via Daily Gun Pictures, via Say Uncle.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Jayson Williams Taking the Deal
The Associated Press reports on the Jayson Williams' plea deal, agreed upon in the fatal, accidental shooting of his driver.
So, instead of the manslaughter charge he'll plead to aggravated assault which in New Jersey requires some time in jail if a gun was involved. That sounds like a normal plea deal. But what did he actually do, what was his crime?
Retired NBA star Jayson Williams has agreed to a plea deal that would send him to prison for up to three years for accidentally shooting a driver at his New Jersey estate in 2002, a person with knowledge of the case told The Associated Press on Thursday.
Williams, who retired in 2000 after playing nine seasons in the NBA for the Philadelphia 76ers and New Jersey Nets, was to face a retrial in January on a reckless manslaughter count.
The person, who was not authorized to speak about the case, told the AP on condition of anonymity that Williams is to plead guilty Friday to aggravated assault. Because a gun was used in the crime, Williams must serve at least 18 months in prison, the person said.
So, instead of the manslaughter charge he'll plead to aggravated assault which in New Jersey requires some time in jail if a gun was involved. That sounds like a normal plea deal. But what did he actually do, what was his crime?
Witnesses testified that Williams was showing off a shotgun in his bedroom in February 2002 when he snapped the weapon shut and it fired one shot that struck driver Costas Christofi in the chest, killing him. They also testified that Williams initially placed the gun in the dead man's hands and instructed those present to lie about what happened.
The defense has maintained the shooting was an accident and that Williams panicked afterward.
During his trial, the jury deadlocked on the reckless manslaughter count, acquitted Williams of aggravated manslaughter and convicted him of covering up the shooting. He was never sentenced for the cover-up counts, pending the outcome of the retrial, and has remained free on bail.
What is it with these guys who don't know about The Rules? It reminds me of Breda in that video she posted recently in which she clearly violated at least two of the four rules, yet all her supporters ignored that in their enthusiasm to praise her. Shouldn't gun owners, whether they're retired NBA stars or pro-gun bloggers be held to a higher standard of gun comportment?
What Jayson Williams did, unless anyone thinks he really wanted to murder his driver, was nothing more than a stupid accident. What do you think? Is spending a few years in jail a fair sentence for an accident? Do you think the attempt to cover it up should be considered another crime and add to his punishment? Wasn't that nothing more than a panicked reaction?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
What is Terrorism?
Liberal Viewer questions the use of the word terrorism in the Ft. Hood case. The incredible ubiquity of these references in relation to Maj. Hasan's attack to me suggests some type of manipulation. My opinion from the beginning was that Hasan was a mentally ill crackpot, nothing more, and attempts to paint his act as terrorism are driven by other motives, as explained in the video.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Death Penalty for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
America Magazine published a post in their blog which I found very interesting. (via The Deacon's Bench)
Now those are pragmatic considerations that even the most blood-thirsty vengeance seekers should consider. Upon execution, Sheikh Mohammed becomes a martyr and The United States becomes more the oppressor in the eyes of the world. Is that what we really want?
What do you think?
From our friend Camille D'Arienzo, RSM, who works with those on death row.Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try the accused 9/11 perpetrators in a civilian court near Ground Zero has ignited a national debate over whether the accused Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his companions should face a military or civilian court. Other concerns include the safety of the city, the opportunity for propaganda and the possibility of acquittal, based on waterboarding the men experienced in Guantanamo.
One matter not being debated is Mr. Holder’s determination to urge the prosecution to seek the death penalty for these mass murderers.
If the destruction perpetrated here had occurred in London, Paris, Rome or any other European city, the death penalty would not be debated either. It is not allowed in nations that form the European Union.
If the death penalty were forbidden here, life without parole would at very least deprive these mass murderers of presenting themselves as martyrs and us as their killers.
Now those are pragmatic considerations that even the most blood-thirsty vengeance seekers should consider. Upon execution, Sheikh Mohammed becomes a martyr and The United States becomes more the oppressor in the eyes of the world. Is that what we really want?
What do you think?
Sebastian W. Olivares-Coster Pleads Guilty
The Independent Record reports on the guilty plea entered by Sebastian W. Olivares-Coster. We talked about him before here and here.
I find it difficult to understand how a young man could do something like this and still be considered of sound mind. To me the two are mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean I necessarily think he should be released or that he should receive a short sentence. He may be too unstable and dangerous for release.
An interesting aspect of this case was the investigation into where the gun came from and the eventual prosecution of the man who supplied it.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
[He] admitted Wednesday to intentionally shooting and trying to kill three teenage boys in a seemingly unprovoked attack that left one of the boys dead.What could possibly have motivated him to do something like this? In the report there was something about an argument or some jealousy or something. But what kind of rage is that, which is sustained long enough to decide to do it, to get the gun, to travel to the site of the incident and still shoot three people?“I shot and killed one person and I shot and seriously injured two others, and I don’t know why,” Olivares-Coster said in District Court, after entering guilty pleas on one deliberate homicide charge and two counts of attempted deliberate homicide.
As soon as transportation can be arranged, Olivares-Coster will be taken to the state mental hospital in Warm Springs for a two-month evaluation. Gallagher said he found out two days prior to the Wednesday hearing that the defense could argue that their client is guilty but mentally ill.
According to his plea agreement, Olivares-Coster will be allowed to present evidence and testimony during his sentencing that he was suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the shooting that made him unable to know he was committing a crime or to be law abiding.
I find it difficult to understand how a young man could do something like this and still be considered of sound mind. To me the two are mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean I necessarily think he should be released or that he should receive a short sentence. He may be too unstable and dangerous for release.
An interesting aspect of this case was the investigation into where the gun came from and the eventual prosecution of the man who supplied it.
There's the gun culture for you. An underage person wanted a gun for home protection, sure thing. What could be more American than that?A Helena man who has pleaded guilty to a federal charge of transferring a handgun to a juvenile for buying the .45-caliber pistol used in the shooting will be sentenced Monday. Jared T. Cox, 21, said Olivares-Coster gave him money to buy the gun and ammunition in May.
Court documents say Olivares-Coster told Cox he wanted the pistol for “home protection.” Cox faces up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
It Was the Dog's Fault
Mercury News reports on an incident which took place in San Luis Obispo, California.
I know we've talked about it before, but shouldn't that last line be, "illegally possessing a weapon" instead of "possessing an illegal weapon." I dislike those sloppy renderings of the story because the pro-gun folks like to point them out as evidence that the media and the liberals and the gun control crowd don't know what they're talking about. The fact is, we do know what we're talking about and the way it's worded in the article perfectly communicates the idea, which is the main point. Ideas matter. When people derail the entire argument over minor miswordings that does not interrupt the flow of information, I have to wonder why they do that.
What do you think about John Norris? He had a gun in the home that for some reason he shouldn't have had even though he'd had no history of crime or domestic violence. What if he was just exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms in order to protect himself in the home? That wouldn't make him a bad guy, would it? The way I see it he's mainly guilty of having had a terrible accident.
Some say gun control laws don't work, that this guy is proof. California has strict laws, Norris disobeyed them. What I say is the strict gun control laws are not aimed at guys like Norris, who are willing to disregard them. The laws are aimed at the law abiding. There is a point at which a gun passes from the possession of a lawful owner to that of a criminal. The laws are aimed at the lawful gun owner and they should be made strict enough to better encourage that lawful gun owner to not allow the gun to pass to the criminal.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
A man is blaming his dog for his wife's shooting death in San Luis Obispo County.Twenty-five-year-old John Norris is charged with involuntary manslaughter for shooting his wife in July as she say on a couch in their San Miguel condominium. A sheriff's deputy testified Tuesday at a preliminary hearing that Norris claimed he was standing on the stairs with a handgun when his dog tripped him and caused him to shoot his 24-year-old wife Tasha.
Norris says he had the pistol because he planned to remove the ammunition before fire inspectors arrived to examine new sprinklers. His attorney says Norris, who has no criminal record or history of domestic violence, loved his wife.
Norris has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter and possessing an illegal weapon.
I know we've talked about it before, but shouldn't that last line be, "illegally possessing a weapon" instead of "possessing an illegal weapon." I dislike those sloppy renderings of the story because the pro-gun folks like to point them out as evidence that the media and the liberals and the gun control crowd don't know what they're talking about. The fact is, we do know what we're talking about and the way it's worded in the article perfectly communicates the idea, which is the main point. Ideas matter. When people derail the entire argument over minor miswordings that does not interrupt the flow of information, I have to wonder why they do that.
What do you think about John Norris? He had a gun in the home that for some reason he shouldn't have had even though he'd had no history of crime or domestic violence. What if he was just exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms in order to protect himself in the home? That wouldn't make him a bad guy, would it? The way I see it he's mainly guilty of having had a terrible accident.
Some say gun control laws don't work, that this guy is proof. California has strict laws, Norris disobeyed them. What I say is the strict gun control laws are not aimed at guys like Norris, who are willing to disregard them. The laws are aimed at the law abiding. There is a point at which a gun passes from the possession of a lawful owner to that of a criminal. The laws are aimed at the lawful gun owner and they should be made strict enough to better encourage that lawful gun owner to not allow the gun to pass to the criminal.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
2nd Amendment Theory
Up till now I've mainly asked questions. It's time I stated what my theory is and why.
I'd first like to point out that I've read thousands of posts and comments, for the most part from pro-gun writers, numerous articles and several books including ones by Professors Lott and Kleck. Although I don't think of myself as an expert by any stretch, this is what I've concluded, at least this is my opinion at this point. Feel free to consider it a work in progress.
In the late 18th century the 2nd Amendment was understood to guarantee the right to bear arms in order for small communities of men to band together, forming a militia, in order to protect themselves from standing armies, invading forces or federal government oppression. There was no such thing as the right to bear arms in order to protect oneself or one's home. The purpose was a collective one.
It's difficult to compare that society with today's. The factors at work back then have no relevance today except for extreme Libertarians and those referred to as "threepers." These are folks who really believe in protecting themselves from the federal government. Even they are wrong, however, they're really operating out of paranoia, grandiosity and fantasy, but at least for them it makes some sense. For the rest, the 90+% of gun owners, claiming the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is nothing more than a manipulation, a wilful distortion in order to enjoy their "defense of last resort," as Denis Henigan calls it.
What's your opinion? Am I on the right track? Please leave a comment.
I'd first like to point out that I've read thousands of posts and comments, for the most part from pro-gun writers, numerous articles and several books including ones by Professors Lott and Kleck. Although I don't think of myself as an expert by any stretch, this is what I've concluded, at least this is my opinion at this point. Feel free to consider it a work in progress.
In the late 18th century the 2nd Amendment was understood to guarantee the right to bear arms in order for small communities of men to band together, forming a militia, in order to protect themselves from standing armies, invading forces or federal government oppression. There was no such thing as the right to bear arms in order to protect oneself or one's home. The purpose was a collective one.
It's difficult to compare that society with today's. The factors at work back then have no relevance today except for extreme Libertarians and those referred to as "threepers." These are folks who really believe in protecting themselves from the federal government. Even they are wrong, however, they're really operating out of paranoia, grandiosity and fantasy, but at least for them it makes some sense. For the rest, the 90+% of gun owners, claiming the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is nothing more than a manipulation, a wilful distortion in order to enjoy their "defense of last resort," as Denis Henigan calls it.
What's your opinion? Am I on the right track? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
