Trayvon Martin.

The way law enforcement, the city, state, and the Feds are handling this is not satisfactory. The integrity of our judicial system is at risk as people grow increasingly frustrated - if ever there was a time for real leadership it is now. The available facts should be reviewed now, and action taken one way or the other now.

 

btw here is a graphic showing which states have adopted this sort of "self-defense" law:

The NRA Wants the Law Protecting Trayvon Martin's Killer in All 50 States | Mother Jones

 

The "Stand Your Ground" law is not applicable, just because a corrupt investigation uses this as an excuse doesn't mean that it is a valid response. If anything Trayvon would have been protected by this law for any actions he took to defend himself.

If liberals want to use the Trayvon matter as political fodder for a case against gun rights, talk show hosts, Presidential candidates, they are stooping to a level below which I would have thought possible.

 

ace, i already noted that it could not possibly be used in that way because the law is a priori perfect. the problem is the fallen nature of the populations. it's a very christian story. the same narrative that justified implementing these laws in the first place no less. but because the law is perfect in every way, of course the problems must lay elsewhere---a racist police department, a racist vigilante and and a political organization that had mobilized heavily amongst the rural right, which happens, no doubt by the purest of coincidence, to include a certain racist element. that is why i think it would be such a good idea for the nra to distance itself from that racist element, and perhaps even to undertake an anti-racism politics so that its Perfect Laws do not find themselves tossed into wastebaskets because lots of other people all over the country do not see things in the same way. wouldn't you support the nra coming out against racism in all its forms and distancing itself from racist ultra-rightwingers in order to protect its Perfect Laws, ace?

 

Aceventura, I read this editorial and thought of you:

A license to kill and go free? - chicagotribune.com

 

I have a conceal carry permit, and thanks to the NRA, I have been trained on how and when I can use my firearm to protect my person, family and property. It is because I am not willing to entrust others (named government/police) for this responsibility that I went through the effort. Everything associated with the NRA has reflected responsible gun ownership. I will never forfeit my right to gun ownership, nor forfeit my right to self defense. Focus on the NRA and self-defense laws is simply a distraction - I prefer the focus remain on the real factors involved in the Trayvon matter and the racism faced in particular by young black males in this country.

 

Here's something I posted on my Facebook: Take it for what you will.

--- merged: Mar 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM ---
To be clear: My position is this--Stand Your Ground is Good Law, the Trayvon Martin shoot, from what's been reported in the media, was a bad shoot that Stand Your Ground does not apply to. The Shooter should face trial.

 

I dont think Stand Your Ground Laws are racist.

I do think they enable untrained individuals to act on emotion and any racial stereotypes they may hold, even subconsciously, that leads them to believe they are in danger when no danger exists.

 

Have we truly reached a point where we have basically degenerated to the Old West days and everyone needs to carry a gun?

When you have nuts carrying guns and shooting people just basically because they are in the wrong place and look the wrong way... then we are in the Old West days. Very simple, crazy people should not have access to guns. In order to get a gun license people should take a stress test to gauge how they would react in certain situations. I don't think that is a 2nd amendment right issue because you are not denying someone the opportunity to own a gun.

 

I guess you'd have to have lived here for an extended time to see why in the most awful way this sounds so naive. Here. In America? No. It's as racist as any other country. We just smear a veneer of 'we're so 'civilized' over it but lord, so many people living in the U.S.A. hate on anyone who is not 'like them.' (For context, I am a white Canadian and I have an American child that is 'mixed'.)

How far have we come since the lynchings of the 1960's? A half-century later, not nearly as far as many of us would like to think.

 

Focusing on racism is not a viable solution to the problem unless you have some insight on how to effectively eradicate it.

I prefer to focus on disarming racists before they can kill any more innocent young black men. I see that as a more effective solution.

 

Here's the the problem with the law: some people think it is reasonable to feel threatened by young black males regardless of what those young black males are actually doing. Some of these same people are responsible for enforcing Stand Your Ground laws. And so when some asshole guns down some innocent kid for being black, the cops come and say "Yep, you were right to feel threatened, why don't you go on home and have some sweet tea."

There is a disconnect between the implicit distrust of government exhibited by people who favor these laws and the amount of government competence required to properly enforce these laws.

 

These laws do not enable untrained individuals to act on emotion, self-defense is a clearly defined legal concept with case law supporting the legal parameters. Vigilantly activities are illegal.

 

Ace....the FL Stand Your Ground Law is broader than most and gives more discretion to both the "shooter" and the police. It does not include the provision that other such laws have with a "duty to retreat first" and actually forbids the police from arresting a person if the police simply believe the person is protected by the policy (a decision that should be made by prosecutors, not police). There is no clearly defined legal concept of self-defense, only the concept of "perceived threat of bodily harm" which can certainly be affected by emotions and racial stereotypes.

The law is too broad, ambiguous and favors protecting the shooter over protecting the victim.
--- merged: Mar 22, 2012 at 6:50 PM ---
I could actually agree with you about having the law provide the right to protect one's home, family and property IF the law also includes standards of what is required to meet the test of "perceived threat of bodily harm".

These laws should not apply to persons acting in public places where the response should be "call the police and retreat"...period.

 

Racism is mostly the product of irrational fears. These irrational fears can be addressed. First, it takes an open forum that allows people to voice their fears in an honest manner. Often, when there is an opportunity to talk openly about irrational fears, that opportunity fades as others take positions of moral superiority to ridicule those as the open up.

If you could eliminate all guns from society, there would be other tools used to inflict violence based on racism. For example, in prisons, prisoners do not have access to guns, that does not stop the racial violence. A focus on the real issues would. I do agree that guns can be a more efficient tool, and that gun control in some environments will have a big impact - but the underlying problem goes unresolved.
--- merged: Mar 22, 2012 at 7:06 PM ---

What you describe violates these laws and it is compounded by corrupt law enforcement. That is why, we the people, have recourse. If local law officials are violating the civil rights of some, we have state and federal official who should step in.

No there is not. There is a realization that government/police are reactionary at best. You call for help and get help (hopefully) after the fact.
As a person with fire arms, the last thing I would do is use them or even acknowledge I have a weapon until I absolutely needed to. I would cooperate and I would never initiate force or use more force than is needed in self-defense. Trayvon's killer violated these basic tenants of self-defense. This is not a defense for him. Anyone with any knowledge on the ubject knows this based on the facts made public.
--- merged: Mar 22, 2012 at 7:17 PM ---

This is not a new legal concept, there is plenty of case law and legal precedent.

In my training it was clearly defined. For example, I am 5'10", 235lbs and an able bodied adult male. If my 5'0", 130 lb wife attacked me, the law would consider it a joke if I used lethal force with a gun stating I felt my life was in danger, unless she had a gun, bazooka, or greater weapon, loaded, aimed and readied for fire at me.

 

You are applying your own interpretation and ignoring the facts of the law.

He was not required to retreat first as is required by similar laws in other states. He only needed to perceive a threat of bodily harm to be protected by the law and the police power to detain and arrest is then limited. KirStang can correct me if I am wrong.

The concept of self defense is not the issue...the concept of perceived threat of bodily harm is the issue.

When I worked at the National Crime Prevention Council in the early 90s developing Neighborhood Watch training materials with the National Sheriff's Association and the Intl. Assoc of Chiefs of Police, the underlying standard was to call 9-11 and back away from the scene. Neighborhood Watch volunteers were unarmed, by intent.

These laws now set a new standard allowing untrained volunteers to act with deadly force in public places (not their own homes) with some ambiguous cover of protection under the law.

These laws need to be reviewed and clarified with greater standards of protection for the person committing an alleged act of a threat of bodily harm.

 

I've read several posts of yours dealing with the spending/taxing issue. (and please bear with me as I know I am going out on a limb here) In several discussions where the subject has come up of raising taxes on the wealthy, your position has been "cut spending first then address any need for tax increases." Despite the fact that spending cuts hurt those in the worse economic positions, whereas the more effective position, from the point of view of others, would be a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

In this scenario, I can correlate "cut spending first" then we'll talk about raising taxes with "remove the guns" then we'll talk about the issue of racism.

So why does this formula only work for you when it comes to fixing the country's economy?

And...

If racism is mostly the product of irrational fear, isn't carrying a gun on your person mostly a product of the same sort of irrational fear? Who are racists afraid of? Who are you afraid of?

 

The main problem with the Florida law is not the stand your ground provision itself. It is the immunity it grants to those who claim self defense. More precisely, the law says that the police have to have probable cause that a self defense claim is false, and judges can grant immunity even before trial to those who invoke it. Which makes it extremely problematic because it requires prosecutors to prove a negative before the case is even presented to a jury.

 

How often does the law work in the favor of a young black man in a hoodie, I wonder?

Shall we ask all the young African American men currently imprisoned how their claims of self-defense turned out? Or how they were implicated in crimes or given overly harsh sentences simply because they were young and black?