[Politics_Observer]

One of the things I noticed here over the past decade or two, is the appearance of "Stand Your Ground" laws, especially in the southern United States. I have seen where whites who use deadly force against blacks seem to get off on the "Stand Your Ground" defense. Yet, it seems, where I saw one case on CNN where a black woman pulled a gun on her ex husband who has in the past physically attacked her and she was sentenced to prison of 20 years for aggravated assault in the state of Florida. She didn't even use deadly force on him. Florida has one of the strongest, if not the strongest "Stand Your Ground" laws. Yet, it seems that this law is being applied unequally to black people. A CNN opinion piece discusses the unequal application of "Stand Your Ground" laws.

In fact, a 2015 study in the journal Social Science & Medicine found that stand your ground is rife with racial bias. According to the research, defendants in Florida were nearly twice as likely to be convicted in a case involving white victims than they were in cases with victims of color.

(Love, 2018)

David Love writes further.

The racial disparities in justifiable homicides under stand your ground only support the notion that this law was designed to benefit white shooters and not gun owners of color. According to the Urban Institute, when both the shooter and victim are white, 11% of these cases are ruled justifiable. When both parties are black, the rate is 8%. However, when the shooter is white and the victim is black, the rate of justifiable homicide is 34%. But when the shooter is black and the victim is white, that rate is only 3%.

(Love, 2018)

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/03/opin ... index.html

Which then raises a slew of questions. What is the real intent of these "Stand Your Ground" laws? Why would legislatures even consider passing such laws? In order to assure that the law works to protect life, liberty and property of all people; then given the evidence that was presented in the CNN opinion piece, it would only make sense to repeal these "Stand Your Ground" laws.

Reference-

Love, D. (2018, August 4). 'Stand your ground' laws encourage racially charged violence. Retrieved December 12, 2019, from https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/03/opin ... index.html

[BigSteve]

Well, maybe if blacks don't want to get shot by someone who has the "stand your ground" law in his head, they shouldn't put the person with the gun in the position of believing his life might be in danger. You know, just a thought.

I look at our local Sheriff's "police log" every day. There are both blacks and white on it every day. The white people tend to be charged with things like DUI, trespassing, or "failure to appear". Blacks tend to be charged with things like aggravated assault, battery and robbery.

More violent crimes are going to elicit a more violent response. If they happen to target someone who carries a gun, well, tough shit...

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, maybe if blacks don't want to get shot by someone who has the "stand your ground" law in his head, they shouldn't put the person with the gun in the position of believing his life might be in danger. You know, just a thought.

You misunderstood.

Black people are being sent to jail for defending themselves with guns, while white people in the same situation are protected by “stand your ground” laws.

[BigSteve]

You misunderstood.

So I did...

[Big Steve-1]

One of the things I noticed here over the past decade or two, is the appearance of "Stand Your Ground" laws, especially in the southern United States. I have seen where whites who use deadly force against blacks seem to get off on the "Stand Your Ground" defense. Yet, it seems, where I saw one case on CNN where a black woman pulled a gun on her ex husband who has in the past physically attacked her and she was sentenced to prison of 20 years for aggravated assault in the state of Florida. She didn't even use deadly force on him. Florida has one of the strongest, if not the strongest "Stand Your Ground" laws. Yet, it seems that this law is being applied unequally to black people. A CNN opinion piece discusses the unequal application of "Stand Your Ground" laws.

If you're only going to cite one case to prove your point about blacks not being protected by stand your ground laws while whites are, I'll use only one case to show why you're wrong:

https://www.tampabay.com/news/crime/2019/10/10/michael-drejka-sentenced-to-20-years-in-manslaughter-case/

[Pants-of-dog]

@Harley

That article does not discuss “stand your ground” laws at all.

Instead, it is about a white man who deliberately started a fight with a black man, then pulled out a gun and host the black guy even though the black guy was not threatening the white guy in any way.

The fact that the white guy stayed around until the cops showed up tells us that white guys feel that the law is on their side when shooting black people.

It actually provides support for the claim that “stand your ground” laws support a racist mentality.

[Big Steve-1]

@Harley

That article does not discuss “stand your ground” laws at all.

Perhaps I could've been more clear. "Stand your ground" was the defense in the case. It's mentioned in the fourth paragraph at this link:

https://www.tampabay.com/news/pinellas/2019/08/17/the-clearwater-parking-lot-shooting-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-case/

Instead, it is about a white man who deliberately started a fight with a black man, then pulled out a gun and host the black guy even though the black guy was not threatening the white guy in any way.

There was an argument over a parking space, which was started by the white guy, but the black guy assaulted the white guy first by forcefully pushing him down. It was at that time the white guy drew a .40 caliber handgun and fired.

The only reason "stand your ground" did not apply here was that the black guy was walking away when he was shot.

The fact that the white guy stayed around until the cops showed up tells us that white guys feel that the law is on their side when shooting black people.

Or, more probably, that he felt he did nothing wrong.

It actually provides support for the claim that “stand your ground” laws support a racist mentality.

Well, if you consider that the guy's defense was based on the "stand your ground" laws, it's clear that it doesn't. Here's a white guy, who killed a black guy, and rightly went to prison because those laws did not apply.

[SolarCross]

@Politics_Observer
The purpose of Stand Your Ground is obvious and is an absolutely valid concept. It seems your problem is with CNN's opinion that it is inconsistently applied.

[Rancid]

I think there are two things to pick apart:
The fact that black people are getting unfairly treated for defending themselves is due to the larger systemic racism in the system. The stand your ground laws are no exception to this issue. Thus, I don't buy that the purpose of the stand your ground law is to fuck over black people in particular. It just works out that way, but it's because all laws work out to fuck over minorities in one way or another.

As for the theoretical purpose of the stand your ground law. I think the idea was "not only can you defend yourself, but you can also teach them a lesson". The reality is, the wild west attitude in American culture has never really disappeared. Fundamentally, I think these type of laws stem from this cultural feature of America. I remember when Florida passed it's law back when I was in college. I recall there were protests and shit on campus (I was in college the time that law passed in Florida. something like 2004-2005 time frame).

[Big Steve-1]

As for the theoretical purpose of the stand your ground law. I think the idea was "not only can you defend yourself, but you can also teach them a lesson".

That's not it at all.

The idea behind "stand your ground" is pretty simple. It allows you to defend yourself without fear of prosecution for having done so.

[Rancid]

That's not it at all.

The idea behind "stand your ground" is pretty simple. It allows you to defend yourself without fear of prosecution for having done so.

I was being facetious.

That said, there are people in Florida, that exactly saw it the way I posted it. It's a way to teach people a lesson. Further, the concept of defending yourself without fear of prosecution, only seems to apply to white folks.

[Big Steve-1]

I was being facetious.

That said, there are people in Florida, that exactly saw it the way I posted it. It's a way to teach people a lesson. Further, the concept of defending yourself without fear of prosecution, only seems to apply to white folks.

And the video I linked to demonstrates that white people aren't immune to prosecution.

[Rancid]

And the video I linked to demonstrates that white people aren't immune to prosecution.

ok

Sidenote, when I hear something at night. I make sure to shoot at sounds and shadows.

[Big Steve-1]

ok

Sidenote, when I hear something at night. I make sure to shoot at sounds and shadows.

Man, if you could come up with something more inane and meaningless, I'd love to see it!

[Pants-of-dog]

Perhaps I could've been more clear. "Stand your ground" was the defense in the case. It's mentioned in the fourth paragraph at this link:

https://www.tampabay.com/news/pinellas/2019/08/17/the-clearwater-parking-lot-shooting-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-case/

Yes, the only thing that this story has to do with the topic is as I claimed: the white guy thought he could get away with it because of the racist way that "stand your ground" laws are applied.

There was an argument over a parking space, which was started by the white guy, but the black guy assaulted the white guy first by forcefully pushing him down. It was at that time the white guy drew a .40 caliber handgun and fired.

The only reason "stand your ground" did not apply here was that the black guy was walking away when he was shot.

Yes. As I said, this is not an example of the situation imagined by the legislators who came up with "stand your ground" laws.

And yet a white guy thought he was protected by these laws and could therefore shoot an unarmed black man with impunity.

Or, more probably, that he felt he did nothing wrong.

Almost certainly. Racist people think that there is nothing wrong with being scared of black people and shooting unarmed people in the back.

And this is partly supported by the fact that juries often let them.

Well, if you consider that the guy's defense was based on the "stand your ground" laws, it's clear that it doesn't. Here's a white guy, who killed a black guy, and rightly went to prison because those laws did not apply.

Yes, you are using a story where the topic does not apply to argue something about the topic. Since the story does not apply to the topic, and vice versa, this story does not contradict the claim in the OP.

[Rancid]

Man, if you could come up with something more inane and meaningless, I'd love to see it!

I own a gun because I have a small penis.

[Big Steve-1]

Yes, the only thing that this story has to do with the topic is as I claimed: the white guy thought he could get away with it because of the racist way that "stand your ground" laws are applied.

When one adheres to the law, there's no "getting away" with anything.

He thought he was acting within the confines of the law. He stated as such during his trial. It's not because he believed stand your ground laws are applied in a racist way.

Yes. As I said, this is not an example of the situation imagined by the legislators who came up with "stand your ground" laws.

Only because the black guy can be seen walking away. Had he stayed put, odds are the white guy would not have been charged.

And yet a white guy thought he was protected by these laws and could therefore shoot an unarmed black man with impunity.

I think it's far to say that anyone should believe that they are protected by the law. I see nothing wrong with that. But I also don't think this has anything to do with skin color, unlike those who feel the nee to find racism in everything under the sun.

If it was a white guy who attacked the shooter in that way, I'd be willing to bet he'd have gotten shot, too.

Almost certainly. Racist people think that there is nothing wrong with being scared of black people and shooting unarmed people in the back.

They black guy had just forcibly pushed Drejka to the ground. Drejka had every reason to be scared of him.

And he wasn't shot in the back.

Yes, you are using a story where the topic does not apply to argue something about the topic. Since the story does not apply to the topic, and vice versa, this story does not contradict the claim in the OP.

It does apply. The OP suggests that blacks are not protected by stand your ground laws and that whites are. The fact that Drejka was tried and convicted shows that the premise of the OP is flawed.

[Big Steve-1]

I own a gun because I have a small penis.

Sorry for your troubles.

[Pants-of-dog]

When one adheres to the law, there's no "getting away" with anything.

He thought he was acting within the confines of the law. He stated as such during his trial. It's not because he believed stand your ground laws are applied in a racist way.

You misunderstood.

He does not think that stand your ground laws are racist.

He thought he could legally shoot an unarmed black man in the back because these laws exist.

And the OP suggests that too many juries agree with him.

Only because the black guy can be seen walking away. Had he stayed put, odds are the white guy would not have been charged.

So you agree that stand your ground laws are not applicable here.

And now you have explained why you agree with me.

I think it's far to say that anyone should believe that they are protected by the law. I see nothing wrong with that. But I also don't think this has anything to do with skin color, unlike those who feel the nee to find racism in everything under the sun.

If it was a white guy who attacked the shooter in that way, I'd be willing to bet he'd have gotten shot, too.

Your personal beliefs and predictions are your business. I will not comment on them.

The racism associated with these laws is clearly communicated in the OP. The facts mentioned there contradict your beliefs, by the way.

They black guy had just forcibly pushed Drejka to the ground. Drejka had every reason to be scared of him.

And he wasn't shot in the back.

You said the murder victim was walking away at the time he was shot. It is reasonable to assume that he was shot in the back.

And if the murder victim was unarmed and walking away, there is no reason to continue to be scared.

It does apply. The OP suggests that blacks are not protected by stand your ground laws and that whites are. The fact that Drejka was tried and convicted shows that the premise of the OP is flawed.

No. You misunderstood.

The OP claims that a black person who shoots someone and invokes stand your ground laws is far less likely to be acquitted than a white person who also shot someone in a similar situation and also invoked stand your ground laws.

So in order to support your rebuttal, you have to find stories where black people successfully invoke stand your ground laws.

[Rancid]

Sorry for your troubles.

Thank you