{"id":26609,"date":"2012-03-05T06:00:55","date_gmt":"2012-03-05T12:00:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=26609"},"modified":"2012-09-02T09:01:53","modified_gmt":"2012-09-02T14:01:53","slug":"an-editorial-without-a-word-of-truth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=26609","title":{"rendered":"An Editorial Without A Word Of Truth"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Strib <\/em>finally did it.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Strib’s <\/em>editorial board, in serving in its unstated capacity as stenographers for the DFL and its agenda, have written some howlers over the years; countering them has provided a constant source of material for Minnesota’s large, thriving center-right alternative media for a solid decade now.<\/p>\n

But over the weekend, they pulled off the unthinkable – the triple three-peat, the three-minute mile, winning 164 games in a regular season of editorial writing.<\/p>\n

They wrote an editorial that was absolutely devoid of truth, or of objective fact. \u00a0Literally, not one assertion\u00a0<\/strong>in the entire column\u00a0<\/strong>about Representative Cornish’s “Stand Your Ground” bill is true<\/strong>, or not presented in a context that isn’t 180 degrees misleading.<\/p>\n

An editorial that is, to a moral and ethical “T”, perfectly untrue<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>beyond simple things like “the legislature passed…” or “Jim Backstrom is…”, obviously).<\/p>\n

The thought of cataloging all the individual lies in this editorial is almost too daunting. \u00a0But if not me, who?<\/p>\n

Now that the Legislature has passed a bill that would allow gun owners to use deadly force anywhere they feel threatened, only Gov. Mark Dayton can prevent it from becoming law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This statement starts out with a bang (as it were), proving the stenographer<\/del> writer’s absolute ignorance on the subject. \u00a0Minnesota law currently <\/em>says you can use lethal force when you feel threatened. \u00a0The bill doesn’t change the justifications for lethal force<\/em>. \u00a0Not at all. \u00a0 It has nothing to do with how the law-abiding shooter “Feels”.<\/p>\n

It has to do with the burden of proof in judging their motives, and only under certain circumstnces.<\/p>\n

More later.<\/p>\n

Known as an expanded version of the “castle doctrine,” the bill would allow Minnesotans to shoot to kill even if they aren’t at home. The state’s current castle law already allows citizens to use deadly force in their homes to protect themselves.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This statement is proof that the writer is just re-writing a press release from Heather Martens.<\/p>\n

Minnesotans – and residents of any state, for that matter – can already use lethal force to defend themselves, in or out of their homes. \u00a0 Self-defense has been an accepted part of the law since before there was <\/em>a United States.<\/p>\n

The problem in MInnesota is that self defense is called an “affirmative defense”; you plead guilty to shooting someone, with an explanation. \u00a0You are then guilty until you prove yourself innocent<\/em>, and show to the court’s and jury’s satisfaction that you were…:<\/p>\n