It was alleged on the news today that some subhuman shot up a birthday party in Oklahoma City and was confronted by two legally armed citizens who demanded he submit.They shot and killed the alleged criminal when he appeared to be aiming the gun at them. Probably lucky for the good guys that it happened in a common sense place like Oklahoma and not in the People's Republic of NY. In New York if they were to do such a thing they would be in very, very serious legal jeopardy. Do ya think that just might make the law abiding hesitate to get involved? Lets imagine how the news would be if it happened there:
"Two men are being held without bail tonight. They allegedly used supposedly legally possessed firearms to shoot and kill a gunman who had just shot two participants in a birthday party. It is alleged that when they demanded that the gunman submit, the gunman aimed at them and they shot the gunman. They are charged with second degree murder, brandishing, making a terroristic threat and illegal possession of a weapon . Gov. Cuomo said 'It is of course of great concern to law enforcement and citizens when overeager vigilantes recklessly presume to take the law into their own hands; a life is now needlessly forfeit because of it'.Those shot at the party were unavailable for comment." Gov. Cuomo is of course well known for his warm and forgiving feelings toward violent felons and his disdain for law abiding gun owners. His parole board recently freed a killer of two policemen and he ain't losing any sleep over it. No word yet on restoration of the enjoyment of life itself to the slain officers.
There is a way to stop this kind of thing. The Federal Department of Justice should make it abundantly clear that it will immediately and closely scrutinize any case like this to ascertain whether the civil rights of law abiding good samaritans and those of potential victims they saved are being violated when they are taken to potentially life ruining task by ambitious prosecutors and/or the laws of left leaning states. If it decides such offense has been made, serious Federal criminal charges should be leveled if possible. Some states already have laws protecting courageous ones who choose to risk everything by using force to protect the innocent. But, perversely, some don't.
It used to be assumed that 2+2 equaled 4; that up was up and down down, that being bad was bad and being good was good and, (stick with me now, "progressives" ) that goodness should not be punished. And in the greater part of our country these truths prevail. But there are some states, and they have the considerable law making powers which accrue to states, in which moral relativism has so corrupted public policy and legal thinking that these verities are denounced. So it was in the formative days in smoky '60's dorm rooms and so it is by law now. So if you use force to confront a thug, its YOU that's on the snide; its you who are guilty until improbably and at some little cost grudgingly certified innocent. Ask law enforcement and corrections officers; they know. This is powerful and completely unacceptable nonsense and we have a Federal administration capable of confronting it with civil rights law enforcement. We must urge it to do so. Jack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
When a homocide occurs, there can be no blanket assumption that no crime occurred. There is, in fact, a dead person. It is the evidence and circumstances surrounding the homocide that lead the government to bring charges or not. Your argument is thin on presenting the evidence the government cites and from that evidence judging the merits of the case. You first draw the conclusion that the government was overbearing and then support it with the that part of the story which supports it. Of course, rectifying or justifying your conclusion is why we have courts. And to be fair, progressives are equally guilty of drawing conclusions but omitting the evidence that contradicts it.
Dear Aeschines: I had assumed that this post was bereft of comments and just now discovered your contribution. I'm at the end of a trying day now and cannot competently respond but I assure you I will tomorrow when I have had time to give your observations the close attention they deserve. J
Aeschines: Online greetings and thanx for your comments - goodbye! (Not) I think there are two immediately given facts in a such a homicide - a dead person and a shooter (s). Being arrested can be a terrifying experience especially for a law abiding person and usually involves being confined with some very law unabiding persons (even for a short time that can be a very dangerous experience). Even if you are immediately exonerated you still have to answer "yes", sometimes enacting damaging prejudice against you, anytime you are asked if you have ever been arrested. Your firearms are confiscated and it can be very hard to get them back in some states. I don't doubt that the states I criticize are just as quick on the trigger with actual murderers in such circumstances but to expose law abiding gun owners to such an ordeal is unjust. A full trip through the legal process, in which as you note, all relevant evidence is considered, is an expensive and enervating ordeal the prospect of which in some states probably does prevent good samaritans from acting. At the very least, couldn't they be put in a form of protective custody or oversight enabled, if necessary, by minimal charges? Some of those I believe to be most devoted to severely limiting (eliminating if possible) gun owner's rights (eg. Gov. Cuomo) have had little success with Congress and SCOTUS. They have turned through inappropriate legislative tactics and administrative law to harassment of gun owners in an effort to discourage gun ownership by making it bureacratically practically impossible, expensive or involving onerous legal risks. That makes the tendency in such states to take all shooters to law immediately very suspect. Your criticism of my argumentary technique is legitimate. I do make use of sardonic and ironic expression to make a point and that must be done with care. And probably like most who seek to persuade, I give short shrift to points inconvenient to mine.
My apologies are due you in that I originally had read your hypothetical situation as the actual situation. My excuse is advanced age and general victimhood. Do you know law enforcement did do with these two?
Dear Aeschines: I know of no legal action having been taken against them but trust that in NY they would be in deep jeopardy. J
Post a Comment