Neutral self-defense laws still asymmetrically protect armed whites against unarmed Black victims

Evidence

In the modern era, gun violence most often occurs within racial groups, and state self-defense laws aren’t explicitly racist in the ways those in the colonial and antebellum periods were. But when interracial violence does occur, these laws can end up protecting white people—but leaving Black people vulnerable to white violence. You don’t have to look any further than the infamous case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. In 2012, in Sanford, Florida, Zimmerman, a twenty-eight-year-old white Hispanic man, called 911 as he stalked Martin, a Black teenager, through a gated community. Zimmerman, who was carrying a loaded nine-millimeter pistol, had previously made repeated calls to 911 about Black men in the neighborhood. He ignored the instructions from the 911 operator not to follow the teen, claiming that Martin looked “suspicious,” that his type “always get away.” He ultimately put a bullet in Martin’s chest. Although Zimmerman was the one with the gun and Martin was unarmed, the trial judge framed the jury’s instructions around the tenets of Stand Your Ground: Zimmerman could use deadly force if the disparities in the physical capabilities between him and Martin caused the gunman to fear for his life. The jury ruled that the killer had acted in self-defense. — Nikole Hannah-Jones et al., The 1619 Project, 777

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Relevant to ‘Complaints About Immodesty Go Way Back’ insofar as it’s another case of formally neutral state law masking class/race asymmetry — though the connection is thematic rather than direct.