Thou Shalt Not Murder People
That may seem to be such a self-evident moral truth that it should not even be necessary to state it in print, but recent history demonstrates otherwise.
In a rapidly escalating number of deadly events in Wisconsin and around the country, many people increasingly insist they have the right to murder other human beings.
With right-wing extremists publicly pretending to be constitutional experts, it may only be a matter of time until there is an organized effort to enshrine the right to murder in the U.S. Constitution.
At this point, the alleged legal right to murder is based not upon any actual constitutional principle, but upon ignorant clichés that have been passed as laws.
These simple-minded statutes are known as “stand your ground” or “(a man's home is his) castle” laws. Usually such trite gibberish only offends the sensibilities of intelligent people. But when it's actual law passed on behalf of the gun lobby, it can be a lot more deadly.
When opponents warn of dire consequences from potentially lethal laws such as concealed carry, the constant refrain from supporters is that we don't hear of widespread killings elsewhere when such laws are passed.
Well, how many more brazen murders need to occur before gun enthusiasts admit we are now hearing about them frequently?
The most famous case in the country, of course, is the deadly shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old African American, by the self-appointed watch captain of a gated community in Sanford, Fla., despite police telling the shooter to stop pursuing the young man.
But much closer examples abound of individuals insisting upon their right to murder unarmed young people of color.
There was the West Bend homeowner who called police about a noisy party next door. When Bo Morrison, a biracial 20-year-old, fled the party and hid from police on the homeowner's back porch, the homeowner confronted Morrison in the dark with a gun and fatally shot him when he stood up.
Then, Darius Simmons, a 13-year-old African American, had the fatal misfortune of recently moving next door to a 75-year-old, white, South Side Milwaukeean who didn't care much for the idea.
After the elderly man's home was burglarized, he immediately suspected his neighbor, confronted Simmons as the young man was taking out the trash and, without warning, shot him to death.
Laws Based on Fear
The fact that all three of the victims mentioned so far were African American is significant. One enormous loophole intentionally created by the gun lobby as a legal justification for murder in recent legislation is that there is no requirement the shooter actually be threatened by the victim.
The laws are based on fear that exists in the mind of the shooter. Even if the victim is unarmed and no actual threat, if a citizen armed with a deadly weapon fears for his or her safety, then fire away.
And, let's face it: Given the ugly history of racism and racial stereotypes in our culture, far too many white folks have an irrational fear of young African Americans even when they know nothing about them.
There is another extremely dangerous element present in every case. That is the gun. It gives deadly power to its possessor and horrific finality to any bad decision made out of fear or confusion.
Guns actually make people more aggressive. There's nothing like a gun to make a really small man big and scary.
The gun lobby wants you to believe using a gun to murder a fellow human being is normal. It's not.
Ask any police officer who has ever shot and killed someone. Every one of them says no one is ever the same. And the people police kill may actually be threatening.
Imagine how you would feel after murdering someone who is innocent, unarmed and no real threat at all. Perhaps a child. Perhaps even a loved one.
If you don't find that possibility terrifying, you've been seriously deceived into believing it's no big deal to murder people.
Wisconsin becoming the next-to-last state to pass concealed carry wasn't nearly enough for the gun lobby. It continues to concoct ever more deadly laws.
A Texas jury recently had to decide between someone “standing his ground” and the elementary-school teacher he murdered who was defending his own castle.
It involved another noisy party, which suddenly has become a capital offense in armed and dangerous America. Claiming he was standing his ground against a loud birthday party, the shooter took a gun to the castle next door and shot and killed his neighbor. The jury decided murder was murder.
Laws about murdering people should never be based on cheesy clichés. Those laws got it right the first time and sounded a whole lot classier in the King James version.
I heard a story about some black teenage males who broke into a National Guard amory after Hurricane Katrina. Some soldiers came back and caught them red handed. There were no police around so they decided to take them by boat 25 miles across Lake Ponchartrain and turn them over to the St. Tammany sheriff. Well these kids had stolen guns, urinated and defacated on the floor, etc. About half way across the lake the soldiers decided just to let them go and let them swim home. Well no one has heard a peep from those boys since.
It has been long known in Death Penalty cases the the color of the victim (not the color of the perpetrator) that had more to do with the perp getting death instead of a life sentence... as in white victim is more heinous than a non-white vitim, even white perps get sentenced to death.
Here, it is still color of the victim that matters, Joel is just calling it out. Imagine if the castle-doctrine victims and stand-your-ground victims were white instead of black? Perhaps one's out-cry would take a different spin. If it does, than one's outcry most definitely IS racist. How were these shooters going to ever know what was on the intruder's rap-sheet before they pulled the trigger?
Wisconsin Conservatives (who seem to act like KKK-member WASPs) have long been waiting for that "I told you so" anecdotes to justify their drive to return society to what they alone know is "righteous and proper", Joel and his liberal intentions just get in the way of that effort to return to "normal order".
I just had a debate with a friend about "reality". There are those who see "reality", for both it's rightness and it's wrongness. Are you a person who sees the truth, and do you either want to preserve it with all it's wrongness, or do you want to fix the wrongness and make it right and fair?
Considering how the shooter feels after the fact, hindsight is 20-20, if they had a chance to do it over would they do it again?
More importantly, how would the world turn out if each and everyone of us was allowed to take out just one person we felt threatened by? Carry that out to the end... how many people would be left... just one?
"More importantly, how would the world turn out if each and everyone of us was allowed to take out just one person we felt threatened by? Carry that out to the end... how many people would be left... just one?""" No law in any state in this country states that you can use deadly force to stop someone you just wanted to. Every use of deadly force law in this country states to some effect that to invoke the privledge of deadly force requires that the person or others be at a reasonable risk of death or great bodily harm, and in some states at risk of loss of property (such as theft or tresspassing). There are no laws that say just kill people you want.
One of the biggest fears of modern society is that absence of laws, people will turn to wild animals. This is simply not true. Only people with a mental defect would try to rob/steal/commit murders and not expect reprocussions. And the creation of new laws don't change those peoples thinking. If the government collapsed tomorrow most people would do what it takes to survive, and not turn into blood thirsty animals. Simply because thats what works and what will provide self preservation. Chaos cant go on forever, it will wipe itself out. Your suggestion of only one person left would suggest that people are at the core chaotic animals. Whats stopping you from buying a gun today, and shooting the next 50 people you see? The same thing that stops anyone thats free from serious mental defects from doing that. Which is exactly why peoples fear over a society thats armed and has the legal backing to defend themselves is not warranted. Instead they should fear the socitey that doesn't recognize a individuals right to life, and is willing to treat the victim to the same punishments at the attacker.
Oddly Joel is in favor of population control via abortion. What we need is to give our police a littler more power to control the criminals. When they catch someone with a long record who is a burden to society, we need to give the police the athority to take care of the problem on site. Like when you catch someone driving a stolen car, bam, finished. Or catch someone with drugs - bam, finshed.; Back home down south, the sheriff's deputy would just take you for a ride in the country if you had done something really bad. They used good judgment, they never took an innocent person. If the person was for sure, no doubt guilty, like them boys who broke into the armory above, well they had it coming.