Are 'Stand Your Ground' laws racist?

Private Poll: Are Stand Your Ground laws racially discriminatory?

  • Yes, SYG laws discriminate against racial minorities

    Votes: 14 17.7%
  • No, SYG laws do not discriminate against racial minorities

    Votes: 53 67.1%
  • I am undecided

    Votes: 6 7.6%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 6 7.6%

  • Total voters
    79
  • Poll closed .

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
Stand Your Ground laws supplement traditional self-defense laws and are new to the legal system.

There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force for those who feel seriously threatened and cannot flee. These mores and laws are ancient. Today, stand-your-ground (SYG) laws are used either through statutory or common law in around 20 states as a form of self defense claim in the criminal justice system that eliminates the duty to retreat from a violent conflict. Here are some issues that Fuzzy sees with SYG laws:

Police discretion:
SYG provisions give police officers the unprecedented ability to not press charges even if there is some evidence to suggest that a murder occurred. As a result, possible murderers are allowed to not only leave the scene, but may then more easily evade the law if foul play is later suspected.

Unnecessary:
Conventional self-defense still places some responsibility on the defender; they still have a responsibility to try to flee before they use deadly force. This seems sensible, and has worked for centuries in the US. SYG allows people to not try to flee, so people can (in theory) kill anyone they want with impunity.

Paranoia:
The NRA backs SYG laws. Not only is paranoia profitable for them -- with increased gun sales -- but they have been behind the radical SYG statutes sweeping the US. Why would the NRA support SYG laws so strongly? What does the average NRA member look like?

Racism:
SYG laws are created by those who control the social, political, economic and legal realms. Not surprisingly, these people want to maintain their monopoly. As a result, they enact laws that keep their prestige and power. SYG laws are seen as a way to further problematize those who are marginalized or socially, politically, economically and legislatively excluded and deprived. SYG laws are also seen as a way to protect those with power from facing criminal charges. Reality supports this theory: whites are 104% more likely to be found justified in killing a black person in SYG states than in non-SYG states (source).

Statistical myths:
Since blacks claim SYG defenses at a disproportionately higher rate than whites, some might argue that they benefit more from SYG laws. In fact, almost 70% of people who invoke SYG go free in Florida. Of the 133 people who have used the SYG defense, most (57%) of them were white, and they're more likely to go free if the victim is white (73%).

Historical myths:
The NRA states that SYG laws are a "fundamental human right," despite the fact that they didn't exist 30 years ago. Republican Governor Jan Brewer stated that SYG laws were a "constitutional right," despite there being nothing even remotely related in the Constitution.

Increased deaths:
A recent study from Texas A&M suggests that SYG laws may lead to more deaths. The rates of murder and non-negligent manslaughter increased by 8% in states that enacted Stand Your Ground laws. If laws are supposed to reduce deaths, then SYG seems counter-intuitive.

The NRA:
SYG has been championed by gun rights groups as a way to empower gun owners and allow them to take the law into their own hands -- with little to no accountability. They allow for "shoot first" reactions during conflicts, and may even encourage nervous shooting -- at the risk of public safety.

Inquiries:
Florida Gov. Rick Scott commissioned a task force to weigh in on Trayvon Martin's death. His office released a statement saying, "The task force recommended that the law should not be overturned, and Gov. Scott agrees." Last month, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced that it was starting an investigation concerning racial bias in the law's application.

SYG increases homicides in general. They allow for possible murderers to not even be charged or arrested. They are new and many feel that self-defense laws, which all states already have, are enough. Only 32% of Floridians want SYG repealed, so there won't likely be any change soon. As Attorney General Eric Holder stated, Holder said. "These laws try to fix something that was never broken."
 
Last edited:

Boobalaa

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Posts
5,535
Media
0
Likes
1,185
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
In California, a person under attack has no obligation to retreat and can try to repel their assailant with force if need be. In other words, they can stand their ground and fight. The Florida measure is a statute, whereas those claiming California has similar self-defense protections are looking to rules of evidence and the instructions that juries receive.
Unlike in Florida, the California guidelines establish the idea of what is known as the "reasonable person standard," which considers not what Zimmerman (or the defendant in question) should have done but what an average citizen would think, an "amorphous concept of someone in the community who is not in the situation,"
"What would they think? Is it reasonable to pursue once the threat was ended? "Without question, you have the right to defend yourselves and others" in California, but "you can't expense $50 of punishment to a $5 crime in California."

Judicial Council of California's criminal jury instructions

A defendant "is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation." When deciding whether the defendant's beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed.

Under Florida law, you can provoke an encounter and still use lethal means to defend yourself -- as Zimmerman appears to have done -- if you're attacked and:

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.

Florida law -- where the jury must gauge whether the defendant believes he's acting reasonably -- and California, where "the ultimate test of reasonableness is objective."

"It's kind of how we want people to act; it's got a normative aspect to it," "When it's subjective, it's more of how people act when it's reasonable to them."
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male

That title is misleading, and typical of Daily Caller.

You didn't seem to read the OP.

Here are a few facts about Florida:


  • Whites are 104% more likely to be found justified in killing a black person in SYG states than in non-SYG states.
  • Most people who use the SYG laws are white.
  • Those who invoke SYG are more likely to go free if the victim is black
In other words, Florida blacks don't benefit from SYG at all.

Are "hate crime" laws and "affirmative action quota" laws racist?

Absolutely YES.

Fuzzy doesn't expect an answer from hit-and-run newbies, but how are hate crime laws and affirmative action racist?
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Here are a few facts about Florida:


  • Whites are 104% more likely to be found justified in killing a black person in SYG states than in non-SYG states.
  • Most people who use the SYG laws are white.
  • Those who invoke SYG are more likely to go free if the victim is black
In other words, Florida blacks don't benefit from SYG at all.

So, what you're saying, is that it isn't the law, but the police, who are interpreting the SYG laws in a way that might be called racist.

My answer, therefore, is that the *law* is not racist, as you can see from my poll answer above.
 

shaved7

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Posts
1,171
Media
12
Likes
482
Points
358
Location
Kentucky
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
So if someone is attacked by a violent person, you're saying they have no right to defend themselves? This is what stand your ground or castle doctrine laws were made for, so victims don't have to fear prosecution for doing what is right in such a situation,that is not running from evil but fighting back. This applies to all races, ages and sexes.
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
So if someone is attacked by a violent person, you're saying they have no right to defend themselves? This is what stand your ground or castle doctrine laws were made for, so victims don't have to fear prosecution for doing what is right in such a situation,that is not running from evil but fighting back. This applies to all races, ages and sexes.

Actually, no.

Originally, the law assumed that you had the responsibility to "eliminate the danger" in any way possible, but with a bis towards escape. It was expected that you would run and hide, and would only fight back if you had literally no other choice.

The SYG laws codified the principle that you are not expected to run away if possible, but are allowed to stand your ground in a more assertive manner, without fear of wrongdoing. "This is my house, and I'm not letting you chase me out of it."

How this could be considered racist is beyond me.
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
Fuzzy sees only two acceptable solutions to SYG laws:

1) Repeal them.

2) Put CCTV video cameras ALL over the place, including every neighborhood.

Twin Lakes had no CCTV

And Zimmy knew it. After the out-of-court settlement, that is sure to change.
 
Last edited:

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Absolutely they are racist in their application alone. It was NEVER intended (by the authors and proponents SYG laws) that black folk be as equally "protected" under the law as their white counterparts.

Anyone who believes otherwise is either in denial of certain realities, delusional, or full of shit.

... ask Trevor Dooley.
 
Last edited:

hypoc8

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
717
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
238
Location
SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Absolutely they are racist in their application alone. It was NEVER intended (by the authors and proponents SYG laws) that black folk be as equally "protected" under the law as their white counterparts.

Anyone who believes otherwise is either in denial of certain realities, delusional, or full of shit.

... ask Trevor Dooley.

Dear God! People of your ilk will turn anything into a race issue. By all means move to an island somewhere where you can live in your little bubble world.
 

njitalian02

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Posts
266
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
103
Location
NJ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Question (not as to racism but as to SYG laws in general): Does anyone think SYG laws are inappropriate for use in the home? For example, if I'm in my home and a burglar comes in. Burglar attacks me. Can i meet his force with force deadly force? Or should I call the police and hope they arrive in time?

What if I know there is a burglar downstairs, can I go downstairs and confront him/her? If I do and am attacked, can i use force/deadly force back?

Does anyone think this situation is inappropriate?

Again, not related to issue of race being a factor, but does anyone have issue with either of the two situations above?
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,850
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Question (not as to racism but as to SYG laws in general): Does anyone think SYG laws are inappropriate for use in the home? For example, if I'm in my home and a burglar comes in. Burglar attacks me. Can i meet his force with force deadly force? Or should I call the police and hope they arrive in time?

What if I know there is a burglar downstairs, can I go downstairs and confront him/her? If I do and am attacked, can i use force/deadly force back?

Does anyone think this situation is inappropriate?

Again, not related to issue of race being a factor, but does anyone have issue with either of the two situations above?
Within your home, I would say no. It's your home and you have the right to defend it. A sidewalk or any public space is a different matter.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
i would say, the law itself isnt racistic - but it looks like the way it gets used, just as the intention could be racistic...

In case of zimmermann/trayvon, a white kills a black guy and the white guy is "not guilty"

A black women gets regulary beaten by her husbend. As he tries to beat her again, she pulls out a gun and gives a shot in the wall, to warn him not to do it... She is guilty, cause the tried to kill her husbend. 20 years jail...
 

docdeath

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Posts
563
Media
37
Likes
116
Points
178
Location
Earth
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Absolutely they are racist in their application alone. It was NEVER intended (by the authors and proponents SYG laws) that black folk be as equally "protected" under the law as their white counterparts.

Anyone who believes otherwise is either in denial of certain realities, delusional, or full of shit.

... ask Trevor Dooley.

Obviously, this poster is racially biased.
Tell us, what is your address in the Land of OZ?
 

njitalian02

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Posts
266
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
103
Location
NJ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
i would say, the law itself isnt racistic - but it looks like the way it gets used, just as the intention could be racistic...

In case of zimmermann/trayvon, a white kills a black guy and the white guy is "not guilty"

A black women gets regulary beaten by her husbend. As he tries to beat her again, she pulls out a gun and gives a shot in the wall, to warn him not to do it... She is guilty, cause the tried to kill her husbend. 20 years jail...

1) Zimmerman is Hispanic.

2.) I agree that the woman's situation is sad. However, what I think was important in that case was (I believe), the woman left the home, retrieved the gun from her car, and then went back to the house, gun drawn at the husband. I think that is what is different.

3.) Also, Just a question: I agree that these situations show somewhat different results. If you believe that Zimmerman is guilty, do you also believe that this woman is guilty? If you posted that article to show how two situations are similar with different results I think that highlights hypocrisy in ourselves.

For example. The two situations are same except race/gender. IF you believe Zimmerman is guilty then you must also be happy this woman is guilty as well right? If you believe that Zimmerman is not guilty then you must be upset that this woman is guilty. It seems people are posting this to show similar situations yet I would bet money that most people want these situations to be different (i.e., Zimmerman guilty and woman not guilty). I find that difficult to understand since the woman's story is to show similiar situations/highlight racism/etc. If you believe the situations are similar then you should believe the results should be similar. If you believe the results are different, than the woman's situation has no relevance to your view of the Zimmerman trial