Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Stand Your Ground is RACIST!

That's the new meme and they're sticking to it. [Read]

Even if they're demonstrably full of sh...:
I go on to point out ways in which a robust right of self-defense has historically proved to protect the interests of victims of domestic violence and racial minorities. (On the latter, see, for example, cases from Ossian Sweet’s in the 1920s to the present day; more here and here, and from my Cato colleague Jonathan Blanks here.)

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

As has been said many times before now, Stand Your Ground has no relevance in the case of "the white man" George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin - being straddled by a combatant removes the ability to retreat.

Anonymous said...

For Stand Your Ground-type laws to be "racist," it would be necessary (but not sufficient) to prove that minorities are more likely to be the aggressors. Ironically, proving that would be a good way to be branded "racist."

Ned said...

The reals story here is the fact that this congress-critter was actually voted into office.

Therein lies the heart of the problem.

No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public.

Ed said...

The Tampa Bay Times did an analysis of cases:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/races-complex-role/1233152

"The Times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:

• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.

• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.

• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.

• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants — a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.

"Let's be clear,'' said Alfreda Coward, a black Fort Lauderdale lawyer whose clients are mostly black men. "This law was not designed for the protection of young black males, but it's benefiting them in certain cases.''

The Times analysis does not prove that race caused the disparity between cases with black and white victims. Other factors may be at play."