Barack Obama owes Donald Trump a big one

Barack Obama ordered the extra-judicial murder of a teenaged US citizen via drone bomb. Thanks to Donald Trump via the Supreme Court that changes the "murder" to simple "death", having no legal burden for anyone to further justify, since no one from any jurisdiction (whether recognized by the US government or not, so any treaty to the contrary is now null and void), has the legal authority to prosecute any such accusation.

It is now US law that no living president (current or former) may be prosecuted for any action taken "within the ambit of the official duties of the Office of President of the United States". Since every living president ordered arguably criminal actions during their term of office, all of them - Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, and even Jimmy Carter from his hospice bed, was liable potentially to criminal prosecution in any US court from any source - US domestic or foreign. Leaving my personal preferences aside, this is probably the best possible outcome for the future security of the US. Apparently, early legal interpretations of this "still wet ink" ruling are that civil laws regarding the US President is now also the standard for liability for criminal actions taken while in office. And it is effectively impossible to sue a President for actions taken while in office.

That all said, no president has ever had the authority to issue an unlawful order (as defined by the UCMJ) to the US military, who are each and severally prohibited from obeying any such order in any case, so bombing his political opposition is right out, and the same - or effectively so - applies to unlawful orders or instructions to non-military US government employees or "officers of the United States". This most recent SC ruling doesn't add any authority to the powers of the Office of the President, it "merely" extends the by-now traditional civil protections to potential criminal actions as well. The established laws governing impeachment remain in place under this ruling.

I think this ruling is not going to satisfy anyone, but it's still a necessary action by the Supreme Court to protect the government office in which "all of the executive branch authority" of the US government is assigned. Yes, all of the legal cases against Donald Trump must be overturned due to the fact that all of them include actions taken by him while he was still in office at the time he did (or didn't) do the deed.

Ask yourself, do you dislike Trump so much you would destroy the  entire country to attack him?

Defeating mass shooters

It seems apparent that no one successfully fired a single round to stop/suppress the Maine shooter during his attacks. We need to do better at teaching ourselves how to defeat such attacks before they can escalate. 

The Trump Indictment #2? #3?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxCDVOmGPlo

Me Quoting Me

As indictment does not equal conviction, neither does prosecution equal guilt. Conviction without guilt may be the greatest tragedy known to humanity, and the ultimate reason sentence should always be filtered through the lens of mercy.

Me

SSDD

Back in the pre-internet days of 1992, there was a trial of four Los Angeles police officers for their actions while arresting Rodney King the previous year. In my personal experience from the time (I lived in Sylmar, CA at the time - not exactly ground zero, but I could see the helicopters circling over the arrest site), I predict that the Chauvin trial in Minneapolis will follow essentially the identical script.

The state trial, despite Minnesota AG Keith Ellison's best efforts to the contrary, will end in an acquittal of Officer Chauvin due to his third-party documented compliance with Minnesota state law and Minneapolis Police Department policies and procedures in place at the time of the final arrest of George Floyd in 2020. Also like the acquitted Los Angeles police officers 30 years ago, Chauvin will be arrested within days of his acquittal by the US DoJ for violating Floyd's civil rights, even though the arrest was entirely legal, and Chauvin at the least will be convicted by a federal jury with all of his personal property preemptively seized by the US government at the time of his federal arrest.

If he's smart, Chauvin will have already begun negotiating a federal plea deal as I write this, that ends up with him being a felon, but with as little federal prison time as community service sentencing will permit. Maybe he will be able to keep some of his personal possessions.

Whatever else Derek Chauvin experiences in the rest of his life, he can be certain that it will be very, very different to anything he has experienced so far.

UPDATE 4/22/2021: If anyone needs evidence as to why I haven't won the lottery yet, herewith submission #1.

Twice Not Guilty

 Today, Saturday, February 13, 2021, President Donald J. Trump was - again - formally determined to be Not Guilty of any prosecutable act he took as President via the constitutionally mandated legal process (Impeachment). This being so, it follows that there can be no additional prosecution of any action he committed during his presidency. Donald J. Trump enjoys the exact same legal (and other - see: Former Presidents Act) protections as do former Presidents Barrack Obama, George W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, and Jimmy Carter (the name variant he used to be sworn into office).

The argument could be made that he does so twice as much as his fellow Presidential alumni, though I have to admit that smacks more than a little of being praised with faint damns.

The current attempts by a Georgia prosecutor to indict former President Trump must now be regarded as unlawful and possibly criminal in nature. IANAL but I believe that absence of authority to do something constitutionally (at either State or Federal levels of constitutional authority) is entirely and only that. Since the US Constitution mandates that Impeachment and Removal From Office are the only means whereby a President may be prosecuted directly for actions taken while in office (and such Removal being the only mechanism making a former President subject to prosecution post-tenure in office), President Trump now enters the exact same legal status as do all of America's still-living former Presidents.

I wish him and all of his colleagues every lawful success in their post-Presidential lives.

Oklahoma, the Sooner AND Later state.

Granted that nobody really knows what the Supreme Court ruling issued today regarding tribal reservation land within the Oklahoma state boundaries, at this point in time (hours after the SC ruling was published) the only change in the legal status quo appears to involve tribal members being charged and prosecuted for state law violations committed within tribal reservation territory as established when Oklahoma was made a US state. As with all tribal reservations recognized by the US government, federal law enforcement has the primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes committed by tribal members on tribal reservation lands.

Of course, the interwebs are going  ... what's the clinical term? Batshit Crazy, that's it!

This is certainly going to make the rest of 2020 much more interesting, but I don't think anything substantive will happen in the next several months. What needs to happen is that the Secretary of the Interior needs to immediately establish a commission to address the consequences of this latest SC ruling between the involved parties (the US .gov, Oklahoma state .gov, the various tribal interests involved, at the least - and hopefully most) to determine what they regard as an equitable resolution available under existing legal agreements. Only if that fails of an acceptable resolution should Congress be invited to finally complete Oklahoma's acceptance to statehood by declaring the resolution to the tribal reservation question that Congress failed to resolve at the time.

He said, He said.

Kim du Toit posts an argument on the practical necessity to occasionally modify the rights Americans are recognized to possess by our national Constitution, which I have linked to below. It's a well-written argument, as is his usual fashion, which I urge you to read in full, as otherwise what follows won't make a lot of sense. Below is my comment to Kim's post in full (and you probably ought to go read his post first):

File this comment under: Bone; picking thereof.

Your post is quite well argued, Kim, as is your usual. However, in this case, I think you overlook a necessary distinction.

Numerous US courts have ruled that rights cannot be restricted or denied, even temporarily, so your basic premise is flawed as both a practical matter and as a point of law. It is further well established that the mutual exercise of immutable rights can, and routinely are, subject to lawful constraint, so as to provide the maximum opportunity for all citizens to exercise their rights without violating other’s exercise of their rights.

The distinction between possessing rights and exercising rights is not just a pedantic one, I submit, as your post makes clear.

There already is a substantial body of law regulating the exercise of rights by US citizens and residents. Whether, how, and to what extent those laws should be modified (or removed) ought to be a routinely ongoing topic of discussion at all levels of social and political discourse in our country (and any reader of this blog knows that to be the actual case). Framing discussion about emergent or transitory circumstances threatening human existence (or even only general welfare) in terms of specifically limited exercise of rights, which would necessarily include return to the status quo, avoids the question of infringement upon, or denial of, rights entirely.

How you frame an argument is often more than half the battle of winning it, and I suggest you’ve framed this particular argument poorly. Preempt the concept of denying rights by confining the discussion to ways and means of temporarily adapting existing regulations on the mutual exercise of rights between citizens.

http://www.kimdutoit.com/2020/06/11/rocks-and-hard-places/

2nd Amendment anyone?

Famously, the M-16 battle rifle is a development of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. The fully automatic/semi-automatic difference seems to be the dividing distinction between military rifle and civilian rifle. At the link below a fully automatic turret-style heavy machine gun system is (deliberately) generically described, along with a brief history of its development.

Question: since Gatling type guns are covered by the 2nd amendment as not requiring a special license for a citizen to own, how soon can we expect a privately developed civilian version of the weapon system described in the linked article? Bonus question: what relevance does such a development have regarding civil unrest, or even military invasion, here in the US?

https://strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20200607.aspx

Given: There WILL be cops ...

... and by cops, I mean organized efforts to impose legal restraint upon everybody.

The inescapable failure inherent to this whole "defund the cops" idea is that it completely reverses the problem. Cops enforce the laws of the legal jurisdiction that employs them. If you want cops to enforce laws differently, change the laws cops are required to enforce. Change the training cops receive so as to change the ways and means they are trained to use to enforce the laws. Change the courts so as to remove the unlawful separation of responsibility from actions taken ("qualified immunity" has no basis in written law, but is instead the intended result of the US Supreme Court ruling in  Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)  ,and is generally defined as follows:

"Specifically, qualified immunity protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case.

Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages, but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery.

Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions. Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. While judges, prosecutors, legislators, and some other government officials do not receive qualified immunity, most are protected by other immunity doctrines."  See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

 IANAL but "qualified immunity" seems to be an obvious extension of "judicial immunity" by the Supreme Court which itself is a matter of written law (see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983).

Is this a desirable condition of American jurisprudence? Call or write your state's Attorney General's office, call or write your state's Governor's office, call or write your Member of Congress and your state's Senator's offices, register your opinion and legislative desires with them. Make your voice heard, agitate with those who have the ability to make the needed change(s). But do so from an inescapable minimum condition of existence; there will be cops, because we need cops - preferably one's determinedly working from a clearly delineated position of neutrality between the generally conflicting interests of members of US society.

The assertion that "the law is what it is" is probably made only slightly less frequently than is "the law is an ass", but equally inescapably, the law is ... and in some form or another will continue to be. That being so, it is desirable and necessary to frequently review the law, and those who are employed to enforce it. Not just cops, prosecutors, and judges either; there is a serious argument being made that the US (at all levels of governance, not just federally) has too many laws, too many of which are already part of previously existing legislation (which is how a law is legally made - executive orders that do not specifically reference an enabling act of legislation do not have force of law no matter how hard or often a Governor or President says otherwise).

Changing the laws of the US (again, at all levels of governance) would be the most certain means of reforming police interactions with the general public. Changing police training to reflect the enforcement requirements of the law would complete the reform process. Doing all of that at the federal level would almost certainly be necessary to achieve at least some degree of national uniformity of enforcement (and achieving that degree of uniformity would itself be a drawn out process, if only due to the complexity of competing interests inherent to the multi-level nature of US legal and political structure). While a dramatic performance before the House Ways and Means Committee demonstrating the sheer volume of federal legislation (and how much less is actually required to achieve the same - arguably better - levels of public protection) would certainly be entertaining, the reality is this will be a long and contentious effort requiring multiple iterations of change.

Personal note: I lived in S. California during 1991 and '92. I'm quite familiar with the events surrounding the arrest of Rodney King and the prosecution of his arresting police officers (I lived roughly a mile away from the arrest scene). I fully expect that the essentially identical legal process will play out in Minnesota, probably during the 2020/21 winter months (for what I regard as obvious reasons). The officers will be found "not guilty" by reason of qualified immunity in state court, and in very short order thereafter found "guilty" in federal court of violating George Floyd's civil rights, for which they will be imprisoned for a number of years. It goes without saying that Floyd's family will receive a financial settlement from Minnesota.

If we are going to achieve this change in US laws and how they are enforced, and I agree that we should if we wish to continue as citizens of a recognizably USA, then we must begin to organize the mechanisms necessary to doing all of that.

Or, we can just go ahead and form the national circular firing squad and do it that way.

Asking the Question Rightly

This past January 30th I asked on my Facebook page whether or not Chief Justice John Roberts was subject to impeachment himself due to his refusal to follow the impeachment trial structure developed by the US Senate for President Trump's impeachment trial. It was my observation in subsequent comments that the Senate's Art. 1, Sec. 3 sole authority over Presidential trials, specifically to include being presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, appeared to place Chief Justice John Roberts into unavoidable conflict with the requirements of the "Whistleblower Protection Act", as made evident by the specific question submitted by Sen. Rand Paul in conformance with the Senate's trial requirements.

Right constitutional issue, wrong question.

This having belatedly become more clear to me, my question now becomes; what method best permits this apparent constitutional conflict, the Senate's Art 1, Sec 3 absolute and sole authority to structure Presidential impeachment trials and the existing legal constraints the Whistleblower Protection Act imposes on the execution of such a trial, being argued before the remaining members (presuming Chief Justice Roberts concurs that recusing himself from the hearing and subsequent discussions is in the best interests of justice) of the US Supreme Court to arrive at a just resolution?

It should be openly acknowledged that impeachment is at least partially comprised of a political judgement component so as to arrive at a just outcome for both the individual being judged and the country as a whole. This being true, impeaching Chief Justice Roberts for deciding as he did during President Trump's impeachment trial would be unjust for him and the country. It is my entirely layman's understanding of US law that any portion of a legislative act being in conflict with the US Constitution makes the entire act "as if it never were". How then to best get this issue before the US courts to resolve this apparently unconstitutional aspect of the Whistleblowers Protection Act?

COVID-19 and The Rule of Law

I originally posted the below quotation as a comment (#3) at Joe Huffman's blog, but I want to claim it for my own more publicly. Joe Huffman linked to an article published by the Second Amendment Foundation quoting SAF founder and Executive Vice-President (and justly famous attorney) Alan M. Gottlieb regarding the status of constitutionally enumerated civil rights during a public health crisis.

The Constitution of the United States clearly stipulates that the Several States, and The People of which they are comprised, retain all authority not expressly forbidden them by the Constitution itself (do I really have to point out the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution to this audience?). In accordance with each states particular constitution, the chief executive of said state (and such executive office holders who derive their subordinate official authority therefrom) absolutely and without qualification DO HAVE the legal authority to promulgate any action they individually deem necessary to protect the Public Health and Safety within their state’s borders, or their legislative sub-section of that border. This completely uncontroversial legal principal is frequently summarized as “the police powers” authority granted to state Governors, which expressly include the public’s health and safety. It remains an unresolved constitutional question as to whether, or to what degree, the US government has authority to regulate/restrict travel between the Several States, but there seems to be no question of the President having the authority to organize state efforts to achieve the ends those state’s Governors agree to be necessary to protect their state’s citizenry and commerce.

The United States’ chief executive has effectively the same authority as regards the external borders of the United States.

There seems to be NO evidence that what President Trump has done in regards to the COVID-19 outbreak differs in any substantive measure from what I have described above.

As Mr. Gottlieb has observed, the legal liability for results of the declarations issued does exist (and should be rigorously safeguarded after the fact), but anyone who attempts to argue that the authority described above doesn’t exist is undeniably lying, and may be a traitor (see efforts by journalists and others to promote propaganda efforts by the CCP and others to the detriment of the safety and security of the United States as example).

 I think that a crucially important distinction lies between the constitutional limits imposed by the US Constitution and the authorities granted by the individual state's constitutions. This distinction was arrived at deliberately by the framers of the US Constitution, and repeatedly clarified and supported by court rulings since (though as Mr. Gottlieb points out, that task remains a work in progress). I think it such an important component of the US constitutional republic framework of national government that I consider attempts to circumvent the structure as tantamount to treason or an act of war (in the present circumstance, looking directly at you PRC/CCP).

We can lay claim to being a Nation Governed by Rule of Law only for as long as we are willing to (paraphrasing a currently prominent science fiction character) "make it so". We should do more of that.

He Said? She Said? Here's What I Say

So, Donald Trump wants to be President of the United States, does he?

First and foremost, I think it only basic honesty to acknowledge that there is no public record of criminal rape charges ever being leveled against him. Which is not to say that several women haven't filed civil claims against him for adjudication. As is common legal practice in such circumstances, a settlement was reached by the several litigating parties in the two acknowledged instances (one involving the now-former Mrs Trump during their divorce proceedings and the other involving a husband and wife involved in publicizing a beauty pageant Trump owned), and there these matters are supposed to have ended. The fact these incidents remain matters of active public speculation is largely a result of Donald Trump running his mouth post-settlement from what I have read of the public record.

The more recent civil accusation against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein is much more troubling. It is also a charge Donald Trump hasn't formally responded to yet, so any possible exculpatory evidence is presumably yet to be revealed. For the moment at least, it seems only proper to leave the matter to the courts for now. I think there is sufficient public scrutiny on the allegation that the legal process will proceed as it is expected to in this country.

For those who may be screaming at their computer screens about now, "You Trumpeter!", allow me to point out this slightly inconvenient matter of public record. Do please note the date I wrote that. Also, let it here be noted that the last time I voted for a Republican candidate was in the presidential election of 1984. Let it further be noted that Ronald Reagan did not fail to disappoint.

Because I believe in Due Process and the legal notion of Innocent Until Proven Guilty, I find it necessary, if only as an effort to achieve philosophical consistency, to stand behind those principles no matter how disgusting or trivial I may personally find anyone else's alleged behavior to be or have been. Even the behavior of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Political elections are, in there most fundamental sense, an exercise in the rendering of judgement as to the suitability of the candidates contending for the office, based upon those people's public record of accomplishment and personal character. Our judgement, as in We The People.

Should it become apparent at any point during that process of rendered judgement that any (pray never all, even if you are as agnostic on the topic of religion as I am, that circumstance truly would be politically catastrophic) of the candidates appear manifestly unsuited for the office, it is our duty as citizens to vote for some other candidate, however tertiary - or worse - their qualifications might in a more perfect world seem. This is not "choosing the lessor of two evils", it is selecting the best qualified candidate following due consideration of all of the available choices. Since no one can reliably predict the future accomplishments that might be achieved, we must necessarily make these judgements based upon the individual candidates prior display of character, to the degree we can reliably determine that to have been.

Rather than become incensed about this character defect or that previous action (or lack thereof), better I find to simply move on to the candidate that I judge to have fewest of the character traits I find objectionable. It has been my considered opinion that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are, simply as a result of their previous displays of unsuitable personal character, not qualified for the office of President of the United States. I encourage all of my fellow citizens to accept this circumstance and select the most qualified candidate for that office from those that remain eligible for us to vote for in 2016. Going forward, debate rightly ought to focus on our varied judgements of the remaining acceptable candidates qualifications for the office.

On Alliance, Part 1

We in HEMA are all too aware of the vast uncatalogued collection of historic arms and accouterments, along with the supporting documentation and instruction in its use, that exist in libraries, book stores, museums and personal collections that is known to exist around the world. The frustration we feel at our inability to translate so much of that into tangible items we can use is a near-constant experience. Those few items, swords mostly, that have been faithfully reproduced from historic specimens are, to be blunt, priced as the rare objects they are. The object of this series of posts is to suggest a means whereby we may alleviate that frustration, and quite possibly make a buck or two in the process, while at the same time safeguard our ability to continue doing so.

Come now Mr Marty Daniel and his company Daniel Defense, makers of components, and in recent years complete firearms, for the modular AR rifle platform. Some years ago now, Mr. Daniel began posting construction designs and engineering plans for 3-D construction of the components of an AR-platform rifle for sale to individual customers from his company's website. A recent court ruling has forced Mr. Daniel, along with others in the firearms and 3D, or additive, manufacturing industry to shutter his company's webpage link to online sales of "instructions and manuals".

I submit that this confluence of mutual interests presents all parties with a classical strategy Opportunity of such proportions as would make Sun Tzu himself drool, at least a little.

Daniel Defense is an established manufacturing business with a proven model for online sales of digital designs and engineering plans. HEMA Alliance, through its members, possesses a trove of historic designs for both (A) weapons that do not violate current legal interpretation regarding international distribution or personal ownership (yet) and (B) the safety equipment desirable for training and usage of those historic weapons in a regulated and competitive environment.

Were the HEMA Alliance Governing Council to contact Mr. Daniel and arrange a partnership between the HEMA membership and his company, he would benefit by rather quickly (12 to 18 months?) developing an effective counter-argument for his attorneys to beat the US State department over the head with in court ("Your Honor, here is 1001 weapons and armor designs and plans that don't violate existing law and treaty due solely to the age of the design. How can free discussion of improved versions of these historic designs not be regarded as being exactly the same under the law?"), while we in HEMA obtain access to modern digital design and engineering plans (which we can license at a discounted rate for commercial purposes, but have free access to for our individual personal use) of all of the historic items which we can identify and help translate.

The Devil is said to be in the details, and I will point out at least a few of those in Part 2. On a more philosophical level of discussion, I submit that if the US State department can decide on its own that enforcement of a UN Arms Treaty extends to individual purchase of weapon component designs and plans (speech), is it that much of a stretch of the imagination to suppose the same people might decide the same prohibition can be extended to less modern examples of weapons and their design and sale? If we cannot discuss historic weapon design, nor sell historic weapon replicas for training and competition purposes - without previously purchasing the requisite national and international licensing approvals to be international arms dealers - I think we would find ourselves confronted with the end of HEMA (and SCA, LARP, War of the Nations, etc) as a functional organisation on anything beyond the immediately local level of activity. Certainly all HEMA Facebook and other web pages would have to be shut down immediately, judging by the extant example cited above (cross-national border communication of weapons technology being the pertinent action the court has ruled against and the treaty forbids).

Maybe the Powers That Be won't notice us. Maybe they'll continue to look on us with amused condescension. Or, maybe, some "political activist" of the more direct action persuasion will pull off a more extravagant act of violence with a bladed weapon than has occurred so far in a street or mall somewhere.

Then, I suspect the regulatory hand may come down on us very hard. Or perhaps not.

Whatever any of our personal opinions regarding modern weapons (and firearms specifically) and protective armor might be, we need to do what we can to protect our ability to pursue our martial art and history research in as unimpeded a fashion as we can arrange. Arranging an alliance with an independent business entity that mutually benefits all parties seems a reasonable topic for us to begin to consider and investigate.

We also need to begin developing our ability to equip ourselves in a more dispersed and individual fashion.

More on that in Part 2.

Let's All Vote At Them

Something that occurred to me while on another forum, what if the EU doesn't accept a Brexit "Leave" vote majority? It's not like we have to look very hard to find other examples of the EU rejecting a plebiscite they don't like - Ireland's numerous votes rejecting the Lisbon Treaty come easily to mind. I do have to say that I'm finding it difficult to visualize a British government capable of taking the Iceland approach to recalcitrant officialdom, so just how is the UK going to counter an EU siege of their island Castle? It's not like the EU hasn't already undermined the moat or anything like that; can you see the for-so-long-stymied hordes being released by France charging out of the Channel Tunnels on the British end of things? The acts of piracy on the contested fishing grounds of the North Sea? All those banks on Jersey being "invaded" by hordes of heavily armed EU cops and regulators?

The possibilities are rife, as they say, so I just don't see the EU politely taking their aspirations for world dominance (and the loss of all that British cash) and quietly giving up just because their British lackeys couldn't get this one simple thing right the first time 'round.

I'm not sure there IS a large enough pop corn supply for this show.

Detour Ahead

Here in the Land of the Free, the Oklahoma Highway Robbery Patrol just got a helping hand to further their efforts at collecting the largess of others into a more easily distributed package.

It used to be the crooks were the one's without the badges.

I hear New Mexico is scenic.

When Reality Is Revolting, Forbid Reality

Charming. Political Socialism at its finest.

All of which leaves one to ponder; just how many lynchings happen in a setting convenient to a photographer "capturing the moment" (and the perpetrators) in the act? And in such numbers that the government feels compelled to "do something about it" - other than actually creating the conditions that aren't conducive to lynchings being considered a practical option in the first place, you understand.

Well, it could never happen here. Oh, wait ...

"Don't Do The Crime ...

... If You Can't Do the Time."

That's the famous aphorism isn't it? And, on its face, a sensible enough conviction; we all should be ready to accept the consequences resulting from our actions. In the case of our criminal actions, the courts determine our sentence and we ultimately fulfill that sentence will-we, nil-we., or so goes the theory.

And if we have been convicted of a felony and completed the decreed penalty, still we forever bear the legislative Mark of Cain as we attempt to return to the ranks of "good citizen".

Unless you live in the US state of Virginia (and only committed a "good" felony, of course), in which case you get some of your Constitutionally guaranteed rights (sorry about the video auto-start, blame The Atlantic) handed back to you. For the current voting cycle anyway; no telling what some subsequent Legislature and/or Governor will come up with down the temporal road.

The God Of Abraham may indeed be the vicious, cruel, and vindictive individual He is touted to be in the various editions of His Book, I hold to my more general Agnosticism on that topic too, but I don't think acting so on our own claimed Constitutional Authority is in any way consistent or even reasonably arguable. Unless you choose to argue from a basis of your personal fear and cowardice.

Can we take as a given that laws are, or at least ought to be, written so as to punish those duly convicted of violating them (and reasonably expected to inhibit committing said crime just by consequence of their very existence)? If that truly be the case, why do we think it such a good idea to impose a lifetime penalty as well?

If commission of a given action is deemed worthy of imposition of a period of incarceration (or "only" just a financial penalty), isn't it only honest and consistent with the stated justification for our having Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights (capitalized to drive home a point about the source of said rights) (for the record, I consider rights to be an intrinsic component of the human condition, regardless of any individual's viewpoint regarding how that human condition came into existence) that individual exercise of those rights be temporarily suspended pending completion of the duly adjudicated penalty imposed? If an action taken outside the law deserves a limited penalty, why do we insist on imposing a lifetime penalty anyway?

If you are afraid that some convicted felon might offer a threat to you just by his (or her's; let's not add sexism to your burden of justification too) very existence, maybe the more logical, not too mention effective, method for you to pursue is to increase your individual defenses against anyone doing you harm. Because we all only have to look at incarceration rates to recognize how effective a deterrent criminal laws are, don't we?

I also abhor the petty politicization that Virginia's recent restitution of certain civil rights has taken, but I also recognize the strategic inevitability of that occurring. I just happen to believe that making "good citizenship" an easily achievable standard works to all our better long-term interests as a nation built on the exercise of individual human rights.

What's your excuse?

In Accordance With The Rule of Tam

Tam writes: 

"Can you articulate to a jury how someone attempting to draw a gun at you poses an immediate, potentially lethal threat? Can you articulate that it doesn't matter whether the gun they're trying to draw is on their belt or yours?

As I understand the general legal principle (and the actual statute here in Texas), the first question is the only real issue of concern in a legal defense of a homicide*.  If you can demonstrate that someone(s) present a lethal threat to you (or another), the law doesn't care what legal means you select to defeat said lethal threat with.  You should be aware that "legal means" would be any object you use to kill the individual(s) lethally threatening you.  Local ordinances always apply, of course, so the prohibited weapon choice list varies wildly, but as a general principle of self-defense, if you are at risk of losing your life, you can use whatever you have to to not be non-judicially killed (which pretty much rules out nukes, chemical weapons or that seriously irritating toddler whose oblivious mother will not shut up, to beat the guy to death with in just about any non-ISIS jurisdiction around).  Basically, if you are lethally threatened, you can shoot the person making the threat no matter what weapon s/he threatens your life with (to include your own gun).


Similarly, the law pretty much doesn't care what you use if you should prove to be the one offering the lethal threat, so the second question ought to be sorta irrelevant.  Prosecuting attorneys being what they are, you better hope your attorney is well versed in the applicable laws.  I recommend these guys without reservation.  You quasi-ferinners can go with this option until you can get here.


*For the hoi polloi, the term of law "self defense" is an explicit admission that you have committed homocide.  The only remaining issue thereafter is whether or not you were justified in doing so, and the cops don't get to make that call.  Should you ever find yourself in the vicinity of a freshly deceased example of the genus homo sapiens, make absolutely certain that the two words never to exit you mouth at any point thereafter are "self" and "defense".  The way that works is, your lawyer presents evidence of the justifiable nature of your actions to the court, thereby leading the jurist-in-residence to rule "justifiable homocide by reason of self defense".  Self defense is a legal ruling by a judge, not a statement to the police.

Coming Up For Air -or- What's That Smell?

I haven't given up on writing entirely, I'm just maligning language elsewhere is all.

A couple of semi-related news items jarred my tentative thinking process recently.  One being the reporting regarding the recent vote(s) in the Texas legislature on gun carrying by non-law enforcement-type citizens in the state.

Let me just say this about that; it probably actually is possible to make your disdain for your audience more plain, but the below-quoted double error (from the opening sentence no less) written by one Nathan Kopple for The Wall Street Journal (and seemingly quoted verbatim by MarketWatch.com and Fox News) does seem to set that bar well up there:

Texas is poised to become the largest state in the U.S. to allow citizens to openly carry handguns, a change long sought by gun-rights activists.

Taking* my objections in the order of their presentation: 

(1) Alaska 

and 

(2) Alaska you moron errr, Mr. Kopple.

[and in rebuttal to the obvious first quibble, (1) could alternatively be California.  No matter how you slice it, this account has nowhere to go but up]

Calling into question my own sense of cynicism, The Dallas Morning News at least managed to avoid those obvious hallmarks of journalistic excellence flubs.  The law enforcement devil is in the details, of course; we'll see how the actual law is written before I get out either one of my nice new holsters.

A question has arisen in my mind recently about 2nd Amendment civil rights debates more generally. It has become a 21st century axiom among modern 2nd Amendment civil rights supporters (to include myself) that more guns = less crime, and I've certainly been willing to advance that contention as thoroughly well proved.  But I do have to wonder of late ...

In years past, US gun legislation debates often referenced British crime reporting statistics on gun-related questions - more pertinently, the degree of doubt in the reliability of crime statistics from the UK. The questions thus raised were put to telling effect in the dismissal of these "facts" as to their relevance in US legislative debate over the last decade+.

My concern on this matter was (completely inadvertently, I'm certain) summarized quite brilliantly by this Joe Huffman blog post because of what I have discovered in my reading elsewhere recently about US crime reporting. The US DoJ's Uniform Crime Statistics are this country's national summation of all local and state crime reporting, as broken down by a variety of categories. There have been reports for many years now about US national crime statistics not reflecting actual events:

Racial violence might be up. It might be down. Either way we may never know: A new study from the Department of Justice says victims of violent crime often do not call the police.

And if they do, police often do not file crime reports, say local newspapers around the country.

“More than half of the nation’s violent crimes, or nearly 3.4 million violent victimizations per year, went unreported to the police between 2006 and 2010,” said a Justice Department analysis.

That’s 17 million violent crimes off the books in five years.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/see-no-evil-racial-violence-underreported/#ib7ua3M0buwfFveB.99

Bearing that in mind, the ramifications of this article gives me pause:

Campus crime is easier to track than city crime because campus cops have to obey federal reporting laws -- and the Clery Act requires schools to list the full description of the suspects. And make that available at the school web site.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/10/new_cure_for_racial_violence_in_minneapolis_crack_down_on_the_victims.html#ixzz3XsPKoaEh
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

If it is fair of us to say that questionable statistics must be given no credence in making legislative decisions regarding the expression of our civil rights here in the USA, and we now seem to have more than ample evidence that our own national crime reporting statistics are at-best "questionable", what are we really basing our axiomatic civil rights claims on?

I confess I do not know what to make of all of this as of yet.  I leave it for now with my fellow citizens to begin the process whereby we have traditionally made such choices (and all of you please refrain from throwing things at each other, at least until I can take part rejoin you).  I can be as pragmatically cynical as anyone, needs must, but I think we would do better to determine our own levels of moral repugnance on this one of our own volition.

*  I don't know what I've done with the font and can't be bothered to fix it.  Consider it my effort to shield you from the fullest intensity of my intellectual brilliance.  

Stop laughing (except you Mr Kopple; et tu eh?).