Blood on their Hands: Mayor Bloomberg, Jesse Jackson and the Assault on Stand Your Ground Laws

This is my new Red State piece dealing with the attempts to repeal Stand Your Ground laws.

In the summer of 2008, 27-year-old Sergio Aguiar stood on the side of a busy country road in California and kicked his infant son to death. Multiple people stopped at the scene to watch the beating, which went on for some time, but did nothing more than call the police and wait. By the time police arrived and killed Aguiar, the infant was so badly disfigured by the savage attack he had to be identified with DNA testing. Some of the witnesses claimed they would have acted had they been armed, but no one seriously believes that because many were armed with tire irons, wheel locking devices, and all the other sundry makeshift weapons found in a car. No, the inaction of these people was not because they couldn’t do anything, but because they didn’t know what they could do. They were residents of a state where self-defense itself is suspect and acting on behalf of others when you yourself are not threatened is an invitation to legal prosecution.

Residents in many states and cities know that they are at the mercy of politically driven prosecutors and government officials anytime they act with force–even if they are justified. Thus, they are trained to not act unless they have no possible alternative to save their lives. We often comment on the callousness of bystanders who do nothing when crimes are being committed, but such apathy is a direct result of the leftist legal theory that people have a legal and moral responsibility to retreat from violence and crime before being “allowed” to act with force. Stand Your Ground laws are a small step toward providing rationality to civil society by recognizing your individual right to protect yourself and others as well as protecting citizens who end up in physical confrontations through acts of good faith.

People like hypocritical NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg and professional grievance monger Jesse Jackson are trying to sway public opinion against these laws and reenforce the notion that no matter what is going on you have a duty to retreat from the aggression of criminals.

But think that idea through.

People who did nothing while Sergio Aguiar kicked and stomped an infant to death reported that Aguiar threatened them and they retreated. They did what Bloomberg and Jackson wanted and a child died. For Mayor Bloomberg and Jesse Jackson, this is how civil society should work. If I’m up late, my wife is asleep, and someone kicks in the door, if I can get out the house without confrontation Bloomberg and his ilk want me to abandon my wife to a criminal’s tender mercies. Or if we can both escape, we are morally obligated to allow someone to destroy that which we worked hard to build, steal our hard earned wealth, and desecrate the sanctity of our home–because we have a “duty” to retreat.

Is that a civil society? Is society obligated to retreat from the Sergio Aguiars of the world and be culpable in the death of their victims? Do we really have a duty to spare criminals the repercussions of their criminality?

The left has always maintained just that. It is basic Marxist class conflict theory, taught in every major university under the guise of “sociology” and other so-called social sciences: criminals are the victims of your wealth, your prosperity, your morality, and your goodness. Your desire to protect your property, your family,or an innocent child on the street all conflict with the criminal’s desire to steal, rape, murder, and do evil. Thus, you have a duty to stand aside and allow the most degenerate among us free reign on our streets.

It comes as no surprise Bloomberg would push this view in light of not just his extreme anti-gun positions, but his tacit support for Occupy Wall Street. Bloomberg allowed occupants of a communist-organized encampment to terrorize NYC residents, shut down businesses, and assault and rape people. He only acted against them when public support for the movement amongst the rich liberal elite waned. The supposed Republican mayor implicitly supports that movement through his words, policies, and actions and his attack on stand your ground laws is another facet of that support. His vision of the limitations on your rights is designed to allow mob rule, to give any special interest group that can mobilize an unruly crowd the ability to force you to accept their random demands with threats of violence you cannot defend against and from which the state is unwilling to protect you.

How many lives will be lost when Bloomberg-enforced cowardice is perceived as weakness by these drug addled “revolutionaries” during the coming spring offensive? Criminals are like animals–their attacks are triggered by weakness and fear. Most people attacked by mountain lions are attacked from behind while jogging or riding a bike, which to the big cat looks the same as a prey animal fleeing. The perceived flight from the beast triggers the attack. In the same way, fleeing thugs or giving into them escalates their attacks on your person. Bloomberg and Jackson are advocating behavior that they know will trigger more vicious attacks by criminals, all for political purposes.

In states where there are strong legal protections for citizens defending themselves from threats of any type, OWS has done nowhere near the damage that has been done in places like NYC, Oakland, and other liberal bastions. Zuccotti Park occupiers invaded businesses and assaulted the people within. In Oakland they committed dozens of acts of violence. Occupy has caused tens of millions of dollars in damages that will never be replaced in Obama’s new economy. Bloomberg, Jackson, and their allies are trying to ensure these people can do more damage, that they have free reign to enter your business, your house, and even your personal space and do whatever they want while you are “duty bound” to surrender all you have–your goods, your pride and your dignity–to the neo-bolshevics they intend to put on the street.

And this is in addition to the common street thugs these people want to have absolute sovereignty over your streets, your homes, and ultimately your friends and family. Imagine the world viewed through Bloombergian lenses–you stumble upon a rape in a park and the rapist threatens you. You’re obligated to flee and if you don’t you must rely on the largess of civil servants to stay out of jail. You witness a man beating his wife and if you step in to stop the beating you may face a court date where you have to explain why you didn’t flee as the law requires when the wife beater attacked you. If home invaders kick in your door you should slink out the back while who knows what happens to anyone left in the house because they were too slow. That rape victims, abused wives, and victims of home invasions are routinely murdered can’t be your concern because Michael Bloomberg, Jesse Jackson, and every other thug-hugging social engineer who has a public platform will make sure you’re punished for not following your “duty to retreat” which is nothing more than mandatory cowardice.

Infants like Sergio Aguiar’s son are the price Bloomberg and Jackson are willing to pay for their liberal pretensions and civic power grabs.

A little more than a year after Sergio Aguiar killed his son, a 15-year-old California girl endured a two hour gang rape where she was so badly beaten she needed to be flown to a trauma center. It was widely reported that dozens of people witnessed the attack, but did worse than nothing. They laughed, took pictures, and recorded the attack on cell phones. Reporters were at a loss to explain how such a crime happened but are you? That attack is the end result of Bloomberg’s world view. When state empowers criminals by suppressing the natural rights of all citizens to ensure their own security, barbarity flourishes. For people like Bloomberg this works out well as the powerless citizenry must turn to politicians for safety, and the Jesse Jacksons of the world gain near godlike power by controlling mobs you can’t defend against.

But how does that work out for the rest of us?

Stand Your Ground laws save lives by disempowering criminals. We cannot allow the left to reverse our country’s course toward rational civic life and return us to the days of criminals running the streets.

Michigan Considers Revising Outdated Handgun Laws

Michigan is finally reviewing its old laws regarding the requirements of purchasing a handgun in the state. A House Judiciary Committee will review House Bill 5225 which will
revise permit-to-purchase and registration requirements. The NRA has been working to repeal these requirements since federal law already requires a criminal background check and has done so since 1998.

The NRA has teamed up with some state Representatives to change the language in the bill.  Some of the changes include:

  • If an applicant has more than one licence application, then that person will only have to complete a single basic pistol safety review questionnaire.
  • “The application is not required to be notarized and shall be processed free of charge.”
  • There are also provisions to make it easier to transfer ownership to an heir or “devisee.”

Read all the changes in language here. They’re all in bold.

These changes are only common sense. The legislation was introduced by Representative Paul Opsommer who says:

“Much of what we have in our gun law regarding the purchasing and registering of firearms, known as Public Act 372 of 1927, is still on the books for no other reason than that it is the way we have done things for decades upon decades. It is time to make this all less duplicative and bureaucratic for gun owners and also free up law enforcement time and resources so that they can focus on things that have real impact on public safety.”

Indeed.  Making it easier for law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns while giving law
enforcement back some precious time to fight crime—I’m all for it.

If you want to support this revised bill, contact info for the Michigan Judiciary Committee can be found here.


LA Strip Club Gives to Charity … And People Complain?

So I read a story about a strip club in LA called Jet Strip Gentleman’s Club that gave $1,200 on a little league team that desperately needed cash, and in the article it’s mentioned that the team is still in need of cash. The reaction in the comments was less than supportive consisting mainly of sanctimonious finger wagging and stupid jokes.

Nowhere have I seen any of these people complaining about this offer to match the donation or even give anything. Even so-called conservatives who believe that charitable giving is the ideal in a free society as opposed to welfare and government hand outs would rather complain about stripping than follow the lead of this club and help these kids out. I understand many people have moral issues with clubs like this but it is legal. I don’t drink and think it’s a filthy habit but I don’t opine about beer companies sponsoring community sports teams.

I would especially keep my mouth shut about it if I didn’t give to charity. Instead of complaining about how this club made their money I suggest donating your own money to a worthy cause – like this little league team that will close down if they don’t get any. I know doesn’t sound like it’ll be  as satisfying as complaining about other people who are doing something worth while but give it a try. You might be surprised by how much more satisfying it is to do a good deed than try to shame others for their supposed moral short comings.

Let me be very un-PC here and point out something all men used to know. Men don’t complain about women working these jobs unless the women are being forced or you’re willing to pay their bills and men don’t let these same women – who often are in a bad situation – pick up their slack in the community. How about you stop making T&A jokes and start taking care of your community. Maybe then there wouldn’t be a little league desperate for money and there probably would be people who thought the only way they could make a good living was flashing you.

Smart Girls Need an Education

This is why I don’t join conservative women’s groups. A recent post by a blogger at the Smart Girl Politics site only goes to prove that some women calling themselves smart and conservative miss the boat by miles on both counts.

Louise Butler, who describes herself as a Republican Lutheran, in her post Witches in Georgia; Nuts in Texas, relates a story of a Wiccan woman from Georgia who got a restraining order against a man who was stalking her. She apparently met this man through a dating ad where she stated her religion. The author has this to say:

“She was then shocked that she didn’t attract an intelligent, emotionally mature male.  Instead she got a weird, obsessive stalker.  Whom did she think she was going to get?”

I’m not suggesting that Wiccans and Pagans in general can’t be immature or criminal.  But I have no idea about the Georgia woman’s maturity level.  Since the author of the post didn’t mention interviewing her or give any other indication of how she knows her character, then I have to assume she’s basing her judgment strictly on religion.

But before I get to the rank religious bigotry of Ms. Butler, I want to address another glaringly obvious issue that seems to have escaped her. Stalkers come from all backgrounds. Her comment stops just short of the old “well, her skirt was so short, so she deserved what she got” canard.  Whether or not you believe dating sites are a bad idea (and I may tend to agree depending on the circumstances), the man himself is responsible for his actions and stalking is hardly a Wiccan-only phenomenon.

Christianity is the majority religion in this country. Is she seriously suggesting that all rapes, stalking incidents and molestations are committed by people who don’t share her religion?Not one Christian is a stalker?

Ms. Butler seems to think that people who believe in witchcraft should go the way of the dinosaur. I say so should the idea that a victim of stalking is to blame for the crime committed against her. I realize that feminism is an “F” word for many conservative women. But accusing the victim of a crime of causing it by virtue of her religious beliefs is an attitude from the dark ages. How is this conservative in any way? For that matter, how is this attitude even remotely Christian? Aren’t conservatives the ones pointing out the war on women by radical Muslims when liberals keep their heads in the sand on this issue? Don’t American women who have different religious beliefs than Ms. Butler deserve the same protections that conservatives think all Muslim women should be getting?

As far as her religious ignorance, I don’t know where to begin. The woman compares people calling themselves witches to people who believe the earth is flat. She says:

“I realize that I am probably not being as tolerant as the times require, but it seems to me that any adult who calls herself a witch should not be expected to be taken seriously.”

Again, this is why I don’t join conservative women’s groups. I don’t expect there to be some great sisterhood that has my back. But if I’m a victim of a crime, I expect a conservative woman to blame the criminal and not me unless she’s a throwback to the 1950s.  This post on the main Smart Girl Politics site shows me that expectation is naïve.

The ironic thing is that the post before hers is promoting a rally for religious freedom. Another bit of irony is the ending to another post of hers in which she scolds conservatives supporting Rush Limbaugh’s terrible behavior towards Sandra Fluke. She says, “Be calm, be civil and keep the faith.”  Unfortunately, she comes off as just another Christian woman who doesn’t practice what she preaches.

I’m not asking that the conservative tent get bigger. I’m simply suggesting that all conservative women look up from the ground every now and then. When they do, they will see that the tent already includes people who may not share their religion but do share their respect for the ideals of American liberty and we might just get along because of that mutual respect.

Janine Turner on the Second Amendment

Janine Turner is one of the few Hollywood conservatives out there. She has a project called Constituting America that aims to teach young people the core American values they aren’t be taught in schools. She dropped by NRA News to talk about the importance of the Second Amendment and how important it is to elect conservatives who will defend that right. She also weighs in on various current events.