Florida's Stand Your Ground laws benefit blacks....

....at an apparently disproportionate rate.

Note: there is a second page to the article, which I didn't include in the post.

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

 

What were the circumstances that brought about the need to create this law?

 

I'm not sure it was a specific set of circumstances.

High murder rates in Miami and Jacksonville, among other cities. Lots of drug related organized crime. LOTS of crackheads and pill addicts assaulting and robbing people, homes, and cars to get drug money. Many highly transient areas, party areas with out of control drunks on vacation, etc.

It levels the playing field.

 

Here again we seem to be getting that fear-threat mentality, I’ve talked about before –

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.
They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

Guns are a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon or ‘stand your ground’ law seem to be based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act. That ‘bad’ people will not act violently because they might be shot.

 

His another extract from my theory -

But while many pro-gunners talk about using guns to deter crime, what crimes can a gun deter or tackle?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.

(Just a reminder here that “In 1998, more than four times as many women were murdered with a gun by their husbands or intimate partners than were killed by strangers' guns, knives or other weapons combined”… and “One study found that, in Atlanta, family and intimate assaults involving guns were 12 times more likely to result in death than family and intimate assaults not involving guns (L. Saltzman, et.al; Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults; 1992). ‘Guns and Domestic Violence’ by Beth Levy. These were crimes but ones were the gun supposed protective deterrence of outside forces caused internal tragedy)

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest level of criminal.

Could it be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

Well back to those other means of intimidation.

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determine the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime (which isn’t that profitable) than white collar or computer crime (which is)

*

So actually its doesn’t seem surprising that its higher amongst black people because they are more likely to come into contact with violence.

 

From what I've read, the "Stand your ground" law was not employed in Zimmermans defense.
I just read the 2012 Florida Statutes, Title XLVI, Chapter 776.013, 'Justifiable Use of Force', and found nothing unreasonable contained in it.

It does contain "(3) 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.", which I feel applies in any case where an attack occurs, without need of the 'Stand Your Ground' law. No matter how much police protection we acquire, the first line of defense is the individual who needs defending.

 

Even if Trayvon was the one standing his ground, it is not as though his testimony was available. It was Zimmerman said against what a dead man could not state.

 

That's true, but would you prefer we applied the presumption of guilt and required the defendant to prove his/her innocence beyond a reasonable doubt to be a more just system?

I brought up Zimmerman only because it appears that's the reason the "Stand Your Ground" law has become a news issue, but I find nothing wrong or racially biased in the Florida law. A person, who is not acting unlawfully, has an undeniable right to protect their life, by lethal force if necessary, with or without need for a "Stand Your Ground" law.

 

Florida law is crappy, with or without the stand your ground law.

 

That may be true not knowing which Florida law you're talking about, but would you prefer we applied the presumption of guilt and required the defendant to prove his/her innocence beyond a reasonable doubt to be a more just system?

 

But why are they so in fear of being attacked that the feel they need to be carrying a gun for protection?

I’m allowed to protect myself if I’m attacked but I’ve never felt so afraid that I would be that I felt the need to carry a gun, for the same reason I don’t carry a sword, knife, club or any other weapon for protection.

Now in the UK we do have a problem with young people carrying knives because they are fearful of attack, and most of this ‘fear’ is generated by social and economic problems, and there is a lot of concern and debate over how to alleviate the situation.

But I don’t seem to see that level of concern or debate about tackling such fear from the group of mainly American gun advocates that are on the forum.

 

It was not invoked by the defense, although it was explained in the jury briefing.

This was classic self defense. You can't stand your ground when you are already on the ground, mounted, and getting your head smashed into the concrete.

 

The word 'gun' is not found in the 'Stand Your Ground' law, it only speaks of "using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another", which could be by any means, including a gun, but not just a gun.

Fear usually arises when placed in a situation where ones life or safety is in danger, and having a weapon, be it a gun, knife, baseball bat, or some other instrument which could be used defensively does not indicate one is fearful of being attacked, although they might be more prepared should the unexpected arise.

 

Here is the list of weapons we are allowed to conceal in FL (with a permit):

[SIZE=-1]790.06 License to carry concealed weapon or firearm.—(1) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is authorized to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms to persons qualified as provided in this section. Each such license must bear a color photograph of the licensee. For the purposes of this section, concealed weapons or concealed firearms are defined as a handgun, electronic weapon or device, tear gas gun, knife, or billie, but the term does not include a machine gun as defined in s. 790.001(9).
[/SIZE]

 

I agree, and it would appear the jury in the Zimmerman case also found no evidence to the contrary.

In my opinion, the portion of the text I provided would apply in the Zimmerman case even if the "Stand Your Ground" law did not exist. Had Zimmerman been unable to reach his gun and Martin beat him to death, I'm curious how the media would have reported the story, or would it have become a major news story?

 

I don't think I've ever known or seen anyone carrying a machine gun for self protection in public, with the possible exception of an anti-gun control demonstration. Being fiscally conservative, I don't care to waste ammunition.

Had Zimmerman got his car keys instead and punctured Martins jugular vein and he bled out, would that have made a difference in the case or not have made the "Stand Your Ground" law an issue?

 

In this case they may mean automatic weapons as a whole and not just your stereotypical machine guns.

 

Indie

The article cited in the OP mentions

The Zimmerman case were a gun was used.

The Chuck Hobbs case were a gun was used.

The Tony Hayward case were a gun was used.

The Marissa Alexander case were a gun was used.

Also Sig who posted it is a well known gun advocate on the forum.

But if someone was not so afraid that they might get into such a situation then they probably would not feel like they needed to carry around a weapon.

Surveys of the kind of young people that carry knives - asking why they did it, found the main reason given was that they feared being attacked and wanted a knife as protection. There are lots of kids in other places and/or differing social classes that don’t carry knives because they are not so afraid of being attacked.

What seems to be implied in the argument you give is that it is a good thing that the kids are carrying knives and in your view the ones that now don’t should because they might be attacked.

Wouldn’t it be better to try and reduce the fear and intimidation within a society rather than try and increase it?

 

They probably just wanted to clarify, since all the sheriffs here do sign off on NFA firearms.

And in my opinion, this is a systematic attack on gun and self defense rights. Just as we saw in january. The democrats lost that battle and this is the next incarnation on the quest to disarm americans.

 

790.001 f.s. (9) “Machine gun” means any firearm, as defined herein, which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading, by a single function of the trigger.