The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
From Tam, on a preteen birthday party gone sour:
I do know that they take money out of your paycheck for 911 services, and dialing that number will cause a guy dripping with qualified immunity to show up and pepper spray the preteen birthday party, so us bloggers can rake him over the coals for it.
Along the lines of what I blogged about earlier today. We live in a hysterical media-driven society largely devoid of civic virtue. Best to keep that in mind when carrying to defend life.Extrano’s Alley takes a look at the new facts that have emerged, and Joe Huffman has just one question about the case. I think at this point we’re running out of new facts and revelations. Â Thanks to overreach on the part of insurrectionist militias and celebrity assholes, I think this case is jumping the shark. I think a lot of gun people, who were initially quite hostile toward Zimmerman, and feeling a bit sheepish as the facts are coming out. I wouldn’t feel too bad, personally, because that initial reaction occurred because he broke one of the cardinal rules of lawful concealed carry, which is to practice avoidance and not to go looking for trouble. I think when mistakes like that are made out of the gate, that leads to a shooting, that shooting is naturally going to garner less sympathy from our community, and we’re less willing to give someone the benefit of doubt on other facts. If anything, this shows the importance of engaging in good practices while carrying.
I carry a gun to protect me and those I love. I don’t carry a gun to protect you, my neighborhood, or society as a whole. I realize this makes me a poor sheepdog, and I don’t care. I don’t get paid to be a sheepdog, and for better or worse society looks down on people being sheepdogs who don’t get paid for the duty. I’m willing to be a good witness, I’m willing to call police, and hell, in a rare, outstandingly clear circumstance, I might decide to intervene directly.
As much as I wish we lived in a society where looking out for each other in that manner was socially acceptable, the fact of the matter is that it often isn’t, and I’m not rolling those dice for you. If I end up using deadly force to save someone from an attacker, the potential six figure trial is on me. Not the state, and not the person saved. Hell, how do I know the person I’m saving isn’t one of these self-loathing types that’d rather be a victim than have to live with being connected to a justifiable homicide. You know, someone who can assuage that guilt by blaming the person who killed to save them. If you don’t think those types exist, you’ll believe it when they’re testifying for the prosecution at your trial.
George Zimmerman’s concern for his neighborhood was commendable, but he doesn’t owe anyone what he’s going through now. Ultimately his neighbors didn’t care enough to get involved, and some of them are active in the movement to lynch him before he’s even had a fair trial. Unfortunately, in a society where no one is responsible for themselves, their actions, or really anything, this is what we reap. We don’t live in a society where civic responsibility is commended, nor do we live in a society where the civilly responsible are given the benefit of doubt.
I am not a fan of utter passivity, like the kind that happened when Zimmerman was screaming for help. The fact that no one responded, save one person who called the police immediately and took a look to be a witness, is lamentable. But no one owes their neighbors what Zimmerman is going though. And for what? To rid the neighborhood of suspicious looking people? I’m definitely not saying I’d never intervene to save a neighbor, but I am definitely saying if you’re going to do that, you better make sure the crime matches the stakes, otherwise, I’m not looking to be anyone’s sheepdog save me and mine.
UPDATE: Today’s update from Extrano’s Alley.
One of the obnoxious sayings our opponents have come with is classifying “Stand your Ground” or “Castle Doctrine” as “Shoot First, and ask questions later.” This idea is to laughable to anyone with half a clue about how the legal system works. It makes you wonder if they think people don’t stop for even a few seconds to ponder that. Maybe they don’t think too highly of their followers, and from what I’ve seen of many of them, maybe they shouldn’t.
But what in what legal system are you not judged for your actions after committing some act? It’s not like some guy pulls a knife on you, demands your wallet, and before you can break leather, a judge appears out of the darkness, with twelve angry men and two attorneys in tow, who begin to hear testimony, cross examine witnesses and weigh evidence, then issue a verdict about whether or not you can shoot your attackers.
Any act of self-defense using deadly force is shoot first and ask questions later. Anyone who’s not a moron, or didn’t sleep through civics class in high school, knows that. Do the anti-gun groups really think people are that stupid?
Pretty recently, we got ourselves some castle doctrine and stand your ground here in Pennsylvania too. The Allentown Morning Call is reporting on a story that presents a test of the new law. Prosecutors said even if the law hadn’t changed, they probably still would have declined to prosecute. What tends to steady a prosecutors hands is that juries are generally more forgiving of crime victims dispatching their attackers than prosecutors tend to be. I’ve said previously that all stand your ground really does is make the law reflect what juries tend to do anyway. It honestly doesn’t change that much, but it does pull some options off the table for a prosecutor who doesn’t like self-defense that just wants to nail someone. Think about the Gerald Ung case for a minute. Duty to retreat didn’t play a role there (Ung was retreating when he was attacked), but would you really want to give prosecutors an extra tool to go after someone who committed legitimate self-defense? Bet their future that the Jury will do the right thing anyway? Make them pay six figure legal fees to go to trail because the powers that be in a big city don’t like the plebes to be able to have guns to defend themselves? Castle Doctrine laws are more a statement of principle than a desire to fix an actual problem, and I think most people agree with the principle it states.
Speaking of the Pennsylvania law, our arch nemesis (every blog should have an arch nemesis!), Max Nacheman of CeaseFirePA, is busy misrepresenting self-defense laws, the Martin case, and pooping all over due process on Public Radio here in Pennsylvania. I thought the attorney, Peter Georgiades, on our side, did an excellent job. Max Nacheman is pretty clearly not a legal expert, and it was enjoyable to see him go up against someone that was. Give it a listen. It’s worth 24 minutes if your time.
The Daily Caller wants to know:
The reason so many people want to discuss Trayvon’s shooting is that it advances a narrative of racial hatred, while discussing black-on-black murders does not. But the black community would be far better off if there was an open dialogue about black-on-black crime and the black community’s culture of death.
The media is much much more comfortable speaking about racial hatred than they are black-on-black crime. I’ve often believed gun control is a cop out to avoid having to discuss the topic. Suggesting that we ought to disarm blacks, without disarming everyone else, is thankfully, legally and politically untenable and would be regarded by most people as a racist policy. But it’s perfectly OK to suggest laws that apply to blacks and whites equally, but just happen to make the right to own and carry a gun much more difficult for blacks to exercise because of the cost and discretion often given authorities to deny “unsuitable persons.”
It’s always been a very interesting coincidence that most of our gun laws are aimed at making gun ownership more expensive. This is a minor burden to whites, who’s average household income is 67% higher than the average household income of blacks. But for poor blacks, who’s need for self-protection is probably considerably more acute than your average suburban dweller, a 120 dollar gun permit might be a difficult obstacle. That’s why I think everyone ought to be outraged at the latest ruling from New York City, which suggests New York’s insane fees for exercising Second Amendment rights are just fine constitutionally:
The judge says there’s no evidence the fee has stopped anyone from exercising their rights. He says the city showed the fee helps cover administrative costs.
Easy for a well paid, comparatively, judge to say. If the public demands to interfere with individual rights for the public good, the public should bear all the cost. To do otherwise is to say that some American’s rights are more important than other Americans. Bloomberg should be ashamed.
They’ve never heard of it, apparently. Nor have they apparently heard of checking your facts before making a claim. Kudos to the Daily Caller for, pardon the pun, calling them out on their deception. I wish more media would research and call gun control groups out for their lies:
The Brady Campaign sent this statement to TheDC Monday evening: “It has now been reported that the Sanford Police Department is in possession of the gun that George Zimmerman used to shoot Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, however, still has his concealed carry license and he still has the ability to buy a gun and carry it into public spaces.â€
I’m sure the Brady Campaign believes the police are naturally letting shooters walk away with critical evidence, and they aren’t liars at all. I’m also sure they have a strong belief in due process, and don’t believe that people should be deprived of their right to keep and bear arms, or life, liberty or property without due process of law. I see that the Second Amendment isn’t the only part of the Constitution the Brady’s wish didn’t exist. Does this also mean they support the law of the mob?
Even though by now it’s abundantly clear, based on witness statements, that Stand Your Ground had no bearing on this case, the narrative continues:
This stopped being about Trayvon Martin days ago. The media is now in a full court press to blame the laws, despite the current witness testimony that essentially reveal that Martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shooting occurred. Duty to retreat is not at issue here. It can’t be at issue. Zimmerman had no means of retreat. The entire question, as I have said since the beginning, will hinge on whether Zimmerman is faultless.
Over at Calguns Forum, they seem to have discovered that Mike Bloomberg’s Senior Counsel for Firearms Policy, Laurin Grollman, is, according to someone at CalGuns, “the the same attorney who is of counsel on this brief for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. as amicus curiae in support of petitioners in McDonald v Chicago?”
Could certainly be. She wouldn’t be the first attorney that worked for the industry to end up playing both sides.