Month: February 2014

“Jordan had no guns. He had no drugs. There was no alcohol. They were coming from the mall. They were being kids.” —Lucia McBath, mother of Jordan Davis

Another mother’s anguish! Another unarmed black teenager in Florida shot dead for no good reason— another indefensible instance of “Stand Your Ground” rearing its ugly head. Eight months after the stunning acquittal of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, justice again has been compromised in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Jordan Davis.

Marc Morial

On November 23, 2012, Michael Dunn, a 47-year-old white man, fired 10 rounds into a SUV after arguing over loud rap music coming from the vehicle with Jordan and three other unarmed African American teenagers.

Three of the bullets struck and killed Jordan Davis. Like George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn claimed self-defense and used Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law to bolster his justification of the killing, as his lawyer stated in his closing argument, “His honor will further tell you that if Michael Dunn was in a public place where he had a legal 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.”

Dunn claims Jordan Davis brandished a gun so Dunn shot first. But there is one big problem with his story. Jordan Davis had no gun and neither did anyone else in the SUV.

Two weeks ago, a jury found Dunn guilty of three counts of attempted murder, one for each of Jordan’s three friends, and shooting into a vehicle. But they deadlocked on the fifth count— first-degree murder in the killing of Jordan. Dunn could get at least 60 years and may spend the rest of his life in prison for the four lesser counts.

However the failure to convict him of murdering Jordan Davis raises critical questions about the devaluing of the lives of young black males in America and confirms the need for a repeal of Florida’s repugnant Stand Your Ground law that sanctions the use of deadly force by anyone who merely thinks— or claims— they are in danger from a perceived assailant.

Regardless of whether Dunn or Zimmerman chose to fully exercise Stand Your Ground provisions in their defense, this law was very clearly at the center of both cases. It is even clearer that the “shoot first” laws across the country are contributing to needless bloodshed and are ripe for unequal application based on race.

A recent Urban Institute analysis found that in Stand Your Ground states, “When the shooter is white and the victim is black, the justifiable homicide rate is 34 percent. When the situation is reversed and the shooter is black and the victim is white, shootings are ruled to be justifiable in only slightly more than three percent of cases.”

Last September, the National Urban League, in collaboration with the bipartisan Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition and VoteVets, issued a report showing that in the 22 states with “Stand Your Ground” laws, the justifiable homicide rate has risen by an average of 53 percent in the five years following their passage. In Florida, justifiable homicides have increased by 200 percent since the law took effect in 2005.

These statistics and their underlying racial disparities, tell us that expansive self-defense laws such as Stand Your Ground are doing more harm than good, and when coupled with implicit racial bias and unfounded preconceptions, young black males are especially at risk. Dunn’s own bigoted words in letters from jail clearly show his disregard for their lives, as he wrote:

“The jail is full of blacks and they all act like thugs. This may sound a bit radical but if more people would arm themselves and kill these (expletive) idiots when they’re threatening you, eventually they may take the hint and change their behavior;” and “The fear is that we may get a predominantly black jury and therefore, unlikely to get a favorable verdict. Sad, but that’s where this country is still at. The good news is that the surrounding counties are predominantly white and Republican and supporters of gun rights!”

This view and those like it are why we must commit today to action against the devaluing of our young black lives.

Even as the Michael Dunn trial was getting underway, we learned that Trayvon Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, had planned to capitalize on the death of a young black male by participating in a “celebrity” boxing match— when his only claim to fame is killing an unarmed black teenager and getting off (The bout was later cancelled). Such a blatant disregard for the value of a black male’s life should be a wake-up call to all Americans. We must intensify our fight against Stand Your Ground laws— and the underlying mentality— that justify the killing of young black men whose only “offense” is being black.

Marc H. Morial, former mayor of New Orleans, is president and CEO of the National Urban League.

While attending a church service dedicated to the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I was struck by the conflation of what the Civil Rights Movement fought against and what should be our modern-day priorities.

Hughey Newsome

In particular, the speaker at this church attempted to say the atrocities of the past remain alive today, only through a different name. Conservatives— those who fight for things such as less government intervention— are getting an unnecessary and undeserved bad rap.

There is no question the legacy and reputation of Dr. King is second-to-none. The Civil Rights Movement that secured the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and vanquished lingering vestiges of segregation and racism was wrapped in a message of equal opportunity and ensuring that all Americans are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Ironically, the historic legislation was completed with the signature of liberal President Lyndon Johnson, who, while in Congress, killed civil rights legislation in 1956, watered down the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and voted against bills to ban lynching and eliminate the poll tax (he also later callously dropped the n-word while touting the perceived political payoff of Great Society handouts— and in many other instances).

Unfortunately, like at the church service I attended, there are too many attempts made to diminish and oversimplify the African-American community’s problems by seeking to find the same overt racism now that my grandparents and great-grandparents faced back in the day.

While this may generate hype, it detracts from what I consider to be the civil rights issues of the 21st century.

To be clear, explicit racism still exists today, just as traditional bigotry has not completely died. But it does society no good to dismissively blame African-Americans’ problems on forces, which are largely ostracized today.

Attempts to categorize all arguments against Big Government approaches as extensions of this bigotry, for example, takes away from constructive debate about how society can address challenges facing African-Americans.

What are the civil rights issues of the 21st century? Better yet, what current barriers do African-Americans face regarding equal opportunity and disparities in health, wealth and, most important, education (the principal driver of the other disparities)?

Having to pay overtime to police officers in Chicago to escort schoolchildren across gang territories is a 21st century civil rights issue. Paying those cops extra requires resources that could be used to buy computers and textbooks (in lieu of raising taxes or more borrowing) and is, sadly, a self-imposed disparity.

Approximately 70 percent of children being born into single-parent households is another 21st century civil rights issue. Note that when children are born into such households, their chances of imprisonment, government dependence and poverty also appear to increase.

Finding a way for African-American children to enjoy the benefits of improved education quality and not having to disproportionately attend so-called “dropout factories” is also a 21st century civil rights issue. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s school choice program saving thousands of minorities, mostly African-American kids, from failing schools should be a

diversity success story. Yet the tragedy of how the federal government wants to block it is mostly untold.

The disproportionate rate of African-American pregnancies ending in abortion— at a ratio of almost three-to-one compared to white pregnancies, according to the CDC— is a 21st century civil rights issue. Regardless of whether someone is pro-choice or pro-life, the stark discrepancies in abortion rates in poor African-American communities should cause anyone concerned with civil rights to take pause. But far too little attention is paid to this dramatic statistic.

Next year, and in years to come, when I attend church services dedicated to Dr. King and his legacy I want to hear more about self-empowerment and addressing 21st century civil rights issues. I don’t want rants about straw man racists.

Unfortunately, such a message is not politically expedient. So my expectations are tinged with skepticism.

Hughey Newsome, a business consultant in the D.C. area, is a member of the national advisory council of the black leadership network Project 21. Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.