What I don't see here is any attempt to make a distinction between racism "inherent" to the law, and racism in its application.
Since it seems to annoy you for some reason when we bring up rape, and since I enjoy annoying you, let's consider the example of a white cheerleader accusing a black football player of raping her.
In far too many courts, the burden of proof for the prosecution would be lower (not officially, of course, but effectively) than if the racial dynamic had been different. That, however, does not make the law against rape "racist."
Well it's hardly a trivial, "nit-picking" point. You and your fellow anti-self-defense fanatics have been propagating the myth of "racism" inherent to SYG laws ever since the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
Ummm, If you argue that a law is bad because it is inherently racist and your opponent shows that the law is not racist, but the system as a whole leads to racial disparity in outcomes on that law and on many or most others, that's a lot more than a nitpick. That's an evisceration of your argument and the establishment of a premise that requires a completely different solution.
It is nit-picking. I wrote the racism is inherent in the law rather than in the application of the law. It's just like when I say guns do more harm than good rather than guns in the hands of people do more harm than good.
Is it just me, or has your participation in these arguments taken a decidedly weaker approach, Kurt? You used to be cutting and trenchant, now you're often petty and whiny.
If you're still going to insist that this is a racist law, then I suppose you have statistics that show that there is a racial disparity here that is far in excess of the racial disparity in convictions for other crimes such as burglary, rape, drug use, etc.
If you can't show a large difference between these cases and other cases in general, then there's no reason to believe this assertion any more than your unproved assertion about guns doing more harm than good.
How many of the people involved here were themselves criminals who claimed Stand Your Ground? What were the circumstances of the events? You don't like complexity, but it matters.
"Roman found that the killings of black people by whites were more likely to be considered justified than the killings of white people by blacks. But the analysis didn’t compare Stand Your Ground states to those without the laws."
"So the disparity is clear. But the figures don’t yet prove bias. As Roman points out, the data doesn’t show the circumstances behind the killings, for example whether the people who were shot were involved in home invasions or in a confrontation on the street. Additionally, there are far fewer white-on-black shootings in the FBI data — only 25 total in both the Stand Your Ground and non-Stand Your Ground states. In fact, the small sample size is one of the reasons Roman conducted a regression analysis, which determines the statistical likelihood of whether the killings will be found justifiable."
There also seems to be a geographical component since when we discussed Detroit, a city where the racial disparity seems to be reversed.
"African-Americans are actually overrepresented among concealed pistol license holders compared to whites in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. They’re also most likely to use stand your ground and Castle Doctrine laws: 99 of 126 civilians who killed in self-defense in Michigan from 2000 to 2010 were African-American."
Additionally, there are far fewer white-on-black shootings in the FBI data — only 25 total in both the Stand Your Ground and non-Stand Your Ground states.
But of course this is where you guys see the problem.
That's 25 out of 5000 homicides selected for the study. But let's highlight the half percent by using "percent difference" figures to make it seem like it's the real problem. This is what is called "lying with statistics".
If you read the graph properly, it looks like SYG works to the benefit of defendants in black on black and black on white cases as well: just compare the orange and purple lines.
Instead of showing racial bias in SYG, this shows a broad problem across the board in our justice system that eliminating SYG won't correct. Sorry gun controllers, but eliminating SYG is not a magic bullet for what ails us.
What I don't see here is any attempt to make a distinction between racism "inherent" to the law, and racism in its application.
ReplyDeleteSince it seems to annoy you for some reason when we bring up rape, and since I enjoy annoying you, let's consider the example of a white cheerleader accusing a black football player of raping her.
In far too many courts, the burden of proof for the prosecution would be lower (not officially, of course, but effectively) than if the racial dynamic had been different. That, however, does not make the law against rape "racist."
You're right, in that nit-picking, pain-in-the-ass way that you like so much. The racism is not inherent in the law itself.
DeleteWell it's hardly a trivial, "nit-picking" point. You and your fellow anti-self-defense fanatics have been propagating the myth of "racism" inherent to SYG laws ever since the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
DeleteIt's a point that needed to be made.
Ummm, If you argue that a law is bad because it is inherently racist and your opponent shows that the law is not racist, but the system as a whole leads to racial disparity in outcomes on that law and on many or most others, that's a lot more than a nitpick. That's an evisceration of your argument and the establishment of a premise that requires a completely different solution.
DeleteIt is nit-picking. I wrote the racism is inherent in the law rather than in the application of the law. It's just like when I say guns do more harm than good rather than guns in the hands of people do more harm than good.
DeleteIs it just me, or has your participation in these arguments taken a decidedly weaker approach, Kurt? You used to be cutting and trenchant, now you're often petty and whiny.
Still got nuthin' I see. I'll keep waiting for an effective rebuttal, but I'm sure you'll understand that I won't be holding my breath.
DeleteIf you're still going to insist that this is a racist law, then I suppose you have statistics that show that there is a racial disparity here that is far in excess of the racial disparity in convictions for other crimes such as burglary, rape, drug use, etc.
DeleteIf you can't show a large difference between these cases and other cases in general, then there's no reason to believe this assertion any more than your unproved assertion about guns doing more harm than good.
How many of the people involved here were themselves criminals who claimed Stand Your Ground? What were the circumstances of the events? You don't like complexity, but it matters.
ReplyDelete"Roman found that the killings of black people by whites were more likely to be considered justified than the killings of white people by blacks.
ReplyDeleteBut the analysis didn’t compare Stand Your Ground states to those without the laws."
"So the disparity is clear. But the figures don’t yet prove bias. As Roman points out, the data doesn’t show the circumstances behind the killings, for example whether the people who were shot were involved in home invasions or in a confrontation on the street.
Additionally, there are far fewer white-on-black shootings in the FBI data — only 25 total in both the Stand Your Ground and non-Stand Your Ground states. In fact, the small sample size is one of the reasons Roman conducted a regression analysis, which determines the statistical likelihood of whether the killings will be found justifiable."
There also seems to be a geographical component since when we discussed Detroit, a city where the racial disparity seems to be reversed.
"African-Americans are actually overrepresented among concealed pistol license holders compared to whites in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties. They’re also most likely to use stand your ground and Castle Doctrine laws: 99 of 126 civilians who killed in self-defense in Michigan from 2000 to 2010 were African-American."
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-gun-debate-misses-mark-in-detroit.html
Additionally, there are far fewer white-on-black shootings in the FBI data — only 25 total in both the Stand Your Ground and non-Stand Your Ground states.
ReplyDeleteBut of course this is where you guys see the problem.
That's 25 out of 5000 homicides selected for the study. But let's highlight the half percent by using "percent difference" figures to make it seem like it's the real problem. This is what is called "lying with statistics".
DeleteIf you read the graph properly, it looks like SYG works to the benefit of defendants in black on black and black on white cases as well: just compare the orange and purple lines.
ReplyDeleteInstead of showing racial bias in SYG, this shows a broad problem across the board in our justice system that eliminating SYG won't correct. Sorry gun controllers, but eliminating SYG is not a magic bullet for what ails us.