Wow, just have a look at this article by Joan Peterson. She starts off by citing this biased article talking about people claiming self-defense and being released.
They of course give no data on the various cases, but imply that somehow all these self-defense cases are legalized murder. Of course this does happen, and has happened since the dawn of time, as Mas Ayoob makes note of. But that’s how the law works. You can claim anything you want, and the law needs to decide if they have a case, and the court of law decided if charges are valid, and what punishments need to be administered.
Still she doubles-down in the end which REALLY shows how anti-rights cultists stand.
Do we have throw away people in this country? Real people have become the collateral damage of the NRA’s agenda. Trayvon Martin for one. Darius Simmons who was moving the garbage cart in front of his house for another. Burglars who happen to run through the yard of a Texas home owner? And yet another- Bo Morrisson who hid in a Wisconsin man’s back porch because of trouble at a near-by party, meaning no harm and unarmed. And how about Yoshihiro Hattori unfamiliar with American customs on Halloween who shows up at the wrong house for a party and got blown away by the home owner just because? Are these throw-away people? Is stealing with no intent to do harm a reason for being shot? Is getting the garbage innocently not realizing that the man next door thinks you stole his guns reason to be blown away by the man? Is innocently showing up at the wrong house on Halloween a reason to be shot? Is walking around in a neighborhood unarmed meaning no harm while wearing a hoodie a reason for a vigilante with a gun to shoot you? Laws can be amended or changed when it is obvious they are harmful. People’s lives cannot be brought back when they are wrongfully dead. Let’s not throw away our common sense in the guise of the NRA’s dark version of self defense.
If you aren’t familiar with the case she gives articles on all of the cases…well except this one, where the shooter has been charged with murder, so it doesn’t even pertain to her point.
All of the “Throw Away” people were committing aggressive crimes, and some were career criminals. In most of the cases it could be argued that if the defender hadn’t shot THEY might be dead.
So there’s the crux of all anti-rights “Progressive” arguments. Violent Criminal life is sacred, and peaceful lawful life is forfeit.
In her addled mind this is what passes for “Common Sense”.
She uses the term, common sense, like a magic talisman. “My nerfgun of common sense gives me +5 Logic. . .” Fortunately, there are many of us who know that she’s delusional.
LOL! If I still played D&D I’d totally have a “Helm Of Common Sense” in a loot pile somewhere! 8)
The last time I played, I was a thief character. I sold my teammate the Brooklyn Bridge and earned points.
Good times. . .
AWESOME!
I think the last time I played it was a Five Rings campaign (set in a far-east setting) and I was a Lawful Evil rogue, that was a LOT of fun.
Obviously she doesn’t do a stitch of research other copy/past. One of the cases that she cites, that I’m very familiar with, is Yoshihiro Hattori. In this case, the young man wasn’t unfamiliar with American customs on Halloween, he and his friend were lost and went to the wrong house. The homeowner confronted the two and (this is where the story gets blurry) and according to the homeowner, Hattori moved toward the homeowner, who was carrying a firearm. The homeowner was charged, tried and acquitted. Not only did the homeowner go through the judicial system, but this happened in 1992. Louisiana didn’t have any thing close to a Castle Doctrine until1993. Prior to that, a homeowner had to retreat until ‘the last wall’. Then, the Castle Doctrine (La RS 14:19, La RS 14:20) wasn’t reenacted until 2006.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=397919
Oh yeah, like all her arguments are 100% full of holes. Hence why she referenced the guy who shot the kid taking out the trash as a SYG case where the shooter went free, when it has NONE of those elements.
I don’t think many anti-gun people have a thirst for knowledge. I’m one of those guys, and after debating a few pro-gun guys in my own anti-gun days, so I decided that I was going to come back with a vengeance by arming myself with hard facts.
Instead I crushed my belief that gun control was at all a good idea.
And this was in the late 90s where the internet didn’t have all the great gun websites we have today. That somebody can be ethically anti-gun where not only is the internet a goldmine of knowledge you can gather while in your PJs sitting at home, but ISP prices are also dirt cheap.
Nope, anti-gunners are lying and KNOW they’re lying. They are EVIL.
You’re right, they’re liars and they know it. I’ve been on the gun rights debate since way back when you had to fax a request to the FBI and wait on a mailed response, which was always fourth class because it was so heavy. Back in the day, the antis were usually just misinformed by the media, or whomever, now with access to information 24/7, there’s no reason for them to constantly perpetuate the lies.
Over at mikeb’s blog, over the past week or so he’s commented a couple of times that statistics that I provided directly from FBI or CDC were ‘unbelievable’ which leads me to believe that either ‘gun death’ is not a big a problem as he believes, or he doesn’t want to face the true facts.
back when I commented over there he claimed the FBI and CDC were in the pocket of the NRA!
If you are serious, and honest, please read the actual facts of the Hattori murder. The murderer was a scared old man, and I honestly believe many of you are frightened old people, whose wife caused him through her panic to commit a murder he himself mourned. The murderer was so upset that he apologized to the family of the young man he murdered and swore he would never own a gun again.
The murderer was found guilty of the death in a Civil Suit and there was a 600 Thousand plus dollar judgement against him.
Just because you feel impotent, a. it does not give you the right to kill (although, some juries will grant you such a right), and b. it should not lead you to live such fear-filled ugly lives where you delight in a scared old couple slaughtering a Japanese Exchange student in cold blood.
I think if scared old white people started shooting other scared old white people maybe you would have some compassion for the murdered. I understand how fear and impotence lead to stockpiling guns and your conformist fantasies of knee jerk violent responses to your fear induced perceived threats. You truly are a scared and terrified bunch, and I hope none of your violent fantasies come true.
Here is the actual story of the murder of Hattori and of the remorseful man who let his wife’s hysterical and unwarranted hyper vigilance turn him into a regretful but craven coward:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori
I know this post won’t go through over there so I’ll post here. Check out this bit of verbal diarrhea from Dog Gone:
Dog Gone: “The law worked EXACTLY as the right wingers intended it to do – it let people get away with shooting so that more people would be armed and more people would be using those guns in more places.
All of which was intended to sell more guns and more ammo.”
Yes, this wasn’t about self-defense. This was about the 40cents worth of ammo that Zimmerman used in defense- ultimately lining the pockets of fat cats in Fairfax.
Dog Gone makes Joan look like an expert writer and super-genius by comparison.
Dog-Gone’s blogging skills consists entirely of mastering pressing the control button and “C” as well as also pressing Control plus “V”. And I suspect if she messes up, Control plus “Z” isn’t in her skill set, and she’s forced to mash the delete key with her palm until the mistake goes away.
Where they differ for me is that Dog Gone is the biggest hypocrite of the whole lot. Sure Japete’s husband owns some hunting rifles, but I bet she would get rid of them if he passed away. Dog Gone, on the other hand, has a .45, and a CCW, but the real kicker is that he said she would not hesitate to shoot a particular woman for harassing her the second she stepped on her front lawn. No, not immediate threat of grave bodily injury or death, but simply being annoyed… harassed… intimidated. That is reason enough to kill so long as she is the one doing it. I keep reminding myself of that every time she speaks of concealed carry or self-defense laws.
“No one who knew either of us doubted that if she were to show up on my front lawn again at 3 a.m. to attempt to harrass and intimidate me, that I would shoot her long before she could get any closer, taking advantage of the ranged aspect of the firearm.”
Given that mindset, of course Dog Gone supports “gun control” – after all, she would not exactly want her intended victim to be capable of fighting back, now would she?
Mike B was a drug dealer back in the 80s.
They don’t like private gun ownership, nor self-defense laws, because I think he knows he was lucky to leave that line of work NOT in a pine box.
Of course now the scumbag works for the UN, I’d kinda prefer he sold coke to kids over that. At least drug dealers have SOME scruples!
you have a link to the post where she said this?
**UPDATE** Nevermind I found it and archived a copy just-in-case.
Her blog is one that seems to verge on paranoia that EVERYBODY is stalking and attacking her. Could be nothing, could be grounds for a future murder. Time will tell!
I am still looking for another quote of hers. In an effort to show how she is different than “fearful paranoid gunloons”, she specifically said she was never in fear of her stalker, never saw her as a legitimate threat, and was merely “annoyed”. She used that word. It is buried in the comment section sometime between 6 months and a year ago, so it would take a lot of reading to find it, but as I remember it, it is an even better quote of her hypocrisy than the one I gave.
Her friends then talked her into getting a gun and CCW, as she pursued a restraining order through the courts where the judge gave her permission to shoot the woman if she ever sees her again. In her mind, that is what separates her from a lunatic like Greg Camp- she has a state sanctioned license to kill while we make a life or death judgment based on our own morality in that moment of time. But there is no judge to tell us to shoot. We value personal morality- she values state authority. And she seems to not have morality of her own since she said she would kill someone for annoying her as soon as she knew she would get away with it.
By the way, where do you get that MikeB was a drug dealer from? It seems he clammed up about his past.
Bob did a LOT of good work stitching together a ton of comments.
http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4488
Mike Read it, and certainly didn’t take any issue with anything there.
Her argument, and those of similar ilk, completely falls apart when you realize that the police do not show up and give the person a free pass just because they claim a self-defense shooting.
As noted in the post, there is going to be an investigation, there may be a trial, but no one gets off without a review of the situation. Same investigation would happen if a knife, sword, baseball bat, tire iron or a crossbow were employed instead. Do some people escape justice when they commit murder? See: OJ Simpson.
She is right that people’s lives cannot be replaced when they are “wrongfully dead” and that is why we have a justice system to punish those people committing murder. However, she cannot see that as an innocent, law-abiding gun owner, I do not want to fall into that unfortunate category of “wrongfully dead” at the hands of a criminal, so I want to be armed. If I ever misuse a firearm, I will face the legal consequences.
There is no “dark version” of self-defense. It is either SD or it is not. What alternate reality does she exist in?
Feature, not a bug.