Taco Bell Shooting & 'Stand Your Ground' TYT

[edcantor]

"Take the case of Daniel Adkins, Jr. The unarmed 29-year-old man, with the mental capacity of a 13-year-old, was fatally shot on April 3 in an Arizona Taco Bell parking lot. Adkins reportedly was walking his dog when the unnamed shooter turned the corner of drive-thru, nearly hitting Adkins. While it is unclear who provoked the confrontation, it is reported that angry words were exchanged before the shooter chambered a bullet into his handgun and fatally shot Adkins in the chest. The shooter admitted that Adkins never touched him or his vehicle but claimed that Adkins "air swung" his hands towards the vehicle. Police were also told by the shooter that Adkins was armed with a 3-foot metal pipe, which has not been recovered.

Even though the shooter admitted to police that he did not think Adkins was going to kill him, only that he thought the man might "hurt" him, he has thus far escaped arrest and criminal prosecution...".* Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks.

*Read more here from Timothy Johnson at Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205010017

[spin]

1. There are two sides to the "Stand Your Ground" law controversy ...

The media obviously prefers one side over the other. Shootings such as the Trayvon Martin incident and this Taco Bell tragedy offer an excellent opportunity for the media present their view of why "Stand Your Ground" laws are a poor idea.

The fact that the media is now labeling "Stand Your Ground" as "Kill at Will" reveals that they are willing to mischaracterize the law or that they lack understanding of how the law is intended to work.

However the attention that the media has been able to generate has served a positive purpose in that, at least in the Trayvon Martin shooting, the justice system has been forced to conduct a thorough investigation. Charges have been filed against Zimmerman based on the results. Often one of the biggest problems with our legal system is that it often is unfair and biased. The result is unequal justice for some groups or minorities. The rich and privileged too frequently escape punishment for the same actions that result in lengthy prison sentences for the disadvantaged. It is the media's job in our society to publicize such miscarriages of justice. We are fortunate to have the right to a free press in our nation. Unfortunately the media does often take a position on an issue and fails to cover the opposite view.

To show the other side of the argument over "Stand Your Ground" laws, I suggest you watch this fairly long video. The more interesting and relevant portion begins at 5 minutes in.

Obviously Massad Ayoob has his own bias toward the issue but he probably knows far more about the legal aspects of self defense than do the commentators on the Young Turks video in the OP.

Massad Ayoob

Massad F. Ayoob (born 20 July 1948) is an internationally-known firearms and self-defense instructor. He has taught police techniques and civilian self-defense to both law enforcement officers and private citizens in numerous venues since 1974. He was the director of the Lethal Force Institute (LFI) in Concord, New Hampshire from 1981 to 2009. He now directs the Massad Ayoob Group (MAG).[1] Ayoob has appeared as an expert witness in several trials. He has served as a part-time police officer in New Hampshire since 1972 and holds the rank of Captain in the Grantham, New Hampshire police department.[2]

***snip***

While Ayoob has been in the courtroom as a testifying police officer, expert witness, and police prosecutor, he is not an attorney; he is, however, a former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney ever to hold this position.[3][4] His published work was cited by the Violence Policy Center in their amicus curiae brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, and he himself filed a declaration in another amicus brief in this case.[5] His course for attorneys, titled "The Management of the Lethal Force/Deadly Weapons Case", was, according to Jeffrey Weiner (former president of NACDL), "the best course for everything you need to know but are never taught in law school."[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob

It's my personal opinion that "Stand Your Ground" laws are pro-victim and do not permit a person to start a fight and shoot another person on a whim. I have had a Florida Concealed Weapons Permit for 15 years and I have absolutely no desire to ever find myself in a situation where I would have to use my weapon for legitimate self defense. I will simply walk away from any confrontation which has the possibility of becoming violent even if it makes me look like a coward to others.

Currently over 800,000 people who live in Florida have concealed carry permits. "Shall issue" concealed carry became law in Florida in 1987 and during that 25 year period of time 2,186,010 Concealed Weapons Permits have been issued and only 168 licenses have been revoked for a crime involving the use of a firearm after the license was issued. (source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf) Floridians who have such licenses have a outstanding record of being good law abiding citizens and are not blood thirsty cold blooded killers or vigilantes as portrayed by the media. Obviously we are not all angels and a very small minority have misused their weapons and tragedies have resulted.

I will admit that the media coverage of the stand your ground controversy disturbs me. I fear that by constantly declaring that the law allows a person to "kill at will" the media may convince some fool that he can actually get away with murder and that another tragedy may result.

I do believe that in Florida the "Stand Your Ground" law should and will be rewritten to remove any ambiguities or confusion that might offer the justice system an opportunity to avoid prosecution of an individual who is involved in a truly questionable case of self defense.

[edcantor]

2. So you have nothing to contribute about this Arizona shooting, but

you wanted to push your own agenda and your own pro-gun owners' lobby here?

No thanks.

This thread is NOT about Trayvon Martin, but another victim in another state.

I have had a Florida Concealed Weapons Permit for 15 years

I'd appreciate it if you would keep your comments germane to the topic.

And if you post your pro-gun owner lobby non-sequiturs again on any thread I post here, I will get really nasty with you for stepping on my toes just because you feel ownership of a gun give you the right to step on my thread.

[spin]

3. The topic is "Stand Your Ground" ...

as mentioned in the title of your post.

Taco Bell Shooting & 'Stand Your Ground' TYT

The article you linked to discusses the "Stand Your Ground" law and also mentions the Trayvon Martin shooting in the first paragraph.

John Lott Continues Media Tour In Defense Of "Kill At Will"

May 01, 2012 5:25 pm ET by Timothy Johnson

During a May 1 appearance on MSNBC's Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd, discredited gun "researcher" John Lott continued his whirlwind media tour in defense of the "Kill At Will" law (called "Stand Your Ground" by its proponents) that has been linked to the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman. In his appearance, Lott reiterated many of the misleading claims he pushed in his April 25 op-ed for the New York Daily News defending the controversial law. emphasis added
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205010017

Therefore I think my reply was indeed germane to the topic and let me assure that that it was not meant to step on your thread. Perhaps if you carefully consider my reply you can see why I made it.

People and posters here on DU have strong feelings about the issue of firearms in our society and both sides can make good points in polite discussion. It is true that I am probably far more "pro-gun" than you but many other Democrats feel the same as I do on the issue. Our party is indeed a big tent.

(source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx)

Since I am a strong supporter of the Democratic Party I find it very disturbing when I discuss important issues with many other gun owners and I find while they agree with me on many points that our party believes in, they also tell me that they would never vote for a Democrat as they feel that the Democratic Party is opposed to firearm ownership and wishes to impose draconian gun laws or even confiscate all firearms. Such people enjoy the shooting sports and often have a considerable amount of money invested in their hobby. They are basically one issue voters and they vote. It's hard to say how many close elections we have lost because of the votes we lost to gun owners.

The Republicans and the NRA have been successful in painting Obama as extremely anti-gun despite the fact that he has been more than fair to gun owners during his first term. If anything Romney is far more anti-gun than Obama as proven by his record as governor of Massachusetts. (Of course Romney has been on every side of every issue. He is not just a waffler, he is a shape shifter.)

Check out this "On the Issues" report on Romney's changing views on gun control. The entire article is important but I can only excerpt a portion.

Mitt Romney on Gun Control
Former Republican Governor (MA)

***snip***

GovWatch: 1994: did not “line up with the NRA”
Top Romney Flip Flops: #3. Gun Control:

Campaigning for the Senate in 1994, Romney said he favored strong gun laws and did not “line up with the NRA.” He signed up for “lifetime membership” of the NRA in August 2006 while pondering a presidential run, praising the group for “doing good things” and “supporting the right to bear arms.”
Source: GovWatch on 2008 campaign: “Top Ten Flip-Flops” , Feb 5, 2008

Support the 2nd Amendment AND the assault weapon ban

I do support the Second Amendment. I would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state. It was a bill worked out, by the way, between pro-gun lobby and anti-gun lobby individuals. Both sides of the issue came together and found a way to provide relaxation in licensing requirements and allow more people to--to have guns for their own legal purposes. So we signed that in Massachusetts, and I’d support that at the federal level. It did not pass at the federal level. I do not believe we need new legislation. I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. We have laws in place that, if they’re implemented & enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reasons. That’s the right that people have.

***snip***

Ok to ban lethal weapons that threaten police
Q: Are you still for the Brady Bill?

A: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time. I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series , Dec 16, 2007
http://www.issues2000.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm

Romney would probably support a ban on "assault weapons" if he became President. Since assault weapons are functionally no different than the semi-automatic hunting firearms used for many years, this should alienate knowledgeable shooters. In fact "assault weapons" are very popular hunting firearms today although most states limit the size of the magazine in the weapon while hunting (for good reason). Unfortunately and unbelievably it appears that the NRA will throw its support behind Romney.

Let's compare Romney's and Obama's views on gun control. Obama's views were expressed in an op-ed to the Arizona Daily Star after the tragic shooting of Gabby Giffords. (Once again the entire article is worth reading.)

President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms
March 13, 2011 12:00 am • President Barack Obama Special To The Arizona Daily Star

***snip***

Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

***snip***

• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.
http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/president-obama-we-must-seek-agreement-on-gun-reforms/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

However you mentioned that you felt I should discuss the Taco Bell shooting. Therefore I will.

My feelings on the Arizona shooting are simply that I can see no reason with the information that I have found by researching the incident for why Daniel Adkins, Jr. was shot. It does not appear to be a legitimate use of legitimate self defense. No reasonable man standing in the shooter's shoes or in this case sitting in his car would have felt that his life or heath was under serious threat. Had Adkins actually had a a 3-foot metal pipe and was busy smashing the windows of the shooter's car I might feel differently. However it appears the shooter had the opportunity to simply drive away even had Adkins actually was attacking him with a pope. Had he done so he might have injured or killed Adkin's dog but that would have been better than killing his owner. The fact that the shooter has not been arrested is also disturbing but I don't have all the evidence that the investigation should have uncovered.

It is also my opinion that had Zimmerman not pursued Martin in the Florida incident, a tragedy could have been avoided. All the people who have a concealed weapons permit in Florida that I have talked to agree with me.

I did find this portion of your reply to me disturbing:

And if you post your pro-gun owner lobby non-sequiturs again on any thread I post here, I will get really nasty with you for stepping on my toes just because you feel ownership of a gun give you the right to step on my thread.

I may disagree with you on the issue of gun control but I feel that DU is and should be a forum in which rational people can discuss their different views on the issues in a fair and polite manner. I welcome your opinions and will carefully consider them. I have changed my views on several issues while posting on DU.

That's why I post here as I learn from the experience.

You are correct as I do support gun ownership and admittedly many here do not agree with me. I could easily post on pro-gun forums but since most posters have the same views as I do, it does little to challenge my opinion. If my views on gun control actually are invalid, posting them on a very liberal and progressive board such as DU should reveal their weakness.

So rather than threatening me, just chose to debate me. Of course you can simply ignore my post. While I look forward to an educational debate, disregarding me is your choice.

I look forward to your reply if you chose to respond.