Just Another Evening On The Vomit Comet

According to police dispatch, a “crowd of 8-10 men with hammers and iron bars” attacked people on the Green Line (aka “Vomit Comet”) platform on the East Bank, at the U of M.

According to Alpha News:

A person who claimed on social media to have been at the station when the incident occurred said that the group of males had “hammers and bars,” and that they seemed to be “attacking anyone who looked like they had money or were white.” The witness, who said he isn’t white, said he didn’t want to “[take] on a bunch of dudes with blunt objects,” and that he “hurried an older white lady away” and they walked a few blocks to catch a bus.

There is considerable effort on the part of local progressives to discredit the story – as it comes from conservative Alpha News via those neocon tools, the Minneapolis Police Scanner and U of M Pollice Departments.

According to the Pioneer Press:

Police responding to a report of a group threatening people at a light-rail station at the University of Minnesota stopped seven juvenile males who fled from the Minneapolis platform, a university representative said Monday.
Two males who were carrying metal pipes were identified through video surveillance and witness descriptions, said Lacey Nygard, a University of Minnesota spokeswoman. Police issued them citations.

That first paragraph has had the local PC police all a-twitter: “Only two had pipes, not ten hammers”, because thugs never throw away pipes and crowbars when the police are chasing them, naturally.

Anniversary

Those who think school massacres and “Assault weapons” are inextricably tied together haven’t read the story of the Bath, Michigan massacre, which happened 92 years ago this morning.

I wrote at some length about it a few years back.

While gun control laws are short-sighted and sclerotic (even if you presume “preventing crime” is their motive, and I do not), but evil is nimble and creative.

Absolute Moral Authority

I wonder if these kids will get lionized and treated as the authorities that David Hogg has?

Survivors of a Colorado school shooting walked out of a vigil for their slain classmate Wednesday night in protest of politicians and other groups using it as a platform for gun control, a local report said.
The students from STEM High School, where two gunmen killed a student and wounded eight others Tuesday, began yelling from the stands that they “wanted to be heard” after two politicians and pro-gun control advocates addressed the crowd, according to the local NBC affiliate, KUSA.
They then stormed out of the vigil after Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet and Democratic Congressman Jason Crow addressed the crowd, the Denver Post reported.
The kids chanted “Mental health” and hurled expletives at the media, according to the report.

And I don’t know about you, but suddenly I”m feeling kind of proud:

“What has happened at STEM is awful. But it’s not a statistic. We can’t be used as a reason for gun control. We are people, not a statement,” one student said, according to video by KUSA.
Speaking of the lone fatality, 18-year-old Kendrick Castillo, another student added, “We wanted Kendrick to be mourned. We wanted all of you to join us in that mourning, but that was not allowed here. We all walked out. We were not kicked out.”

This nation needs fewer tragedies.

But if we had more of this kind of moral courage, we’d have a great start.

I’ll Look The Other Way

I support capital punishment for every possible reason but one – the inevitability of executing the innocent. And that’s all I need to oppose it on principle.

But I’m not going to raise a huge fuss about this particular execution:

It’s amazing how little actual white supremacy there’s been in the wild in the past 20-odd years, other than the gaslight-y stuff the media’s promoting – that’s the only word for it – these days.

How Not To Defend Yourself

Vincent Nesta Trotter. an eastside Saint Paul homeowner who shot a guy who was alleged to have crashed a stolen car and fled from police, has given us an object lesson on what not to do in a self-defense situation.

Remember – when claiming self-defense, you have to prove you were in reasonable, immediate fear of death or great bodily harm, you tried to disengage, you used only the force you needed to end the lethal threat, and (when outside your home) made a reasonable effort to disengage.

And if, heaven forfend, you are in a shooting that you believe fits those criteria (and in Minnesota, it had better)? My first carry permit instructor, the late Joel Rosenberg, drilled it into his students’ heads; when talking to the police, say only:

I want to talk to a lawyer. I don’t consent to a search.

That – and pointing out evidence and witnesses who attest the fact that you met those four criteria above – are all you say.

You do that so evidence that you violated at least three of those four criteria doesn’t wind up in front of the entire jury pool in the local media. As it seems to have done for Mr. Trotter:

The complaint says Trotter followed police instructions and put the gun on the ground, telling officers, “I pull up and he’s by my door.” The complaint states he also said, “I told him don’t move, he moves, and I let 3 or 4 rounds go. I see blood, so I think I hit him. I tried to hit him. I carry a 45.”
Officers identified the man who was shot as the suspect in the auto theft incident, and believed that he had fled police not long ago. He denied that, but told police that he was walking through the yard at Trotter’s address when a man pulled up in a vehicle and began yelling. He told police he heard shots and got on the ground. He said he was walking away and the man yelled, “Don’t turn around,” then started shooting.

And as if that’s not bad enough:

Surveillance footage shows the shooting victim walk up onto Trotter’s porch and sit down, never attempting to get inside the home. When Trotter’s vehicle pulls up five minutes later, the video shows the victim walk down the porch steps and take about two steps toward Trotter. His hands are visible and away from his body.
The video then shows the man walking away from Trotter, “looking back over his left shoulder as he retreated,” the complaint states, and then Trotter advancing and a muzzle flash from the gun.
Trotter continues to advance with his gun in a “high ready position” while saying something.
“It is clear from the video that (the victim) was retreating away from Trotter as Trotter fired his handgun,” the complaint says.

I’m no lawyer (dear God, thanks) and Mr. Trotter is innocent until proven guilty.

But to the casual observer, it’d seem that Mr. Trotter was not in immediate threat of death or any kind of harm – the guy was walking away and seemed (according to the media report) to show no signs of being armed. He made no effort to retreat – quite the opposite.

We don’t know how the trial (or plea-bargaining) is going to go, but the moral of the story is this: if you’re going to carry a firearm for self-defense, learn the law. And figure out if it’s something you’ve got the temperament to do.

Silence Is Golden

When the police and prosecutors talk with you in relation to allegations of criminal activity, you have the right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer to keep you from saying something stupid or even just inadvertent that can end up putting you in jail.  

And it doesn’t even have to be anything you say to the cops. 

A few  years ago, during the “Black LIves Matter” protest at Minneapolis’ Fourth Precinct, a fellow with a carry permit, Alan Scarsella,  shot and wounded someone from a group of protesters that was chasing him.   His fear of immediate death and great bodily harm was real; he attempted to retreat, running a whole block before firing back; he used the force needed to end the threat (the chase stopped cold when he fired).  

But on the way to the protest, he and his idiot friends made some videos, including some statements (which may or may not have been quotes) that the county prosecutor managed to get before the jury as racist provocations that, in the end, negated Scarsella’s attempt to prove that he wasn’t the aggressor in the jury’s eyes.  He got convicted and sentenced to seven years.  

So if you’re a good guy or gal with a gun who, heaven forfend, winds up shooting someone in self-defense, everything you say can and will be used against you – even things you say long before the episode in question, unrelated to the shooting.  

I thought about that when the media started covering this story – a Saint Paul homeowner shot a suspected car thief. 

And what picture did the Strib, and then every single gun-grabber group, run with?

Photo via the Strib’s Sharon Prather.

From the Strib, with emphasis added:

A 36-year-old man with a gun was with the suspect when police arrived, and he identified himself to officers as the homeowner, police said. He cooperated with the investigation and was arrested Tuesday night on suspicion of aggravated assault.
The Star Tribune typically does not name suspects who have not been charged.
Police found the man who had been shot in the side yard of the house after hearing gunfire, said Sgt. Mike Ernster.
A sign in the window of the house read, “No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again!” The sign punctuates the message with drawings of bullet holes.

The guy – guys, really – are innocent until proven guilty. And Berg’s 18th Law is still in full effect.

But will the police and county attorney – who both cordially detest the law-abiding gun owner and dislike the notion of the Good Guy With A Gun, use this sign as evidence to logroll a jury, if necessary, into believing that the homeowner, whatever the actual situation, was looking for a chance to use his right to keep and bear arms on someone who “had it coming”?

Yes.

Why embroider it?

If you are a gun owner who is concerned about self-defense, it is imperative that you stop writing on social media, putting stickers on your car, or posting your house with signs talking about what you intend to do to alleged criminals with your firearms.

It’s the same thing I wrote back when I did own guns. I’d never buy another, of course. Guns terrify me.

Five Good Guys, Two With Guns

The FBI designated 27 “active shooter” situations in 2018. 10 of them, they called “Mass Shootings”.

So keep that in mind as you look over the stats from the FBI’s annual report on active shooter situations.

“The FBI has designated 27 shootings in 2018 as active shooter incidents.”
“10 of those 27 met our definition of a mass shooting”

Now, remember – in most states that allow civilian carry of firearms, maybe 2% of the population has a permit to carry; in permitless (“Constitutional”) carry states, I’d suspect the total carrying might be higher, but I’m going to also suspect the subsets of people willing to undergo the hassle and responsibility of carrying and the subset willing to go through the hassle and red tape of getting a permit are pretty close).

That’s about one person in fifty. Maybe more in some places; I’d imagine a pretty fair share of people in rural Wyoming, Kansas or even Minnesota might have a firearm on nor near their person much of the time. Definitely less in other places – California, Illinois, or any school, federal office or posted business.

Keep that in mind with this next set of stats:

In 5/27 incidents, citizens confronted the shooter. 3 of those 5 were unarmed and were successful in ending the shooting.
In 2 of those 5, armed citizens possessing firearms permits exchanged gunfire with the shooter.
In one of those incidents, armed citizens shot and killed the shooter (oklahoma)

So 2% of the population might have a firearm – but they were able to intervene in about 6% of active shooter situations last year – successfully in both cases:

It’s also worth noting that the other three episodes involving civilians included a wounded teacher subduing shooters. He was in an environment where 0% of the population could be legally armed. Salute.

16/27 happened in a business, 5/27 happened at schools (4 HS, 1 middle school)

It’s worth noting that nine of the episodes at businesses occurred in places where the public had access -including both episodes where armed civilians intervened. That’s 22% – not that percentages carry that much weight with numbers this small.

The other seven occurred in non-public parts of businesses; it’s not stated in the report how many were posted or otherwise no-go for law-abiding civilians

As to conclusions?

I stress – this next bit was written by the FBI. Not the Gun Owners Caucus. Emphasis added:

“As in past years, citizens were faced with split-second, life-and-death decisions. In 2018, citizens risked their lives to safely and successfully end the shootings in five of the 27 active shooter incidents. They saved many lives. Given this reality, it is vital that citizens be afforded training so they understand the risks they face and the options they have available when active shooter incidents are unfolding”

Since we’re assessing risk – all of the deadliest episodes – the Stoneman Douglas and Santa Fe NM schools and the Sutherland Springs Texas school shootings – took place in “gun free” zones where 0% of the people can lawfully be armed.

A Modest Proposal

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Why did Prohibition fail?  The Hammerheads weren’t tough enough?  They didn’t incarcerate enough people? 
No.  It failed because ordinary citizens resented being told they couldn’t engage in activities that seem normal and harmless, so they quietly rebelled in a nation-wide fit of non-compliance.
Same reason the drug war is failing, particularly the war on marijuana.  Repeal federal prohibition.  Leave it up to the states.  This bill might be a good start.
Joe Doakes

It’s true – ending the “war” would end the black market, which would give us an opportunity to deal with the chaos on the border and in our inner cities.

Of course, there are wide swathes of our government that profit from that chaos.

We’ll see.

Driving The Herd

In response to the welter of mass shootings that’s cropped up lately, Malcolm Gladwell observed that it’s a fairly predictable example of mob behavior. I wrote about it almost a year ago.

David French (again) worries that we’re living Gladwell’s prediction out in the worst possible way:

In both my military and my civilian careers, I’ve been in meetings and discussions where someone points out a potentially unsolvable weakness in our systems and says, “Well, I hope the bad guys don’t figure this out.” I have a sick, sinking feeling that a vicious terrorist just “figured out” a path to even greater notoriety.
After mass shootings, we often focus on the instrument of death to the relative neglect of the culture of death. There are very human reasons for this — the cultural problem feels so big, so impossible to address, that we fix our eyes on the things we think we can control. We seemingly can’t control whether shooters become famous. We can’t control the fact that there are young men drawn to their example. We can’t control which aspects of their murders will capture the imagination of the next wave of killers… I’m old enough to remember Columbine vividly. We all recoiled in horror but, in hindsight, weren’t horrified enough. We did not realize that a new cultural script was written right in front of our eyes. I hope and pray that I’m wrong, but the New Zealand shooting feels more momentous even than the killings of the recent past. This was online darkness brought to life, then streamed back online. Another threshold has been crossed, and I fear there is no going back.

The worst among us are causing the herd to logroll the entire society into really, really bad decisions. The New Zealand shooter in particular – he calculated his atrocity’s approach to the media (!) precisely to logroll dim-bulb Americans.

And the herd doesn’t make great decisions even in the best of times.

A Good Congregant With A Gun

First things first – with regard to the massacre in Christchurch New Zealand, Berg’s 18th Law is in full effect: “Nothing the media writes/says about any emotionally charged event – a mass shooting, a police shooting, anything – should be taken seriously for 48 hours after the original incident.  It will largely be rubbish, as media outlets vie to “scoop” each other even on incorrect facts.”.

But indications so far are that the attack was carried out by more than one person, whose motivations and “manifesto” seem at first blush strikingly similar to those of Anders Breivik, the Norwegian who murdered 70-odd Norwegians, mostly teens at a political summer camp; the killer/s seem to have been motivated to attack Muslims, specifically.

Note that while New Zealand’s gun laws aren’t as full-blown nanny as Australia’s, they are more in line with California’s or New York State’s – registration/licensing/permits to own, “universal” background checks, the works. Note to Governor Walz; get back to us about your “universal” registraiton bill.

So my thoughts and prayers to the Muslims of New Zealand. (And for those idiot progs on Twitter who mock and taunt the idea – yes, thought and prayer and taking a moment to think rationally is in fact more useful than the actions you propose in responding to this sort of thing).

But let’s make sure we’re clear on the real lesson, here: there was a Good Guy with a Gun at one of the mosques that was attacked, and God only knows how many lives the man saved:

Again – with Berg’s 18th Law in mind – it would appear that the shooters had a lot more in common with the French Bataclan terrorists than with your garden-variety American “Gone Postal”-style spree killers. The limited, regulated availability of firearms in News Zealand was only marginally less effective in preventing terror and saving lives than France’s near-complete ban (and ocmplete ban, for that matter, on the military-grade guns that the Paris terrorists used).

The only measure that worked? A good, Muslim guy with a gun.

That’s the real lesson – for those interested in rational thought.

Wings So Good, They’re Worth Going To Jail For

A Saint Paul woman, upset that a local Dominos Pizza had forgetten her wings in her delivery, decided to take the law into her own hands.

Well, not “the law”, per se.   More like “Customer Service”:

Police were called to the Domino’s at 1110 Grand Avenue just before 9 p.m. Thursday on a report of a customer pointing a handgun at staff.

When police arrived, they were told that the Robinsons — who had already left — were upset that their wings hadn’t been delivered with their pizza to their home in the 1000 block of Dayton Avenue. An argument had ensued.

It was fairly easy to find the Robinsons’ home, since the order had recently been delivered there. Police drove to the address, and — while waiting for a supervisor to arrive on scene — Holly Robinson came out of the home and began talking to officers.

“She didn’t want to wait for another order because they had already waited for an hour, so she decided to go to Domino’s because it would be faster,” a police report stated. The two had demanded a refund.

The Robinsons never got their wings, or a refund. The daughter told officers the “manager had an attitude,” and said her mother had brought a gun because she feared a physical confrontation. She took it out and held it at her hip but never pointed it, the daughter said.

The first thing I thought on hearing the story was “please don’t have a carry permit”.

Since it’s been about a week and we haven’t had Nancy Nord Bence yipping about it, I’m gonna guess Ms. Robinson doesn’t.

Portrait Of A Narcissist

Jake Patterson – accused kidnapper of Jayme Closs and killer of Closs’ parents – wrote a letter to a KARE reporter claiming he was planning to plead guilty.

To be, apparently, the good guy:

Patterson expressed concern for Closs and her family several times in the letter. Asked about his legal strategy in the case, Patterson wrote that he planned to “plead guilty,” saying he didn’t want Closs or her relatives to have “to worry about a trial.” He also wrote that he confessed in part “so [authorities] didn’t have to interview Jayme. They did anyways and hurt her more for no reason.”

Darn those abusive cops, messing with my sense of charity and compassion.

Patterson also wrote about feeling “huge amounts” of remorse.

“I can’t believe I did this,” he wrote. Later, Patterson added: “It was really stupid though looking back.”

I’d pick “evil” for my adjective.

It is, apparently, all about him:

He disputed telling officials that he planned the attack “thoroughly,” claiming cops only attributed that to him “to cover up their mistakes.” Instead, he wrote that he acted on “impulse” — “I don’t think like a serial killer.” Patterson also assumed he would get caught, though he “thought [it] would happen a lot sooner.”

“I followed [news of the kidnapping] through my phone. If something popped up on TV about it, I would change the channel,” he wrote. [I] Would tell Jayme ‘I’m sorry, I can’t watch this.’ IDK what she knew.”

I oppose the death penalty for precisely one reason – the inevitability of executing the innocent – but there were times the order of my opposition dims a bit. This would be one of them.

Still, Wisconsin has no death penalty, so it’s irrrelevant. With that in mind, I hope psychologists and psychiatrists – the competent ones, if any can be found – have a good long time to analyze Patterson’s mind, and brain, before someone shanks him.

“Why Does A Civilian Need A 30 Round Magazine?”

The serious answer – so the good guy doesn’t run out of bullets before the bad guy runs out of attack.

Homeowner in Houston repels a violent, armed home invasion…

by five men with “big guns”:

One man was left dead in front of the house, at least one wounded man took off on foot and the others left in an SUV, police said.
The car crashed into a pole nearby at Harrisburg Boulevard, where a man was found dead inside, according to police. Police say another person in the car fled, collapsed down the street on Capitol Street and later died. 
The fourth and fifth suspects were also injured and taken to a hospital, police said.
Outside the house, homicide investigators are combing through the crime scene where it appears there was a shootout; several dozen shell casings have been found. 

No word yet on charges for the defender. Fingers crossed.

Tom Knighton at Bearing Arms notes:

No, five bad guys coming to your house may not be a common thing, but we can’t pretend it hasn’t happened. Not now.
Now, let’s imagine how someone in a situation like this would fair under a 10-round magazine limit. Oh, they could change magazines in theory, but with that much lead flying around? More rounds in the weapon at the start is always a better place to be.
Of course, if a 10-round limit is bad, imagine what they’d go through if they were stuck with Oregon’s proposed 5-round limit. This man would’ve never had enough ammo on his person to have survived this one.

Hey, just surrender and hope that your attackers don’t cut you into long thin strips…

A Good Guy With A Gun – And One Lucky Cop

Arizona man saves a state trooper’s life after an ambush on I-10 following a “shots fired’ radio call that led the officer to a crashed car and a mortally-injured woman:

[Arizona Department of Public Safety director Col. Frank Milstead] said as the trooper began blocking off lanes of traffic and laying out flares, he was ambushed by the suspect.
The suspect shot the trooper in the right shoulder, and was “getting the better of the trooper” in a fight that immediately followed.
Milstead said the suspect was on top of the trooper striking his head on the pavement.
According to Milstead, a man traveling westbound on I-10 with his wife in the car, pulled over to help the trooper.
The man retrieved a gun from his car and fired at the suspect after the suspect refused to stop attacking the trooper, Milstead said.
The suspect died as a result of the shooting and the man called for help using the trooper’s radio, according to Milstead.
In a news conference from the hospital where the trooper is being cared for, Milstead thanked the man who stopped to help.

If Nancy Nord Bence had her way, they’d still be scraping the trooper’s brains off the pavement.

A Good Ol’ Gal With A Gun

A  South Carolina woman kills an escaped inmate who had just kicked down her back door:

The inmate was still in his orange jail jumpsuit and had grabbed a knife sharpening tool from the woman’s kitchen in Pickens as he headed toward her bedroom around 3 a.m. Tuesday, Pickens County Sheriff Rick Clark said.

“This was a big guy. If she hadn’t had a weapon there’s no telling what would have happened,” Clark said. “I gave her a big hug. I told her how proud I was of her.”

I’m trying to imagine any Metro area chiefs of police who’d do that.

Bruce McLaughlin Jr., 30, died from a gunshot to the head, Pickens County Coroner Kandy Kelley said.

McLaughlin and a second inmate, Timothy Dill, beat up two guards in an escape they had planned for days, Clark said at a news conference.

I’m not gonna call it a “Happy Ending” – killing someone is the second-worst possible outcome.

But the worst – a dead victim – is far, far worse.

Too bad gun control activists would prefer women like that to shut up and get raped to death.

Optics

The Hennepin county attorney’s office has ratcheted up Muhammad Noor’s charge. Way, way up:

Prosecutors said Thursday they are seeking to charge Mohamed Noor with intentional second-degree murder in the death of Damond, who the officer shot and killed in July 2017 after the 40-year-old woman called 911 to report a possible sexual assault in the alley behind her home.

“A person acts with the intent to kill not just when they have the purpose of causing death, but also when they believe that their act, if successful, will result in death,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing. “As a trained police officer, the defendant was fully aware that such a shot would kill Ms. Ruszczyk, a result he clearly intended.”

Does that seem a little – excessive?

While the information available via the news media is most likely incomplete at best, the evidence that Officer Noor rolled up to that call intending to rub out Justin Diamond is exceedingly sketchy.

I’m going to speculate – with a certain amount of information behind the speculation – that that’s because the evidence is extremely sketchy.

There is a reason for that.

The prosecutor has to reach a “beyond a reasonable doubt” verdict to convict the former cop. Given the evidence available, that would seem to be exceedingly unlikely.

Which I am going to assume, is intentional. Overcharging the former policeman, fully intending to fail to meet the “reasonable doubt” threshold, leading to his acquittal and freedom, will accomplish the county prosecutors office’s primary mission: look “aggressive” to an angry public, but preserve the prosecutors office’s relationship with the police department.

Because make know mistake – that relationship is more important to the county prosecutor than the lives of any mere peasants.

Denied!

Last week, when a middle-aged white man was arrested for waving a gun at some Somali teenagers at a gas station, you could fairly hear the panting fro the anti-gun crowd:  “Please let it be a permit holder!  Please let it be a permit-holder“, they prayed in fractured Unitarian.

Alas, they were denied:

Investigators with the Eden Prairie Police Department applied for a warrant to search Johnson’s property and motor vehicle last week.

The application said investigators have learned Johnson applied for and was granted a firearms permit to purchase in 2011, but as of last week, he does not have a permit to carry in Minnesota. The application also states that he was the suspect in a 2011 assault in which an individual alleged Johnson threatened him with a knife and a gun.

But that case was cleared exceptionally due to lack of victim cooperation.

Now – we can allow for the fact that there is going to be some “he said / they said” in a story like this.  But if this story is accurate, it’d seem Johnson is qualified to be a great example of how not to use a firearm in lawful self-defense (emphasis added)

According to the application, several of the teens reported seeing Johnson pull out a black handgun during the altercation, and begin waving it around during an incident captured on both surveillance video and cell phone video. One reported he felt threatened and believed Johnson was going to begin shooting at him…He too reportedly recorded part of the incident on his cell phone. The application states that video does not show Johnson removing or displaying the handgun, but that he can be heard yelling at the group of teens.

“Just give me a reason,” he can allegedly be heard to say. “Just give me a god damn reason.”

If you’re asking them to give you a reason, a jury’s gonna look at that “immediate danger of death or great bodily harm” requirement for a self-defense claim, and laugh out loud with the judge’s tacit blessing.

But – let’s watch for Nancy Nord Bence and Erin Maye Quade to claim he is a permittee.

Enemies Of The People (Who Get Killed By Copycat Attacks)

Study indicates a correlation between media coverage of mass shootings, and more mass shootings:

Our findings consistently suggest a positive and statistically significant effect of coverage on the number of subsequent shootings, lasting for 4-10 days. At its mean, news coverage is suggested to cause approximately three mass shootings in the following week, which would explain 55 percent of all mass shootings in our sample. Results are qualitatively consistent when using (i) additional keywords to capture shooting-related news coverage, (ii) alternative definitions of mass shootings, (iii) the number of injured or killed people as the dependent variable, and (iv) an alternative, longer data source for mass shootings from 2006-2016.

Watch – pointing this out will be labeled as “Putting a Chilling Effect on Free Speech (for the media)”.

Bombs

Over the past two years, there’s been an epidemic of violence perpetrated by people on the left against Republicans, conservatives, Trump supporters, and anyone else the left considers untermensch.  

Some liberals, to be fair, decry the violence – but not only do you have many high-profile liberals calling for it, and calling for more, but many more quibble that it actually happens, or that it’s really as bad as the victims say it is.

But now we come to hear that both prog plutocrat financier George Soros, Barack Obama and the Clintons have received some form of explosive device or another.

Right before the election.

Simply amazing, isn’t it?

If someone on the right is behind this, then they need to be arrested and prosecuted until their ears bleed.

But it does seem waaaaaaaaaaaaay too convenient, doesn’t it?

Do The Right Thing…

One Anne Vetter writes in the Strib that she is reporting the perpetrators of two sexual assaults against hes

…sort of:

The day after the Brett Kavanaugh hearing, I spent the morning on the phone with the Title IX coordinator from my college. I’d never spoken to her before, but I recounted in excruciating detail the two times men raped me while I was in school.

Not a cop.   A school bureaucrat, representative of a system that often repudiates due process and starts from a presumption of guilt (for men).

But it’s a start.

Now I see that reporting has a purpose, even if it’s not about the pursuit of legal justice. The report may be confidential, and the perpetrator may not suffer immediate consequences. But Kavanaugh defenders doubted Ford’s credibility because there was no contemporaneous evidence of any misdeeds. If she’d been able to point to paperwork she’d filled out in the early 1980s, this conversation – and Kavanaugh’s candidacy for the Supreme Court – would probably have ended weeks ago. Reporting an incident as soon as possible puts contemporaneous testimony into the record, in case it is ever needed.

On the one hand, at least it’s a report.  Who knows – she may protect some other woman in the future.

On the other hand – what does she want?  A oookie?  I mean, good on ya, Anne, for doing what you’re supposed to do.

I get it.   It’s hard to do – similar to men reporting being victims of domestic abuse.   Perhaps I’m being insensitive.

Could be.

Affirmative Defense

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The reason we don’t try crazy people for crimes is society has decided it’s not fair to punish people who lack the capacity to understand that what they were doing was wrong.

The reason we don’t try children for crimes is they lack the wisdom and maturity to control their behavior to follow the rules of civilized society.

These concepts work for simple crimes like stealing an apple off the vendor’s cart, or punching someone on the schoolyard, or shooting somebody while fooling around with Dad’s pistol.  They’re acts of impulse, of stupidity, but not malice.

Raping two girls while holding their boyfriends at gunpoint doesn’t fit those parameters, so the perp shouldn’t get the break.  He should be given a fair trial followed by a first-class hanging.

I think there’s a point where “juvenile” justice shouldn’t apply.

Some pathologies, a kid grows out of.  Not sure “Raping while holding witnesses at gunpoint” is really one of ’em.

A Good Guy With A Gun At A School

Thug opens fire at a “Peace” event in Titusville, Florida.

Armed citizen with a carry permit returns fire:

The shooting occurred at Isaac Campbell Park on South Street shortly after 5:20 p.m. when the shooter, whom police have not identified, returned to the park after a fistfight and began firing.

A bystander licensed to a carry a firearm then shot the shooter, who was flown to a nearby hospital with life-threatening injuries, police said.

All signs so far point toward “he did the right thing”:

After consulting with the State Attorney’s office, detectives do not expect to file charges against the bystander since his actions were within the law, according to the preliminary investigation, police said.

More, please.

Our Idiot Judiciary

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The Court of Appeals released its opinion (unreported, but available on the court website) in Hockenson v. State.  I find it troubling.

I grant there’s a difference between having a fundamental right in the first instance, and petitioning to have that right restored after commission of a crime.  But the explanation given by the Court of Appeals reveals an anti-gun mindset which explains why Second Amendment jurisprudence lags so far behind First Amendment cases.

The guy was 19 when he committed an assault and got 5 years of probation.  It’s been 15 years since the offense during which he completed his probation, served in the military, married, has a child and holds down a full-time job.  If anybody could be said to have ‘turned his life around,’ it’s this guy.  But since there are no set standards to determine “good cause” to restore your rights, the court is free to act on whim.

In this particular case, the trial court denied the request because the ‘violent facts surrounding the conviction do not demonstrate the maturity of judgment necessary for the court to find a significant level of comfort with restoring his rights.’  Well, duh.  He was a dumb kid.  He did a dumb thing. If you’re only going to look at what happened at the time of the crime, ignoring everything that has happened since, then nobody can ever have his rights restored.  The trial court’s rationale is idiotic but since there are no standards (and the judiciary is composed entirely of Liberals appointed by Democrats who carefully avoid setting standards that would ensure equal justice for all), the Court of Appeals lets the ruling stand.

It’s particularly galling to compare this case with Democrats’ insistence on freeing killers and restoring their rights, not because of anything the felon has done to turn his life around, but solely because they want to pump up the number of likely Democrat voters.

Joe Doakes

But Hockenson served in the military, is a shooter, and is raising his kids, so he’s probably Republican.  Not a priority.

As Kevin Williamson points out in The End Is Near – it’s really absurd that we give judges as much untrammeled authority as we do, since so many of them are idiots.