Narrative, Narrative, Narrative, Narrative, Narrative, Narrative, Narrative, Narrative, Narrative…

…sorry.  It’s getting so thick, I’m getting just a tad punchy.

There’s an election coming up.  And the Democrats are going to need to need all the racial tension they can generate.

And their wholly-owned subsidiary at NPR is there to help them – in this case, in a story about Senate hearings on “Stand Your Ground” laws helpfully entitled “Senators bicker over state ‘stand your ground’ laws”:

The 2012 shooting death of Martin, 17 and unarmed, [provided you leave out “fists” and “bulk” – Ed] and the acquittal this year of neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman stirred racial tensions and sparked debate over stand your ground laws in Florida and at least 21 other states.

Well, no.

The case itself stirred no tensions to speak of – until the Obama Administration, desperate to get out the black vote, turned Martin into a campaign stage prop, with the willing and unseemly connivance of the mainstream media.

Now, if you recall the piece on “ProtectMN”‘s “strategy” for the coming year, one of their goals is to emphasize emotional stories.  This is a common debate technique, of course; as my lawyer friends tell me, “when the facts are against you, argue law; when the law is against you, argue facts; when both are against you, argue like hell” – which means “emotions”, when you get right down to it.

And the media aren’t going to do anything about it.

Case in point:

Lucia Holman McBath, the mother of Jordan Russell Davis, implored the Senate to resolve the nation’s debate. 

[I’m going to hold out on the actual incident that led Ms. McBath to testifying in the Senate for just a bit, here]

“You can lift this nation from its internal battle in which guns rule over right,” McBath told the panel.

Ms. McBath lost a 17 year old son to someone who shot him in “self-defense”.

So what was the miscarriage of justice that led to Ms. McBath’s son’s killer walking away based on a “Stand your Ground” claim?  I’ll add emphasis:

Her 17-year-old son was shot and killed nearly a year ago when Michael David Dunn, 46, allegedly opened fire on a Dodge Durango with four teenagers inside after complaining of their loud music and saying he saw a gun and thus a threat. Jordan had been inside. Authorities never found a gun in the vehicle, the Florida Times-Union reported.

And, may I add…:

Dunn’s trial is set for next year.

So Mr. Dunn hasn’t even been tried yet?

We do not know the facts of the case that NPR hasn’t deigned to report…

…well, yes. We do.  We’ve looked at this case in the past.  Dunn would seem to have done just about everything possible wrong for a “self-defense” case.  Is he claiming “stand your ground?”  Sure.

And if he’s found guilty – as I’d imagine he will be – of some degree of homicide or another?  It’s irrelevant to “Stand your Ground”, because every other factor of the shooting that would lead to a self-defense claim would seem to have been wrong.

The fact that he claims “Stand your Ground” in a shooting that is otherwise wrong in every legal particular is not a reflection on the Stand Your Ground law.

Not that NPR will tell you that.

11 thoughts on “Narrative, Narrative, Narrative, Narrative, Narrative, Narrative, Narrative, Narrative, Narrative…

  1. The Senate is looking into state murder laws using the powers granted to the Senate by . . . I’m thumbing through my copy of the Constitution . . . Article I, Section 8, Powers . . . Post Office . . . Navy . . . Money . . . hmmm, not seeing it. How about the Amendments? Press . . . Religion . . . Arms . . . Searches . . . Jury . . . Slavery . . . Alcohol – oops, repealed . . . hmmm, not seeing it there, either. Maybe it’s not an enumerated power, maybe it’s an emanation of a penumbra? No, those are for citizens’ rights, not Congress’ powers. I’m stumped. Little help, here? Emery? Dog Gone? Can someone explain to me why state murder laws are any of the Senate’s business?

  2. They are going to bring up the Dunn case whenever they can. Shut them down immediately, Dunn can claim anything he wants, he has not been tried yet. The evidence points to a drunken rage attack by Dunn on some noisy teenagers. He’ll probably cop to a manslaughter plea.
    Dunn is not an example of ‘stand your ground’ abuse. Martin is not an example of ‘stand your ground’ abuse.
    Yet, because of the twisted, crazy way the left views the world, they need to insist that the largest threat of violence towards young black men is middle aged white-guys.

  3. ” Can someone explain to me why state murder laws are any of the Senate’s business?”

    It wouldn’t surprise me if they try to claim some relevance to the Interstate Commerce Clause.

  4. Speaking of state murder laws and the interstate Commerce Clause, somehow the Empire Builder from Chicago comes to mind…….is that the reason we cannot stop this particular “commerce”?

  5. I don’t think the Martin case generated as much sympathy as hoped. Many homeowners would not mind having a neighbor like Zimmerman nearby. They may not admit it and they may not invite him to a barbeque, but they would be glad that someone “checked-out” suspicious activity in the neighborhood.

    It did, I believe, generate fear and widen the racial divide as related to interpersonal relationships. This case, as well as the Deen situation, may have made non-Black people reluctant to interact with Black people. “No hard feelings, but I might get myself in trouble with you, guns or not.” If so, that’s unfortunate.

    Still, I don’t think that gun- or stand your ground-related issues will have as much impact if the racial angle is overplayed. As Emery (I think) said in a previous post, this stuff really doesn’t apply to the average suburbanite. If true, this could explain their tacit agreement with many TEA Party beliefs, particularly if not identifed as such …

  6. The vast majority of criminals are not stopped by shooting them, certainly not by civilians shooting them. Criminals are stopped by catching them after they commit crimes and putting them in jail. Few shots are ever fired, even by the police. Little would change if civilians didn’t have guns. Yes, I know you can dream up a thousand scenarios where it would be useful to have a gun, and even find them in the news. But these instances are newsworthy because they are so rare.

  7. @Joe,
    A majority of Americans are prepared to live with gun deaths concentrated in poor, urban districts, and the relatively few that happen elsewhere. Most Americans are not at significant risk from firearms, other than from the one that may be in their own home, which, being a personal choice, does not impact their public policy views. We’re prepared to tolerate gun owners because gun ownership does not have a significant impact on the middle class.

  8. The vast majority of criminals are not stopped by shooting them, certainly not by civilians shooting them…Few shots are ever fired, even by the police. Little would change if civilians didn’t have guns.

    You’re 180 degrees wrong, Em. The change would be immense, maybe catastrophic given our society.

    No need to be so bloodthirsty – shooting criminals is the least of the benefits. It’s the deterrence that matters.

    And while it’s hard to quantify things that don’t happen – although criminologist Gary Kleck has tried – we can see what’s happened when societies traded even a modest deterrent value for none. There were never many guns in the UK – but when they were banned (in civilian hands, anyway) property and violent crime (including with guns) zoomed upward. This is a society that’s relatively much more homogenous and intrinsically orderly than ours.

    Before Australia banned guns, Oz and New Zealand had similiar (or at least parallel) crime rates. After Oz banned civilian guns, the violent crime rate in Australia boomed, while New Zealand’s crime rates (with relatively liberal civilian gun ownership) stayed flat.

    Lott showed that violent crime in shall-issue counties drops in relation to non-shall-issue counties (controlling for ambient crime rates before and after).

    Civilian gun ownership has a significant effect on crime, without a shot needing to be fired.

  9. Emery, the key to the effectiveness of carry permit laws and non-governmental ownership of guns is that uncertainty can be a greater deterrent than being openly armed. The criminal does not know whether someone will be armed when he pulls his hijinks, nor does he know who might be armed, or from what direction they’ll come.

    It’s kinda like great athletes. They don’t necessarily put up gaudy numbers every game, but they do draw the attention of their opponents, allowing others to get their numbers up. Think Michael Jordan after Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant came to town.

    End shall issue carry, and it’s going to be like Chicago or Washington, DC, EVERYWHERE. Do. the.math.

  10. Emery, I think we agree. The proximity of an item will naturally create a risk of it just by it’s presence. Now that he passed, I am at far less a risk of getting killed and eaten by a minature Schnauzer. The risk wasn’t that great to begin with, but it is now logically far less.

    Statistics are certainly bedeviling. While crime, injury, and safety hazards abound, very few people have probably ever called a cop. For anything. Yet, most departments keep busy with all kinds of things, crime-related or not. Still, while some here may disagee, I would not propose to eliminate the police because most people don’t call them. Same with automobile insurance. Most people rarely get in serious accidents.

    To carry the crime scenario a step further, many solved crimes are not the result of dogged, Columbo-like persistance. That happens, too, but it’s just not all that useful. It’s frequently a tip from a neighbor, a cop coming across useful info. while doing somethinge else, or just sheer luck. The true skill comes in being able to recognize the small pieces when they turn up, and that’s a skill, but usually, the pieces are stumbled across rather that sought out. Timothy McVeigh is an example of this.

    FYI … Bing has some type of Halloween background program with animated storm effects that don’t allow me to use it. Back to Google, I guess. Happy Halloween …

Leave a Reply

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