Guilty Until Proven Innocent. As Usual.

This blog’s first post (other than “hey, look, I have a blog!”) back in 2002 was about a firearms-related issue – the battle for concealed carry, as it happens.

And since then, it’s fair to say I’ve written a post or two about the second amendment and the civil and human right of self-defense.

But I’ve never been a “gun blogger”, like the late Joel Rosenberg or the great Clayton Cramer.  It’s one of many issues I consider vital.

But since the Evanovich shooting two weeks ago, I might forgive newcomers to my blog for thinking I am a gun-blogger.  It’s been a hot topic around here.

Not strictly on the subject of the Evanovich case – but squarely in the gun wheelhouse, and a subject on which the Evanovich case only barely avoided being germane – was this bit form the MinnPost last week, from that noted civil rights firebrand Brian Lambert.

Now, I’ve known Brian for years – indeed, on my first day at KSTP in 1985, he was filling in for Geoff Charles; Lambo is literally one of the first people I ever met in the Twin Cities media.  And he’s not a bad guy.

But I don’t think it’s unfair to say he was a leader of the “never let facts or information get in the way of giggly uninformed snark” school of reporting long before blogs and Jon Stewart made it cool.

His subject?  Tony Cornish’s “Stand Your Ground” bill, which was going to get a renewed push in the Legislature in the upcoming session even without the impetus of the Evanovich case; it’s a powerful swing issue among Minnesota’s mass of shooters, who have been a quietly but disproportionally powerful constituency in Minnesota for over a decade.

Remember last winter and spring’s scuffle over an expansion of the so-called “castle doctrine,” giving homeowners more legal protection in the event they needed to gun down someone on their property?

Let me guess – “gun them down” just to “watch them die?”

In the liberal subconscious, there seem to be a powerful, maybe chemical, urge to keep repeating “law-abiding gun owners are all depraved maniacs” endlessly, in the hope that it’ll ever actually be true.

Lambert cites some questions from that wellspring of care for the less-fashionalbe civil liberties – the mainstream media:

He has (second-hand) questions.  I have answers.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel throws up an editorial on precisely that legislation floating around over there in Badger Land: “Today’s quiz:

1) Just exactly what problem are lawmakers trying to solve with a proposal to extend new legal protections to people who shoot intruders in their homes, vehicles or businesses?

The problem is that in Minnesota (and Wisconsin), self-defense law is vague on what’s called the “Duty to Retreat”.  In Minnesota, the law says you have to make a “reasonable” effort to disengage from a situation in which you are being attacked and “reasonably” fear being killed or maimed.  What does “reasonable” effort mean?

It depends on where you live. A county attorney in the Red River Valley will likely see it differently than one of John Choi’s eager young DFL-bot assistants.

So, Brian Lambert – on what other civil, human right do we tolerate that level of vagueness?  Especially vagueness that is based entirely on local political fashion?  More importantly, on what other civil/human rights do you tolerate this sort of “make it up as you go along” approach to the law?

2) What is it about the current system that isn’t working?

In a nutshell:  if you, a law-abiding carry permit holder, are approached in, say, your garage or your car – which are not covered under Minnesota’s current “inside the home” exemption to the so-called “duty to retreat” – the question “did you make a reasonable effort to run away”, made in a fraction of a second in the dark under mind-warping pressure, will be answeredby some pencil-necked U of M-grad assistant County Attorney sitting in a warm office, guarded by sheriff’s deputies with metal detectors, and all the time in the world to work up whatever theory his boss wants him or her to work up.  They – in their due time – could decide you “should have” hit the gas, or run for the house, or just given the attacker what she wanted – and force you go to trial, with your freedom on the line, even if the shooting was utterly justified in every other way.

3) How many homeowners are sitting in jail because they were simply defending themselves against intruders inside their houses?

We’ll come back to that.

The answers are:

1) There is no problem.

2) The current system works just fine.

3) None.

The first two are matters of (blinkered, context-deprived) opnion.

The third is at the very best a misleading answer – and the wrong question, to boot.  Better questions would have been “how many honest, law-abiding citizens had to exhaust their lifes’ savings defending themselves against charges that revolved around prosecutors asking “did the accused try hard enough  to retreat?””.  Or “how many honest, law-abiding citizens, faced with an endless battle with a county attorney’s office that they could not afford, were hammered into taking plea bargains that destroyed their legal futures and infringed their civil liberties, in exchange for staying out of jail after shootings that were otherwise perfectly justified?”   In Minnesota, the answer to that last is “one that I can rattle off to you right now, and if you gave me a few minutes on the phone I could probably come up with half a dozen more”.

There is no need to change state law to allow for a “castle doctrine” defense (“castle doctrine” as in “your home is your castle”). Indeed, doing so could put some innocents in greater danger.

Really?

How?

I mean, the statement was made with some perception of authority; feel free, Brian, to provide an example of “danger” to “innocents” in the 31 states that have some variation of Cornish’s law on the books today.

I’ll wait.

The above answers come by the way, from Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm and the Criminal Law Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin, made up of more than 600 prosecutors, judges, criminal defense lawyers and academics. That’s a reliable set of expert witnesses.”

Well, no. It’s a set of witnesses with an agenda; leaving aside their political affiliation, “stand your ground” laws remove County Attorneys’ discretion.   Prosectors like having discretion.  Government loves having discretion.  See George Wallace.

Your expert is my “appeal to false authority”.  Not to mention…

Yeah, but tell any of ’em to just try and walk across my lawn.

…snark.  Always, always the snark.

19 thoughts on “Guilty Until Proven Innocent. As Usual.

  1. I have another question for Mr. Elitist Snarkman. What happens if a couple of meth heads break into your house at O dark thirty and start assaulting your wife? Are you going to retreat and wait for the police to get there? I wish him good luck with that strategy.

  2. “never let facts or information get in the way of giggly uninformed snark”, yup, never seen that on a Fox “news” show! I love how snarkiness and experts with agendas are only “on the other side”. Really Mitch, have you removed all the morrors in your house?

    And yet again, Bosshoss serves as Exhibit A for the “other side”. No, in your example, he’s going to rely on self-defense which has only been in existence for as long as, say, oxygen.

  3. Ears,

    yup, never seen that on a Fox “news” show! I love how snarkiness and experts with agendas are only “on the other side”. Really Mitch, have you removed all the morrors in your house?

    That’s the logical fallacy of the tu quoque ad hominem, Ears – “your argument hasn’t been entirely consistent throughout all of history, so it’s invalid”.

    I’d have no idea if Fox New does or does not use this approach, since I never watch it.

    Shall we focus on my questions in the article above?

  4. Boss,

    Bad example – you have an exemption in your home, and even if you didn’t, you have no place to retreat, really, without allowing the spouse to be killed or harmed. I’m not aware of a jurisdiction in the US that’d be hostile to self-defense in that case.

    I said “in the US”. Because, Ears, in places like the UK and Canada, Boss’ example would put the husband in some legal peril; self-defense is being made very legally difficult (and oxygen is subject to a VAT tax).

    And we all know whose laws the radical left loves loves loves, ya?

    Not that I’m worried about that in the US now; the RKBA movement is very much in the ascendant.

    I’m just doing my bit to keep it that way.

  5. Indeed, doing so could put some innocents in greater danger.

    You mean “innocents” like Evanovich? It is, of course, only “innocents” who break into your house at “O dark thirty”, or accost you in the dark alley, or in the parking lot, or the car. Is “innocents” the new word for “victim of society”?.

  6. I think you make a mistake in taking anything Brian Lambert says or writes too seriously. Having listened to and read him over the years I’ve concluded the only way he makes it into a Mensa dinner is to be there to refill the water glasses.
    For some reason, people who would fight to the death (ie: bitch & moan in a column or blog posting) to preserve without reservation the 1st Amendment (or 4th or what have you), seem to think of the 2nd Amendment as something that the Founder’s put in by accident. Just like with the 1st, we accept that we don’t have completely ‘free’ speech (whether that’s yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre or publishing state secrets) and with the 2nd we accept that we can’t have howitzers or M-60’s. But we also were born with the right to life, liberty and property – and since a reasonable state recognizes that it cannot protect us from the all the bad actors among us (the “Occupy” Movement is learning about this just now) we the peeps have the right to protect ourselves. Just as I imagine Lambo wouldn’t tolerate the Justice Dept. deciding who can or can’t have a printing press (or blawgh as Nick-boy used to say) based on how they might use it, I don’t think the state through the office of a county attorney or prosecutor can decide for me whether or not I’m threatened in my home, my yard, my garage on the street, etc; and what manner or device I might use to defend myself or remove myself from the situation. We have a court system with juries to determine the guilt or innocence of an individual who uses force to repel a threat on a case by case basis based on laws enacted by the legislature. A prosecutor should use it’s discretion on whether or not to bring a person who has acted in what the person believed to be self-defense to trial, but it is up to the legislature to reduce the circumstances by which the prosecutor needs to use that discretion by enacting clearly written laws with regard to the use of force.

  7. Our guy Bri, is a consistent assnozzle, but I wouldn’t get too upset about this latest bit of leftist amphigory from Minnpost.

    He’s writing to a brain-dead readership that believes a couple of neighborhood boys playing cops & robbers with sticks calls for intervention for the kids, and detention for the parents.

  8. In Minnesota, cowardice is mandatory. You have a legal duty to run away from danger. You are not permitted to defend yourself unless the government, in hindsight, agrees that it was absolutely the last possible resort. You won’t even be allowed to argue self-defense at your trial, unless the judge feels like letting you – that’s a privilige, not a right.

    Brian’s fine with being a coward. He thinks everybody should be, by law. I think mandatory cowardice is a poor basis for orderly society as it rewards viciousness and punishes morality. What makes his worldview superior to mine? Why should he ridicule me when I agitate for reform?

  9. I don’t own a gun, but I very much want someone breaking into my house to have doubt of the issue.

  10. Mitch, it would be much easier to focus on “The Question” if you’d leave the snarkiness out. Other than yourself & Selflores, it seems everyone else just came here to join your circle jerk. You can’t effectively rip Lambert if you’re gonna engage in the exact same behavior!

  11. “No, in your example, he’s going to rely on self-defense which has only been in existence for as long as, say, oxygen.”

    Sorry, Earsell, but I doubt it! Like most anti-gun libbies, he most likely doesn’t own one and in a two on one, he’s likely to lose that battle.

    And, I now watch Fox more frequently than the left wing propaganda machine main slime media and find them to be far more snarky and quite frankly big liars! At least Fox has far more opposing views during their interviews, without taking shots at the guests. But, keep playing and losing!

    Mitch;

    Yea, probably was a bad example, but as I indicated to Earsell, I would be surprised if Lambo actually owned a gun, but then, most libs are hypocrites, so…

  12. Boss, help me out. As Mitch pointed out, your point makes no sense because it occurs in your home. And your response is Lambert doesn’t own a gun? Nice argument….C=4?? If I “played and lost”, you’re the intellectual skinny kid on the sidelines who never got picked.

  13. Ears,

    Mitch, it would be much easier to focus on “The Question” if you’d leave the snarkiness out.

    Not sure where the problem is. I dealt with the facts – throwing Lambert’s premise into question, at the very least – and then, perhaps, indulged in a mild snark. In that order.

    What is it that’s throwing you, here?

    Other than yourself & Selflores, it seems everyone else just came here to join your circle jerk.

    “Circle Jerk” is the new term for “people who agree with me?” Seems a little unnecessarily crude, if I may say so.

    You can’t effectively rip Lambert if you’re gonna engage in the exact same behavior!

    Hard to tell which premise is more false. I’m not “ripping” Lambert, I’m attacking his premise; I’m not engaging in the same behavior, I’m focusing on facts; whatever “behavior” I engaged in, I did in fact effectively “rip” him.

    Please advise.

  14. So Brian Lambert avoids understanding anything useful about Tony Cornish’s “Stand Your Ground” bill, and Earsall Mackbee thinks Fox News has something to do with this post. Par for the course.

  15. Just to make life more interesting, let’s think about two different situations:

    Situation one: A stranger bursts into your house waving a knife and screaming “I’m going to kill you.” Situation two: A stranger rushes toward you on the sidewalk waving a knife and screaming “I’m going to kill you.”

    In the first, your home has been invaded. Your home is your castle. You shouldn’t be legally obligated to jump out of your own window to escape the attack. You should be able to use deadly force to remain in your home while resisting the attack. That’s the Castle Doctrine.

    In the second, you are innocently going about your business when attacked. If you have a legal right to be where you are, a criminal shouldn’t be able to take away that right by threatening violence. You shouldn’t be legally obligated to run awy to cede the public sidewalk to him. You should be able to Stand Your Ground and resist his attack.

    They’re different theories designed to address different situations. Now, which of these do you object to, and why?

  16. Once the sedated Gov is put to pasture we’ll likely have a Stand Your Ground law.

  17. No doubt he extended some professional courtesy to you in the studio 25 years ago. But no, Mitch. He is a bad guy. He’s a prick, a bigot, and a 2nd rate intellect masquerading as a 1st rate intellect by virtue of some acute logorrhea. Insofar as he’s gainfully engaged in writing these days, his entire act is slurring conservatives , then implicitly patting himself on the back for being too smart to be one. He’s not engaging in argumentation. Anyone who does expository writing as endless strings of 8 clause sentences is engaging in narcissism.

  18. Question: Now, which of these do you object to, and why?

    Answer: [crickets]

    Conclusion: played and lost

  19. No doubt he extended some professional courtesy to you in the studio 25 years ago.

    Not really. He treated me like the hired help which I, in fact, was. I don’t nurse grudges.

    As to the rest of your diagnosis; it’s perfectly valid. I try to maintain an air of diplomacy, but I can’t fault your observation.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.