By Liane Scott, on July 22nd, 2013 
The Florida law that allowed five white jurors and one Latina juror to exonerate George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin is called the Justifiable Use of Force Statute. It sounds harmless enough. Every state has a law that defines when the use of force is justifiable. These are commonly known as self-defense laws, except when they have a clause that removes a person’s obligation to retreat. This clause, which was first suggested by the National Rifle Association and later backed and promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, is responsible for turning Florida’s self-defense law into Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law.
Here’s the part of the law that was relevant in Zimmerman’s case:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It’s clear to me that this stand your ground clause should have applied to Trayvon Martin and not to the man who stalked and then murdered him. It’s clear also to Jose V-quez, who posted this video on Facebook.
The defense didn’t present it the way Jose does and certainly Juror B37 didn’t see it that way. The case will not be heard again in the criminal court, so there’s not much point in retrying it except perhaps in an examination of the law itself. Is the verdict bad or is the law itself bad? If the verdict is bad then the judge has the right and should have overturned the verdict. If the verdict meets the requirements of the law then the law itself is defective.
In Florida and other states that have added the stand your ground clause to their self-defense laws, it’s legal for person A to kill person B if person A is “reasonably” afraid that person B might be capable and intending to kill them first. This should be good news for victims of domestic violence whose abusers repeatedly threaten to kill them and quite often do. In the US, at least three women are murdered everyday by their husbands or boyfriends. But this law is not helping victims of domestic violence because (surprise, surprise) Florida’s judges don’t apply the law evenly. The case of Marissa Alexander, the domestic violence victim who defended herself from her abuser by shooting a warning shot in the air, is a clear example of this. This law is helping white people who are persistently afraid of “the other.”
We live in a nation where it is commonly believed that people with dark skin are unjustifiably and spontaneously violent. This is of course a stereotype and cannot be applied to all dark-skinned people, but racists are notoriously unable to recognize their racists beliefs as inaccurate. Because of this, when person A is a light-skinned person and person B is a dark-skinned person juries (whose members are not immune to commonly held racist beliefs) are likely to conclude that person A has a “legitimate” reason to fear that person B is a homicidal maniac; therefore, person A is acting reasonably when he pulls out a gun and shoots person B in the the chest even if person B is completely unarmed.
Juries don’t check the statistics, they check their guts. “Would I be afraid of that scary Black man?,” they ask. “Would I be afraid of that scary Muslim, that scary transgender person… Yes, I would be afraid. I’ve seen on television and in the news how those people are violent and they hate people like me. So, I’d be afraid.” As PR Watch makes clear in their report, Seven Faces of NRA/ALEC-Approved “Stand Your Ground” Law, the stand your ground defense is very effective when used by white defendants. African-Americans are not the only victims but they are the most common. In other words, it’s Open Season on Black Boys After a Verdict Like This.
If applied evenly, self defense laws with a stand your ground clause might work but they are not applied evenly. Like Jim Crow and voter suppression laws, they provide a legal framework for the oppression of African-Americans. The Justice Department should bring civil . . . → Read More: A Lesson in Systemic Racism: Stand Your Ground, the NRA and the American Legislative Exchange Council
By Stuart Anderson, on July 18th, 2013
By Grassroots DC, on July 15th, 2013 
Last week, the District’s most vulnerable residents organized to win two major victories in the City Council: the Large Retailer Accountability Act (LRAA), which would require big box stores to pay their employees a living wage, and which effectively prevented the expansion of six Walmart stores within the District; and the Driver Safety Amendment Act (DSAA), which grants the City’s 25,000 undocumented residents the ability to obtain a driver’s license without a mark indicating their undocumented status.
In the first hour of debate over the LRAA it was revealed that Walmart’s CEO Michael Duke made nearly $17,000,000 – a figure well over what his workers earn in a year. Despite this, Councilmembers bickered over whether the bill was a boon or a bust to DC’s low-income residents. The division was due, in large part, to Walmart’s recent threats to pull out of DC if the measure were to pass. At-Large Councilmember Vincent Orange argued that “DC has made it” and doesn’t need to cater to large retailers by accepting low wages. Councilmembers Alexander (Ward 7) and Bowser (Ward 4) decried the lost jobs and retail opportunities for the residents in their wards.
Meanwhile, taxpayers are the ones ultimately funding the financial incentives to lure these retailers into the District. Just this time last year, the city approved a tax incentive to the tune of $32.5 million dollars to headquarter LivingSocial in DC. Despite being located in one of the most rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods in the District, the DC-USA shopping center in Columbia Heights received $40 million for its development (See the Fiscal Policy Institute Article It’s Time To Stop Shopping For Supermarket Tax Breaks.) What’s worse, these taxpayer-funded incentives for large development projects or corporations often come with no strings attached–no requirement to pay living wages, provide job training, or engage meaningfully with the community and their concerns.
After heated debate, the bill ultimately passed 8-5 but still awaits the Mayor’s approval. If he signs it, large retailers must pay their employees a minimum of $12.50/hour, calculated to be a living wage in the District. This would be an increase from the current minimum of $8.50/hour.
Big box stores are not going to be the drivers of economic revitalization. In fact, Think Progress reported: “Walmart’s refusal to pay their employees a livable wage translates into a bigger burden for taxpayers. A Congressional report found that, “the workforce of a single Walmart store [can] consume roughly a million dollars in public benefits every year, relying on “safety net” programs like Medicaid, food stamps, school lunch, and housing assistance to survive.” On the other hand, mutually supportive networks of small businesses and households are known to create a more robust local economy. Low- and moderate-income people, together with small business owners, can help sustain each other, rather than expecting an ethically abysmal multinational corporation to bring in decent jobs or training.
Another important victory impacting the residents of DC is the Driver’s Safety Amendment Act (DSAA), which was passed unanimously in last week’s vote. In issuing licenses to undocumented residents, the Council (and advocates) hope to create safer driving conditions for everyone on the road by ensuring that undocumented drivers have the opportunity to pass road safety tests and acquire insurance for their vehicles. More importantly, the success of the “One City, One License” campaign marked a step forward in civil rights and equality.
Report on DSAA by Ben King for Fress Speech Radio News [audio:http://www.grassrootsdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Ben_King_FSRN_Report-DSAA.mp3]
Advocates also say it will improve the economic prospects of many of the city’s low-income residents who couldn’t obtain licenses before. While it was being debated at the committee level, supporters of the bill packed the hearing room to share stories about the consequences of not having a valid drivers license. Many testified that without the opportunity to get a driver’s license and vehicle, they have difficulty commuting to jobs in places where public transportation is sparse or unreliable. Others said they became accustomed to paying unofficial taxi drivers to get around, many of whom would overcharge for rides knowing their passengers had little recourse. Elderly men and women described the physical toll of walking to and waiting at bus stops, especially during inclement weather.
Jose Alvarado Describes the Economic Benefit of DSAA [audio:http://www.grassrootsdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Jose-Alvarado-Describes-Economic-Benefit-of-DSAA.mp3]
Aside from the benefits to public safety and economic security this measure provides, perhaps the bigger success of DSAA’s passage is that it does not identify the cardholder as undocumented. The Mayor’s original proposal would have created a two-tiered system marking the . . . → Read More: That’s How You Win Campaigns: What DC’s Progressive Community Did Right In the Final Legislative Session of 2013
By Guest Contributor, on July 12th, 2013 
Cross-Post from the Washington Business Journal by Michael Neibauer
From Chillum to Petworth to Congress Heights, new research reveals 18 D.C. neighborhoods whose median property value and federal adjusted gross income fell below the citywide average in 2001, and rose most significantly over the next decade.
In other words, they are gentrifying, or “transitioning” as termed by four experts behind a report recently submitted to the D.C. Tax Revision Commission. Many are not what, or where, you’d think.
A map of D.C.’s gentrifying neighborhoods, as defined by four researchers in a report recently submitted to the D.C. Tax Revision Commission.
The list, in alphabetical order:
Anacostia Barry Farms Brentwood Brookland Chillum Columbia Heights Congress Heights Deanwood Eckington Fort Dupont Park Ledroit Park Lily Ponds Marshall Heights Old City I (H Street NE) Petworth Randle Heights 16th Street Heights Trinidad
New residents of these neighborhoods are younger. They are strong earners. They are condo dwellers. They are single. And as they’ve arrived, older residents and married couples have left in droves, according to the research, leaving a vast gap between the have and have-nots.
We use “gentrifying” or “transitioning” to define communities in flux — those that have shifted wealthier or whiter or younger, usually at the expense of longtime, poorer residents. But how do we know what specific neighborhoods are in the throes of gentrification? In many cases, it’s purely perception, often based simply on who’s moving in down the block.
Researchers LaTanya Brown-Robertson of Bowie State University, Daniel Muhammad and Marvin Ward of the D.C. Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Michael Bell of George Washington University take a more scientific tact — a deep dive into demographic, fiscal and economic statistics.
Over the last decade, according to the report, the District experienced a net loss of 15,120 people under the age of 14 or over the age of 65 — 88.7 percent of whom originated from a transitioning neighborhood. At the same time, those 18 neighborhoods gained 26,362 residents ages 15-64, or “working age.”
The number of married income tax filers fell 20.1 percent in transitioning neighborhoods over the study period, while the number of single filers soared by 66.5 percent. Of the 20,451 new individual income filers gained by the transitioning neighborhoods over the study period, 93 percent were single.
There was a 275 percent surge in condominium construction in the 18 listed neighborhoods, a 100 percent increase in the number of large commercial office properties, and a $76.6 million boost to the District’s tax collections “due to the demographic and economic trends that have occurred in the city’s transitioning neighborhoods.”
The burden of these trends falls on the “bottom 80 percent,” said Brown-Robertson, a lifelong D.C. resident. Testifying before the Tax Revision Commission in early June, Brown-Robertson suggested the District may want to offer additional tax deductions for poorer residents in gentrifying neighborhoods.
“It should be more equitable for residents that have basically lived in the city throughout this whole transition, so they could afford it,” she said.
My immediate takeaway from this list: how little race plays a role in gentrification. We know Petworth, Columbia Heights and Trinidad have transitioned over the past decade as a younger, diverse set has moved in. And yes, many of those new residents are white.
But Barry Farms? Marshall Heights? Deanwood? Those east of the river communities were 90-plus percent black in 2000, and they’re 90-plus percent black today. Their gentrification, or “transition,” as the authors write, is not tied to the racial make-up of their new residents, but by their earning power.
The Tax Revision Commission, a panel led by former Mayor Anthony Williams, has accepted nearly two dozen research papers in the last six months as part of its all-encompassing review of the District’s tax code. Its recommendations are scheduled for release in January.
By Guest Contributor, on July 10th, 2013 
Cross-Posted From DC Independent Media Center By Luke
The Large Retailer Accountability Act Clearly Supported By DC’s Progressive Community
On the 10th of July labor and neighborhood activists held a rally outside the Wilson Building to support passage of the Large Retailer Accountability Act. It would raise the minimum wage in certain big box stores to $12.50 an hour. Wal-Mart has vowed to abandon at least half their plans to open stores in DC if this passes. Rev Hagler told them not once but twice to “Go to Hell” during his speech!
I think this is the first time I’ve ever heard any pastor tell anyone to go to Hell, but if anyone deserves it, Wal-Mart does, especially in light of their resort to extortion when bribery failed.
Workers from several big box stores complained about being unable to afford to shop where they work due to law wages. One man who works at a Wal-Mart said he could not even afford to have his own place due to the wages Wal-Mart pays.
After the rally, activists went into the Wilson Building to confront several anti-LRAA councilmembers, then observe the vote. I could not go with them, as the Wilson Building is an ID and bag search building.
Wal-Mart has also crudely threatened the DC Council. On the 9th of July, less than 24 hours before the final vote on the LRAA, Wal-Mart lobbyists bluntly said they could cancel their Skyland and two other unbuilt stores if the bill is signed into law. They also said they might abandon (“reconsider”) the three stores under construction. Well, this extortion won’t exactly break DC”s legs, as a lot of people would rather have an abandoned Wal-Mart than an open one in their neighborhood!
This Just In! from Grassroots DC’s Coordinator
DC’s City Council voted for the Large Retail Accountability Act. The vote was not unanimous. Councilmembers Yvette Alexander (Ward 7), Muriel Bowser (Ward 4), David Catania (At-Large), Mary Cheh (Ward 3) and Tommy Wells (Ward 6) all voted against the bill. We must still wait to see if Mayor Gray signs on or vetoes the bill, but it looks like years of pressure from community groups, labor and individual activists is turning the tide against a Walmart invasion of the District of Columbia. Is this what democracy looks like? I think maybe so.
|
Subscribe to Blog via Email
|
)% 
%categories-linked( 
