNOW you were committing a felony. But you tell them you were walking away and your intended victim hunted you down and put you in fear, so you shot them.

Unless the police have evidence to the contrary, you get a free pass.

---

Quote:

---

California mandated a minimum sentence of 25-to-life so long as the first two felonies were deemed to be either "serious" or "violent". Unfortunately, California did not require the third “strike” to be serious or violent to qualify for a life sentence, and people could easily be given this enhanced sentence for minor penalties. In addition, the list of crimes that count as serious or violent in the state of California is much longer than that of other states, and consists of many lesser offenses that include: firearm violations, burglary, simple robbery, arson, and providing hard drugs to a minor, and drug possession

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
NICK- But HOW do you know the person was or wasn't committing a felony? The only other witness in dead, and in the face of what the perp is likely to say... and without anyone else to contradict that testimony...

SYG + claim of "fear"= reasonable doubt.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
M52

Your link only has one subsection 776.013. It doesn't list all the other subsections, specifically 776.041 "776.041 Use of force by aggressor." Mine OTOH has all the subsections: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute
&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

You didn't REALLY mean to cheat with your argument by providing only a small bit of truth and pretending that's all there was to say, did you?

---

Quote:

---

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; ... UNLESS ...

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; OR

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, UNLESS:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

OR is inclusive, meaning both are covered by the same restrictions and exceptions.

---