Are the “Shoot First” Laws racially biased?

36 posts / 0 new

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is taking a close look at “Shoot First” laws after numerous studies show there's a racial bias inherent in the law.

For example – an FBI study found that, “34% of cases involving a white shooter killing a black person were deemed as a justifiable homicide. Meanwhile, in similar situations, when the shooter was black and the victim was white, the homicide was ruled justifiable only 3.3% of the time.” In other words – the Shoot First laws are a licence for white people to kill black people, but not the other way around.

The Committee is expected to release its finding within a year – too late to stop more murders of blacks by whites, while the rate of so-called justifiable homicides continues to explode in America since these laws – written by corporate gun sellers like WalMart and the NRA – were passed. Another example of corporate corruption of our legislators leading to the death of Americans.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 9:59 am

Comments

Like I said in the tx stand your ground laws conversation this abortioncan be explained by the fact that 38% of the crime in this country is black and only 19% of non whites have legal guns.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

I'm guessing that those FBI statistics are seen across the entire spectrum of crimes, from shoplifting to murder. Do they even drill down to crimes investigated that result in indictments?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Idk what it entails.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Whenever you have a weak non-story, out comes the race card. You tend to ignore the "shoot first" rule when doing a drive by shooting. Most gangsters don't buy guns at Walmart or are members of the NRA. A huge percent of shootings in the African American community is black on black and you know it. Worry more about parenting and lots of your fears will dissolve.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/race-wars-part-1-the-shocking-data-on-black-on-black-crime/

THISAA's picture
THISAA
Joined:
Dec. 16, 2011 5:49 am

The horrendous murders of Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd launched drives for new hate crime laws, so cynical politicians could pander to gays, African-Americans and other groups. The murders of both Shepherd and Bird would justify the harshest punishment under victim identity-neutral (read: democratic) laws already on the books for centuries, but never mind: this was an opportunity to sooth prime constituencies, while tarring any sensible opponent of the legislation as racist, or homophobic, or not sufficiently caring.

The resulting laws are inherently anti-democratic, by their very existence declaring that one human being’s death or serious injury at the hands of lawless brutes is of more concern to society than another’s, because that human being belongs to a special, special class that it is especially wrong to hate. Most of the people who applaud such laws usually hate plenty, of course, but it is virtuous hate, since in their world view it is only right to hate Republicans and successful entrepreneurs and conservatives and Fox News and fundamentalist Christians and global warming skeptics and Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. Other people’s hate, however is criminal. Add in the element of that bad, senseless hate to an old-fashioned murder, and you have an extra-bad murder.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am

Stand your ground is a sign of a dying empire. When the law inforcement cannot protect the citizens and they have to protect themselfs(like in the old wild west) the country is going backwards. Stand your ground is also a sign of a dctatorship,when they are in trouble,they make it easy for laws & weapons to be for the public.(remember Rwanda?) When the smoke clear,the same "beep" people are back in power.We need to stand our ground against "going backwards"!

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I agree with your argument insofar as you're talking about murder. However, hate crimes may be appropriate for crimes less than murder, i.e. arson, assault, attempted murder, etc.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I think that the shoot first laws are not defined well enough and are left too open for interpretation. I don't believe the laws themselves are racially biased. I think that too many of those in charge of making judgement based on the laws are the ones who are racially biased.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

If you look at the statutes themselves all they did was remove the requirmEnt that the shooter must flee if able. This was done because in many cases the fact thdefy he shooter did not flee was used against them by das. Removing that part of sel defense statute allows for one to use a gun in self defense and not be convicted on what ifs. As for the law being racist last time I checked anyone but a felon can own a gun.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Is the language "flee" or "retreat?"

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Idk I posted the text to the other thread on this topic

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

explained by the fact that 38% of the crime in this country is black and only 19% of non whites have legal guns.

Would you care to substantiate that claim with actual data?

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

11. June 2012 - 9:39#35CollegeConservative

Jan couldnt that statistic be explained by the fact that the black crime Makes up 38% of the crime in this ?country.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_race_percentages_of_crime_in_th_us

Top

11. June 2012 - 9:42#36CollegeConservative

Also only 19% of non whites own legal guns http://reason.com/archives/2001/05/01/gun-ownership-the-numbers?nomobile=1

Top

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

tay144, " Stand your ground is also a sign of a dctatorship,when they are in trouble,they make it easy for laws & weapons to be for the public."

Not true. Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. To the delight of Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms, Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime. Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

American interest in the Swiss did not begin with John McPhree's prize-winning essay La Place de la Concorde Suisse. In 1768, as conflict with the Crown worsened, the colonists called for the strengthening of the militia, so that "this country will have a better security against the calamities of war than any other in the world, Switzerland alone excepted." By the time the new Constitution was being debated in 1787, John Adams wrote a treatise which praised the democratic Swiss Cantons, where every man was entitled to vote on matters of state and to bear arms. The famous orator Patrick Henry praised the Swiss for maintaining their neutrality and independence from the great monarchies, all without "a mighty and splendid President" or a standing army: "Let us follow their example, and be equally happy."

The Swiss influence was partly responsible for the adoption of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This has become the orphan of the Bill of Rights which some love to hate.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am

The Swiss have no love affair with guns. They treat them as tools. They have no global ambitions and have practiced self-defense and 'neutrality,' but they have also exploited that role as bankster backup for a long time. They were also in the mercenary business for many centuries.

While the Swiss do have guns, they are also long-term residents with village and familial ties. While there is a division in language that ought to bust the English-only cons chops, there is also far less diversity and mobility, therefor a lot more community knowledge of the people than in our souless suburbs.

In the case of "stand your ground," the Swiss are part of the European consensus against vigilante 'justice' and require anyone causing harm to another, or death, to demonstrate a very high level of immediate threat and lack of options to lethal or injurious force.

Citing the Swiss to make the NRA argument about the 2nd Amendment or to justify crap like SYG is very weak argument for America. I will agree that the Swiss treat guns with much greater respect and responsibility than do Americans, and I will also stipulate as did Michael Moore (with the Canadians) that it is not "guns" that explain gun violence in America. I think the romance of the gun and the emotionality and symbolism of gun politics go a lot farther toward explaining it than merely the possession of guns. And, don't forget the racist roots of "killin' redskins and fear of slave rebellions.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

"The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their Army issued equipment, including all personal weapons, at home. Some organizations and political parties find this practice controversial[65] but mainstream Swiss opinion is in favour of the system. Compulsory military service concerns all male Swiss citizens"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

If you want to be like Switzerland I think a lot of people you don't want to have guns, will have guns.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

A referendum held in February 2011 proposing sticter gun control in Switzerland was rejected by a large margin. Target shooting is the national sport there. The Swiss own guns both for their militia service and privately.

So is banning private citizens from owning guns the answer? I think you will find that a lot of people you don't want to have guns will still have guns anyway. I think widespread gun ownership is more of a deterrent to would be criminals than if the criminals knew the next house they were going to rob was certain to be unarmed.

Despite popular belief, Mexico does not totally ban private ownweship of guns. They are restrcted outside of one's home. That doesn't stop the drug cartels from having lots of firepower and has been devastating there. A lot of US citizens living in the border areas are glad to have guns that have probably prevented the drug related violence from spreading across the border.

Instead of blaming Mexico's gun related violence by drug cartel's fighting over routes to bring drugs into the US for monetary gain on gun availability, why not take the profit out of the drug trafficking by decriminalizing drugs?

I do not think banning the private ownweship of guns is realistic.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

For the most part this is very true. The exceptions are accidents.

I am a gun owner and have been most of my life. I only used it for hunting, which I do very little of anymore. The point being that guns themselves aren't the problem. It's the person who has posession of the gun who is ultimately the problem. On the other side of the coin, when you start throwing out facts like Switzerland, you seem to want to give the guns themselves credit for the lack of crime. You can't have it both ways. If you want to use the gun itself as the reason for the lack of crime in one part of the world and not give the credit to the gun owners, then you are going to have to give the gun itself credit for crime in other parts of the world.

I see it totally differently. I don't give guns credit for anything. I give a society credit for being able to maintain a low crime report card even though it has many guns. I blame a society for having a high crime report card no matter how many guns it's people have.

In a melting pot of religions, political views, morals and races such as we have in the United States, I would be very, very careful about how much freedom we allow our citizens to have when it comes to guns. Switzerland is pretty laid back and America, especially lately, is like a keg of gun powder just waiting to blow.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

You want to give everybody in the ghetto an assault rifle, AND you want to train them how to use it?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

If everyone has a gun your a lot less likely to act like a thug.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

An armed society is a polite society.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am
Switzerland is pretty laid back and America, especially lately, is like a keg of gun powder just waiting to blow.
Telling people that are aleady armed that they do not have to avoid confrontation should produce results not surprising to anyone. When someone is armed and with permission to kill, why the surprise when killing goes up? Maybe the groups can have a Charles Bronson party and get amped up, then pack multiple arms and reloads, and head into town. Retreat never meant flee, it meant avoid, do not confront. With retreat gone the accepted mode is hunt.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

What are the numbers on homicide with legal guns vs illegal guns just curious?

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm
Quote CollegeConservative:

the fact that the black crime Makes up 38% of the crime in this ?country.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_race_percentages_of_crime_in_th_us

Your reference just fell through. That reference does not show 38% of anything. The Wiki Answers page only references to one relevant link, and that only has a section on 'perceptions oof crimes' that seems relevant.

How about statistics from the FBI, US Census Bureau, etc.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 10:07 am

III don't understand how a law that applies to all can bracially biased

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Oh yes—you do understand.

Stop skirting the facts— you just lost the argument.

Start waving that white flag of surrender.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

I don't have a problem with implantation when I get laid. But that's just me. ;)

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

No I don't it's the same thing with voter Id I don't how someone can claim discrimination of one group when the law is Written for everyone. Now maybe in theimplementation there is bias but that's a problem with implantation not the law it's self.

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Stand your ground laws are as responsible for racially motivated murder as much as spoons are responsible for making Rosie O'Donnell fat.

I grew up in Chicago and live near DC. They have both had the DISTINCTION of being the "Murder Capitals of the USA" over that last few decades. The irony is that they have also both had the LONGEST STANDING HAND GUN BANS!!!!

How is it possible when in a place where hand guns and ammunition are illegal and difficult to obtain be such a Mecca for capital crimes?

While the Trayvon case is tragic, blaming the law or the gun is ridiculus. By that logic maybe we should be overturning the hand gun bans in cities to protect some of the minorities that are being killed by other minorites. Maybe we should let law abiding people arm themselves? I could post stats but just as easy for you to google and draw your own conclusion. Look at Chicago murder rates by race. The biggest killer of black men is other black men.

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 6:27 pm

I looked up some statistics I found this AMAZING....

Since 2001 in Afganistan we have lost 2009 US military

Since 2003 in Iraq we have lost 4486 US military

Since 2001 there have been 6032 murders in Chicago which is about the same as Iraq & Afghanistan COMBINED. And, they have one of the MOST restrictive hand gun bans.

How can you explain why the Democratic Bastion of Chicago is more dangerous to US civilians than two war zones combined?

Maybe we should be demanding that Obama withdraw from Chicago because it seems safer in Iraq or Kabul

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 6:27 pm

I'm lost with your analogy.

Wouldn't it be more relevant to count shooting deaths of police officers in Chicago?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Hell, we don't need "shoot first" laws in Texas. What next, are the liberal shills going to want to ban fists?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/he-got-what-he-deserved-texas-dad-beats-his-daughters-molester-to-death/

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am

I heard quite a while back on Mark Thompson's Sirius Left radio show discuss that Martin/Zimmerman case. On that show, the discussion was being made by two black men who concluded that the Martin/Zimmerman case was just a macho fisticuffs that got out of hand when one brought a gun to it--and it should be investigated. I agree with that. And, you know what, they didn't even mention the Florida 'shoot first' law--that appears more to be a white man's attempt to appear 'non-biased' by claiming 'racial biases'....

In the Shiner, Texas, case, I wonder what a father is to do if he comes across his 5 year old daughter being raped....offer the man 'rehabilitation'? And, with whatever that does to the 5 year old, claim 'counseling will handle it'? That's apeshit...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

One physician I know made an interesting distinction in the Martin/Zimmerman case. When I pressed him on the idea that I don't think this is Zimmerman acting in a racially biased manner as the cause to act and that, even if he did, that wasn't the biggest insult that Zimmerman did--after all, Martin is dead and that's the biggest insult. Adding, we need to get away from trying to approach 'personal responsibility' as if it should be conditioned, and excused, by 'prejudicial action' ('community' or otherwise)--and we should have people be more personally responsible for their actions (with motive more in line with what intent can be determined and not with what presumption of prejudice there may or may not be to 'condition' such an intention as if it were, somehow, to remove that as personal responsibility). This physician agreed. He added, 'Zimmerman's actions are not the racial issue that needs to be addressed as a racial issue, it's what the police did to investigate it afterwards that is.' And, I agree with that....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

So again the law itself is not racist but implementation may be so go after the implementation

CollegeConservative's picture
CollegeConservative
Joined:
May. 4, 2012 1:22 pm

Currently Chatting

The world we're leaving for today's teens...

Without immediate global action on climate change, today's teenagers will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction. The World Bank has issued their third report of climate change, and it says that global temperatures could rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius by the time today's teens hit their 80th birthday.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system