What the Florida SYG numbers seem to be telling me

[Bazinga]

This is a cross post from a thread in GC&RKBA. It has run its course there, but I believe there is some value in it for this forum.

I spent some time on the Tampa Bay Times site and ran the numbers on every combination I could conceive. I did t-tests for two proportions using this site comparing acquittal rates for every group:

White defendant
Minority defendant
White victim
Minority victim
White on white
White on minority
Minority on white
Minority on minority
Inter-racial vs intra-racial

I compared every single option that gave a number of acquittals and a number of cases to every single other option. In the fatal cases, only two comparisons, yep two out of over 100, achieved statistical significance. They were the following:

Acquittal rate if victim is white: 56.5% (69 cases, 39 justified)
if victim is black: 78.1% (32 cases, 25 justified)
p-value: 0.0246

Acquittal rate for white on white: 58.8% (51 cases, 30 justified)
for white on minority: 83.3% (12 cases, 10 justified)
p-value: 0.0694

You'll note that these comparisons are very similar in that only the victim's race appears to be important, and it was this first statistic that was the star player in the Tampa Bay Times article headlined "Uneven application, shocking outcomes." In fact, that article led me to do this analysis to see if the difference was statistically significant and if the TBT was telling the whole story. It would seem to me that if the law was being applied unevenly as claimed by the TBT, there should be some reflection of that in the way defendants are treated. I failed to find a single comparison of defendants that reached statistical significance. These are some of the more obvious comparisons.

The disparity in cases with black victims vs white victims led me to this comparison:

Acquittal rate for white on black: 85.7% (7 cases, 6 justified)
Acquittal rate for black on black: 65.4% (26 case, 17 justified)
p-value: 0.2456

Similarly if we compare white defendants to black defendants we get:

Acquittal rate for white defendants: 61.5% (65 cases, 40 justified)
Acquittal rate for black defendants: 68.6% (35 cases, 24 justified)
p-value: 0.4816

And comparing white on black to black on white yields this:

Acquittal rate for white on black: 85.7% (7 cases, 6 justified)
Acquittal rate for black on white: 66.7% (6 cases, 4 justified)
p-value: .4392


My conclusion (and I reserve the right to be convinced otherwise) is that Florida's SYG law is applied equally to defendants of all races, however, there is a disparity in cases where the victim is a minority. I can't explain that disparity, but I have a hard time believing that it is solely a matter of racism because the the judicial system deals with defendants, not victims, and there appears to be no racial favoritism in the case of defendants.

I would very much like to hear your opinions. Also, if there are other comparisons that you would like to see, let me know and I will do my best to run the numbers. The Tampa Bay Times has a tally of how many cases are initiated by the victim (as opposed to the defendant), but unfortunately it does not break down how many of those case were deemed justified. I think it would be very telling if the acquittal rate is higher when the victim initiates vs when the defendant initiates, as this is particularly a propos to the Zimmerman trial.

note- In all of my calculations I have ignored pending cases for obvious reasons.

ps- I also reserve the right to make mistakes with the numbers. I'm a bit of a statistics amateur, but I've done my best to avoid any gross errors.

[Robb]

1. It's interesting.

These sorts of arguments never address how people with different skin colors seem to be arrested and charged at different rates.

Because we've all read about black folks shooting people in their yards or homes and not getting arrested, right?

Garbage in, garbage out.

[Bazinga]

2. I used the numbers I had

I agree it would be interesting to compare arrests and criminal charges. If you find a record of those, I would be happy to run the numbers as best I can.

I have tried to be objective and present the numbers I found in an honest manner. I believe this sort of analysis is more productive than a weekly list of irresponsible-gun-owner-anecdotes, but I do appreciate my effort being called garbage.

[Robb]

3. Of course.

[rdharma]

5. It's already been shown that you have trouble with numbers nt

[Bazinga]

11. Not sure when or where.

Care to explain?

[davidn3600]

6. Because people commit crimes at different rates

Are you suggesting that the crime rate between the races is the same and that the police and the courts are purposely letting whites off the hook? Do you have any evidence of this or are you just making an assumption based on raw numbers and not looking at why?

Crime rate is higher in black communities compared to white communities. The reason isn't because of a racist system, it's because those black communities are struggling with poverty, education, unemployment, and other issues.

[Hoyt]

4. The law sucks, p-values notwithstanding.

[spin]

7. "Stand Your Ground" was not used by the defense so you must dislike the self defense law ...

in Florida. I have to ask a question. Do you agree with the concept of allowing a victim to use an appropriate level of force to stop an attack. Of course that would mean that you could only use lethal force if you had good reason to fear for your heath or your life. The standard would be that a reasonable man standing in your shoes would have agreed with your decision.

On the use of "Stand YOur Ground" in the Zimmerman trial:

The Stand Your Ground Law And The Zimmerman Trial
Published 1, July 20, 2011
Jonathan Turley


***snip***

However, it is my comment about the SYG law that I wanted to address. There is a common misunderstanding about the case. Many people believe that SYG was used as a defense. This mistaken view has been reinforced by people, including the President, calling for a national campaign against the law. (To his credit, he did not expressly claim that the law played a role at trial). In fact, the defense elected to present a traditional case of self-defense. SYG was waived pre-trial by the defense, which did not seek immunity under the law. As the Florida Supreme Court has stated, it is the immunity provision is generally referenced as the Stand Your Ground law. Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (2010) (discussing “immunity from criminal prosecution pursuant to section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2006), commonly known as the ‘Stand Your Ground” statute.’”) The point of the law was to avoid the need for a criminal or civil trial entirely due to the immunity grant. Id. (“While Florida law has long recognized that a defendant may argue as an affirmative defense at trial that his or her use of force was legally justified, section 776.032 contemplates that a defendant who establishes entitlement to the statutory immunity will not be subjected to trial.”).

Some people have insisted that SYG was applied in the case as a defense through Judge Nelson’s jury instructions. This is understandable given the fact that the jury instructions state that there is no duty to retreat. The jury was told that if Zimmerman “was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed [as above].”

However, the common law does not impose a duty to retreat. It preexisted the SYG law in most states. If it didn’t, hundreds of thousands of cases of self-defense would have had different results after people defended themselves rather than flee. Indeed, this is a point that I often made in opposing these laws: you already have the right to defend yourself and not to retreat. There are slight difference in the jury instruction among the states, including Florida, but the Zimmerman instructions reflected the general common law standard for self-defense and the justified use of force. If the President was referring to the no duty to retreat rule in his call for reform, he would have to change not the SYG laws but the common law in the majority of states. This has been a rule either through statute or common law for a long time. The change would require citizens to retreat or flee when attacked in most cases or lose the defense in the use of lethal force.

There has been much to do about the inclusion of an instruction that “If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.” That is also found in many states though some states have different burdens of proof. That is not a reflection of SYG immunity but a state preference in self-defense cases generally. As noted above, the legislation that included the immunity provision also adopted the common law rule on self-defense. You have no duty of retreat in many states that do not have a formal SYG law. Many people who may not like the immunity provision (barring criminal prosecution) would likely support the common law rule that, once attacked, you do not have to flee in order to claim self-defense in the use of lethal force. Note that in cases of non-lethal force, there is no such rule even in retreat states and, under the common law, you must still show that your use of lethal force was commensurate with the threat.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/20/the-stand-your-ground-law-and-the-zimmerman-trial/

[Hoyt]

9. SYG was used, because the law enacted in 2005 changed definition of "self-defense."

Further, juror B37 mentioned SYG and judge's instructions did as well.

Besides, Zman - who was training 3 days a week to beat people up, and carrying a gun in case his training failed - did not use appropriate force against an unarmed teenager Zman had stalked and scared.

You can support the gun carrying bigot, and Florida's NRA law, but the fact is Zimmerman created the situation and made up the self-defense claim.

If it were me, I'd rethink carrying your gun in the future.

[spin]

13. First, I am not a Zimmerman supporter. ...

In numerous posts I have said that had Zimmerman merely stayed in his vehicle that rainy night, Martin would still be alive. To me it seems obvious that Zimmerman went looking for trouble and found it.

As you know, I legally carry on a regular basis. I wouldn't find a kid wearing a hoodie on a rainy night suspicious even if I lived in a gated community with a high crime rate.

As far as the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida, I believe that it needs a rewrite as the wording is ambiguous and confusing enough to have allowed the court system to release a some individuals who should have had to face a jury.

You keep insisting that the "Stand Your Ground" law was used by the jury but the Florida self defense law that existed prior to the passage of "Stand Your Ground" also had no duty to retreat in the situation Zimmerman was in. How do you retreat when you are on the ground with your opponent sitting on top of you?

From the link I provided:

Some people have insisted that SYG was applied in the case as a defense through Judge Nelson’s jury instructions. This is understandable given the fact that the jury instructions state that there is no duty to retreat. The jury was told that if Zimmerman “was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed [as above].”

However, the common law does not impose a duty to retreat. It preexisted the SYG law in most states. If it didn’t, hundreds of thousands of cases of self-defense would have had different results after people defended themselves rather than flee. Indeed, this is a point that I often made in opposing these laws: you already have the right to defend yourself and not to retreat. There are slight difference in the jury instruction among the states, including Florida, but the Zimmerman instructions reflected the general common law standard for self-defense and the justified use of force. If the President was referring to the no duty to retreat rule in his call for reform, he would have to change not the SYG laws but the common law in the majority of states. This has been a rule either through statute or common law for a long time. The change would require citizens to retreat or flee when attacked in most cases or lose the defense in the use of lethal force....emphasis added
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/20/the-stand-your-ground-law-and-the-zimmerman-trial/

That's why I asked you if you support any form of self defense. You sidestepped that question.

I'll add another question which you will probably avoid. If a person approaches you in an aggressive manner and tries to grab you, you obviously have the right to resist his efforts with appropriate force. But do you have the right to continue to beat him after he has stopped his attack? Does he lose all rights to defend his life or health simply because he started the fight? If this were true why couldn't a person provoke another person into throwing the first punch and then overcome him and beat him until he is dead?

But we have no idea what happened that night. Perhaps Zimmerman was very aggressive and flashed his gun to scare Martin. If so Martin would have good reason to fear for his life and attempt to disarm Zimmerman. He would legally be standing his ground. Zimmerman would have broke the law when he displayed his weapon to intimidate Martin. Unfortunately Martin is not alive to explain what happened.

[Hoyt]

14. I definitely support self defense, however as soon as someone straps on a gun,

it becomes very difficult to determine whethe it was truly self defense, a callous person shooting another when alternatives were not pursued because of the gun, or a person on medication that alters judgement, pissed off at traffic, work, etc. I'm sorry anyone who straps a gun on should be suspect when another is shot because it is not enough for you to have felt threatened.

[spin]

15. You seem to forget that the standard is that a reasonable man in your shoes ...

would agree that your actions are justified.

For example if two people are arguing and one sprays the other with a hose, this is not an attack which would justify lethal force let alone any force. On the other hand a man attacks another man who was merely walking down the street with a knife. In this case lethal force would be appropriate.

Since 2005 when the "Stand Your Ground" law passed in Florida the Tampa Bay Times reports that this defense has been used somewhere between 200 and 250 times. Obviously some of those incidents were justifiable self defense and others have been murderers attempting to claim self defense and stand your ground in hope of avoiding punishment. The view the report visit: http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/data

When you consider that almost 1,000,000 residents of Florida have concealed carry permits and the number of cases that have occurred involving "Stand Your Ground" I find that your fears about the use of medication causing bad judgement or anger management problems involving those who have carry permits seems to be greatly exaggerated.

Obviously not all people who legally carry a firearm are angels. Still the statistics do not show a major problem with that group and in fact those with concealed weapons permits handle their firearms far more responsibly than those who do not have a carry license. Since October of 1987 Florida has issued 2,479,242 concealed weapons permits of which 1,115,981 are currentlly valid. Only 168 permits have been rejected for a crime involving the use of a firearm after the license was issued. (Source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf)

Your chances of being shot by a person with a concealed weapons permit in Florida are less than yourchances of getting hit by lightning. Of course, that assumes that you are not attacking him with the intention of puttting him in the hospital or six feet under.

[Hoyt]

16. Nope. Standard is would a reasonable person have shot someone in that situation.

To me, the moment you strap a gun on, you cease to be a reasonable person in most cases. If you are taking pain meds, psychotropic drugs, even blood pressure meds or allergy pills, you have altered judgement.

Your chances of being shot by anyone who qualifies for a permit, but chooses not to carry, is much less. Where do you guys get your rationales for carrying guns on city streets?

Leave your guns at home.

[spin]

17. You seem to suffer from a degree of paranoia. ...

Now you're worried about people who take high blood pressure medication and have carry permits. How many cops take high blood pressure medication?

Out-of-Control Blood Pressure Higher for Cops & Firefighters
Linda Thrasybule, MyHealthNewsDaily Contributor | September 27, 2012 05:23pm ET

Firefighters and police officers are less likely to know they have high blood pressure and to take medicine to treat the condition compared with workers in many other occupations, a recent study suggests.

Researchers looked at whether a person’s occupation played a role in high blood pressure. Out of nearly 7,000 U.S. workers, 1 in 5 had high blood pressure.

Among police officers and firefighters, 25 percent had high blood pressure, but only about 50 percent of those knew it. In contrast, 73 percent of people working in sales and 78 percent of people working in service occupations, such as food service or health service, who had high blood pressure were aware of their condition.

***snip***

The findings suggest a need to better manage high blood pressure among workers in protective services, a category that also includes security workers, along with police and firefighters.
http://www.livescience.com/23535-high-blood-pressure-police-firefighters.html

The article is recommending that police and firefighters get treatment for high blood pressure. Surely if high blood pressure meds altered judgement as much as you suggest, the medical establishment would recommend that cops on high blood pressure meds would be relieved of an duties involving carry a firearm.

Even pilots can take medication for high blood pressure.

The FAA and Hypertension

Gone are the days in which a diagnosis of hypertension meant the end of one's flying career. This welcome change in regulations and attitudes in Oklahoma City has paralleled the vast improvement in understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of the disorder.

In simplest form, the regulations state that if you have sustained and multiple blood pressure readings of greater than 155/95 you must have a medical evaluation and begin a treatment program. The medical evaluation is designed to demonstrate that you have not suffered any significant complications from hypertension, such as described in this article, that might make unsafe the operation of an aircraft.

Once your blood pressure returns to the normal range and you have demonstrated no adverse effects from the medications, you can receive a medical certificate. Your treating physician will need to supply your AME with several items of information about your evaluation and treatment. This usually includes an EKG and sometimes a blood workup. Provided that the information reveals good blood pressure control with acceptable side effects and no evidence of organ damage from hypertension, your AME can issue your normal certificate. This information is summarized at http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-300/bpinfo.html.
http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181932-1.html

[Hoyt]

19. High blood pressure is common in anxious people, exactly those who should not carry guns.

You - as one who straps a gun on to venture out - shouldn't speak of paranoia.

[spin]

21. Why. I'm not afraid. If my situational awareness fails me I have the ability to defend myself ...

even if I am attacked by someone with a knife or a gun.

I doubt that that will ever happen as actually our country is not all that dangerous. Still I might be a good target for a predator as I am an elderly citizen with a bad limp. Predators tend to pick on the weakest members of the herd.

If I am attacked by someone who intends to put me in a hospital or six feet under, I intend to do my best to defend myself. The fact that I am armed with a .38 caliber snub nosed revolver gives me a good chance against a much younger street thug in good physical condition. He may well decide to break off his attack and run once he realizes that I am armed. That happens frequently.

I don't fear that this will ever happen but I simply wish to have a means of self defense in the unlikely chance that it does. If I was 30 years younger I might have a different view but the reality is that if an experienced martial arts expert faces a good knife fighter or a man with a .45 caliber pistol, he is at a significant disadvantage.

I was never a Boy Scout but I think their motto, "Be Prepared" makes damn good sense. There have been a number of times in my life when I have taken measures that most people do not and my preparation worked out well.

[Hoyt]

22. When, people start talking about "street thugs" it confirms my suspicion of why they carry.

[spin]

23. A person who would attack me on the street with the intention of putting me in the hospital ...

or six feet under in order to obtain my money is a street thug.

What would you call such a person?

Remember I am not a Zimmerman. I am not going to follow and then walk up to some individual on the street and challenge them. I threaten nobody.

As I have told you in the past if my situational awareness fails me and I find myself facing an individual who demands my money, I will appraise him. If he seems sane and rational , i will just give him my wallet. I can always replace my money, my credit cards and my ID. I can't replace my life or my health as easily.

So basically the individual would have to want far more than my money before I would use lethal force to defend myself. He would not be satisfied with my wallet but would want to hurt or kill me.

A thug is defined as a vicious criminal. Perhaps you are insinuating that I am a racist. Let me assure you that I define any violent criminal who would attack an innocent citizen on the street with the intention of harming him as a thug. Race or ethnic background has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Bazinga]

10. Fair enough.

I was hoping that this type of analysis could lead to a more honest and informed debate about the flaws in the law. I had seen enough threads that amounted to; "SYG sucks!" "Nuh-uh!"

I agree that the current version of SYG needs tweaking, but let's not pretend duty-to-retreat is a perfect system.

[Hoyt]

12. I think your intent is to preserve as much of this perverse law/concept as you can.

Not only does the law need to be changed, but those who strap guns on to venture out need to take a hard look at why.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. Of course it's racism. Black lives aren't considered as important

In our "justice" system.

[Katashi_itto]

18. Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied

You need to improve your spin

"Florida's "stand your ground'' law has allowed drug dealers to avoid murder charges and gang members to walk free. It has stymied prosecutors and confused judges. • It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon.

Seven years since it was passed, Florida's "stand your ground" law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.

Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim "stand your ground" as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided.

RELATED NEWS/ARCHIVE
Tampa Bay area has a long history of violent, heinous crimes
More than a Year ago
Five years since Florida enacted "stand-your-ground" law, justifiable homicides are up
More than a Year ago
Military-style children's home still open despite troubling complaints
9 Months Ago
Some law-abiding citizens claiming self-defense go to prison without invoking 'stand your ground'
10 Months Ago
Tally of 'stand your ground' cases rises as legislators rethink law
More than a Year ago

Today, the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teen, by a Hispanic neighborhood watch captain has prompted a renewed look at Florida's controversial law.

In the most comprehensive effort of its kind, the Tampa Bay Times has identified nearly 200 "stand your ground'' cases and their outcomes. The Times identified cases through media reports, court records and dozens of interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys across the state.

Among the findings:

• Those who invoke "stand your ground" to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.

• Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

• The number of cases is increasing, largely because defense attorneys are using "stand your ground" in ways state legislators never envisioned. The defense has been invoked in dozens of cases with minor or no injuries. It has also been used by a self-described "vampire" in Pinellas County, a Miami man arrested with a single marijuana cigarette, a Fort Myers homeowner who shot a bear and a West Palm Beach jogger who beat a Jack Russell terrier.

• People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.

• Similar cases can have opposite outcomes. Depending on who decided their cases, some drug dealers claiming self-defense have gone to prison while others have been set free. The same holds true for killers who left a fight, only to arm themselves and return. Shoot someone from your doorway? Fire on a fleeing burglar? Your case can swing on different interpretations of the law by prosecutors, judge or jury.

• A comprehensive analysis of "stand your ground" decisions is all but impossible. When police and prosecutors decide not to press charges, they don't always keep records showing how they reached their decisions. And no one keeps track of how many "stand your ground" motions have been filed or their outcomes."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

[Bazinga]

20. That's the article I was referencing in the op

It was that article that precipitated my personal analysis. I knew the TBT was trying to present the most inflammatory and controversial numbers they could, why would they do anything different? That article fails to mention that there is no significant difference between black defendants and white defendants, and no difference in white on black cases vs black on white cases. Both of these observations severely undermine their premise of "unequal application."

I, on the other hand, have presented every significant comparison I found, and a way to replicate them. I have included the fact that there is a racial disparity in the treatment of cases. I have also included evidence that there is equal treatment among defendants of all races.

Somehow I think it is the TBT that has spun their numbers more than a dreidel on a carnival ride, not me.