Category: World

Special: W.E. Talk

(ECNS)–On June 6, 2023, the Iranian Embassy in Riyadh officially reopened, starting a new chapter in the history of bilateral relations.

Before then, under the mediation of China, Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed to restore ties and reopen embassies seven years after cutting diplomatic ties. On April 6, Saudi Foreign Minister met his Iranian counterpart in Beijing, which was the first formal meeting between foreign ministers of the two countries in more than seven years. Both countries announced the resumption of diplomatic relations as of the same day. What benefits will the conciliation of two Middle Eastern countries after long-time severing relations bring to the region and the world? Faced with the new situation in the Middle East, what solutions has China proposed?

In the latest W.E. Talk, Josef Gregory Mahoney, professor of Politics and International Relations at East China Normal University, and Qu Qiang, fellow researcher at Beijing Foreign Studies University were invited to share their opinions.

Prof. Mahoney believed that it’s a clear signal that both sides trust China, and are willing to demonstrate both their positive regard for China and their capacity for fostering peace with each other under the mediation of China, contrary to their distrust of the United States. The U.S. is experiencing a downward trend in power but is still stuck in a Cold-War mentality, while China is serving decisively as a global peacemaker.

Qu Qiang said that China has always been a contributor to the development of the Middle East. The fact that the two countries with historical differences once again “chose” Beijing indicates that they both recognize China’s fair, neutral and trustworthy international status in the region. Choosing to connect each other with China being a bridge shows their strongest trust in China’s strength in all aspects, and signals the end of an era of theU.S. dominance in the Middle East.

Here are the excerpts of the dialogue.

CNS: What are the reasons for the resumption of the diplomatic tie between Saudi Arabia and Iran? What impacts will it have on global politics and economy?

Josef Mahoney: For decades, we blamed the Saudi-Iran conflict on the religious differences. But to what extent was the conflict dependent on U.S. antagonism towards Iran and the desire to provoke a so-called divide-and-conquer mentality in the Middle East in order to make sure that the U.S. played a dominant role in oil prices? To what extent was it contingent on the special relationship that Riyadh enjoyed with Washington?

Now that the U.S. has disengaged increasingly from the Middle East in part to abandon the messes it made there and largely to escape those responsibilities to accomplish its pivot against China. Along the way, as we’ve seen, U.S. and Saudi ties are souring. And given the fact that both Saudi Arabia and Iran have good relations with Beijing, China served as a mediator and successfully made the reconciliation without the U.S. in the picture.

Qu Qiang: In the U.S. Middle East policies, the first stage after WWII is happening mostly because of the petrodollar. The reason why they’ve been supporting the Saudi royal family, and been supporting the Pahlavi Dynasty in Iran is because they can form allies to make sure the supply of oil and the bond between the oil and the U.S. dollar can be tight. But later what happened is that revolution in Iran happened. And so America, in order to meet its best interest, has been using the second stage of policies, which is “split and manage”. U.S. cannot stabilize the Middle East because Iran has a hostile relation with the U.S. They used to be allies, but now they are the largest competitor in the oil businesses. So either side America favors will create more push back from the other side.

However, China is quite a very different story. China is a builder in the Middle East. China doesnot have any historical (relations) in a problem in the Middle East region. China has been rebuilding the war-hit zones in Iraq and helping Saudi Arabia to build a future city, and China has also been working with Iran and rebuilding their economy. Because China is the friend of both sides, everybody will have this patience to sit down and talk and eventually to decide what is of the best interest of both sides and of the whole region.

CNS: Why did Saudi Arabia and Iran incline to Beijing again when they talkedabout the resumption of diplomatic ties? What signalsare released? Does the reconciliation between the two countries mean the end of the era of U.S. dominance in the Middle East?

Josef Mahoney: Given the constructive role Beijing plays in helping the two countries restore ties, given Beijing’s neutrality, it’s sensible that they would continue to meet in Beijing as they take concrete steps forward.

What signals may be sent? It’s a clear signal that both sides trust China and feel comfortable discussing what was previously unimaginable in Beijing. It’s also a clear signal that both countries are willing to demonstrate both their positive regard for China and their capacity for fostering peace with each other in China, contrary to the distrust both sides have for the United States.

We might be entering a new era where China’s major-country diplomacy equates with China serving decisively as a global peacemaker, contra the U.S. which is still stuck in a Cold-War mentality.

Qu Qiang: First, the two nationswho have major historical differences once again choose China, which indicates that different factions of geo-states represented in the region all recognize China’s fair, neutral and trustworthy international status there. Second, China’s unique economic role is a good complementation to other countries in the region,therefore, China is welcomed. All countries are willing to grab this opportunity to establish long-term cooperation with China. The Chinese-style modernization and Belt and Road Initiative provide important opportunities for the sustainable and long-term growth of countries in the region. Third, as an independent major developing country with peaceful mission, China’s political influence and comprehensive national capacity can provide material and security support for the future stable growth of the region. In the past, the two countries also had a desire to build contact with each other, but failed to do so due to the interference of the U.S. and Western countries. Their choice to connect each other with China being a bridge shows their strongest trust in China’s strength in all aspects.

It also sends an important signal to the world that the era of the U.S. being the dominant country in the Middle East has ended. Today,the Middle East hopes to regain its position and influence in the international arena, and the Middle Eastern countries will increasingly embrace the participation and cooperation of big countries outside the region, including China.

CNS: China has helped settle disputes between two Middle Eastern countries. And previously, it released the Global Security Initiative which aims at addressing the security dilemma and safeguard world peace. Based on all these, what are the differences between China’s and the U.S. views on global security?

Josef Mahoney: The U.S. approach has been a zero-sum game. The entire U.S. economy at this point relies on the U.S. dollar, and on the Fed who is able to manipulate this system with a specific method. The U.S. cares about whether or not the U.S. can continue to maintain its hegemony, which is essential for the role of the dollar in its hegemony.The U.S. is used to having this hegemony, which nevertheless was degrading.

However, China knows that whatever happens in the world eventually has some influences on China because it plays such a monumental role in the global economy as the leading trade partner of most countries in the world. Therefore, what’s good for China is good for the world and what’s good for the world is good for China. But it’s not the same case for the U.S.and there lies the key difference between the two approaches.

Qu Qiang: The zero-sum game is a very obsolete thinking adopted by certain politicians in the West. The current world has been changed. Just take a look around, travel around, and you find this is a whole new world. It’s not a zero-sum game. You would like to watch your neighbor get better and better because you will get better too. It’s kind of a win-win result and America should also understand that.

China is a very steady advocate of internationalism. For example, the Belt and Road Initiative benefits local countries as well as China. Eventually, everybody wins. We can all together make the whole world a better place.

In high school, Saira Talut kept busy. She was a member of the model United Nations club and worked-part time at a fast food restaurant, all while keeping up an overall grade average in the 90s.

But she worried this wouldn’t guarantee her admission to competitive business and humanities programs at McMaster and Western University. So she turned to an independent private school in Scarborough, Ont., paying $500 for a Grade 12 calculus course at A+ Academy of Advancement.

The now third-year Western University student says the course offered smaller class sizes, flexible study time and opportunities for one-on-one support from instructors.

She ended the course with a mark in the high 80s — 10 percentage points higher than a similar course she had taken a year earlier at her high school.

In January 2020, CBC reported relaxed standards and potentially inflated marks from some independent private schools in the Greater Toronto Area. These schools are sometimes referred to as “credit mills” due to concerns from universities that they inflate students’ grades for a price.

But the demand for these courses appears to only be growing. In 2020, there were about 650 private schools in Ontario offering high school credit. As of May, there were 690 such schools.

Talut says these courses can give students like her the little boost they need to get into “the program I really wanted, versus a program where I’m failing because I can’t get into anything else.”

Low self-confidence, academic pressure

Even though Talut was a top student, she says her self-confidence was low. She says there was a lot of social pressure to succeed at her academically rigorous public high school.

“I was constantly comparing myself to other people, whether that be in the form of scholarships, grades or program acceptances,” said Talut.

Ontario private schools that offer for-credit courses are required to follow the curriculum and are subject to inspections.

In a statement, the province’s Ministry of Education said credit-granting private schools are inspected on a “recurring basis” for “requirements regarding curriculum, assessment and evaluation policies.”

The ministry says that when a school is inspected, the inspector will recommend another inspection in the same year, the following year or in two years, “as circumstances warrant.”

Support for marginalized students

Aware of the criticism of other credit mills over the years, the owner of Rouge Valley Education Centre, another private school in Scarborough, says it does things differently.

Selvin Gnanapragasam says he welcomes students from diverse socioeconomic and racial backgrounds who he says have been failed by the public school system. He doesn’t charge kids from single-parent homes who are dealing with tough circumstances and cannot afford it, he says.

“I don’t do it as a business. [Students] come here with the trust I’m going to educate them. The education we give is the one they’re going to use as a tool for tomorrow,” said Gnanapragasam.

He says he waives fees for about 50 students every year.

All of the centre’s teachers are his former students and have a master’s degree from the University of Toronto, he says. While they aren’t certified teachers, Gnanapragasam says they are “experts” in their fields.

Gnanapragasam says his priority is to support his students beyond academics.

“The best of you is hidden inside until somebody brings it out,” he said.

Godwin Iwelomen sent his son to Rouge Valley Education Centre when he started struggling in his Grade 11 functions class, where he says his son lacked one-on-one time with his teacher.

“Those children who didn’t even consider going to university can become successful. My son can teach math now,” said Iwelomen.

Grade inflation’s ‘ceiling effect’ 

But some researchers still see the risks in students qualifying for post-secondary education with these types of courses on their record. Louis Volante, a professor of education governance at Brock University, says grade inflation has made it challenging for some institutions to see who truly stands out.

“The grades have been inflated so high and we’re getting what we refer to as a ceiling effect,” said Volante.

Volante added that this not only puts the students who attend schools with tougher grading at a disadvantage for admission, but it can also give other students a false sense of their academic ability.

“They’re both equally problematic,” said Volante.

In the faculty of engineering at the University of Waterloo, an adjustment factor is tracked by comparing the grade average students come in with, to the average they end up with at the end of their first year.

André Jardin, the admissions registrar at the university, says when the faculty started asking students for their high school transcripts rather than just their Grade 12 marks, many did not proceed with their application.

“We are not asking students from private schools for things that we don’t already get from other schools. We’re just ensuring that we have a complete picture,” said Jardin.

Last resort for busy students

Tomi Tufford says he was encouraged to take a private Grade 12 kinesiology course by his guidance counsellor, since his school didn’t offer it.

“I took it to have a little bit of prior knowledge before I go into first year to help me out,” he said of the $550 course from Ontario Virtual School in which he’s currently enrolled.

Working part time as a lifeguard, he couldn’t fit night school or summer school into his schedule. The virtual class, with pre-recorded lectures, offered him more flexibility.

While it worked out for him, Tufford says self-directed learning is not for everyone.

“If you’re someone who needs help throughout a course and you don’t have anyone around you that can help you with that, then it’s probably not the best option,” he said.

“If you have the option to go to school and learn it, I feel that’s a better learning experience. But if you are in need of a quick credit, and night school or summer school isn’t an option, it’s a pretty good alternative.”

• Michael Wood has been stood down as Transport Minister over shares in Auckland Airport.
• Wood did not properly declare the shares and did not complete the sale of shares last year.
• The Cabinet Office asked him 12 times since November 2020 if he had divested the shares.
• Wood’s wife Auckland councillor Julie Fairey is also a beneficiary of a trust that owns airport shares in a managed fund.

Michael Wood was approached 12 times by the Cabinet Office over his Auckland Airport shares, seeking to confirm he had divested or was in the process of divesting his shares.

Wood told media the Cabinet office provided advice to him, which he “should have responded to with more urgency.”

He has not sold the shares yet, but contacted his new broker on Wednesday morning to get the process underway.

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins was questioned about the suspended transport minister’s shares in the House on Wednesday by deputy National leader Nicola Willis.

READ MORE:
* Michael Wood, the shares, and the taint of incompetence
* Michael Wood asked ‘about half a dozen times’ about his Auckland Airport shares, Hipkins says
* Auckland Council looking into potential conflicts of interest over airport shares

Hipkins listed the 12 dates, ranging from November 19, 2020 to March 27, 2023, when the Cabinet Office “sought to confirm whether he had divested the shareholding”.

“Throughout the process Michael Wood confirmed he was about to, or was in the process of divesting the shareholdings,” Hipkins said.

Willis asked if it was honest of Wood to, on 12 occasions, commit to divesting the airport shares but fail to do so.

“I think he should have divested the shares when he first said he was going to,” Hipkins said.

Wood said he regretted that he did not pursue that advice from the Cabinet Office as quickly as he should have.

When asked on Tuesday how many times the Cabinet Office had checked whether Wood had divested the shares, Hipkins said “probably somewhere around half a dozen”.

That doubled on Wednesday, with Hipkins listing all the occasions since 2020 that the Cabinet Office had sought to confirm the shares were divested.

The Opposition is questioning the Government around Wood’s Auckland Airport shares during Question Time, which is being livestreamed above.

Wood is standing by his decision to decline a North Shore Airport application last year while holding shares in Auckland Airport, saying he carefully considered “overwhelmingly negative feedback”, and advice.

ACT Leader David Seymour says the public can no longer give Wood the “benefit of the doubt” over not realising he still owned shares in Auckland Airport, and that Wood needed to resign.

Seymour said Wood, who was stood down as transport minister on Tuesday, could not “carry on as a minister after declining airport authority status to North Shore Aerodrome, despite owning shares in a competing airport”.

“The question of Wood being a minister is no longer a matter of ‘life admin’ as Chris Hipkins has put it,” Seymour said. “It is now a matter of whether people can trust the New Zealand Government to be open and transparent about who it serves.”

Wood said the decision around the North Shore airport was made “after carefully considering the overwhelmingly negative feedback from the community and advice from officials”.

“I have already acknowledged that this conflict was mismanaged, and a mistake that I take full responsibility for,” he said in a statement.

North Shore Aerodrome applied to become an airport authority in 2020 with plans for a “modest expansion”.

The plan to expand North Shore operations left some residents fearing for their land and future generations.

In its application, the club said airport authority status would ensure the airport keeps up with the “changing legislative and operation requirements necessary for the management of a modern airport”, while supporting the future business and industrial urbanisation of the surrounding area.

It hoped to extend its runway to improve safety and to allow for small regional turboprop aircraft to operate, with limited additional regional transport links.

According to the Ministry of Transport, the Transport Minister decided not to recommend to the Governor General to grant the North Shore Aero Club airport authority status in 2022.

A spokesperson for Wood told news agency Localmatters at the time there remained “unresolved questions about what future requirements could be, were the airport to grow; and sufficient consultation between the airport and the community had not occurred”.

Dairy Flat School principal Katie Hills was among the community members who opposed the application at a public meeting attended by Wood in 2022.

Hills said the school could already hear the existing aircraft and an increase in flights or larger planes could make it difficult for teachers to be heard by students.

It also comes as Auckland Council looks into whether councillors – or their spouses – owning shares in Auckland International Airport was a conflict of interest ahead of a major council meeting this week.

Wood’s wife, Albert-Eden-Puketāpapa ward councillor Julie Fairey, is also the beneficiary of a trust that owns airport shares.

Fairey told Stuff she is a beneficiary of JM Fairey Family Trust which owns shares in Auckland International Airport as part of an investment in a managed fund, with just under 2% allocated to airport shares.

Fairey said trustees do not have control over the airport holding, only whether to hold the managed fund itself.

A member of the Puketāpapa Local Board for 12 years prior to being elected a councillor in October, Fairey declared she is a trustee of the JM Fairey Family Trust in previous Auckland Council elected member declarations of interest.

However, it does not appear in her 2022 register of interests. Fairey said that was because she did not realise she was a beneficiary of the trust.

“Today I updated my elected member declaration form to reflect my beneficiary title in the JM Fairey Family Trust, as I was not aware of this role until this morning. In previous years, I have proactively declared what I knew, which was my trustee role,” Fairey said.

The focus on airport share ownership comes as councillors are set to decide the fate of the council’s 18% shareholding in the airport company – worth about $2.2 billion.

Earlier on Tuesday, Wood said Hipkins’ decision to stand him down as transport minister was appropriate and that he accepted it “with good grace”.

“I made a mistake here. I accept that. That’s on me. And the appropriate thing to do now is to fix it.

“I made two mistakes. The first was not to declare that earlier on and that was a genuine error, and the second one was not completing the sale of the shares last year, I’ll be fixing both of those.”

Madrid (EFE).- Las elecciones del próximo 23 de julio traerán de regreso el modelo ‘cuerpo a cuerpo’ de los debates televisados tras aceptar el líder del PP, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, la oferta que 24 horas antes le lanzó el presidente del Gobierno, Pedro Sánchez. Sin embargo, no serán seis duelos electorales, uno a la semana hasta que se celebren los comicios, tal y como propuso el candidato socialista, sino, de momento, sólo uno.

El candidato de los populares criticó la propuesta del secretario general del PSOE y la tildó de imposición, ya que “los debates no se obligan”, sino que se “negocian”, y acto seguido avanzó que “habrá un cara a cara” entre Sánchez y él”.

Añadió en una entrevista en Onda Cero que tendrán que ser los jefes de campaña los que decidan el formato, la fecha y el lugar, en lo que habrá que tener en cuenta la legislación electoral, el artículo 66 de la Ley Orgánica del Régimen Electoral General (LOREG) en concreto.

Moncloa no descarta que haya más de uno. Fuentes gubernamentales consideran que un único duelo televisado es poco, por lo que mantendrán la presión al PP para que haya más, e incluso se reservan la posibilidad de que el presidente eluda la asistencia a ese ‘cara a cara’ aceptado por Feijóo si los populares no se avienen a que se celebren otros.

“Cuerpo a cuerpo”: formato del bipartidismo

La propuesta de Pedro Sánchez, un debate semanal con Feijóo desde el próximo lunes hasta llegar a las elecciones, encaja en un formato, ‘el cara a cara’, característico del bipartidismo.

Hasta el lunes pasado, cuando el presidente hizo la propuesta, se habían interesado por su organización y retransmisión Atresmedia y RTVE, que se lo ofrecieron a los dos candidatos para el 12 de julio y el 10, respectivamente.

Telecinco informó después de que la semana pasada también trasladó a ambas formaciones su propuesta para un debate entre Sánchez y Feijoo, aunque sin precisar fecha.

El último precedente: hace ocho años

Este tipo de estrategia electoral no se utiliza desde el 14 de diciembre de 2015. El último ‘cara a cara’ hasta la fecha fue protagonizado por el entonces presidente y líder de los populares, Mariano Rajoy, y el candidato de los socialistas Pedro Sánchez, y será uno de los más recordados por este lance entre ambos:

Sánchez acusó a Rajoy: “El presidente del Gobierno tiene que ser una persona decente, y usted no lo es”.

Y el candidato del PP respondió: “Hasta ahí hemos llegado. Primero, si usted creía que tenía que haber dimitido y no era digno de ser presidente del Gobierno, su obligación era presentar una moción de censura; yo es lo que hubiera hecho”.

Pero la aparición de otras fuerzas políticas ha hecho que este debate dialéctico se abra en las últimas contiendas electorales a cuatro candidatos de media, e incluso cinco, como el del 4 de noviembre de 2019, después de que Sánchez convocará elecciones legislativas tras no conseguir formar Gobierno.

Ese debate a cinco (Sánchez, Pablo Casado, Albert Rivera, Pablo Iglesias y Santiago Abascal) lo realizó la Academia de las Ciencias y las Artes de la Televisión y el Audiovisual, fue moderado por los periodistas por Ana Blanco (TVE) y Vicente Vallés (Antena 3) y se emitió en doce cadenas.

Unos meses antes, previamente a las elecciones del 28 de abril del mismo año, en plena campaña, se produjo una anomalía: dos debates en 24 horas. Los protagonizaron cuatro candidatos, ya que Vox no contaba con representación parlamentaria y no reunía los requisitos que marca la Junta Electoral Central para participar. Esos candidatos fueron Pedro Sánchez, Pablo Casado, Albert Rivera y Pablo Iglesias.

Historia de los debates a dos

Los debates televisivos tienen poca trayectoria en España. La primera vez en la que dos aspirantes a La Moncloa se enfrentaron fue con motivo de las elecciones de 1993, dos años y medio después del nacimiento de las televisiones privadas. Felipe González y José María Aznar celebraron dos debates, uno en Antena 3 TV y otro en Telecinco.

La segunda vez que dos aspirantes a la presidencia del Gobierno defendieron de esta forma sus programas fue con motivo de las generales de marzo de 2008. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero y Rajoy debatieron en dos ocasiones.

Para las elecciones generales del 20 de noviembre de 2011, los candidatos Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba y Rajoy realizaron un sólo debate a dos y también fue producido por la Academia de Televisión y moderado por el presidente de la Academia, Manuel Campo Vidal, que ya lo hizo en 1993 y 2008.

En las elecciones generales del 20 de diciembre de 2015 se celebraron tres debates convocados por medios de comunicación, en algunos de los cuales participaron por primera vez los representantes de las dos nuevas formaciones emergentes Ciudadanos y Podemos.

El que enfrentó a los dos candidatos de las fuerzas mayoritarias, el del 14 de diciembre, también lo moderó Campo Vidal.

El árbitro: la Junta Electoral Central

La ausencia de normativa que regule en España los debates electorales en televisión ha dejado a la diferencia que marcan las encuestas la decisión de pedir o declinar la participación de los líderes en los “cara a cara”.

La formación que parte como vencedora no los concede, y sólo cuando los sondeos dan empate técnico los candidatos se arriesgan para intentar estimular y elevar el nivel de participación y hacerse con el voto indeciso.

En España, la Junta Electoral Central (JEC), que es quien los autoriza, mantiene que la pluralidad, la proporcionalidad y la neutralidad deben de estar en la información general de los medios de comunicación, tanto de titularidad pública como privada, y no en determinados programas.

Authorities came under intense pressure Tuesday to arrest and charge a white woman who killed a Black neighbour on her front doorstep in a case that has put Florida’s divisive “stand your ground” law back in the spotlight.

About three dozen mostly Black protesters gathered outside the Marion County Judicial Center to demand that the shooter be arrested in the country’s latest flashpoint over race and gun violence.

A 35-year-old mother of four, Ajike Owens, was killed in the Friday night shooting that Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods said was the culmination of a two and a half year feud between neighbours.

The women lived in a neighbourhood in north Florida, in the rolling hills south of Ocala, known as the state’s horse country. On Tuesday, a stuffed teddy bear and bouquets of flowers marked the area near where Owens was shot.

Nearby, children were riding bikes and scooters, and playing basketball. Protesters chanted “No justice, no peace” and “A.J. A.J. A.J” using Owens’ nickname. They carried signs saying: “Say her name Ajike Owens” and “It’s about us.” There was no violence during the protest, which included a number of small children.

Racial slurs

The sheriff said Owens was shot moments after going to the apartment of her neighbour, who had yelled at Owens’ children as they played in a nearby lot. He also said a neighbour had thrown a pair of skates that hit one of the children.

Deputies responding to a trespassing call at the apartment Friday night found Owens suffering from gunshot wounds. She later died at a hospital in Ocala.

Before the confrontation, the shooter had been yelling racial slurs at the children, according to a statement from civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump, who is representing Owens’ family — and represented Trayvon Martin’s family in 2012. The sheriff’s office hasn’t confirmed there were slurs uttered or said whether race was a factor in the shooting.

Lauren Smith, 40, lives across the street from where the shooting happened. She was on her porch that day and saw one of the Owens’ young sons pacing, and yelling, “They shot my mama, they shot my mama.”

She ran toward the house and started chest compressions until a rescue crew arrived. She said there wasn’t an altercation and that Owens didn’t have a weapon.

“[The shooter] was angry all the time that the children were playing out there,” Smith said. “She would say nasty things to them. Just nasty.”

Smith, who is white, said the neighbourhood is “family-friendly” and the fact that the shooter is claiming self-defence is “outrageous.”

“I wish our shooter would have called us instead of taking actions into her own hands,” the sheriff said Monday. “I wish Ms. Owens would have called us in the hopes we could have never gotten to the point at which we are here today.”

Shooting ‘so senseless’

The sheriff said that since January 2021, deputies responded at least a half-dozen times in connection with the feuding between Owens and the woman who shot her.

“I’m absolutely heartbroken,” Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, told The Associated Press. She described the fatal shooting as “so senseless.”

Ferrell-Zabala said “stand your ground” cases, which she refers to as “shoot first laws,” are deemed justifiable five times more frequently when a white shooter kills a Black victim.

“We’ve seen this again and again across this country,” she said, adding that “it’s really because of lax gun laws and a culture of shoot first.”

WATCH | How Black teen’s shooting could test stand your ground laws:

Ralph Yarl shooting could set up another test of controversial ‘stand your ground’ laws

CBC News Network’s Hannah Thibedeau speaks with former career prosecutor Bill Tackett.

Stand your ground cases spark outrage

In fact, “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” cases — which allow residents to defend themselves either by law or court precedent when threatened — have sparked outrage amid a spate of shootings across the country.

In April, 84-year-old Andrew Lester, a white man, shot and injured 16-year-old Ralph Yarl, a Black teenager who rang his doorbell in Kansas City after mistakenly showing up at the wrong house to pick up his younger siblings.

Lester faces charges of first-degree assault and armed criminal action; at trial, he may argue that he thought someone was trying to break into his house, as he told police.

Missouri and Florida are among about 30 states that have “stand your ground” laws.

One of the most well-known examples of the “stand your ground” argument came up in the trial of George Zimmerman, a white man who fatally shot Florida teenager Trayvon Martin in February 2012.

Zimmerman, who had a white father and Hispanic mother, told police that Martin, who was Black, attacked him, forcing him to use his gun in self-defence. He was allowed to go free, but was arrested about six weeks later, after Martin’s parents questioned his version of events and then-governor Rick Scott appointed a special prosecutor.

Before trial, Zimmerman’s attorneys chose not to pursue a “stand your ground” claim, which could have resulted in the dismissal of murder changes as well as immunity from prosecution. But during the trial, the law was essentially used as part of his self-defence argument. Jurors found him not guilty.

Since Zimmerman’s trial, Crump has become outspoken on cases of gun violence.

Family seeking justice

The sheriff was joined at his news conference by community leaders and a local attorney retained by the family, Anthony Thomas. Their singular message was a call for patience while the sheriff’s office conducted its investigation.

Police haven’t interviewed Owens’ children, two of whom witnessed the shooting, because investigators first want child therapists to work with them. Most of the information the deputies have is coming from the shooter, the sheriff said.

“There was a lot of aggressiveness from both of them, back and forth,” the sheriff said the shooter told investigators. “Whether it be banging on the doors, banging on the walls and threats being made. And then at that moment is when Ms. Owens was shot through the door.”

At a vigil with the family later Monday, Thomas said the sheriff had promised him the most professional service that he and his deputies could provide, and Thomas plans to hold the agency to that.

During the same gathering, Owens’ mother, Pamela Dias, said that she was seeking justice for her daughter and her grandchildren.

“My daughter, my grandchildren’s mother, was shot and killed with her nine-year-old son standing next to her,” Dias said. “She had no weapon. She posed no imminent threat to anyone.”