Washington Post’s nation of victims
The Washington Post‘s editorial board tries to influence the “stand your ground” discussion that’s going on in the country and of course they take the side of the criminals and criminalize the victim;
Instead of requiring potential victims of crime to retreat if they have a safe escape route, these laws allow people to use deadly force without attempting to avoid a potentially lethal confrontation. They also often contain other generous protections for killers claiming self-defense.
So the victims become “killers” in the space of two sentences.
There is a reason that the duty to retreat is a concept respected by centuries of legal application. Setting a laxer standard encourages tragic mistakes, poor judgment and perhaps even vigilantism. A recent study from two Texas A&M University researchers found that “lowering the expected cost of lethal force causes there to be more of it.” Stand-your-ground states saw more homicides than their peers — about 600 more a year over the period they studied. One possible explanation is that stand-your-ground laws encourage people to escalate conflicts rather than withdraw.
What about the criminals’ “duty to retreat”? I have no way to escape someone who has forcibly gained entrance to my residence because I can barely walk. So if a criminal doesn’t want to be shot, he should depart as soon as the Glock 30 comes off my night table, because it’s his duty to stop in the commission of his crime. I’m not going to shoot someone in the back who is making his escape from the ten rounds of .45 caliber ammunition. So, why is it my duty to retreat, something I’m physically incapable of doing anyway?
Criminals have a duty to society to not commit their crimes, once they’ve violated their part of the social contract, they should expect whatever they’re dealt. And suppose that while I’m beating a hasty retreat, I get shot in the back? Do you think a criminal will respect my duty to retreat? They already broke into my house, so I’m sure they don’t want to leave witnesses to their crime. Who is going to protect my family when I’m laying bleeding on the floor after I fulfilled my duty to retreat?
This is why we aren’t able to fight wars anymore, too. We’re supposed to be better than our enemies who kill us anytime, using any means necessary, but we have to play by our arbitrary rules, hoping the enemy will abide by the same rules after we’ve set the example for them. Of course, they never do, and our troops are put at a disadvantage which ends up costing lives and limbs. Remember after the Gulf War we had to stop destroying Iraqi equipment because we were being mean to the Iraqis. As soon as they made good their escape, they turned their weapons on their own unarmed minority groups while we stood and watched them do what we should have done to them.
Now the left wants to turn us into a nation of victims by making it the law that we abandon our families and homes to the criminals hoping that those criminals will be better people for it. Every day we here at TAH post stories about folks who rescued their families from violent criminals by standing their ground and refusing to be victims.
Yes, more criminals are killed than victims, why is the Washington post and the Obama Administration so convinced that is a bad thing?
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Gun Grabbing Fascists, Media, Politics
Because obamao and his minions are in charge, and the only way he and his ilk can reign is for this nation to become a population of cowards and victims…
Is the staff of WaPo, and particularly the witless idiot who wrote that piece, going to pay for my funeral and take in my critters for the rest of their lives, when I can’t run fast enough to get away from someone who wants to kill me?
This writer may not say so in so many words, but this also castigates the passengers of airlines who take matters into their own hands to subdue an unruly passenger who may or may not be an actual threat, but who is acting in a threatening manner.
If someone tries to steal my purse or my car, I will not sit still for it.
Fie on such cowardice.
Jonn, what would you expect from the leaf eaters at the Washington Post. The mere sight of guns would probably make most of them piss down their legs.
So you use a Glock 30 as well. Have you tried the HK 45 ? It’s a great pistol to help those who are trying to turn their life around at the expense of others.
Actually, my next gun is going to be a Colt Defender, if I can convince my wife I need another .45.
The folks behind the efforts to defeat self-defense are not pro-life, they just enjoy watching the news to see if their neighbor or their own children were gunned down, hacked to death, or brutally raped.
UFC must be too tame for them.
In the liberal mind, it’s not a question of authority or right/wrong, but moral relativism, situational ethics, what have you.
By golly, those criminals have “needs” too, and how dare you stand in their way when they try to do harm to you or your loved ones or your property, dammit!
That is, until they become the victims, and they realize just how thin the veneer of society really is in fact.
Fucking cowards. Why do they feel that good, honest folk have to give ground to the criminal? No wonder they call it a “Criminal Justice” system. Seems like they’re more interested in justice for the criminal than the victim.
What utter idiocy. The law does not allow a person to simply state that they were afraid and use that as an excuse… it requires that you be the intended victim of a crime that left you in great fear of loss of life or great bodily harm. It puts the power in the hands of the law abiding citizen to be able to protect themself, and not have to worry about some overzealous prosecutor pulling a stunt like they did in Florida even with the law.
It is almost as if these idiots believe that criminals should have more protections than you or I. Sorry, you come at me, I will decide my own fate not some editorial board at the Washington Post.
The comments on that story are really scary.
“….encourage armed vigilantes walking the streets of America with guns usurping the authority of the police. If trouble comes your ways on the streets your should run from it before you embrace it if you are able. In the home, breaking & entry is not a capital offense, you should not be able to use deadly force if deadly force is not warranted. If a burgurlar comes in the front door you run out the back and call 911 on your cell. Revamp concealed carry for due cause not shall issue.
Run out the back door and call 911?!?! in your own home? Where do these victims come from? Who thinks like this?
hope i can post this here for your readers thot this would appropriate for your site keep up the good work
http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130715001-ga-marine-beat.html
One of the “justifications” I’ve come across from the anti stand your ground lobby is that “most” burglars are not interested in hurting anyone just taking stuff. My answer has been “most”? How do I know if the disadvantaged gentleman who just broke into my home, is going to harm me or just take my stuff?
I’ve never received a rational reply to that question.
The aim must be anarchy. That’s all I can think, when the powers that be call for citizens to retreat from criminals.
The WP is trying to make it sound like SYG is being used an an excuse for shootings in arguments over parking spaces.
Juries and judges are not as stupid as that. I’ve read two recent accounts where two women where charged with murder and attempted murder while trying to use stand your ground. In the Murder case the woman shot a man through her driver’s side window as he approached her after a traffic incident. He was completely unarmed and never as much as touched her car.
The attempted murder was when a woman went back into her house with a gun after an argument with her ex and shot the place up.
Thank you, Jonn, for this response. It’s an excellent exposure of the mindset of those on the left who would have us all become “victims” of one sort or another.
Turning citizens into “victims” is one of the ways the left tries to gain and hold power in this country. By turning people into “victims” they can then support them through various government programs whose primary purpose is to ensure that the persons remain as victims, and thus dependent upon the state, as well as to line the pockets of the Victim Industry bullies.
In other words, they want to change us from citizens into subjects. We fought a war over that once. We should be willing to do so again if needs be.
As Henry Clay said “A man with a rifle is a citizen. A man without one is a subject.”
Obama has so many domestic and foreign issues he does not want to deal with he makes Travon Martin and Zimmerman his duty from the Oval Office. His duty to identify with Martin and push his liberal minions to take self defense up as an issue which will make victims of the assaulted no matter what. While the criminal has all the rights available that Obama wants to give them to do as much harm as possible to whomever they choose. This is more smoke and mirrors that will change into policies at the federal and state levels, like mine in liberal Washington State, for me to engage a burglar in my home with harsh language only. They throw out numbers of those killed like they were murder. When in fact they were law abiding citizens exercising their right to defend themselves in life threatening situations. No matter the federal or state laws which may come from this Obama diversion and now his cause to champion, I WILL defend my home and family. I would rather be alive and face the judicial system than dead. Better to be alive to ask for forgiveness and justice than dead asking my wife what kind of flowers she wants on my coffin. That is if she lives through a home intrusion. By the way I am glad to know there is someone else with a Glock 30 next to their bed like me. Love that weapon.
What about the criminals’ “duty to retreat”?
Or even what about the criminals duty to not commit crimes in the first f#cking place?
I’ve said it before, I grew up dirt poor as the son of a construction worker. My parents made it clear that you only need or deserve what you earn and nothing else. There was never a thought because the doctor who lived on our street had nice things we could enter his house at 2 am and take his things to sell them instead of aspiring to become educated and work hard to earn those things for ourselves.
We are doomed when we can’t say criminals who commit violent crime deserve to die and be wiped clean from the gene pool and that our terrorist enemies want us to die so they can take our place in the world as the new leaders with a reign of terror that has never been seen before by man, not even in the dark ages.
Those who want me dead I would like to see dead first, it doesn’t bother me if they and their children die instead of me or my children.
F#ck the criminals, and f@ck the terrorist b4st4rds who would destroy my beloved United States.
The right to stand your ground free of fear of sh1tbag criminals should be an expectation of a free society, criminals should be very concerned that when they are caught they will most likely be harvested for their organs as we are killing them. Criminals and terrorists should know that we intend to defend ourselves and our society with such overwhelming force that to attempt to inflict pain and crime on us will result in a swift and terrible justice for all involved.
ET1–one guy actually had the balls to tell me once, “There’s nothing in your house worth dying over!” My response to him was, “You’re right–meaning that if someone breaks into my house, there’s nothing worth dying for.”
However, I’m not going to assume that person is just after my property. Too many instances even in the relatively low-crime area in which I reside of home invasions, druggies, and just basic psychos intent on harming me and mine.
So, we’re supposed to “run out the back door and call 911”, eh?
I don’t know too many people who can run 900+ fps. And if the criminal is armed, having to do that is a distinct possibility.
Criminals rights now trump constitutional rights of life and property. Thanks for the heads up Washington Post!
What shitbags.
Sparky, I’ve heard that one as well.
So would posting a sign that says “Nothing in this house is worth losing YOUR life over.” on my property be considered fair warning?
On another note, the quote I heard a few times in the past week ” with Stand Your Ground laws, it’s open season on black youths” that’s fear mongering and race mongering all rolled into one statement.
That greatly pisses me off, it makes the assumption that since I support Stand Your Ground laws,
1. I’m a racist.
B. I’m openly looking for a reason to shoot someone.
Neither of those statements are remotely true,
Taught a course on the Castle Doctrine here, before I retired again.
Very simple; no duty to retreat; if someone breaks into your occupied home or temporary habitation, or your occupied car, you have an initial presumption that you may act in self defense; it up to the prosecutor to prove you did not.
You have no duty to retreat and a legal right to defend yourself against threats at home and in your car. In addition to these safety nets in your self-defense argument, it’s always a good idea to be able to articulate that you were in fear for your life or others lives at the time of the incident to validate your actions even more.
@21 Statistically the greatest threat to black youths is other black youths. But you don’t hear Obama, Sharpton or Jackson saying that. They want America to think the greatest threat to blacks at large and youths in particular are people, white or otherwise who stand their ground, at home and away. No mention from the POTUS about black on black homicide…dead silence abou this problem in the black community. Only that whites and other non-blacks are all racists, as Zimmerman has been portrayed. Leaving Zimmerman out of the discussion for a while, I don’t care the color of the person breaking into my home. I care about their intent which is first, criminal and therefore threatening. If I offer a burglar the chance to leave the way they came, if there is time to do so, and they take it then they just saved their life. In all other circumstances they are considered by me to be a life or bodily harm threat to me and my family and I will defend myself accordingly. If it is up to me there may be a statistic generated but it will not be me or my family members.
21–and of course that applies where there are NO “black yutes”? I’m serious–I live in a state that’s 97 percent WHITE–not Hispanic + White, I mean WHITE.
Take away the race component, and what’s their excuse then?
Yeah, in my town, I expect any home invaders to be white since the racial makeup of Fort Ashby, WV, according to the 2010 census is 0.30% African American (and I know her) and Hispanic were 0.44% of the population – that’s my wife and daughter.
@ 25 Jonn …. so pithy!
@21 Indeed, Zimmerman was a single case. There are thousands of cases every year that these fine, educated journalists at the Post could discuss, were they of a mind to discuss difficult issues instead of hot topics to keep a 24 hour news cycle alive….
Nobody wants to talk about how liberal entitlements have effectively destroyed black families to the point where almost 3/4 (72%) of blacks are single parent families. How those same entitlements have created entire geographical areas doomed to house criminals and those who are too poor to protect themselves from the criminals they are forced to reside with in their state entitled housing.
Because those conversations are uncomfortable, difficult, and bear no sexy fruit for a political soundbite.
Much easier to focus on the current shiny bauble than the substance below.
@27 I agree with you. Well said.
@28 Sadly, the most dangerous place for black youth is their mother’s womb these days. The womb is more dangerous for black youth than the streets of Detroit…
It’s almost a 50/50 split if they will survive the womb. But talking about that as poor social policy means you are against women and their right to choose because you merely asked a question about the utility of an expensive medical procedure along with its’ attendant risks as a social policy for birth control irrespective of religion or politics.
Let’s never talk about the substantive issues, let’s just continue to discuss abstracts because that has been working out so well for us to this point.
Are you kidding VOV? Have journalists discuss the disastrous consequences of feel-good lefty policy?!? That would imply that they were interested in truth rather than advancing the lefty agenda.
@27 The other conversation that isn’t sexy is personal responsibility.
That “open season on black youths” thing is perhaps THE most racist statement I have heard in at least a very long time!
What idiots. If there was even a small number of white bigots (other than libs) who actually thought that, there would be far fewer black youths in the country. As it is, the libs are doing their absolute best to exterminate them all.
@31 That conversation hasn’t been sexy since Nixon left office….
@29 Again, well said and so very true. There is more press about the coming royal baby than anything in our nation especially anything of truth or substance. It is a sad state of affairs to know that even addressing the issues in your post would deem you a racist in the liberal media. I know you aren’t a racist and anyone who follows your posts knows that as well. But to the left it is another, “oh my gosh!”, instance of someone telling the truth about an important issue in our nation which they have turned a blind eye to for 40 plus years. The entitled culture created by the Great Society has ruined communities, cultures of people and some races in particular have suffered under those programs worse than others. I wish, but I doubt the black community at large could pull themselves up by their boot straps and rise above this situation. A situation that is no longer a help but has become a plague and yoke around their necks. But even if they started now it would take generations to overcome. Just my opinion.
Since we talking about uncomfortable truths, here’s a link to an article about Obama as a state senator in Illinois being a co-sponsor believe it or not of a stand your ground law…..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/22/then-sen-obama-co-sponsored-stand-your-ground-law-/
The fun, she never stops.
@35 Thank you. I did not know that about Obama. The hypocrisy, she never ends and keeps on giving!
if someone is in the middle of committing a violent crime it is not vigilantism to respond with deadly force. vigilantism is hunting someone down after the crime and murdering them without trial. Progs should be mocked for this abuse of language
Jonn Off subject and need you input,
This is a link to an Executive Order, released to the public July 15th, for what appears to be mandatory testing by clinics for HIV from ages 15 to 65. If this is true then it is nothing more than building a DNA database that will benefit no one except ObamaCare. IMHO Let me know if this is wrong and I am off base.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/15/executive-order-hiv-care-continuum-initiative
By the way I don’t wear a tin hat and am not a paranoid person. I just think the guise of this E.O. goes beyond care and concern for HIV/AIDS patients.
@39 Sparks, you’re not paranoid. Medical article awhile back spoke of legalities of keeping DNA from unauthorized stem-cell lines. In other words: was it legal to keep and use cord blood, fetal tissue, and other specimens for research? It’s a huge legal wrangle, and it’s still on-going.
#38, Sparks; The EO says “The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends that clinicians screen all individuals ages 15 to 65 years for HIV, and the Department of Health and Human Services Guidelines for Use of Antiretroviral Agents now recommends offering treatment to all adolescents and adults diagnosed with HIV.”
Emphasis is mine. The major part of the EO is to establish another advisory committee to appear as if Obama cares about AIDS. You still don’t have to have an AIDS test if you don’t want one. If you served in the military after 1991, I’m pretty sure they have your DNA on file somewhere anyway.
@41 Thank you. I am thankful I was out way before ’91 too. I don’t want anyone having anymore info on me than they already have. I understand DNA for the ID of service personnel. I imagined this becoming a mandate for all citizens. DNA is easy to get from any lab work done. Thanks again.
@35 VOV — What do you expect from someone whose entire emphasis since 2008 has been making sales pitches with no substance and who constantly talks out of both sides of his mouth?
He made the statement over the weekend that “Trayvon Martin could have been me”. That is the biggest whopper he’s come up with so far. It’s the manufactured bogus crap that comes out of that compasss direction every day.
What do you expect from him? Reality?
@43 The problem, as you stated, is that you put the POTUS and his minions on the roof and ask which way the wind is blowing and they all point in a different direction. Although they are all liberal directions, self serving directions!
Folks, journalists discuss the issues every day.
They just refuse to be objective when doing so, and tell everybody how they want us to learn to think like good little
Socialist Comradescitizens.Sparks, he just runs that mouth of his so much, the sheer lack of common sense is very, very worrisome. It’s as though all he has to do is say “Burn, baby, burn” and we’ll have Watts and Washington in 1968 all over again.
Veritas Omnia Vincit@35, are you saying that president Obama voted for Stand Your Ground before he voted against it?
Just wanted to add that – politicalized court rulings aside – I don’t have any duty to retreat unless I am somewhere I am not permitted to be. Which does NOT include public sidewalks, streets, neighborhoods, buildings, other venues, or anywhere in or on my own property.
I have a desire to live my life free from the machinations of criminals. As the Constitution says quite clearly, “the pursuit of Life, liberty, and happiness . . .” Nowhere is it said I must get permission beforehand. From anyone!
Others have a duty to leave me alone in my lawful pursuits or face the consequences of their own actions. Others have a duty, or more accurately, a responsibility to comprehend and accept that they are responsible for themselves, and they are responsible for controlling their anger, frustration, and whatever else are their excuses for assaulting, attacking, or otherwise interfering with other law-abiding citizens. They also have a responsibility for providing for their own healthcare and/or internment if and when they decide to abridge my personal space, property, and freedoms. Law enforcers have a responsibility and a duty to make sure the criminals understand that, and to aid me and mine in responding to threats. Judges have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that they do not create law out of thin air, that they enforce laws as they are written, and that they stop encouraging, rewarding, aiding & abetting crime.
Bottom line – if others don’t want to face consequences, then they should stop being their own worse enemy.
Wondering about DNA Repositories with your name on it?
Try this? It worked for me; at least I now have official answers t the question, so if it ever happens that DNA is “found” in government files, then . . .
Commander
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
ATTN: AFRSSIR
16050 Industrial Drive, Suite 100
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877
Please confirm or deny the existence of any specimens maintained on me.
Identification data is as follows:
NAME:
SSAN / SERVICE #:
BRANCH:
I am seeking full disclosure of any specimens, dates obtained, purpose, disposition, release of copies, etc, etc.
Further background on the DNA Collection by Armed Forces issue:
This was part of a communication between me and the Commander of the AFIP:
“The email was initiated as a result of a news article. In brief, Lt. Col. Victor Weedn was quoted as saying that when you lick the stamp on your tax return, you’ve sent the government a DNA sample. The article also said that
the Pentagon has been collecting samples since 1992, and states that the Pentagon now promises to destroy samples when requested by donors leaving service, but that there is no law requiring it be done.”