The media proceeded, per usual, to get nearly everything wrong. First there was a shooter, then two shooters, then three, then maybe just two. There was an AR, then a double barreled shotgun. Then maybe a double barreled AR? (OK, I didn’t see that one to be fair). But in the end, it seems like it’s just one crazy dude. What’s interesting about this case is that it looks like he was charged with malicious mischief, which if of the second or third degree (which I think would qualify here) is a felony and would amount of a disabling offense for the purposes of firearms ownership. So did Seattle authorities follow through with charges? Or did they plea him down to third degree malicious mischief, which would not be disabling?
Category: Crime
Criminals & Cops Sue
Here’s a case of dueling cops and robbers, only they are duking it out in the court of law – and not against one another. Instead, they are each targeting law-abiding citizens.
In New Mexico, the wife of an armed robber is suing the man who shot her husband because she claims that her husband, after pulling a gun on the victim, didn’t really intend to kill him. The innocent victim was apparently supposed to somehow know this and just turn over the cash he had and assume all would be well. The widow’s attorney claims that regardless of the fact there were two robbers against one victim, and robbers pulled a gun first, the victim has no right to assume his life might be in jeopardy.
The widow is not only suing the victim who had the nerve to defend himself, she’s also suing the victim’s boss because he apparently never should have allowed the victim to work since he owned a gun. She is also suing the city, claiming that she was held against her will for the act of being questioned the crimes her husband committed. The city has taxpayers to pay legal fees to get the lawsuit thrown out. The man whose life was threatened has to pay his own legal fees against this baseless lawsuit.
Meanwhile, in Texas, a deputy is suing the family of a man he shot and killed because they called 911 for help. He believes the widow owes him $200,000 because he suffered minor injuries in the scuffle and mental anguish for doing his job.
So, in New Mexico, you’ll be sued for not calling the police fast enough when a gun is being held to your head, and the cops in Texas will sue you for calling the police to help deal with a perceived threat. I guess that just being a law-abiding citizen is the only way to lose these days.
Again with the Same, Tired Narratives
And now the Marissa Alexander case rears up again in the media. I covered her case more than a year ago at this point, when the narrative first hit the media. Alexander is a poster child against mandatory minimum sentences, not against stand your ground laws. A big problem we’re having is that journalists, when they don’t outright have an agenda, which is often, don’t really understand our laws or legal system. Stand Your Ground laws honestly don’t change a whole lot when it comes to self-defense cases. It still comes down to credibility, and that was the difference between Alexander and Zimmerman.
UPDATE: More here, at WTBGU.
UPDATE: Also at Ace of Spades.
If you’re going to be the face of our issue …
… please try to avoid the trap of getting busted for having controlled substances while possessing a firearm. I tend to think most people will frown on possessing a firearm with hallucinogenic substances, and it kind of destroys the whole being a sympathetic character for pulling off effective civil disobedience. Rosa Parks didn’t have pot in her purse when she got arrested.
But I will note this:
“Numerous police vehicles, including a light armored vehicle and two low-flying helicopters barricaded Adam’s street,†the news release says. “More than 20 armored SWAT team members surrounded the house, as well as a number of detectives, and plainclothes officers.â€
Two helicopters and an armored vehicle? To take down one guy who only kinda, maybe might decide it’s better to shoot it out than get taken in? I can get using a tactical team, given you just don’t know, maybe he’d rather shoot it out, but what’s so hard about waiting for him to leave the house and jumping him with 5 or so officers? Why invade the whole neighborhood? The problem is, you give the guys the toys, and it gets hard to resist taking them out to play.
The New Realities
Jim Geraghty made this remark in light of the NSA spying leaks: “Of course, you can do the right thing and still break the law.”
Meanwhile, Sesame Street debuts an education kit for helping kids deal with an incarcerated parent.
Clearly, there’s not such an epidemic of questionable spying document dumping in this country that these two things are directly related, but I don’t think they are completely unrelated, either. It’s a sad day when we pretty much joke about how practically everyone is a criminal these days because they’ve probably cross some regulation they never even knew existed.
It reminds me of a Kindle book my mom bought me that I really need to read soon: Trapped: When Acting Ethically is Against the Law
Unfortunately, since the answers to these issues don’t fit into a soundbite, don’t expect any serious discussions about the topic from our political leaders.
What Was the Real Motivation Behind the Bloomberg Ricin Letters?
I found it interesting that the couple at the center of investigation into the ricin letters were blaming each other. The wife called authorities and reported it was her husband, but the husband told authorities who showed up that she set him up to take the fall.
Interestingly, it appears as though investigators believe him since they just arrested his wife.
I’m curious if she’s off her rocker and then figured she’d try to blame her husband for the letters once she realized they would really investigate or if the entire plot was designed to set her husband up for massive legal troubles. If it’s the latter, then it would be interesting to know why she decided to make the issue all about guns and gun control–whether she doesn’t like gun owners or if that was just picked out as the headline of the day.
I don’t believe there’s nearly enough issue to actually assign an obvious political motivation, so don’t assume it’s part of some larger plot. It seems the only thing we know is that there’s a woman who is either nuts and wants her husband to pay the consequences for for it, or there’s a woman who wants her husband to suffer and will resort to insane tactics rather than dealing with it like an adult.
How to Give the Gun Control Groups the Moral High Ground
Committing acts of terrorism against the anti-gun folks is a pretty sure way to help their cause and harm ours, and at the end of the day it’s some poor staffer who will be the ones opening the letters. You an expect them to play this up to the hilt, and paint themselves as the victims, and gun owners as a bunch of ricin mailing terrorists. Ridiculous that someone would do this.
Mass Shooting?
I’m surprised we’re just now hearing about this incident in Seattle. I would have thought they’d be in full on exploitation mode, but I guess since it’s not children, and the shooter used a Joe Biden approved weapon, it doesn’t help the narrative much. Of course, he does have a concealed weapons permit, so I suppose that helps their cause. Though, I’m pretty sure most standard training courses cover the license not giving you any permissions to shoot it out with police.
Mass Stabbing in Texas
Looks like quite a number of injuries with people having to be airlifted. I’m going to bet this will recede from the news cycle rather quickly. There will also not be the ritual grabbing onto the event by political opportunists looking to turn other people’s grief into their own political advantage. No families of this tragedy will get a ride on Air Force One. Their grief and loss can’t be used for emotional blackmail to settle a political score. It will drive no narrative to advance the Bloomberg/Obama agenda. The victims of this won’t matter, because the weapon was not a gun. That will, of course, be of little comfort to those victims and their families.
A Question I’ve Wondered About
I’ve heard Nancy Lanza used as a poster child for safe storage by gun control advocates, thinking it was a bit premature to presume the guns were not stored in a safe manner. Now we seem to have a much better picture:
The guns used in the shootings were apparently all purchased by the shooter’s mother. There is currently no indication that the shooter attempted to purchase the guns and was denied. The gun locker at 36 Yogananda St. was open when the police arrived. It was unlocked and there was no indication that it had been broken into.
So we at least know she had a safe, and that it was unlocked when the police arrived. It’s not clear from reading the search warrants where the safe was in the house. Did he shoot her to get the key? If so, is there any “safe storage” law that would help?