Years ago, in a blog that doesn’t even exist anymore, I wrote an article about the then relatively new phenomenon of “stand your ground” laws. The crux was that these new statutes ultimately push the legal system toward a perverted form of trial by combat, introducing a new means of summarily dispensing with lethal gun violence if the perpetrator can cobble together some semblance of a self-defense claim. Before even getting to the strictures of a trial, the “winner” of a deadly altercation can just say they felt threatened and the victim is no longer there to suggest otherwise.
The years since have only strengthened this argument. Assuming the shooter wasn’t Black.
"[W]hen they tell the jury that the law allows crossing state lines with an assault rifle and gunning down people in the streets, it’s not easy to win a conviction."
And when you make such an egregious misrepresentation of fact it becomes impossible to believe anything else you say.
LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATELiberty is paramount. Government is an afterthought.
"the “winner” of a deadly altercation can just say they felt threatened and the victim is no longer there to suggest otherwise." -- Julie London, "Cry me a river."
People (particularly those of lower self-awareness) commonly project onto others their own proclivities. Clearly she herself is the sort of person who routinely tries to deceive people by the described means, so she naturally assumes that others do the same.
"It is impossible for anyone to conceive of a morality superior to their own." - CG Jung *
* The reason this is true is; anyone who recognizes superior morality, takes it as their own. IOW, they do not recognize it as superior unless they adopt it as their own.
Modified by LateForLunch at Sun, Nov 21, 2021, 14:01:47
