Joan Gets Backed Into a Corner

Ever since the anti-rights forces have leveled their sights on stand your ground they have been making claims of “License to Murder”, or claims of just saying “I was scared” and you can walk away from all suspicion.

Then George Zimmerman was charged with murder. When questioned, the anti-rights forces have lockstep claimed that it was the mobs of angry racists calling for blood and threatening riots that stirred the justice system to file the charges.

Then came the Rodriguez Case….now Joan is in a corner:

I wrote about this case the other day in this post. The fact that the man came prepared with his gun, his flashlight and a video camera ready to argue with and shoot his neighbors should send shivers up your spine. This man did not deserve to go free. Though he tried, his claim of self defense did not convince a jury. That is because his claim was totally ridiculous and cynical. Thankfully, some of the Stand Your Ground claims are so heinous that the shooter does not get immunity from prosecution and has to face a jury. But Rodriguez fully expected that he could shoot first and ask questions later.

Ok so let’s look where the goal posts are now moved. Stand Your Ground allows you to claim self defense…but if the case doesn’t add up correctly you can still be charged with Murder.

Or, simply put, Stand Your Ground is a self defense claim recognized by the law, just like any other justification under the law.

Or in short, everything the antis told you about Stand Your Ground was a lie, and they KNOW it. Now Joan is telling the truth, and trying to spin in for her political needs.


**UPDATE** Sebastian makes some GREAT points on the same issue. He cites that Rodriguez was heard stating bullshit claims that he could get away with murder so long as he said all the right things. Where could he have heard that? Of course the gun blogs and the NRA have been nothing but frank about the laws because they’re good laws, and we stand behind them. Conceal carry classes are VERY limited in what they can say about the law because they can be sued and lose their livelihood over bad teaching.

These lies are 100% from the MSM and the anti-gun lobby groups. The ONLY other places I hear bullshit like this is A) Forums where such nonsense quickly gets stomped by the more mature and intelligent users, and gun shops. The gun shops is a bit of an odd case, Most shops know their stuff and know it cold, or avoid any foolish bravado outright. Still I have heard the old saw of “If you shoot somebody in your home and they stumble out and die on the sidewalk….drag them back in before calling the police!” Or “If you shoot an intruder in your home, stick a kitchen knife in their hand just to be safe.” Of course many people will jump in and call “bullshit”, but sometimes there’s a slow day, and Cletus the Commando might be the only guy watching the register.

Occam’s Razor says Rodriguez heard some anti-rights talking points (probably from a group Joan works for) either directly, or parroted by “Progressive” media types.

Yep, that stuff on your hands, its blood. I doubt they’re shocked, I bet they’re used to it by now.

This entry was posted in Guns, Politics, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Joan Gets Backed Into a Corner

  1. You can’t back someone into a corner who’s more than happy to insist that the walls she’s bumping into are really sprawling, sun-dappled hanging gardens. 😉

    We could issue everybody a free .380, and have the murder rate drop to two people stabbed per year, and she’s still be shrieking that those two would be alive if we banned guns.

  2. Jack says:

    So she’s angry that someone thought SYG was a free liscence to go out an murder up someone. Gee, where would someone get that idea?

  3. Archer says:

    I said it over at Sebastian’s, and I’ll repeat it here:

    The sad thing is that this case completely undermines the antis assertions that “Stand Your Ground” laws are a license to kill indiscriminately and that anyone claiming self-defense will get off. We had a bad shoot, he claimed self-defense under SYG, and was found guilty of murder because it was ruled NOT a legitimate self-defense case and SYG doesn’t apply.

    And yet, they’re still calling this tragedy a victory for their cause. They don’t just have blood on their hands or their dancing shoes; they bathe in the stuff.

    • Archer says:

      Also, be careful backing a rabid animal like her into a corner. Once her “duty to retreat” is fulfilled, there’s no telling what she might do! 😉

  4. In the first line you said, “Fast and Furious” but the subject matter is Stand your Ground. It as a bit of a disconnect.

  5. Pyrotek85 says:

    What makes her think that criminals (generally speaking) hadn’t come up with the idea of claiming self defense before SYG? That’s got to be one of the most common explanations since the dawn of civilization. You can claim whatever you want, that’s not what determines your guilt.

  6. TS says:

    Nope, it’s still our fault. If we didn’t make those laws, they wouldn’t have had to lie about them.

  7. TS says:

    Yep, it is either “it was self-defense”, or “I didn’t do it”, with the occasional “the devil made me do it.”

  8. TS says:

    Jadegold will take a different approach. I predict he will say SYG is only intended to protect white people shooting minorities. If a Hispanic person kills a white person (especially in Texas, Florida or Arizona), they get the chair. Mark my words- he’ll say it.

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      I wouldn’t put money against it.

    • Greg Camp says:

      He said that very thing about Indiana’s new law allowing people to defend themselves against illegal home invasions by police. He claimed that it’s a law for fat white men only.

      That was one of the last articles that I read over there before Mikeb told me to f— off.

      • TS says:

        Really, Mike told you to leave? What happened?

        I really don’t get this whole Dog gone and Laci leaving and then coming back to push their commenting policy on Mike. He seemed to want and prefer open comments, even crediting it with high traffic. Very strange.

        • Weerd Beard says:

          I’m curious about that interaction too, Bill.

          As for his authors, Mike took a page from the Robert Farago playbook, and invited anybody who was anti-gun to be an author.

          Like all antis, Mike has a commenting policy he doesn’t follow. Generally he’d delete comments that were too informative (a good plan really, because it looks bad, and it makes people think twice about writing a long thoughtful comment that may never see the light of day) or that discussed his past history of drugs and illegal firearms ownership.

          Of course Mike has no loyalty to his authors, so comments that insult or attack the others were approved by him, and I think he liked the drama that stirred up. Certainly comment arguments are good for SEO as well as page views.

          This hostile environment caused the others to leave. It appears they are now back with full moderation powers, and frankly I’m no longer entertained.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *