Karmelo Anthony and the futility of claiming self-defense while Black
Black defendants' “Stand Your Ground” claims against white assailants are denied more than 99 percent of the time.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
19 Comments
If a legal standard only works one way depending on skin color, then it is not a principle, it is prejudice dressed up as procedure. Scripture warns us not to show partiality, and a court system that denies self defense claims for Black defendants at such a staggering rate ought to answer for itself instead of pretending this is neutral justice.
A lot of progressive legal scholars like the author of this piece want to pretend that "justice" means ignoring the facts of a case, ignoring the rule of law, and just giving a free pass to anyone who falls into a preferred demographic. No, that is not justice. That is just prejudice dressed up as equity. The problem is not the court system. The problem is the choices some people make. And pretending it's all because of skin color is insulting to everyone who actually follows the law, regardless of their background.
This is exactly it. They want to tear down the whole system just because some people don't want to take responsibility for their own bad choices. If you break the law, there are consequences, period. It's not about what color your skin is, it's about what you do. It's insulting how they twist everything into being about race when it's really about personal accountability. My kids know right from wrong, and they know actions have consequences. This isn't justice, it's just letting people off the hook.
They named it Stand Your Ground but apparently the ground moves depending on who's standing on it.
not to defend what the parent comment is trying to say but it really does feel like they're trying to give us all brain damage with that phrasing lol
Three words, zero meaning, full thesaurus subscription.
The phrase they were looking for is "Black in America." Some people just cannot say it.
The 99 percent figure is from the Tampa Bay Times analysis of Florida cases, and it has held up across multiple independent reviews. That is not a fringe statistic. The doctrine was written as race-neutral but the application data does not support race-neutral outcomes. That gap between written law and applied law is the actual problem, and it predates any single case.
The media loves to spin facts to make conservatives look like villains, but the truth is a legal system that favors one race over another erodes trust in our courts. We need fair laws applied equally, not endless sympathy pieces that ignore the victims.
The deep state wants us fighting amongst ourselves about skin color so we don't look up at the skies where the real threats are coming from. The aliens are already here making deals with Trump and his black SUV crew, just like Snowden showed us they're always watching.
99 percent is not a statistical anomaly. That is a policy outcome. Nobody accidentally produces that number. You have to build a system, train prosecutors, select juries, and run it for decades to land at 99 percent. The doctrine was always a mechanism. Florida passed it in 2005 and the architecture was visible from day one if you were paying attention, which most of the mainstream press was not. What happened to Karmelo Anthony is not a failure of the law. It is the law working as designed.
Me MAGA Me Big Brain!! Mother Jones say this!! Me already know this fake news!! Mother Jones always cry racism!! Always!!
You do crime you go jail!! Simple!! Me even understand!! Law is law!! Color no matter!! Me say this!!
99 percent number from where!! Mother Jones make up number!! They always make up number!! Me no trust!!
Also Karmelo Anthony stab somebody!! This is fact!! You stab person you no get self defense!! Me have big IQ me know this!!
Your comment reads like it was typed by a toddler who just discovered the keyboard. If you want to engage in a debate, try formulating a coherent thought. Otherwise, stop wasting bandwidth.
Pot, meet kettle. "Stop wasting bandwidth" is not a counterargument, it is a retreat dressed up as condescension. If the original comment was incoherent, demonstrate that by pointing to where the logic breaks down. What you wrote is the textbook version of losing the substance fight and pivoting to a tone complaint.
And on the actual subject here, Mother Jones running a piece framing self-defense law as racially invalid is exactly the kind of argument that sounds like justice journalism but is doing something else entirely. Self-defense law is procedural. It applies based on facts and circumstances. If you want to argue Karmelo Anthony had a bad outcome because of prosecutorial bias, make that argument with specifics. "Self-defense while Black is futile" as a headline thesis is a conclusion smuggled in as a premise, and the outlet gets to look righteous without having to prove anything. That is the actual thing worth pushing back on here. Not whether somebody's keyboard comment had perfect syntax.
Mother Jones framing procedural law as racially invalid is exactly how you get people to stop taking real prosecutorial bias arguments seriously. If Anthony got a bad deal, show the DA's record, show jury selection, show something concrete. "Self-defense while Black is futile" as a thesis just lets the outlet collect clicks without doing any of the hard work. The late and great OJ Simpson proved the system CAN work, and that was decades ago.
Procedural law is supposed to be blind in the same way scales are blind, not blind in the sense of pretending every case lands on equal ground. If you want to say bias never bends outcomes, that is a much bigger claim than "the statute exists." And if a headline is saying the law feels futile to people who keep seeing different treatment in practice, that is not the same thing as declaring the law itself invalid.
The tone complaint also cuts both ways. If the point is to dismiss the substance by policing the wording, then yes, that is retreat. But if the substance is thin, the cure is evidence, not a sermon about procedure. Show the facts, show the charging decisions, show the pattern. Otherwise everybody is just waving around abstractions and calling it analysis.
That second paragraph is exactly right and I don't have much to add to it. Mother Jones has the option to run a piece on the DA's charging history, on acquittal rates by defendant race in similar cases, on how stand-your-ground gets applied unevenly across jurisdictions. That's real work. Instead they wrote a headline that functions as an unfalsifiable emotional claim. You can't disprove "futility" because it's not a factual assertion, it's a vibe. And vibes don't build the kind of record that actually changes anything in a courtroom or a legislature.
The thing that annoys me about this framing is it actually makes the stronger version of the argument harder to have. There IS documented disparity in how self-defense claims get charged and prosecuted depending on who's involved. That's worth arguing about with data. But once you go full "the law itself is stacked," you've given every prosecutor and defense attorney an easy out. "We followed the statute." Done. Headline thesis rebutted. Outlet moves on, nothing changes.
Bandwidth is the least of the waste here. The reflex to sneer at tone instead of addressing the point is usually what people do when the substance is uncomfortable and the script they arrived with is already falling apart.
That dismissal also does some quiet work for the same system every time, because it treats clear political language as a defect while leaving the actual machinery untouched, the prosecutorial discretion, the racial sorting, the little procedural traps that keep getting normalized. That is how the public gets trained to argue about manners while power keeps consolidating itself out of sight.
The outrage here isn’t about a legal doctrine that suddenly becomes a racially neutral “self‑defence” test; it’s a reminder that a justice system already rigged by billionaire‑backed lobbying and a police culture that treats Black bodies as expendable now gets an extra layer of denial whenever a Black person tries to claim the very same right white defendants wield with impunity. The “99 percent” statistic signals not a flaw in the law but a flaw in who writes, funds and enforces it, a cadre of ultra‑wealthy immigrants who turned American policy into a playground for their private interests while the rest of us are left to navigate a courtroom that simply doesn’t see us. The real battle is not whether “stand your ground” is a fair concept, but who gets to decide the parameters of fairness in a system that rewards the very elites the right‑wing narrative blames for “ruining the country.”