GOOD

The Killings Of Black Men Are More Likely To Be Labelled ‘Justifiable’

How a quirk of legalese placed millions of black Americans in jeopardy.

When George Zimmerman went on trial four years ago for the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, the Sanford (Florida) Police Department sent a request to the state’s attorney asking whether his death would be determined a “justifiable homicide.” Under Florida’s “stand your ground” laws, such a designation would allow Zimmerman to claim his killing of Martin occurred in self-defense — and he did so, successfully.

By the time the jury delivered a “not guilty” verdict for Zimmerman in 2013, “self-defense” had become an increasingly common rationalization for homicide cases in the U.S. as “stand your ground” laws proliferated state-by-state. In Florida, the rate of justifiable homicide rose 200% from 2005, when “stand your ground” went into effect, to 2013.


[quote position="right" is_quote="true"]The vast majority of killings of whites are committed by other whites, contrary to some folk wisdom.[/quote]

A new report by the Marshall Project published this month, which examines FBI data about 400,000 civilian homicides, finds that cases are far more likely to be determined “justifiable homicides” when the killer is white and the victim is black. In fact, while justifiable homicides only constituted 2% of all cases, that percentage swelled to 17% when the cases involved a white civilian killing a black civilian. According to the authors of the Marshall Project report:

“The vast majority of killings of whites are committed by other whites, contrary to some folk wisdom, and the overwhelming majority of killings of blacks is by other blacks. … But killings of black males by white people are labeled justifiable more than eight times as often as others. This racial disparity has persisted for decades and is hard to explain based solely on the circumstances reported by the police data.”

The phrase “justifiable homicide” is one of those oddities of a justice system that seeks to make room for human fallibility in legal classification and language — for example, homicides committed by domestic violence victims against their abusers. But these adjustments for the failures of human judgment end up accommodating prejudices and biases that disproportionately benefit nonblack defendants and victimize black victims. “It's not just white-on-black self-defense claims,” says Jody David Armour, a professor of law at the University of Southern California. “It's any self-defense claims that include a black victim, whether the shooter is white, black, Latino, or Asian.”

Jody David Armour. Photo courtesy of the University of Southern California.

Armour is the author of “Negrophobia and Reasonable Racism: The Hidden Costs of Being Black in America,” a 1997 book that examined how unconscious racism against black people manifests systemically in institutions like the justice system.

The key legal test for determining whether a homicide was justifiable is something called the “reasonable person standard,” says Armour — in cases involving civilians or a police officer. The test asks one simple question: Would a reasonable person in this situation detect an imminent threat by the victim?

“The way the law defines 'reasonable' is not 'rational,'” says Armour. “Reasonable does not mean right. All reasonable means is 'typical.' 'Ordinary.' You're a reasonable person if you're an ordinary person, if you're the average person.”

A person’s “reasonableness” insulates them from accountability when their mistakes are determined to fall within the spectrum of “typical” human behavior and inadequacy. “The reasonable person test says you don't condemn somebody who's just expressed ordinary human frailty in whatever they've done,” says Armour. But human failure is not always natural or predetermined — it’s often influenced by the social environments in which we are raised.

“The problem with the ‘typical is reasonable’ approach, which is the one we use in a court, is that it would let off the hook a lot of, for example, Germans in Nazi Germany in 1939 or 1940,” adds Armour. “If they could say, ‘Hey, I was anti-Semitic but it was typical to be anti-Semitic. You can't blame me for being anti-Semitic if most people around me were.’”

[quote position="full" is_quote="true"]When someone white initiated the same bump, the subject was much more likely to interpret it as merely horseplay or dramatized.[/quote]

Though Charlottesville made it clear that anti-Semitism is on the rise in America, racism is undeniably a foundational characteristic of contemporary American society, embedded in the body politic. So it stands to be argued that a “reasonable” person in the United States is likely a racist one, too.

“We know that at an unconscious level, ordinary people harbor negative stereotypes about blacks,” says Armour. “And among those stereotypes that ordinary people harbor about blacks are that blacks are more violent and crime-prone. That stereotype can operate unconsciously, automatically.”

A 1976 study by University of California, Berkeley, professor Birt Duncan exemplifies the ways in which these unconscious beliefs function in real life. Duncan made his subjects — of varied races — view and evaluate a taped interaction between two people having a discussion about another colleague’s job placement. The conversation becomes heated, and one of them gets up to leave, “ambiguously” bumping the other person on their way out.

“When someone black initiated that ambiguous bump, the subjects were much more likely to interpret the bump as hostile or violent. When someone white initiated the same bump, the subject was much more likely to interpret it as merely horseplay or dramatized,” says Armour. This pattern of judgment was the same whether the subject was black or white. These findings reveal how “ordinary” Americans have been socialized to read aggression into the behaviors and movements of black people — behaviors that would otherwise be read as nonthreatening when performed by a white people.

A rally and march to demand justice for Trayvon Martin in Union Square in New York in 2012. Photo by Michael Fleshman/Flickr.

“If 'reasonable' means 'typical,' then the question becomes, 'Does a typical person in America consider race, consider blackness, when they're assessing the dangerousness of an ambiguous or suspicious person?’” asks Armour. “And the tragic truth is, study after study shows — and we know it if we just consult our own intuition — that ordinary people in America, ordinary people do consider race when they're assessing someone's dangerousness.”

This is why, for example, black men frequently observe white women clutching their purses a little tighter when they walk past them on the street. It’s a psychological tic that reporter Frederick H. Lowe explored in an article for the Chicago Reader called the “The Clutch of Fear,” calling it a form of racist signaling. In it, he interviewed psychiatrist Carl Bell, who said: "It's a nonverbal kinetic that wears at a black man's self-esteem. A white woman sees a black man and she instantly stereotypes him as someone who plans to rape and rob her.”

There is a mental tax for these kinds of interactions, levied mostly against black men. “This type of projection depletes a black man's energy because he constantly thinks about it,” said Bell. “It limits his mobility. And it impinges on his life, because he's constantly kept off guard, preventing him from focusing on other issues."

And in places where guns are easily accessible, it’s not just a black person’s energy or mental health that is threatened — it’s their very life, as demonstrated in the case of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, an “ordinary” person, harboring many of the same prejudices that the white women in “The Clutch of Fear” cling to, determined that Martin’s behaviors were hostile and that Martin, a 17-year-old boy, posed an imminent threat to his life. Zimmerman’s possession of a gun allowed him to act on that split-second judgment with violence, taking Martin’s life.

But in the eyes of the law, Zimmerman’s killing was considered “justifiable” because his perceptions matched those of an “ordinary” jury. This legal application empties the word of its meaning — what becomes clear is that in at least one case of “justifiable homicide,” justice was not dispensed.

Features
via Collection of the New-York Historical Society / Wikimedia Commons

Fredrick Douglass was born into slavery in 1818. At the age of 10 he was given to the Auld family.

As a child, he worked as a house slave and was able to learn to read and write, and he attempted to teach his fellow slaves the same skills.

At the age of 15, he was given to Thomas Auld, a cruel man who beat and starved his slaves and thwarted any opportunity for them to practice their faith or to learn to read or write.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture
via Thomas Ledia / Wikimedia Commons

On April 20, 1889 at the Braunau am Inn, in Upper Austria Salzburger located at Vorstadt 15, Alois and Klara Hitler brought a son into the world. They named him Adolph.

Little did they know he would grow up to be one of the greatest forces of evil the world has ever known.

The Hitlers moved out of the Braunau am Inn when Adolph was three, but the three-story butter-colored building still stands. It has been the subject of controversy for seven decades.

via Thomas Ledia / Wikimedia Commons

The building was a meeting place for Nazi loyalists in the 1930s and '40s. After World War II, the building has become an informal pilgrimage site for neo-Nazis and veterans to glorify the murderous dictator.

The building was a thorn in the side to local government and residents to say the least.

RELATED: He photographed Nazi atrocities and buried the negatives. The unearthed images are unforgettable.

For years it was owned by Gerlinde Pommer, a descendant of the original owners. The Austrian government made numerous attempts to purchase it from her, but to no avail. The building has served many purposes, a school, a library, and a makeshift museum.

In 1989, a stone from the building was inscribed with:

"For Peace, Freedom

and Democracy.

Never Again Fascism.

Millions of Dead Remind [us]."

via Jo Oh / Wikimedia Commons

For three decades it was home to an organization that offered support and integration assistance for disabled people. But in 2011, the organization vacated the property because Pommer refused to bring it up to code.

RELATED: 'High Castle' producers destroyed every swastika used on the show and the video is oh-so satisfying

In 2017, the fight between the government and Pommer ended with it seizing the property. Authorities said it would get a "thorough architectural remodeling is necessary to permanently prevent the recognition and the symbolism of the building."

Now, the government intends to turn it into a police station which will surely deter any neo-Nazis from hanging around the building.

Austria has strict anti-Nazi laws that aim to prohibit any potential Nazi revival. The laws state that anyone who denies, belittles, condones or tries to justify the Nazi genocide or other Nazi crimes against humanity shall be punished with imprisonment for one year up to ten years.

In Austria the anti-Nazi laws are so strict one can go to prison for making the Nazi hand salute or saying "Heil Hitler."

"The future use of the house by the police should send an unmistakable signal that the role of this building as a memorial to the Nazis has been permanently revoked," Austria's IInterior Minister, Wolfgang Peschorn said in a statement.

The house is set to be redesigned following an international architectural competition.

Communities
via Chela Horsdal / Twitter

Amazon's "The Man in the High Castle" debuted the first episode of its final season last week.

The show is loosely based on an alternative history novel by Philip K. Dick that postulates what would happen if Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan controlled the United States after being victorious in World War II.

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Mike Mozart / Flickr

Chick-fil-A is the third-largest fast food chain in America, behind McDonald's and Starbucks, raking in over $10 billion a year.

But for years, the company has faced boycotts for supporting anti-LGBT charities, including the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and the Paul Anderson Youth Home.

The Salvation Army faced criticism after a leader in the organization implied that gay people "deserve to die" and the company also came under fire after refusing to offer same-sex couples health insurance. But the organization swears it's evolving on such issues.

via Thomas Hawk / Flickr

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes explicitly announced it was anti gay marriage in a recent "Statement of Faith."

God instituted marriage between one man and one woman as the foundation of the family and the basic structure of human society. For this reason, we believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one man and one woman.

The Paul Anderson Youth Home teaches boys that homosexuality is wrong and that same-sex marriage is "rage against Jesus Christ and His values."

RELATED: The 1975's singer bravely kissed a man at a Dubai concert to protest anti-LGBT oppression

In 2012, Chick-fil-A's CEO, Dan Cathy, made anti same-sex marriage comments on a radio broadcast:

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

But the chicken giant has now decided to change it's says its charitable donation strategy because it's bad for business...Not because being homophobic is wrong.

The company recently lost several bids to provide concessions in U.S. airports. A pop-up shop in England was told it would not be renewed after eight days following LGBTQ protests.

Chick-fil-A also has plans to expand to Boston, Massachusetts where its mayor, Thomas Menino, pledged to ban the restaurant from the city.

via Wikimedia Commons

"There's no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are," Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos told Bisnow. "There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message."

RELATED: Alan Turing will appear on the 50-pound note nearly 70 years after being persecuted for his sexuality

Instead, the Chick-fil-A Foundation plans to give $9 million to organizations that support education and fight homelessness. Which is commendable regardless of the company's troubled past.

"If Chick-Fil-A is serious about their pledge to stop holding hands with divisive anti-LGBTQ activists, then further transparency is needed regarding their deep ties to organizations like Focus on the Family, which exist purely to harm LGBTQ people and families," Drew Anderson, GLAAD's director of campaigns and rapid response, said in a statement.

Chick-fil-A's decision to back down from contributing to anti-LGBT charities shows the power that people have to fight back against companies by hitting them where it really hurts — the pocket book.

The question remains: If you previously avoided Chick-fil-A because it supported anti-LGBT organizations, is it now OK to eat there? Especially when Popeye's chicken sandwich is so good people will kill for it?

Lifestyle

Oh, irony. You are having quite a day.

The Italian region of Veneto, which includes the city of Venice, is currently experiencing historic flooding. Venice Mayor Luigi Brugnaro has stated that the flooding is a direct result of climate change, with the tide measuring the highest level in 50 years. The city (which is actually a collection of 100 islands in a lagoon—hence its famous canal streets), is no stranger to regular flooding, but is currently on the brink of declaring a state of emergency as waters refuse to recede.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet