Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘castle doctrine’ Category

The NRA has announced its opposition to the Elena Kagan nomination. By picking such a weak nominee, Obama was really  just asking for it:

We have carefully examined the career, written documents and public statements of nominee Elena Kagan and have found nothing to indicate any support for the Second Amendment. On the contrary, the facts reveal a nominee who opposes Second Amendment rights and is clearly out of step with mainstream Americans.

Therefore, the NRA is strongly opposed to Kagan’s confirmation to the Court.

See, here’s the thing.  She’s got no record to speak of.  No proven philosophy.  No demonstrated commitment to progressive causes, or women’s causes, or, hell, any causes at all for that matter.  The only thing that Democrats could use to justify supporting her nomination is that Barry Picked Her.

And that might have worked!  As long as nobody serious and organized bothered to point out any of the reasons to object to the nomination. Since the NRA is both serious and organized, they seized on the flaws in Kagan’s background and are using them to whip Republicans into opposition.

If Obama had picked someone that liberals could rally behind, there would be a groundswell of support for the nominee to stand against the NRA’s objections. As it is, the NRA is making essentially the same complaints that many on the left have been making ever since Kagan was named as the nominee: (a) we don’t know anything about her philosophy, (b) she has no relevant experience, and (c) there are reasons to suspect she might actually do more harm than good. See, for example, Glenn’s excellent coverage here.

If the Administration had listened to Greenwald’s substantive objections before the nomination, and picked someone that liberals could support without holding their noses, they could lean on that support now. Instead, liberals have no reason to rally behind this nominee, and so there are no voices to oppose the NRA. And if her nomination fails now because she is a blank slate, well, Obama only has himself to blame.

[this post was edited later that night for clarity]

Read Full Post »

well, not really. I’ve been avoiding comment on the whole guns-in-Starbucks question because it seems like giving it more attention will just make it worse. But this is amusing because it involves the CEO of the company:

During a Q&A session at a Wednesday meeting with Starbucks shareholders, CEO Howard Schultz tried to mollify concerns some shareholders had about customers being allowed to enter Starbucks with guns in open carry states.

“I do want to clarify something you said that is not right,” he responded. “You can’t walk into Starbucks with a loaded gun. So that’s not the issue. The issue is, the law allows you to walk in with a weapon that people can see that is unloaded.”

Not exactly.

The fact is that, among the states permitting open carry, almost none require that the gun be unloaded. In Starbucks home state of Washington, for instance, it’s well within a customer’s rights to carry a loaded gun into their local Starbucks.

Well, now you have to wonder if it’s going to change. The only sure thing is that even though he was trying to end this dust-up, Schultz has just fanned the flames…

Stay tuned for the inevitable anti-Brady response from the NRA.

Read Full Post »

As a refresher, these cops forced their way into the bedroom of an apartment, one of the cops tripped over his own clumsy feet, and so he tasered the tenant who was in lawful possession. The tenant is a skinny non-english-speaking UO student. Just a kid, basically. And the kid was considering filing suit against the police for reasons I think should be fairly obvious.

I guess I’ve missed a couple of updates on this one:

Soon after learning about the incident in September, Eugene’s police auditor, Mark Gissiner, opened a complaint case, interviewed two Chinese students through a translator and twice visited their apartment.

As auditor, Gissiner also monitored the police department’s investigation into the matter. Last month, Gissiner disagreed with Kerns, saying Warden fired the Taser inappropriately.

Yet much like the civilian review board, Gissiner has no say in deciding officer discipline.

I’m shocked, shocked that an internal police investigation found no problems with this officer’s conduct. But if they did nothing wrong… why did they apologize?

Mayor Kitty Piercy apologized to the Chinese students.

Maybe I need to get my hearing checked, but that sounds like “large cash settlement” to me.

And in other news on the same page, the dirty hippies and skateboard derelicts who loiter outside the library are going to have to find somewhere else to give themselves lung cancer. I for one say huzzah.

Read Full Post »

Two kids try to rob a house. One of them pulls a gun on the resident, who happens to be packing heat himself:

the occupant of the home, whose name he did not release, is not being charged with wrongdoing. Mississippi’s “Castle Doctrine” law allows persons to use deadly force to stop an intruder into their home.

And there you go. They caught the other kid, because he called 911 to report the shooting (!). My question is- does the kid who got caught get charged with the murder of his accomplice?

Mississippi’s felony murder rule § 97-3-27 says:

The killing of a human being without malice, by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, while such other is engaged in the perpetration of any felony, except those felonies enumerated in Section 97-3-19(2)(e) and (f), or while such other is attempting to commit any felony besides such as are above enumerated and excepted, shall be manslaughter.

it seems to me that this rule requires that for 97-3-27 liability to attach, the person directly responsible for causing death must be involved in the felony. Here, since the resident wasn’t a perpetrator, no felony murder charges should be possible against the guy who called 911.

Read Full Post »

It’s unclear from this article whether the shooter called the police before or after he shot the guy in his backyard:

The homeowner opened the back door, confronted the suspect in his backyard and shot him with a shotgun.

Police wouldn’t release the homeowner’s name, but neighbors said he is a Texas Tech graduate student.

Authorities didn’t anticipate any charges against him.

“A person does have a right to defend his house,” Barron said, noting Texas law allows homeowners to shoot people trying to burglarize their homes.

No charges expected.

Read Full Post »

Because when you’re working with two other guys on a robbery, and your would-be victim shoots your friends, you’re gonna get charged with their murder:

Although Frank Castro, who turns 18 on Tuesday, did not shoot the teens, he still can be charged with their murders, officials say.

“If you are a member of the conspiracy, you are responsible for whatever happens as a result of that conspiracy,” San Marcos Police Chief Howard Williams said Monday. “Even if you didn’t intend to hurt anybody, you’re still responsible.”

I’m actually not sure that’s a correct statement of the outcome. Many (if not most) felony-murder rules rule out liability for the deaths of the co-conspirators. If one of your buddies shoots a bystander and you’re driving the getaway car, sure, you can be charged with the murder… but on these facts, I’d be inclined to believe that Police Chief Williams is mistaken about the application of the felony murder rule.

Maybe if I get a minute tonight I’ll look up the actual statute and update this post.

Read Full Post »

Some high-caliber reporting about Florida’s Castle Doctrineright here:

Whoops! There goes Harold! Just an accident!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »