Florida, do your own analysis.

[gejohnston]

The Tampa Bay Times used media reports, court records and interviews with prosecutors and attorneys to identify more than 200 “stand your ground” cases across Florida. The list, though incomplete, is the most comprehensive in the state and likely includes most fatal cases.

The Times asked questions about each conflict: Who was armed? Who started the fight? It also recorded the race, age and sex of those involved and the case outcome. Hispanics often are listed as white or black because many police agencies record only race, not ethnicity.

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases

While not complete, but probably the most or only comprehensive data base done. What I would know is, how it compares to the previous law. In fact, I would like to see a before and after for each state that adopted a SYG statute.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. K&R

Good info, thanks.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. damn you, gejohnston !! --

-- For taking all the emotion out of this !! Who do you think you are? an insurance company ?! K&R

[spin]

3. Very interesting. The media would have you believe that "stand your ground" happens everyday ...

and that Florida is indeed the Wild West. Yet the Tampa Bay Times could only come up with 200 cases since the law passed 8 years ago. Only 14 of those involved a White person accused of murdering a Black victim and 11 cases where a White individual is accused of a nonfatal assault on a Black victim.

The data also shows that while you can claim "stand your ground" self defense in Florida, it is no guarantee that you will walk free.

[BainsBane]

9. defintely not

the case of Marissa Alexander shows that if a black woman tries to invoke SYG when shooting a gun over the head of an abusive husband, the jury will only take 12 minutes to convict her. Imagine the nerve of a black women thinking the law was meant to protect her. It is in fact used by whites who have killed blacks 11 times more than the other way around, which is why the Office for Civil Rights is investigating the laws.

You won't like these sources because they aren't funded by the NRA and the Koch brothers, but they prove the racist application of the reactionary law members here so admire.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nra-alec-stand-your-ground
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/stand-your-ground-task-force-rick-scott-trayvon

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/07/14/stand-your-ground-increases-racial-bias/

[gejohnston]

12. false equivelance

Just because someone claims self defense, doesn't mean the cops ignore the evidence. You don't "invoke SYG" you simply claim that were were defending yourself. It still has to fit the evidence. In her case:
They were having a verbal argument. She walked passed him, went into the garage, got the gun, went in the house and fired in the general direction of the husband and kids. There was no reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. Therefore, it was not self defense. A verbal threat is not the same as felony battery. IOW, they are full of shit.
SYG simply means that you don't have a duty to retreat if you safely can. How is that racial biased? It's opposite is duty to retreat, which means that you are expected to retreat if you reasonably can safely, and you show by preponderance of the evidence that you either did or couldn't escape, the State has the burden of disproving self defense BARD. Under SYG, you don't have to show or prove anything.
Since Zimmerman struggled and called from help for 45 seconds before he fired the shot, SYG doesn't matter because there was no ability to retreat. If Florida were DTR, having someone straddling your torso while you call for help, and your voice is on a recording for that long, would meet that standard.

What her case does show is the unjustness of mandatory min and Angela Corey's lack of ethics, including her many Brady violations and fraudulent probable cause cert in the Zimmerman case.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/12/opinion/roland-martin-mandatory-minimums

[spin]

14. "Stand your ground" laws have a long legal history in the U.S. ...

Self-defense (United States)

In the United States, the defense of self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force in his or her own defense or the defense of others (see the theoretical background for why this is allowed).

***snip***

Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52, is one of the earliest cases to strongly support and establish in U.S. law an individual's right to initiate self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an aggressor.

In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."...emphasis added

A related case is the U.S. Supreme Court case John Bad Elk v. U.S. (1900) 177 U.S. 529, 44 L.Ed. 874, 20 S.Ct. 729, where a man was granted a new trial after being convicted of killing a police officer who was attempting to illegally arrest the man, because, at the initial trial, the jury was not instructed that it could convict on a lesser offense, such as manslaughter. Runyan v. State is further supported by additional cases such as Miller v. State (1881) 74 Ind. 1., Jones v. State (1888) 26 Tex.App. 1, 9 S.W. 53, 8 Am.St.Rep. 454, Beaverts v. State (1878) 4 Tex.App. 175, and Skidmore v. State (1875) 43 Tex. 93.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)

Now I will agree that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law needs a rewrite to eliminate some ambiguities or loopholes that have become apparent since it was passed. However the basic concept of the law is sound in my opinion. If I am attacked by an individual, I should not be required to retreat before using reasonable and appropriate force to stop his attack. (That doesn't mean I should be able to shoot someone because he takes a punch at me.) In a situation where I fear that my attacker intends to put me in the hospital for a long time or six feet under, I should be able to use lethal force to stop his attack. Of course a reasonable man standing in my shoes should agree that I was facing imminent serious injury or death.

I will also agree that you should not be allowed to initiate an argument and provoke your opponent into violence in order to shoot and kill him. This might have been exactly what happened in the Zimmerman/Martin incident but unfortunately there was no evidence to prove this possibility beyond a reasonable doubt in the opinion of the jury. If there was such evidence, the prosecution was totally incompetent. If there was no such evidence the prosecution overreached and should have sought a conviction on a lesser charge.

Under Florida law Zimmerman was not committing a crime by either following or confronting Martin. It has been and will remain my opinion that while it may have been legal it was extremely foolish. I have a Florida concealed weapons permit and I carry on a regular basis. To be honest, a kid in a hoodie in my neighborhood would not have elevated my suspicion in the least. To be fair my neighborhood does not have many home robberies. If I seen someone acting truly suspicious in my neighborhood I would simply call the police and continue on my way.

But let's suppose Zimmerman did walk up to Martin in a confrontational manner and demand to know what he was doing. Obviously Martin would have had good reason to fear Zimmerman but unless Zimmerman had attempted to grab him, he had no reason to start a fight. If Zimmerman grabbed him, Martin would have every right to resist, but once he had Zimmerman on the ground and Zimmerman was not longer resisting, Martin should have broke off his attack.

Basically it should be illegal to start a confrontation in order to kill someone and if someone attacks you, you should not be able to kill him once you have stopped his attack.

You mention the Marisa Alexander case but are you aware of the background for the jury decision? If not I will suggest you read this article. The story is not as simple as you suggest.

Marissa Alexander: The REAL reason she's behind bars

***snip***

According to court documents, Alexander got into an argument with her husband, Rico Gray, after Gray found text messages on Alexander’s phone to her ex-husband. Alexander claimed Gray initially prevented her from leaving the bathroom – where they were arguing – but at some point she was able to get by him and get away. Alexander fled the house, but when she got to her car in the garage, she realized she had left her keys inside. So she got her gun from the car and re-entered the house. Alexander told police the garage door was broken, and that’s why she didn’t exit that way. Police found no evidence proving the garage door wasn’t working properly.

When Alexander went back inside, she claimed Gray continued to threaten her so she fired a “warning shot” through the house -- which she fired in the direction of Gray, with his children nearby.

***snip***

In 2009, Alexander filed charges against Gray, claiming he tried to choke her, but she went to the Florida District Attorney’s Office and said that wasn’t really what happened and then all charges were dropped. According Richard Kuritz, attorney for Gray and his two children, Gray has never been convicted of any violent act toward Alexander. Kuritz said the only time Gray has been arrested for domestic violence was an incident involving his brother and those charges were also dropped.

***snip***

“A warning shot is when you shoot into the air, you shoot down on the ground, you don’t shoot straight at somebody 6 feet off the ground,” said Kuritz, in an interview with HLN’s Vinnie Politan on “HLN After Dark.” “[The shot] was at eye level with my client, right above his 12-year-old. When you have a 12-year-old child who testified to a jury that ‘I thought I was fixin’ to die,’ I’m sorry that is not a misdemeanor…When you shoot a gun that puts a 12-year-old child in fear for his life, that changes things and I think it was prosecuted appropriately.”...emphasis added
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/19/marissa-alexander-florida-10-20-life-laws

Note that the article comes from HLN which to my knowledge has nothing to do with publishing NRA propaganda.

[jimmy the one]

4. nra mentality

What happened: Willard J. McCullen {white male, 22} shot his cousin after a dispute over $60.. McCullen shot him in the back and then again in the chest when he turned around. McCullen told investigators he was an NRA member and knew he had a right to shoot.
outcome: McCullen convicted second-degree murder.. sentenced 35 years..
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_119

Not an indictment of nra members, just what nra mentality can do to young & impressionable.

[Eleanors38]

5. Jimmy, you are a stickler for making critical remarks...

Maybe you can determine what the 10yrs before SYG show, broken down by race. Maybe you can compare this data with that one point about the NRA iteration, you know, to see if it's a 100% rate of increase over the prior 10 yrs.

[russ1943]

6. Texas A&M scholars study provides some perspective.

Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Expansions to Castle Doctrine….
http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf
“Results indicate that the prospect of facing additional self-defense does not deter crime………..In contrast we find significant evidence that the laws lead to more homicides. Estimates indicate that the laws increase homicides by a statistically significant 8 percent, which translates into an additional 600 homicides per year across states that expanded castle doctrine.”


http://www.democraticunderground.com/117243852

[gejohnston]

7. I read the study a year or so ago.

The authors did the study for a contractor, but the customer is unknown. The study isn't peer reviewed and has several problems. One is they don't know the difference between Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. Another is that they have several states wrong. That causes problems with their data set. While it does say it suggests there might be a cause but it is inconclusive.
Of course, even if there were a correlation, it would not show causation.

The goal of these laws is not to reduce crime. The goal is to give the judicial system to deal with claimed self defense homicides in a just manner. So, it really doesn't matter.

The point of the OP was to counter the recent claim, based on false assumptions rather than evidence, that SYG laws are racist. The impression that it either puts whites above the law or blacks below the law. I provided this simply to say "prove it". Since the disproportional number of crime victims happen to be African American, I find the claim rather odd.
While I am not naive enough to believe that we achieved MLK's dream completely, but I am not cynical nor ideological enough to discount the significant progress we have made either.

I read another paper commissioned by the same contractor that dealt with weapons smuggling to Mexico from US gun shops and gun shows. On page eight and nine they started talking about routes for smuggling hand grenades to Mexico. Since you can't legally buy live hand grenades at any gun store or gun show, I had to wonder what the point was.

[spin]

15. Statistical evidence may show more homicides but many of the homicides in Florida ...

have been ruled as justifiable. That would mean that the use of force was appropriate to stop an attack that a reasonable man would believe would result in severe bodily injury or death.

The Tampa Bay Times did some research and found more than 200 cases in Florida where a "Stand Your Ground" defense was used. Of the cases that resulted in a fatality 73 were ruled as justified shootings, 40 resulted in the conviction of the defendant and 20 are pending. In the incidents where no one was killed, 70 were justified, 29 resulted in convictions and 15 are pending.

You can review the report at http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases

So in 143 incidents where "Stand Your Ground" was used as a defense, it was ruled as a justifiable response to a threat that could have caused serious injury or death. Also be aware that a criminal will claim "Stand Your Ground" as his defense even if the assertion is ridiculous and easily dismissed.

In other words the criminal will claim, "I wasn't there and I didn't do it, Even if I was I was just standing my ground."

Therefore the use of a weapon for defense against an attack may have saved many people from a long stay in a hospital or their own funeral. Is this such a terrible thing? Would it be better if they suffered serious injuries, were raped or end up six feet under while the criminal was left unharmed to attack others?

It's not all that surprising that the number of justifiable homicides has risen since the law passed in 2005. During that period of time the number of concealed weapons permits in Florida skyrocketed. When some street thug decides to attack an innocent victim his chances of getting shot increase as the number of carry permits increase. Admittedly not all people with permits carry on a regular basis but perhaps 10% or 15% do. That would mean that somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 Floridians carry daily.

Florida firearm violence hits record low; concealed gun permits up
Debate continues over relationship between guns and crime

By JACOB CARPENTER
Posted January 6, 2013 at 5:15 a.m.

In the so-called Gunshine State, home to the most gun permits in the country, firearm violence has fallen to the lowest point on record.

As state and national legislators consider gun control laws in the wake of last month's Connecticut school shooting, Florida finds itself in a gun violence depression. The Firearm-involved violent crime rate has dropped 33 percent between 2007 and 2011, while the number of issued concealed weapons permits rose nearly 90 percent during that time, state records show....emphasis added
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/jan/06/fla-firearm-violence-hits-record-low/

I should add that I personally feel the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida should be rewritten to eliminate some loopholes and ambiguities that may have allowed some murderers to walk free.

[BainsBane]

8. Amazing how ALEC, the NRA and the Koch Brothers

policies are so popular in this little section of DU. I guess if the most reactionary elements in society push a set of laws that allow white men to kill African Americans when the shooter could safely remove themselves from the situation, it must be a good idea.

That the Office for Civil Rights of a Democratic administration is investigating the clearly racist application of SYG wouldn't concern anyone here. Does the fact that SYG is successfully invoked 11 times more by whites who kill blacks than the other way around matter in the least? Evidently if Alec, the NRA, and the Koch brothers push for it, it must be a good idea, right? Why safely retreat from danger when you can seize the the opportunity to kill someone? What fun would that be?

[hack89]

10. The Office for Civil Rights is trying to give political cover to the president

everyone knows there is no basis for an indictment but they have to go through the motions.

[hack89]

11. In Florida your point about whites killing blacks does not hold true.

Murder is primarily an intra-racial phenomena - whites kill whites, blacks kill blacks.

In Florida to date there have been 61 white on white SYG cases. There have been 11 white on black, 10 black on white and 26 black on black cases.

The results:

For white on white: 32 justified, 25 convicted, 4 pending

For white on black: 6 justified, 1 convicted, 4 pending

For black on white: 4 justified, 2 convicted, 4 pending

For black on black: 16 justified, 6 convicted, 4 pending

You are talking about one more conviction in a sample size of 3 in the interracial shootings - 2 v 1. If you want to hang your hat on that small sample size and yell racism then knock yourself out

Notice the black on white SYG cases - it would appear that black shooters "get away with murder" just like white guys do.

Notice that white shooters in general have a higher conviction rate than blacks.

[DonP]

13. Sorry, your facts do not fit the outrage meme of the day - please remove them

Throwing facts into the discussion is just going to confuse the issue.

It's better if we all just agree to make SYG the evil Koch, ALEC, NRA, racist enemy of the day/week, (even though a certain State Senator, currently in a higher office, voted to support it in Illinois a few years ago.)

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Also, please don't point out that Mother Jones and Ms. Magazine aren't primary sources.

That would only harsh the mellow of certain self-appointed spokespersons for groups that they
themselves do not belong to...