Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Trayvon Martin - We Hear From Zimmerman's Father | Main | Last Map Of The Retreat At Twin Lakes »

March 29, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e201676462abc1970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Perils Of Placating Progressive Paranoia:

Comments

Ignatz

My concern for Zimmerman is, assuming the facts are as he states, that the state will decline to prosecute him but that Holder's race mongers will harass and ruin the guy's life prosecuting him on some bogus civil rights angle.

narciso

Now, TM, the distinction is that Seminole county did operate that bootcamp where Anderson did perish, that's one rather deep pocket, that I would find rather unlikely they can go to that pot again,

Jay

Why did the prosecutor ignore the recommendations of the lead homicide investigator?

Um, that would be because the lead investigator's boss and the chief of police, along with the prosecutor disagreed.

Note:
A source with knowledge of the investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin tells theGrio that it was then Sanford police chief Bill Lee, along with Capt. Robert O'Connor, the investigations supervisor, who made the decision to release George Zimmerman on the night of February 26th, after consulting with State Attorney Norman Wolfinger -- in person.

LUN.

Forbes

I'm always fascinated by calls for a federal investigation, as the feds would have no jurisdiction to bring murder charges in such cases. As a commenter above notes, federal charges would amount to some alleged civil rights violation, which, while death could be viewed as a civil rights violation, it would be a perverse misuse of the law. The result would simply be mob justice--is that where we want to go?

Rob Crawford

OK, tying the City of Sanford to the death won't be easy, but... normally gun permits are granted at the ocal level - how did Sanford handle that?

Florida is an oddball; permits are handled at the state level by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

Rex

Yes, you won 3&2.

For the non-golfers who are also non-golf fans, the score in match play is hole by hole instead of total number of strokes. You start out even, or all square as the terminology has it. If you win the first hole, you are then 1-up. Lose the next and you are back to all square. As you get closer and closer to the last hole, you eventually reach a point where you would win even if you lost every remaining hole. A score of 7&5 (Paula Creamer's score against Laura Davies in Paula's first Solheim Cup) means that Paula was 7-up with 5 holes remaining. So when you see a score like 3&2, that means you are 3-up with only two holes remaining. Since Judd Legum had 5 questions and our host had won 3 at the time, his score was 3&2.

Clarice

Beautiful work, TM.
Now, if Trayvon's father thought he'd just gone to the 7-11, and a shot was heard in the neighborhood and he didn't report his son missing or walk out to see what had happened, what are we to think?

Tray was not staying with his dad and his girlfriend?
His father was used to Trayvon's unexplained absences and didn't care even if the kid had just been shipped to him because he'd been suspended from school and his mother didn't want him hanging around her house?
What?
Am I missing something?

narciso

Keep in mind Legum was Hillary's research director, and you wonder how she got as far as she did.

GMAX

Think Progress = Emote Progressively

Judd Dadgum is just carrying on the long glorious tradition. Somebody must be guilty, there is a gun involved.

narciso

He's another GeorgeTown Law grad, like the future fluke, aren't the Hoyas proud.

Porchlight

Clarice, Trayvon's father said he was out to dinner with his girlfriend at the time of the shooting.

I assume Trayvon kept his own hours because apparently the father didn't check to see if Trayvon was home when he returned, or he did check, and didn't think anything of Trayvon's absence until the next morning.

Danube of Thought

would be a perverse misuse of the law

See, e.g. Stacy Koon and Laurence Powell.

Clarice

Thanks, Porch. So, the story is trayvon's dad and current gf saw him leave, went out to dinner, didn't see or hear him return and did nothing.

Chubby

((and did nothing.))

until the next morning when the dad phoned the police and then police paid them a visit with a picture of T shot dead

Porchlight

He may have been home when they left, Clarice, but he was not home when they returned - and yes, they did nothing.

Danube of Thought

O/T: In Memoriam, Earl Scruggs.

narciso

I'm disapointed that Carroll took the bait with that taskforce on revising SYG, but then again I'm used to disapointment by now.

Clarice

If they were not home when he left, they cannot know where he went or when, right?

Ignatz

--See, e.g. Stacy Koon and Laurence Powell.--

Yeah I had Stacey Koon's name at the end of my comment at the start of the thread then excised it figuring it would only lead bubu and like minded clowns down a rabbit trail.
Let's see if it does now. :)

Porchlight

OT but I'm not sure which is the Obamacare thread today - two essential WSJ pieces:

Editorial: The ObamaCare Reckoning

and

Taranto: Will The High Court Vindicate Vinson?

One cannot help but be buoyed by Kennedy's remarks, such as (from the first piece):

But Justice Anthony Kennedy doubted Justice Ginsburg's logic, since by taking out only the individual mandate the Court would in effect be creating a new law that Congress "did not provide for, did not consider." To wit, costs would soar without any mechanism to offset them.

"When you say judicial restraint," Justice Kennedy said, "you are echoing the earlier premise that it increases the judicial power if the judiciary strikes down other provisions of the act. I suggest to you it might be quite the opposite." Overturning the mandate alone, he continued, "can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than to strike the whole."

And Taranto notes that Kennedy sounds amazingly like Vinson at several points.

jimmyk

To put a less damning spin on the father, the timing seems consistent with a father who doesn't keep his 17-year-old on a very tight leash--lets him go out at night on his own, doesn't ask that he check in--and probably went to sleep figuring that his son was out late. He woke up the next morning and didn't realize the son never came home (maybe assumed he was still sleeping). Not great parenting, especially if the son has been getting into trouble, but not the portrait of a monster either.

It is a bit surprising, if I have the timing right, that they came home and remained unaware of the crime scene in their neighborhood, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that that was what happened.

Clarice

Fair enough, jimmy. I'm just trying to get the fact picture. There have after all been reports that he was in the morgue for 3 days before being ID'd.

narciso

Jacobsen tackled this, in a previous link,

Porchlight

If they were not home when he left, they cannot know where he went or when, right?

True. I just checked to be sure and that is how their statement is being reported - that he and a sibling were home when they left the house.

Clarice

BTW, narciso, Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that Israel now has an air base in Azerbaijan

narciso

What I was referring to, in the LUN.

Threadkiller

How old is the sibling that was left at home, alone, when Trayvon went out?

narciso

I know but it comes from Mark Perry, who halucinates, CIA plots galore. by Jundallah,
the MEK et al. so so,me caution is in order;

Porchlight

TK, I am reading that the sibling is a younger brother, but I haven't yet found any info on how old he is.

Enlightened

I have a real problems with the girlfriends story -

At 7:09 Zimmerman called 911. About 50 seconds into the call he says TM is staring at him. About a minute 3 seconds later Z says TM is coming towards him. About 45 seconds after that Z says TM is moving toward the other or back entrance. At about 2 minutes and 10 seconds he says TM is running, about 7:11 pm (Why would TM walk towards someone and then turn and run?)

[Martin family attorney] Crump said Martin got off the phone with the girl for a few minutes because it started to rain and he was running to get under shelter.- said he had his hoodie ON to get out of the rain - Call is picked up again at about 7:12. (So Zimmerman did see him run - at about 7:11 pm) Girlfriend says TM said someone was watching him so he pulled on his hoodie (contradicts the attorney who said he had it on to get out of the rain - girlfriend says he only pulled it on when he thought he was being watched?) TM tells her he "lost" the man. She tells him to run. He says he's not going to run (makes no sense since he "ran" for cover from rain just a minute ealier) TM says he's gonna "walk fast, from the back" So what is "the back" - the "backyard area" or the "back entrance" or the "back side of Zimmerman" (Zimmerman says he came up behind him - or "from the back)

Porchlight

Here's a photo of Trayvon with his younger brother. The brother looks significantly younger, but it's hard to say b/c I don't know how old Trayvon is in this photo:

http://gossiponthis.com/2012/03/20/911-calls-released-trayvon-martin-shooting-death/trayvon-martin-shooting-4/

bunkerbuster

What kind of country is it going to be if anyone can shoot anyone else, confess to it, then claim self-defense and declare it's up to the state to disprove the violent intent of the deceased.
If we intend to remain a civilized country, we're going to have restore and maintain the long-established practice with lethal force outside the home, ie that the threatened party must retreat whenever possible.
If we're going to have widespread handgun ownership, there is no sane choice but to require the fullest possible investigations of any and every shooting of an unarmed person.
I'm pretty sure the police stand to lose the most should we fail to do that, followed closely by law-abiding citizens who carry firearms -- a ready-made threat that will, in a "stand your ground" legal system be nearly impossible to disprove.

Rob Crawford

I have a real problems with the girlfriends story -

It's never lined up with the 911 calls or witness testimony.

Regardless -- note that nothing she claims to have heard puts Zimmerman in the wrong.

Porchlight

TK's question intrigues me. Let's guess and say the brother is 13. He's old enough to be left home alone while Trayvon goes to the store. But when Trayvon doesn't return all night, what does the brother think? He said he'd be right back.

But what if the brother is 8 or 9? That is plausible according to the photo I linked above - they could easily be 8 years apart.

If the brother is too young to call his parents when Trayvon doesn't return, then Trayvon shouldn't have left him at home alone. If he's old enough to call his parents, why didn't he?

Rob Crawford

What kind of country is it going to be if anyone can shoot anyone else, confess to it, then claim self-defense and declare it's up to the state to disprove the violent intent of the deceased.

That's not what the state has to do, bubu. Who tells you these lies?

If we intend to remain a civilized country, we're going to have restore and maintain the long-established practice with lethal force outside the home, ie that the threatened party must retreat whenever possible.

If we wish to return to a civilized country, then we must make it clear that if you assault someone, you are taking your life into your own hands. The intended victims may be armed, and they are under no responsibility to give way in the face of *your* violence.

If we're going to have widespread handgun ownership, there is no sane choice but to require the fullest possible investigations of any and every shooting of an unarmed person.

What does being "unarmed have to do with it? An "unarmed" person can still kill.

And, as you've been shown a hundred times, this case was fully investigated. Your dislike for the results of the investigation do not give you grounds to ignore its existence.

Do you put on clown makeup before you post these things, or is it just who you are?

matt

Princess Shopping Cart is jetsetting again with the kids.

Mt. Rushmore, Las Vegas, San Fran, and LA. LUN

NK

BuBu @12:46 comment has nothing to do with this case, but he makes (without any snark)a social policy argument. I'd like to hear Po and RobC's rebuttal, also without snark.

Enlightened

"What kind of country is it going to be if anyone Zimmerman can shoot anyone Martin else, confess to it inform the police he shot him, then claim self-defense and the laws of Florida declare it's up to the state to disprove the violent intent of the deceased"

Fixed that for you.

Stephanie

The most polite city in the United States is Kennesaw, Georgia.

They have a must own gun law. They also have very low crime stats... Anyone want to hazard a guess why?

narciso

I think Gerecht made these arguments earlier, in the Journal, the author is however conflating this coverage with Miller pre Gulf War, and not Sanger's leaks of invasion plans,


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4209836,00.html

NK

OK I saw RobC@12:53-- much as it pains me, sofar I am more persuaded by BuBu@12:46. Use of a firearm by a victim in a public street against an unarmed assailant must be 'last resort'. I agree with 'stand ground' in principle (retreat in some cases must be more dangerous) but when you pull and fire and kill an unarmed assailant, that had better be justified.

Rex

BB, your concerns don't correspond with what the apparent "facts" of the case are. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that if the police hadn't seen blood on Zimmerman or the bumps on the back of his head, he would have been arrested and charged with murder?

jimmyk

I'm not Po or RobC, but the bubu's first paragraph is silly. He wants to do away with the presumption of innocence.

The rest of it may be worth discussing. I'd need to understand more about the law before coming down on "Stand your ground" versus "duty to retreat," at least outside one's home or property.

NK

Rex-- the responding cop recommended arrest- the police chief ordered GZ released. That was a mistake IMO. Apparently Chief Lee, agrees he relieved himself of duty.

NK

JimmyK@1:00-- I agree; gun sales are through the roof (Ruger is sold out and not taking new orders). We better come up with clearly understood gun use rules in this country. In your home, farm/ranch or business- we have ancient 'castle' rules, any thug busting in assumes the risk of a permanent dirt nap. On the street? we better come up with clearer rules than we have now.

Rob Crawford

Use of a firearm by a victim in a public street against an unarmed assailant must be 'last resort'.

Drop the "unarmed" and I agree. It's always the last resort. Which is what I've always said.

Rex-- the responding cop recommended arrest- the police chief ordered GZ released.

The investigating officer recommended charges. His boss and the prosecutor disagreed. Guess who makes the final decision?

That was a mistake IMO.

Why does that matter?

Apparently Chief Lee, agrees he relieved himself of duty.

Under political pressure.

Rob Crawford

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that if the police hadn't seen blood on Zimmerman or the bumps on the back of his head, he would have been arrested and charged with murder?

There were also witnesses that Zimmerman was being beaten.

boris

I'd need to understand more about the law before coming down on "Stand your ground" versus "duty to retreat,"

That is more of a citizen vs subject question. Self defense is not conditional.

narciso

Of the 7 shootings that provoked the series of incidents, that I mentioned on previous
occasions, two have proved justified but tragic, that didn't stop the city commission
from dismissing the police chief, even if they
had to break the rules to do it. I'll wager
nearly all, will prove the same, but the damage is done. with the DOJ's Perez moving in for the kill.

Porchlight

Rex-- the responding cop recommended arrest- the police chief ordered GZ released. That was a mistake IMO. Apparently Chief Lee, agrees he relieved himself of duty.

So anyone who resigns under pressure must be guilty of something, else why would they resign - is that your thinking?

Sounds pretty circular to me.

NK

RobC-- actually those were mine you responded to. Wow, I'm more pro victim than you. If an assailant attacks with a lethal weapon knife, gun whatever-- drop 'em dead wwhere they stand. I issue medals for that.

Rob Crawford

We better come up with clearly understood gun use rules in this country.

We have them, for the most part. There are gray areas, but you can get sufficient clarity as to what is legal and what's not -- at least, in your state -- in a few hours of study. There's actually a book published each year that summarizes each state's gun laws; it's not difficult reading and mostly it's the same.

BTW, not every state has a "castle doctrine" law. I know that New York does not, for example.

And this case didn't even involve the "stand your ground" law. Zimmerman didn't have a chance to retreat -- and evidence is he was moving back to his truck when he was attacked.

Enlightened

"Apparently Chief Lee, agrees he relieved himself of duty"


No - Lee relieved himself temporarily because he was becoming a distraction to the case. He welcomes a federal investigation.

Wolfinger the DA also recused himself since he insisted the SPD get more evidence to arrest Zimmerman.

Neither of the above is an admission of a mistake or mishandling.

NK

Porch-- why circular? If Chief Lee's judgment were exemplary, why leave duty? I think Chief Lee wish's he'd accepted the cop's recommendation, arrested GZ on suspicion, checked out the story, had the prosecutor present to a grand jury with all mitigating evidence, have the GJ deny a true bill. How far would the race hustlers gotten if he had done that? His bad judgment gave the race hustlers an angle IMO.

Rob Crawford

Wow, I'm more pro victim than you. If an assailant attacks with a lethal weapon knife, gun whatever-- drop 'em dead wwhere they stand. I issue medals for that.

Actually, you're not. If someone attacks with their fists -- drop 'em dead where they stand.

Ignatz

--I'd need to understand more about the law before coming down on "Stand your ground" versus "duty to retreat," at least outside one's home or property.--

The 'stand your ground' law is a response to the absurd and expanding legal doctrine that if someone is threatened or assaulted and doesn't run away they are potentially fully or partially criminally culpable and civilly liable for what then occurs, even if they were doing nothing wrong.

Enlightened

OMG - What next.

"Trayvon Martin Sympathizer Arrested After Threatening to Hunt Down Police Chief & His Family “Like a Dog”

NK

Rob@1:16-- disagree with that. fists are a gray area, where the full circumstances will define the legal outcome. Let's say, on a public street Mike Tyson calls a 40yo Banker's wife a "hot white bitch" she turns confronts him and punches him in the face-- he shoots her dead with a Baretta 9mm. Justified? No crime?

Enlightened

Sorry - LUN for previous post

narciso

Remind me, again when Alberto Gonzalez, John Yoo, Karl Rove stepped down, they were guilty
as well, I know different circumstances but still.

NK

Ig-- correct, that's where the stand your ground statutes are coming from. But apparently, those statutes may be adding confusion.

Ignatz

--Use of a firearm by a victim in a public street against an unarmed assailant must be 'last resort'.--

They already are.
Had Martin only spat on Zimmerman or cursed him, Z would be in the hoosegow on murder 2 or manslaughter charges.
Surely a broken nose and having ones head pounded into the concrete should qualify as last resort.

NK

Ig-- probably-- I want to know more facts.

Ignatz

--Let's say, on a public street Mike Tyson calls a 40yo Banker's wife a "hot white bitch" she turns confronts him and punches him in the face-- he shoots her dead with a Baretta 9mm. Justified? No crime?--

The existing standard is a reasonable belief your health or life are in imminent peril.
Would Tyson's belief be reasonable? Obviously not.

Ignatz

--Ig-- probably-- I want to know more facts.-

Me too. And I want fewer rumors, suppositions and speculations parading as facts. Not accusing you of any of those, BTW.

NK

Ig@1:24 Take that up with RobC (BTW- risk of life threatening or serious injury is the usual legal standard.).

Enlightened

"His bad judgment gave the race hustlers an angle IMO"

No - The race hustlers have only one angle -black versus white.

What you are saying is that the Chief should have treated a black victim of a non-black suspect differently than any other suspect/victims to assauge race baiters.

buzz

As for the stuff about Zimmerman's father being a retired magistrate, the lefty blogs are swimming with talk that he somehow got off because of his dad. I don't have confirmation where the dad was a magistrate, but since they lived in Virginia until a few years ago that's a pretty safe guess. Here's the thing - being a magistrate in Virginia is not that big a deal. It's a quasi-judical position that doesn't require a law degree. There are several hundred of them in the state. They do things like sign off on arrest warrants, subpoenas, etc., but they can't even rule on speeding tickets. His dad might have some pull in Virginia because he would know a lot of the cops, but I highly doubt that the authorities in Flordia would jump through hoops for someone because they used to have a mid-level judicial job in another state.

NK

Ig@1:26 -- again take that up with RobC his conclusion is there is NO EVIDENCE of a crime here. RobC I am not knocking you here, but I really disagree with that 'conclusion', way premature IMO.

Threadkiller

Bunker, what kind of country indeed.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/07/obamas-kill-policy/

You new found concerns makes it easy for me to say that today, bunker, we are brothers.

Captain Hate

O/T Per Tammy Bruce, Soledad O'Brien has the lowest viewership of any CNN morning show in more than a decade.

narciso

'We're through the looking glass, yes it's a red flag, who he's associated with.


http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/latino-organizations-dismiss-george-zimmerman-question-his-ethnicity/

NK

Enlightened@1:27-- you're being unfair-- I suggest that Chief Lee should have treated more thoroughly a situation where a man shoots dead an unarmed 17yo on the street.

lyle

The result would simply be mob justice--is that where we want to go?

Too late for that. The race hustlers have unleashed the mob and the effing press abets it.

Have I mentioned how much I loathe the press lately?

FRONT TOWARD LEFT

How far would the race hustlers gotten if he had done that?

When I first heard this story last week, the race hustlers' facts as the media presented them without question were that a white, racist, wife-beating, cop-assaulting, mall-ninja, self-appointed neighborhood watch captain executed an innocent, angel-faced little boy in cold blood with a handgun.

What possible difference could a grand jury no bill have made?

Rob Crawford

fists are a gray area, where the full circumstances will define the legal outcome. Let's say, on a public street Mike Tyson calls a 40yo Banker's wife a "hot white bitch" she turns confronts him and punches him in the face-- he shoots her dead with a Baretta 9mm. Justified? No crime?

*sigh*

Tyson initiated the encounter. He's at fault.

boris

In the Martin case, a month old now, there is one narrative with witnesses, physical evidence, 911 recordings and the survivors statement.

Unless another credible witness comes forward these are the facts.

buzz

here's some more info about the power (and lack thereof) of magistrates in Virgina

http://www.courts.state.va.us/courtadmin/aoc/djs/programs/mag/about.html

narciso

'the more selective' marketing plan, didn't work, or people were drawn to the post Derrick Bell carwreck, ala Rock Center, and
then ran for the hills,

Threadkiller

Porch, they seem to be avoiding the Martin family values. The sibling will not be interviewed, imo.

Rob Crawford

again take that up with RobC his conclusion is there is NO EVIDENCE of a crime here.

From what we know, Zimmerman's actions were within the bounds of self defense. Florida law says that's not a crime.

It's more than there being no evidence of a crime -- the evidence says his actions were not criminal.

RobC I am not knocking you here, but I really disagree with that 'conclusion', way premature IMO.

I don't care if you disagree. That's the conclusion the prosecutor came to, because he didn't/doesn't have evidence to contradict the claim to self defense.

NK

RobC -- you're joking at 1:33... right?

Danube of Thought

Meanwhile, up the road in Carolina:

SENECA, SC (FOX Carolina) -

Seneca police said they arrested six men Wednesday in connection with the beating of a North Carolina man at Applebee's earlier in March.

Police said their investigation determined that the victim was beat by the group of men and the incident may have been racially motivated. The department said they forwarded the case to the FBI to determine if it should be pursued further as a hate crime under federal law.


Officers said all six suspects were charged with assault and battery by a mob in connection with the March 17 beating.

The suspects are Teryn Robinson, 18, Tray Holland, 19, Justin Alexander, 20, Derick Williams, 22, Kino Jones, 25, and Montrez Jones, 22. Police said all of them are from the Seneca area and were taken into custody without incident.

FRONT TOWARD LEFT

RobC -- you're joking at 1:33... right?

What's funny about that?

Ignatz

--Ig@1:26 -- again take that up with RobC his conclusion is there is NO EVIDENCE of a crime here.--

If you mean evidence of a crime by Zimmerman I also am having a hard time seeing it.
There is incontrovertible evidence that a homicide occurred and substantial physical evidence and statements from Zimmerman and other witnesses that Martin committed a crime against Zimmerman. Martin's death, Zimmerman's exiting his auto, Zimmerman's possession of a firearm constitute evidence of an incident, but as yet not of a crime. Perhaps there is more evidence which would implicate Zimmerman. I haven't seen it.

Got work to do and then off for a CT scan this afternoon to check the old air pumps. Toodle oo.

NK

RobC-- the local prosecutor has said a State and fed review of the case is warranted, the Police Chief-- temporarily-- relieved himself of Duty, the Govenor and State AG said a full review of the facts are warranted. OK-- there is conclusive proof no crime could have possibly occured. OK got it.

Threadkiller

Order to Strike looks more like Not in My Backyard (or how to write nutty stuff and not get accused of being a nut):

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker noted in the Order to Strike Hugh McInnish's Petition for Writ of Mandamus:

"Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the "short form" and the "long form" birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public."

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/03/alabama-supreme-court-serious-questions.html?m=1

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA

I'm seeing conflicting descriptions of the general sequence. Could someone tell me if one of these is correct? Or are both still in doubt?
1) Z was following TrM around
2) Z got out of his car to get an address for police, then returned to his vehicle but was attacked on the way back to the vehicle

NK

Ig-- best of luck with the scan.

Danube of Thought

I wouldn't vote for a law like Florida's. I think it is an invitation to the kind of tragedy we are looking at here. Common-law self defense--which may be present here--works for me.

NK

JimM-- 1 & 2 is the account GZ gave to the police.

Enlightened

"I suggest that Chief Lee should have treated more thoroughly a situation where a man shoots dead an unarmed 17yo on the street"

No, I'm not trying to be unfair to anyone - the Chief is not allowed to treat cases differently than what the law requires - he has to follow the law regardless of who the suspect/victims are.....otherwise he finds himself resigning temporarily for a litany of reasons for every case.

He did the right thing by stepping out of the case now that the race baiters have jumped in and creat poisoned the publicity pool - and let his actions be properly reviewed. There is nothing untoward about his actions then or now by stepping away, except for the crazies that now want to kill him and his family too.

qrstuv

NK "Let's say, on a public street Mike Tyson calls a 40yo Banker's wife a "hot white bitch" she turns confronts him and punches him in the face-- he shoots her dead with a Baretta 9mm. Justified? No crime? "

You're missing the part where the shooter has to credibly be in fear for his life.

You're a dishonest hack.

Threadkiller

"Kino" and "Montrez" are still available to trademark.

Pofarmer

Tne whole thing is one long straw man argument.

"What kind of country is it going to be if anyone can shoot anyone else, confess to it, then claim self-defense and declare it's up to the state to disprove the violent intent of the deceased."

What is the alternative in a State of Free Citizens? It's up to the State to prove you guilty.

"If we intend to remain a civilized country, we're going to have restore and maintain the long-established practice with lethal force outside the home, ie that the threatened party must retreat whenever possible."

So, if someone is in fisticuffs with you, the answer is to try to run away at whatever costs. If you don't run away, no matter the provocation, you are guilty of a crime? That's how the old laws were.

"If we're going to have widespread handgun ownership, there is no sane choice but to require the fullest possible investigations of any and every shooting of an unarmed person."

Armed or unarmed has zero to do with it. I havr no knowledge if another person is armed.

"I'm pretty sure the police stand to lose the most should we fail to do that, followed closely by law-abiding citizens who carry firearms -- a ready-made threat that will, in a "stand your ground" legal system be nearly impossible to disprove."

Under what bubu proposes, it's exactly the law abiding citizens who stand the most to lose. Look at crime stats in Washington or Chicago. If we criminalize every act of self defense, then we become a nation of sheep, with wolves in our midst, and become easy prey. The gang bangers and thugs would like nothng better. The vast majority of gun owning, gun toting citizens are a direct threat to. NOONE except those that directly threaten them. By all means, let's remove all means of self defense, or ,ake the laws so convoluted that we wonder if we defend ourselves if we will go to jail or be persecuted in the media. By all means. That leads to many more of us dead.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame