'Stand Your Ground' Under Investigation

C

CanceledB

Banned
U.S. Commission On Civil Rights To Investigate ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws For Racial Bias

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced it will launch an inquiry into so-called “Stand Your Ground” legislation for racial bias. The laws, which gained notoriety after the shooting of Trayvon Martin, eliminated the duty to retreat from a confrontation that has existed as part of the common law for hundreds of years.

According to the Commission, there are “some indicators of racial bias” in how the laws have been implemented. From the release:

Data compiled by the Wall Street Journal shows a near-doubling of justifiable homicides from 2005-2011 in states where SYG [Stand Your Ground] has passed. Moreover, their data shows that while white killers of black victims comprises only 3.1% of all homicides, such cross-racial killing constitute 15.6% of justifiable homicides.

A separate study by the FBI found “34% of cases involving a white shooter killing a black person were deemed as a justifiable homicide. Meanwhile, in similar situations, when the shooter was black and the victim was white, the homicide was ruled justifiable only 3.3% of the time.”

The committee plans to hold hearings and release the findings of their study within one year.

In the last 7 years, 23 states have adopted “Stand Your Ground” legislation at the urging of the right wing American Legislative Exchange Council.

Florida Governor Rick Scott has also convened a committee to study Stand Your Ground but has stacked the group with supporters of the law.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...igate-stand-your-ground-laws-for-racial-bias/
 
why should anyone have the duty to retreat is beyond me. Looks like the propaganda machine is working though.
 
Bears repeating: Data compiled by the Wall Street Journal shows a near-doubling of justifiable homicides from 2005-2011 in states where SYG [Stand Your Ground] has passed. Moreover, their data shows that while white killers of black victims comprises only 3.1% of all homicides, such cross-racial killing constitute 15.6% of justifiable homicides.
 
Bijou said:
Bears repeating: Data compiled by the Wall Street Journal shows a near-doubling of justifiable homicides from 2005-2011 in states where SYG [Stand Your Ground] has passed. Moreover, their data shows that while white killers of black victims comprises only 3.1% of all homicides, such cross-racial killing constitute 15.6% of justifiable homicides.
Click to expand...

What is the percentage of murdered "whites" who are victims to cross-racial killing?

Several things are wrong with this statement.

1. It specifies white on black crime then uses the more open "cross-racial" reference when talking about "justifiable homicide" (I would call this self-defense rather than homicide).

2. It clearly indicates a negative connotation to anybody who may defend their own lives against an attacker as somebody who has performed a "homicide".

3. We should celebrate that more people defend themselves rather than run. This clearly tries to say that it is a bad thing that self defense increases where the government recognizes the fundamental right to defend your own life.
 
Everyone has the right to defend their own life. I don't see that principle being questioned.

What is being questioned is the potential for abusing "self-defense" when killing someone who wasn't actually threatening you in the first place.
 
\\()// said:
Everyone has the right to defend their own life. I don't see that principle being questioned.

What is being questioned is the potential for abusing "self-defense" when killing someone who wasn't actually threatening you in the first place.
Click to expand...

When there is a claim that there is a "duty to retreat" there is a direct question as to whether a person has a right to defend life and property.
 
Bijou said:
Bears repeating: Data compiled by the Wall Street Journal shows a near-doubling of justifiable homicides from 2005-2011 in states where SYG [Stand Your Ground] has passed. Moreover, their data shows that while white killers of black victims comprises only 3.1% of all homicides, such cross-racial killing constitute 15.6% of justifiable homicides.
Click to expand...

so what?
 
\\()// said:
What is being questioned is the potential for abusing "self-defense" when killing someone who wasn't actually threatening you in the first place.
Click to expand...

thems the breaks. I would rather some people die if it meant others could defend themselves. There is no perfect system that isn't exploitable.
 
KingofCats said:
thems the breaks. I would rather some people die if it meant others could defend themselves. There is no perfect system that isn't exploitable.
Click to expand...

Naturally, your opinion might be subject to change if, say, someone were to attempt to kill you and claim self-defense?
 
\\()// said:
Naturally, your opinion might be subject to change if, say, someone were to attempt to kill you and claim self-defense?
Click to expand...

no one, even from the most ardent conservative gun nut, has ever claimed, inferred, or implied sanction of the exploitation of stand your ground. Your argument here is a strawman.
 
KingofCats said:
no one, even from the most ardent conservative gun nut, has ever claimed, inferred, or implied sanction of the exploitation of stand your ground. Your argument here is a strawman.
Click to expand...

So you agree that SYG and Castle Doctrine laws need investigation and careful refinement to minimize the potential for abuse and exploitation?
 
\\()// said:
So you agree that SYG and Castle Doctrine laws need investigation and careful refinement to minimize the potential for abuse and exploitation?
Click to expand...

I dont think they need to be refined. Investigation may be ok, as long as it wasn't petty. When someone is in a dangerous, possibly life threatening situation, you don't want them having to worry about going to jail forever. People should not be harassed for defending themselves, their family, and their property from a criminal. Unfortunately, those that are anti-gun rights will try to find every angle to wriggle themselves into out of their hated for the second amendment, which is why I specified, it shouldn't be petty. No one has ever said someone has the right to just shoot someone carte blanche with zero justification.
 
\\()// said:
So you agree that SYG and Castle Doctrine laws need investigation and careful refinement to minimize the potential for abuse and exploitation?
Click to expand...


You're not even close....SYG and the CD are righteous.....that said, EVERY case of a shooting should be investigated for abuse or exploitation of the laws......
And as far a I know, EVERY shooting case IS investigated on a case by case basis.
 
\\()// said:
Really?

So you stand by your absolute statement?
Click to expand...

it's honestly minutia what you are arguing. obviously someone, somewhere, may disagree with my original assertion, but you are being ridiculous, and you know you are being ridiculous. it's not even close to any type of opinion that has more than a dozen in numbers. for all intents and purposes, for all practicality, for all that is relevant to any discussion, my statement stands, and you know this, but you can't muster any other type of retort so you have to play silly distraction games.
 
KingofCats said:
it's honestly minutia what you are arguing. obviously someone, somewhere, may disagree with my original assertion, but you are being ridiculous, and you know you are being ridiculous. it's not even close to any type of opinion that has more than a dozen in numbers. for all intents and purposes, for all practicality, for all that is relevant to any discussion, my statement stands, and you know this, but you can't muster any other type of retort so you have to play silly distraction games.
Click to expand...

So you admit you made a fallacious claim?
 
\\()// said:
So you admit you made a fallacious claim?
Click to expand...

no i do not. the numbers are so small that it's irrelevant to mention them. it isn't pertinent to the discussion at all. Again, the fact that you focus on this aspect of my argument shows your unwillingness, or inaptitude, to compete on any relevant intellectual level in the course of this conversation. You may think you are accomplishing something but you are really just being purposefully obtuse and ridiculous. If you want to argue on the merits, I am here, otherwise I will be ignoring this tangent from here on out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top