7 thoughts on “What’s wrong with ‘stand your ground’ laws?

  1. This stuff has come under some criticism, some complaints better than others. One serious worry is that it’s based on a mere 23 cases, which isn’t a very large sample. That strikes me as a fair criticism. Is it responsible to draw such significant conclusions from so small a sample?

  2. 23 is the number of homicides within that total data set which match the Martin case (controlling for both age and race)–it is not the size of the data set where the above number comes from.

  3. I thought it was overwhelmingly clear that black men are liable to be judged more harshly in court cases than white men and given the death penalty. They are in general seen as much more dangerous. Given that, there are significant established probabilities we should be checking on when we look at the data about stand your ground. We’re not starting out in a state of total ignorance.

  4. Anne, what I’ve read (in Hugo Bedau’s work) is that the race of the *victim* is much more significant than the race of the perpetrator.

  5. Anon, I was really unclear. The point I was making is that black men are seen as more dangerous. We should therefore expect that they will be more likely to be victimized.

    There’s other data too from experiments: an ambiguous object is more likely to be seen as a gun when associated with a black man.

  6. And, I should add, given black men are generally seen as more threatening, white shooting can more easily be seen as justified.

Comments are closed.