King Sid the Great 87 wrote: shafnutz05 wrote: Factorial wrote:
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/06/ ... d_law.html
A Tampa Bay Times analysis of almost 200 cases — the first to examine the role of race in Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” or “Kill at Will” laws — found that people who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time.
Questions of race have surrounded Florida’s controversial “Kill at Will” law since George Zimmerman killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in February. The law made national headlines because it was part of a system of laws that helped keep Zimmerman out of jail for more than a month.
The study found that regardless of what race the killer was, if the victim was black they were more likely to walk free.
1) The difference between 59% and 73% isn't as remarkable or as significant as I think you want it to be. Those numbers are relatively close.
2) As to some of the "fuzziness" shmenguin mentioned, do we know the circumstances of all of these cases? As to the person that was shot in every single one of those scenarios, where were they and how much of a threat did they pose to the person that fired the gun?
The fact they are trying to play up this study is a joke. As I stated before, 14% is not enough of a statistical difference to be proof that "black and brown" men are victimized to a large extent over white people. Further, without knowing the details of every single one of those cases, this study is meaningless.
What's your null hypothesis and at what level of alpha did you test this to conclude that 14% is not statistically significant?
Im not speaking for anyone but here is my breakdown to answer your question:
200 TOTAL OVERALL cases is not enough to determine a statistical advantage when you do not factor in circumstances and further breakdown the numbers. Of those 200, how many where white killing black, and black killing white? (For example: That 200 could become say 100, and if its an equal amount of each you have a difference of 7 cases, 7 cases without knowing anything about them including if the person shot was murdered).
Furthermore, the entire study only accounts for "Stand Your Ground" laws, not if the person murdered. Just "fought back against in some way". How many people got off because they shot an intruder in the leg as a warning shot? Big difference there.
If you read up on the cases the differences also lists weapon: things like a gun or a chair (yes, read the study a chair is one of the weapons as is a bat
and even "NONE". Yes someone used stand your ground for most likely punching someone)
Its a crap study, and before listing 73% vs. 59% there are so few cases they should actually list how many of each we are talking about, then breakdown how many were murders or fist fights (or chairs) and breakdown the numbers that way.
I would bet that the numbers for each (murder, gun, fight, chair) when looked at directly and compared there are very few statistical difference. As well as we would need to look at those individually anyways - have more blacks killed whites and used this law? Is the difference in numbers because less whites have killed and more have used this law in a bar fight?
Terrible, awful, disgusting and slanted study.