Examining the Race Effects of Stand Your Ground Laws and Related Issues

[Alamo]

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3567439

Abstract

On April 6, 2020, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights published a long-delayed report entitled Examining the Race Effects of Stand Your Ground Laws and Related Issues. This Statement is a part of that report.

The report is unusual in the sense that (apart from individual Commissioner Statements) it consists solely of a five year-old briefing transcript. It contains no original analysis, findings or recommendations.

It was not supposed to be that way. When the Commission undertook this project, the plan was for the Commission to conduct empirical research on “Stand Your Ground” laws and to produce a report containing both that research and a discussion of “Stand Your Ground” laws based in part on the testimony produced at the briefing but also on the Commission staff’s independent research. Alas, when the empirical research did not support the preconceived view of the Commission’s majority that “Stand Your Ground” laws harm African Americans, the project was shelved. Years later—at a time the Commission was interested in getting out as many reports as possible—it decided to publish a transcript of the briefing along with Commissioner Statements. After almost two further years of delay, the report was finally published.


This individual Statement details how the Commission did not understand long history of “Stand Your Ground” laws and misconceived their racial impact.

 

[drillsgt]

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3567439

Not a surprise anti-gunners would want to suppress evidence that doesn't support their position, lol. Interesting bits on Indiana history though.

 

[Dead Duck]

To interject race into the "Stand Your Ground Law", to me, IS racist.

The act of protecting yourself is colorless and it should stay that way regardless of agendas, opinions and misinterpretations.

 

[2A_Tom]

To interject rece into anything is racist.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Dead Duck]

.....and show your work.

 

[tsm]

To interject rece into anything is racist.

Prove me wrong.

Race at the Indy 500 should be ok...

 

[2A_Tom]

Every driver and team thinks their race is better than any other and want to eliminate or subdue every other.

 

[printcraft]

“Stand your ground laws harm African Americans”
The very idea of that attempt to derail stand your ground based on that talking point is flaming racist.
They are placing the notion that the criminals on the receiving end of stand your ground would be black by default.

This is like “poor kids are just as intelligent as white kids” - joe biden

 

[churchmouse]

Oh good Lord will this ever end.

 

[d.kaufman]

Oh good Lord will this ever end.

Nope! But then again you already knew that

 

[Mgderf]

“Stand your ground laws harm African Americans”
The very idea of that attempt to derail stand your ground based on that talking point is flaming racist.
They are placing the notion that the criminals on the receiving end of stand your ground would be black by default.

This is like “poor kids are just as intelligent as white kids” - joe biden

So, are you saying poor kids AREN'T as smart as white kids?

 

[Sigblitz]

Oh good Lord will this ever end.

In about 500 miles.

 

[MarkC]

I didn't bother clicking through to the actual paper, but reading the abstract is yet another example of why many are leery of modern "research."

When I was last doing school work, I was finding a lot of "research" was "meta analyses," in that the authors weren't doing any actual evidence collection, but reviewing others' work.

Not to even mention the "global warming," "climate change," "hotcoldwetdry," or whatever they're calling it this week.

 

[HoughMade]

That's the point. They didn't release a paper. They chose not to when the results did not demonstrate a racial bias.

Instead, the just released excerpts of testimony of people who were specifically called to testify to the premise that there was a racial bias.

Kudos to Commissioner Gail Heriot for calling this out.

No one would claim that the results of the staff’s empirical study conclusively resolve all the controversy over “Stand Your Ground” laws or even over Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law in particular. But they are useful for what they don’t show. The most passionate opponents of “Stand Your Ground” laws appear to have believed that the empirical evidence would show clearly that African Americans are harmed by these laws. But it turns out things are not so clear; the evidence of discrimination against African Americans or even real disparate impact is absent. Yes, it is true that a disproportionate number of those killed in Florida in cases in which, correctly or incorrectly, the “Stand Your Ground” law has been invoked were African American. But it is also true that a similarly disproportionate number of those for whom that law has been invoked were African American. African Americans are disproportionately on both sides of the issue.

The Commission embarked on this project in May 2013, at a time when public interest and public passions about “Stand Your Ground” laws were running high. The immediate trigger of that interest was the Trayvon Martin case4—although, oddly enough, that case was not really a “Stand Your Ground Case."

* * *​

The first draft of the report found that none of the attributes of those who claim the Stand Your Ground defense, including race/ethnicity, was significantly associated with the probability of a successful claim. I would quote the draft and give the specific figures, but some of my fellow Commissioners have taken the position that for the Commission to publish this Statement quoting those figures might be interpreted to waive the Commission’s deliberative process privilege. address their concerns I have edited this statement. Suffice it to say that insofar as there was evidence, it suggested that African Americans and Hispanics were more likely to successfully assert the defense than whites, but the difference was not statistically significant The report also found that the probability of a successful Stand Your Ground claim was greater if the initial attacker was Hispanic than if he or she was black or white. But the differences were insignificant at the conventional 0.5 level. The draft ultimately concluded that there was no significant difference in the probability that a Stand Your Ground claim would be successful based on the race or ethnicity of the claimant or the race of the initial attacker.

But Commissioner Michael Yaki, who spearheaded the project, was unhappy with the results and protested them. To the credit of our statistician in the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation, while he listened to and considered Commissioner Yaki’s complaints, he stood his ground and declined to alter his results to follow a particular narrative.

For a while, there was talk within the Commission about trying to re-do the project. Eventually, though, the staff who had originally been the most immersed in this project (our statistician from OCRE, as well as Commissioner Yaki’s special assistant and counsel) left the Commission, and the discussions stopped. A majority of the Commission’s members were apparently happy not to issue a report. But lately, they seem to be taking the position that the quantity of reports that the Commission issues is important. More than two years after we received the initial draft, the Commission voted to scrap that draft altogether and instead publish the report in the form you see today.

I believe that the findings that were contained in the draft are worth publishing, despite the fact that they do not resolve every issue we might like them to have.

 

[Leadeye]

When I see stuff like this I wonder, who paid for it, who got the money, what was the connection.

 

[2A_Tom]

I heard in a commercial that the Covid 19 is adversely affecting blacks worse than whites. 17% of cases are black people.

Covid 19 is racist!

 

[drillsgt]

The CDC did something similar when they sat on findings related to the number of defensive gun uses per year that they estimated.

 

[Mikey1911]

In about 500 miles.

Or, for the F1 types, in 300 km or 2 hours, whichever comes first.

In most cases, it’s “over” after the first corner; those jewel box F1 engines could never last 804 km anyway.

 

[Coach]

I didn't bother clicking through to the actual paper, but reading the abstract is yet another example of why many are leery of modern "research."

When I was last doing school work, I was finding a lot of "research" was "meta analyses," in that the authors weren't doing any actual evidence collection, but reviewing others' work.

Not to even mention the "global warming," "climate change," "hotcoldwetdry," or whatever they're calling it this week.

That is the thing I hate about historiography. I don't care about the author so much or the group of authors. I would prefer to focus on the facts.

 

[MarkC]

That is the thing I hate about historiography. I don't care about the author so much or the group of authors. I would prefer to focus on the facts.

Exactly. The underlying facts or data are glossed over in these historiographic "meta-analyses." My take on it much of these are created because academics have to "publish or perish."

Much like law journals have devolved into either surveys of recent cases or legislation, or excessively detailed dives into arcane matters. I cannot recall the last time I used or cited to a law journal. More of the need to get published, regardless of the value of the content.

But now I'm just some old guy ranting...