Huffington Post
Arizona's bitter debate over a signature part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul has sparked an investigation into lawmakers' safety after at least nine legislators received a threatening email over Gov. Jan Brewer's push to expand Medicaid access.
The message referred to Second Amendment rights and shooting someone, but did not include any direct threats. It was sent to House Speaker Andy Tobin, who opposes the Medicaid expansion, and eight other Republican House members.
"Please kill SB1492, the Medicaid Expansion Act," the email begins, before quoting the Second Amendment. It then reads, "If you are ever asked why you shot the person, the only answer from your lips should be, I felt my life, or/and my family's life was in immediate danger of death. So I did what I had to do in order to eliminate this threat. "
This reminds me of the advice Robert Farago often gives to the hidden criminals who commit murder and try to pawn it off as defensive. In the same way, the dispensers of the advice in Arizona are probably not the guys who will actually pull the trigger.
Second Amendment solutions, and the threat thereof, are what gun ownership is all about. You remember what Wayne said.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
You've got one wacko who sent a suggestive letter and will get an oh-so-polite visit from the Secret Service or similar in the near future. The author of that letter is clearly not in danger and has no way to make a self-defense claim.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, you don't have to throw out logic for your own use just because someone else has lost touch with it.
You remember what Wayne said.
ReplyDeleteOoh, ooh--let me answer--I know this one! "Party on, Garth," right?
"This reminds me of the advice Robert Farago often gives to the hidden criminals who commit murder and try to pawn it off as defensive."
ReplyDeleteAnd here we have a wonderful bit of libel on the part of Mikeb. Mr. Farago gives sound advice that ANY defense lawyer would give a person, no matter how innocent, who had to kill someone in self defense. Even Mike's buddy LACI would give this advice under such circumstances!
However, Mike holds up the giving of such sound, legal and constitutional advice as an example of Mr. Farago intentionally helping criminals get away with Murder. With the same brush strokes, he paints those who use their guns in self defense with a broad brush as a bunch of murderers who are lying about needing to defend themselves so that they can get off.
Shame on you Mike! You complain and complain about how Kurt and I are not nice to you--we call you names on occasion. However, day after day, you name people and slander them as condoning murder. You slander us as supporting and helping murderers get off with their crime.
No, you don't call us names (oh, wait, you do, e.g. cold hearted bastards, etc.) but you accuse us of vile crimes and being vile people. You're a shameful hypocrite and a slanderer.
"Mr. Farago gives sound advice that ANY defense lawyer would give a person,..."
ReplyDeleteThat's right, just like Maury Levy on The Wire.
Mikeb, are you seriously suggesting that a competent defense lawyer would give any advice other than to shut up and wait for counsel? Any lawyer who recommended something different would have a client with a ready-made appeal for having had a bad attorney.
DeleteDon't know the referrence, and frankly I couldn't give two shits. Farago's advice is correct, and you slandered him and all the people involved in defensive shootings.
DeleteYou guys are a riot pretending that all the reported DGUs are legit.
DeleteWay to change the parameters of the argument, Mikey. Where did we claim that?
DeleteWhat we said was that you slandered Farago and those with legitimate defensive uses by saying that his advice, which was intended to protect those who legitimately defended themselves, was really intended to help people get away with first degree murder. This also implied that the majority of defensive shootings are murders being covered up as DGU's.
Here you go again, using one of your favorite forms of argument. You say that most of Obama's opposition is racist. We say it most of it is not, and you challenge us regarding how we can be so stupid as to argue that the opposition is 100% racist free.
Here, again, you're the one inserting those exclusive terms into a situation where we never said that 100% of DGU's are appropriate.
Mikeb, I'm not saying that all claims of a defensive gun use are legitimate. It is interesting that when an organization or agency gathers data, your evalutation of the results is guided only by what conclusion was drawn, not by the methodology.
DeleteBut to return to the point here, it is a civil right for a defendant to refuse to speak without representation by an attorney. It's good advice to tell someone under investigation to exercise that right. The ACLU, for example, hands out flyers about doing just that. Again, when it comes to guns, there's no right that you hold sacred.