Trayvon Martin

New Anti-Stand Your Ground PSA Reenacts Trayvon Martin Killing


(AllHipHop News) The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence’s new public service announcement against the Stand Your Ground laws uses the tragic situation most associated with the controversial statutes to gather support for repeal of the laws. The 90-second clip features a reenactment of the night Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman and uses actual 911 audio from the incident.

[ALSO READ: NAACP Introduces “Trayvon’s Law” Legislative Response To Martin’s Killing]

The ad was produced by Floyd Russ and paid for by crowdfunded donations.

The CSGV issued a statement on its website about Stand Your Ground Laws that read in part:

With “Stand  Your Ground” (aka “Shoot First”) laws, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its partners in the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have turned 3,000 years of jurisprudence on its head. Now you can provoke a fight, and if losing that fight, kill the person you attacked.

The NRA’s laws represent a dangerous and unprecedented escalation in the use of force in the public space, allowing individuals to kill when they merely fear “great bodily harm” (i.e., a fistfight, shoving match, etc.).

[ALSO READ: Talib Kweli Joins Stand Your Ground Protest In Florida]

Watch the “Stand Up To ‘Stand Your Ground'” PSA below.


via

  • Dointer

    Americans, I by no means am a law maker, or a politician. One thing I do possess is a fair understanding of common sense ( as most of us do). Each shooting I see your in your country (gang related, or via massacre) can easily be avoided by doing one thing…..Outlawing the F****ing guns……By no means am I saying that my country does it better, or have better values… All I ask is for you to watch this short video on my countries ex- leader who brought about an anti gun law after a massacre we had. …….Word up to my fellow hip hop lovers from across the pacific….youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE

    • Dointer

      It makes a comedic mockery of one of the NRA dudes.

    • What about each shooting involving a brutal police officer, and an unarmed, unresisting victim? Youtube Oscar Grant’s shooting, or watch the film Fruitvalle.

      They study your country’s history, and ask would it even exist if it weren’t for it’s unarmed aborigines population.

      • Dointer

        I think the excessive use of force by policemen (with guns) would decline if there was a complete ban on weapons most certainly. It seems that just because people are allowed to carry them , it immediately becomes the excuse from police that they thought they were holding one.

        And as far as the aboriginies, just another sad case of the power hungry europeans F**cking everyone elses shit up for their own benefit.

      • Maybe, but the founding fathers were pretty specific about protecting the population from a tyrannical government & it’s genocidal pograms like Black Wall Street, Rosewood (*Movie ) etc..

      • davidvoth

        The phrases “policemen (with guns)” and “a complete ban on weapons” are mutually exclusive.

      • Dointer

        My point was that if there was a ban on guns (for the public), it would limit the excuse for police to use their own. For they would have to assume based on laws that the victim was not carrying one. Which we know in many cases has been so.

      • davidvoth

        That sounds like wishful thinking. Police are aware of the fact that there are a lot of firearms in this country. Banning them (for the public) would not cause any police officer with any sense to assume that someone he or she already suspects of a crime is not armed.

        If such a ban were possible (and I believe it is not), it would be decades before it had any real effect on availability of weapons to people who are willing to break the law.

      • Dointer

        I guess we are both discussing a scenario that not enough people are willing to engage in. I do agree with you that the ban is near that of impossible. Its a hard topic.

    • Sean Taylor

      You do realize that there are a LOT of felons w/ guns in America and there are a lot of illegal weapons here too as well as drugs etc. Point I’m trying to make is we will ALWAYS be able to get anything that is “outlawed”.

      Having a gun band won’t stop sh*t here in the U.S.

      • Dointer

        I am fully aware of that , but it will make it harder for them to be attained.

      • Lemur!

        Name one instance where guns had been banned, and the overall murder rate did not climb.

        Name one instance where gun proliferation of over 300,000,000 firearms existed, and a gun ban policy was successful and resulted in a drop in gun crime, or any crime for that matter.

        Name one country with 138 urban areas with populations over 150,000 people that has better rates than the US.

        I understand why you have come to the conclusions you have. However, cross referenced data often does not include these sorts of very important variables that cannot afford to be over looked.

      • Dointer

        Im not sure the point of referencing all those digits when the United states is the only country with those statistics you mentioned. It would be of sheer magic coincidence that a city with those statistics existed elsewhere. Perhaps you could look at areas like Australia where it has had benefits and simply upscale it.

      • Dointer

        If something of the like prevented at least one murder per year. I dont see how it could be deemed a failure.

      • Lemur!

        The CDC just concluded a study that found on average that guns are used upwards of 3,000,000 times a year to deter crimes. So, if keeping guns saves one extra life over the total amount of lives lost, then it’s a net gain for lives saved.. Don’t worry. I was being sarcastic.

        We all are trying to prevent any life from being taken. The issue is we have seen in some places like in the US that allowing citizens to carry guns may actually reduce the homicide rate.

        Take Vermont for example. a state with the second lowest homicide rate, and one of the highest gun ownership rates in the country. An entire state with more guns per person than some branches of the military, and a homicide rate lower than the UK’s. It seems that a high gun ownership rate may save lives, if you took Vermont for example.

        The problem is there is no uniform solution to gun violence, and the availability of guns is not the key defining factor in many municipalities. I don’t want to sit and cherry pick data here. But you do have to realize that guns do exist. the Utopian fallacy that the elimination of some guns from some people will equal less gun violence is an oversimplification of a very dynamic, and nuanced issue.

      • Dointer

        Considered.

      • Lemur!

        That is exactly my point. You can’t cherry pick policies from places that “work” while ignoring facets of an entire nation that can drastically effect policy’s effectiveness.

        First, you can’t simply “scale up” policy. One of the very first things you learn in governance is that you can’t just scale up a policy. It is an oversimplified, and naive way to look at a situation.

        Secondly, cross referencing data sets is not a very efficient means of compiling usable data when considering policy. As, you are not able to have set values for controls. With complexities ranging from everything under the sun, including, gun ownership rate, boarding countries, illegal arms proliferation, rate of organized crime, economic stability, non-violent crime rates, narco-drug trade, internal corruption, population density, enforcement officer rate, criminal justice systems… Just to name a few, any one of the enumerated examples being able to offset a the logical outcome of even the simplest of directives. To not acknowledge that even the most minute details could dynamically offset the desired outcome in proposed policy is naive at best. It is illogical to use other nations as if they where piebalds operating within set social controls.
        The most evident, and direct example for this point is that countries such as the UK, AU, and so on never actually had gun violence issues near parody with the United States. This will segaway to my next point.

        We also have to consider that gun control made matters worse for all of the countries named in the “gun control works” model.

        When the UK instated their handgun ban that they laud as a huge victory for gun control, and a lasting testament to the effectiveness of such policies they saw a spike in their murder rate. Starting in 1997 the England and Whales murder numbers where 586 total murders. Mind you that the way the British justice system characterizes a homicide is different than the FBI. Namely a homicide is tallied by different standards. So, if a corner in the UK is not sure beyond a reasonable doubt, the cause of death would not be classified as a homicide in the statistics[6]. (just to point out that for accurate numbers the definition leading to the statistics should be the same) Now, the homicide rate in the UK jumped from 586 homicides in 1997 when the ban was passed to 942 in 2003[7]. This was also a steady climb to the 2003 number of homicides. Not to mention the UK murder rate only reached parody of it’s pre-ban homicide rates in 2009[8] Still, what did the strict new gun control laws passed in 1997 do as far as gun murder rates? Well…. nothing. Even to this day the gun murder rate is slightly higher than it was before the 1997 handgun ban. With the rate being .05 per 100,000 in 1996 and recently being higher in 2011 at .06 per 100,000 [8] we are not seeing any huge reductions by the restrictions added in 1997. If anything we see that other crime rates had actually risen post 1997. With the UK being ranked the second most violent country in the EU,[10] is there gun control anything to brag about? Considering with the eventual fall to pre-ban homicide, rates in the UK was the hiring of an additionally near 20,000 constables in 2003. Bringing the country wide total from around 120,000 to 140,000 in just 3 years[11].

        Now, we should at least see a static rate of homicide, and other gun related crime when you impose strict new gun laws. To justify the salaries of an additional 20,000 law enforcement officers you would want to at least see a reduction in not only gun crime, but homicide, and other crime as well. Yet the justification simply does not exist when you add up the net effect of the strict gun control in the UK. The myth of effective gun control in the UK is widely believed. Yet, we see that the UK never really had a problem with guns to begin with. And once they where removed by the new law, other crime rates began to rise, and the overall homicide rate spiked. How can we justify a policy that does not adversely effect the very crimes that justified the policy in the first place?
        Hardly what we call effective gun control.”

    • davidvoth

      I doubt that you really men outlawing guns. You probably mean changing the law so that only government employees can have guns.

  • Reblogged this on HUEY mix wit RILEY.

  • Pingback: SoundwavezRadeo » New Anti-Stand Your Ground PSA Reenacts Trayvon Martin Killing()

  • Pingback: New Anti-Stand Your Ground PSA Reenacts Trayvon Martin Killing | Hip Hop WorldWide()

  • Pingback: New Anti-Stand Your Ground PSA Reenacts Trayvon Martin Killing - I Am Mo Better()

  • Lemur!

    Now, had Zimmerman’s defense actually used “stand your ground” as a defense, then I would see this. This is just blatant pandering to emotion without stating a single fact. Again, most notably, that “stand your ground” was not part of the Trayvon Martin shooting at all.

  • Andy

    What a suprise. You have no problem covering events that you want to cover, but then ignore the ones you don’t care about. You should be covering Travyon Martin, no disputing that. But then you go ignore the story that has come out in the last few days about 2 African American teens and 1 Caucasion teen in Oklahoma who murdered an Australian baseball player. And they said they dd it for the “fun of it” and that they were “bored”. This is actually a worse case, yet somehow you have no desire to write an article about it? To top it all off, in one of the killer’s Facebook pages, they had posts glorifying black on white violence which raises the assumption that this was racially motivated. So is this site hypocritical?

  • davidvoth

    George Zimmerman didn’t invoke Florida’s Stand Your Ground law in his defense. He used a more traditional self-defense claim – That he used deadly force in response to a violent attack.

    Some people are confused by the inclusion of SYG language in the jury instructions at Zimmerman’s trial. Those are standard instructions in Florida. California’s jury instructions include very similar language including the phrase “has the right to stand his or her ground and no duty to retreat.” That’s the whole basis of Castle Doctrine law.

    Using the shooting of Trayvon Martin as an example of a problem with SYG laws doesn’t make logical sense. But the whole argument has little to do with logic anyway.

  • Pingback: 10 Biggest Stories From “The Summer Of Hip Hop” 2013 | AllHipHop.com()

  • Pingback: 10 Biggest Stories From “The Summer Of Hip Hop” 2013 | AllHipHop.com()