Both state and nationwide data tell us that white-on-black killings are much more likely to be deemed justified than white-on-white, black-on-black or, especially, black-on-white killings. In states with Stand Your Ground laws such as Florida, white-on-black killings are 354 times more likely to be considered justifiable than white-on-white killings, according to a recent investigation by PBS’s Frontline. Blacks who kill whites, meanwhile, are about 70 percent more likely to have their justification claims rejected than whites who kill whites. The race of the victim plays a role too. Last year, the Tampa Bay Times conducted an exhaustive analysis of Stand Your Ground cases in Florida. In 73 percent of cases with a black victim, the killer faced no penalty, compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white person. Zimmerman didn’t exert a Stand Your Ground defense. But that Frontline report found that the same pattern holds true even in states without these laws, albeit to a lesser extent: White killers are given the benefit of the doubt, especially if their victim is black. Black killers aren’t so lucky, especially if their victim is white. Imagine for a second the races were reversed here, and a black man deemed an unarmed white teenager suspicious, followed him against police advice, shot and killed him, and claimed self-defense. Is there any chance the cops would believe him, or that he wouldn’t have found himself in handcuffs that night? Is there any chance this black neighborhood watchman would become a cause celebre on Fox News? Is there any chance that crowds of white people would show up at the courthouse, claiming him as a Second Amendment champion? Is there any chance he would have gotten away with it? The evidence suggests it’s unlikely. Like it or not – and whether Zimmerman is a racist or not – the issue of race permeates this case, just as it does our entire criminal justice system.
Posted on: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:14:22 +0000