Another Republican policy that kills people is “stand your ground” laws. Encouraging people to open fire to solve problems leads to what you’d think is a predictable outcome—more death by gunfire:
The enactment of “stand your ground” laws was associated with an “abrupt and sustained” national increase in firearm homicide rates in America, according to a new study published Monday in the peer-reviewed journal JAMA Network Open.
…The study, which assessed “stand your ground” laws enacted in 41 states between 2000 and 2016, found they were associated with an 8% to 11% increase in monthly firearm homicide rates, or an additional 58 to 72 homicides each month.
That monthly increase alone is greater than total rates of homicides in most Northern and Western European countries, the study said [Shawna Chen, “‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Linked to Jump in U.S. Firearm Homicides,” Axios, 2022.02.21].
South Dakota is part of this trend. After implementation of our SYG law in 2006, monthly murder rates stayed flat for a few years, then started climbing.
There is no conclusive evidence [Smart et al., 2020, p. 245] that stand-your-ground laws affect rates of other violent crime… meaning there is no evidence that stand-your-ground laws live up to their only practical policy justification, that they would reduce crime. Instead, these ALEC-driven laws only lead to more dead Americans.
Well a good guy with a gun killed a nine year old girl who was just in a passing vehicle. We should all carry right? Just get out before closing time.
If I could go back in time I’d kill baby Fred Trump.
And, as I’ve said before, SYG only applies to – ahem – “certain” people. Women and other victims of domestic abuse cannot use SYG as a defense, even if the abuser was literally choking them to death. There are loopholes in all ALEC laws, and they rarely favor women, minorities, or victims.
I know for a first hand fact in SD SYG doesn’t mean squat if you are not their type. Even if you do have video, they (police investigators) still debase you, toss your home illegally for days, take your legal weapons for themselves (and whatever else you have that makes them look like a gangster) keep you in a cell locked up for 23 1/2 hours a day without a lawyer or getting to see a judge or getting a phone call. They force you to strip naked to take all the pictures they want and ignore your 11 requests for an attorney, all without ever officially arresting you. No constitutional rights whatsoever. If you aren’t who they think are worthy. But your guns are theirs to keep indefinitely and your rights are stripped even though there was no case even brought against you! So NO law, NO rights matter in this racist af state, anti-real people state.
Stand your ground only works if you’re White and not a woman. Kinda like the bar exam, SYG is designed for the good old boys….not girls either, so ladies, give that thought up.
@ Eve Fisher – Learned something from you, today. Thank you, kindly.
“Women and other victims of domestic abuse cannot use SYG as a defense, even if the abuser was literally choking them to death.”
No lawyer practices in the United States until they learn how the court favors white privilege. Court packing is Herr Trump’s legacy and will take decades to reverse.
As most Americans know, if you’re Black and/or Brown in the United Snakes you’re more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession. My home state of South Dakota is infamous for it where a state trooper routinely spent his time systematically profiling cars with license plates from states with legal cannabis until a Washington man stood his ground. Cannabis is legal in Washington but South Dakota convicted African-American Donald Willingham with multiple counts in Pennington County after Trooper Zach Bader illegally profiled the vehicle in which he was riding on Interstate 90.
Just a couple observations.
First, the experience with law enforcement that All Mammal describes is tragic and is unacceptable conduct by the rogue perpetrators under existing law. In such cases, the individual or individuals involved in treating someone in the manner described by All Mammal is fully accountable under our current laws and fortunately, most judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement personnel have a strong desire to act lawfully and enforce existing law. The individual prepetrators are to be condemned, not our judicial system nor our legal institutions (unless, of course, we can identify specific laws that constrain our courts and juries to permit or encourage such mistreatment, in which case reform of those laws is of critical importance).
Second, the same holds true regarding “white privilege.” If there are laws that lawyers must learn about that favor or support “white privilege” such laws need to be reformed. But unless such laws can be identified, the comment that “No lawyer practices in the United States until they learn how the court favors white privilege” seems unsupported. In law just as in any other field of endeavor, however, there will always be some individuals that disrespect existing protections against “white privilege.” Objectively, “No lawyer should be permitted to practice in the United States until they learn the legal means to hold individual judges or members of the bar accountable whenever such miscreants attempt to use the court to favor white privilege.”
In both of the above cases, there are legitimate complaints against those miscreants that violate the protected rights of a persons that come before the courts or is involved with law enforcement. Complaining about a system designed to prevent and punish such violations rather than focusing on the individual transgressor, however, seems a case of misplaced aggression.
That said, if particular “stand your ground” laws are drafted in such a way that deadly force is permitted beyond a need for self-defense, then no wonder more people are dying. In reality normal self-defense laws provide justification for the use of deadly force in appropriate circumstances. So called “stand your ground” laws are simply an unfortunate method of pandering to voters that might have a perverse obsession with guns. Such laws were never drafted to solve an existing inability to exercise self defense, rather they are simply a tool designed to win votes from members of an unthinking gun-obsessed culture.
Good eye, bat.
Some in Arizona are suing legislators citing ALEC’s electioneering.
https://truthout.org/articles/in-a-victory-for-activists-lawsuit-against-arizonas-alec-lawmakers-can-proceed/
Great link Mr. Kurtz, Alec is a fascist organization that is un-American.
In order to, at the very least, ensure any further violations of my person, property, and due process, I sought representation and was told to get a public defender if I had less than $15 racks. Rrrright. It was apparent this was a funnel that led to the mouth of some hungry thing needing to be fed. With cash or flesh. The concern was never about human life or even law or the truth. It was about three tiny, baby seedlings. In a tent with some lights and disco balls. Never got passed that. That was all that mattered. If you do not have a husband and you have to defend yourself in your own home where no man pays the bills for you, you’re open game. And according to their actions they also are convinced you’re a floozie, broke, libbie little biatch who must just get too lippy-laboux for your own good and they are entitled to bring you down a peg or two and humiliate you. I keep my distance and respect what that thing is by trying to help do what we can do for ourselves. And spreading peace and love.
While I agree with most of what bcb said, just remember it takes MONEY to fight Power and the judicial system is power. The notion that people of color in SD have the money is somewhat short-sighted, so they mostly plea out because lawyers want money, also.
BCB – I agree with your macro assertions but a lawyer needs to determine if she/he can win a case before taking it.
“No lawyer practices in the United States until they learn how the court favors white privilege” seems to be important when making that decision.
Attorneys aren’t legislators and the process to change a trend or bad law is tedious whereas a trial is usually imminent and accepting a case that is prejudiced by “White Privilege” may be costly.
Do you agree?
PEOPLE! DO NOT TOSS POPCORN IN A CROWDED THEATER!
The retired cop will stand his ground and gun you down.
““What the evidence will show you is that Chad Oulson was shot and killed over tossing popcorn,” Assistant State Attorney Scott Rosenwasser told jurors in an opening statement. “That’s no reason to kill another person.””
What a bunch of snowflakes. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/popcorn-toss-key-trial-2014-florida-theater-shooting-82882518
https://abc7chicago.com/curtis-reeves-trial-chad-oulson-shooting-movie-popcorn-murder/11564203/
On the other hand . . . in a rare case of an armed, licensed citizen stopping a crime from worsening, a man shot Moron Smith – after Smith killed one, crippled another, and wounded 3 more in a peaceful protest in a NE Portland park.
The DA will not charge the licensed citizen.
The protestors were protesting the no-knock warrant murder of Amir Locke in Minneapolis. Locke had a pistol permit and was not the subject of the warrant. The police were looking for a 17-year old. https://www.opb.org/article/2022/02/22/suspected-portland-normandale-park-shooter-charged-with-murder/
No knock warrants, however well intended, too often result in deaths of innocents and those not targeted in the warrant. Witness Breonna Taylor.
Couple the legal crime of no-knock warrants with the judicial crime of qualified immunity . . . and we walked the US into lawlessness.
https://www.vox.com/2014/10/29/7083371/swat-no-knock-raids-police-killed-civilians-dangerous-work-drugs
Cory,
Just so you know the minimum depth of a grave is 5 ft. to the bottom. Digging that extra foot is just showing off.
bcb – ““No lawyer practices in the United States until they learn how the court favors white privilege”, as I read it refers to the study of the course-work around Critical Race Theory as part of lawyerly training. I understand that in many if not most cases of training such course-work is optional, but I also take that statement as an assertion of what SHOULD be a standard requirement for graduation/conferring of licensure to practice.
No knock warrants are not well intended. It is so fun to get to play the badass gangster AND it be perfectly legal. That is what it has evolved into. In the one interaction with losing one’s physical ability of motion to someone who doesn’t even qualify to check your tires is the norm in a demographic that has no checks on illegal Standards Of Procedure. Standards which are illegal. Standards practiced everyday illegally. Constitution pages might as well be used for isht tickets. Clog the toilet like trump did in the White House.
Everyone relies on LEOs everyday and they are a godsend. Until you are not human because of where you live, how you look, and your lowly title is Ms, not Mrs. Therefore, no consequence to answer to for your mistreatment. There is a lack of consideration throughout all of our outsourced institutions. From the corporation contracted to drive our school busses to the USPS to DFS to the ER and back to the officers of law (no longer officers of the peace) its all business and corporations have no good intentions. Their intent is to reach their projected goal (always a dollar amount OR bodies in a cell) and satiate their investors (ie: cutting costs for these services and eliciting bonuses for individuals) . It is scary. Time to go to an In-House system and stop contracting for-profit business. Necessary social SERVICES needn’t make profit. That’s the slope to fail the people real quick. Watch the docuseries on Netflix about precious Gabriel Fernandez. And please say his name. People have good intentions.. Blackwater-esque gov contractors to whom the law does not apply have costs to cut even more and payroll to reduce. Leave the funding for quality services and cut back on asking for what we are capable to organize on our own. Circumstances of birth can be a real sucky deal when the pale, stale, and male system won’t die.
Richard, I may be wrong, but as I understand the nature of studying race and white privilege in law school is by focusing more on which Constitutional protections against white priviledge apply when evaluating various state and federal laws, and how these Constitutional provisions restrict the authority of states to enact discriminatory statutes. In addition, prospective lawyers learn the procedures to seek a court decision enforcing such Constitutional restrictions on the power of states.
Critical race theory would likely address topics such as whether a state or federal law that appears neutral on its face actually works in a disparate manner to create what might be considered white privilege and if so then address whether there is a judicial remedy available to correct such a result. Indeed, if I am not mistaken that is the point of CRT – that there are some supposedly neutral legal institutions that effectively function in a discriminatory manner. Lawyers learn to identify these institutions and the remedies, if any, that are available to correct that situation.
Porter, I disagree that a lawyer must determine whether he or she can win a case before taking it. Rather, the lawyer must determine whether the case has legal merit or whether it is frivolous, i.e. completely without merit. Most litigated cases have two sides and a competent lawyer recognizes that either side might “win.” Indeed, winning or losing a particular case will often depend on a fact finders’ (jury or judge) credibility determination, as that will resolve a dispute about the underlying facts of the case. Whether a case is based on a factual dispute or a disagreement about the meaning of a law, no case is a “winner” until it is over. Indeed, judges. jurys, and appellate courts all can and do come to different conclusions (some arguably completely mistaken) when resolving disputes about the underlying facts and deciding what law to apply to the case.