NRA Logic: Open/Concealed Carry, Self-Defense, Stop and Frisk, New Black Panther Party
Stepping back from the specifics/justice questions of the Zimmerman-Martin case for a minute can we take a look at the logical takeaways?
One consistent story of the last few years is the push by the NRA and allies to allow Open Carry everywhere. Whether that be bars, college campuses, National Forests, a D.C. that previously had banned almost all handgun possession the consistent position of Gun Rights advocates is that the 2nd Amendment is essentially absolute, that is not only is bearing arms a ‘could’ right almost everywhere but indeed in many places (like elementary schools) a ‘should’ right and responsibility and in at least one town in Georgia an attempted ‘must’ duty (every household with few exceptions required to have a gun). On an equal track with Open Carry is a drive to extend the right to Concealed Carry almost everywhere as well, for example the 2nd Amendment folk are this week cheering the fact that Illinois became the last State in the U.S. to allow it.
A second story, and one dramatically illustrated with the Zimmerman-Martin case, is the drive to extend the right of Self Defense quite beyond the long standing Castle Doctrine, the right to defend your home and family with deadly force against intruders, to a general Fear of Your Life Doctrine. Now almost any cop will tell you (and I have been in seminars where cops DID tell us) that in cases where the presumed victim of a crime exercises deadly force against the attacker that the 2nd best response to the arriving cops is “I was in fear for my life” (the 1st best response being of course “I want to talk to my attorney”). But it would appear that under at least Florida law the circumstances leading up to that ‘Fear’ moment hardly matter at all. Instead if for any reason you feel at legitimate fear for your life at THAT moment, no matter what events led up to it, you can defend yourself with deadly force.
Well okay, there is a logic to all that. Not one I share not least because it depends on an oft expressed but in the real world fallacy that “An armed society is a polite society”. Well no, a lot of people who carry guns not only have anger issues but are willing to take them out on just about anyone. But leaving that aside, lets just give the NRA those first arguments.
What then is the logic of supporting Stop and Frisk? I mean if you legitimately believe in striking down all laws against Open or Concealed Carry and are willing to use Congress and the Courts to enforce that on jurisdictions like DC that don’t agree, then surely you agree that New York’s Sullivan Act and all subsequent legislation controlling the possession and carrying of hand guns and presumedly other hand weapons are unconstitutional then you should be opposed to any public safety measure that involves random searches for those weapons. Which is the openly claimed justification for Stop and Frisk, nobody openly claims that the Cops have a right to search everyone’s pockets for a random doobie, even if they can arrest you if they find one during the Stop and Frisk, instead the clear justification is public safety and focuses clearly on concealed weapons. But if the NRA is up at arms about this it somehow got past me, somehow this crackdown on the Second Amendment in certain areas of NYC is not objectionable at all.
Which leads me to the New Black Panther Party. Some years back some chuckleheads decided to put on their NBPP black uniforms and station themselves outside a voting precinct in Philadelphia, one ‘armed’ with a night stick. Now despite the fact that this was a predominantly black precinct and nobody actually resident there seemed to pay it any mind, this was immediately picked up by Right leaning media as a clear attempt at nation wide voter intimidation aimed at White people and one that needed immediate investigation by the Justice Department. Against a guy carrying a stick and wearing a wannabee revolutionary uniform. Yet these same people nod approvingly when other people wearing even more military style uniforms (generally camo) insist on THEIR right to carry semi-automatic rifles openly everywhere they want without restriction.
Now there must be some logic underneath the belief that all laws against Open and Concealed Carry are prima facie likely Constitutional violations and the simultaneous belief that a guy with a stick in Philadelphia is an existential threat against American voting rights. I can’t quite grasp that logic myself but I am sure that to holders of its conclusion the rationale is as clear as black and white.
Any help here?
On a sort of related issue.
Many gun rights folk get in a lather when people refer to certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles as ‘assault weapons’ often insisting that there is no such thing in actual use among people who actually know things about guns.
Well bullshit. The term ‘assault rifle’, often with the modifier ‘Belgian’ or ‘Belgium-style’ has been a standard term for decades stemming from the popularity of the Belgian FNC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FNC for police work in urban areas precisely because it’s size (and btw concealibility) made it useful for operations in confined areas. For example in assaulting a target like a building full of armed men holding hostages.
Ther may be no fully accepted definition of ‘assault weapon’ but in military circles it is clearly a military style semi-automatic weapon that does not share the form factor of either formally standard infantry weapons like the Lee-Enfield, the M-1 and M-14 (long stocks and barrels) or civilian hunting rifles (ditto) and so were useful at close quarters.
And the fact that many modern ‘assualt’ weapons are based on the AK 14 and not the Belgian FNC is neither here nor there as is the fact that some people use guns with military styling for hunting. There is a category of guns traditionally known as ‘assault rifles’ by gun folks and attempts to belittle gun critics by claiming they are using some made up term is once again bullcrap. It isn’t. Even if the lines are more blurry than they were back in the 70s.
Hi Bruce:
You are correct on the Springfield, M-1 and M-14. They are great long range weapons and I have pulled 10 bulls at 500 yards prone with a standard well used M-14. In close and going from room to room , they are a tad too long. Still an assault weapon; but, they are damn hard to conceal.
I find it interesting in court cases, the 2nd amendment has never been used to strike down anti-gun laws. It has always some other case.
Moving along, during the Texas Legislature recall into session; the guards felt it necessary to search the crowds for tampons of mass destruction and taking them from visitors coming to hear the abortion discussion. Now mind you, the guards did confiscate jars of feces and urine also. People carrying pistols were allowed to enter unharassed according to Crooks and Liars.
Every once in a while I come across a link to Gun Fail. The toll of people hurting/killing themselves, family, friends and strangers is appalling. After reading these stories it makes one want to build a bullet proof bunker and never leave. If this is the society that the NRA wants I want no part of it. Even cops with guns makes me nervous.
Run I would have to say those jars of feces were more alleged than actually put in evidence. Sounded awfully convenient to me. Although to be fair I could see activists throwing tampons as a protest but the whole urine/feces thing seemed a little over the top for feminist protestors. I mean we are not talking black flag anarchists here.
As to ‘assault weapons’. Obviously infantry weapons are used in ‘assault’ broadly conceived. But I am of an age to remember when the idea of contrasting more heavily armed field combat soldiers with lighter armed counter-insurgency or urban fighters came to the for with the Belgian style assault weapons clearly associated with thel latter. That is in NATO Order of Battle certain countries supplied the ‘Heavies’ that is actual armored division and full mixed infrantry divisions (which would have associated heavy weapons units) and Light Infantry.
In past wars this might be the difference between an Infantryman and his heavy rifle and a cavalry man or scout with a carbine. IIRC the smaller NATO countries were not expected to have the manpower or resources to equip anything likea U.S. or British Armored Heavy Tank Division and so were assigned roles more appropriate to lighter weaponry like Belgian FNs.
The whole thing about what is and is not an “assault rifle” is beside the point. The real issue is what weapon allows rapid fire and extended magazines. Rapid fire is not the same thing, technically, as a “machine gun”, but so what? The end result is the same: lots of bullets, fired quickly, to devastating effect. The idiocy in which we currently live is the result of our present Supreme Court’s recent decision to ignore 100 years of jurisprudence on the issue, the plain words of the 2d Amendment, and the behavior of the nation since the adoption of the constitution.
Perhaps some day our populace will understand the consequences of elections and, in the unlikely event they think the consequences are OK, this piece of governmental experience will prove that social evolution is probably a theory that proves to be full of shit.
The issues that Bruce addresses are over lapping, but should be clearly distinguished. I don’t see the primary contradictions as having to do with what is or is not a concealable weapon or what the law should be regarding such weapons. The concluding statement, ” I can’t quite grasp that logic myself but I am sure that to holders of its conclusion the rationale is as clear as black and white,” makes the primary point c;ear enough. Racial animosity seems to be growing in this country rather than receding into the past. This seems to be occurring in tandem with an increasing demand of a large portion of the population that they have the right and/or duty to carry small arms and other such lethal weapons. And both phenomenon seem to be hand in hand with the rise of radical conservatism in our politics and the media’s support of that ideological drift.
The Zimmerman prosecution, trial and verdict are a manifestation of the worst consequences of this social phenomenon in our country. Violence and the dangers associated with it occur throughout much of the world, but we readily recognize those other places as being less desirable places to live in. We generally denigrate those places as third-world and socially primitive. How do we not recognize our own society in the same manner given that it demonstrates all the worst consequences of such culturally degenerate ideas.
Shoot Jack, did I say “black or white” in a way that suggested “Black or White”? Well you got me.
There is not a chance in hell that White America (and I am as whitish as they come) would tolerate a black man with a gun walking freely in their midst and triple that for anyone looking Middle Eastern.
These people freak out at a skinny black kid in a hoodie (and Zimmerman in his initial call to cops described Martin as a kid), imagine if Trayvon had an assault rifle strapped to his back. Given the testimony we heard from that young mother who experienced a home invasion that would have been to all the Zimmermans out there prima facie evidence of a armed robbery about to happen.
Let’s face reality: Second Amendment Absolutists believe that that right is limited to ‘Real’ Americans. Not to “Three-fifth Americans”. They haven’t got over Nat Turner. And that was 1831
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Turner's_slave_rebellion
According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.
Matt even ignoring the concept that correlation doesn’t equate to causation your comment does not even suggest correlation.
Does that drop in firearms related deaths and injuries correlate with increase in gun regulation or deregulation or something else entirely and what does that have to do with the NRAs push to relax open carry and concealed carry?
How can I object to your objection before you make it? If indeed you are objecting?
My opinion is this. Stopping gun violence has little to do with gun regulation. There are more guns (and laws) than ever in the US. Obama has been a boon for gun and ammo sales – huge boon. Right now there is a major ammo shortage. So, why has it dropped despite more guns and larger population?
Have been in Baltimore, which is as violent as it gets in the US. Heck a few weeks ago 6/14 three gang kids (14-15 years old) came at me, but once they noticed my 90 pound dog getting angry they bolted. They then beat up a guy a block away. One was arrested. Never once have I seen any outrage over the daily killings here in Baltimore.
Most gun crime is handguns not “assault weapons”. Revolvers would do the trick just fine. The drop has been the result of better and tougher policing. We are still short 300-500 officers in Baltimore which could cause the number to drop more. But no calls for more money help for police. Put more foot patrons out there and more cops, gun crime will decline further. That is my main point. Would tayvon be alive who knows. But the Tayvon incidence is rare compared to regular old gun violence as it happens daily – at least here in baltimore.
“There are more guns (and laws) than ever in the US. Obama has been a boon for gun and ammo sales – huge boon”
“U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame”
So Matt per you we had the biggest drop in homicides in the first ten years after 1993 and a flattening thereafter. Which logically implies that the massive increase in ammo sales under Obama (the second half of that half where progress on this front flattened that is the 2008 to 2013 par of that 2003 to 2013 period) had little or no impact on that drop one direction or the other.
So once again you don’t even have the correlation here and so don’t even approach causation. Homicides dropped from 1993 to 2013 but most rapidly from 1993 to 2003. Per a M McC. So what lessons can we draw from that? Because per you more guns seem to have led to decreasing improvements compared to the 1993 to 2003 period. At best your point is that more guns does not equate to MORE killing. But where re the numbers that any of that makes us more safer. Do you have numbers showing a renewed drop in deths from gun homicide in the fourth quarter of that 20 year period? That is we had most improvement from 1993 to 2003 because of X, a slowdown in improvement after 2003 because of Y and a new improvement after Obama because of Z = increased ammo sales?
Make the case. But all I am seeing here is number salad after combining your two comments. Because those are your words/numbers I quoted.
My point is simple. We have had a significant drop in gun crime, and yes that drop has slowed. My questions is why did we have a significant drop when overall we maintain a high gun ownership rate in this country?
Now, my solution is:
– Tough sentences for those that commit crimes with guns
– National health system
– Fix our awful drug policy ( related to national health)
– More police per square mile and better policing techniques prevent crime from occurring in the first place
Of course, none of that probably would have stopped the Tayvon shooting.
Well I am no big fan of Kevin Drum who over the last decade has while being a solid social liberal managed to combine aspects of Neo-Liberal Economic theory with an initial Foreign Policy Realism (i.e. Bomb Them Unto Democracy) in ways that undermined my kind of New Deal Four Freedom Anti-Colonial Liberalism. Bad Kevin!!
On the other hand Drum has made a compelling case that included both serious correlation and plausible causation that linked much of that drop in homicide and violent felonies generally to a drop in lead exposure via paint residues and gasoline reformulations. And the phase out of lead paint in residential use (with large lag effects in poorer neighborhoods where chipping paint remained) and the shift from Leaded to Unleaded Gas was not only directly the result of government regulation but bitterly resisted by Free Marketeers.
Which if Drum is correct or partially correct makes hash of arguments that would attribute drops in homicidal violence to any particular police practice or the availabiliy of guns and ammo in civilian hands.
Murder rates have dropped across the country. And Mayors, Police Commissioners and legislators from NY to Chicago to LA have claimed that it is THEIR particular policing model that has made the difference. To the point that Kelley and Bratten have been moved around the country to work their No Tolerance/No Broken Window/Stop and Frisk methods because of their corrrelations with reduced homicides. Even though cities that never were graced by their presence and methods had equivalent drops. So before Giuiiani/Bloomberg or Emmanuel or Villarigosa dislocate their shoulders patting themselves on the back and crediting their police departments maybe we should give props to the Federal and State bureaucrats who insisted on regulating lead in paint or gasoline.
Or maybe not. But that ‘maybe not’ doesn’t simply validate your combination of ‘tough on crime’ ‘universal coverage’ ‘rational drug policy’ even though I agree on two and a half points.
I mean combining “Love the gun owner” with “Punish the gun crime” while discounting the contribution of the supply engendered by the former to the incidence of the latter (how many gun crimes being committed with guns bought or stolen from ‘legitimate’ gun owners?) seems a little nutty to me. Prior to the 30s nobody thought it necessary to ban the possession of fully automatic machine guns to ordinary citizens. Until Machine Gun Kelly and Pretty Boy Floyd figured out they were fine equalizers to small town cops and bank guards with six shooters.
As I noted to Dale in e-mail, a modern semi-automatic rifle can deliver the same amount of rounds on target as a 30s era machine gun in pretty much the same period of time. Absent a belt-feed weapon the difference in time between fully loaded rotary magazine in one or the other is mere seconds. Not least because fully auto machine gunners are trained to fire their weapons in bursts so as to not overheat the barrel and so jam the gun.
That is gun enthusiasts rather cynically assume proponents of gun regulation know fuck all about the difference between auto and semi-auto and assault weapons and infantry weapons to shut discussion down. Ignoring the fact that lots of people of my generation and more especially our older brothers were drafted into the Vietnam cluster-fuck but didn’t thereby forget everything they knew about firearms.
Which drifted from the point. But your argument that the answer is harsher laws on gun crimes and more cops per square mile is pretty much the same answer that the NRA has been delivering for decades. And it just isn’t clear at all that the rate of gun crimes moves up and down in direct relation to that as opposed to gun availability. Particularly in urban areas.
After all the simple (perhaps simple-minded) logic of ‘less hand guns and less military style long guns in civilian hands’ seems to have a strong correlation with less gun murders in countries around the world. While your argument would conclude that lower rates of gun deaths in say Sweden were the result of more armed cops and more tough judges per square mile. Is that really how they did it? Is there a country which combines weak controls on weapons possession and harsh prison sentences in a way that gives them such better outcomes than America that we should give deference to those weak gun controls. (And no Switzerland isn’t it or Israel either, neither one takes the laissez-faire approach to gun use or ammo possession the U.S. does).
Most evenings we watch the nightly news covering at least Detroit, Flint, Saginaw and Chicago.
The nightly death toll is minority youth killing other minority youth (and innocent bystanders) with illegally obtained and obtained handguns.
All of the attention on the Zimmerman case belied a really massive problem in other places.
well, let me throw into the salad… because i don’t have any strong opinioins of my own…
the drop in gun crimes after 1993 might correlate better with the improved economy, though i am interested to see other effects of the ban on lead in gas and paint.
rusty does point out something i keep thinking: most black men who are killed by guns are killed by other black men, not by racist white men.
i think bruce’s observation re “everybody should carry a gun… except black guys” is probably fatal to the NRA position and the reason you won’t read it in print anywhere but here.
that said, given that millions and millions of Americans love their guns, i don’t think there is any political gain to be had from calling for a ban on guns. we need to work a little harder on the “get the lead out” theory, or improving the economy.
carrying a gun is an invitation to homicide… it ought firmly to be discouraged. but you aren’t going to “ban” it, so work a little harder at something they might actually work.
and try not to confuse yourself with “sport” weapons v “assault” weapons. the people who own guns are thinking about defending themselves from people, not from stray deer, and the people they are thinking about are “the government.” the only problem is that these people are likely to be on the wrong side when the government does become seriously dangerous to our “freedom,” and in any case they are not smart enough to actually organize any defense of freedom that would not be wiped away in an afternoon.
Good call Rusty, but you’ve left unsaid an important analysis of the situation in Detroit, Baltimore and all those urban inner city locales. Persistent poverty and racism combine to give us the abysmal results that you and McClosker, above, ppoint out. People with no future and no stake make due as best as they can and that leads to “unintended” consequences. All the extra cops in the world have not solved that social phenomenon. It’s not an excuse for crime. It’s only an explanation.
The more lucrative forms of crime don’t require a gun of any kind and that sector of the criminal class that is not impoverished and minority prefer that form of crime. Less potential for personal consequences relative to the potential for personal gain.
None of this explains the Martin/Zimmerman event. I’m still wondering how someone can cop a self defense plea and be acquitted without having to testify as to how it was self defense. It was enough to simply tell his attorneys and have them convey the message to the jury? And then support the claim with the testimony of a paid ballistics expert? And then the DA allows that witness to claim expertise in fashion? Amazing, but it is Florida.
Gun violence is very much an economic problem. Please don’t ignore two important items I pointed to above. National Health care and better drug policy. The latter are banned yet readily available.
Any idea of the number of assault rifles in circulation? I ask because I think this is a genie you’re not going to put back in the bottle. But I do agree that we know and assault rifle when we see one.
Local Austin Texas media report that the Texas Department of Public Safety confiscated urine, feces and tampons (no reports indicated if the tampons were used or unused) from attendees of the legislative session. Reports did not specify if the confiscations were from pro-abortion attendees or anti-abortion attendees.
Permitted handguns are allowed in the Texas State Capital building. The bearer must have a State Concealed Handgun License in good order. Funny thing. If you have a CHL you go to a special line in the Capital’s entrance and bypass the security line for the general public. That quirk led most aides and lobbyists to run out and get a CHL so they wouldn’t have to wait in the long general public security line. Of course people in Texas have been carrying guns almost everywhere for over 150 years. Hell, the capital building didn’t have metal detectors at the entrances until 2010.
Also, I know some Second Amendment absolutists who don’t mind black people carrying guns, as a matter of fact one of them is black.
“Also, I know some Second Amendment absolutists who don’t mind black people carrying guns, as a matter of fact one of them is black.”
Well, what do you know. A black person who thinks he is entitled to the same rights and privileges as everyone else may enjoy. I wonder if that black person with a gun has the balls to walk around with his weapon (his gun that is) fully exposed for all to see? I wonder if he would be afforded the same respect and right to carry by any police officers that see him walking around with his gun? What do you think Little John? The issue isn’t what blacks citizens think about their rights. It’s the problem with the rest of us thinking what black citizens are entitled to do, or not do.
Jack, here in Baltimore lots of African Americans carry guns, and they could care less what anyone else thinks.
Here is a somewhat twisted self defense argument. Why do drug dealers arm themselves? I’ bet that many would tell you self defense from other dealers and would be drug robbers. Quite rational if that is your job.
As to more guns now than before, as I have followed the news reports what is actually happening is fewer gun owners but owners with more guns.
So, the guns per capita is up, but only because there are more guns, not more owners.
Yes, the research on reduced lead and reduced crime over all is compelling and I believe documented internationally.
I don’t know how they square the open/conceal carry with stop and frisk but then I don’t understand the romance of the west and rugged individual with missing Wyatt and other cleaning up the Dodge Cities of the west by enforcing gun control laws, especially when they get their history from John Wayne movies. I mean, the town folk were always fighting for and elated when the guns were removed as it meant there was now civilization in their town. Next up statehood.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2007/01/tony-shalhoub-generic-arab-american/
Many Americans know and love Tony Shalhoub as the OCD impaired ex Police Detective turned private detective Adrian Monk. And perhaps few would be surprised (and perhaps some relieved) to know that Tony was raised as a Christian and is from a Lebanese Maronite Christian family, a group that has been Christian for pretty much as long as there have been Christians.
Yet I suggest that if his putative brother Bobby Shalhoub came and sat in the back row at a local small town Catholic Church wearing a kaffiyeh and strapping an assault rifle across his back or stopped by the Dew Drop Inn after to grab a cold one and watch the last laps of a NASCAR race the reaction among the parishioners or regulars would not be “Man I feel so much safer now knowing this 2nd generation American is here to provide security in and when”.
Yet many of them expect everyone else just to accept that the presense of Billy Bob Cracker (known since his H.S. days by the nickname “Creepy”) in head to toe camo and carrying both a rifle with military styling and a semi-automatic pistol with a 15 cartridge clip inserted and another on his belt ife he chooses to take a stroll along the Santa Monica Pier.
And the reason for this is pretty clear. Most small town white folks don’t fear people who look like them who happen to be carrying guns and don’t see why anyone else should. Because that is just ol’ Billy Bob (admittedly kind of an odd duck back in H.S.) Whereas their reaction to LaShawn coming from Oakland to visit his grandma sporting a back to front Raiders cap or a doo rag on his head with an openly displayed Mac 10 style pistol on his waistband is likely to be different. Indeed in some circumstances, say late at night as LaShawn was coming back to his Gramma’s house with a 40 of Olde English and some Popeyes chicken that reaction might well rise to the level of “I was in fear of my life”. Because “scary black inner city thug with a gun”.
That is people can keep their “one of my best friends in a black lawyer who is a NRA member who shoots at our local gun club” schtick and honestly think about their reaction if Bobby Shalhoub in his keffiyeh or LaShawn with his doo rag came onto their college campus or into their church or bar Open Carrying a gun styled after a military automatic weapon or for that matter just a commando style knife sheathed on their belt. And God forbid they be carrying a back pack.
Key word “honestly”. The fact is that Right leaning media endlessly ran that photo of two black men in New Black Panther Party regalia, one carrying a night stick, as ‘proof’ of some Acorn coordinated nationwide attempt to threaten white people from exercising their voting rights. Because Black men in black uniforms are existentially scary to that media’s audience in ways that White men in military camo are not. After all who among us is not familiar with that NBPP photo? And how many of us automatically jump to “Cool! Two Americans openly celebrating their Constitutional right to bear arms! Openly and in public!! Is this a great country or What?”
In practice the 2nd Amendment is reserved for White people. Or possibly well spoken, well dressed Blacks, East Asians, . Lebanese and Pakistanis. But is not automatically granted to Those people where ‘Those’ is any fill in the blank that fits ‘Not like me’
Bruce
not quite sure this is relevant… mostly because i have always been an odd duck…
but i went into my local library one day only to see a man in a suit with a pistol strapped to his hip. i was not reassured. and i told him so. he got offended. turned out he was there to attend a meeting of the local undercover cops association. when i insisted i still did not think that displaying a gun in a library was reassuring to the patrons, he eyed me narrowly and said, “didn’t i arrest you once?”
i have been in situations where later i had to be glad the other guy was not carrying. and i have been in situations where later i wished i had been.
for myself the right answer is better i wasn’t. but i don’t get much holier than thou about those who think otherwise.
Comparisons are odious but just for fun consider this: a woman prosecuted for aggravated assault in FL claimed the SYG defense. She was not seen to be eligible for self defense or SYG even though she was being attacked in her own home when she fired a warning shot into the wall.
Even though the BF had repeatedly beaten her and had a history of other domestic violence, she was found guilty of agg. assault using a deadly weapon and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. This seems to show that It depends a lot on who claims the SYG defense. It appears to be more credible when used by men instead of women.
It looks to me like an unarmed person’s attempts to defend himself can be seen as a justification for an assailant’s use of deadly force. In any event, under SYG you might as well go for your Glock. That’s a pretty big flaw in a law. But, how fair this is certainly depends on how you look at it. The merits of the law are apparently quite clear to the last man standing in shootout with no other witnesses.
Wow. I am not sure where Bruce and Jack live but in my community nobody gives a shit what color you are in terms of gun ownership…and this is in rural, smalltown Texas. Of course we have some racist kooks but by and large everyone is respectful of others…no matter what color. The black guy I referred to in my original comment is my neighbor and it’s not unusual to see him handling guns in his driveway or backyard. He’s carried guns over to my place for me to have a look at them. (He’s really proud of some of his firearms…I don’t really get it but whatever.) He’s not well spoken or well dressed. He’s a hardworking plumbing contractor who is just a normal guy. This on a street that has a white police officer and a Hispanic police officer as homeowners.
Now to have someone walk into a local bar, church or grocery store with a rifle strapped to their back, no matter what color, would raise some eyebrows. In Texas we don’t have an Open Carry law so I think we can all agree that would be very unusual. You guys must be of an older generation. Most of the people I know could care fucking less what color someone is. Quit dealing in stereotypes. Do you also think all white people like mayonase and white bread?
Nancy,
Zimmerman wasn’t acquitted on SYG basis, which would have blocked prosecution. His attorny has now said that they may seek SYG status for the “incident” in order to block any civil action taken by the family. The only option at that point would be federal via Justice Dept. prosecution, most likely on civil rights violation grounds.
The entire episode stands as a remarkable example of some aspects of the American criminal justice system. Is it a system designed to assure justice or is it a criminal system open to RICO prosecution? Again I ask, how does one cop a self defense plea (it was not a stand your ground defense) without the defendent testifying as to the circumstances that define his actions as having been self defense?
little john
there may be some justice in what you say. but there may also be much naivete.
i have not seen the kind and degree of racism… and sexism… implied by many of the writers here, but i would also be very surprised if such racism and sexism were as dead as you seem to think it is.
i think we need to find a better way to deal with the issues.
but i am quite sure, white male though i am, that if i shot someone in “self defense” the law would put me away for twenty years if the cops didn’t shoot me first.
i have no faith whatsoever in the justice, decency, or intelligence of either the law, or any random citizen on the street. on the whole i expect better treatment from the random citizens… they are at least not paid liars and they do not have the power of the state behind their crimes and follies.
JackD:
Other than no one can second guess a jury, I was curious as to your thoughts on the Zimmerman trial. Obviously, the prosecution did not make their case. Where do you think they slipped up?
You’re right Mr. Coberly. I may be a little naive. I do know there are racists in my community but I think they are a tiny minority. The justice system may be biased toward white people but I don’t really know since I don’t have much interaction with that system. What I do know is that when either side uses idiotic stereotypes it pushes the entire debate backwards. I thought this was a bastion of progressive thought not some corner of the internet where black people eat fried chicken and play basketball and white people are petrified of black people owning guns. That’s a pretty cartoonish vision of America.
Run,
Not sure if the question is addressed to me or meD, but I’ll add my thoughts along the lines of your question.
First, what medical expert testimony was there concerning the injuries to the back of Zimmerman’s head? The banging of his head was said to be the great threat. There was little in evidence to suggest his disorientation or significant injury. Also, the ballistics expeprt got a pass on position of Martin at the time of the shooting. He claimed that the 2″ to 4″ distance of muzzle to skin was evidence that Martin was on top and his clothes hang down allowing for the spread. A total crock, but not challenged by the DA. Is the ballistics expert also an expert on the hang of clothes? Martin was said to be wearing a sweat shirt under the sweat shirt hoodie. No effort was made to point out that that might just as likely caused anough space between outer layer of hoodie and skin. Also, Martin’s hands were said to be free of any blood or other DNA evidence that would be consistent with Zimmerman’s story. How did Martin end up on his back if he was on top? If he fell forward after the shooting why was there no blood on Zimmerman’s clothes?
And I reiterate, how do you plead self defense without testifying to the actions of each? Inept prosecutions often the result of a preference not to prosecute what the public demands be prosecuted. This is what one might call inept by design.
little john
you will find idiotic stereotypes wherever you look, even among those who are quite sure they are totally free of it.
the challenge is to catch ourselves at it before we do harm or simply persist in unnecessary stupidity.
Not only do concealed carry individuals have anger issues but they also have fear for their life issues. That’s why they have a gun afterall. The most fervent gun owners are some of the most scared individuals you’ll ever meet.
A work associate of mine asked a guy who felt he needed to carry his gun with him to public places and he explained that if he was ever in a restaurant and a guy pulled out a gun and started firing and killed his wife and kids, he’d never be able to live with himself. His fellow gun nut nodded his head profusely. That’s fear.
The cops will shoot you just for having a wallet in your hand when they arrive on the scene they are so scared. Giving gun owners that same privilege is going way to far.
Jack:
I was curious how JackD read the trial. The same as Bev, he is an attorney and a pretty darn good one at that. From my own persoanl experience and having worked my way up to SCOTUS, facts do not matter and they will all swear the other court was correct. Only on COA judge got it right and w had one of the best constitutional attorneys in the nation.
Little John I don’t know what part of Texas you live in, and God knows it is a big and diverse State. But anyone who thinks East Texas (roughly the triangle from Houston to Beaumomt to the Louisiana border is color blind is delusional. The rural areas of East Texas are not much different that those of Northern Louisiana and Mississippi as you proceed long the Gulf Cost Eastward. That area puts the Deep in Deep South. And 1998 wasn’t that long ago. Ask Mr. Byrd’s family how racism has been extirpated from their part of Texas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd,_Jr.
And I am surprised that Texas is not Open Carry. Certainly the national GOP is sympathetic to that position, why Gov Goodhair didn’t use his legislative majority to get right on that is beyond me.
Colin Ferguson failed with his “black rage” defense, but Zimmerman got off with his “white rage” defense. How times have changed, or not. Ferguson should ask for a new trial.
Well what do you know? And per this article long guns are already open Carry in Texas..
Plus I don’t know how many black people live in your community but I live in Berkeley where much of the Flats is majority black and which marches with Oakland which as a whole in very much a minority majority city and let me give you a clue. Urban blacks DO like basketball. Largely because they have historically had little access to the kinds of open sports fields typical of suburbia, that is no multi-field soccer complexes or little league facilities or golf courses or many tennis courts in either of West or East Oakland (traditionally the poorer and blacker parts of Oakland though like most such areas around the country now experiencing a lot of Hispanic and Asian influx). People in the Inner City play and follow basketball because that is what they have.
Plus most of the black population of the SF Bay Area historically moved there before and during WWII primarily escaping the poverty and overt racism of the Jim Crow South. And like a lot of immigrants still cling to their traditional foods whether that be called Southern, Soul, or Country or for some Creole. And anyone who has ever eaten Soul Food or Southern Food generally knows that it is heavy on fried foods. Even White folk eat Chicken Fried Steak and fried Pork Tenderloins. When they are not enjoying Barbecue. And you know two dishes that always go well at a cookout or picnic of people originally from the South? Try barbecue and fried chicken.
Insisting that ‘Black people like fried chicken’ is some outdated stereotype is as silly as saying that ‘French people love wine and cheese’ is some distortion drawn from comic books. Because most black people I know do like chicken and follow basketball and oh yeah also happen to enjoy watermelon. How do I know? Well I just came off living for 14 months in a Berkeley homeless shelter that was about 80% black. I lined up for dinner with these guys for months and by and large they loved Southern style cooking. Which included fried chicken and when available watermelon.
“by the way did you hear the one about the Icelander who ate cod? Oh that WASN’T a joke? They really DO eat a lot of local fish?”
Same thing.
“… this piece of governmental experience will prove that social evolution is probably a theory that proves to be full of shit.” JackD
Assuming that you’re implying that there is a theory of social evolution that suggests continuing social development that increasingly enhances man’s humanity to his fellow man, that most certaibnly is total bullshit. But keep in miind that it is only a theory. A theory being something that any thoughtful person or group can initiate and develop in the complete absence of objective evidence. So to speak, a fanciful view of the world, or some part thereof, that one presents more as a record of one’s cogent capabilities rather than one’s understanding of human behavior and social history.
Bruce is the historian in this group. What say you Bruce? What actual historical evidence is there that society contiuoulsy evolves to some higher form, some more humane level of interaction? Me? I adhere to the theorem that there is nothing humane about human behavior. This bit of social conceptualization evolves from a close reading of historical events over many millenium. When wasn’t there a war? When and where have men respected something other than their fear of retribution?
I’m a Jacobin by political orientation. I wish that our society was one that respected social liberalism. It’s not. What is going on is hjuman behavior in action. Things will change, but they juist as likely will devolve as anything else. Then things will change some more, maybe for the better. That’s life on Earth. I’m wrong? Listen to Mitch McConnell or any of his ilk. Mr. O. is little different, but only differs by focus and intention.
Jack, I do know that the Z/M case was decided purely on self-defense and is not an SYG case. The jury was convinced that Z acted solely in self-defense despite Z’s interview statements and his telephone conversation with the police’s non-emergency number operator. Etc. I found Z statements indicative of malice or hatred. The jury didn’t. Adding the the pursuit against police advice convinced me Z had ill-will for Trevon together with outright intent to kill. Jury didn’t because the prosecution did such a good job for the defense that the defense had it easy.
I’m a FL native. Went to college up near Sanford in Deland, FL. In those days, the oldest Deland cemetary had a special section set aside for the local KKK members. Identical gravestones that said, “Rest in Peace, Brother”. Then, on a separate line “,”KKK,” on a background of a burning cross. Told you all you needed to know about Volusia and Seminole counties in those days and sometimes, these days too. Doesn’t seem like Sanford has changed very much. Which is why I don’t live in FL anymore. NancyO
Wells
I don’t know that it is entirely fair to call those with fear (and anger) “gun nuts.” They have had experience… perhaps only second hand… that is different from you.
The thing to try to understand is that those experiences and the conclusions they draw from them are “real and logical” to them.
We advance ourselves nothing by calling them names and imagining ourselves mentally and morally superior to them.
That said, I have had some experiences with Wells Fargo that make my wonder why you chose the screen name you did. If your experience has been similar, maybe its time we started some center for gathering like experiences with the idea of perhaps doing more about it than the government seems willing to.
Hmmm. That’s an interesting defense of a couple of old stereotypes. But try this experiment to see how truly accurate those depictions are. Since you’re in the Bay Area, fill a car with fried chicken and watermelon. Head over to Marin City. When you see a group of black people stop, hop out of the car and announce that you know they all love watermelon and fried chicken and you have all they can eat. I’d be curious about your reception.
Sorry I forgot the Texas aspect. I live a little to the east of Dallas and am pretty familiar with the area you malign. Racism does exist in that area. Racism also exists in the Bay Area. I’ll never forget some kids from Sausalito tell me they would never go to Mt Tam High because of all the black people, or words to that effect. Shall I point out a white on black murder in CA in the last decade to prove my point?
little john
unfortunately you are not helping. it is easy to incite racism. your little adventure with the fried chicken would be seen as an open, racist, insult, and the racism inherent in your black marks would come to the fore… they have been too much abused by white culture to ever forget or really forgive.
on the other hand i know people so politically correct they don’t believe their is crime in the inner cities. yet these people are perfectly capable of believing that, say, scots irish people are inherently violent and bigoted, though without a natural sense of rhythm.
you, and bruce can easily prove racism… as well as deny it… but you sure as hell aren’t getting any closer to making anything any better for anybody.
Little John I grew up in the Bay Area, in fact spent grades 4-9 in Marin and attended a H.S. in the same school district with Mt. Tam. I was and am fully cognizant of the fear most white residents of Marin had of the (then) almost entirely black population of Marin City, something that was driven almost as much by class as race in that even then Marin was a very wealthy county on average while Marin City was mostly two high rise housing projects surrounded by a few houses. Subsequently I spent most of the 20 years after 1974 studying and working at UC Berkeley, a world class university that served a mostly white and Asian student body even as it was cheek by jowl with a mostly working class near majority minority city that is Berkeley. With the result that most students refused to venture into the City their school was in. So you don’t need to lecture me about racism in the Bay Area. On the other hand I was not the person who claimed that racism no longer existed in any important way. That was YOU.
As to driving to Marin City with a carload full of watermelon. Obviously you have little clue about the difference between description and patronization. Chances are that most people of Mexican heritage enjoy and expect to be served beans at most family meals. Which doesn’t mean they like being called Beaners. Similarly black people of my acquaintance do get offended when whites play the “You people sure like–” game. Because no one likes being reduced to a stereotype, in this case of ONLY liking watermelon and fried chicken. People are more than what they enjoy eating.
And not that it matters Marin City in 2013 is very little like Marin City in 1973. For one thing it has been mall-ized and is a combination of apartments and chain stores with a multi-ethnic population as opposed to what was a basically retail free housing project ghetto.
But in any event your scenario is silly as stated. Of course people will react poorly to “Hey I am a rich white guy who bought you a rare treat! Fried chicken!!” As it they somehow had no access to that food in the normal course of events and would just line up to gratefully accept it from your hands. A lot of people would rather starve than grovel. People are not dogs who will beg for a doggy treat.
I heard that Marin City had been somewhat gentrified. Is the flea market still there? Nonetheless I never meant to claim racism had been eradicated. My point is that racism in east Texas is no worse or better than racism anywhere else in the USA. Read my comments again. I said
that there are racists but they are a tiny minority in an otherwise tolerant community. In addition I think people under 50 are much less race conscious than the older generation. That’s been my experience. So a blanket statement that second amendment zealots fear armed blacks is not something I agree with. In my experience second amendment supporters are pretty much like everyone else. Some kooks but generally decent, fair, accepting people. Trying to make them seem like an offshoot of the Aryan Nation is inaccurate.
I went to Bayside elementary and MLK middle school in the mid-seventies.
Run and whoever asked how he could beat the case on self defense without testifying: it is a quirk of Florida law that once a defendant pleads (not proves) self defense, the burden is on the state to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, he didn’t have to testify and the jury got his story by the state putting in his out of court statements as admissions. That, plus the stand your ground instruction, probably won the case for the defense.
I thought the verdict was correct on the state of the evidence and the Florida law (which I think is deplorable). By the way, 27 states now have stand your ground statutes.
Bruce
this is off the present subject, but I can’t pass it up.
you said, “A lot of people would rather starve than grovel. People are not dogs who will beg for a doggy treat.”
i wish you could explain that to those of your friends who are determined to turn Social Security into welfare.
Little John
it only takes a few demented bastards to drag a black man to death behind their pickup to give a whole state a bad name.
i am white and would ordinarily have never had any reason to suspect my neighbors in florida to be dangerous racists… though some quite nice people admitted to having racist feelings.. until I went to Pahokee and Belleglade with some other students to look at the migrant labor camps in the sugar fields. i could easily have explained away the conditions there as “that’s the way they live.” But it was not so easy to explain away the guns pointed at me by the white citizens who had been warned about “troublemakers..”
people are fearful and stupid and easily led into very ugly behavior.
but that includes liberals, college professors and blacks as well as scots irish, formerly known to liberals as white anglo saxon protestants… not to mention of course us old evil white men.
Actually, there are a fairly large number of people in the gun community who are very concerned about the increasing militarization of the police and the encroachments on the 4th amendment.
I view this as an opportunity for right and left to come together to strengthen the entire Bill of Rights.
Dr. Duh:
I do not view it as such an opportunity because many of us are opposed to much of what the gun community desires in terms of freedom to bear arms. I do not see the reasoning of why someone would brings a 50 caliber sniper’s rifle to a pincic and plants it on a table other than to say how macho I am to own this hunk of steel. It makes no sense. The police who are confrontational, customs in their shit kickers and their black uniforms, and the border patrol are reacting to our own possession of uber-weapons which on occassion have been used against them. In the thirties when the hoods outgunned the local police and their 38s with BARs or a Thompson Subs, the police responded by upgrading to the same weaponry. I would get a little jumpy to if I felt someone had an UZI. This has gone well beyond the realm of owning a shotgun, a rifle, or a target pistol. What is the count on weapons today in the US . . . 300+ million?
Before you believe we are just a bunch of libs, recognize that some of us have served in the Army, Navy, or the Marine Corp and have had our fill of violence. It ain’t much fun when you have to field strip it everyday because the Gunny comes by the gun rack to look for rust (because of the humidity) and then cancels your Saturday off to clean it. Those memories for some of us carry over. While I like to target shoot, I got better things to do.
Thank you for posting on Angry Bear and also for your opinion.
Dr. Duh:
I do not view it as such an opportunity because many of us are opposed to much of what the gun community desires in terms of freedom to bear arms. I do not see the reasoning of why someone would brings a 50 caliber sniper’s rifle to a pincic and plants it on a table other than to say how macho I am to own this hunk of steel. It makes no sense. The police who are confrontational, customs in their shit kickers and their black uniforms, and the border patrol are reacting to our own possession of uber-weapons which on occassion have been used against them. In the thirties when the hoods outgunned the local police and their 38s with BARs or a Thompson Subs, the police responded by upgrading to the same weaponry. I would get a little jumpy to if I felt someone had an UZI. This has gone well beyond the realm of owning a shotgun, a rifle, or a target pistol. What is the count on weapons today in the US . . . 300+ million?
Before you believe we are just a bunch of libs, recognize that some of us have served in the Army, Navy, or the Marine Corp and have had our fill of violence. It ain’t much fun when you have to field strip it everyday because the Gunny comes by the gun rack to look for rust (because of the humidity) and then cancels your Saturday off to clean it. Those memories for some of us carry over. While I like to target shoot, I got better things to do.
Thank you for posting on Angry Bear and also for your opinion.
“I went to Bayside elementary and MLK middle school in the mid-seventies. ” L.J.
I went to grade school in Brooklyn in the ’50s and there were some Italian kids in the neighborhood who thought it fun to pick on those they thought were Jewish, or nerdy. There were more Italian kids that played together with all the Jewish kids (that was the primary make up of the neighborhood, Italian and Jewish). The obnoxious behavior of the few was never a basis for determining the value of the many.
“I thought the verdict was correct on the state of the evidence and the Florida law (which I think is deplorable).” JackD
I had asked about the self defense plea. If that’s the law why is the defendant not required to testify under oath to assert that defense? Also, I’m not disagreeing that the trial turned out as it did based on the evidence presented. I was asking for opinion regarding the efforts of the prosecuting DAs. Bringing the case to trial is one thing, but it seemed that little effort was made to refute much of the defense’s “evidence.” In particular I thought that the ballistics expert could have been questioned a bit more intensely and the absence of blood evidence on Martin’s hands and Z’s clothes could have been looked into more thoroughly.
Dr Duh
welcome to never gonna happen land.
the right and the left don’t seem to care much about substantive issues.
what they know is that if the other guy is for it they are against it.
Jack,
I did not follow the trial on television and am not in a position to comment on the evidence that was presented, the way in which it was presented, or what the prosecution might have done to counter it. Generally, when an expert witness is unrebutted by competent lawyers, it’s because they don’t have anything to rebut him with (e.g. an expert of their own who disagrees).
As to why the defendant is not required to testify in order to assert self defense, that’s a good question, but that apparently is the law in Florida. Your question would be better addressed to the Florida legislature and/or its courts.
I found it problematic that the full instruction on stand your ground which includes language to the effect that one who provokes a confrontation cannot be exonerated by the stand your ground provision was not given. As someone observed yesterday the transcript reveals a very truncated (by the judge) argument on the point with a ruling for the defense that that language was not to be included in the instruction. I have no opinion as to the correctness of that ruling under Florida law.