Saturday, May 30, 2009

Phil Spector - You Won't See Him No More

Yahoo News reports on the sentencing of Phil Spector, 19 years to life.

Phil Spector was sentenced Friday to 19 years to life in prison for the murder of actress Lana Clarkson, who was shot through the mouth in the music producer's home six years ago.

Spector, 69, looked straight forward and showed no emotion as Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler ordered a term of 15 years to life for second-degree murder plus four years for personal use of a gun.

Here we discussed it before. What came out in the trial was that the famous music mogul was not the nicest guy in the world, especially with women. My only question is how common is this. Gun owners continually insist they have nothing to do with the criminal actions of others, but can they insist such a thing? What about times, like this perhaps, where the criminal actions are undertaken by one of them? Does that individual suddenly belong to a different group, a different demographic?

It sounds like Phil Spector was a complete maniac with guns, but what about all those partial maniacs?


Much of the case hinged on the testimony of five women from Spector's past who said he threatened them with guns when they tried to leave his presence. The parallels with the night Clarkson died were chilling even if the stories were very old — 31 years in one instance.

I would guess the "partial maniacs" number in the millions. Those are the guys who don't act completely responsibly with their guns, whether they appear on the spectrum near Phil or on the milder end, maybe nothing more that verbal threats to use the weapon, or drinking too much while the guns are within reach. It's definitely a problem, albeit a difficult to quantify one.

What always amazes me though, is how the guys who claim to be responsible, take this kind of talk so personally, as if it applied to them. Why would a responsible, law-abiding gun owner make excuses for or minimize the numbers of these types I call "maniacs?" I repeat to those who take it all so personally, "if the shoe fits, wear it," if not spare us the hysterics.

Another thing I noticed in the sentencing is the "plus four years for personal use of a gun." Wouldn't that have been covered in the second-degree murder charge? Maybe someone can offer a legal explanation on that.

And one final idea, how does this crime and sentence compare to those of Sara Jane Moore and Lynette Squeaky Fromme? Is it like that higher level of punishment one gets for being a cop killer as opposed to a regular killer? Even attempting to kill the President, you get the full whack. Is that it?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

10 comments:

  1. Along MikeB's logic, he is just as responsible for Specter if he financed him in any way.

    Are you Mike?

    ReplyDelete
  2. What always amazes me though, is how the guys who claim to be responsible, take this kind of talk so personally, as if it applied to them. Why would a responsible, law-abiding gun owner make excuses for or minimize the numbers of these types I call "maniacs?" I repeat to those who take it all so personally, "if the shoe fits, wear it," if not spare us the hysterics.

    I've heard racists who use "the 'n' word" defend that use, and deny their racism, by claiming that they're not referring to the "good" black people--just the--you know . . . n*****S. They're full of shit, Mike, and so are you.

    You want to impose responsibility for violent crime committed with guns on people who have never committed a violent crime, simply because their advocacy of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual protects your favorite bogeyman--"gun availability"--do you deny that impugns the honor of every gun rights advocate?

    Now you're saying that you're not really blaming all of us--just the "maniacs" ("'maniacs'--the new 'n*****s'").

    Then you have the audacity to act surprised that we take it personally. Well hell yes, we take it personally. I have two words for you, Mike: "Shoveitupyour," and "ass."

    ReplyDelete
  3. What about times, like this perhaps, where the criminal actions are undertaken by one of them? Does that individual suddenly belong to a different group, a different demographic?

    Yes.

    I am law-abiding, as is the vast majority of firearm-owners here in America.

    Phil, on the other hand, chose to become a criminal by breaking the law. He made this choice of his own free will, and he, and only he, is responsible for that choice. No matter how you try and twist this, Mike, your "logic" will never hold.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gun owners continually insist they have nothing to do with the criminal actions of others, but can they insist such a thing? What about times, like this perhaps, where the criminal actions are undertaken by one of them?"
    .
    The lawful gun culture I'm part of doesn't welcome people like this. At my urging, my wife has a carry license, her own guns, and the combinations to the gun safes. I am aware that this means I can't safely use violence to get my way with her--I prefer it that way, and have deliberately encouraged that state of affairs.
    What always amazes me though, is how the guys who claim to be responsible, take this kind of talk so personally, as if it applied to them. Why would a responsible, law-abiding gun owner make excuses for or minimize the numbers of these types I call "maniacs?" I repeat to those who take it all so personally, "if the shoe fits, wear it," if not spare us the hysterics.
    Because so often (as in the beginning of your post...) we are told that maniacs are the justification for more gun laws. You have yet to explain what kind of laws would stop a crazy millionaire but not unconstitutionally restrict the rest of us. The number of people who will obey gun laws, but will ignore murder and felonious assault laws is vanishingly small.

    Propose some laws that would deal with these maniacs without taking away my ability to defend against them and I will listen.
    how does this crime and sentence compare to those of Sara Jane Moore and Lynette Squeaky Fromme? Is it like that higher level of punishment one gets for being a cop killer as opposed to a regular killer? Even attempting to kill the President, you get the full whack. Is that it?
    .
    What you said, plus the difference in lawyers--if you've got millions to spend on your defense, you'll likely get off easier even if found guilty.


    ...and with this, I'm taking a vacation from commenting on new posts here until at least the end of June. I no longer think that MikeB is interested in an open discussion--Not based on the comments he allows, but based on the questions he won't answer.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sevesteen said, "...and with this, I'm taking a vacation from commenting on new posts here until at least the end of June. I no longer think that MikeB is interested in an open discussion--Not based on the comments he allows, but based on the questions he won't answer."I'm sorry to hear that, and I hope you reconsider. Your comments are among those that enrich my blog. You always offer considerate, thoughtful insights which I and I'm sure others value.

    I know you keep asking me what I propose. I don't have a good answer for that. I tell you all the time I think fewer guns is the answer, but how to accomplish that without, as you say, unconstitutionally restricting the law abiding, is something I just don't have an answer for.

    I'm developing my ideas even now. Comments like yours help me in that process.

    Thanks, Sevesteen for all your input over these last months. Thanks also for pointing out that it's not my commenting moderation that is your problem. You've always been honest with me about stuff like that and I think you're a credit to your group.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you were developing your ideas here, I'd be interested (after the end of June, or in posts that already exist)--It is extraordinarily difficult to come up with a coherent philosophy in isolation. While it isn't always pleasant to have holes poked in my logic, it is better than leaving the weak spots in the final result.

    According to your flow theory, what could I do to eliminate my responsibility for gun misuse? Would taking my guns to the next legal fence...er..."buyback" be enough?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Guns became a fetish to Spector.
    He was a little man with a big problem. Guns became part of his need for the sense of total control.
    He used his guns in recording sessions. There are many stories in the annals of pop music about situations where Spector threatened musicians during sessions, or actually shot a gun to make his point.

    You know, I don't have any problem with people owning weapons. I live in a land where most households have a gun. Everyone hunts.
    You can do damage with a bow and arrow, but the real problem is social...it's the culture of guns.
    The fetish. The adoration....
    The need to amass collections of weaponry that serves no sane or realistic purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sevesteen asked, "According to your flow theory, what could I do to eliminate my responsibility for gun misuse?"

    I'm afraid the answer is you cannot completely eliminate it. However, just by asking that question you've demonstrated a sincere interest in finding the best solution for everybody.

    Let's face it, simply by owning weapons you could potentially contribute to the flow, however unintentionally.

    I think responsible gun owners would shy away from some of the pro-gun approaches championed by the NRA, the extreme divisive and attacking mentality. I realize some people think it begins with the anti-gun folks, but I think it's fair to say it's too prevalent on both sides and what we need to do is move towards the middle where we can together address the problems.

    To paraphrase what you always say, the trick is to do something about the gun violence without hurting the law abiding.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Responsibility is a duty. If there is nothing to do to fix a problem, by definition you cannot be responsible. Your version is merely accepting blame.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Responsibility is a duty. If there is nothing to do to fix a problem, by definition you cannot be responsible. Your version is merely accepting blame.

    Wow--well said (as I have come to expect from you, Sevesteen).

    ReplyDelete