I'll have to think it through, buy I'd get rid of all "stand your ground" laws. They are too easily abused. In fact, most self-defense laws should be examined. It's too easy to claim self-defense, especially when there are no witnesses--and most murders have no witnesses. How can a jury be expected to know what a person's state of mind was? Yet that's what needs to be known in any self-defense claim.
Okay, I think it was pretty obvious that you would get rid of the stand your ground law. And it's also obvious that you would like to "examine" self-defense laws too. But again, what exactly would you examine, and what would you suggest?
Also, are you saying that if you can't tell what "state of mind" the person was in at the time of the altercation, that the person should automatically be ruled as guilty? Perhaps I misunderstood?
Not to beat a dead horse, but I wonder how many self-defense cases are successful when the accused is black--especially when the victim is white. I'd like to see some comparative statistics on that.
Let me know what you find, but if I remember correctly, the last time I looked into it, it appeared that blacks in Florida have a higher acquittal rate in "stand your ground" cases than whites. If that's truly the case, then that completely throws out the idea that the system is disproportionately biased against blacks, and would support my sentiments that this case has been completely sensationalized beyond the actual facts.
No, I disn't aay anything should be automatic. I said the cases amd the law should be reviewed for indications of abuse or outright travesties of justice.
I'd like to see the statistics that show that blacks in Florida have a higher acquittal rate than whites in stand your ground cases. It seems highly unlikely to me. Blacks have a higher conviction rate in every type of crime in most states.