I put up a meme from Pholosipher on the Book of Face using the recent Miramar shooting. The gist was that the when people say I should give up my guns because only the police should have guns, this was a prime example of how not only the police have no duty to protect, they will take actions that directly threaten your life. Such as shoot at a hostage or take cover behind occupied cars.
Two of my real life friends then jumped on saying that in this instance, would an armed citizen have made any impact or would they have just been shot? Considering Southeastern Florida police performance over some recent high profile incidents, I would concede that in this instance drawing a gun would have been a bad idea. I also would advise that being in a similar situation, the people in the cars do whatever they possibly can to GTFO, including leaving police without cover. After all, if they have no duty to protect you in that instance (and are in fact hazarding your life), you have no duty to offer them protection. Your mileage may vary depending on the particulars of the situation as well as your personal morals.
The main point of this post is the dangers of the non-sequitur. If you are attacking an argument, make sure you are attacking the actual argument, not some side issue that wasn’t brought up.
According to the article, George Zimmerman is suing the family of Trayvon Martin and Florida prosecutors for $100 million. Why?
- The suit in Polk County Circuit Court cites information in a documentary about the case that accuses the Martin family of engineering false testimony, and the director has scheduled a press conference this week in Coral Gables to coincide with a film screening there. The suit seeks $100 million in civil damages, alleging defamation, abuse of civil process and conspiracy.*
The documentary alleges that the Martin family, their lawyer Crump, and the prosecution switched Trayvon’s real girlfriend for her half-sister, who then lied on the stand. If true, $100 million is the least I would ask for someone ruining my life. I wouldn’t be surprised if a good deal if it went back to the attorneys who defended him.
So, we had an incident where an unstable man got on Instagram claiming the “redcoats are coming for me!”
Yeah, he was a drunk fuck-up with a domestic violence past. He’d not the one I’m bitching about.
It was the legion of keyboard commandos of the Threeper brigades screaming about the “Boogaloo kicking off!” Too many of whom acted as if it were almost desirable to kit up and have a shoot out with the local constabulary.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
Exactly what are you hoping to achieve? Did you even fucking think about if this was the fucking hill to die on?
And where was all of this rhetoric and sudden need to participate during the legislative sessions? Or to sign the petitions to reform the NRA?
The best things I’ve heard in regards to this incident are 1) it’s probably not a good idea to trust a drunk person on Instagram, and 2) if you’re really worried about an abuse of power, then grab your camera and be a good witness.
Kenn Blanchard, long time 2A activist, is hanging up his spurs after almost three decades of fighting the good fight. I wish him well in whatever he pursues next.
Kenn was one of the first podcasts I listened to. Not one of the first gun podcasts, one of the first podcasts period. His was also the first where I wrote the host. Then came him talking about zombies invading his Labor Day barbecue. That began the ball rolling to Zombie Strike and almost a decade of collaboration. First zombies, and then werewolves.
Kenn was the first time I got to meet one of the podcasters. He met me for cigars and talking more than once, and those are some good memories.
We’ve drifted in the last few years. My fault – as my life has taken some dramatic turns.
Thank you Kenn. For all of your hard work. For encouraging a geek in Tampa to write for you. For being my friend.
*If you don’t feel the need to carry a gun because you believe the government will keep you safe, why do you care if I or anyone else decides to carry a gun? If anyone tries to harm you, the government will stop it right? Where is your faith in government?
Carry your gun. It’s a lighter burden than regret.
Let’s go through last week, shall we?
We had another mass shooter. Somehow, this doofus got his hands on a weapon, even though he was rejected by NICS. This was a rare instance where the shooter acquired his weapon through a private seller. Who has subsequently been arrested for illegally selling weapons, and who will actually be prosecuted. Unlike most people charged with breaking federal firearms laws.
Wal-Mart came out and said they’re no longer going to sell handgun ammunition or “short-barreled” ammunition. Also, they don’t want people to open carry into their stores. Well, I guess that means Lucky Gunner and my local gun shops get my business.
Kroger then jumped into the corporate shaming of gun owners by asking folks not to open carry in their stores. Then Walgreens and CVS joined the show.
San Francisco decided that the NRA was a terrorist organization. They should know since the NRA has committed so many terrorist acts in San Fran. Like the SLA.
We live in interesting times. Excuse me while I go bug my elected officials.
Nikki Fried, our relatively new Commissioner Of Agriculture declared she has both a concealed carry license and a medical marijuana card. Because she is a high profile individual, she can afford to flaunt federal law in a way others can’t. I’m a bit torn on this.
First, I don’t think what she is doing is wrong because I think the federal law is stupid. Both the overall prohibition on marijuana as well as not having changed the 4473s for states where marijuana is legal. It’s pretty clear which way the legalization winds are blowing, and it’s about damned time the federal government brought itself in line with the states.
On the other hand, we have stories coming out that since Fried has come into office, people looking to renew or obtain their CCWs have been running into all sorts of roadblocks. So, I’m kinda having trouble with the person most likely causing trouble for our state’s residents is flouting the same law being twisted to screw people out of licenses they should be issued.
Finally, I’m having a little issue with Fried having a CCW at all, considering she buddied up to the Demanding Mommies during the election. The same group that would love to rid our state of not only CCWs, but the very means of our protection.
Overall, the whole thing stinks of laws are for little people.
Here’s my initial take when the incident occurred.. My opinion then is reinforced with the guilty verdict. Also reinforced was the need for folks to have something between harsh words and lethal force.
Here’s Andrew Branca’s analysis, which you should read. Quick analysis was the prosecution played up the boyfriend and father defending his family from an abusive jerk, while the defense made a big deal about the victim being on drugs. That tells me the defense attorney was probably not strong on self defense law. Which just reinforces why I spend my money on ACLDN and make sure I read Branca’s Law of Self Defense.
One tidbit I heard from Rick Ector on Facebook was the jurors were confused about how to apply Florida’s self-defense statutes. As he stated, confused jurors are not what you want when facing jail time.
In the wake of El Paso and Dayton, we’re seeing the push again for so-called “Red Flag Laws”. For those of you who are unaware, these law purport to allow someone to make a complaint that someone else is a danger and should have his/her guns removed. If a judge agrees, then the police go remove the guns, and the owner must then prove (s)he is not a danger to get them returned. I have several problems with this.
If a person is so dangerous, that it is in the community’s best interest that his/her guns are taken away, why is this person still allowed access to other dangerous implements – such as gasoline, lighters, knives, bats, automobiles? All of which have been used to kill more people than rifles? If a person is that dangerous, why are we not Baker Acting them and getting them held for 72 hours to determine if they are a danger to themselves or others? I would imagine because these red flag laws have much lower evidentiary requirements than an involuntary commitment. Which leads to my second point.
Such laws are ripe for abuse, whether by people who are in a dispute, who hate guns, don’t like someone’s politics, or who want an unarmed victim. Many of the laws either passed or proposed have very broad categories of people who can make a complaint. The accused often have no chance to defend themselves before the cops show up at the door and seize their property – which has already led to one death in Maryland. The last time I looked at Florida’s statistics, almost all of the orders were overturned -which means people were deprived of their property and means of defense for no good reason.
This also assumes that a person will receive his/her property back once the cops have seized it. Another part that’s ripe for abuse is what happens once the cops take the guns. There are all sorts of bureaucratic hurdles they can throw up to prevent them from returning a person’s property once the government has it – particularly if the government officials are anti-gun.
Proponents of this law are drawing out the Parkland shooter as an example, while ignoring the numerous times the government had ample evidence to take actions that would have made him a prohibited person, and unable to legally purchase a firearm. They will also point to people who are making “disturbing” comments. The problem with these laws, like most laws rushed after a dramatic and horrifying event, is that they are rarely applied to the kinds of people the laws purport to target. More often, the laws are used as broadly as possible (can anyone say PATRIOT Act?)