Is the Second Amendment a tool for racism?

[Dermezel2]

Years ago a study/article was published in the law review noting that the Second Amendment was largely a tool to enforce slavery. Now we have the Zimmerman trial, and at the same time, an African-American Florida woman was sentenced to 20 years in prison, after a mere 12 minutes of deliberation for firing the gun into the air to scare an abusive husband after invoking the "Stand your Ground" law: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing

Quote:

Saying he had no discretion under state law, a judge sentenced a Jacksonville, Florida, woman to 20 years in prison Friday for firing a warning shot in an effort to scare off her abusive husband.

Marissa Alexander unsuccessfully tried to use Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law to derail the prosecution, but a jury in March convicted her of aggravated assault after just 12 minutes of deliberation.

To quote excerpts of the study:

Quote:

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

It seems as though while many things have changed, the Second Amendment seems to still serve primarily as a tool of bigotry and oppression.

“Stand your ground” law helps white defendants a lot more than black ones

[Wendigo]

He probably doesn't have any leeway, if the jury chose guilty and there's a mandatory minimum sentence involved.

EDIT: And so there was.

Quote:

So what is 10-20-Life? It was the centerpiece of Jeb Bush's 1998 run for governor and one of the first major laws he passed. It sets harsh minimum sentencing laws for those who use a gun during a crime. If you pull a gun during a crime, you'll automatically get ten years. If you shoot that gun, you'll get 20. If you actually shoot someone during a crime you'll get at least 25 years, with the maximum penalty being a life sentence.

Detractors say the law takes power out of judges' hands to grant more lenient sentences in tricky cases like Alexander's. Even former Republican legislator Victor Crist, author of the bill, says he didn't intend to target cases like Alexander's with the law.

"We were trying to get at the thug who was robbing a liquor store who had a gun in his possession or pulled out the gun and threatened someone or shot someone during the commission of the crime," Crist told the Huffington Post.

"The irony of the 10-20-Life law is the people who actually think they're innocent of the crime, they roll the dice and take their chances, and they get the really harsh prison sentences," Greg Newburn, Florida director of Families Against Mandatory Minimums told the Post. "Whereas the people who think they are actually guilty of the crime take the plea deal and get out [of prison] well before. So it certainly isn't working the way it is intended."

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2013/07/marissa_alexander_case_blame_1.php

Interesting that the "tough on crime" 10-20-Life law and the "lenient on vigilantism" Stand Your Ground law are enforced in the same state.

[Michael Noire]

tough on crime and lenient on vigilantes? Wendi is exposing Florida's secret plans for a new city: Gotham.

[Wendigo]

If you ask me, the real travesty in the Marissa Alexander case was that, when weighing putting a mother in prison for decades, the jury spent a whole twelve minutes debating.

As opposed to more than ten hours, for the Zimmerman case.

[Michael Noire]

Wendigo

If you ask me, the real travesty in the Marissa Alexander case was that, when weighing putting a mother in prison for decades, the jury spent a whole twelve minutes debating.

As opposed to more than ten hours, for the Zimmerman case.

I dedicated a whole thread to the subject of the woman and proposed an entire new amendment. The problem with me is that I tend to be willing to sacrifice the little things to preserve larger concepts. I believe when you consistently compromise on the little things, over the years, it becomes too easy to compromise on bigger and bigger issues. One compromise leads into another until you have been persuaded to send a mother to prison for NOT shooting someone.

Remember. Exceptions to the Rule are a byproduct of individualism.
in collectivist societies, there are no exceptions to the rule, only policies universally applied by all.

[omega71]

Wendigo

If you ask me, the real travesty in the Marissa Alexander case was that, when weighing putting a mother in prison for decades, the jury spent a whole twelve minutes debating.

As opposed to more than ten hours, for the Zimmerman case.

Except this is nothing like the Zimmerman case at all and comparing it to it is just showing the sad liberal hypocrisy, see first, they wanted SYG gone because of Zimmerman, even though he did not use it, now they want to bring it back to free Alexander.

But..

Sadly, this isn't a 'Stand your ground' case at all. It's a domestic argument between a married couple with a long history of abusing each other. The wife had just returned from the hospital the night before after giving birth (baby still at the hospital). She's mad at her husband because he's accused just her of having another man's baby. After retrieving a gun from a car in the garage, the wife shoots from the kitchen toward her husband who is with the kids in the living room. Using a gun to scare your husband by shooting at him is serious, especially when there are kids in in the same room or in the vicinity of where she is firing the gun. I have no problem with her getting the minimum sentence for this since she put her kids in danger first.

[Heimdalr]

Wendigo

If you ask me, the real travesty in the Marissa Alexander case was that, when weighing putting a mother in prison for decades, the jury spent a whole twelve minutes debating.

As opposed to more than ten hours, for the Zimmerman case.

Public defender. Scraped the bottom of the barrel there and got exactly what she paid for, which is to say, nothing. Not that he doesn't know his trade, judicial terminology and so on, he's probably a decent, hard-working man, but he wasn't the world class performer jurors are swayed by. Because the American people are easily bored and jury duty is shunned like a plague victim. When they realize "s**t, this is nothing like TV, boooo!" the verdict is whatever gets them home the fastest.

[Wendigo]

omega71

Except this is nothing like the Zimmerman case at all and comparing it to it is just showing the sad liberal hypocrisy, see first, they wanted SYG gone because of Zimmerman, even though he did not use it, now they want to bring it back to free Alexander.

No, I really want it gone. I want both Stand Your Ground and 10-20-Life gone. I think they're stupid laws, written by idiots, for idiots, with idiotic reasons in mind. Mandatory minimum sentences are not at all my cup of tea, in particular.

When it comes to this case, what irks me about Stand Your Ground is that it's enforced so haphazardly. In the one case, somebody dies, they let the shooter go the same day until there's a major public outcry. In the other, near-instant conviction plus twenty years mandatory minimum with no parole, although nobody died and nobody was hurt. Surely something, somewhere, is tilted.

Quote:

But..

Sadly, this isn't a 'Stand your ground' case at all. It's a domestic argument between a married couple with a long history of abusing each other. The wife had just returned from the hospital the night before after giving birth (baby still at the hospital). She's mad at her husband because he's accused just her of having another man's baby. After retrieving a gun from a car in the garage, the wife shoots from the kitchen toward her husband who is with the kids in the living room. Using a gun to scare your husband by shooting at him is serious, especially when there are kids in in the same room or in the vicinity of where she is firing the gun. I have no problem with her getting the minimum sentence for this since she put her kids in danger first.

Well, I'm looking at Gray's deposition at the moment:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/90595503/Marissa-Alexander-Alleged-Victim-Disposition

On pages 17 and 18, he says he threatened her life. She would be in the bathroom of their room a that point, while he had been out looking at her phone, which is where he discovered this evidence of what he believed to be infidelity. (They apparently both have histories with that, to go along with their 4-5 incidents of domestic violence in this relationship, and his incidents in others.)

On page 28, he says "I started walking towards her and she shot in the air," after she came back from the garage where, according to him, a malfunctioning garage door opener prevented her from leaving. (According to her, she returned for her key, which was in the house.) And then page 30, he approaches again, and "she shot in the air" again. Then he leaves through the front door with Pernell and Rico, and she shuts the door and locks it.

35-36, if the sons hadn't been there, he'd have tried to take the gun from her. Doesn't know what would have happened. Page 37, the gun was never actually pointed at me.

It sounds to me like she used the gun to defend herself in a dangerous situation, unless there's something else at play there. What would you say that X factor is?

[Hitachin]

if that's the case; why do the kkk lynch people of other races and not just shoot them?

[God Emperor Baldur]

Hitachin

if that's the case; why do the kkk lynch people of other races and not just shoot them?

They did just shoot them.

[Wendigo]

Lynching takes a lot of different forms, including beatings, shootings, hangings, and just dragging a guy behind your truck for a while.

[Hitachin]

Lord Akhenaton

Hitachin

if that's the case; why do the kkk lynch people of other races and not just shoot them?

They did just shoot them.

True, but i mean hangings were more common.
If they shot every african american they met; wouldn't there be a ton of mass graves?

[N3bu]

Hitachin

Lord Akhenaton

Hitachin

if that's the case; why do the kkk lynch people of other races and not just shoot them?

They did just shoot them.

True, but i mean hangings were more common.
If they shot every african american they met; wouldn't there be a ton of mass graves?

Lynchings are more humiliating. Larger more visible form of intimidation.

[Noogie]

Even if it wasn't just another tool for racism, it's pretty out of date. What militia is there which isn't just doing civil war re-enactments or isn't filled with fat jobless losers?

[Wendigo]

Hitachin

True, but i mean hangings were more common.
If they shot every african american they met; wouldn't there be a ton of mass graves?

Usually, they'd just kind of pick a target and kill him, then rely on efficient Southern justice to protect them.