REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate

POSTED BY: JONGSSTRAW
UPDATED: Saturday, July 20, 2013 11:22
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1146
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, July 19, 2013 6:19 AM

JONGSSTRAW


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.


http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-yo
ur-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate
/

Yes, by all means, repeal the law Governor Scott. Convince your fellow Republicans in the state legislature that African-Americans shouldn't have the right to use a stand your ground defense.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 19, 2013 5:41 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Gov. Scott says no.

No Special Session on 'Stand Your Ground'

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Neighborhood-Watch-Protest/2013/07
/19/id/515967


Uh oh, Gov. You're cruisin' for a Holder bruisin'.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 19, 2013 6:27 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 19, 2013 7:05 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Big deal. It's still a stupid law.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 19, 2013 7:48 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Great example Kiki, this is at the crux of the SYG law and the Zimmerman case. It is my contention that Zimmerman intentionally provoked the fight because he was sick and tired of being afraid, he wanted to play the hero and actually shoot someone - 2 reasons: one, to put the fear of God into any black male that would even think about stealing on his turf, and 2, become a folk hero to the gun and conservative community.

He got more than he bargained for.

The irony in all of this; he placed a spotlight squarely on the SYG law that's so white hot no politician will go near it, and he could definitely fall victim to the very defense he used. EVERYONE knows he's packing, so any black man would be well within the law, the SYG law, to shoot him in self defense. Who could argue against a "perfect" strategy as I was in fear of losing my life. Just make sure you shoot him in the heart (I know that would be a minor miracle since he has no heart, now I get it) and he doesn't live to tell the tale.

Let's stop for a moment though: you see the jury wasn't charged to deliberate with that law in mind. They were charged to consider Murder and manslaughter, NOT Stand Your Ground. It should have been declared a mistrial. Juror B-37, the mastermind behind acquittal irresponsibly applied the incorrect law. She had her mind made up from day one. Didn't matter what the prosecution presented, they could have had the smoking gun and she would move to acquit.

Bottom line: Whenever he comes out of hiding he better wear full-body armor, because someday someone will shoot him and use his own defense, and, if he's dead, how can any one convict. He carries a concealed weapon with the safety off, he's ready for action. George, it's best you leave town, pronto.

Now Juror B-37 has a book deal.................how convenient!!!


SGG

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.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 19, 2013 8:03 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Juror B37 - again:

Juror: We talked Stand Your Ground before not-guilty Zimmerman verdict

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-yo
ur-ground.html#storylink=cpy


Jurors discussed Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground self-defense law before rendering their not-guilty verdict in George Zimmerman’s trial, one of the jurors told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

“The law became very confusing. It became very confusing,” she told Cooper Monday night. “We had stuff thrown at us. We had the second-degree murder charge, the manslaughter charge, then we had self defense, Stand Your Ground.”



There was a lot of misdirection. If the jury wasn't supposed to consider syg/ self-defense, then Zimmerman's injuries should never have been discussed, let alone admitted into evidence. They didn’t call it an syg trial, but they definitely acted like it was one.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 20, 2013 4:32 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Big deal. It's still a stupid law.


Ask the hundreds of Blacks in Florida who did NOT go to prison for shooting someone if having Stand Your Ground as a defense was a 'big deal'. I'm sure they wouldn't say the law was stupid.

So why do race-agitators like Sharpton and Jackson and Holder want Florida and 20+ other states to do away with a law that's derived from the basic civil right of self defense? The answers are pretty obvious.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 20, 2013 4:47 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



Again the law does not cover those committing felonies.

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute
&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 20, 2013 5:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

All the time. Unless there is compelling evidence otherwise, and perhaps even in the face of compelling evidence otherwise. (FREM, KIKI and other provided excellent questions about Zimmerman's story which the prosecutor never asked, such as: If Zimemrman shot at close range, where were the powder burns? If TM was bashing Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk, which hand did TM use to reach for GZ's gun... his third hand? If GZ was on his back on the ground, with his gun underneath him, how did he draw his weapon? If GZ shot at TM while being battered against the sidewalk, how did TM's body wind up on the grass? Even with serious, significant holes in the shooter's testimony, there is likely to be miscarriage of justice.)

There are good laws and there are badly written laws and there are bad laws, and this is a bad law.


BTW- Just to show you that I'm not prejudiced for or against Florida, blacks, whites, or gun owners when it comes to consider how well a law is written, CA has it's own doozy: THREE STRIKES

While it is well-intentioned with some evidence behind it, THREE STRIKES was passed by our Legislators who KNEW at the time it was badly written, but it was drafted up in competition with a voter initiative which itself was drafted badly, in the white-heat of a horrible crime comitted by a parolee.

The problem with THREE STRIKES is that while it was aimed at violent felons it doesn't SAY violent felons, it says
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
So, very badly written law.

SYG is another such law. And given that it is nearly impossible to either prove or refute a person's state of mind and the amount of fear they experienced which resulted in a shooting, SYG is likely to provide cover for violent felons. In other words- have the opposite effect of what it was supposed to fix.

You're a logical guy. Consider this logically. If there is a way to fix SYG to solve it's essential problems, how would you do it?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 20, 2013 7:19 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.




You are right, I was responding to to Kiki's post which said "even if the cops know someone was committing a felony".

The law is flawed, there is no doubt, but just not in all the ways some people are expressing.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:14 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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
&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.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?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:26 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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?



I posted that applicable section of the law. Yes there is also this...

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

Which again states that a person escaping after commission of a forcible felony is not covered by justifiable use of force.

The next paragraph, and it sub-paragraphs talk about provocation and when justifiable force does or does not apply.

I know you are going to try an claim that the laws says something different by trying to tie the provocation sub-paragraphs to forcible felonies but that is your not understanding how to read the statute and not fact.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:57 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 20, 2013 11:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So in the case of "use of force by an aggressor" the law would read...

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.

Sounds effed up to me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 20, 2013 11:22 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


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.



No the "or" does not mean that because of the paragraphing. This is basic outline formatting. (a) and (b) only apply to (2). That is why (1) Covering felonies and (2) covering provocation are separate, because (2) has those addendums that don't apply to (1).

The section I posted before also makes this clear. Please learn how to read outlines and statutes before making claims.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 09:26 - 12 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Fri, March 29, 2024 09:13 - 3 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:56 - 2076 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL