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: 6542
PAGE 1 of 3
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 significantNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TOTAL 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Peacekeeper, you nailed it. In spades, unfortunately. I am ashamed for my country.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looks pretty straight-forward: In Florida, "not black" equals "not guilty", and "black" equals "guilty."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME