Quote of the day—Eric Holder

Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods.

By allowing — and perhaps encouraging — violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety.

Eric Holder
U.S. Attorney General
July 16, 2013
Holder wades deeper into Zimmerman battle, calls for review of ‘stand-your-ground’
[Does it “sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods” when the police stand their ground against a thug that threatens them or other innocent life? Or do they have a duty to retreat, as Holder thinks private citizens should, as well? If not then why the difference?

If this is “separate and apart from the case” then why bring it up now? I am suspicious that Holder is of the opinion that self-defense should be deprecated and the Zimmerman/Martin case is a convenient vehicle to further that agenda.

There are hints in Holders words above that indicate he believes all human lives are of equal value. This is not true (H/T to Robb’s Tweet). This is a collectivist mindset which, in essence, regards people as little more than cattle. The meat and milk from one cow is just as good as the meat and milk from another cow.

The thug threating to cause grievous bodily injury to an innocent life has reduced the value of their life to something less than their victim. When one or the other lives are certain to suffer severe harm the innocent victim is fully justified in using deadly force, risking the life of the aggressor, to defend themselves. This is a very individualist rights approach to the situation. The collectivist either does not understand the concepts or rejects them. In their mind damaged meat is damaged meat.

There is nothing wrong with “escalating” in self-defense when in a “violent situation” when an innocent life is put in jeopardy. I have seen what backing down to aggressive animals on the farm does. They get more aggressive because the behavior was successful in achieving their goals. If you can safely do so you must stand up to them, put them in their place, or get rid of them. If you don’t they will rule the barnyard. The same is true with aggressive animals on the street. Either Holder doesn’t understand this or his agenda includes violent thugs dominating innocent people in public.—Joe]

30 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Eric Holder

  1. I’m going with Holder being on the side of violent thugs dominating innocent people in public.

    All commies are that way.

  2. It would appear that the Left would have been perfectly fine with this situation if Zimmerman would have been the one killed. The fact that the AG is suggesting that it is better for society that the victim of a crime submit to injury and death rather than protect themselves as is ludicrous.

  3. “By allowing — and perhaps encouraging — violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety. ”

    But giving guns to Mexican Drug cartels is an awesome idea!

      • Leftists love to talk about the “cycle of violence” and how it must be stopped. Generally speaking, there are two places in the “cycle of violence” where it can be stopped. They are not morally equivalent, and normal human beings recognize this fact. Generations of stories reflect this, with a hero righting wrongs at great personal risk.
        Where it makes no difference morally, those are different stories.
        You have to have gone to graduate school to miss this distinction.

  4. My FB circle is a hard-bitten bunch, but this statement surprised all of us.

    Consider:

    1. That the statement was made BY a black leader TO a crowd of black leaders.
    2. That the statement can only be taken to mean that Holder fails to understand the concept of Natural Rights, especially the primacy of the Human Right of self defense.
    3. That human rights are absolutes: you support them in order to co-exist with your fellow humans, or you deny them to in order to prey on your fellow humans. There is NO middle ground.

    Taking these thoughts together, this Holder speech tells me that Holder, one of the main leaders of this Government, just advocated FOR the predation of his Government ON it’s own people, and he framed that advocacy in racial terms.

    US Attorney General Eric Holder has just approved of violence by blacks on other races. President Obsma now must decide to remove Eric Holder from leadetship, or admit that he, too, supports race-based Government predation.

    We may have just seen the line between simple bad leadership and outright Tyranny crossed here, with our Government having just clearly expressed tyrannical intententions.

    • Just typed and deleted two posts. Suffice it to say that my trust/respect of both Holder and Obummer are so close to zero that the needle has wrapped itself around the low peg. Keep barking, Holder…if there’s any justice left in this country, you and Obummer are next in the defense chair.

  5. The most benign interpretation is that Holder doesn’t understand self defense. Specifically, the fact that self defense is a natural right practiced by most living things. As I pointed out a while ago, even mushrooms understand self defense — in other words, Holder is (in this interpretation) stupider than a mushroom.
    A less benign interpretation is that he values criminals more highly than normal people.
    A still less benign interpretation is that he opposes the individual capability of self defense because it prevent totalitarianism. (This is the Lenin/Mao/Hitler school of gun control.)
    Personally, I’m wavering between explanations #2 and #3, tending towards #3.

    • Paul, your analysis is sound,
      My money has been on option #3 for a long time.
      Remember Holder’s involvement during the Clinton regime with Ruby Ridge and Waco … That pretty much tells all you need to know.

      • I didn’t realize that. No wonder he’s busy erecting smoke screens — he’s got good reason to worry about being charged with being an accessory to mass murder.

      • I hadn’t heard that. I knew Holder had been the bagman for Marc Rich’s pardon, but didn’t know he was involved in Waco or Ruby Ridge.

        • “A less benign interpretation is that he values criminals more highly than normal people.”

          They vote reliably the way they are told. I’m going with this one.

  6. I’ve come to the Conclusion that when Holder opens his mouth in Public, it’s Obama that’s speaking. I don’t see Holder coming up with this attack on “Stand Your Ground” all by his lonesome. I do see trying to STOP “Stand Your Ground” from spreading to other States, and this is an effort at “Jury Tampering”. After all, there’s no place for the RKBA in the “Fundamental Transformation of America,” because Big Brother will Protect you, just like they flooded Boston with every Federale that was available. (Pay No Attention to the fact that it was a CITIZEN who discovered the Second Bomber, that doesn’t fit the Revisionist History).

    Also, Alan Gura is now on the Maryland vs Wollard case, which not only addresses “Shall/May Issue”, but also just where in Public the Right to Self-Defense is to be defined. And we KNOW that Wollard will be pushed up to SCOTUS, because THAT is where Alan likes to Fight for us, not the lower courts. So this is another Pre-Emptive Strike to sway SCOTUS.

    Stay Alert, because this one won’t be going away.

  7. I will not retreat and I expect and will give NO quarter. If this makes me un-PC so be it, I believe it makes me a true American.

  8. Pingback: Quote of the day—Rivrdog | The View From North Central Idaho

  9. How much do you know about Florida’s SYG law? Here’s a couple of good things to read:

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133
    http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/data

    The Zimmerman case made a lot of noise, but look at this case: http://justiceforbrandonbaker.com/
    Who was the aggressor in this case? And what is it with these wannabe cops?

    I don’t believe the Florida law protects innocent people.

  10. The Tampa Bay Times disagrees with your last point: the first article you quoted makes it very clear that it protects the innocent, as intended. It also asserts that it at times protects the guilty. That may be a flaw in the law or a flaw in its enforcement, if true. Either way it can be corrected. BTW, you may have heard that a commission charged with reviewing the law just reported the other day that “it is working as intended” and no changes were needed.
    Looking at the “data” link, I checked out the first four cases listed. Cases 1, 3 and 4 are clear cut valid use of force. Case 2 is questionable mainly because I’ve been taught that you stop shooting when the bad guy runs away.

    • Law, properly designed, has ALWAYS allowed an occasional guilty person to go free, in an effort to prevent a single innocent person from being unjustly convicted.
      This is not what happened in the Zimmerman trial. It was righteous self-defense against a thug who viciously attacked Zimmerman.
      Travon got what he had coming because he created the situation by attacking Zimmerman.
      This case really had nothing to do with “stand your ground.” The defense didn’t raise that defense, since George didn’t have a chance to either retreat or stand his ground. He was ON the ground having his head pounded on the concrete after Travon sucker punched him, breaking his nose and knocking him down.

      • Sounded reasonable to me. He thought his wife was being raped. He didn’t know if the guy had a gun or a knife to her head. He acted reasonably.
        If I caught you on top of my wife on my living room floor in the middle of the night, you’d probably get the same.

  11. “Waffles” is a cute word play, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the case. One might argue whether the situation was rape or not, but that’s irrelevant. What is relevant is whether a reasonable person in that same situation would believe it to be. I would say yes to that.
    Note also that SYG is not relevant here. The situation was in the home, and the party under attack (the women) could not retreat. I don’t know of any state in the US that requires retreat in the home — the misguided notion of a duty to retreat is only outside.

    • AFAIK, she wasn’t being raped. This was consensual sex. She had been having a sexual relationship with the other man for a couple of years. Here’s a couple different versions of the story: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_east_hillsborough/brandon/ralph-wald-acquitted-of-murdering-wifes-lover-plans-to-work-on-marriage

      http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/31/florida-man-acquitted-via-stand-your-ground-after-shooting-wifes-lover/

      Per the story: “Episcopo, Wald’s defense attorney, argued that Wald was within the bounds of the “Stand Your Ground” law and was under no legal obligation to refrain from using lethal force in protecting himself and his home.”

      Prior to SYG, I believe they used to call it murder when you killed your wife’s lover, even if you did it in your own home.

      • The moral of the story is, “don’t be banging some other guy’s wife on his living room floor.” (Or anywhere else in his house, either. You might not get the happy ending you’re looking for.)

      • You’re missing both my points. I didn’t argue whether it was consensual or not (though the Enquirer article implies she was unconscious from alcohol, which means lack of consensus at least in universities). I said that a reasonable person observing that situation might reasonably have concluded that it was rape. That’s all that is required.
        Second, SYG has nothing to do with this case. The person who appeared to be under attack could not retreat, and in any case there is no duty to retreat in your home.
        With or without SYG, if you kill your wife’s lover with premeditation, that’s murder. But if you kill that person when arriving on the scene and having to make a snap judgment, if reasonable people would believe there to be a rape in progress then you go free. And you should.

        • I read this excellent article yesterday regarding the difference between Florida and California’s “reasonable person.” in the jury instructions. (California has no SYG law.) http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/07/does-california-like-florida-have-stand-your-ground-law.html

          “But Plesser’s law partner, Mark Reichel, underscored the difference between Florida law — where the jury must gauge whether the defendant believes he’s acting reasonably — and California, where ‘the ultimate test of reasonableness is objective.'”

          Anyway, it’s interesting to look at the different laws and the use/abuse of SYG in Florida.

          • What PaulKoenig said.
            There is “self defense”, and there is “defense of another”. The legal test for each is the reasonableness of the belief. To require the defender to know the facts as they actually are places an impossible burden on him (or her) and would stop all efforts to defend strangers. How do you know it’s a mugging/attempted murder versus a drug bust going badly?
            The woman’s putative consent is as irrelevant as whether Trayvon Martin had bought Skittles or Reece’s Pieces or M&M’s before going out in the rain to case the condo complex and try to take out the arrogant square who thought he could follow him and rat him out.

  12. Joe, would you look at this “study” and check the math? http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf

    I went through it one time, did an alternative analysis for Florida (one of the case studies they use) and found serious flaws in methodology (such as using an inappropriate control group which had more states without a normalized population or economy or even urban distribution and a failure to account for normal variation in the homicide rates of states in question).

    I think we’ll see more of this schlock coming up as people look for pseudo-scientific justification for limitations on freedom.

    • This is simply another contrived, cherry-picked “study,” aimed at a pre-determined conclusion supporting the collectivist goal of victim disarmament.
      The authors are ignorant toadies.

Comments are closed.