Media Ignores Call For Gun Violence Prevention In Loughner Sentencing Hearing

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

82. It has everything to do with it

In case after case, the person subjectively considered to be a threat was not in shoot first laws.

That applies to the unarmed, to people on the outside of a locked door shot through the door, to people attempting to leave a conflict or confrontation.

In many cases - Trayvon Martin's shooting comes to mind, a kid minding his own business being pursued and harassed by a gun nut, even after law enforcement told him not to pursue --- he was shot while law enforcement was a short distance away, witnesses describe it as 2 minutes or less. Had Zimmerman not stalked that kid, who was clearly frighten by his actions, and had Zimmerman not made a number of false assumptions about him - that he didn't belong in that area when he did, he was visiting his father; that he was drunk or on drugs; he wasn't; or that he had criminal intent - an assumption that Zimmerman made about all black adult males in that area, based on his numerous calls to 911; if not for all of those wrong actions on the part of Zimmerman provoking the confrontation, there would have been no interaction between them whatsoever. Martin would have gone on his way home, and Zimmerman wouldn't have put himself in the position of law enforcement, judge jury and executioner. Any action from Martin he provoked.

That is true in numerous stand your ground / shoot first cases. Those laws are designed so that there can be NO wrongful death law suits and to make it far far harder to convict someone of homicide.

There is NO 'reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm' required, only the completely subjective an one sided claim that someone felt fear, not that it be reasonable fear.

The requirement of ACTUAL bodily harm, as determined by a judge or jury was the PREVIOUS castle doctrine standard. Shoot first laws take that requirement away.

I'm not peddling hyperbole. If shoot first laws worked, there would be a decrease in victims of crime, with a matching increase in criminals being shot. That hasn't been the case. Crime victims continue at about the same rate, and people who are guilty of nothing more than walking up to the wrong door, or unarmed elementary or middle-school aged kids playing who run across someone's yard are getting shot.

As to what I know about the 2nd Amendment, and how the NRA has worked to undermine due process protection, I'd be delighted to match reading lists of scholarly books written on it any time; I'm midway through Saul Cornyn's book right now. You on the other hand apparently prefer to rely on NRA propaganda, or maybe the drek from Faux news. Go do a little fact checking; clearly you were unaware of the frequency for example of shootings at WalMarts.

The NRA has promoted legislation that enables lethal force where law enforcement could instead deal with crises better and as timely; that has everything to do with law enforcement. Law enforcement has been against shoot first laws, consistently, and against many of the carry laws -- with good reason. Law enforcement has been against the relaxation of allowing convicted felons to regain their gun rights -- another trend promoted by the NRA. Turns out that former felons are EIGHT TIMES more likely to violently re-offend with firearms, but that doesn't deter the NRA -- MORE GUNS SALES.

Anyone shot is not someone who was afforded due process or even the chance to tell their side of the story. Anyone shot is not afforded all of the protections of the Constitution. It is wrong to be shooting people for offenses like crossing someone's yard, that are petty misdemeanor tresspass crimes at most --but it is part of the NRA fostered gun culture to use lethal force where it is NOT really necessary.

And if you'd like to try to deny it, I'm well enough versed in what I'm asserting to give you a list of examples as long as your arm.

All to sell more guns. More examples of end running law by the NRA -- due to direct effort by the NRA in the NICS data base, drug users names (the few that are in there at all) are only retained for a year, even if they were sentenced to 20 years, or 3 years. The Bar association pushed very hard in opposition to that, including DEFENSE attorneys, but the NRA bought off enough conservative politicians to get that through --- so despite having been briefly in the NICS, thanks to the NRA, drug users can get a gun even if they are still felons or on probation, or continue to use drugs. Didn't know that? Go look it up. Their position was based on careful research by criminal justice studies experts'.

The NRA doesn't give a tinkers damn about keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people; they only care about selling guns and ammo.

I don't see anyone refuting my assertion that Walmart has a LOT of shootings, which demonstrates that carry laws pushed by the NRA has endangered people in public venues. I don't see anyone refuting that Shoot first laws have increased not decreased people being shot, and that it has deprived people of life and due process.

The NRA wants people to buy guns, and to justify sales, they have caused laws to be passed that encourage people to take the law into their own hands instead of letting law enforcement deal with it. I gave you a good example - the Iraq war vet shot in front of his daughter over another kid LEGALLY skateboarding. How many more examples do you need? I have a lot of them.

The NRA has created lax gun laws; in Florida for example, felons have obtained guns under the law, people with warrants out for them have obtained guns under the law, a few hundred hear, a few hundred there --- check out the study done by the Tampa St. Pete's newspaper for the numbers. That had not been a problem before the laws were made more lenient.