Arizona legislature passes bill allowing anti-gay discrimination

[sailor]

Maybe just states that only allow stand-your-ground defenses when white men kill unarmed black teenagers.  It's a cruel prejudice, I know.

 
Ah, so Not Florida then. So Altair will be heading to Daytona for bike week?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/

[Altair]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/

The spin of this article serves a right-wing agenda but isn't very illuminating. The relevant questions are: How many white people in Florida have successfully used a "Stand Your Ground"-type defense when the victim has been black? And how many black people have successfully used this defense when the victim has been white? That would give a better sense of whether there's a racial component at work here.

[sailor]

The spin of this article serves a right-wing agenda but isn't very illuminating. The relevant questions are: How many white people in Florida have successfully used a "Stand Your Ground"-type defense when the victim has been black? And how many black people have successfully used this defense when the victim has been white? That would give a better sense of whether there's a racial component at work here.

 
White victim (killed / shot at), black accused (shooter) - 3 convicted, 4 justified, 3 pending

Black victim (killed / shot at), white accused (shooter) - 1 convicted, 6 justified, 4 pending

Oops, seems Blacks use the stand your ground defense both more often and much more successfully than whites.

[sailor]

White victim (killed / shot at), black accused (shooter) - 3 convicted, 4 justified, 3 pending

Black victim (killed / shot at), white accused (shooter) - 1 convicted, 6 justified, 4 pending

Oops, seems Blacks use the stand your ground defense both more often and much more successfully than whites.

 
Oh, and seems Blacks have a lot more to fear Hispanics than whites.  All the Hispanics that claimed stand your ground against Blacks were successful.

[mandrina]

White victim (killed / shot at), black accused (shooter) - 3 convicted, 4 justified, 3 pending

Black victim (killed / shot at), white accused (shooter) - 1 convicted, 6 justified, 4 pending

Oops, seems Blacks use the stand your ground defense both more often and much more successfully than whites.

I think you need to look at your numbers again,
Black accused. 3 convicted, 4 off
White accused 1 convicted, 6 off
Doesn't look like the blacks are more successful.

Unless convicted and justified don't mean what I think they do.  Also, there are 10 cases with the black accused and 11 with the white accused, including pen dings, so the more often doesn't stand up either, if I'm reading this correctly.

[sailor]

I think you need to look at your numbers again,
Black accused. 3 convicted, 4 off
White accused 1 convicted, 6 off
Doesn't look like the blacks are more successful.

Unless convicted and justified don't mean what I think they do.  Also, there are 10 cases with the black accused and 11 with the white accused, including pen dings, so the more often doesn't stand up either, if I'm reading this correctly.

 
Blacks make up a smaller proportion of the population, although that might balance out that they commit proportionally more of the interracial violent crime.  

Raw data:
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases

[Chabas]

I think you need to look at your numbers again,
Black accused. 3 convicted, 4 off
White accused 1 convicted, 6 off
Doesn't look like the blacks are more successful.

Unless convicted and justified don't mean what I think they do.  Also, there are 10 cases with the black accused and 11 with the white accused, including pen dings, so the more often doesn't stand up either, if I'm reading this correctly.

 
There's an overview of how stand your ground works out for different groups here: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?s=stand+your+ground

--Chabas

[sailor]

Slacktivist has a good post about this here where he compares this legislation to the old segregation laws of the 1960s.

 
Uh, not quite.

Most of his / her post is good.  

They quote Jamelle Bouie's claim that the bill is anti-gay Jim Crow.  It's not.  Jim Crow was states laws prohibiting companies or individuals to freely associate.  The white lunch counter owner was prohibited by law from selling to Blacks at the whites only lunch counter; and had to have such separate facilities if they wanted to serve both races (or maybe if they wanted to serve Blacks).  The Kansas bill (per other sources) doesn't prohibit such interaction.  It looks more like places like New York or California where individuals or individual companies were allowed (but not required) to discriminate. The photo from Texas circa 1949 is an example since Texas didn't have laws prohibiting such interaction (per Wikipedia).

The Kansas Bishops also got the rhetoric wrong as far as I know.  There were no laws permitting discrimination in the old days.  There were either no laws banning such discrimination or laws mandating it.

I like the Slacktivist's point that such a poorly written bill from a 2 bit player is more dangerous. It will be re-written and it's internal logic and second order effects will be harder to poke at.

[sailor]

There's an overview of how stand your ground works out for different groups here: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?s=stand+your+ground

--Chabas

 
Cherry picked data.  It's based upon Roman's work which didn't separate the years for before and after enactment.

[Chabas]

Cherry picked data.  It's based upon Roman's work which didn't separate the years for before and after enactment.

 
Which would mean that there's a larger N for non stand your ground cases, compared to stand your ground cases. Which *may* mean, depending on possible co-variates and confounders, that you should be doing a layered analysis is you want to be comparing the non SYG to the SYG cases.

Of course, the main confounder that could influence the point here would involve there being some particular kind of white-on-black homicide case that is more likely to end in an acquittal, that is particularly likely to end up being SYG now, and would have been non SYG when there wasn't yet a SYG law enacted. Which means that that those cases would be *over*represented in the non SYG data, making the difference between SYG and non SYG smaller. One might also wonder what it is about SYG that makes it so appealing for this particular type of case, which is already rather informative about the effects of the law.

But you know, let's just discard all the non SYG data as not sufficiently comparable to the SYG data. We can do that. Doesn't change a thing about the fact that the people being acquitted on SYG are disproportionately white people killing black people. Unless you want to claim that there is a special subset of SYG cases omitted from the data, in which case, sources, please.

--Chabas

[yewberry]

I'm an idiot.  Wrong thread.

[Altair]

White victim (killed / shot at), black accused (shooter) - 3 convicted, 4 justified, 3 pending

Black victim (killed / shot at), white accused (shooter) - 1 convicted, 6 justified, 4 pending

Oops, seems Blacks use the stand your ground defense both more often and much more successfully than whites.

Actually, as Mandrina already noted, just the opposite. Thanks for proving my point.

[RandallS]

Is it stand your ground laws or just Florida's stand your ground law that you object to since the wording is pretty much the same in other states?

Florida seems to have more weird uses of the law than it most other states that have it. It also seems much broader than the law in Texas. For example, in Texas: the law applies only in your home, your car, or your place of work and generally requires that the person being shot is actually doing something illegal or clearly threatening. Shooting someone in a truck in a store parking lot would not be covered -- although you could still try to prove self-defense.

Texas has a lot of guns and a lot of people walking around armed (and always has even before concealed carry laws). Texas also has a lot of violence, but you don't see the weird SYG cases that Florida seems to have.

[sailor]

Florida seems to have more weird uses of the law than it most other states that have it. It also seems much broader than the law in Texas. For example, in Texas: the law applies only in your home, your car, or your place of work and generally requires that the person being shot is actually doing something illegal or clearly threatening. Shooting someone in a truck in a store parking lot would not be covered -- although you could still try to prove self-defense.

Texas has a lot of guns and a lot of people walking around armed (and always has even before concealed carry laws). Texas also has a lot of violence, but you don't see the weird SYG cases that Florida seems to have.

 
Shooting someone in a truck in a store parking lot isn't covered in FL which is why SYG was not part of the Dunn case. Or more specifically, SYG wasn't part of the Dunn case since it didn't apply, not that the law says parking lots are covered or not covered.

[EclecticWheel]

It's really sad.  In the article I read one reason in support of the bill was to protect people who don't suppoort same-sex marriage.  My thought was how refusing services, say in a restaurant, connects to that?  No one is forcing anyone to go to a same-sex wedding.

It was also in reaction to a photographer who was sued for not taking wedding pictures for a gay couple, but what if it was a straight couple who the photographer personally knew were terrible for each other?  Should (s)he have the right to refuse service to any couple whose marriage (s)he doesn't support?

It's not hard to start a new religion and even have it legally recognized.  If I started a religion claiming all straight people were spiritually inferior and procreation was enslavement of souls in matter would it be okay under this law to refuse services to all straight couples in the name of religious freedom?  Somehow I don't think that would go over too well!

The first amendment protects religious freedom but it is not absolute.  I can practice religion but if that meant I could take away others' Constitutional rights and legal freedoms in the name of my first amendment rights it would undermine the whole system.  As an extreme example, if I found a religion advocating murder, I don't gain the right thereby to kill anyone I like!

The law is not very logical to say the least.  The first thing I thought when I first read about it was Jim Crow laws.

These bills have been working their way through several state legislatures controlled by Republicans--it recently came up in Kansas but stalled there--but AZ is the first to pass it. It remains to be seen if ultra-right AZ governor Jan Brewer will sign it.

As conservatives continue to lose and lose and lose in the same-sex marriage debate, measures "protecting religious freedom" appears to be their new front in the culture war.

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill


http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/