It IS About Race: Study Finds Significant Racial Bias In ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, July 19, 2013 21:28
VIEWED: 6570
PAGE 1 of 1

NIKI2

Monday, July 15, 2013 5:36 PM

Quote:
First of all, let’s get a bit of background: the law was originally called the “castle doctrine” and held that a person had the right to defend their “castle”; meaning, they didn’t have to retreat but could, in fact, use deadly force against an intruder in their home. During the 1980s, several states adapted the law, changing the name to “Make My Day” (Dirty Harry, anyone?) and in 2005, Florida took the law even further with “Stand Your Ground”:
Quote:
Florida’s law states “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 felon.

Laws in at least 21 states allow that there is no duty to retreat an attacker in any place in which one is lawfully present. (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.) At least nine of those states include language stating one may “stand his or her ground.” (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.) http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/justice/self-defense-and-stand-you
r-ground.aspx

That’s the foundation of the law; clearly interpretation can be found in between the lines and often is. The question is, has the law helped make people safer? Kept their homes safer? Kept them alive in situations in which they felt threatened? And has there been or is there a racial component in how the law is implemented, as many believe is the case with Trayvon Martin’s death and the acquittal of the man who killed him?

A Frontline piece titled Is There Racial Bias in “Stand Your Ground” Laws? discussed a study done last year by PBS Frontline on those very questions, focused particularly on how murder convictions and the racial make-up of victims have been impacted by the SYG. What they found was, to put it bluntly, that “Stand Your Ground” makes it easier for blacks to be murdered without anyone being convicted of the crime. From Frontline:

Quote:
Since Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, invoked the stand-your-ground defense, these laws have been defended by gun rights groups for empowering civilians. They’ve also been criticized by civil rights groups for encouraging violence and being racially biased.

A recent study suggests that laws may lead to more deaths. According to a June study [pdf] by researchers at Texas A&M University, the rates of murder and non-negligent manslaughter increased by 8 percent in states with Stand Your Ground laws. That’s an additional 600 homicides per year in the states that have enacted such laws.

The study, which analyzed FBI crime data nationwide from 2000-2009, says it could mean either that more people are using lethal force in self-defense, or that situations are more likely to escalate to the use of violence in states with the laws. “Regardless, the study said, “the results indicate that a primary consequence of strengthening self-defense law is increased homicide.”

Sound like a recent case on trial? And given the clear backlash to the law since Martin’s murder and, certainly, since the verdict came in, isn’t it time to discuss the fact that the law contributes to an increase in murder and manslaughter as opposed to a decrease? That cannot be the intent of anyone involved with SYG and yet… the law persists on the books of 28 states. And, let’s be clear, the racial component is something to note:

Quote:
[John] Roman [senior fellow at the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center] also found that Stand Your Ground laws tend to track the existing racial disparities in homicide convictions across the U.S. — with one significant

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

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, July 15, 2013 6:37 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TOTAL

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, July 15, 2013 6:43 PM

Quote:
Since Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, invoked the stand-your-ground defense...

Except he didn't evoke stand your ground. It never came up during the trial. He plead self-defense, justifiable in all 50 states.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, July 15, 2013 8:35 PM

And that makes it any better, how ?
Stats for THAT one, as well, right here.
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&con
text=wmborj
(PDF Reader Required)
Discriminatory Aquittal is a known and so far unaddressed problem in our so-called justice system, as is of course, stacking a jury with people likely to be hostile to the defendant for the reverse effect, and who "selects" the Jury, along with the Venue and cherry picks the Witnesses/Evidence ?

The State - thus IMHO violating the Constitutional right to a fair trial in EVERY case they process.

-Frem

PEACEKEEPER

Monday, July 15, 2013 11:27 PM

Let's face it. The rest of the sentient world is aware that the US is institutionally racist. But on this occasion, I'm not ENTIRELY convinced it's the case.
If this man had been found guilty, it would have fuelled the fires concerning your gun laws, and let's face it, your legal system just doesn't want that argument rehashing.
But, coupled with the farce that was OJ Simpson,race issue or not,this is an embarrassment on the world stage when it comes to your Judiciary.
We all have our miscarriages of justice, but this does you no favours at all.

With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.

MAL4PREZ

Monday, July 15, 2013 11:33 PM

Also posted in Kwicko's thread:

"Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

...

On Aug. 1, 2010, Alexander was working for a payroll software company. She was estranged from her husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him, even though they'd had a baby together just nine days before. Thinking he was gone, she went to their former home to retrieve the rest of her clothes, family members said.

An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle and retrieved the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling.

Gray testified that he saw Alexander point the gun at him and looked away before she fired the shot. He claims she was the aggressor, and he had begged her to put away the weapon.

A judge threw out Alexander's "stand your ground" self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1
530035.html

So a black woman walks into a dangerous situation with a gun and hurts no one and she gets 20 years in prison. GZ? Murders a teenager and gets sent home with the same gun in his hand.

This law and the morons who support it are seriously messed up.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NIKI2

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:40 AM

Peacekeeper, you nailed it. In spades, unfortunately. I am ashamed for my country.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:45 AM

Looks pretty straight-forward: In Florida, "not black" equals "not guilty", and "black" equals "guilty."

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Except he didn't evoke stand your ground. It never came up during the trial. He plead self-defense, justifiable in all 50 states.

Just because he did not invoke his right to a pre-trial hearing does not mean he was not covered by the law. In many other states Zimmerman would have had to prove his self defence claim beyond a resonable doubt and would have had to prove he absolutly needed to use lethal force or he would have been guilty of imperfect self defence.

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

FIVVER

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Except he didn't evoke stand your ground. It never came up during the trial. He plead self-defense, justifiable in all 50 states.

Just because he did not invoke his right to a pre-trial hearing does not mean he was not covered by the law. In many other states Zimmerman would have had to prove his self defence claim beyond a resonable doubt and would have had to prove he absolutly needed to use lethal force or he would have been guilty of imperfect self defence.

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

Wow. Speaking of ignorance. In every felony trial whether state or federal it is the government that brings the charges and must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has to prove nothing. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

M52NICKERSON

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fivver:
Wow. Speaking of ignorance. In every felony trial whether state or federal it is the government that brings the charges and must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has to prove nothing. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

Ever hear of an affirmative defence? No, that what self-defence is. It is a defence that requires a person to present evidence to support his or her claim. Even in Florida self defence is an affermative defence, it is just that any bit of evidence to support that claim shifts the burden back on the state. Other states have a much higher bar for the defense to overcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

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

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:50 PM

In Firefly the Alliance merged the US flag with the flag of Communist China

PEACEKEEPER

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Peacekeeper, you nailed it. In spades, unfortunately. I am ashamed for my country.

Don't be ashamed of your country.Be ashamed of the judge.

With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 7:45 PM

Fact: Stand your ground laws benefit blacks more than whites.

Those who stood, those who fell: fatal cases

Critics say "stand your ground" turned Florida into the Wild West. Supporters say it has helped keep innocents out of jail. The truth of how the law has been used over the past six years was unknown until now.

What follows is the most comprehensive list of "stand your ground" cases ever created. Browse by victim or defendant, by fatal or nonfatal cases. Hover over a photo to explore the basics of each case or click it for a more detailed case file. Use the buttons at right to filter by race, sex and location.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BRENDA:
They need a study to notice this is biased? In a state like Montana, Martin would have been Indian and Zimmerman would have walked.

Maybe I just look at these kinds of laws with a jaundice eye because I view it through a minority lense.

Had said Indian attacked Zimmerman in a similar fashion, he SHOULD walk, too. Everyone who was fighting for their life would walk. It's a none issue as to the color of the attacker's ( Martin )skin color.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, July 18, 2013 2:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
I'm still not sure who started what. But then I am also not sure that Zimmerman is completely innocent either.

I grew up in neighbourhoods like that, I can tell you that Martin threw the first punch- in response to a nervous white dude unable to adequately explain just WHY he was stalking the youth. Yeah, Martin might have been guilty of a pre-emptive defence strike, but Zimmerman initiated it, and should be responsible for its outcome.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, July 18, 2013 2:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

a nervous white dude unable to adequately explain just WHY he was stalking the youth.

A nervous white dude which , according to Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon KNEW was a security guard.

And yet, he still chose to confront GZ with violence, instead of running away or simply talking to him.

But GZ, he was the 'adult' in this situation, but didn't act like it.

Trayvon didn't " deserve " to die that night, but George didn't deserve a broken nose and having his head bounced off the cement either. But that's exactly what happened.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:

Agreed that Zimmerman should be held accountable for the boy's death.

Legally, the matter's already been addressed.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I grew up in neighbourhoods like that, I can tell you that Martin threw the first punch- in response to a nervous white dude unable to adequately explain just WHY he was stalking the youth. Yeah, Martin might have been guilty of a pre-emptive defence strike, but Zimmerman initiated it, and should be responsible for its outcome.

I don't think you get to punch someone for coming up to you and asking you what you are doing.

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

CHRISISALL

Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I don't think you get to punch someone for coming up to you and asking you what you are doing.

Martin probably came on with the tough guy "Why you followin' me mutha***er?" prompting Zim to reflexively reach towards his gun making it look like a move of some kind to Martin who didn't wait for a punch or wrestling move to come his way- he attacked.

So, you can simplify it all you want, but if you really DO want to simplify it for real, Zimmerman at home drinking his beer & not out looking to be everyone's hero would have been better for all concerned.

M52NICKERSON

Thursday, July 18, 2013 2:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Martin probably came on with the tough guy "Why you followin' me mutha***er?" prompting Zim to reflexively reach towards his gun making it look like a move of some kind to Martin who didn't wait for a punch or wrestling move to come his way- he attacked.

So, you can simplify it all you want, but if you really DO want to simplify it for real, Zimmerman at home drinking his beer & not out looking to be everyone's hero would have been better for all concerned.

It could have happened that way, no one knows.

Your argument about Zimmerman being at home works for Martin as well. I can fault Zimmerman for wanting to help and try and prevent his neighbors from being robbed. I think he went about it in the wrong way, but I think he intentions were good. In the end I think both Zimmerman and Martin could have done things differently and avoided the confrontation.

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

HERO

Thursday, July 18, 2013 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Trayvon didn't " deserve " to die that night, but George didn't deserve a broken nose and having his head bounced off the cement either. But that's exactly what happened.

The are a number of possible scenarios for how this all got started, which is the ONLY issue.

Racist Zimmerman stalked young child Martin and killed him, probably from a bullet to the back of the head and while wearing a white hood and raping a black stripper with his lacross buddies. (Al Sharton's version)
Zimmerman followed Martin and Martin attacked Zimmerman. (The generally understood version).
Zimmerman was on his way back to car and gets attacked by Martin. (Zimmerman version).
Zimmerman followed Martin because he hates black people and Zimmerman caused the fight...somehow. (The Prosecutor's version).
Martin attacked Zimmerman because he believed he was a male rapist. (Jenteal's latest version).

Its also possible that both sides are responsible and acted with racial bias and unwarranted aggression.

There is even the possibility that both sides were acting in good faith and this was all just a tragic misunderstanding that was both cultural and systemic.

My take is that Zimmerman was doing his neighborhood watch thing and Martin didn't like it and went after him because he was white, older, and in poor shape, I don't think he intended to kill Zimmerman, but he did intend to beat him. Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked and pulled the gun to defend himself. Zimmerman was not a wanna-be cop but rather a concerned citizen. Martin was a wanna-be thug, bully and racist with some cowardess built in (he never gets into this fight if Zimmerman is built like a linebacker and looks like a ass kicker or if he knew Zimmerman had a gun).

Have you ever looked at the history of Florida's concealed carry and self defense laws? There was some very interesting criminal issues that lead to those laws being enacted. One issue was a series of murders and robberies of tourists driving out of state vehicles. The idea behind concealed carry was that a person was less likely to follow an out of state vehicle to a rest stop and murder them if there was the possibility that the victim could be armed. I note for the record that Florida crime rates have dropped dramatically since these laws were enacted.

I note for the record that I observed police ground combat training (which is basically MMA or wresting for police) and its amazing how fast things go from grapple to the other guy getting your gun out. Its not like the movies, its more like fast forwarding through a fight scene. That said, I carry a gun and I have no intention of waiting till I'm on the ground to use it. If somebody comes after me I'll retreat if I can because I don't want to kill anyone (unless I'm at home, in which case I still don't want to kill anyone, but I'm not retreating) and if I can't I'll fight with everything I have.

This 'duty to retreat' business is nonsense. Worse, its unAmerican. When did we become a country where a free man committing no crime can't stand their ground if they choose? America was founded by people standing their ground. Worse still is the opinion expressed by some of you that we have a 'duty to be beaten'. Zimmerman (or anyone) can't fight back against an unarmed person and must submit to the pain and humiliation and serious injury or death merely because the other party is unarmed...or a teenager...or because that person is a minority. This is America and I have the God given right to make my stand, armed or unarmed, and for any cause I choose. Nobody has the right to beat me in my home or on the street. Maybe you would allow yourselves to be beaten, but that is your right...stay out of mine.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, July 18, 2013 2:52 PM

A wannabe cop met up with a wannabe thug gangsta. The rest is history. Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury after a trial, but he's certainly not "free" in any normal sense. He's more of a hated and marked person than either OJ or Casey Anthony. That's not right, but it is what it is.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, July 18, 2013 8:57 PM

Why Hero, you're such a .......hero

HERO

Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Why Hero, you're such a .......hero

I don't know about that but the cultural implications of 'duty to retreat' vs 'stand your ground' go far beyond this isolated incident. In many ways the 'duty to retreat' mentality is a big part of everything that is wrong with this country.

I'm sure that there are those who see the opposite as the case and that 'standing your ground' is what's wrong. Those people are simply not relevant...because they will surrender or retreat if pressed to defend...their opinion.

They say that God made man but Sam Colt made men equal. That is a simple recognition that no man is powerless, no man must surrender to a beating, no man must aquiess to the terror of bullies, tyrants, or thugs be they King or common. The world is full of places where men must bow without choice or hope. America has always been a place to stand, win or lose.

Duty to retreat? Tell that to Washington, Lincoln. Lawrence Chamberlain. Travis, Frederick Myers. George Patton would slap you silly for suggesting it. Wyatt Earp, Elliot Ness. Countless names. A duty to retreat would never have set foot onto the moon or invented the IPhone. Hundreds refused to answer the call of duty to retreat on 9/11 and instead stormed burning towers to save lives just as their fathers stormed burning beaches to liberate nations. An old woman refused to retreat to the back of the bus and defied the indifferent prejudice of a nation, her people refused to run from dogs and firehoses and the beating of injustice upon their flesh. "Here we stand" has been the true motto of this nation and we should not abandon it to our passion or prejudice.

You want to make a stand for Trayvon, go make it, God bless you, but remember, after all the hype, all the tears, all wish it was, Trayvon never stood for anything but himself. Its not wonder he's so attractive to the Sharptons and Jacksons out there.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, July 19, 2013 4:35 AM

hero. you're patriotic undies are showing again. It doesn't make my beating heart race to hear your hyperbole, because that's why it comes across as.

To retreat or stay and defend. Any military strategist worth their salt will tell you there is a time for both, even if John Wayne films (which a lot of Americans seem to use as their reality) suggest that to do otherwise would be less than *ahem* heroic.

OONJERAH

Friday, July 19, 2013 9:28 PM

Obama: 'Trayvon Martin could have been me'
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/politics/obama-zimmerman

"Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago," Obama told White
House reporters in a surprise appearance at the daily briefing.

Oonjerah: With all my fears and ingrained attitudes, can I
really claim to be fair?

======================:>
A man's gotta know his own heart.