Our results depict a disturbing message: SYG legislation in Florida has a quantifiable racial bias that reveals a leniency in convictions if the victim is non-White, which provides evidence towards unequal treatment under the law.Surprise, surprise. Well, maybe not so much of a surprise when you read how they describe their methodology for the paper -- critical race theory (emphasis added):
We frame our study using Public Health Critical Race Theory (PHCRT) Methodology. PHCRT is a conceptual framework that builds upon critical race theory and public health theories and methods to articulate how best to understand and address social and health issues to achieve social justice for marginalized groups.Like a child who puts on red-tinted glasses and is shocked to discover the whole world is imbued with that color, these “scientists” donned their racist-tinted lab goggles and found the whole world imbued with racism.
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force . . . . As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.Statutes, of course, merely represent the stated intent of the Legislature, which does not bear the burden of actually applying them. That task falls to the courts. As if often the case, in the instance of §776.032 the Legislature declined (some would say "failed") to specify the precise procedures that were to be applied in determining whether a particular individual qualified for self-defense immunity. This naturally led to months of fun for Florida's trial, appellate, and Supreme Court judges. Among the first issues that had to be settled was simply the standard of evidence to be applied to self-defense immunity, in other words how much evidence in support of self-defense was required before immunity could attach to a defendant.
SB116 spent almost nine months dying a slow death in the state Senate, receiving not even a single vote in any committee...
Seventeen-year-old Diren Dede lost his life Sunday, while in Missoula, Montana on a high school exchange program from Germany. He was shot dead at the home of Markus Kaarma, after Kaarma set a trap for intruders by intentionally leaving the garage open and placing a purse in clear view. After motion sensors detected someone in the garage, Kaarma shot Dede. And while he has since been charged with first degree murder, he is already invoking a Stand Your Ground-like defense.KULR-8 Television, Billings, MT The first and most obvious error in attempting to apply Stand-Your-Ground to the Smith and Kaarma cases--indeed to ANY case taking place in or immediately around the defendant's home--is that Stand-Your-Ground is utterly irrelevant in that context. Every state already has in place, by either statute or case law, the Castle Doctrine. The Castle Doctrine eliminates any otherwise existing duty to retreat if you are in your home, or its curtilage (some states do suspend the Castle Doctrine if the person being defended against is also a lawfully present in the home). That's ALL the Castle Doctrine does--suspend an otherwise existing duty to retreat.
The law is supposed to solve problems, not create them. Laws should provide as much clarity as possible, not expand the realms of ambiguity and subjectivity. Laws ought to bring about the practical results their promoters claim they'll achieve.With a lead-in like that, surely he's about to call for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, right? Just kidding--it is, after all, the Washington Post. Instead, Dionne has decided to call for the repeal of another law about which he patently knows nothing: "Stand-Your-Ground."
Supporters of the law say it was technically not at issue in the case, but this overlooks the obvious role it played in the trial.And where do we find this "obvious role" for SYG in the Dunn trial? It was mentioned in a single passing sentence--that would be ONE sentence--with no particular emphasis by defense counsel Cory Strolla in his closing argument. One mention over the course of two weeks of jury voir dire opening statements, day after day of trial, and closing arguments. One. Mention.
Sadly, yesterday the Christian Science Monitor reports on a story where what started as the most minor of conflicts ended up with 71-year-old Curtis Reeves, a former police officer in the area who had retired 20 years ago as a Captain, shooting and killing 43-year-old Chad Oulson, a fellow movie goer. (Movie theater shooting: Did a retired cop shoot a fellow moviegoer for texting?) Both men, each accompanied by his wife, were attending the movie theater to view the just-released movie “Lone Survivor.” Naturally, before the movie itself began the audience was “treated” to s series of trailers for other upcoming movies. While these trailers were being run, Oulson was texting on his phone. Reeves, sitting behind Oulson and presumably disturbed by this activity, told Oulson to stop texting. Oulson replied that he was checking on the status of his 3-year-old daughter.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Sr. Contrib Editor