Stand Your Ground Decisions

This Daily Kos article gives a rundown on a number of Stand Your Ground decisions and the built in bias which mitigates against a woman in a situation of domestic violence, but supports a white male "protecting his house or car" against an invading minority. The Wikipedia article on such laws cite different outcome statistics from Daily Kos. I personally believe that there is an inherent bias against blacks in our society and therefore in courts of law; and among some men a basic hostility exists against women who defend themselves. The obvious possible cause for that is the tendency of too many men in our society to beat their wives or partners, and therefore they just don't want them to be given the right to self defense. This accounts for much of the rise in divorce among younger women in the US now. Unlike their mothers, they are less likely to stay in the relationship under those conditions and more likely to fight back if assaulted.




Daily Kos
Stand Your Ground: Women and blacks need not apply
SUN OCT 19, 2014

On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin was shot to death. His crime? He happened to be black, and a racist overzealous neighborhood vigilante named George Zimmerman decided to take matters into his own hands. He believed that "those assholes always get away" and he decided to make sure Trayvon didn't. So he ignored the advice of the dispatcher and left his home, armed, and had a confrontation. We don't know the exact details of how that confrontation played out. But what we do know is that Trayvon Martin ended up dead for the simple crime of walking down his own street.

Normally, one would think that if someone ignores police dispatch, goes out of the house armed, provokes a confrontation with an innocent teenager, and then kills him, that would result in some sort of murder conviction. Not so in the state of Florida, however. Florida is one of many states with so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws, which grant immunity from prosecution if a person has a reasonable belief that they are fearing for their own life in a confrontation.

Just to be clear, this law was not the direct reason that Zimmerman is not currently in jail. The law grants immunity from prosecution, and Zimmerman was prosecuted for the homicide he committed. But as Kevin Drum wrote shortly after Zimmerman's acquittal last year, the fact that the law was in the news had a definite effect on the jury's perceptions of Zimmerman's guilt:

And consider it they did. According to the most outspoken juror, known only as Juror B-37, Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their verdict. She told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that neither second-degree murder nor manslaughter applied in Zimmerman's case "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."

So that's it then, right? Even if you're the one that provokes the confrontation, even if you're the only one with a gun, even if the person you kill is completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever—as long as you feared for your safety at some point during the confrontation, you have a right to kill.

As long as you're a man who isn't black. If you're a woman or if you're black, it's a different story. More below the fold.

If you're a woman fearing from your life in an abusive situation, the odds are that you won't get the benefit of Stand Your Ground laws as a justification for self-defense. Take the case of Marisa Alexander, also in Florida, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a warning shot into the air during a violent domestic incident with her husband. Alexander was awarded a new trial, but both her original judge and the judge who overturned the sentence rejected her request for a Stand Your Ground defense, even though this was her testimony about the incident:

Alexander testified that, on Aug. 1, 2010, her then-husband, Rico Gray Sr., questioned her fidelity and the paternity of her 1-week-old child.

She claimed that he broke through a bathroom door that she had locked and grabbed her by the neck. She said she tried to push past him but he shoved her into the door, sparking a struggle that felt like an "eternity."

Afterwards, she claimed that she ran to the garage and tried to leave but was unable to open the garage door, so she retrieved a gun, which she legally owned.
Once inside, she claimed, her husband saw the gun and charged at her "in a rage" saying, "Bitch, I'll kill you." She said she raised the gun and fired a warning shot into the air because it was the "lesser of two evils."

The jury rejected the self-defense claim and Alexander was sentenced under the state's 10-20-life law, sparking outrage over how self-defense laws are applied in the state.

If her testimony is true, Alexander was physically assaulted (and not for the first time), and threatened with death. And even at that, two judges ruled that Stand Your Ground laws did not apply. Even worse, this is not an isolated incident. Prosecutors in South Carolina areattempting to argue that their state's version of Stand Your Ground was not meant to be invoked by women who fear for their own life in domestic disputes:

Knapp focuses on the case of Whitlee Jones, who killed her boyfriend Eric Lee and claimed that she was acting in self-defense. Earlier that evening, a neighbor called the cops to report Lee assaulting Jones, saying she saw Lee pulling Jones down the street by her hair. Jones fled the scene before the police arrived and returned later to fetch her belongings. Lee confronted her at the scene. She says he shook her, but prosecutors deny it. She stabbed him in the heart, killing him, and fled once more.

"Nearly two years later, a judge found earlier this month that Jones, now 25, had a right to kill Lee under the S.C. Protection of Persons and Property Act, which allows people in certain situations to use force when faced with serious injury," Knapp writes. But the prosecutors are planning to fight the decision because, they argue, "stand your ground" laws should not cover domestic violence situations.

The crux of Kidd's appeal, though, is rooted in the wording of the statute itself. It says that people should be expected to fear for their lives if someone is breaking into their home, their car or their business. Most people in those situations can defend themselves. But if people share their home with the target of their force, they don't have that "presumption" of fear, the law says.

Amanda Marcotte rightfully notes that women are 16 times more to be killed by a man they know than by a stranger. Furthermore, anyone who has ever had the misfortune to witness or be involved in an abusive relationship knows that a presumption of fear permeates the domestic environment in these situations. But despite that, these prosecutors want the application of Stand Your Ground to be reserved for situations in which "strangers" invade personal property.

Unfortunately, there's a reason for that. As I have written before, white conservatives have a deep fear of minorities invading their neighborhoods and threatening their lives and personal property. It's mainly expressed sotto voce, in terms that aren't so explicit. But sometimes, they actually mean what they say and say what they mean:

Because as horrific as it is, the fantasy about killing aggressive urban minorities in self-defense is a prevalent, deeply held narrative among certain sections of the American right. It's not a hidden fantasy, a secret and dark desire that dare not speak its name. No, this strain states its intentions and its desires loudly and proudly. Take, for instance, shock jock Neal Boortz, who had this to say about crime in Atlanta:

This town is starting to look like a garbage heap. And we got too damn many urban thugs, yo, ruining the quality of life for everybody. And I'll tell you what it's gonna take. You people, you are - you need to have a gun. You need to have training. You need to know how to use that gun. You need to get a permit to carry that gun. And you do in fact need to carry that gun and we need to see some dead thugs littering the landscape in Atlanta. We need to see the next guy that tries to carjack you shot dead right where he stands. We need more dead thugs in this city. And let their -- let their mommas -- let their mommas say, "He was a good boy. He just fell in with the good crowd." And then lock her ass up.

This isn't an isolated phenomenon. On far-right message board Free Republic, there have been threads where posters openly fantasize about killing black people who "invade" their communities subsequent to rioting or social unrest. In the minds of this strain of the American right, best represented by Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent, Trayvon Martin must have been violent, must have been a gangster, must have been a drug dealer or drug addict. Because were this not the case—were he simply, as he was, a teenager carrying a can of iced tea and a pack of Skittles minding his own business and on his way home—it would suggest that perhaps the vigilante fantasy that so pervades the conservative camp might be mistaken; that perhaps standing one's ground for so-called Second Amendment remedies could result in the death of an innocent teenager, rather than justified self-defense against one of Boortz' so-called "urban thugs."

The statistics bear this out: Stand Your Ground laws are concentrated in the South, and according to one study, they give much more cover to white shooters of black victims than black shooters of white victims:
 
Race also plays a role in Roman's analysis, suggesting that the Zimmerman verdict is hardly unique. The data give credence to claims that such laws introduce bias against black victims and in favor of white shooters, as many have contended. In cases where the shooter was black and the victim white, there was hardly any difference between "Stand Your Ground" and other states: Only 1.4 percent of these homicides were deemed justified in "Stand Your Ground" states, in comparison to 1.1 percent in states without a statute. But, the situation is substantially different when the roles, and races, of shooter and victim are reversed. For murders with a white shooter and a black victim, 16.9 percent were ruled justified in "Stand Your Ground" states. Only 9.5 percent were in states that have no "Stand Your Ground" law on the books.

The entire point of Stand Your Ground is to reduce the legal peril involved when white men try to kill black people who they think are invading their property. Women who fear for their lives in a domestic abuse situation? An innocent black man defending his home against who he thought were armed intruders?

They might as well not even bother. Stand Your Ground wasn't written for them.




Stand-your-ground law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place they have lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if they reasonably believe they face an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death.
Forty-six U.S. states have adopted the castle doctrine, stating that a person has no duty to retreat when their home is attacked. Twenty-two states have removed the duty to retreat requirement from other locations as well,[1] "Stand Your Ground", "Line in the Sand" or "No Duty to Retreat" laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.[2] Other restrictions may still exist; such as when in public, a person must be carrying firearms in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.

Effect on crime rates[edit]
The law's effect on crime rates is disputed between supporters and critics of the law. Economist John Lott says that states adopting stand-your-ground/castle doctrine laws reduced murder rates by 9 percent and overall violent crime by 11 percent, and that occurs even after accounting for a range of other factors such as national crime trends, law enforcement variables (arrest, execution, and imprisonment rates), income and poverty measures, demographic changes, and the national average changes in crime rates from year-to-year and average differences across states.[3]
A study by Texas A&M economics professors found that the adoption of stand-your-ground laws caused a statistically significant increase in the raw homicide rate, and had only a very small positive effect on deterrence of crime. The authors of the study were unable to determine what percentage of the increase was justifiable homicide, due to the reporting of homicide to the FBI often lacking notation whether the homicide was justifiable or not.[4][5]
Another analysis of stand-your-ground laws by economists at Georgia State, using monthly data from the U.S. Vital Statistics, found a significant increase in homicide and injury of whites, especially white males. They also analyzed data from the Health Care Utilization Project, which revealed significantly increased rates of emergency room visits and hospital discharges related to gun injuries in states which enacted these laws.[6]

In a 2007 National District Attorneys Association symposium, numerous concerns were voiced that the law could increase crime. This included criminals using the law as a defense for their crimes, more people carrying guns, and that people would not feel safe if they felt that anyone could use deadly force in a conflict. The report also noted that the misinterpretation of clues could result in use of deadly force when there was, in fact, no danger. The report specifically notes that racial and ethnic minorities could be at greater risk because of negative stereotypes.[7]
Florida state representative Dennis Baxley, an author of the law, said that crime rates in Florida dropped significantly between 2005, when the law was passed, and 2012. However, crime rates had been declining nationally, including a 12% decrease in Florida, since at least 2000. Baxley said that he does not believe his law is the main reason for the drop in crime rates in Florida, but may be one of several reasons. Politifact Florida cast doubt on his belief with statistics showing that, from 2005-2007, the number of violent crimes actually rose and the once-declining crime rate stalled after the law took effect, before resuming previous rate of decline in subsequent years.[8]
United States[edit]
The following states have adopted stand-your-ground laws: Alabama,[9] Alaska,[10] Arizona,[11] California,[12][13]Florida,[14] Georgia, Indiana, Iowa,[15] Kansas,[16] Kentucky, Louisiana,[11] Maine, Massachusetts (though the term is used very loosely there),[17] Michigan,[11] Mississippi, Montana,[11] New Hampshire,[11] North Carolina (Stand Your Ground law (N.C.G.S. 14 51.3) North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,[11] Pennsylvania,[18] South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,[11] Texas,[19] Utah,[20] West Virginia,[11] Wisconsin[21] and Wyoming. Other states (Iowa,[22] Virginia,[23]and Washington) have considered stand-your-ground laws of their own.[24][25][26]
For example, Michigan's stand-your-ground law, MCL 780.972, provides that "[a]n individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if . . . [t]he individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent" the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another individual.[27]
Some of the states that have passed or are considering stand-your-ground laws already implement stand-your-ground principles in case law. Indiana and Georgia, among other states, passed stand-your-ground statutes due to possible concerns of existing case law being replaced by the "duty to retreat" in later court rulings. Other states, including California[13] and Virginia,[28] have implemented stand-your-ground judicially but have not adopted statutes. West Virginia had a long tradition of "stand your ground" in its case law[29] before codifying it as a statute in 2008. These states did not have civil immunity for self-defense in their previous self-defense statutes.

Colorado's statutes reflect the common law's "no duty to retreat" rule.[30] Colorado follows the doctrine of no-retreat, which permits non-aggressors who are otherwise entitled to use physical force in self-defense to do so without first retreating, or seeking safety by means of escape.[31] Only initial aggressors must retreat before using force in self-defense.[31] In other words, a person does not have to "retreat to the wall" before using deadly force to defend himself, unless the person was the "initial aggressor" in the encounter, even if he was in a place he had no right to be.[30]

Controversy[edit]
Stand-your-ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[34] In Florida, self-defense claims tripled in the years following enactment.[34][35] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue that he felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the deceased.[34] However, this claim is inherent to all self-defense laws, not just stand-your-ground laws. Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."[36][37]
In Florida, a task force examining the law heard testimony that the law is "confusing".[38] Those testifying to the task force include Buddy Jacobs, a lawyer representing the Florida Prosecuting Attorney's Association. Jacobs recommended the law's repeal, feeling that modifying the law would not fix its problems. Florida governor Rick Scottplans his own investigation into the law.[38] In a July 16, 2013, speech in the wake of the jury verdict acquitting George Zimmerman of charges stemming from the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Attorney General Eric Holder criticized stand-your-ground laws as "senselessly expand[ing] the concept of self-defense and sow[ing] dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods."[39] The defendant, George Zimmerman, claims he was restrained at the time of the shooting, thus allowing no option for retreat and making 'stand your ground' irrelevant to the case.[40]
When whites use the stand-your-ground defense against black attackers, some sources claim they are more successful than when African Americans use the defense against white attackers[41] (however, see below). In stand-your-ground states, the use of the defense by whites in the shooting of a black person is found to be justifiable 17 percent of the time, while the defense when used by African-Americans in the shooting of a white person is successful 1 percent of the time.[41][42] In non-stand-your-ground states, the shooting of a black person by a white is found justified approximately 9 percent of the time, while the shooting of a white person by a black is found justified approximately 1 percent of the time.[41][42] Justifiable homicides have been found to have increased by 8 percent in states with stand-your-ground laws.[41]
In 2012, in response to the Trayvon Martin case, the Tampa Bay Times compiled a report on the application of stand your ground, and also created a database of cases where defendants sought to invoke the law.[43][44][45] However, their report, contrary to those cited above, found no difference in Florida cases in the way in which defendants claiming self-defense under the law are treated regardless of race, with white subjects being charged and convicted at the same rate as black subjects, and results of mixed-race cases were similar for both white victims of black attackers and black victims of white attackers.[43][45] Shooters of black attackers overall were more successful at using the law than shooters of white attackers, regardless of the race of the victim claiming self-defense, but analysis showed that black attackers were also more likely to be armed and to be involved in committing a crime, such as burglary, when shot, which may explain this only difference found in relation to race.[43][44][45]