Implausible
By Mitch Berg
This is why I wonder how much prosecuting Kamala Harris did while she was in, and then leading, the San Francisco District Attorney’s office.
The first rule of armed self-defense, especially in a “blue” city, is you never talk about armed self-defense.
A particularly zealous DA – like Harris – could use a statement like Harris’s as evidence that one was looking to kill someone; if one were involved in an incident, the DA could use a statement like that to try to impeach the idea that you were an “unwilling participant” in the incident. Which is enough to turn a righteous self-defense shooting into a term in prison, if you get the wrong jury.
So let’s say I have my doubts.
September 26th, 2024 at 2:33 pm
could use a statement like Harris’s as evidence that one was looking to kill someone – credible threat followed by admission the person owns a gun, grounds for pre-emptive arrest and incarceration for the good of society? Who says libturds are not using 1984 and Minority Report as a manual?
September 26th, 2024 at 4:10 pm
Regarding Harris, there are any number of places where I, even being a nonlawyer, ask myself how precisely she could have passed the bar. The latest is something I contemplated today; she wants to end the filibuster for prenatal infanticide in order to pass a federal law and effectively make Dobbs irrelevant, but then again, the whole point of Dobbs was to return abortion law to the states.
So a federal law presuming to override state law would run into the teeth of the 10th Amendment. The gun claim is another.
September 27th, 2024 at 9:17 am
Maybe she was channeling Uncle Joe who said to take a double-barrel shotgun out on the porch and then fire off a round to ward off intruders.