Politics – Page 155 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Inspiring Confidence

These days if someone finds a powdery substance somewhere, it pretty clearly has to be tested. This happened at NASA recently, and it was found to be cocaine. This wouldn’t be of much note if the same thing hadn’t happened last year:

In January 2010, about 200 Kennedy Space Center workers were tested when a small bag of cocaine was found inside a space shuttle processing facility where Discovery was being readied for flight. That case was closed, and there were no arrests.

Good to know that the employees of NASA are flying high as they prep the space shuttle to fly high. Maybe it helps take the edge off those budget cuts, and impending unemployment caused by the end of the shuttle program.

Good Castle Doctrine Editorial

From the Patriot News, even going so far as to point out a case of aggravated assault where Castle Doctrine wouldn’t come into play. To hear some in the media tell it, this bill makes it easy to just shoot people. Another case that wouldn’t be helped by Castle Doctrine? Gerald Ung. Even if it eliminated the duty to retreat when facing an unarmed opponent(s), which it doesn’t, the prosecution never made the case that Ung violated a duty to retreat.

Pennsylvania Anti-TSA Bill

Not to be outdone by New Jersey, a bill has been introduced in the Pennsylvania House to criminalize the TSA nude-o-scope and grope. Now, apparently, with 10x the radiation, absolutely free!

US Embassy in Mexico Releases Statement

They say Gunwalker is “an operation that dismantled a major arms trafficking ring that has been called Fast and Furious.” Read the whole sad thing. Their damage control is pathetic. From what we’ve seen so far, there was enough evidence to bust those rounded up and indicted for quite some time now. Why did it take this long to make an actual bust?

More on Bean Bags

Looks like the Department of Homeland Security is responding that border officers also have plenty of lethal firepower available to them:

“When the suspected aliens did not drop their weapons, two Border Patrol Agents deployed ‘less than lethal’ bean bags at the suspected aliens,” Hunter wrote. “At this time, at least one of the suspected aliens fired at the Border Patrol Agents,” striking Terry, Hunter wrote.

The question would be what are the protocols? To me, once the officers noticed that the suspects were carrying rifles, bean bags should have been off the table. No one carries a rifle unless they are anticipating trouble. At that point, they should have been ready to return rifle fire as soon as they announced police presence to the suspects. That they were not is either a problem with training or protocol. Simply saying they had lethal options available to them tells us nothing of what they were trained to do in this situation. That’s the question that needs to be answered.

Don’t Take Beanbags to a Gunfight

Congressman Ted Poe is questioning the border patrol policy that helped lead to the death of Agent Terry.

ATF Has Some Competition

The Mayor of a New Mexico town, and his police chief, have been indicted on charges of illegally trafficking firearms to Mexico.

New Language

I can indeed find some new language in this year’s castle doctrine, as opposed to last year, but so far I don’t see anything that should give us cause to withdraw support for the bill or seriously worry ourselves:

(2.3) Â An actor who is not engaged in a criminalÂ activity, WHO IS NOT IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM andÂ who is attacked in any place where the actor would have aÂ duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii), has no duty toÂ retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force,Â including deadly force, if:

The section in all caps is new. For most of us who are carrying firearms legally, this isn’t an issue.

(2.4) Â THE EXCEPTION TO THE DUTY TO RETREAT SET FORTH UNDER PARAGRAPH (2.3) DOES NOT APPLY IF THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE FORCE IS USED IS A PEACE OFFICER ACTING IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AND THE ACTOR USING FORCE KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE PERSON WAS A PEACE OFFICER.

This is new in this section. Without context it’s hard to explain, but I will try. In last year’s bill, you could not use the presumption set fourth that deadly force is justified against someone unlawfully and forcefully entering your home if that person was a peace officer performing his official duties. In a way it’s kind of redundant, because presumably a peace officer is lawfully entering a home, and if a peace officer were unlawfully entering a home, then that wouldn’t be part of his official duties, would it? This years bill adds that same provision to anywhere you have a legal right to be. My opinion is this is a feel good provision. Obviously a peace officer who’s in the process of, say, unlawfully raping a woman, isn’t “acting in the performance of his official duties.”

(d) Â Definition.–As used in this section, the term “criminal activity” means conduct which is a misdemeanor or felony, is not justifiable under this chapter and is ~~the proximate cause of~~ RELATED TO the confrontation between an actor and the person against whom force is used.

You can see where last year’s language was struck and replaced with the language in caps. This is probably the language being talked about by the DA’s association. My guess is they were concerned about the burden of proving proximate cause, rather than just having to prove a relationship between the crime and the need to use deadly force, which is a clearer standard. I don’t seriously object to this change.

The rest of the bill is identical to last years, including the civil immunity provisions. My feeling is the changes promoted by the DA’s association are relatively minor and are a reasonable concession if in return they drop their opposition to the bill. The DA’s association no doubt came to the table because they realized something was likely going to pass this session, and decided it was better to get some minor concessions than continuing to tilt at windmills.

That has probably been why this bill has moved so quickly and been voted on so overwhelmingly. Without the DA association’s objections to ride on, opponents of Castle Doctrine don’t have much political cover for their opposition, so they caved. I think the changes outlined were small concessions to make in order to get this bill to move quickly and get cleanly through the legislature.

DA’s Association on Castle Doctrine

Looks like the DA’s association has softened their opposition, but the reason is worrisome:

Now, Marsico says the DAâ€™s Association is working with, and not against, Republican lawmakers, in an effort to change the billâ€™s language. New language the group helped craft would only eliminate the duty to retreat before firing if the other person is armed. â€œIt also provides that the individual who wants to avail themselves of the expanded doctrine cannot be engaged in any criminal activity,â€ he said. â€œAnd prior versions of the legislation put the onus on the prosecution to prove there was no criminal activity. Weâ€™ve removed that with the current amendment.â€Â He outlined one more change: â€œThe other thing in the current amendment does is that it provides that if someoneâ€™s going to claim the expanded stand your ground doctrine, and they use a firearm in defending themselves, then they have to be legally in possession of that firearm. So weâ€™ve tightened the law a lot.â€

I will do my best to look into this, but this could be cause for concern. I need to look at this year’s and last year’s bills side by side, but I’m pretty sure most of what they are speaking of here is already a feature of last year’s bill, IIRC.

They Have Some Nerve

Via Clayton Cramer, the Las Vegas Sun has some latest news from the Righthaven nonsense:

â€œDefendants have elected to needlessly increase the burden on this court and its staff and to increase the litigation costs incurred by the parties by escalating the litigiousness of the action. Righthaven contends that this is precisely defendantsâ€™ desired effect in this case â€” to drive up their attorneysâ€™ fees and costs in an attempt to burden Righthaven with an astronomical fee award,â€ Righthaven said in a filing.

I have the world’s smallest violin here playing for these guys. It’s so small I don’t think Jason’s 3D printer could print it. Sucks when the table is turned, doesn’t it, Mr. Steven Gibson? I hope the Democratic Underground and the Electronic Frontier Foundation make Righthaven their bitch. This shakedown racket Righthaven has going should not be a viable business model.