“New York Slimes” and Gun Fearing Wussies
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in Gun Fearing Wussies, Journaljizzm10:57 am
When one comes across, this time via LC & IB Bill Quick, an article in a fish wrapper like the New York Slimes having to do with gun rights and, in this case, “stand your ground laws”, it’s almost a dead cert that you can find some creative journaljizzm and other shenanigans going on. Which, of course, makes such articles a perfect training exercise for your investigate Citizen Journalist skills, since you’re pretty much bound to hit paydirt.
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws. Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.
And you get three guesses as to which side the New York Slimes is on. Poor little buggers have tried their damndest to come up with hair-raising stories of streets awash with blood as gun-crazed citizens run amock and gun down lil’ old ladies and disadvantaged minorities, and they keep drawing blanks. So what do you do? You make up shit instead, of course:
Thanks to this sort of law, a prostitute in Port Richey, Fla., who killed her 72-year-old client with his own gun rather than flee was not charged last month.
We’d immediately venture the guess that it was thanks to something else entirely. Say, self-defense or something, seeing as how laws and firearms seldomly jump up and shoot at people for no apparent reason at all, but the New York Slimes don’t seem too interested in going into detail.
So what does the Citizen Journalist do? Fire up Google, of course. Sometimes it takes a bit of digging, but if you have a locality and a name it’s usually not all that hard. And, sure enough, after a few minutes we find this in the Tampa Bay Online:
NEW PORT RICHEY - A prostitute who told deputies she shot a 72-year-old customer in self-defense will not be prosecuted for the slaying.
Prosecutors have dropped a second-degree murder charge after determining 23-year-old Jacqueline Galas acted within the state’s new “Stand Your Ground” law.
[…]
Galas of New Port Richey shot longtime client Frank Labiento with his .357-caliber handgun inside his Port Richey home the evening of June 11.
She immediately told deputies that Labiento had threatened her with the gun, and the evidence bore out her account, Halkitis said.
In addition to finding a suicide note in which Labiento said he planned to kill Galas before taking his own life, investigators determined that Galas had managed to call a friend on her cell phone during the incident and the friend overheard Labiento making threats, the prosecutor said.
“There is plenty of evidence that his plan was for him to kill her,” Halkitis said. “He can’t live without her, one of those deals.”
Oopsie. We’ll sit back while the impeccably professional journaljizzmer of the New York Slimes wipes the egg off of his face. Unless, of course, it is the editorial policy of the New York Slimes that hookers should meekly accept a bullet in the face in case their customers feel suicidal. But to any sane, decent human being (automatically excluding the entire staff of the New York Slimes, particularly their eleven-teen-umpty-seven layers of rigorously fact-checking editors), this looks an awful lot like a clear cut self-defense case.
“Killed by stand your ground laws” or “killed in self-defense?” We report, you decide.
No wonder the NYT wasn’t overly eager to get into details.
Rottweiler : 1
NYT : 0
Next…
Similarly, the police in Clearwater, Fla., did not arrest a man who shot a neighbor in early June after a shouting match over putting out garbage, though the authorities say they are still reviewing the evidence.
This one was a bit harder to find out more about, but the local newspaper carried it (search for “jason rosenbloom” in the archives for June, 2006):
CLEARWATER – Deputies are investigating a neighborhood dispute that resulted in a shooting Monday.
Deputies were dispatched to 1995 Meadow Drive after receiving a call from the victim’s wife, reporting her husband had been shot by their neighbor, reports said.
Kenneth Allen told deputies he arrived at his residence about 4:30 p.m., and he heard loud music coming from the residence of his neighbor, Jason Rosenbloom.
Shortly after entering his home, Allen reported that Rosenbloom banged on his front door. Allen went to the door and exchanged words with Rosenbloom.
Allen told deputies he went to a room and retrieved a 9mm semi-automatic handgun, returned to the front door and opened the door. Rosenbloom then came towards Allen in what Allen told deputies was a threatening manner, reports said.
Allen then told deputies he fired two rounds at Rosenbloom as he began to enter his residence. According to Allen, Rosenbloom fell to the ground after being shot, then got up and walked to his home.
Looks like the two neighbors weren’t just standing at the fence, exchanging insults over garbage, doesn’t it? Of course, Mr Allen may be lying through his teeth which, presumably, is why even the NYT has to admit that authorities are reviewing the evidence, but wouldn’t it seem quite relevant to at least remark briefly on the allegations surrounding the incident, as in “home invasion vs. garbage argument?” Of course it would, which is exactly why the New York Slimes didn’t do it. It wouldn’t help their story one little bit.
Funnily enough, the Rosenblooms seem to have a tendency to get themselves shot. A few days after Jason’s encounter with the naughty end of a 9mm while invading somebody’s residence, his brother Joshua managed to get himself shot dead while assaulting police officers with a sword. Not necessarily related, but it is interesting, isn’t it?
Rottweiler : 2
NYT : 0
We ought to get paid for this.
The rest of the NYT article is, as one would expect, a rehash of one tired anti-gun cliche after another, cliches that sound even more hollow now that we’ve found out just how much the dead fish wrapper doctored the evidence to fit their agenda. A few highlights:
Florida does not keep comprehensive records on the impact of its new law, but prosecutors and defense lawyers there agree that fewer people who claim self-defense are being charged or convicted.
Obviously, you bleeding morons, since that was one of the intents of the law in the first place. To keep law-abiding citizens from having to waste scarce funds in court as a result of having committed the “crime” of defending themselves and/or their property from goblins. We’re glad to hear that it works as advertised.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
And about bloody time too. No more “well, you SHOULD have just run away and let the goblin help himself to whatever he wanted” nonsense when innocent citizens are faced with the dregs and scum of society engaging in property redistribution.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
And His Majesty has reason to believe that Texas will soon follow. It’s long been a “de facto” policy around here, but it sure would help to make it “de jure”. If not, we may just have to move to Florida.
The central innovation in the Florida law, said Anthony J. Sebok, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, is not its elimination of the duty to retreat, which has been eroding nationally through judicial decisions, but in expanding the right to shoot intruders who pose no threat to the occupant’s safety.
“In effect,” Professor Sebok said, “the law allows citizens to kill other citizens in defense of property.”
Imagine THAT! The HORROR! People maintaining their right to keep their property! Only a fucking socialist would be unable to see the sense in that.
Here’s a hint to goblins: Keep your grubby, slimy paws off my property and, in return, I’ll graciously refrain from shooting you in the face.
It’s a simple as that.
Entries (RSS)
Hmmm…kinda makes me want to pack my family up and head to sunny Florida
Here in Joisey, you basically have to giftwrap your property and possessions for the goblins. It’s pathetic…and very scary when you really sit and think about it.
(UNO!)
August 7th, 2006 at 11:36 amAs a resident of Florida - I am actually proud of Jeb for this one! I’m sure next year we’ll see violent crime statistics down…but you won’t find it in the Slimes!
August 7th, 2006 at 11:40 amI was pretty certain we can use deadly force here in Texas already. According to self-defender(dot)net Texas law says we can shoot the bastards.
“A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery.”
August 7th, 2006 at 11:46 am6/12 rule applies. Am I supposed to guess whether or not the goblin that enteres my home is armed or means to do harm to myself or my family?
August 7th, 2006 at 11:48 amI’ll take my chances with the jury and not the criminal, thank you.
I also live in Florida and I prefer to call it the Make my Day law.
August 7th, 2006 at 11:49 amBut, but, but… if they can’t steal from those eeeevil rich people then the government will have to repeal those “tax cuts for the rich”. Can’t you see it’s much better for the poor to do their own income redistribution rather than the government have to do it for them??
Don’t have a heart attack, I’m just kidding.
Somebody needs to write up a dissertation on what Robin Hood was REALLY all about. I’ve toyed with the idea, but haven’t gotten around to it yet. But these numbskulls really need to understand that their “robin hood mentality” is total hogwash. Too bad they won’t listen… even if I had somewhere to publish… one of the main reasons I haven’t written it yet.
RH
August 7th, 2006 at 12:01 pmRobin Hood was originally a tax protestor.
The rich he was robbing from were King John’s cronies, who were “tax-farming” the snot out of anyone without pull.
August 7th, 2006 at 12:12 pmYes….it IS that simple.
Except ‘controlled pairs’ center mass also works.
August 7th, 2006 at 12:27 pmActually, it is related, seeing how Jason gave Joshua the sword as a present. If only they had knife control, as in England.
August 7th, 2006 at 2:05 pmWell, my guy had to remind my roommate’s psycho ex boyrfriend on a message yesterday of this particular law. I was going to get the cat outside some water but felt maybe I should go get a robe on. The fucker must have been lurking and fricken enters my house and goes into her room where she was asleep with her boyfriend, calls her a name and leaves. I hear the door slam. I come out of my room, she’s freaking out, scared shitless, I lock the door. He comes back and is banging on my door, which is now dented, screaming. I told him to go away or I will call the cops, and he says, fuck you cunt, I’ll take you down. Well, this particular asshole doesn’t know what a cunt is. He was been promptly warned by my guy that I would have no fucking qualms exercising my rights in regards to him coming into my home. And you know what the total dumbass does? He calls the cops on ME!!! The poetic justice was, he almost got arrested for admitting to basically trespassing and threatening me. Next time, the fucking psycho will is in for a very rude awakening, and he now knows I am also in my legal right which the cop explained to him in regards to the law.
August 7th, 2006 at 2:34 pmBingo Kristopher, although it was a tiny bit more complicated than that, that was one of the primary sources of his rebellion. There were a few ancilliary causes as well — had he not killed a king’s ranger in a fit of prideful anger he might never have gotten started — but that was by far the biggest part of it.
If the evil party ever gets power again the country will be in serious trouble in many ways. But the destruction of our economy from their idiotic taxation policies will likely be one of the first and most obvious ways that things start to go down the toilet… unless a modern day Robin Hood comes to the rescue. Makes for a nice fantasy, but I don’t think anybody has the guts to do it anymore.
RH
August 7th, 2006 at 3:05 pmThat was a significant degree of patience on your part Staci. The goblin was lucky you were in a generous mood. Or maybe not. After all, it’s unlikely he will learn, he’ll just come after somebody else later on. Hopefully, though, not somebody who is afraid to defend themselves. He needs a 12-gauge lesson in “it’s over, go away and don’t come back”. I certainly wouldn’t mind if it’s only painful instead of fatal AND that’s sufficient for him to learn, but if not then he brought it on himself and I sincerely hope nobody is stupid enough to claim otherwise.
RH
August 7th, 2006 at 3:11 pmIt wasn’t patience. I was in my room and he had left already when I came out. By the time he came back, I had bolted the door. He will be replacing my door from denting it up. AND he will be facing a serious ass whooping from the Miami Dade Police if they have to come out. He seriously messed with the wrong chick. Not only will I not hesitate to defend myself, I have a well connected boyfriend who is pretty pissed plus a slew of guy friends who are not going to be very happy with him. And if my brother or cousins in the military find out, he better watch that he doesn’t even breath near my condo again. I can say with certainty too IF he would have done more, I wouldn’t be surprised if BC didn’t come down here.
He seriously fucked up. And I have yet to get a gun, but checking with my friend who is a cop, I am in my rights to use my 5.5 ft speargun in the meantime. I’m consulting with my pastor about aquiring a gun and getting my concealed weapon permit. He’s a huge believer in the 2nd Amendment.
August 7th, 2006 at 3:23 pmSPEARGUN!! SHE’S GOTTA MILITARY ASSAULT STYLE SPEARGUN!
August 7th, 2006 at 4:17 pmHeh, You nail em’, I’ll clean em’!
This post should be emailed to Julie Banderas(sp?) of the Big Story on FOX. She did a story on this today, and pretty much read the NY Times article, with none of the basic research that the Emperor did. I would hope she would issue a correction, especially after what she did with that crazy phelps hag. You would thing she was on the right side.
August 7th, 2006 at 5:29 pm15 States Expand Right to Shoot in Self-Defense…
It sounds like progress for civil rights, but of course the NY Times reports it as a travesty.
August 7th, 2006 at 5:50 pmIn the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might fo…
Question: What is a seventy-two year old man doing with a twenty-three year old hooker?
No jokes, please.
August 7th, 2006 at 6:44 pmIsn’t Clearwater where one of the major Scientologist hives are?
August 7th, 2006 at 6:49 pmLC Staci,
A few suggested additions to your reading list:
Principles of Personal Defense
The Book of Two Guns
Armed & Female
In the Gravest Extreme
August 7th, 2006 at 8:31 pmIn Florida, your own life does not have to be in danger for you to use deadly force, you have no duty to retreat, can use force to stop the commission of a felony, and cannot be sued by the survivors of the gremlin you wasted.This of course scares the shite out of the goons and pisses the Brady Bunchers all to hell because the poor unfortunate muggers and rapists and thieves and murderers are simply misunderstood victims themselves who had a poor upbringing and who society never gave a chance. What pisses them off even more is the fact that no blood has run in the streets and concealed weapon permit holders are being the upstanding citizens everyone should strive to be.
A local law enforcement bigwig and I cross paths now and again, and upon one occasion I inquired as to any advice he’d give me, since I remain relatively new to the Sunshine State, and was hesitant at first to believe such common sense laws actually existed.
“Use enough gun.” He replied, “It’s cheaper for us to tag ‘em and bag ‘em then sew their asses back together and feed ‘em forever.”
August 7th, 2006 at 9:09 pmIndeed, the left loves nothing better than victims, their sacrifices to their warped desires for complete dominion. Witess the Dog Ass more concerned with his conviction record than justice. What they fear, more than anything else, are people that don’t need them, don’t want them and won’t tolerate them. I remain in this category. Well, I tolerate when I have to. But here in Kalifornia you have to be in your house to kill in self-defense….and rest assured, he WILL fall inside…what isn’t stuck to the wall anyway.
August 7th, 2006 at 9:19 pmMy own personal favorite was
Bill Jordan’s:
“No Second Place Winner”
August 7th, 2006 at 9:39 pmThe New York Times’ attack upon upon ’shoot first’ laws by distorting FACTS is detestable…
Just another example of the “MSM elites” trying to sway public opinion on a political civil liberties issue by distorting the facts to suit their ambitions. This all started of course with the New York Times’ recent report blatant LI…
August 7th, 2006 at 11:02 pmHi all,
I read the article in the NY Times. The point concerning the prostitute’s reasoning for killing the man was actually set forth in the article. The NY Times article made clear that this was the type of case that the law was intended to support. The Rossenbloom case has TWO sides to it. The shooter’s side. and the shot’s side.
I only mention this because the implicit assumption that appears to be accepted by supporters of this law mirrors LaPierre’s claim that “Good people make good decisions. That is whu they are good.” They shoot only when there is dire need. I beg to disagree. Good people sometimes make BAD decisions. They make mistakes. And that is the part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the total subjectivity of the decision to shoot (your reasons, though good to you may not be good to other non-passional observers). Another interesting part of the article that I would appreciate feedback on is whether or not the police have more stringent fire rules than the civilians who can exercise deadly force without the higher levels of training that police have. That bit makes no sense to me. Is that true?
Basically, any rube can buy a gun, and without much thought or reflection, pop off another human being because they feel threatened. The folks who write on this site take firearm training and conflict simulation seriously. But this is a minority (I suspect) of gun-users. My worry is not really you all, but the others…
Also, even well trained people are affected by emotion. Well trained people make mistakes. This cannot be discounted. And nothing in the analysis deals with that.
An interesting event that happened last night. We were in a hotel in Novarto, California. The people next door partied all night, and managed to avoid getting shut down, even with complaints to the management and visits from the police. Not much sleep (loud, obnoxious, swearing, and occasionally jarring sob stories of relationship complaints), We decide to leave feeling unsafe. And as we are between trips to the car loading up, tired and pissed off, one of the revelers comes in through the door which we thought we had closed. At this point, under the law in Florida, I would have been within my rights to pop him off (is that right?). Actually, he was a bit inebriated, apologized, and left. I won’t tell you I was completely calm, pretty agitated actually.
But it could have turned out very differently then the peaceable way it did.
Just something to think about. Other issues, but this has been a bit long. Sorry I have been out for a while. Left and took a new job, shifted coasts, east to west. Hope to re-establish conversations with you all.
Take care
August 8th, 2006 at 1:07 amCas
Staci (#13) says: “I’m consulting with my pastor about aquiring a gun and getting my concealed weapon permit. He’s a huge believer in the 2nd Amendment“…
Hmmm, none of that, “turning the other cheek” for that gent, eh?
Well good for him and yeah, it sounds like he’s as a good a source as any for info Staci…
August 8th, 2006 at 2:42 amWell the New York Times as you all know has been one of the NRA’s biggest detractors…
Apparently the New York Times doesn’t believe that the NRA has the protection of the 1st amendment either (June 16, 2004): Gun Group’s Radio Show Tests Limits on Advocacy
Note how the New York Times found someone who’s seen the light regarding, “gun violence“:
August 8th, 2006 at 2:54 amCas,
I won’t bore you with personal accounts of watching police officers with “higher levels of training” behave like raving idiots at various ranges. I’ll simply point out that most “civilians” (as you call them) who are armed are purchasing their firearms, not having them issued. “Civilians” tend to be far better acquainted with their firearms and “fire rules” than you seem to imagine. I don’t have the reference handy, (you can look it up easiliy enough) but “civilians” rarely shoot the wrong person when compared to the police. This is one reason that concealed carry laws have enjoyed widespread support from police agencies nationally.
Right. Any rube can buy a car, get a backyard swimming pool, own a large dog or engage in countless other activities that place others in danger with equally little thought or reflection.
Why don’t you spend a little time at a range, observe the “rank and file” of shooters and decide, based on fact whether we would “pop off another human being because we feel threatened.” Then you can square your experience with the reality that these “rubes” as you call them pose very little threat (when compared to pool drownings or automobile accidents.)
Your point? Police make mistakes, the military makes mistakes and private citizens make mistakes. If training cannot eliminate mistakes does that invalidate training? Or should we simply disarm the police, military and everyone else?
I don’t know Florida law, but I sincerely doubt a county DA would have let you skate on that one, unless you could have demonstrated a far more credible threat. Understand: None of this is a 007 License to Kill. All of these laws require a “reasonable person” test. In other words - if you’d like to risk taking your particular situation to a jury, be my guest.
Frankly this entire debate has become extremely tedious. When Florida (and a host of other states) passed concealed carry laws, “blood in the streets” was the unavoidable outcome, except when it didn’t happen and crime rates fell. Now we have another manifestation of the same phenomenon. Blood will again clot the gutters because the Great Unwashed (”the others…” as you call them) are going to suddenly turn into Charles Bronson.
I’d also point out there are states that have had liberal concealed-carry laws and “castle doctrine” laws on the books long before Florida, with no apparent problems.
Let me ask you this, Cas. Were you aware that prior to 1934, “the others” could own belt-fed machine guns, mortars and hand grenades without Federal oversight? Care to guess why they became restricted? (Hint: It had a lot to do with the end of Prohibition and out-of-work revenuers, not with crime.)
August 8th, 2006 at 3:10 am[…] Misha deconstructs a New York Times article crying about expanded gun rights. Posted by Ian S. in […]
August 8th, 2006 at 8:17 amWow. You people are real sickos, huh?
Florida!
Florida has almost twice the crime rate as New Jersey, you idiots!
Clueless… utterly clueless…
And what’s with the angry dog and the Christian/Jewish symbolism? What? Are you kidding? Are you so incredibly stupid as to believe that Jesus is really coming again? That you can assist the apocolypse (and that it would be a good thing)? That the Jews are so stupid as to think you are their true friends when what you really believe is that a reconstituted ancient Israel will bring their doom?
Get a life!
And do you really, really, think that people are trying to take away your guns? All anyone, with a brain - that is, wants is sensible regulation (”well regulated” ring a bell with you buffoons?) aimed at reducing guns on the street?
This is one sick, twisted, fucked up, sleazy, lying, murderous site you’ve got here, you fucking wierdos.
JMJ
August 8th, 2006 at 9:04 amJuandos, look up Doug Giles. That is my pastor. He’s even done radio shows with Ted Nugent. He’s very well versed and explains how those phrases are misinterpretted. Thank God I found someone who teaches from His word.
And lookie, we got an unhinged troll here! Yiiippppeeee
And dumbass Jersey boy: The people who commit crimes with guns you serious dumbfuck, do NOT get them legally.
And go find someone to draw a picture with crayons to explain the 2nd amendment to your two celled brain.
Or go to the shore and swim in your nasty polluted beach. And tell the dumbfuck degenerates who come and vacation down here to stay there, and our crime rate may go down asshole. Also, do your uneducated ass a favor and look up the corelation between quanity per capita of illegal immigrants and crime.
Fucking moron.
August 8th, 2006 at 9:23 amMeaning what?
Been to Vermont or Idaho lately? Now go look up their laws. Then get a text on introductory statistics and smack the shit out of yourself with it until something starts to make sense (or you lapse into unconsciousness, which is about as close as you’re likely to get.)
Yes. And it’s manifestly obvious at so many levels that I’m not going to bother with a list of quotes, references or historical citations. If you think our civil rights are safe, it’s a waste of time to engage in further discussion, except perhaps to consider how much bong water you’ve been drinking.
Pretty well sums up your intellectual capacities. All invective, no substance and crowned with a spelling error.
Cas: Seriously - should you find yourself in the Tahoe area, get ahold of me and we’ll head out to the range. Then you can tell me if I’m wrong.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:17 amHey, Jersey-
This is why concealed carry exists- for regulation.
Florida’s nice- warm most of the time, clean air, extensive wilderness, and a distinct lack of sewage. Plus, when the hurricanes come, we can shoot our looters.
Out of curiosity, do YOU own a gun? Or can you not trust yourself with that responsibility?
August 8th, 2006 at 10:26 amthetay,
I doubt he’s competent to trust himself with his own Depends. I’m sure the little tabs keep sticking to his tongue.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:38 amOn page 2, buried far away from their initial contention that the law was what killed the old suicidal/homicidal geezer and not the clear and present danger to the prostitute. And then immediately followed by a statement from the director of the state attorney’s office that it would’ve been much different without the new law.
Right.
What’d you expect him to say? I may be going out on a limb here, and I am NOT a lawyer, but I don’t much think that shooting an armed attacker who has clearly stated his intent to kill you would result in the victim being charged, new law or no new law.
Which I thought I made quite abundantly clear with the words “of course, Mr Allen may be lying through his teeth…” What I DO find interesting, and that was the whole point, is how the NYT makes it sound like a petty shouting match in the beginning and then, at the very end, begrudgingly admits that maybe there’s more to it than that.
All people do, but we can’t really lock everybody up and ban any and all implements that might be used to cause harm as a result of that observation. Besides, every single study of gun owners “making mistakes” (as in shooting innocent people which, I presume, is what we’re interested in here) shows that gun owners are the most law-abiding, safety-conscious and LEAST likely to cause harm group you can think of. Even safer than trained police officers and most CERTAINLY safer to be around than the criminals that we intend to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our property from.
Yet, somehow, there seems to be a complete lack of evidence supporting the contention that gun owners make those “subjective” decisions to shoot willy-nilly.
Besides, it really doesn’t matter whether your reasons are good to you or not, you STILL have to pass the “reasonable person” test before a Grand Jury.
No, it isn’t. At least not in Texas.
No. In order to buy a gun the “rube” has to pass a background check and, in order to actually carry it outside of his residence and/or automobile, he has to take mandatory classes and pass tests (something that makes absolute sense to me even though it IS, technically speaking, in violation of the 2nd Amendment which places no such restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. As a matter of fact it clearly states that such restrictions CANNOT be placed upon citizens, but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion. I have no problem with it) and THEN submit himself to a high colonic by authorities to make sure that there’s nothing shady about him or his past. Trust me, I know.
And no, you can’t just “pop off another human being because you feel threatened.” At least you can’t do it and expect to automatically get away with it. You WILL have to pass the “reasonable person” test before a Grand Jury and, whether you pass that test or not, you’ll STILL have to live for the rest of your life with the knowledge that you took a life. Which isn’t near as easy as the movies make it look like.
I doubt that it’s a minority. I haven’t ever known a single gun owner who didn’t take his responsibility and his gun(s) seriously. Owning a gun is a conscious decision as well as a considerable investment. It’s not something you just do because you want one, anymore than you buy aircraft insurance just because you think the policy will look cool in your file drawers, never mind that you don’t have an airplane or even a pilot’s license.
It’s not as if it’s issued to you as part of your job. It’s something YOU decide to get which, obviously and naturally, makes you take a lot more interest in its safe and efficient operation than if somebody were to simply hand it to you.
As Moriarty said, you’re welcome to try it before a Grand Jury, but I wouldn’t bet too much on your getting off the hook if events transpired like they did. As he said, it’s not a “license to kill” just because you can, it’s a license to justifiably kill in defense of yourself and/or your property and you have to PROVE that it was justified.
Would I have killed the drunken bozo in your scenario? Of course I wouldn’t. I probably would’ve drawn down on him if he’d come through the door like that, given the circumstances, but I most assuredly wouldn’t have let loose a shot unless he’d posed an actual threat, which he obviously didn’t.
Anyway, good to see you again, cas. We may never agree on much of anything, but you’re always welcome.
Now, on the the Joisey Girl:
Man, but you are one messed up little fuck, aren’t you? Messed up without the benefit of intelligence and reading comprehension as well, which is always an amusing combination.
Thanks for noticing. Of course, if you really believed that we were a bunch of sickos, you probably wouldn’t have barged in here with a load of bullshit, leaving your IP and G-d knows what else in the process, would you? So obviously you know that you have nothing to fear from all of us “real sickos”, which is true. You don’t.
I’m too bored to look up your statistics for you and, besides, you don’t rate the effort. Suffice it to say that high crime rates is an argument in FAVOR of owning firearms for personal defense. Much in the same way, nah, in EXACTLY the same way that recurring droughts is an argument in FAVOR of owning fire insurance. Unless you’re a complete idiot, of course.
Yes, I am. Along with several hundred of millions of other “incredibly stupid” Christians.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Listen, you poor little deranged mutt, I can no more “bring about the apocalypse” than I can make it rain tomorrow, something you’d know if you, like all of us “incredibly stupid” Christians, had actually read the Bible. I won’t go into details describing it to you, seeing as how I seem to have misplaced my whiteboard and big, colorful crayons, but I assure you that it’s true.
What I’d REALLY like to know, though, is what exactly it was on this site that gave you that incredibly stupid idea and no, the voices in your head don’t count.
Thanks for telling me what I really believe. I always wanted to know that. However, I was hoping that it would be somebody at least slightly more intelligent than the contents of a spit bucket that would tell me.
Thanks, but I already have one. I also have a brain, which puts me at least one ahead of you.
No. It’s something I know. I also know that they can have ‘em. Bullets first.
Which still leaves the question as to what you want unanswered, obviously.
I suggest you start by confiscating the guns of all of the criminals, then. Said criminals ARE, after all, the ones guilty of committing crimes. You have my full support. Best of luck on your endeavor.
Flattery will get you nowhere around here, but thanks for trying anyway.
HAND, FOAD.
August 8th, 2006 at 12:02 pmAh, Emperor, a beautiful fisk, as always.
Perhaps, someday, I too shall become a Kung-fu master, my liege.
August 8th, 2006 at 1:29 pmStaci (#30) says: “Juandos, look up Doug Giles“…
Are you talking about this Doug Giles who penned the following for TownHall.com?
The Se7en Deadly Sins: Gluttony
Staci continues on with this: “And lookie, we got an unhinged troll here! Yiiippppeeee
And dumbass Jersey boy: The people who commit crimes with guns you serious dumbfuck, do NOT get them legally.
And go find someone to draw a picture with crayons to explain the 2nd amendment to your two celled brain.
“…
Apparently the Jersey Jerk Off didn’t bother to check the differences in populations between Jersey and Florida…
One can see the difference in total violent crime stats for both states… Is Florida’s crime rate lower per capita than New Jersey’s?
I guess someone else can do the figuring on that one…
August 8th, 2006 at 2:27 pmYes, that one. And you should hear him rip on pansy ass men, aka as metrosexuals.
August 8th, 2006 at 3:21 pmUnfortunately that’s the ONE thing the joisey goil actually got halfway right. The per capita rate in Florida is about twice as high. Of course, as our dear Emperor pointed out, that’s exactly why MORE people should own guns and carry them in public, not less.
As for why this is, my personal theory for that is that the government is very good at robbing its peasants blind in joisey and they will do not tolerate competition. Whereas in Florida there are lots of old people who look like easy marks (and far too often are). Criminals do tend to go for the easy job, after all.
RH
August 8th, 2006 at 4:07 pmAND, like I stressed, it is imperative to throw in the quanity of illegal immigrants in Florida as well. Not to mention the relationship of crime to the amount of tourism.
I keep stressing the illegal immigrants because some illegal Mexican asshole with an ILLEGAL firearm shot and killed my neighbor’s husband in November 2004. The think that Joisey Girl doesn’t get is the criminals like that got their gun ILLEGALLY. Had this law been in place, there would be a good probability that he would be alive to explain to his children how he prevented some illegal asshole from trying to kill him for his fucking car all because of the 2nd amendment.
Maybe this moron would be a good candidate for this.
August 8th, 2006 at 5:01 pmI started a fisk aginst the individual from Jersey, but after reading Mishas, it paled, so instead:
Stay in Jersey, MC lack of CaJones, if its so wonderful and safe. You seem confused, let me help. Nobody asked you, nobody wants, needs, or has any interest in your opinion. You are uninvited. Go away. Is that simple enough for you? No? Let me summarize for you.
In short, go fuck yourself you pansy socialist retard, nobody here really CARES what nancy-boi joisey pussies like you think.
August 8th, 2006 at 5:20 pmYeah, and down here in TN, where we have an excellent law, we call it the ‘ Save your own-and-any-other-innocent bystanders’ asses ‘ Law.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:10 pmHI LC Moriarity,
I’d love to take you up on your offer of going to the range (once I am settled). Its been a while (a long while) since I fired ordinance (7.62mm SLR, 9mm Browning and F-!, GPMG-M60m and 81mm Mortars, many moons ago).
As for seeing folks practicing–I have no doubt as to their committment to being ready and trained. There are 59,100,000 adults with guns. Use of gun ranges is used by how many–I couldn’t find stats on that. Do you have some idea on total gun training numbers?
And Hi also to Emperor Misha,
As for the “justifiable” test that you mention, my understanding is that the test is about the subjective state of mind of the threatened individual. If I feel threatened, and I report that the intruder had a menacing demeanor, would this pass the justified criteria you mention?
Pleasure to be back!
August 8th, 2006 at 11:14 pmcas-
I think that the “menacing demeanor” would be justifiable cause to draw your weapon and threaten with it (assuming it would be a reasonable response), but not to actually fire unless the other person continues to advance in a threatening fashion. Of course, that’s what I gleaned from reading the Florida statutes on the subject, if I am wrong, I apologize.
August 9th, 2006 at 7:47 amCas,
There may be some self-report data out there somewhere detailing how many gun owners go to the range, how often, etc., but I’m not aware of it. Gun owners tend to be “mind your own business” types, so I’d view such with a certain amount of caution.
Also, the data you cite is 1993-94 vintage, so it should also be regarded with care.
Again, justification of a threat and the use of deadly force depends on how a reasonable, dispassionate and uninvolved person will regard your actions after the fact. It is up to you to communicate your subjective state in a credible and convincing fashion - to a DA, a Grand Jury or the court, as the case may be. Physical evidence gathered at the scene will also be considered in detail and it had better corroborate the story. (The old saw about “shoot the burglar and drag him back into your house” is not going to work.) Regardless of the media hype, I have great doubt that simply asserting “I felt threatened by his menacing demeanor” is going to justify homicide under Florida (or other) law.
… and, welcome back! I have the ammo if you have the time.
LC Moriarty
August 9th, 2006 at 10:40 am381204@hushmail.com
I see that Moriarty has answered your question already, and I don’t have much to add.
What’s important to remember, cas, is that the fact that we have such a thing as justifiable homicide doesn’t mean that the DA will assume that your case is one such by default. Far from it. Those guys can smell BS from a mile away, so you’d better be damn sure that everything happened exactly the way you say, because the slightest discrepancy will make them take a justified and potentially unpleasant interest in your case. Which, coincidentally, is exactly why you shouldn’t say a peep until you’ve spoken with an attorney, no matter how justified your use of deadly force was. They’re not out to “get” you, but they are out to make sure that people don’t go popping other people off at the drop of a hat without facing the consequences. Which I have no problem with. It’s as it should be, and it’s one more thing to keep in mind before your squeeze that trigger.
Personally, however, I’d say that the VERY first thing that should go through your mind is “do I really HAVE to? Is there any way out of this that DOESN’T involve taking a life?” because, justified or not, off the legal hook or not, that’s something that you’ll have to live with for the rest of your life.
August 9th, 2006 at 11:10 amPicture of Jersey McJones!
:lol: 
:lol: 
:lol: 
:lol:
August 11th, 2006 at 6:52 pm