America's struggle for racial harmony: myth or reality?

[Edmond Dantes]

What I'm getting from this topic (which admittedly I skimmed at points)

The problem isn't racial harmony. The problem is the media, people with personal agendas, and the lack of any real unity in our culture.

[Skykid]

There was one I was trying to find, maybe it was this one, where some geezer found some kids in his trailer, lined them up at gunpoint, and shot them in the back of the head. IIRC. I think he got off.

That's unbelievable.

Do you have a link to the story?

Also that story you posted is beyond all comprehension:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/0 ... ?mobile=nc

You can shoot a 21 year old girl in the neck because she wouldn't sleep with you after you paid her. I mean, who the heck is going to verify her side of the story, for a start - I find it dubious a young call girl is going to go all the way to the rendezvous and attempt to jack the punter when she gets there.

Terrible.

[GaijinPunch]

There won't be a civil trial, he's protected from that by law.

Which law is that? It's not double-jeopardy as it's not the same crime.

What the DOJ is trying to do is completely different, and implies a greater government or private institution implementing discrimination. How they're going to argue that is beyond me.

Yeah, I know -- it will be a tough one. I doubt that they would win.

This is honestly the worst case they could try to argue this with, as there's no evidence of racism, or racist neighborhood watch organizations, and the big bad stand your ground law wasn't even invoked.

I think they've basically said as much. To qualify for a hate crime, you have to have some serious proof.

[Udderdude]

There won't be a civil trial, he's protected from that by law.

Which law is that? It's not double-jeopardy as it's not the same crime.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loc ... 1705.story

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/civil ... -chance-of

Even though stand your ground was not used in the defense trial, they could invoke it to protect him from a civil suit. IMO it just seems like a run-around double jeopardy laws to slap someone with a civil suit right after losing anyway, so I'm fine with this.

What the DOJ is trying to do is completely different, and implies a greater government or private institution implementing discrimination. How they're going to argue that is beyond me.

Yeah, I know -- it will be a tough one. I doubt that they would win.

This is honestly the worst case they could try to argue this with, as there's no evidence of racism, or racist neighborhood watch organizations, and the big bad stand your ground law wasn't even invoked.

I think they've basically said as much. To qualify for a hate crime, you have to have some serious proof.

So why are they going ahead with it? Once they lose again (I'm not even going to pretend they have a chance) it's just going to lead to more disappointment and outrage.

Oh look, the guy pushing for it is Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder. I want to roll my eyes right out of their sockets at this point.

[Udderdude]

And now the prosecution is being sued for widthholding evidence and firing someone who called them out on it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/ ... EL20130716

[louisg]

Hey, this is exactly what I was theorizing about Stand Your Ground with regards to Duty to Retreat:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/a ... 94357.html

The article obviously has its own slant and is an opinion piece, but what it points out is interesting:

From the article:

Here is exactly what the jury was told to consider in its deliberations:
“If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

In other news, let's hear it for Wikipedia!

[GaijinPunch]

So why are they going ahead with it?

Unless the news has changed in two days, I didn't think they were.

[Ed Oscuro]

Bunches of interesting commentaries on that site. Surprised at Joe Scarborough's op-ed for the stance he comes down on, although you note that despite blaming both sides of the partisan divide, he ends up siding with liberals against SYG laws and is silent with examples about the rest.

Reading the jury instruction, it's easy to see the appeal of SYG. It's confusing in that one can't be sure about what kind of situations will come up. Telling somebody that they need to run when they are in danger of death might make case in some circumstances but not other, and the same goes for forcible felonies.

According to one of the jurors (yesterday in an interview with CNN, I believe), the main thing on their minds during their deliberations was trying to determine Zimmerman's frame of mind. That definitely points towards SYG-type considerations having overshadowed any aspects of culpability (but then again, so did the charges). It only seems like part of the picture, though. I think a SYG principle can be used as a defense in some cases, but it's probable that SYG also encompasses some circumstances it's not meant to and mistakenly provides an incentive for taking the hardest hard-line response as default, rather similar to the old chestnut that "if they're dead they can't sue you for injury" (which is not the kind of consideration that should be used when considering applying lethal force; generally you shouldn't shoot to wound, but to stop a threat; otherwise, don't shoot).

[GaijinPunch]

According to one of the jurors (yesterday in an interview with CNN, I believe), the main thing on their minds during their deliberations was trying to determine Zimmerman's frame of mind.

Who was the guy that described him as "Pee Wee Herman with a gun"?

[Ed Oscuro]

Found something interesting - Massad Ayoob on SYG and the status quo in law

Relevant highlights: 4:13 and around ~7:30 (and perhaps a bit before). The first deals with the requirement to retreat and the second deals with situations in which an evenly-matched combatant can be said to possess a deadly force advantage, allowing the self-defense shooter to respond with their own deadly force. "[an assailant's] position of advantage becomes a deadly weapon."

This dovetails with what I've heard from some other folks who've looked at the Florida statute.

There definitely appears to be some problem with how often black folk get to use the statute as a successful defense, but without specifics I can't do any direct comparison.

[CMoon]

speaking of racial harmony, this is beautiful...

http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/55 ... -superstar

[Udderdude]

That site is about as productive as fishing for racist comments on Youtube.

[louisg]

Yeah, the Public Shaming tumblr is super lame. I guess it's for people who absolutely must be outraged 24/7, or take several offensive remarks on Twitter by a couple nobodies to be relevant of something-- not that there aren't lots of actual social problems that need tackling, but, you know... I feel like the Internet outrage parade actually trivializes real problems (and the 'outrage parade' includes those click-bait blogs that aren't any better than some tabloid you'd find at a checkout stand).

I was thinking of making a parody tumblr for a while where I'd pick inflammatory Tweets on subjects nobody cares about and then be like, "See? See?!"

[brentsg]

So why are they going ahead with it?

Unless the news has changed in two days, I didn't think they were.

They're just going to publicly ponder federal charges for a period of time that will end precisely when some other disaster or outrage takes over the media's stage.