This idea that only white people are allowed to avail themselves of the claim of self-defense, or that they can largely just do whatever and get away with it by claiming self-defense, is absurd: a thread.
Jaleel Stallings was acquitted of multiple attempted murder charges related to him shooting at several St. Paul police officers last summer. He [reasonably] claimed self-defense and that he had no idea these guys were cops.
It took the jury only four hours instead of four days to acquit Stephen Spencer of murder in a white man's death during a race-related dispute. Spencer claimed self-defense.
Timothy Simpkins, an 18-year-old who shot three people with an illegally possessed gun at a Texas high school, is literally out on bond right now and claiming he shot in self-defense. Honestly, he has a viable claim wrt to the intended target.
Jesus Lima. Prosecutors argued he was the aggressor who shot a man he'd previously threatened. The jury sided with Lima, who said he was attacked by the man and four others and tried to retreat.
And there are plenty of white people who have been convicted of super questionable offenses where I thought self-defense was a viable claim. Case in point, Michael Strickland: oregonlive.com/portland/2017/…
Oh man, the amount of goalpost moving happening in response to this tweet is FUN. Like I'm very glad *you, specifically* have more nuanced arguments than "this never happens for black defendants" but let me tell you a lot of well-followed Twitter blue checks absolutely don't.
"But Amy, these 50ish cases are just anecdotes that don't address very obvious racial disparities in the system" like NO YOU DUNDERHEADS I know I literally have multiple threads on this thanks for refuting an argument I'm not making by supporting a premise I'm not debating.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The investigation "identified several critical failures and other breakdowns" during the response and refers to "cascading failures of leadership, decision-making, tactics, policy, and training that contributed to those failures and breakdowns."
The most significant failure? First responders treated a clear active shooter scenario--where generally accepted practice is to "immediately engage the subject...if necessary, bypassing injured victims and placing themselves in harm's way"--as a barricaded subject scenario.
Can we take a minute to appreciate how many women have protected themselves and others with firearms in the last two or so weeks? It's basically a highlight real of just how important the right to keep and bear arms is for us, too. Tip of the DGU iceberg, but important:
📜📜📜
Aug. 11, Tucson (AZ) - A woman living by herself fatally shot a would-be intruder who kept trying to break into her home despite knowing she was armed.
Aug. 11, Pottstown (PA) - A woman shot and wounded the father of her child after he assaulted her, leaving various injuries. He not only had an active restraining order against him, but also had active warrants for violating that restraining order.
(1) She was 30 weeks pregnant, which would have been illegal in most states pre-Roe [and most of the world], and is 20 weeks past the FDA's approved usage timeline for abortion pills.
(2) She wasn't charged under the abortion law. She was charged with concealing the remains.
(3) Her mother is charged with *performing* the abortion after 20 weeks, as well as with performing the abortion without a medical license.
(4) Doctors lose their licenses all the time for far less egregious things than prescribing abortion pills at 30 weeks.
(5) Survival rates for babies born at 30 weeks are somewhere between 95-98% in developed countries. The baby has vocal chords, fingerprints, fully developed lungs, and even eyelashes. It can open its eyes and blink. It can grasp the umbilical cord with its tiny hands.
Case in point - a Richmond teenager was fatally shot in Nov. 2021. Limited info, except for a March 2022 article detailing that his family was upset no arrests had been made. That could mean many things, including a lack of suspects.
But at some point between Nov. 2021 and today, the police determined this shooting was actually a justified homicide. They either told no one, or no one cared enough to report it. Can't find a public disclosure of that determination. If it exists, it flew under everyone's radar.
This is some Orwellian doublespeak. You don't "enshrine freedom" by literally limiting the scope of your existing freedoms, which are already enshrined. And you can't "leave the Second Amendment intact" while cutting out its heart and removing its soul.
The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, protects what citizens may do by telling the government what it cannot do.
Newsome's amendment turns this on its head, mandating what government MUST do in order that peaceable citizens may NOT do certain things.
It's like saying "we're keeping the 1st Amendment intact" with a new one criminalizing unpopular speech, limiting freedom of religion to just The Big 5, and requiring those under 21 to get parental consent for internet use.