Tuesday, April 17, 2012

No, really?

Just in case you were deaf, illiterate, and in a coma for the last couple of months, a Chicago lawyer and a Minneapolis law prof writing for CNN would like you to know that the "Trayvon Martin case [is] also about guns."

Gosh, thanks, guys. I'm not sure I would have picked up on that from the hundred thousand other media talking heads trying to tell me the same thing.

EDIT: In comments, Sean points out that the gun stuff is just collateral damage; the actual target looks to be ALEC, a conservative lobbying organization.


Sean D Sorrentino said...

Actually Tam, I don't think it was about guns at all. I think it was the big leftist orgs paying their anti-gun client groups to gin up a controversy so they could attack corps for giving money to ALEC. Why else would the antis be mentioning ALEC with every other tweet? I wrote about it last night.

JD Rush said...

Wasn't Kellerman's alleged study discredited 39 seconds after it was published? Way to lead with outdated crapola.

Anonymous said...

Oh, this is a two- or three- or more-fer for the left. All in one shooting, they get:


--- Police malfeasance!

--- Guns are bad!

--- "Stand Your Ground" is bad!

--- Concealed carry is bad!

--- Neighborhood Watch (i.e. people actually trying to take responsibility for their own neighborhoods and communities) are bad!

--- Did I mention RAAAAACISM?

Jebus, I've even seen lefties try to link this to the Koch brothers. Give 'em a bit more time, and we'll discover that Sarah Palin put George Zimmerman up to it. "He looks suspicious 'cause he's black and wearing a hoodie, you betcha!"

cj said...

docjim505...you missed the 'Not obeying orders from police is bad!'...because a dispatcher once said "I don't need you to do that."

Queue up the next story about Jimma Reat and the instructions from dispatch which got him killed.

Shrimp said...

@JD Rush--I thought the same thing as soon as I saw Kellermann's name.

Of course, they might be hoping to pick up some new anti-rights folks by swaying them with outdated information. Think about how many young people have never heard of Kellermann or his BS--sort of like people finding out the Titanic was for realz!11!!

Their reaction to looking into his name and his "research" might land them a few more anti-rights anti-freedom fighters--and that is all they truly care about.

I also laughed out loud at the next line:
"Similarly, people who carry guns are more likely to be shot and killed than those who are unarmed."

But, isn't that the exact opposite of what happened with Zimmerman and Martin? How does that prove their point? Why would they include that, especially in reference to the Zimmerman/Martin case? Unless, of course, things are so old that they are new again. Hey, you haven't lived long enough to have heard this lie before, so it's brand new to you!

Stranger said...

Late last year I noticed Foundation funding to anti-gun propaganda groups had drastically increased.

MAIG's $650,000 Joyce Foundation funding started drumming up anti-gun sediment almost immediately.

The #2 recipient, a DC "progressive think tank," now seems to be trying to take ALEC down and repeal both Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws with Joyce Foundation money.

The "progressive left" thinks most of the recent hike in gun sales is related to "right to self defense laws." According to their way of thinking, taking down SYG and CD laws will kill gun sales.

ALEC is the primary source of pre-written SYG and CD laws, so ALEC must go, as must those laws, the gun sales, gun ownership, and we all should know enough history to know the rest. Ending with Gulag.

Bottom line? Every day should be contact your legislator and CongressCritters in favor of Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws.


Anonymous said...

Talk about missing the issue! If they wrote this nonsense in a criminal law or criminal procedure class in law school, they would both fail.

How is Florida's eliminating the duty to retreat to become a majority rule state about guns? What if Jorge had used a knife or cricket bat or a copy of the Obamacare bill to beat Martin to death?

The issue is not the choice of Jorge's tool but whether Jorge acted reasonably under the circumstances. It does not matter if Jorge used a pistol, rifle, shotgun, sword, knife, bat, or photo of Keith Olbermann.

Shootin' Buddy

Sean D Sorrentino said...

@Stranger: you are missing what i'm saying. Gun control has NOTHING to do with this story. It's all about scaring corps away from ALEC so that ALEC can't write more free market laws. Do you think that rich progeressives are funding gun control to take guns? No way. They are using a Florida incident to take down a think tank that really has little to do with guns. All they really want to do is hurt their free market lobbying. We arent collateral damage, we are just a side show.

kishnevi said...

You can blame Bill Cosby for this, although what he actually said was relatively sensible compared to these guys (along the lines of, if you see trouble, make sure you're prepared for it, and if you use a gun, make sure you're ready for the results).

Anonymous said...

Did I miss Mr. Zimmermans laywers having a press conference laying out there defense?

Or is this folks just earning a pay check by spouting of the theory of the day?


Sean D Sorrentino said...

And right on cue ALEC abandons their gun rights and their Voter ID law sections.


Guns are a side show, but clearly the Left views Voter ID laws as existential threats. What are they doing that Voter ID is such a threat to? I mean, if they weren't cheating at the ballot box then they wouldn't have a problem with Voter ID.

Isn't that the argument that they always use on us? If you don't have anything to hide why not show ID (or have a background check on ALL gun sales)?

The fight is now over. ALEC has surrendered on the real issue. Expect the Zimmerman/Martin shooting to fade out of the news. The Left will fund a riot to take down ALEC, but not to put a Hispanic Democrat in jail for shooting a black kid who likely started the fight.

Aaron Burr said...

In other news, sales of skittles continues to skyrocket.....

John A said...

Where do they get these analyses/analysts? SYG laws did not establish the possibility to use a self-defense argument in court, it was always available but not used as often as was true because it had to be proved: much more importantly they stopped three "common law/precedent" niases, which I think should have disappeared long ago -

1. major thrust of these laws - dropped "if you have been attacked it was your fault for not moving to Zanzibar"

2. shifted self-defense from "defendant must prove self-defense plea" to "prosecution must prove was not self-defense"

3. changed "reasonable force" from "if agressor uses fists (even in attempt to kill) victim is also restricted to fists, no other weapon" which meant a person threatened with rape at knifepoint would be prosecuted for using a firearm in defense, to largely just "force" for defense

The MSM "analyses" claiming that this amounts to a free pass for murdering anyone at any time in any place with any weapon is asininity at its worst, by people who think the point of the story "The Lady or the Tiger" is that the man could have fled the country rather than become attracted to the Lady.

Sean D Sorrentino said...

@JohnA: Common law never demanded that you retreat. That was statutory law based upon the Model Penal Code.

Common law had three different situations,
1. Attacked in your home: Fire at will

2. Attacked on the street: If you reasonably believe that you are about to be killed or suffer serious bodily injury, use deadly force

3. Mutual Combat: Because no one can agree to be killed, killing someone in a mutually agreed upon fight is still illegal. That means that if you agree to a fight, and you're getting your ass whipped, you can atempt to withdraw from the fight. You must try to retreat from the fight before using deadly force to save your own life.

What happened is that the Model Penal Code didn't distinguish between getting attacked and mutual combat and demanded that people who were attacked by criminals attempt to retreat before using deadly force.

Stand Your Ground laws just restore that original Common Law approach to self defense by separating the categories in statutory law once more.

Read one
(NC Castle is modeled after Florida's)

and you'll see that the law lays out all three scenarios.

Anonymous said...

Remember the hoodie.

Pathfinder said...

Hmmm...I thought Sean was going to nail it right out of the box.

Right, it's not about guns. And it may be about ALEC. But remember, it is NEVER about what the leftoids say it is about. It ain't about race, hoodies, guns, stand your ground or ALEC. Sure, if they can break some of these, all the better.

For those watching closely, there has been a rush to judgement on Zimmerman. Kind of a "Damn the law, lynch him now!" To the point that the DA has filed an incredibly weak affidavit against Zimmerman just to keep the huddled masses of Entitled Ones from rioting.

No folks, this is yet another attempt to break the rule of law. With leftoids, the law only applies when they want it to.

Once the rule of law is well and truly broken, then the leftoids can dictate - much like bho is doing these days with all of his czars and EOs - the right stuff and marshal in the socialist utopia they (think they are) desiring.

John A said...

Sean, I disagree, English - and thus our - common law established centuries ago that if retreat is at all possible it must be attempted. Whether just glancing at the ground to be sure your feet are not nailed down constitutes such an attempt depended on whatever law enforcement official happened to feel...

OTOH, as shown at -
this common law precedent was overriden by various later laws, even before SYG.

California Criminal Code 3470:
[The defendant] is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself, and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of death or great bodily injury has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

Sean D Sorrentino said...

@JohnA: Sorry dude, but Blackstone disagrees with you.

Three different situations. Only "sudden affray," which is mutual combat, has a duty to retreat. It is a leftist lie that Castle/SYG is different than Common Law.

John A said...

OK, not what I had heard elsewhere, but I certainly accept Blackstone.