• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,458
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Florida blacks benefit from Florida 'Stand Your Ground' | The Daily Caller

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.

Ah, there go them pesky facts getting in the way of a good narrative...

and yet the CBC is pushing all sorts of bills to end SYG laws...imagine that...
 
Well, it may just be me, but I feel that all these articles are proxy "I'm not a racist. I have a black friend" arguments.
 
Stand Your Ground didn't even play in the Zimmerman court case.
 
Stand Your Ground didn't even play in the Zimmerman court case.

People will successfully argue that it did since it was part of the jury instructions:

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
 
People will successfully argue that it did since it was part of the jury instructions:

Really? To my knowledge his defense was based on standard self-defense. Oh well.
 
Really? To my knowledge his defense was based on standard self-defense. Oh well.

It was. It's a fine line -- I was corrected yesterday and thought I'd pass it on. SYG was not a part of his courtroom defense. But it was part of the jury instruction. My position is that the entire second paragraph there could have been left out and the jury would have arrived at the same verdict. But others . . . ? Seize on whatever they possibly can to call the verdict wrong.
 
Well, it may just be me, but I feel that all these articles are proxy "I'm not a racist. I have a black friend" arguments.

Just so we have you on record, A racist shouldn't be able to stand his ground should he be threatened?
 
Just so we have you on record, A racist shouldn't be able to stand his ground should he be threatened?


You have me "on record": "Well, it may just be me, but I feel that all these articles are proxy "I'm not a racist. I have a black friend" arguments."

How you went from my statement to your interpretation is beyond me.
 
You have me "on record": "Well, it may just be me, but I feel that all these articles are proxy "I'm not a racist. I have a black friend" arguments."

How you went from my statement to your interpretation is beyond me.

Well it was a playful jab, forgot one of these :2razz:

but you could still answer the question...;)
 
I said this in another thread.

Abolishing this law will result in more black people in prison. It's kept many out, far more than it's come into play with whites and Hispanics.
 
Well, it may just be me, but I feel that all these articles are proxy "I'm not a racist. I have a black friend" arguments.

How the **** did you come up with that feeling?

Makes no god damned sense.....

Im shaking my damned head at this nonsense.
 
How the **** did you come up with that feeling?

Makes no god damned sense.....

Im shaking my damned head at this nonsense.

That is touches a nerve just reinforces my opinion.
 
That is touches a nerve just reinforces my opinion.

It doesn't make any sense......

The fact that you can.... from what it seems you accuse anyone who views this article of being a racist claiming not to be...

Your message is retardedly not understandable.

So why don't you try again using regular language?
 
It doesn't make any sense......

The fact that you can.... from what it seems you accuse anyone who views this article of being a racist claiming not to be...

Your message is retardedly not understandable.

So why don't you try again using regular language?

"I feel that all these articles are proxy "I'm not a racist. I have a black friend" arguments" seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
"I feel that all these articles are proxy "I'm not a racist. I have a black friend" arguments" seems pretty straightforward to me.

uh that's just silly. are you trying to get leftwing points so you can still claim to be independent?
 
"I feel that all these articles are proxy "I'm not a racist. I have a black friend" arguments" seems pretty straightforward to me.

Its not straightforward..... What are you accusing those who post these articles of?

Or are you too afraid to just come out and say it?
 
Back when I was posting thousands of messages on this board (more than any other) until it just became TOO repetitious, I stressed 2 matters:

1. The Defense should bring in a piece of the sidewalk and offer every defense witness to - for $10,000 in cash - agree to let their head be slammed into it twice hard enough to draw blood - IE GET A CONCRETE PAD INTO THE COURTROOM and...

2. The prosecution can't get around the lead investigator, Serino, who did the interviews at the station and the site with Zimmerman and all the rest of his investigation deciding Zimmerman is not-guilty.

Over and over I posted that. The juror who has spoken stated it was 1. The concrete section the Defense brought to court and 2. Serino indicating he felt Zimmerman wasn't guilty (for which the prosecution objected and the judge told the jury "remember, you did NOT hear the police investigator say Zimmerman is not guilty. More than anything else - remember that you did NOT hear that the police investigator concluded the facts prove Zimmerman innocent." (or words to that effect). LOL!

That's a big "I TOLD EVERYONE WHAT THE CASE, if a legit trial, would turn on. ALL the rest was just noise. Head pounded into concrete, lead investigator decided it legal to shoot someone to stop that. Try to get "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" past that.
 
Everyone kept running off into outer space. But it a simple question. A 6'2" 17 year old goes up to someone, slams him in the face breaking his nose and then is on top of that guy pulmetting him in the face and shoving his head into concrete. Can the man under attack - if he had a gun - shoot to stop this continuing?

I would. You would. Any sane person would. I bet every woman on that jury would too if she had been GZ and had a gun. And that's what the lead investigator decided too. REALLY hard to win a prosecution with the police as the main witness for the defense.

All the rest is just drivel.
 
Its not straightforward..... What are you accusing those who post these articles of?

Or are you too afraid to just come out and say it?

Still don't get it do you? Eww somebody double-dog dared me so I have to prove my manliness :roll:

If I want to say something I will say it. I wanted to say something and I said it. That you cannot figure out what I said and just assume it means something it is not is not my problem.
 
Stand Your Ground didn't even play in the Zimmerman court case.

it shouldn't have, but the juror that has spoken out referred to it in her interview on CNN ... so it may have ...
 
Stand Your Ground didn't even play in the Zimmerman court case.

:mrgreen: You're right! Trayvon was the Stand Your Ground guy! Unfortunately, he didn't have a gun. Peace, chuck.
 
People will successfully argue that it did since it was part of the jury instructions:

:mrgreen: If Zimmerman was eventually placed in a 'Stand Your Ground situation' he was the one who caused it by pursuing Trayvon when told not to. Those jury instructions that you have listed do NOT actually say George was put in a SYG situation, they say IF he was. Those instructions should not have been given to the jury, before establishing whether or not George WAS put in a SYG situation. But, again, if he was, he caused it by relentlessly pursuing Trayvon. He told Travon's parents that Travyon looked just a few years younger than him. Every picture I've seen of Tray plastered over the TV screens tells me Tray didn't even look 17. He looked about 15. George, placed in a SYG situation (caused by him) where he had to shoot a kid eighty pounds lighter, who had produced no weapon, just don't jibe. So George says the eighty pounds lighter Martin was savagely beating him with his fists (that showed no signs of bruising), and that put him in the Stand Your Ground position. And it WORKED!! Zimmerman was acquitted! What was the prosecution's case? It had to be extremely poor! This was a travesty of justice. Peace, chuck.
 
Back
Top Bottom