Posted on 08/02/2013 9:46:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Feels like a surprise after so much media angst over the role of “Stand Your Ground” in Zimmerman’s acquittal — which was close to zero, by the way — but this isn’t a surprise really. Thirty-one states have SYG laws or a limited variation on them, the “Castle Doctrine” that limits SYG to your own home. Go figure that a majority of voters would endorse them when asked.
White voters support “Stand Your Ground” laws 57 – 37 percent while black voters are opposed 57 – 37 percent. Men support these laws 62 – 34 percent while women are divided with 44 percent in favor and 47 percent opposed. Support is 75 – 19 percent among Republicans and 57 – 37 percent among independent voters, with Democrats opposed 62 – 32 percent.
Voters in households where someone owns a gun back the laws 67 – 29 percent.
“‘Stand Your Ground’ splits the country sharply along political, gender and racial lines,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
“With these kinds of numbers, it’s unlikely the movement to repeal ‘Stand Your Ground’ will be successful in most of the country.”
I went looking on Google for polling on SYG before 2012 in order to see where Americans were on this before the Trayvon Martin shooting but it’s hard to come by. How many of the following numbers, then, are a reaction to the specifics of the Martin case (and the widespread albeit erroneous impression that SYG played a major role in his acquittal) and how many are a reaction to SYG in the abstract?
The most striking thing: Only among blacks and Democrats is there sharp opposition to SYG. Every other demographic, including Hispanics and famously liberal young adults, shows either strong support for Stand Your Ground or, at worst, ambivalence. That makes me think that the results here are indeed more of an abstract consideration of SYG than a reaction to the Zimmerman verdict, which was opposed by Hispanics and younger voters. Quinnipiac’s phrasing of the question might have been key. Wisely, instead of tossing in the buzzy phrase “Stand Your Ground,” which many respondents would associate with Zimmerman and Martin, they simply stated the principle of SYG and asked people to react. In fact, arguably they didn’t state it clearly enough. “Stand Your Ground” doesn’t say you’re allowed to use deadly force if you feel “threatened,” it says you’re allowed to use deadly force if you’re threatened with death or great bodily harm. If Quinnipiac had stressed that last bit, the numbers here might have been more robust than they are. No problem for Obama, though: The SYG frenzy in the media is all about freaking out Democrats so that they’ll turn out in the midterms. Given the Democratic numbers here, that’s potentially fertile ground.
Like so many of these ginned-up liberal media bandwagons, the anti-SYG movement is expressly designed to force the majority to do what they would not otherwise do.
The left has a panoply of techniques for thwarting the concept of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
It looks like the propaganda took its toll, though. I’m willing to bet that before all the media hoopla about Trayvon and Stand Your Ground, if you sat Americans down and explained Stand Your Law Ground laws to them, a much higher percentage would have had a favorable view of these laws.
The bottom line, for me, is...if some thug is a straddle me, beating my head into the concrete, and I have a gun, I’ll blow him away...stand-your-ground laws won’t enter my mind, but self defense to save my own life will. SYG was never a part of the trial, it was about self-defense.
Lemmings.
I have no opinion one way or another about any “SYG laws” but any two bit thug who tries to kill me the way Martin tried to kill Zimmerman, is definitely taking his own worthless life into his own hands. Like most Americans, I won’t allow the knuckledragging thug get away with it if I’m armed.
This is a liberal polling outfit as well, but I agree. The right to defend yourself should be polling up in to the upper sixties on a poll.
You're right - 'Stand your ground' was never a part of the trial... BUT blacks being the most violent ethnic group in the United States it makes sense they would be against people being able to defend themselves and not getting sued for it...
If a prison population was polled on how they feel about citizens having the right to defend themselves against violent criminals it would be 96% against that right - somewhat higher percentage than blacks in the general population - is my guess. Not that I'm comparing the black mindset to the criminal mindset - there is a difference...
How many of the 40% opposed actually know what “stand your ground” is? I betting less than 20%.
Before “stand your ground” if you shot someone and you had any way to escape, then you would be charged with at minimum manslaughter. I mean like, “so George, you could have possibly gotten Trayvon off of you and run, right. “Well possibly”. And there you go. Or, someone breaks into your home, wakes you up holding a knife. You shoot him/her. “You could have run, right? “yes”. Manslaughter or worse. The burden of guilt becomes not self defense, but weather you could have gotten away. And, that is not some far fetched examples. Happened all the time. Until “stand your ground”.
I’m sure no lawyer. Never really had it explained to me, just seemed like a common sense law. If I’m wrong then someone please set me straight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.