A moral question

[SecularMotion]

For too long the debate over gun control in this country has been seen as an entirely political one, when it’s actually a moral question.

At a rally this past weekend in Greenwich celebrating the 400-mile bicycle ride of Team 26 from Newtown to Washington, D.C., by people touched by mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School and Virginia Tech, there was support from people of all political affiliations. But it was the Rev. Maxwell Grant, senior minister of Second Congregational Church, who cut to the heart of it, quoting the Bible when he said, “Choose on this day whom you will serve but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” He followed it up by asking, Who would we serve as a nation?

“Will we serve the merchants of death who make profit in destruction? Will we serve those who say 30-round clips and assault weapons are vital to hunting? Will we serve those who argue that it’s fair and right that driving a car or getting on a plane or registering a dog should be harder than purchasing a handgun?”

That shreds all the politics around the issue and focuses instead on the moral question of what kind of nation we will allow ourselves to be. One that fights for common-sense reform or one that sinks in violence?

http://www.greenwich-post.com/23963/a-moral-question/

[gejohnston]

1. Church and State seperation should be absolute

I don't want to hear Moses riding Dinny and I don't want to hear this guy either.

“Will we serve the merchants of death who make profit in destruction? Will we serve those who say 30-round clips and assault weapons are vital to hunting? Will we serve those who argue that it’s fair and right that driving a car or getting on a plane or registering a dog should be harder than purchasing a handgun?”

No one said 30 round mags are vital for hunting, since they are illegal in most states for hunting. He doesn't know the slightest thing about CT or federal gun law, so he has nothing of value to offer.

[flamin lib]

3. Yeah, and Martin Luther King Jr didn't know anything about segregation either.

Should have just kept kept mouth shut. Had nothing to offer to all those red necked bigots.

[gejohnston]

4. not the same thing

For one thing, MLK was standing up to the State. MLK knew very well and why. MLK not only knew what he was talking about and why, he writings were much more coherent.
Racism and segregation existed in the north and California as well. It fell by the wayside easier because there was less social cost. If you integrated your lunch counter in Philadelphia, you might get kicked out of the bridge club. If you didn't discriminate in Birmingham, State functionaries with guns and badges to deal with you. While the railroads got away with telling the Texas Railroad Commission to pound sand when they integrated first class cars (the Commission wanted them to segregate rich blacks and rich whites like the economy class. The railroads told the commission to pound sand and that it wasn't profitable to do so.)

[flamin lib]

7. Actually it's very much the same.

Jim crow was the law of the day. SYG is today. This pastor is reacting to and speaking against what he feels is adversely effecting his flock. Is he preaching to the choir? Yeah and so is LaPierre and most of the gungeon. His speech is as important as any. As is yours, even when you're wrong.

Edited to correct the auto correct, sigh.

[gejohnston]

8. One big difference

How many blacks benefited from Jim Crow? None.
How many black politicians voted for Jim Crow? None. How many voted for Florida's SYG? Most if not all.
SYG? Most self defense shootings in Florida are blacks defending themselves, granted from other blacks (and whites against other whites.) This mirrors crime statistics when you look at FBI-UCR,
Most crime victims are black, therefore they are more likely to be in a situation to have to defend themselves.
SYG simply means no duty to retreat, no more and no less. SYG has been around longer, and have been part of US law, far longer than La Pierre or his great grand parents.

[flamin lib]

11. Eh, SYG has always applied if safe retreat was not possible.

Codifying no retreat under any conditions leads to an increase in shootings, many of which would have been homicides before SYG. Some still are, i.e. theater texting shooting. SYG has become SOP for jury instruction whether it is invoked for defense or not.

Nice use of stats, but SYG works a lot better for white on black than the other way 'round. Please don't ask for a link as it's common knowledge. I won't call you a liar if you don't call me one.

Have you noticed I don't bother with some responses? Some just aren't very good and some tend to assholiness. You have gained a degree of respect by recognizing other viewpoints may have validity even if you don't agree. True debate will either enforce a belief or at the very least offer introspection on it's validity.

I think we can get along--a rare thing in the gungeon.

[Bazinga]

12. False, in Florida at least.

And that is where the most comprehensive numbers are coming from.

Acquittal rates for whites killing blacks are not significantly different than acquittal rates for blacks killing whites.

See this thread; http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172129191

[flamin lib]

13. Maybe false, maybe not. Ya' had to go there didn't ya'

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/22/kill-blacks-benefit-floridas-stand-ground-law.html Picks apart Tampa Times article


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/
Whites who kill blacks in Stand Your Ground states are far more likely to be found justified in their killings. In non-Stand Your Ground states, whites are 250 percent more likely to be found justified in killing a black person than a white person who kills another white person; in Stand Your Ground states, that number jumps to 354 percent.
FBI data!

Don't just try to find data to support a predetermined viewpoint. We can all do that. The internet is full of that shit--hate jews? deny the holocost? believe the latest conspiracy theory? It's out there. The hard part is to look critically at all data and absorb it into a world view.

The truth is out there and the server is NOT down and IS responding.

[Bazinga]

22. You may want to read the Tampa bay times article, and my post again.

The TBT article that started my thread is this one. It touts the same statistic that your politicus link uses to debunk an article from the Daily Caller, not the TBT. To wit;

Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

You'll notice that this is quite similar to the following quote from my post;

Only two comparisons, yep two out of over 100, achieved statistical significance. They were the following: 

Acquittal rate if victim is white: 56.5% (69 cases, 39 justified) 
if victim is black: 78.1% (32 cases, 25 justified) 
p-value: 0.0246 

Acquittal rate for white on white: 58.8% (51 cases, 30 justified) 
for white on minority: 83.3% (12 cases, 10 justified) 
p-value: 0.0694 

You'll note that these comparisons are very similar in that only the victim's race appears to be important. 

So if you had to go to politicus to "debunk" my thread, you went too far, it was in my thread all along. The entire goal of my thread was to "look critically at all the data"as you suggested. So it looks to me like my world view is not so myopic as you would claim.

Now let's examine what you said.

SYG works a lot better for white on black than the other way 'round

Which is not the same as "those who kill black victims are acquitted more often than those who kill white victims." It is also demonstrably false.

Acquittal rate for white on black: 85.7% (7 cases, 6 justified)
Acquittal rate for black on white: 66.7% (6 cases, 4 justified)
p-value: .4392

I spent a good amount of time looking critically at all the data and putting together a post that summarizes it. How much time have you spent?

[flamin lib]

24. First I apologize for bringing you into

the conversation between ge and me. Should have read the header more closely, my bad.

Next, I answered your one source with two.

Finally, I'm returning to the conversation with ge and won't be replying to other posts. Declare victory if it pleases you.

[Token Republican]

28. Thanks

I'll look at these later.

[Token Republican]

16. You might be right

My general line of thinking is SYG should not be used, as requiring someone to retreat if possible may save a life, even if the life it saves is doing something horribly wrong. Redemption is always possible, or at least it should be an option if possible.

I haven't seen the original data first hand, but I have read that SYG has actually be used more by blacks as self defense in Florida. It would not surprise me if this is true, but I'm not relying on secondary sources either. The media tends to report more white use of SYG, at least that's the claim. I tend not to believe either claim until I see the real information.

If in your internet travels you do come across a neutral website with the actual data, I'd love to see it posted here.

[gejohnston]

21. You are thinking of duty to retreat

Codifying no retreat under any conditions leads to an increase in shootings, many of which would have been homicides before SYG. Some still are, i.e. theater texting shooting. SYG has become SOP for jury instruction whether it is invoked for defense or not.

Like I said before, the only thing wrong with SYG is the media's inability to describe it accurately or honestly. There is no such thing as "invoke SYG". The misnomer comes from the immunity hearing where you have a chance to prove it was self defense by preponderance of the evidence. The theory is that if you can prove it, the State can't disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a case in Miami of a black guy shooting a black and a white attacker. While the tried to retreat, even though he did not have to. He asked for an immunity hearing, proved his case and there wasn't a trial. In self defense cases, whatever is common law or statute is part of the jury instructions, but if the State disproves any of the five elements of self defense, then it fails. Although California and Illinois don't have SYG statutes, their jury instructions, and common law, is SYG. Wyoming's common law is DTR, and the jury instructions would say that. There is no statute either way.

Nice use of stats, but SYG works a lot better for white on black than the other way 'round. Please don't ask for a link as it's common knowledge. I won't call you a liar if you don't call me one.

Common knowledge is also known as a factoid, commonly believed but not true. It is only a lie if it the teller knows it is untrue.

Have you noticed I don't bother with some responses? Some just aren't very good and some tend to assholiness. You have gained a degree of respect by recognizing other viewpoints may have validity even if you don't agree. True debate will either enforce a belief or at the very least offer introspection on it's validity.

thanks.

The texting case hasn't gone to trial yet, but I have the feeling the shooter was the "badge heavy" type when he was a cop, assuming media accounts were accurate.

[flamin lib]

23. Check reply 13 re common knowledge. Sorry I got someone else mixed up

in our conversation . . .

[gejohnston]

25. I don't know what they are basing their claims on

post 22 already did a good job. That said, I would have to ask:
did they compare all SYG states, which are 33, compared to 24 by statute? If the statute replaced a DTR statute or common law, did the numbers change? Did they stop to ask that? Did it change if the statute simply codified what was already common law?
Did they look at claims of self defense believed vs not believed or simply self defense? If the former, did they look the details of each case? If the latter, did they adjust for the slightly higher reported black on white crime (than white on black crime) reflected FBI UCR table 6? Did they adjust for the racial (and gender) bias in the criminal justice system general? It has been pretty well documented that the system is racist and sexist (perhaps more sexist than racist.)
white women get the lightest sentences
black women get the next lightest sentences
white men kind of shafted
black men get completely fucked over.

The issue is worth researching completely, and correct what needs to be.

[flamin lib]

26. I'm back to the tablet having used precious minutes of dying laptop

life to post links in #13. Pay attention to the PBS article. Sorted data several ways, SYG states vs not SYG, and lots of other stuff. Bottom line is you are right in that black men get really fucked over.

Why not institute 'duty to retreat' if it is safely possible? SYG gives the impression that someone can kill instead of flee even if flight is possible. It's about a mindset going into a situation.

[gejohnston]

27. It could be

The SYG vs DTR has been swinging for 130 years. From what I read on the subject, whenever a well publicized injustice attributed to one of the two, it pushes the pendulum in the opposite direction. Both have their flaws and have been abused by prosecutors and shooters over the years.
Did Texas have a DTR before passing SYG?
When Wyoming introduced the Castle Doctrine, SYG was part of the same bill. Yet, SYG was removed before the bill was voted out out of committee (we don't have a statute either way, but common law is DTR.
The wife is from Florida and doesn't care for the cold. To me, Wyoming is God's country and I endure Florida "winters" for her sake. But I digress
I'm not sure if DTR or SYG should be law, but every CCW class should put USMC "rules of gunfighting" number 23: lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation as rule number one for CCW. Massad Ayoob said basically the same thing in his book In the Gravest Extreme.

[flamin lib]

30. Dam, seems like we're getting along too well to maintain a sub-thread.

I have a definate opinion on DTR. Anyone has the right to use force if retreat isn't possible but everybody should avoid killing an asshole if possible. Even assholes have people that love them.

Marine saying, 'I want your respect but failing that fear will do.' I say go for respect first, caution next and leave fear as a last resort.

BTW, I won my last fight by 40 yards.

See ya' on the interwebs . . .

[Eleanors38]

32. Z. N. Hurston has a take on this Justice Pyramid.

[spin]

34. Actually common knowledge is often wrong. ...

Blacks also can benefit from SYG.

The Tampa Bay Times ran a comprehensive report on all the case they could find that involved a stand your ground situation over six year time frame. This report is updated occasionally and is an excellent resource for anyone who wishes to debate the Stand Your Ground law in Florida. It's interactive and allows you to sort the cases in many ways and also to view a summary of each case.
It's located at: http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/nonfatal-cases

Using it you can find that the newspaper found of total of 21 cases where a black individual stood his ground against a white attacker. Six resulted in a conviction, 12 were ruled as justified and 3 are pending.

In the 19 cases the paper found where a white person stood his against a black attacker; 3 resulted in a conviction, 14 were ruled as justified and 5 are pending.

Black on Black SYG is more common than black on white or white on black SYG. The newspaper found 57 such cases and 16 resulted in a conviction, 34 were ruled as justified and 7 are pending.

Perhaps not surprisingly white on white SYG is most common and the newspaper found 112 such cases of which 69 resulted in a conviction and 69 were ruled as justified.

(In passing if you wish to see the results of the Zimmerman/Martin shooting you need to go to the section of the report which deal with fatal SYG incidents involving Hispanics and blacks.)

The report itself is not pro stand your ground, in fact it at the best supports the view that the SYG law in Florida should be rewritten. The wording of the law has allowed the criminal justice system to let some to walk free that in my opinion deserve to be in prison today.

I feel this report can be used as a source for both sides of the SYG debate. The fact that it is rarely mentioned by either side leads me to suspect that both sides realize that fact and it really doesn't fit the agenda of either side of the debate.

I don't disagree that the SYG law may cause unnecessary confrontations. This maybe because gun control advocates push the view that the SYG law is a license to kill. People often feel that what they read or hear in the news is the absolute truth. People were led to believe that the Zimmerman case was a stand your ground case but in reality the Zimmerman defense never used that tactic and instead approached it as strictly a self defense case. SYG was mentioned in the instructions to the jury by the judge which was her decision.

What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction
Posted: 07/15/2013 11:19 am

Alafair Burke

Novelist, Criminal Law Professor

***snip***

After Judge Nelson indicated that she understood the arguments on both sides, defense attorney Don West interjected, "Well, let me point out, as a matter of law, following someone on foot or by car is not against the law.... That cannot be considered provocation under the law... Force means physical force or the threat of physical force...." In conclusion, he emphasized, "It would be ERROR, and frankly, promoting miscarriage of justice, if the state were allowed to argue that to the jury." (See 3:37 here.)

The state attempted to rebut the defense's argument by noting the defense's request for a separate instruction regarding the legality of following a person. Judge Nelson responded, "We're not there yet," then quickly ruled without elaboration: "The defense does not want to give [the initial aggressor exception]; the state does. The court is not going to give it."

The court is not going to give it.

That may have been the moment when Zimmerman got acquitted. The end result was that jurors were told only about the parts of Florida self-defense law that benefited the defendant, without knowing anything about the most relevant potential limitation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafair-burke/george-zimmerman-jury-instructions_b_3596685.html

The SYG law in Florida needs to be rewritten to insure that anyone who claims SYG has to meet the following standards:

1) He has to be in a place he has every legal right to be.

2) He must not be engaged in ANY criminal activity.

3) He must not have initiated a confrontation and continued to escalate it to provoke a violent response where a reasonable man in the same situation would have walked away even if it made him look cowardly to bystanders.

4) He should have a good reason to fear for his life. His attacker should be armed with a lethal weapon or be so much larger or in far better physical condition that he CAN inflict serious injury or death. The reasonable man standard such apply here also.

If so and a judge agrees at a hearing that a person was within his right to stand his ground, he should not be criminally prosecuted or face civil action. Such proceedings can lead to expenses that will bankrupt the average person for no good reason.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. You're somewhat ...selective in your support for mixing politics and religion:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22flamin+lib%22+phelps&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#channel=sb&q=%22flamin+lib%22+%22fred+phelps%22&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22flamin+lib%22+robertson&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com#q=%22flamin+lib%22+%22pat+robertson%22+site:democraticunderground.com

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22flamin+lib%22+phelps&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb#channel=sb&q=%22flamin+lib%22+%22jerry+falwell%22&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2384588

[MicaelS]

10. If this was some Religious Conservative

Spouting something you didn't like, would you be stating, "They need to keep their religion out of public affairs", or something similar? Because I sure would.

Pacifism is just another form of religion. I'm not a pacifist, and never will be. Pacifists who are willing to sacrifice their own lives, and the lives of their loved ones for their belief system is their business. But I don't have to respect someone like that. And I don't. And I will not let someone else's pacifism used as an excuse to disarm me. I will oppose it at every opportunity.

[Eleanors38]

31. And MLK tried for a CCW -- got Jim (large, raucous black bird) instead.

[rrneck]

2. How do you find this stuff?

How can the author claim that it is a moral issue apart from politics and riff on every political hot button issue around guns at the same time? In a six hundred word editorial? You usually have to get a book chapter or two between such glaring inconsistencies to get away with it.

Incoherent dreck.

[needledriver]

6. What a refreshingly simple and direct viewpoint!

The OP is correct.

Respecting the right to keep and bear arms is a moral duty, not a political one.

There are many rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights; freedom of speech, religion, and the press, are among them. All of these rights have been subject to occasional excess. No one here doubts the ability of words to give expression to abhorrent thoughts, of "journalism" to misinform and delude, or of religion to inspire horrific acts; all of which have led to incidents of tragedy and violence.

Yet, for all the potential for abuse, we have a moral imperative to resist censorship of the press, the stifling of free expression, or the suppression of religion, for it is well understood that the denial of rights is worse than the abuse of them.

We have a similar moral imperative to defend the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the abuse of this right has led to incidents of violence and tragedy, yet to deny this right is to deny people the right to self defense.

It is morally right and just that people have the right to defend themselves, their loved ones, their freedom. It is morally right and just that people have the right to access to the tools they need to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their freedom.

[sarisataka]

9. Replace gun control

With abortion and read the article again...

Remind me, which side are the zealots?

[Token Republican]

14. Moral questions

Does anyone think its a bit ironic that the OP is claiming the morality of religion on a liberal progressive website?

To follow up with the OP's general theme, here's a website that will give greater detail as to religious moral views.

[SecularMotion]

15. Here's the message

The more stark that realization becomes, the easier it is to see that this fight is beyond politics, and is a moral one. Moral outrage once led former President George H.W. Bush to resign from the NRA. A sense of moral duty led the Republicans in this state, including those in both our delegation to Hartford and our Board of Selectmen, who are true public servants and not bought and paid for tools of the NRA, to stand up and pass common-sense legislation that will help make people safer.

To enact real change, U.S. Rep. Jim Himes said this weekend, was going to take years, and he’s right. But the kind of change that’s needed, one that goes beyond Congress and into the culture of a country, does not come quickly or easily. It must happen, though, and it will, as long as people like those in Team 26 and their supporters keep up the fight.

This debate will not go away. We can’t let it. Not until change is achieved.

[Token Republican]

17. There you go again

Lots of weasel words but no substance at all.

Explain yourself.

moral duty? - details.
common-sense legislation? - details
make people safe? - details
real change? - details
not until change is achieved? - details

While you're thinking about how to dodge the question, here's some viewing pleasure on the use of weasel words, otherwise know as soft language.

[SecularMotion]

18. It's from the article posted

You would know that if you had taken the time to actually read the article.



If you have a problem with the choice of words or phrases, take it up with the staff of the Greenwich Post.

[Token Republican]

19. Like that makes a difference

Cutting and pasting meaningless words and phrases is useless and a waste of bandwidth.

A baboon can cut and paste.

I'm more interested in hearing what you think. The details.

[krispos42]

29. Connecticut politicians didn't pass "common sense"legislation

They passed "culture war" legislation.

But the kind of change that’s needed, one that goes beyond Congress and into the culture of a country, does not come quickly or easily. It must happen, though...

Your wide-eyed protestations of ignorance of a culture war notwithstanding, that is what your side's goal is.

In fact, since pretty much everything your side tries to enact into law results is more tactical guns being sold, maybe you should ponder a different strategy. Like advocating for effective laws instead of culture-war laws that you propogandize as "common sense".

Connecticut had an assault weapons ban in place the day Langza's mom legally bought the rifle. Obviously it failed; just as obviously the people that crowed about how many lives it would save were also very wrong. Yet they have not admitted failure, nor been punished electorally.

[Eleanors38]

33. or, "my morals are more moral than your morals."

[CVN-68]

20. Been busy 2day, haven't you?

31 S_B_Jackson
32 DRAEGER
33 HALO141

I love how you can block those that have another take on this debate, yet, you can come into this group and post all you want to without fear of being blocked.

Hyprocrisy much?

Oh, and by the way, I won't ever post anything in the group that you host, I don't post in groups that don't tolerate debate and block members who don't toe the line.

You chastise poster for personal attack, yet, you do the same in this group, which makes you a hyprocrite.

[ileus]

35. I'm morally obligated to keep myself and my family safe...common sense.