From 5NBCDFW
YeeHaaaa, Pardners, the US is fast becoming the gun mad society that has been predicted. In this case, Black Friday shoppers were treated to a shopper pulling a gun (Mr. Gunn) on another shopper (Mr.Impolite) who allegedly punched him in the face while they were waiting in line at a Sears store. The man who is alleged to have punched the gun toter was in such a hurry to get those bargains on Thurday Evening that he cut in line and verbally abused other shoppers.
That behaviour caused someone who claims he was punched to pull a gun, scattering the other shoppers, including Mr. Impolite, who hid behind a refrigerator.
Police Sgt. Rob Carey tells the San Antonio Express-News that the man with the gun had a permit to carry the weapon and isn't being charged with a crime.
Lovely, the get away with murder laws are making it a capital offense to be rude!
Showing posts with label evils of license to kill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evils of license to kill. Show all posts
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Let's really make it a licence to kill.
OK, here's my position on using self-defence as a justification for murder:
"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."
Reasonable force
Opinions differ on what constitutes reasonable force but, in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine what constitutes "reasonable force" because the defendant would always maintain they acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty. The jury, as ordinary members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from imminent attack and may not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what they believed about the circumstances, even if mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force.
In other words, you are gonna be judged by twelve if you aren't gonna be carried by six--you should be taken to trial where the legal system can determine if you are guilty or not guilty and not given a pass.
It makes no sense to give a blanket pass to someone so that they can use deadly force.
And it seems that these laws may be developing moth holes in their blanket of protection according to this story:
Given that "pro-Gun" policies tend to result in more criminals and other disqualified persons having guns, and people misusing guns, it only seems logical to me that the "pro-Gun" side would offer such "anti-life" legislation.
How much is a life worth in the US? the cost of a bullet.
"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."
Reasonable force
Opinions differ on what constitutes reasonable force but, in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine what constitutes "reasonable force" because the defendant would always maintain they acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty. The jury, as ordinary members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from imminent attack and may not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what they believed about the circumstances, even if mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force.
In other words, you are gonna be judged by twelve if you aren't gonna be carried by six--you should be taken to trial where the legal system can determine if you are guilty or not guilty and not given a pass.
It makes no sense to give a blanket pass to someone so that they can use deadly force.
And it seems that these laws may be developing moth holes in their blanket of protection according to this story:
Here’s Matt Bors’ cartoon skewering the insurance program:
In a rare “scoop” for an editorial cartoonist today, Matt Bors skewered a little-known National Rifle Association (NRA) program that offers insurance to cover policy holders’ costs should they become embroiled in a legal battle after shooting someone in self-defense.
The insurance — technically endorsed by the NRA and administered by Lockton Affinity exclusively for NRA members — is available as a rider to the “excess personal liability” plan. Here’s how the website advertises the added coverage for self-defense (emphasis in the original):
What’s Covered:The basic liability plan costs either $47 or $67 annually, for coverage up to $100,000 or $250,000, respectively. Though the coverage amounts stay the same, a policy holder can add the self-defense insurance by paying $118 or $165 for the lesser coverage, or between $187 and $254 for the larger plan. (The discrepancies are due to the different prices for coverage on two different webpages from the insurer.)
• Provides coverage up to the limit selected for criminal and civil defense costs.
• Cost of civil suit defense is provided in addition to the limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage.
• Criminal Defense Reimbursement is provided for alleged criminal actions involving self-defense when you are acquitted of such criminal charges or the charges are dropped.
The NRA pushed its members in 2005 to support Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law — an exemption from arrest or prosecution in shootings where the police think the act was in self defense. When the law got bad press after police let the man who shot and killed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin go free, the NRA refused to back down, continuing to support the law’s passage in other states (amid other acts of insensitivity around Martin’s shooting death).
Given that "pro-Gun" policies tend to result in more criminals and other disqualified persons having guns, and people misusing guns, it only seems logical to me that the "pro-Gun" side would offer such "anti-life" legislation.
How much is a life worth in the US? the cost of a bullet.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Update on the Vigilante on Vigilante shooting in Utah
Cross posted from Penigma at Dog Gone's request (I'd make a further comment, bnt I've been told to be polite...)
It's funny what you find when you do an update check on a previous story, as I sometimes do. I found this little news story by accident, but it is worth sharing here.
For those of you who are curious, here is the original vigilante on vigilante shooting post I wrote, from earlier this month. It is worth noting that unlike Florida, Utah while too pro-gun in many respects, was sane enough as a state to limit castle doctrine and shoot first laws to a person's home. They still give more permission to shoot people to less regulated, less accountable, less trained civilians than they do to police but at least they restrict it to a person's own property. But this is after all still Utah, which has an interesting history when it comes to gun loving conservative older men and much younger or underage women, not unlike the conservative culture of perversion I wrote about here in Grand Marais, Minnesota. It appears Utah is not so different from rural Minnesota.
This conviction does not justify the man who went to jail for taking his gun and leaving his home to go looking for this self-appointed neighborhood watch captain and then shooting him. It does argue for his belief that this gun violence victim and his buddy weren't following the car full of girls because they were behaving illegally, as they claimed, but rather that he had a fetish for young teenage girls.
That the gun shot victim tried to blame HIS victim for his conduct is characteristic of a certain mentality that blames the victim instead of the legally and morally responsible adult bad guy taking the responsibility for his actions. What the following AP story fails to mention is the gun violence victim now in a wheelchair had LEFT his neighborhood where he claimed he was fulfilling his neighborhood watch duties, to follow aggressively the car full of young teenage girls.
You can read the story here, from the AP:
Utah man paralyzed in neighborhood watch shooting convicted of sex with neighbor girl, 17
SALT LAKE CITY — A 39-year-old man paralyzed in a Bluffdale neighborhood watch shooting faces up to 15 years in prison after he was convicted of having sex with a 17-year-old neighbor girl.
A jury found David Serbeck guilty on Thursday of three felony counts of unlawful sex with a minor. Sentencing is May 25.
Serbeck denied the accusations, saying the teen, who is now 22, had a crush on him and wanted to impress her friends.
Serbeck was shot and paralyzed in July 2009 by Reginald Campos, who suspected Serbeck of aggressively following his teen daughter in an SUV while patrolling the neighborhood. Campos was sentenced to up to life in prison. ****************** I wonder if Campos and Serbeck will be serving their time in the same prison. That could be awkward.
It's funny what you find when you do an update check on a previous story, as I sometimes do. I found this little news story by accident, but it is worth sharing here.
For those of you who are curious, here is the original vigilante on vigilante shooting post I wrote, from earlier this month. It is worth noting that unlike Florida, Utah while too pro-gun in many respects, was sane enough as a state to limit castle doctrine and shoot first laws to a person's home. They still give more permission to shoot people to less regulated, less accountable, less trained civilians than they do to police but at least they restrict it to a person's own property. But this is after all still Utah, which has an interesting history when it comes to gun loving conservative older men and much younger or underage women, not unlike the conservative culture of perversion I wrote about here in Grand Marais, Minnesota. It appears Utah is not so different from rural Minnesota.
This conviction does not justify the man who went to jail for taking his gun and leaving his home to go looking for this self-appointed neighborhood watch captain and then shooting him. It does argue for his belief that this gun violence victim and his buddy weren't following the car full of girls because they were behaving illegally, as they claimed, but rather that he had a fetish for young teenage girls.
That the gun shot victim tried to blame HIS victim for his conduct is characteristic of a certain mentality that blames the victim instead of the legally and morally responsible adult bad guy taking the responsibility for his actions. What the following AP story fails to mention is the gun violence victim now in a wheelchair had LEFT his neighborhood where he claimed he was fulfilling his neighborhood watch duties, to follow aggressively the car full of young teenage girls.
You can read the story here, from the AP:
Utah man paralyzed in neighborhood watch shooting convicted of sex with neighbor girl, 17
SALT LAKE CITY — A 39-year-old man paralyzed in a Bluffdale neighborhood watch shooting faces up to 15 years in prison after he was convicted of having sex with a 17-year-old neighbor girl.
A jury found David Serbeck guilty on Thursday of three felony counts of unlawful sex with a minor. Sentencing is May 25.
Serbeck denied the accusations, saying the teen, who is now 22, had a crush on him and wanted to impress her friends.The alleged victim testified she was 17 when she and Serbeck had sex three times in his Magna home in 2007.
Serbeck denied the accusations, saying the teen, who is now 22, had a crush on him and wanted to impress her friends.
Serbeck was shot and paralyzed in July 2009 by Reginald Campos, who suspected Serbeck of aggressively following his teen daughter in an SUV while patrolling the neighborhood. Campos was sentenced to up to life in prison. ****************** I wonder if Campos and Serbeck will be serving their time in the same prison. That could be awkward.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Applying Castle Doctrine, this Guy Would Have Been Shot
I don't agree with the laxer Castle Doctrine laws; I agree with Laci that they amount to a license to kill.
Given the circumstances shown in this video, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out this man who intruded was in fact in some way harmlessly and innocently impaired. While it is possible that impairment was from a controlled substance, it is just as possible that he had an unexpected reaction to a prescription drug. In any case, for unintentionally intruding while in a state of impairment and confusion, he certainly doesn't deserve to be shot, killed or injured. Too many of our gun loons make the unwarranted leap that anyone who is present without an invitation is dangerous, intends harm, and deserves gun violence from them for reasons of self defense.
Clearly, that is NOT true, and this is just one example of that. Good for this woman for responding the way she did, and thank god for this man's sake that she wasn't one of our blood lusting violence prone gun lunatics.
From MSNBC.com:
Given the circumstances shown in this video, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out this man who intruded was in fact in some way harmlessly and innocently impaired. While it is possible that impairment was from a controlled substance, it is just as possible that he had an unexpected reaction to a prescription drug. In any case, for unintentionally intruding while in a state of impairment and confusion, he certainly doesn't deserve to be shot, killed or injured. Too many of our gun loons make the unwarranted leap that anyone who is present without an invitation is dangerous, intends harm, and deserves gun violence from them for reasons of self defense.
Clearly, that is NOT true, and this is just one example of that. Good for this woman for responding the way she did, and thank god for this man's sake that she wasn't one of our blood lusting violence prone gun lunatics.
From MSNBC.com:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)