Lando 
Posted on 05/11/2006 6:44:50 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
A recent article covering Michigan’s proposed Castle Doctrine law prompted this response from the Brady Campaign:
“This law is a terrible signal to send to people, that if you had second thoughts before, rest assured the government is on your side, so go ahead and kill somebody,” said Peter Ham [sic] of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, D.C. “It makes my stomach turn.”[1]
What is most curious is the common thread throughout Brady literature and media statements: their organization focuses on killing, not the dynamics of situations which may require the use of deadly force.
Since they enacted their right-to-carry law in 2001, Michigan has seen a greater-than-average drop in violent crime and murder.[2] There is every indication that Michigan’s law-abiding gun owners exercise restraint and responsibility.
In 2004, the FBI recorded 16,137 criminal murders,[3] while there were 437 justifiable homicide by law enforcement and 229 by private citizens.[4] Criminals shoot to kill; law-abiding people shoot to stop the criminal’s attack, sometimes inadvertently killing the criminal. It’s about intent. If the intended victims were as blood-thirsty as intentionally-violent criminals, there may be as many justifiable homicides as murders. Law-abiding citizens use deadly force only when necessary, which is the point of Michigan’s legislation.
In the National Rifle Association’s training manual for personal protection in the home, they address possible emotional consequences experienced after a defensive shooting. The defender may feel revulsion over the shooting, along with nausea, vomiting, and “emotional shock from seeing the result of the confrontation.” The defender may feel remorse and self-doubt, and may suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and require counseling.[5]
In simpler terms: criminals do bad things on purpose and don’t feel bad about it; law-abiding people do a necessary thing in order to protect good things and often feel bad about it.
Much like Florida’s new law, which resulted in Brady associates handing out fear-mongering literature at the airport,[6] the Michigan law:
· Creates a presumption that an attacker acts with the intent to use force “likely to cause death or great bodily harm” when they “unlawfully and forcibly” enter the victim’s property, or attacks the victim “in any other place where he or she has a right to be.”
· States that the law-abiding person “has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
The defender must be in a situation that justifies the use of deadly force. Parking spaces or bad umpiring at Little League don’t qualify. If legal criteria are satisfied, the law provides immunity “from criminal prosecution and from any civil action for the use of that force,” unless the person shot was a law enforcement officer executing their proper duties.[7] This law simply shifts all resulting consequences of a criminal attack to the attacker, while providing no carte blanche for a Junior Dirty Harry.
As Constitutional scholar Don Kates explains, the proposed Michigan law precludes a court finding of guilty in cases where the defender was clearly trying to prevent a forcible felony, as defined by pre-existing law, but will not make it easier on an irresponsible shooter:
There is another possible consequence as well, however: the law outlines some instances as being exceptions in which the presumption [of reasonable force] is not applicable. It is possible that a judge would hold that the law thereby ordained those circumstances as ones that would preclude a jury from finding that the use of force was reasonable. The proposed law is hardly permission to “go ahead and kill somebody.”[8]
So how does the title of this article relate to our discussion? Here is what is happening in Britain, the gun ban utopia Brady wants to replicate in the U.S.
MUGGINGS and violent attacks on people soared by more than 10 per cent in the third quarter of last year as the police struggled to contain street crime, according to figures published yesterday.
|
|
|
|
The increase in violent crime came as rising numbers of people expressed concern at the extent of antisocial behaviour, including public drunkenness and drug dealing in their neighbourhoods. Homicides of people under 16 rose by a quarter in the year to the end of September 2005.[9]
Robberies in England and Wales rose by 11% between July and September last year, with overall violent crime up 4%, Home Office figures show.
Norman Brennan, the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, called for the recruitment of at least 50,000 extra police officers to help “reclaim the streets from the criminal untouchables”.[10]
If Brits are supposed to rely on the police to fight crime as Brady wants us to do, why was crime increasing while the police force “struggled to contain” it? And why are criminals considered “untouchables?” Because British government’s new “solution” to fight crime is to stop arresting and incarcerating perpetrators:
Burglars will be allowed to escape without punishment under new instructions sent to all police forces. Police have been told they can let them off the threat of a court appearance and instead allow them to go with a caution.
The same leniency will be shown to criminals responsible for more than 60 other different offences, ranging from arson through vandalism to sex with underage girls.[11]
Our legal system is based upon the belief that one is just as guilty as the person committing the crime, if one learns about it after the fact and did nothing to bring the perpetrator to justice:
A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support.[12]
By letting criminals go, despite knowledge of the crime after the fact, the British government has become an accessory to crime.
When the same man, or set of men, holds the sword and the purse, there is an end of liberty. – George Mason
History proves that when government holds both the sword and the purse, as Britain’s government does, it makes law serve its interests, not those of individual members of society. By following the links of cause and effect, we thereby see that Brady, whether its actions are intentional or not, favors the rights of the criminal over those of the law-abiding.
[1] Senate bill creates self-defense debate, Al Elvin, Oakland Press, April 16, 2006. http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/041606/loc_2006041603.shtml
[2] See my paper entitled Gun Control: The Promotion of Denial. http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=18845
[3] FBI Crime in the States, 2004, page 15. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf
[4] Ibid, page 24.
[5] The Basics of Personal Protection in the Home, National Rifle Association, Copyright 2000, pages 157-159.
[6] See my paper entitled Gun Control: No Illusion Without Collusion. http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=17848
[7] House Bill No. 5143, Michigan State Legislature. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billintroduced/House/htm/2005-HIB-5143.htm
[8] Email interview with Don Kates, April 28, 2006.
[9] Muggings and violent attacks up by more than 10%, Richard Ford, The Times, January 27, 2006. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2011705,00.html
[10] Violent crime and robbery on rise, BBC, January 26, 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4648042.stm
[11] 'Let burglars off with caution', police told, The Daily Mail, April 3, 2006. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=381799&in_page_id=1770
[12] Aiding and Abetting/Accessory, Criminal Law, FindLaw for the Public. http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/aiding_abetting_accessory.html
About the Writer: Howard Nemerov began doing his own research into gun control when he recognized that the media was full of distortions and half truths. He publishes with ChronWatch and other sites, and is a frequent guest on NRA News. He is currently working on his first book, "Gun Control: Fear or Fact," which deconstructs and explains the gun control agenda and its arguments, debunking each one with a statistic-rich analysis. This is the handbook for when you want to talk to others about gun control . Howard receives e-mail at HNemerov [at symbol] netvista.net.
Lando
Considering how she illegally provided her son with a firearm.......i would say the answer is YES.
bookmark for later read
The Brady Campaign is an OSHA for for criminals, laboring tirelessly to ensure that rapists, robbers and murderers all have a safe, healthy working environment.
Try not to think about it. Go back to your knitting
The Michigan law...States that the law-abiding person “has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
Let's say a 75 year old man is waiting for the bus, and a 22 year old man demands his wallet. The old guy says no, you can't have it. The young guy starts hitting the old guy. Under the "Castle Doctrine" would the 75 year old guy be justified in shooting him?
I would vote yes, because a single punch by a 22 year man on a fellow 75 years old could cause serious damage and even death.
Now let's carry this to a another scenario -
You're standing at the bus stop along with a 75 year old guy. A 22 year old man comes along and demands that the old guy hand over his wallet. The old guy says no, so the 22 year old man starts beating him. Would you (you're 25 years old) be justified in pulling your weapon and shooting the attacker under the Castle Doctrine?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.