Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I came across and interesting article about the Stand Your Ground laws in FL, and the enforcement.
The stories recapped here? A woman who was in an abusive relationship, "threatened" her ex when she was packing up her stuff and he came home. She asked him to leave. He threatened her and she fired a warning shot in the air. She got 20 years in prison for assult. No one was injured at all.
The second case had a man who caught his wife having sex with a neighbor. It looks like there was plent of shared history between the two, the neighbor had a tattoo of his wife's name, and the wife had formerly lived with the neighbor. He shot the neighbor in the back and killed him. He was found not guilty even though he testified that he killed the neighbor and would gladly do it again.
The Tampa Bay Times found that defendants claiming “stand your ground” are more successful if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty. Only 59 percent of those who killed a white person got off. The Urban Institute determined that in Stand Your Ground states, when white shooters kill black victims, 34 percent of the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable. When black shooters kill white victims only 3 percent of the deaths are ruled justifiable.
Some more details from Tampa Bay Times's Special report:
Quote:
• Those who invoke "stand your ground" to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.
• Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.
The law isn't racist, but jurors may be. I would need to look at the merits of the cases before coming to a broad conclusion based on the numbers. The cases specifically discussed sure don't look good though.
It looks like overall, the evidence doesn't line up in favor of it being applied fairly and consistently. According to the Tampa Bay Times.
I mean if we think the law says it is OK to shoot and kill an intruder, and a black does it and a white guy does it, either everyone should go to jail or no one should. Bottom line.
If the area is greyer, and we have a fight outside a bar, we need more evidence, but so far I am not impressed.
I remember that case about the woman getting prison for shooting her gun in the air. I can't even tell you how messed up that is. That law disgusts me.
I remember that case about the woman getting prison for shooting her gun in the air. I can't even tell you how messed up that is. That law disgusts me.
She fired a firearm within city limits, endangering others by her errant shot. Doesn't make sense but if she'd shot the intruder she'd likely have been ok.
The law isn't racist, but jurors may be. I would need to look at the merits of the cases before coming to a broad conclusion based on the numbers. The cases specifically discussed sure don't look good though.
I don't believe the law is racist. It is hard to draw a conclusion without more data to know if the law is not applied fairly.
I would want to see data on all the cases.
How many had a white intruder vs. non-white intruder?
How many white vs. non-white defenders?
Etc.
I think these kinds of laws have a purpose. No one should face legal consequences, even with the use of lethal force, if they are defending themselves or their family in their home from a person who can be reasonably believed to be life threatening.
I remember that case about the woman getting prison for shooting her gun in the air. I can't even tell you how messed up that is. That law disgusts me.
Based on that nonsense, my aunt would have gone to jail when she did something similar to her abusive husband. She pointed the gun at him and told him to leave. She did, and moved out that night. No clue what happened to him, as that was the end of the story in my family.
I've read the actual case testimony of the women when her trial was going on. Stand Your Ground was refused because she got into an argument with her husband, left the house probably mad as hell, went to the car got her gun and went back into confront him and fired a shot over his head to warn him off.
That is not stand your ground.
Had she had the gun in the house to begin with when the argument started and the husband came at her, then Stand Your Ground probably would have prevailed for her argument.
It's the mandatory sentencing laws that you should be having this discussion over which in and of themselves are not racist but when applied to a potentially bias judical system target certain groups more heavily.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
