NAACP against "Stand Your Ground" laws

[SHE3PDOG]

I didn't even know who Zimmerman was before today because I don't really watch the news, but my Facebook page blew up with comments about it, so I decided to look into it. I don't really care about the verdict, but the aftermath of the verdict.

I just read a story by Fox news with a quote from the NAACP CEO and president reading, "We will pursue civil rights charges with the Department of Justice, we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state, and we will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed." It would appear that this case could have produced a new enemy for gun rights.

There is something, however, that I do not understand about his statement. Why does wanting the end to racial profiling equate to wanting the removal of Stand Your Ground laws? To me, this simply doesn't make sense.

Does anyone else have opinions on that or the NAACP's president's statement as a whole? Keep it civil.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/14...#ixzz2YzjGZVCU

[SHE3PDOG]

I just found something that makes his comment even more strange. Apparently Zimmerman waived the pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing and opted to argue self-defense instead. So, in essence, the Stand Your Ground laws were not even a crucial part of the case.

Source:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...2#.UeI5-42Tj_Y

[LewSchiller]

There is and will be a lot of lashing out for some time to come.

[Spats McGee]

I think the statement makes more sense if you just consider it a list:

We will pursue civil rights charges with the Department of Justice, we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state, and we will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed."

I don't think that the speaker meant that SYG = profiling. I think he meant something more along the lines of:

1. We will pursue civil rights charges with the Department of Justice;
2. we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state; and
3. we will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed.

[Tom Servo]

I don't think that the speaker meant that SYG = profiling.

Maybe, but he made sure to included them in adjacent clauses, therefore giving some weight to the idea of fighting the validity of the SYG laws.

There has been some research, albeit inconclusive, that the statistics in shootings ruled as justified are skewed along racial lines. Expect to see more "studies" about this in the next few weeks. I've got a feeling attacking SYG laws on this basis is going to be the next gun-control push.

Several posts have been deleted for off-topic discussion of the Zimmerman case in general. We're not doing that here. Stick to the parameters set by the OP.

[TXAZ]

Spats,
Didn't the FBI's preliminary investigation show this was neither a hate crime nor civil rights issue? So where does that put DOJ in answering the call of NAACP et al?

I'm referring to: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...rman-is-racist

[Spats McGee]

My hunch: It puts DOJ in the position of "revisiting" its initial investigation, as supplemented by all of the investigative developments since it was filed.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The Administration wants to push gun control. "Stand Your Ground" law was made a prominent issue in the Zimmerman case until his lawyers declined to pursue that defense. So they will use whatever gets people upset, regardless of how misinformed they may be, to get voters motivatedand active.

Traditional allies of the Administration will help just because they will cash in that favor at some later date. You'll see teacher's unions and all kinds of groups who can't even tell you what the distinction in law is come out against SYG.

The other part to be aware of is that any self-defense shooting that can be politicized to push gun control is now fair game for federal pressure and media circus.

[csmsss]

My hunch: It puts DOJ in the position of "revisiting" its initial investigation, as supplemented by all of the investigative developments since it was filed.

My guess is that the indictments have already been drafted and they are merely waiting for what they consider the optimal moment to file.

[SHE3PDOG]

Spats McGee:
I don't think that the speaker meant that SYG = profiling. I think he meant something more along the lines of:
We will pursue civil rights charges with the Department of Justice;
we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state; and
we will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed.

I understand that he was listing off things, but it seems to me that the NAACP is trying to fight this on the civil rights level. This makes sense because of the nature of the organization, and the statement about racial profiling being outlawed would fit that bill as well. However, I fail to see how Stand Your Ground laws fit into civil rights or racial profiling.

Perhaps if there were a substantial amount of evidence that primarily minorities were wrongfully killed by people who attempt to use the Stand Your Ground laws as justification, I could understand why the NAACP would want to come after them. That being said, I don't see hoe the NAACP could use this case for grounds to launch an attack on Stand Your Ground laws due to the fact that the pre-trial hearing for it was waived.

Tom Servo
There has been some research, albeit inconclusive, that the statistics in shootings ruled as justified are skewed along racial lines. Expect to see more "studies" about this in the next few weeks. I've got a feeling attacking SYG laws on this basis is going to be the next gun-control push.

This could be the leg that the NAACP tries to stand on to move forward with their attack on Stand Your Ground laws. They will have to conduct their own studies and provide more conclusive statistics though. I definitely fear that this could be the new angle of attack for anti gun proponents. I can picture it now, "You can have your guns and ammo, you just can't do anything to defend yourself, your property, or others with them."

[csmsss]

I don't know why it matters what the NAACP says.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Stay on topic folks. Making rude cracks - next time - infracks.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

After some thought and the number of deleted posts - I don't see this going anywhere and it's a trap for some members to lose it and get banned.

Thus, closed.

GEM