Chronicling the depravities of the State.
I must say if Ron Paul actually chooses Judge Napolitano as his running mate it would be the first presidential ticket in history that I could get entirely behind. From Paul’s statement it sounds as though Napolitano is a possibility:
“One time somebody asked me who I would consider and the name Judge Napolitano jumps right out at me,” Paul said to raucous cheers of approval.
All I can say is, yes please.
Virginia isn’t the only locality refusing to enforce the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a town in Massachusetts is also nullifying the clause:
A small town in Massachusetts says it is “opting out” of a federal law that allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.
The city of Northampton on Thursday passed a strongly worded resolution (PDF) to protest provisions of the federal government’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which even President Barack Obama said he had “serious reservations” about signing.
“WHEREAS, the indefinite detention of any person without trial violates the 5th and 6th amendments of the Constitution of the United States, Article III of the Constitution of the United States, and the Posse Comitatus Act,” the resolution stated.
The document went to request that public agencies “uphold the Constitution… when requested or authorized to infringe upon those Constitutionally guaranteed rights by federal agencies acting under detention powers granted by the NDAA.”
This is the kind of spine more localities in the United States of America need to grow. Instead of bowing obediently to the demands of the tyrannical federal government, local bodies need to stop up and loudly say, “NO!” I sincerely hope that every town, county, and state tell the federal government where to shove it’s indefinite detainment clause. The Bill of Rights was written in an attempt to protect the American people from an overreaching federal government. While many give the Bill of Rights magical powers the truth is those amendments added to the Constitution that supposedly protect our rights are merely words, words that must be backed up with the courage to oppose any violation of them.
Obama has been pretty careful about the topic of gun control, a stance that has left some of his supporters less than impressed. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been warning the people about a second Obama term without offering any real solution, Obama has been fulfilling his promise of working on gun control under the radar in the form of Fast and Furious. Fast and Furious has been a fiasco, one so severe Congress put a prohibition in the Department of Justice appropriations bill against using funds for another Fast and Furious-esque operation. As Uncle brought to our attention, Obama wants to strip that prohibition from the appropriations bill:
President Obama is using his budget to advance an anti-gun agenda just before the election. One particularly sneaky provision buried deep within his submission to Congress Monday would, if enacted, allow the mistakes of the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal to be repeated.
In November, the president signed the Justice Department appropriations bill, which included language from Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, prohibiting federal agencies from facilitating the transfer of an operable firearm to an individual known or suspected to be in a drug cartel, unless they monitor the weapon at all times.
Now Mr. Obama is proposing to remove that provision from the 2013 spending bill, thus making it legal to revive gun-walking operations in the future. The White House justification is merely that the prohibition is “not necessary.”
Emphasis mine. The prohibitions isn’t necessary? I think the very fact that Fast and Furious exists is enough proof that such a prohibition is necessary. Fast and Furious isn’t a hypothetical operation that has been whispered about in the halls of the Department of Justice, it is an actual operation that went down and cost lives.
Wanting to remove the prohibition from the appropriations bill demonstrates the desire of Obama to enact stronger gun control in this country. The same goes to every member of the legislature that agrees to the removal of the prohibition. Fast and Furious being about gun control isn’t an unsupported conspiracy theory, it’s an accusation backed by strong evidence.
I was bored and needed something to write about so I went to my favorite source of inane stupidity, the Star Tribune. Let me say that I found some gold:
Those writing letters in favor of the “shoot first” bill apparently haven’t bothered to check out existing relevant law.
It is clear, in my opinion, that Minnesota statutes 609.06 and 609.065, taken together, authorize a person to use force, including deadly force, that is reasonably necessary to prevent an offense upon that person, or when assisting another.
I’m not aware of any “shoot first” bill making its way through legislature, only HF 1467 and SF 1357. My assumption is that the letter writer is referring to those bills without actually understanding them because there is no wording in either version that authorizes anything about shooting first.
Either way, being a diligent man I decided to look up the statutes being referred to by the author. First we have 609.06 titled Authorized Use of Force:
609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1. When authorized. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other’s consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer’s direction:(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or
(b) in the execution of legal process; or
(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or
(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law; or
(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the other into custody; or
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or
(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property; or
(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; or
(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or
(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil, or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or
(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the passenger’s personal safety; or
(9) when used to restrain a person who is mentally ill or mentally defective from self-injury or injury to another or when used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the person’s control, conduct, or treatment; or
(10) when used by a public or private institution providing custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control, conduct, or treatment of the committed person.
Subd. 2. Deadly force used against peace officers. Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.
The obvious fact I wish to point out is the wording “reasonable force.” What amount of force is “reasonable?” There is no set in stone answer to that because everybody’s idea of reasonable is subjective. Whereas I find it reasonable to use deadly force to defend yourself from a mugger (because you can’t be sure mugging you is the only thing they intend to do) another person may not. As the law is currently written any use of force subjects the person using force to scrutiny and another person’s idea of what amount of force was reasonable (and remember that the person(s) judging were not there when you had to restort to force).
The use of deadly force is outlined in the second law mentioned by the author, 609.065:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor’s place of abode.
Emphasis mine. 609.065 specifically states that 609.06 does not authorize the use of deadly force. Therefore the use of deadly force in all mentioned actions in 609.06 is prohibited except “when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which an actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death…” Once again the wording of this law is the part that can bite you in a self-defense case. Is deadly force necessary in resisting an assailant? That really depends on who you ask and whether or not the person you ask can come up with methods in which deadly force could have been avoided. If you’re being mugged and you shoot the mugger was violence necessary? Could you have simply surrendered your belongings? Some people would say yes, while others would say there is no way of knowing.
The self-defense bills in the legislature are written to eliminate these subjective statements and give those involved in self-defense cases the benefit of the doubt. Namely the bill removes the argument that a person involved in a self-defense case could have retreated by eliminating their duty to retreat:
Subd. 3. Degree of force; retreat. An individual taking defensive action pursuant to subdivision 2 may use all force and means, including deadly force, that the individual in good faith believes is required to succeed in defense. The individual may meet force with superior force when the individual’s objective is defensive; the individual is not required to retreat; and the individual may continue defensive actions against an assailant until the danger has ended.
If a person no longer has a duty to retreat they can no longer be prosecuted for using deadly force if a third party could perceive a method in which the defender could have fled. Remember that those judging your actions and determining whether or not your use of force was “reasonable” weren’t there, they didn’t witness or take part, and they have no firsthand knowledge of what went down. Hindsight is 20/20 and it is possible that an outside looking at the situation after the fact could conjure up an avenue of retreat the defend did not notice. If somebody attacks you the benefit of the doubt should be on your side and you should have a legal right to take any means to ensure the preservation of your life. In a self-defense case the defender is not the initiator of violence and thus should not be judged as the criminal.
Not written into these statutes is the requirement to first “retreat” from a confrontation if it is reasonable and safe to do so. Importantly, the requirement to retreat does not apply in one’s home.
People need to understand that Americans inherited a great deal of common law, which is where the duty to retreat originates from. If the author of this letter actually read either HF 1467 or SF 1357 he would know this:
relating to firearms; clarifying and delimiting the authority of public officials to disarm individuals at any time; clarifying law on use of force in defense of home and person; codifying and extending Minnesota’s self-defense and defense of home laws; eliminating the common law duty to retreat in cases of self-defense outside the home;
Emphasis mine. Both bills specifically state that they eliminate the common law duty to retreat; it does not make any claim of repealing a supposed duty to retreat statute currently on the books. You don’t even have to be a lawyer to figure this out, you need only open Google and search for “common law duty retreat.”
The author is correct that the duty to retreat doesn’t apply to one’s home. This was decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court:
A duty to retreat does not attach to defense of dwelling claims. So long as a person claiming defense of dwelling meets all of the criteria for making his or her claim – that the killing was done in the belief that it was necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling, that the person’s judgment as to the gravity of the situation was reasonable under the circumstances, and that the person’s election to defend his or her dwelling was such as a reasonable person would have made in light of the danger to be apprehended – the person need not have attempted to retreat from his or her home.
Of course the failure here is, once again, the author’s lack of actually reading either self-defense bill (or, if he did read them, a lack of comprehension). Let’s look at the language in HF 1467 and SF 1357:
expanding the boundaries of dwelling for purposes of self-defense;
[…]
(d) “Dwelling” means a building defined under section 609.556, subdivision 3, an overnight stopping accommodation of any kind, or a place of abode, that an individual temporarily or permanently is occupying or intending to occupy as a habitation or home. A dwelling includes, but is not limited to, a building or conveyance and that building’s or conveyance’s curtilage and any attached or adjacent deck, porch, appurtenance, or other structure, whether the building or conveyance is used temporarily or permanently for these purposes, is mobile or immobile, or is a motor vehicle, watercraft, motor home, tent, or the equivalent.
Both bills expand the definition of dwelling to include things like camping tends, automobiles, etc. In other words you will enjoy the same protections in your car as you would in your home.
Minnesota’s self-defense laws have worked very well for a long time. No one is in prison for acting reasonably in defense of one’s self or home. There have been several cases in recent years of the use of deadly force by a person in defense of their home, and the defenders were not charged with any crime.
The bill proposed by Rep. Tony Cornish would seriously alter long-accepted standards of reasonableness, to the detriment of our citizens and the safety of law enforcement officers.
Actually the bills add clarification to a currently subjective scenario. Instead of leaving the just use of force open to interpretation it more strongly clarifies when force can legally be used. As I stated before “reasonable” is a subjective and as much subjectivity as possible should be removed from law.
Our legislators would better serve if they paid heed to the positions of Minnesota’s Police Chiefs, rank-and-file law enforcement officers and our state’s County Attorney’s Association, all of which adamantly oppose this bill.
JERRY DHENNIN, COON RAPIDS
Why would they be better served?
Just a heads up, HF 1467, the Minnesota self-defense bill, is being heard in the Minnesota Senate tomorrow. The bill already passed the House last year so once it’s through the Senate is merely needs to get Dayton’s signature (some people are doubting he’ll sign it but he’s an alcoholic so we only need to wait until he’s drunk before slipping it onto his desk) and Minnesota will have some much needed improvements to our self-defense laws.
If you want to get any medicine that contains pseudoephedrine you’re in for a lot of fun. Because pseudoephedrine is used to manufacture meth and meth has been declared verboten by the state pseudoephedrine has become a controlled substance. In order to pick up even basic cold or allergy medicine you must go to the counter, present ID, get the purchase recorded, and make sure you don’t accidentally buy more than you’re allowed. Bruce Schneier, being a security minded bloke, found an article that talks about the cost of enforcing these controls:
Now, personally, I sincerely doubt that the pharmaceutical industry has reliable estimates of how many of their purchasers actually have colds–or that they would share data indicating that half of their revenues came from meth cooks. But let’s say this is accurate: half of all pseudoephedrine is sold to meth labs. That still wouldn’t mean that manufacturers of cold medicines are making “hundreds of millions of dollars a year” off of the stuff–not in the sense that they end up hundreds of millions of dollars richer. The margins on off-patent medicines are not high, and in retail, 50% or more of the cost of the product is retailer and distributor markup*. Then there’s the costs of manufacturing.
But this is sort of a side issue. What really bothers me is the way that Humphreys–and others who show up in the comments–regard the rather extraordinary cost of making PSE prescription-only as too trivial to mention.
Let’s return to those 15 million cold sufferers. Assume that on average, they want one box a year. That’s going to require a visit to the doctor. At an average copay of $20, their costs alone would be $300 million a year, but of course, the health care system is also paying a substantial amount for the doctor’s visit. The average reimbursement from private insurance is $130; for Medicare, it’s about $60. Medicaid pays less, but that’s why people on Medicaid have such a hard time finding a doctor. So average those two together, and add the copays, and you’ve got at least $1.5 billion in direct costs to obtain a simple decongestant. But that doesn’t include the hassle and possibly lost wages for the doctor’s visits. Nor the possible secondary effects of putting more demands on an already none-too-plentiful supply of primary care physicians.
$1.5 billion of additional costs just to enforce the government’s desire on prohibiting the possession and use of a specific substance. As with any government prohibition the cost is not merely financial but in the reduction of quality of life:
Of course, those wouldn’t be the real costs, because lots of people wouldn’t be able to take the time for a doctor’s visit. So they’d just be more miserable while their colds last. What’s the cost of that–in suffering, in lost productivity?
Many substances made illegal by the federal government have medicinal, or other, uses. Cannabis has been shown to help in the fight against cancer but has been declared illegal so billions of dollars have to be spent in order to research alternative methods of providing the same affects. Between the costs in enforcing the prohibition, finding alternatives, and the cost to consumers tacked on to recover the costs of researching alternatives the government has pissed away money that could have been used for far more productive uses. Instead people are forced to pay additional taxes to fund the war on drugs, which means each person has less money to use in improving their quality of life.
In the case of pseudoephedrine controls people could be forced to simply suffer symptoms that we’ve been able to mitigate for a reasonable price because the additional costs required to enforce these government controls are simply too much for most people to bear (compared to dealing with their cold symptoms). Doctors will also have less time to treat the truly sick as they’ll have their time taken up by those suffering minor ailments that need prescriptions to get medicine that was previously easy to obtain (and thus cheaper).
Let’s stop this constant attack on our quality of life by getting the government out.
The Stasi are going to be working overtime in formerly Great Britain now that they’ll have records of every phone call, e-mail, and text message sent in the country:
Details of every phone call and text message, email traffic and websites visited online are to be stored in a series of vast databases under new Government anti-terror plans.
Landline and mobile phone companies and broadband providers will be ordered to store the data for a year and make it available to the security services under the scheme.
If you live in that forsaken realm of the damned it would be wise to personally run your own e-mail server that only accepts SSL-secured connections. While the Stasi are claiming they won’t store the contents of intercepted messages that matters not because once they know messages exist they can obtain records of them through glorious court orders (or if they have the equivalent to the United States National Security Letters they don’t even have to putz around with that). Remember that deleted e-mails may no longer be accessible to you but they’re likely accessible on some backup somewhere.
I would say denizens of Britain should attempt to flee to free America but we’re no longer free either. The best hope of not being spied on by your government is to live in a region controlled by a government that is too poor to implement a police state.
Most people express a desire to support the military personell of the United States. Driving down any busy highway will likely lead to seeing at least one bumper sticker that reads, “I Support Our Troops.” If you really want to support our troops then you should stand behind the presidential candidate they stand behind:
The number of civilians walking behind the veterans and active duty marching to show that “Ron Paul is the Choice of the Troops” was reported to be over 1,000 family members and supporters. The official march by the troops and veterans themselves is believed to have been an additional 900 people. It is unclear at this time, how many members of the public may have been in the crowd to observe this historic public statement by our veterans in support of Ron Paul for President of the United States.
I will also point out the fact that members of the United States Army, Navy, and Air Force are Paul’s biggest financial contributors.
Support the troops and vote for the candidate who will bring them home. When it comes to sending supplies to the troops most Americans are all for it but when it comes to preserving those troops’ lives from being needlessly wasted most people seem unwilling to do what is necessary and work to get Paul into office.
In an attempt to grant a monopoly on counterfeiting to the Federal Reserve the United States government has been working with printer manufacturers. This cooperation, better known as corporatism, has lead to certain printer manufacturers equipping prints to place tiny dots on every page printed in order to trace what printer any document came from. No publicly available list of printer manufacturers who were implementing this system was publicly available until now. Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request we now know who these printer manufacturers are:
Canon
Brother
Casio
Hewlett-Packard
Konica
Minolta
Mita
Ricoh
Sharp
Xerox
Basically every major printer manufacturer. Still it’s nice to have a definitive list to reference.
Via Gun Free Zone we get a lesson in fighting with the elderly, and that lesson is don’t fight with the elderly or they’ll outlive you:
When a residential burglar fired a gun at Jay Leone last month, he was initially too angry to realize he had been shot in the head, he testified Friday.
“To tell you the truth, I never felt a thing,” said Leone, 90, of Greenbrae. “I said, ‘F—- you, you son of a bitch, now it’s my turn.'”
Getting shot in the head won’t stop a pissed off old man. Some punks forget that these people didn’t get old by being total pushovers, they got old by being bad asses. So if you’re cruising around looking for easy marks to rob just remember that the 90 year-old man walking down the street is 90 years old and has probably dealt with far worse than you’re little punk ass.