Skip to main content

View Diary: DA Angela Corey Now Seeks 60 Years Against Marissa Alexander In 2nd Trial (227 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What a circular argument (18+ / 0-)

    Florida has SYG and that has not helped Alexander, who hurt nobody, while it has helped two white men who murdered unarmed young black men. How is this a perfect example of what things would be like without SYG? and not a perfect example of the racist intent and effect of it?  

    If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

    by MadRuth on Sun Mar 02, 2014 at 06:44:19 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  One more time (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, ER Doc, FrankRose

      Let's try this again.

      Is self-defense an inherent right of human beings independent of nationality or things like the 2nd Amendment?

      If so, then a) self-defense is inherently legal, b) you are under no obligation to run away from an attack, and c) the burden is on the State to show that your actions were otherwise. All of which are part of the various SYG laws in both the red states and the blue states that have them. So far, so good.

      (and if you do not think that self-defense is an inherent right of people everywhere, then we're just going to have irreconcilable differences on the matter).

      If the State chooses to enforce, not enforce, allow or disallow self-defense as a legal defense on racial grounds, that is not a failure of the law, it is a failure of the people enforcing it (hence my comparison between how Kossacks and people in liberal states like Rhode Island would read and interpret the exact same law).

      If you, MadRuth had been on the Dunn jury, would you have interpreted Florida's SYG law to think that Dunn had been in reasonable fear of his life from "thug music" and was thus justified in his actions? If not, then you would have interpreted the Florida SYG law in the Dunn case in the exact same way as I would have, and the SYG law would have in no way prevented justice from being done. Right? If you or I had been on the Marissa Alexander jury, I at least would not have convicted her on a charge that would get her a 20 year sentence. How about you?

      Given that both of us and hopefully all of the people reading this would have used the current laws to generate proper justice, how is either of these cases thus a failure of the law?

      •  It seems to me that part of the problem, (9+ / 0-)

        in the Dunn case anyway, is that there's no evidence that there was actually an attack against him.

        And the problem is that "reasonable expectation" of harm is too subjective of a standard when we're talking about people's lives.

        If you're a racist who believes all young black men are thugs, then you're going to believe that the (in reality, irrational) fear that you have of them is reasonable.  And anyone on the jury who has the same idea about people of color as you do will feel the same way.  Just about everyone considers themselves to be "reasonable."

        •  Got it in one (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, ER Doc, FrankRose

          Exactly. We cannot change society by changing the law (e.g. Prohibition, War on Drugs, etc.). We change it by changing attitudes.

          And if we cannot change the attitudes at a lower level, then the laws that deal with infractions have to exist at a level high enough that a locality cannot abuse them with impunity.

          So, if you really want to make a change regarding something like a state's SYG and how it is enforced and implemented, it needs to be at a federal level like civil rights legislation. If the Feds could have stepped in, called this a hate crime and tried it in a federal court, how do you think the verdict would have turned out?

          Otherwise, the "states rights" types will always find a way to twist it to their own particular needs and biases (as we see with voting rights, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.).

          •  The law follows social change (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            i saw an old tree today, a2nite

            It appears that social change is going against the gun enthusiasts who argue for the littlest possible firearms oversight.  

            You're right that the law can't change the social dynamics.  

            It's going to happen the other way around, and the people who argue for reasonable restrictions on access to firearms are the ones who have the best argument right now, and the public is listening.  


            by otto on Sun Mar 02, 2014 at 08:18:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's reasonable, and there's reasonable (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, FrankRose

              Gun enthusiasts might also point out that the firearms homicide rate per capita has been dropping, it has done so in the absence of new and more restrictive laws to cause this drop, that things like the Brady Handgun law and the Clinton-era "assault weapon" law had no measurable impact on crime rates (a sharp drop around the time of Brady started before Brady and thus does not correlate to it), and thus the call for new and more restrictive laws is a) not necessary and b) the social dynamics are apparently changing on their own.

              Plus of course we already have laws on the books about unlicensed dealers and background checks that are not currently being enforced by this administration, and until that starts happening, new laws that won't be enforced either are not going to do much.

              Now, about "reasonable". Personally, I favor more enforcement of background check laws, competency-based licensing (law and practical) and uniform national standards for licensing rather than the patchwork of inconsistent state laws. For that attitude I have been called an NRA shill, gun nut, deluded and paranoid. By the intelligent, insightful, tolerant and inclusive Kos gun control community, of course.

              On the other hand, we have an individual here at Kos who thinks that violating a gun regulation should result in an arrest for intent to commit murder, that 18th century flintlocks have too high a rate of fire for any weapon allowed for civilian ownership, and that any firearm accident, however trivial, should result in complete loss of firearm ownership privileges for everyone in that household for many, many years ("many, many years" is their preferred phrasing, not mine). That attitude gets you promoted to full blog admin at a Daily Kos group dedicated to repealing part of the Bill of Rights.

              Which of the two of us sounds more "reasonable"?

              •  Still trying to pick out strawmen? (0+ / 0-)


                Did you call them "privileges?" Is that what you really think they are?  not rights?


                by otto on Sun Mar 02, 2014 at 09:43:18 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Here's the thing. (0+ / 0-)

                The reforms you're talking about to gun control laws?  I agree with you that they're reasonable.

                And there is certainly some validity to your argument.

                But there's also validity to the argument that countries like Australia, that have much stricter gun control laws, have a lot fewer gun deaths than we do.

                There's also validity to the argument that if one reads the entirety of the second amendment, it could also be interpreted as applying mainly in the context of a well-regulated militia.  Which, granted, in theory, your advocacy for national competency-based licensing standards sort of goes along with.

                I do think some of the things you mentioned are things most of us can agree on, no matter which side of this debate we happen to fall on.  And they need to be discussed more.  Unfortunately, groups like the NRA convince a lot of people that even those discussions are simply one more step toward taking away your guns.

          •  But my point is (0+ / 0-)

            that yes, people have the right to defend themselves if attacked.  The problem is, in Florida's SYG cases, there seem to be quite a few incidents of this argument being used, even though whether or not an attack actually occurred is debatable, at best.

            Mind you, I don't interpret any of what you've said as a defense of Dunn.

            And I do think you're correct when talking about hate crimes and such at the federal level.  I do agree that's a viable solution to things like this.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site