Quote of the day–japete

Notice that the victim had a gun in his lap, obviously also ready to fire if necessary. The safety was on so he didn’t get the chance. I suppose one could say that is self defense on the part of the shooter. It’s getting a little murky here, though. What if the victim didn’t have a gun in his lap? Would it still be self defense? Under Florida law, people are allowed to shoot someone if they feel threatened and say it is self defense. It relies on what the shooter says. And, according to someone opposed to this law which passed unanimously (with an NRA representative standing next to Governor Bush as he signed the law) juries used to decide who was guilty or innocent. Now the shooter him or herself gets to decide.

What makes this even worse is that a year ago, the shooter was charged with aggravated battery and shooting a gun in a public place. Charges were dropped last October. There must be more to this case than we are seeing in the article. Why did this man still have a concealed weapons permit? The charges last year should have been enough to revoke his license. So, before knowing all of the particulars, I am wondering if this is actually a case for “enforcing the laws already on the books.” In this case, it goes both ways. One law says that the shooter goes free with no consequences for murdering another human being in cold blood. The other says that the shooter had some gun charges against him and was still able to legally carry. Hmmm.

August 16, 2010
Shoot First everybody!
[I’ve been following japete’s blog, Common Gunsense, (as is usual for me all links to anti-rights websites have the “nofollow” attribute set) for several months. Her writing is a blend of a personal diary morning the loss of her sister and an almost solo gun control activist.

I find it interesting to observe how her mind works. There are the simplifications she makes:

There is a lot of support out there. Those of us in the “silent majority” must be making more noise about preventing senseless gun violence. We know we are right. Our language must be simple. It is, actually, a black and white issue but we tend to make it too nuanced. This morning, as I was getting dressed to spend another day at the convention, I looked at the clothes I chose. I am wearing black pants and a black and white tee shirt that says on both front and back, “Minnesotans Against Being Shot”. My shoes are black and white sneakers. So I thought of the nature of our arguments. Either you want to prevent gun injuries and deaths or you don’t. It is simple. Let’s keep it that way.

There is her dismissal as “nonsense” of arguments of others without any apparent examination of the issue:

United States Senator Charles Grassley ( R-Iowa) appeared to be wanting Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to admit that the rights “guaranteed” in the Second Amendment was written before the Constitution. How is this possible? What Senator Grassley seemed to believe, and wanted Kagan and the rest of us to believe, was that the right to bear arms was actually created by God. No kidding. Here is a video of the Kagan hearings yesterday featuring Grassley’s questioning. Nonsense.

In the QOTD we still another item of interest. She states things as facts which are not true. For example, she apparently believes the only thing required for someone to not be charged in a shooting death is for the shooter to recite the magic phrases “I felt threatened” and “It was self defense” and the prosecutor walks away from the case. Physical evidence and witnesses supporting the validity of the self-defense claim have been dropped from her reality.

These sort of things apparently enable her to remain internally, and to a certain extent externally, consistent and maintain her belief system.

From this alternated reality base she goes on to reach the conclusions that 1) Accusations (charges) which were never proven (charges were dropped) should be sufficient to punish someone (revoke a concealed carry license); and 2) Legal self defense is cold blooded murder.

I can only conclude that grief can be powerful enough to severely warp the thinking process.

If you leave comments on her blog please be gentle. I almost feel as if I am intruding simply by reading her posts. If she wasn’t an activist for infringing upon the rights of others I would never point her out to others. But as it is I think there is a lot to be learned from her about the mechanism used to warp reality into something which matches the desired conclusions.–Joe]


9 thoughts on “Quote of the day–japete

  1. ” For example, she apparently believes the only thing required for someone to not be charged in a shooting death is for the shooter to recite the magic phrases “I felt threatened” and “It was self defense” and the prosecutor walks away from the case.”

    Actually, there has been more about this issue in the press recently. Cases are being dismissed because of the “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida.


    http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/04/1761938/stand-your-ground-works-for-criminals.html – This link has a good quote: “Someone claiming to feel “threatened” no longer has an obligation to retreat, call police or avoid the use of deadly force. “What this means, as illustrated by this case, is that two individuals, or even groups, can square off in the middle of a public street, exchange gunfire, and both be absolved from criminal liability if they were reasonably acting in self-defense,” wrote Circuit Judge Terry Lewis.”

  2. Sit ubu, good dog. If you aren’t going to bring game to the table, ubu, get back in the field and quit barking!

    Unless I am missing something (besides her lies and attempts to steamroll over her opponents with her duplicitous “black and white” gambit), japete seems to be practicing “Reasoned Discourse TM” on her blog. Perhaps the Joyce Foundation should fund her since they seem to be running low on astroturfers to sponsor.

  3. ubu apparently doesn’t understand that the point of the Florida law was to keep over zealous prosecutors from bringing charges against people who had shot some one in what they believed was legitimate self-defense.
    Q’uel surprise.

  4. [He] appeared to be wanting [her] to admit that the rights “guaranteed” in the Second Amendment was written before the Constitution. How is this possible?

    The rights are natural human rights. No irony quotes go around guaranteed– the Constitution does not create any right, it merely enumerates protected natural rights.

    What [he] seemed to believe, and wanted Kagan and the rest of us to believe, was that the right to bear arms was actually created by God. No kidding. […] Nonsense.

    Err, no. Please reference Exodus 22:2 and Luke 22:36. Self-defense, including ARMED self-defense, are not only Biblical, but are commanded of the believer.

  5. emdfl,

    I understand what the law was supposed to do and I understand why people were for/against it. Did you read any of those stories I linked to?

  6. ubu52,

    I was well aware of the controversy about the “Stand Your Ground” laws. There was also a lot of controversy about repealing laws against mixed-race marriages. That doesn’t mean either advancements were the wrong thing to do.

    I read all of the stories in their entirety except for the last one. I am about 25% through that one.

    So far my take away has been, there are lot of people saying, “Criminal who should be prosecuted have to be let go.” The problem is their definition of “criminal”. They are people who are suspected of being involved in criminal activity but without a conviction. The people expressing their displeasure with the law want to be able to do “something” about their suspicions but don’t have enough evidence and or witnesses to bring a solid case to court yet. They normally would have used the use of a weapon in self-defense as their justification. But the law says suspected criminals have the right to defend themselves just as much as people above suspicion.

    I don’t see the problem other that bringing to our attention the existence of law enforcement people who want to use the law in an unequal manner.

    I’ll finish reading the rest of that last paper and report if I see something to change my mind.

    Do you think I missed something? Is there something in those stories that refutes my conclusion that japete either misunderstands the law and/or lies about it?

  7. My eyes about bugged out of my head when I saw that Japete’s sister was Barbara Lund, one of two victims in one of the most lurid high profile murders, here in Minnesota, in my lifetime. The estranged husband, the murderer, was heir to an oil and real estate fortune, in addition to the upscale grocery store chain that bore his name. They were tied up in a contentious divorce. A lot of questions about that case were never answered, because the husband committed suicide in the psych ward of the hospital on Halloween. The Coen brothers could have made an equally bizarre movie about that case, as they did about the case that involved a wood chipper.

    Being caught up in that kind of media circus at a time of such personal loss can’t be easy. Neither would it be conducive to sober reflection. If she is somewhat blind to alternative viewpoints, it is understandable.

    On the other hand, her connection to such a high profile case makes me wonder what social circles she moves in, and just how much of a solo activist she is.

Comments are closed.