Mediaboss Marketing

I am tired of writing about gun violence in the United States and the abject failure of our political system to provide a means of effectively addressing the problem.

But here I am revisiting the topic, because horrific recent incidents are generating headlines. And, while mass shooting incidents have skyrocketed since 2018, after which each year has seen more than one such event per day, its not just mass shootings Americans have to worry about.

Since two individuals were shot within four days of each other one fatally simply for accidentally approaching the wrong house, the US public sphere is currently abuzz with discussion of the so-called stand your ground laws that have been passed in more than half of the 50 states since 2005.

Superseding the common law castle doctrine that provides wide latitude for the use of deadly force against an intruder inside ones home, stand your ground laws expand this laxity to public spaces, where, the American legal norm otherwise holds that individuals have a duty to retreat from violent confrontation if possible.

Get one whole story, direct to your inbox every weekday.

The first US state to pass a stand your ground law was (not especially surprisingly) Florida. (At this point, all southern states have them.) The issue does not seem to have generated much media buzz, however, until 2012, when George Zimmerman, a light-skinned Latino and neighbourhood watch captain, fatally shot Trayvon Martin, an African American teenager who was simply trying to walk back to his fathers home in a gated community in Sanford, where he was staying.

Zimmermans trial he was found not guilty for reasons of self-defence in what many, myself included, consider an egregious miscarriage of justice did not ultimately hinge on Floridas stand your ground law. But this series of events highlighted the racist differential treatment with respect to gun laws that is pervasive in the US legal system, and the potential for stand your ground laws to falsely legitimise even more white violence against Black Americans than was already occurring.

On 13 April, Black high school student Ralph Yarl misinterpreted directions about where to pick up his brothers and ended up going to the wrong house in Kansas City, Missouri. After Yarl rang the doorbell, homeowner Andrew Lester, an 84-year old white man, opened the main door and immediately shot Yarl in the head through the glass exterior door. He then shot Yarl a second time, in the arm. Lester reportedly said: Dont come around here, as the 16-year-old Yarl, who is thankfully and remarkably on the road to recovery, attempted to retreat.

Missouri has a stand your ground law and, given the states reactionary politics and the facts that Yarl is Black and Lester is white, it is likely that Lester will be acquitted of the felony charges of assault in the first degree and armed criminal action that he faces. If stand your ground comes into play, Lester will, theoretically, have to convincingly demonstrate he had a reasonable fear that Yarl would harm him. From what we know about the shooting, it seems absurd to think that Lester could make such a case, but conservative American juries often do not take much convincing when a white defendant stands accused of violence against an African American person.

On 17 April, a 20-year-old white woman, Kaylin Gillis, turned into the wrong driveway in upstate New York. Kevin Monahan, the 65-year-old white homeowner who killed her, now faces second-degree murder charges. New York does not have a stand your ground law, so Monahans defence presumably faces a higher bar.

What both these shootings have in common besides the fact that both occurred in conservative areas is that they could happen to anyone (of course American white supremacy makes it more likely for African Americans in these situations to face violence). Who among us is immune from getting our directions mixed up in confusing or simply unfamiliar neighbourhoods? The thought that such a commonplace mistake could cost us our lives is absolutely chilling. And as it turns out, the two incidents that made recent headlines are far from isolated.

Meanwhile, like mass shootings, road rage shootings have also surged in recent years. According to a disturbing new report by Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun violence prevention organisation, incidents have steeply risen year after year since 2018. The report states that one American was shot and either injured or killed in a road rage incident in 2022 every 16 hours, on average.

Using data from the Gun Violence Archive, the report notes that road rage shootings occur in every US state, but that there are patterns.

Southern states, which on the whole have particularly lax gun laws, experience the highest rates of victimisation from road rage shootings according to the report. By contrast, the north-eastern states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont have the lowest rates of road rage shootings about half those, per capita, that occur in southern states. These states have much stricter gun laws. Compare, for example, Floridas rate of 1.64 road rage shootings per million residents to New Yorks rate of 0.7 per one million residents.

Another study found similar stark regional differences in all gun homicides as opposed to just road rage incidents. The deep south has by far the highest per capita gun homicide rate, which makes Republicans claims that Americas progressive cities are war zones absurd.

While other factors may be in play for example, public intellectual Colin Woodard argues that policy is downstream from culture and attributes regional differences in gun violence to the cultural legacies of distinct groups of colonisers Everytown for Gun Safetys report provides clear cut evidence that a serious approach to gun control reduces gun violence rates. Unfortunately, acting on this obvious fact at the national level would require not only a strength of political will too often lacking among Democrats, but also the cooperation of some Republicans.

Frankly, as sad as it is to say this, if I were an official serving in another countrys foreign ministry, I would recommend that that government issue a warning against travel to the United States and especially its most violent regions. Theres just no avoiding the conclusion that for the time being, the land of the free will remain a shoot first, ask questions later nation.

Excerpt from:
US gun violence is so bad countries should warn against travelling ... - openDemocracy

Abbott forgets legal career

Re: Abbott, Leave Verdict Alone Seeking pardon for convicted murderer undermines Texas judicial system and plays to social media mobs, April 16 editorial.

This editorial asking for Gov. Greg Abbott to let Daniel Perrys verdict stand was a breath of fresh air. As you wrote, with all the governors previous experience as a Texas attorney general and Texas Supreme Court justice, one would think he has more respect for the role that the judges and juries play in our legal system.

Apparently, Abbott decided to forget all that once now-former Fox News host Tucker Carlson spewed his nightly vitriol. Now that Carlson is gone, will Abbott change his mind?

Hans Voorn, Frisco

Well said was the statement in this editorial that Gov. Greg Abbotts decision is a dangerous step away from justice.

The state government of Texas has been gutting local government for a long time, and this latest premature announcement of a proposed pardon by Abbott is simply another nail in the coffin.

Aram Azadpour, Grapevine

Lets look at why Gov. Greg Abbott is so eager to pardon Daniel Perry. If Abbott had not changed our laws to allow for anyone to carry any firearm in a public place, would this murder have taken place? When Abbott enacted the open carry law, many police chiefs across the state reacted with there is no way to know the good guys from the bad guys because anyone can walk around with a publicly displayed weapon.

So the facts are: 1. If military-style weapons were banned, this would not have happened. And 2. If open carry of any weapon was not a right in the state of Texas, this would not have happened.

Lets place the blame on where this all started, with Abbott passing laws that the majority of Texans do not support.

Lynette Goodson, Longview

I was hoping for balanced coverage from The Dallas Morning News, but in this case thats apparently not going to occur. Recently you published four letters opposing Gov. Greg Abbotts proposed pardon of Sgt. Daniel Perry, and also an editorial in the same vein. I waited for two days, hoping that a letter or an editorial with an opposing viewpoint would be published.

To summarize: a belligerent individual, openly carrying a firearm, blocking streets, approached a vehicle containing Perry. This individual reportedly refused to leave after he was asked to do so. The issue escalated directly because of the behavior of the protester and Perry fired on him.

Nothing else is relevant. If that protester had been acting alone, attacking Perrys vehicle, there would be no doubt that this was a hostile and belligerent act of aggression. Being a participant in a protest/riot does not change this. I am appalled and disgusted that Perry was convicted in spite of the circumstances.

I fully and completely support Abbotts decision to pardon Perry, who should never have been convicted in the first place.

Olan Knight, Murphy

Re: Killers racist rants detailed Man convicted of shooting armed protester had history of posts targeted at Black people, April 15 Metro & Business story.

After the new information came out about Daniel Perry, the convicted murderer of a Black Lives Matter protester, regarding his racist memes and social media messages, I am even more outraged by Gov. Greg Abbotts quick decision to pardon him. It is clear from this pardon that our governor is not a leader but instead is a follower who cannot stand up to the pressure of Tucker Carlson and other far-right pundits. I certainly did not vote for Carlson to be running Texas.

I think a Texas jurys decision deserves far more weight from the governor than Carlsons opinion.

Richard Bach, Garland

What is wrong with our governor? How can he consider pardoning a murderer such as Daniel Perry?

Shouldnt he have been aware that Perry intended to cause trouble when he went to the peaceful march? Perry made it known on social media.

To be clear, it was Perry, an army sergeant, who broke the law by running a red light and driving into a Black Lives Matter march. If only for that, he should go to jail.

I know when I have nearly been hit in a parking lot, I stopped the person and asked him to slow down. Should I have shot him instead? Was he in his right to shoot me? Common sense seems to have gone out the window along with Perrys rounds from his loaded rifle.

Meanwhile the jury, a group of people empowered to make findings of fact and render a verdict, found Perry guilty of murder. While the rest of our country is worried about gun control and the availability of semi-automatic rifles, our governor plans to take our state another step into the Middle Ages.

As Clarence Darrow once said, I have not the infinite wisdom that can fathom it, neither has any other human brain.

Barry Rothschild, Dallas

Re: Abbott wasnt in courtroom, by John R. Krystinik, April 14 Letters.

Krystinik summarized well Gov. Greg Abbotts demand for a pardon of a man convicted of murder. My question is what evidence, or sworn testimony was withheld by the prosecution or the defense and shared with Abbott that allowed him to immediately conclude that this man was wrongly convicted?

Paul Sokal, Dallas/Preston Hollow

I support Gov. Greg Abbotts proposed pardon. Why? The Constitution gives the right to bear arms. At the time the Constitution was written, it was necessary to carry a gun for protection. Its even more necessary in the times we live in now.

Zane Ray Smith, Okmulgee County, Okla.

I should never be surprised at anything Gov. Greg Abbott decides to do, but promising to pardon a murderer before he is even sentenced is beyond what I could have imagined. Open carry legislation was passed under Abbotts tenure, so he is at least partially responsible for the inevitability of someone being shot simply because he was armed.

This opens up a new avenue for murderers to get out of jail free and trials may now become moot. The jury wasted its time listening to evidence before making a decision.

When, oh when, will we have leaders who do what is best for their state/country instead of prioritizing their political ambitions?

Vivian Bush, Ovilla

Re: High court lets Texas death row inmate pursue DNA suit Justices reverse ruling that said he waited too long to file request, April 20 news story.

What do Rodney Reed and Daniel Perry have in common? Both would like to be pardoned by Gov. Greg Abbott. What is the difference? Reed is a Black man who was convicted of a murder that, apparently, he did not commit. His case received immense scrutiny, and most fair analyses concluded that he did not commit the murder.

Abbott wouldnt even grant a temporary stay of execution for this apparently innocent man who has been in jail for years. Fortunately, the courts stepped in and granted such a stay. But he is still in prison and still fighting for his freedom.

Perry is white and drove his car straight into a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters. He saw a protester raise a rifle, pulled out a gun and shot the protester five times. He was convicted of murder, but Abbott wants to grant a full pardon. Abbott cites the Stand Your Ground law, but ignores the fact as the jury did not that the law voids ones right to use such force while the perpetrator is in the process of committing a crime, as Perry was.

If Perry is pardoned, then I expect that he will be tried for his first crime several counts of assault with a deadly weapon or even attempted murder.

Scott Nason, Dallas

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here.

More:
Letters to the Editor Readers weigh in on Gov. Abbotts plan to pardon Daniel Perry - The Dallas Morning News

ELLENWOOD, Ga. A man was charged in connection with shooting a teenager who was allegedly trying to steal his car in Ellenwood on Tuesday, according to DeKalb Police.

The 30-year-old man is facing an aggravated assault charge, police said Tuesday afternoon. The DeKalb County Police Department said the 17-year-old also faces an entering auto charge.

Officers were dispatched around 8:58 a.m. near the3400 block of River Mill Lane, where they reported a 17-year-old boy had been shot. The police department has not provided an update on his condition.

During their investigation, officers said the teen and two others are accused of breaking into a car at the address. Police said they were trying to take the vehicle when the homeowner came out to confront the group.

The homeowner then shot the 17-year-old, police said, while the two others ran off. DeKalb Police have not released any information on the other two people connected to the incident.

Many are wondering why the homeowner was not protected from being charged due to Georgia's Stand Your Ground law, O.C.G.A. 16-3-23.1. However, according to an Atlanta attorney, the circumstances weren't right.

"It (Georgia's Stand Your Ground law) was meant to protect your home, your vehicle; it also gives you the right to protect others," Attorney Jonathan Ross said.

In most cases, Ross said, the stand-your-ground law only protects the car if someone is inside or getting in or out. Not if you are far away and a threat is not approaching you.

"If you bring yourself to the danger, you are the initial aggressor; you dont have the right to be protected by the stand your ground law," Ross added.

The law draws a fine line emphasizing first that a person is being threatened for their life before it protects the property.

"Unless they came at him, then he would have the right, or if they presented a firearm or something that would have shown an elevation of... circumstances," Ross said.

According to the law, people have the right to protect themselves and others in public places, Ross said, but again, only when a deadly threat is approaching them.

See more here:
Man charged after in connection to shooting 17-year-old, who allegedly tried to steal car, DeKalb Police say - 11Alive.com WXIA

In one key respect, Ralph Yarl was fortunate. The wounds the 16-year-old suffered after being shot twice on April 13, 2023, by the owner of the house whose doorbell he rang, thinking it was where he was due to pick up his two younger brothers, did not prove fatal.

Others who have made similar mistakes have died. Take Renisha McBride, who sought help after wrecking her car in a Detroit suburb in 2013, or Carson Senfield, who entered the wrong car in Tampa thinking it was his Uber on his 19th birthday. And then there is the case of 20-year-old Kaylin Gillis, a passenger in a car that turned around in a driveway in upstate New York on April 15, 2023. What these young people have in common is that they were killed in accidental encounters with armed property owners.

As a scholar who has studied Americas love affair with guns and lethal self-defense, I have explored the history of laws that selectively shield citizens from criminal responsibility when they use force and claim self-defense. Since 2005, these stand your ground laws have spread to around 30 states, transforming the United States legal landscape.

While preexisting laws regarding justifiable use of force allowed the use of lethal force for self-defense in some circumstances, they required that people first try to retreat from a perceived threat if it was safe to do so or to seek a nonlethal solution to a hostile encounter. Stand your ground laws, meanwhile, authorize defensive violence without a duty to retreat, wherever a person may legally be. Some also expand the circumstances in which someone could use lethal force to defend property.

Although the laws appear to apply to all law-abiding citizens, research shows that they are not equitably enforced, and that they may be emboldening property owners to shoot first and question their actions later, even when there is no real threat of harm.

Certainly that seems to be the case with the shooting of Yarl. The wounding of the Black teen, who was simply trying to pick up his siblings, generated widespread outrage, especially when Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves suggested that investigators would consider whether the shooter an 84-year-old white man might have recourse to the states stand your ground law as a defense against prosecution.

Given that the encounter took place on the shooters property, there is a possibility the shooter could find legal protection in the castle doctrine, which allows someone to use reasonable force without first trying to retreat in self-defense in their home. But he would still have to show reasonable cause for firing two shots at the unarmed teen standing at his front door.

It seems that in the case of Yarl, state prosecutors believe that the bar of reasonable cause was not met. Andrew D. Lester, the homeowner, has since been charged with two counts: assault in the first degree and armed criminal action.

This does not preclude the defense from invoking Lesters right to stand his ground and use force in self-defense, if his lawyers can show Lester truly believed Yarl posed a real threat.

Missouris stand your ground law, in place since 2016, removes the duty to retreat anywhere a person may legally be, even beyond ones castle. But you still need to prove that force is used reasonably, that it was not carried out in aggression or anger, and that there was a genuine fear for your life.

Indeed, the resolution of cases like the Yarl shooting turn on a highly subjective reckoning of what counts as reasonable force, and on which side prosecution or defense bears the burden of proof.

Traditional laws on the use of force place that burden on the alleged self-defender, who must prove that their actions were reasonable. But some other states with stand your ground laws, like Florida, remove the burden of proof from the defense, placing it on the prosecution.

This means that the prosecution must prove that the alleged self-defender was truly fearful when using force. In some instances, as in the shooting of Senfield after he tried to enter a car he misidentified as his Uber, the stand your ground law becomes a shield against prosecution. No charges have been filed in that case, in large part because there were no other witnesses to contradict the shooters claim that he was in fear for his life when Senfield tried to enter his car.

Contrary to the claims of the framers and promoters of stand your ground laws, there is scant empirical evidence that the laws prevent crime. In fact, multiple studies show just the opposite.

Research on public health and crime reveals a pernicious effect of stand your ground laws on public safety, showing a correlation with increased rates of gun homicide. One study, which includes an assessment of Missouris law, found that the passage of stand your ground laws correlates with an 8% to 11% increase in firearm homicide rates.

An analysis of stand your ground cases in Florida, carried out by gun violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety, addressed the way removal of the duty to retreat encourages violent escalation; researchers suggested that over half the cases could have been resolved without loss of life.

Further, recent scholarship shows how stand your ground laws intensify existing racial injustices in the U.S. criminal legal system. A study by the think tank Urban Institute found significant discrepancies in the rate at which homicides in stand your ground cases were deemed justified, depending on the race of the shooter and the race of the deceased. White shooters were significantly more likely to to be exonerated when their victim was Black, suggesting that particularly in states with stand your ground laws white people may feel more legally empowered to use lethal force and avoid prosecution, as long as their victims are Black.

In the Yarl case, the possible presence of racial bias has not escaped the attention of Kansas City prosecutors. Lesters grandson has described his grandfather as a QAnon devotee with racist tendencies and beliefs that likely prompted his violent reaction to Yarls presence on his doorstep.

Against the backdrop of historical legacies of racial bias in the U.S., stand your ground laws intensify the risks of shooting deaths in an increasingly gun-saturated public. With laws that encourage armed citizens to use force against any perceived threat real or imagined even the most innocent mistakes and chance encounters can turn deadly.

If so, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. With the latest scientific discoveries, thoughtful analysis on political issues and research-based life tips, each email is filled with articles that will inform you and often intrigue you.

Get our newsletters

Editor and General Manager

Find peace of mind, and the facts, with experts. Add evidence-based articles to your news digest. No uninformed commentariat. Just experts. 90,000 of them have written for us. They trust us. Give it a go.

Get our newsletter

If you found the article you just read to be insightful, youll be interested in our free daily newsletter. Its filled with the insights of academic experts, written so that everyone can understand whats going on in the world. Each newsletter has articles that will inform and intrigue you.

Subscribe now

CEO | Editor-in-Chief

It helps you go deeper into key political issues and also introduces you to the diversity of research coming out of the continent. It's not about breaking news. It's not about unfounded opinions. The Europe newsletter is evidence-based expertise from European scholars, presented by myself in France, and two of my colleagues in Spain and the UK.

Get our newsletter

Head of English section, France edition

Read the original here:
'Stand your ground' laws empower armed citizens to defend property with violence a simple mistake can get you shot, or killed - The Conversation

The shooting of a teenager in Kansas City, Mo., and the killing of a woman in upstate New York in recent days have brought renewed attention to the legal protections offered to people who say they acted in self-defense or out of fear for their safety.

In Kansas City, a Black teenager was shot last Thursday when he mistakenly went to the wrong house to pick up his younger brothers. The 84-year-old white man who shot the teenager through his front door has been charged with first-degree assault; he told investigators that he thought someone was breaking into his house.

In New York, a 20-year-old woman looking for a friends house was fatally shot on Monday after the car in which she was riding went to the wrong address. The homeowner there fired shots and killed her, the authorities say; he has been charged with second-degree murder.

Missouri is one of about 30 states with a stand your ground law. New York is not, but defendants there and elsewhere can argue that their actions are protected by what is known as the castle doctrine.

Here is a guide to understanding those laws and legal principles.

In the United States, there has been a tendency over the years for legislatures and the courts to expand the right to claim self-defense to justify use of force, rather than to protect those who may be harmed by misjudgments and mistakes.

The common-law castle doctrine, established through centuries of precedent, is rooted in the idea that a persons home is their castle, and that they have a right to protect themselves while they are in it.

Castle doctrine laws sometimes known as make my day laws give people in their own homes the legal presumption of self-defense if they harm an intruder.

Stand your ground laws go further. They apply anyplace where a person has a legal right to be, not just at home, and they erode the longstanding duty to retreat, a mainstay of classic self-defense legal theory that says deadly force is justified only as a last resort, when retreat is impossible.

For example, Floridas law states that a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

That law gained wider attention in 2012, when the police in Sanford, Fla., cited it as the reason they declined to arrest George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who killed an unarmed Black teenager, Trayvon Martin. Mr. Zimmerman was later charged and acquitted.

Missouri, Florida, Texas, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania are among the states with stand your ground laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most such laws have been enacted in the last 25 years.

The prosecutor in Kansas City has said that he believes the shooting of the teenager, Ralph Yarl, 16, was not in self-defense.

S. David Mitchell, a law professor at the University of Missouri, said that a defense lawyer could try to invoke the castle doctrine, though it usually applies only when an intruder has entered the home. The front porch, Mr. Mitchell said, becomes the gray area of what constitutes ones castle, a question that a jury could consider.

Though stand your ground laws do not require a person to retreat, they do not provide a blanket defense for shooting at anyone who approaches you. Mr. Mitchell said there would also have to be an assessment of whether the shooter had a reasonable fear of being harmed.

Theres one key thing that is missing here, he said, referring to the shooting in Kansas City. There is no indication of reasonable fear that Ive seen from any of the reports.

Under New Yorks castle doctrine, people have a right to protect their homes with deadly force if they reasonably believe that someone is entering without permission and is seeking to commit a crime.

But the sheriff in Washington County, where the wrong-address shooting took place on Monday, said he believed there was no reason for the suspect, Kevin Monahan, 65, to have felt threatened when he stepped out of his house and killed Kaylin Gillis, 20.

Proponents argue that the laws allow citizens to keep themselves safe, and even that the laws deter crime, though there is no evidence of that.

Missouri was the first state to pass a stand your ground law after the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida.

The Republican-controlled Missouri General Assembly overrode the veto of Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, in 2016 to approve the legislation, which allows individuals to use force in self-defense without retreating in any location where they have the right to be. Instead of providing the right only in the home, the law created a sort of mobile self-protective bubble, said Mr. Mitchell, the law professor.

The bill was sponsored by Sen. Kurt Schaefer, a Republican from Columbia, Mo. Youre going to do whatever you need to do if your safety is in jeopardy, Mr. Schaefer said in 2016. The question is, what happens in the lawsuit after that? Are you going to be faced with liability after that?

Critics say the laws make it too easy to claim self-defense when violence could have been avoided. For criminal trials in which a defendant claims self-defense, the law puts the burden on prosecutors to try to discredit those claims.

According to some analyses, there are substantial racial disparities in rulings of justifiable homicide under the laws.

Opponents also say the laws promote violence and weaken police powers. There is moderate evidence that the laws may increase total homicide rates, according to a review of data by the RAND Corporation.

The 2013 trial and acquittal of George Zimmerman put stand your ground laws in the national spotlight. In finding him not guilty of murder or manslaughter, the trial jury agreed that Mr. Zimmerman could have been justified in shooting Mr. Martin because he feared great bodily harm or death.

In 2021, Kyle Rittenhouse claimed that he had acted in self-defense when he shot three men, killing two, during unrest following the police shooting of a Black man in Kenosha, Wis., in August 2020. The onus was on the prosecution to prove otherwise, and he was found not guilty. That case highlighted for many Americans the wide berth given to defendants who say they have acted out of fear.

This month in Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott said that he would grant a pardon to an Army sergeant who was convicted of fatally shooting a protester during a Black Lives Matter demonstration in 2020. Mr. Abbott, a Republican, cited the states strong stand your ground law as the basis for his decision.

Read more here:
What Are 'Stand Your Ground' Laws, and When Do They Apply? - The New York Times