N.J. State Trooper Higbee Found Not Guilty

The Shore News Today reports on the not guilty verdict in the trial of New Jersey State Trooper Higbee.

New Jersey State Trooper Robert Higbee was found not guilty of two vehicular homicide charges in the deaths of Upper Township sisters Jacqueline, 17, and Christina, 19, Becker.

A jury deliberated for 14 hours and requested that Higbee’s trial testimony be read back to them before reaching a verdict shortly before 5 p.m. on Monday.

Higbee was closing the gap between himself and a speeder on the night of Sept. 27, 2006 when he ran a stop sign at the intersection of Tuckahoe and Stagecoach roads and collided with a minivan containing the sisters. The girls were returning from a trip to Wawa for milk. Both were killed in the accident.

When we discussed this case before, there were two opposing takes on it, one in the Philadelphia Enquirer and the other on CNN. One said basically "these abusing cops have to be stopped," the other, "it was a tragic accident." The jury agreed with the second one.

The thing I noticed is the refreshing lack of vengeance-lust on the part of the victims' mother.

The girls’ mother, Maria Caiafa, spoke with Higbee shortly after the verdict was read. She would not say what they spoke about.

The community was more interested in whether Higbee was found guilty, she said.

“It means more to the public than me,” she said. “The worst thing that has happened to me is that my children are dead.”

Caiafa said she had wanted to see Higbee held accountable for his actions by going to trial. She didn’t question the jury’s decision but did say the state must reexamine its pursuit policies so something like this never happens again.

To Maria Caiafa and the rest of the family, I would like to express my heartfelt condolences. I have the utmost respect for the way she has responded to this unimaginable tragedy.

What's your opinion?

Thoughts on the Second Amendment - Part IV

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wikipedia has an article about the 2^nd Amendment, containing some interesting information. Apparently there’s more then one version. I wondered if the one they said was distributed to the States was rearranged a bit to make the "keep and bear arms" and the "shall not be infringed" go together.

The version copied above is the one passed by Congress.

One of our commenters told me to read it literally, to diagram the sentence like we did in high school. I thought I detected a bit of condescension in his tone, as if I were an idiot for not having already done this. But when I tried, the first thing I noticed is it's not so easy. In fact, I don't think it's very good English.

There are four phrases, but they don't really work together unless something's missing, unless something's understood. How about this?

1. A well regulated Militia,

2. being necessary to the security of a free State,

3. (and depending upon) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

4. shall not be infringed.

Could that be the way to read it? Without those three words I added, I really can't understand it. And with those three words, it seems clear that it all refers to the militia and not the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms." In other words, it's the "well regulated militia" that "shall not be infringed," not the right of the people.

Does that make sense? What do you think?

Open Carry in Kalamazoo

The Kalamazoo News reports on the picnic which took place the other day in the park.

It resembled most any Sunday afternoon picnic in Bronson Park. Except most of the people assembled around tables filled with watermelon and grilled goodies had firearms in holsters strapped to their waists.

The Glocks and the Smith & Wessons remained holstered but visible during a three-hour Open Carry Picnic designed to raise public awareness of what organizers called Second Amendment rights in Michigan to openly carry a firearm in most places.

The Gun Guys published a post on this, in which they pulled no punches.

Gun Lobby Accelerates Crusade to Normalize Abnormal Behavior By Openly Carrying Handguns.

One of the commenters on the Kalamazoo site really expressed his ideas. liam9903 had this to say.

These nut jobs that like to walk around wearing guns to compensate for their lack of abilities elsewhere are to pathetic to even mock. I'm sure you could find a nutty Ron Paul supporter or racist rapture waiting survivalist in the group if you looked a little deeper. Most "2nd amendment advocates" shouldn't be aloud scissors much less the right to carry their gun around in public.

I must admit, at the risk of bringing a firestorm of comments down on my head, I agree pretty much with what the Gun Guys said, and even a little bit with Liam. I don't think it's normal behaviour to carry a gun, and picnics like these which are designed to "raise public awareness," seem like an attempt to make the abnormal normal.

What Liam says, this question of inadequacy, never fails to elicit the strongest negative reaction from the pro-gun crowd. Sometimes I wonder if the ones who complain the loudest about that are the truly "inadequate" ones. Anyway, here's my take on it.

Gun-toting guys who talk about self-defense, are usually living in a fantasy world. The vast majority of these guys, I would bet, never need their weapons for self-defense. It's just an idea, a fantasy, like the one about fighting off the government gun-confiscators. It's an adolescent male fighting fantasy.

More than the gun owners who are trying to compensate for something lacking in their personalities, I'm concerned about the ones who truly shouldn't be trusted with even a pair of scissors. I'm talking about the heavy drinkers, the drug users, the violent and irresponsible, the ones with anger issues. All these, combined with the inadequate ones, present a very real danger to themselves and others. But, unfortunately, they have all the guns they want as well as the support of all the other gun owners. You guys are nothing if not loyal to one another.

Meanwhile, here's the real problem. The more guns there are, the more get stolen, sold to the wrong people, and worst of all misused for suicides and homicides. Research we've all heard about says it's much more likely that a gun in the home will be misused than used for self defense.

So, although I can see that law-abiding people carrying guns at picnics is not a problem, per se, I think there is a serious indirect problem with it.

What's your opinion? Do you think it's more likely that your gun will be used properly for self defense one day, or that it will be used improperly as an object of theft or misuse? Don't you think most of the people who have had guns stolen or misused said the same thing?

Please feel free to leave a comment.

What is a Florintine Pogen?

Read 'em and weep.

Olivares-Coster - Walking Wikipedia and Murderer

The Great Falls Tribune reports on the tragic teenage shooting that took place in Helena Montana, leaving one dead and two wounded.

Sebastian Olivares-Coster, 17 and known as "Seabass" among friends, remained in custody on charges that he shot Leary, Wohlers and Cory Andrewski on Wednesday night in an apparent argument about a girl. Andrewski, 16, was shot at close range and died at the scene.

Other reports come from the Missoulian.com site, which includes a video of the initial court appearance in which bail was set at $500,000.

Olivares-Coster's friends described him as a brilliant student - one called him a “walking Wikipedia” - who took honors and advanced placement college classes before dropping out of Helena High School last fall.

Clay Springmeyer was Olivares-Coster's best friend at Central Elementary School and through part of middle school until Olivares-Coster's family moved to Prague for a short period.

“He spoke fluent French, German and Czech, and told me he wanted to go to a military academy and try to become a diplomat,” said Springmeyer, a Helena High senior who graduates Saturday. “He was smart, kind and rambunctious, just a normal kid who was smarter than most people.”

Other friends acknowledged that Olivares-Coster became a different person when he drank. They say he "never became physically violent toward anyone, but had broken windows, pointed an unloaded weapon at a person, and chased a person with a knife."

What do you suppose could explain a 17-year-old doing such things with guns? He's said to have pointed an unloaded weapon at someone once. In the details of this case, we know that the other day he went home, got a loaded gun, lured his friends to a convenient place and tried to kill all three of them. One of the survivors was shot in the head and the other was shot "several" times.

Do you think the prevalent gun culture in Montana could have something to do with this? Or, perhaps it's not limited to Montana. Haven't we seen this time and time again in all parts of the country? The inability to effect conflict resolution peacefully, combined with the ready access of guns and the know-how to use them, often proves to be a deadly combination.

What do you think about the gun laws in Montana?

Under federal law, long guns and shotguns can’t be purchased by anyone younger than 18, and handguns can’t be bought by anyone younger than 21. However, they can lawfully own a handgun or shotgun that is given to them.

What kind of a silly law is that? I suppose your typical gun lover would have no qualms giving his teenage son, or even his pre-teen son for that matter, guns of his own. It's all about education and training, isn't it? Did anyone ever consider that maybe kids cannot easily learn the difficult concepts of discretion and prudence, of resorting to violence only as a last resort and only when lethal threat is operative? Did any of these gun enthusiasts ever think that lessons like these, which are hard enough for responsible adults to incorporate, might be too much for kids?

What's your opinion? How could a young boy learn three or four languages living in Montana? Why do you think he dropped out of high school? Do you think alcohol played a role in this tragedy?

Please leave a comment.

Umberto Eco on Casablanca

Umberto Eco, the great Italian author, wrote a fascinating essay on Casablanca. (many thanks to Basilio Santoro of Lifegate Radio)

Two cliches make us laugh. A hundred cliches move us.

Muhs Couple Indicted for Murder and Attempted Murder

The Houston Chronicle reports on the indictments handed down in the case of the 7-year-old boy who was shot by Gayle Eugene and Sheila Muhs.

A Southeast Texas couple accused in the death of a 7-year-old boy after opening fire on his family has been indicted on a charge of murder.

Gayle Eugene and Sheila Muhs were being held at the Liberty County Jail on Friday. The 45-year-olds are accused in the fatal shooting last month of 7-year-old Donald Coffey Jr.

The boy died two days after his family was shot at while driving in front of the Muhses' Westlake area house.

Investigators say the victims were returning from an outing along the Trinity River when the Muhses took turns shooting their 12-gauge shotgun at them.

The Houston Chronicle reports Donald Jr. was shot in the head. His 5-year-old sister Destiny and her father had pellet wounds. Family friend Patrick Cammack, 30, was wounded in the neck.

The Muhses also face seven counts of attempted murder connected to the shooting.

In the initial story the family was said to have been trespassing on the Muhs' property. I didn't have the impression they were in a vehicle but pictured them on foot, not that it makes much difference.

One comment to the Houston Chronicle story struck me.

These two are sick and disgusting and need to be put out of their misery. I hope they both fry.

I wouldn't go that far. For me life in prison would be the appropriate sentence. But, the case brings up some troubling issues, not the least of which is the whole concept of owning guns for self protection. Are these people really such an anomaly? Are they really so rare among gun owners? The pro-gun crowd is quick to say that, always backing their claims up with statistics enough to make your head spin.

My idea is it's not so rare. In fact, many of these situations go under the heading of legitimate defensive gun incidents, e.g. Ladon Jones. The circumstances of this case were so dramatic however, that no one could possibly justify what happened.

What's your opinion? Do you think the ever-growing gun movement in America is contributing to these situations? Isn't there an unspoken attitude among the gun people that says, "if you get in my way, I'll shoot your ass?"

Now before objecting to that characterization, let me explain. By "get in my way," we all agree that lethal threat qualifies. Then there's a slightly lesser form, which is difficult to differentiate from lethal threat, which is the threat of bodily harm or rape. No one denies that this qualifies as "getting in my way." But then you've got the even milder forms of aggression that are easily distinguishable from lethal threat and threat of bodily harm, which are sometimes met with bullets. Many of them are lumped in with the first two categories. And finally, you've got the supposedly rare cases like the Muhses. These are people who respond with guns where there was no threat or aggression whatsoever.

What do you think? Are the Muhses such a rare breed that we should not worry about it? Or are they a force to be reckoned with.

Please leave a comment.