Happiness is …

November 17th, 2008

… a warm gun? There’s been a run on guns, before Bama takes them all and either hands him out to “his people” for a cultural takeover and race war or melts them into ploughshares or … whatever. Right-wing hysteria with an assault rifle in its hand.

There’s a lot of angst and fuss from the Pub side of the spectrum about the horrors of an Obama presidency; I wrote about that dynamic in the weekly. There are fewer and fewer of these voices now, but they are louder and louder — squeaky wheels that ratchet up ’til they hurt your head, a distillation of fear and hate that becomes ever more potent.

Here’s an interesting piece on the coarsening of the Republican base; I think that’s destined to be the GOP future for awhile [thank you, Sister Palin!] Think nails in the coffin.

I’m not surprised to hear the succession talk; in fact, I’ve been waiting for it. Lefty’s went to Mexico, Belize, Costa Rica, Canada … wherever … when Bush got his second term. Now the America-Love-It-Or-Leave-It crowd have a similar inclination, only they’re not going to leave … just create their own island of white supremacy. And frankly, my dear — that’s been done: think 1861-5. Think not Red and Blue but … Grey and Blue, with no conceivable toe-hold in this century.

They say Bama has unprecedented Secret Service coverage, and has had since early in the game. That’s good; he also has most of a nation praying for him. Think positively and don’t add fear-energy to this business.

With all this furor over weapons, we can see that the problem is as large as ever and the laws have shifted in the last political season to exacerbate them; do read the Alternet piece on homicide. This situation will be tackled under the stern eye of Pluto in Capricorn; maybe the wing-nuts have a rights to worry about their guns, eh?

In better times, these pockets of crazy go under-examined; in times of stress, they rise to the surface so we can get a good look. Best to keep a watchful eye. Shining a light is always the most powerful astringent. The last piece in this collection reminds us the ‘churchy folk’ are of no help in the peace process.

In other news, I’m sure you know Hil is being vetted for the Secretary of State slot; the process seems to be challenged in untangling Big Bill’s monetary arrangements with the world … sorry to say, the Big Dog and Company know how to keep the smoke machine pumping to misdirect the eye. What the Bushies developed into Orwellian art form had its beginnings with the Clintons … except they used it for personal reasons, not ideological.

If I could reach into somebodies brain and remove something … like downloading a program … I’d get the Soap Opera out of the Clinton brains; they’d be better public servants without their dependency on drama. And we all know Obama wants no part of it.

Bill’s baggage may be too much for a Hillary’s appointment; but Bama seems intent on making silk purses … yadda. He has adopted the Lincolnian concept of pulling from all camps, seeking excellence — and that’s high-minded and altruistic. Still, I’d bet he’d prefer to have folks working for him that are ambitious for the country, not for themselves; and its hard to separate that out proportionally with Hil and Bill. Such an appointment would also take Hillary out of domestic issues, especially health, which she has championed for almost two decades. It’s the most interesting side show of moment.

Jude

AP: More Threats Against Obama Than Other President-Elects
Greg Mitchell, AP via E&P
November 15, 2008

Over at E&P, and here, we have been chronicling threats, racial incidents and physical abuse, surrounding the President-elect and his followers, most carried in local newspapers only. Now AP has a roundup that focuses on the Secret Service taking many of these matters — which may seem harmless to some — seriously. AP adds a new one: “And in a Maine convenience store, an Associated Press reporter saw a sign inviting customers to join a betting pool on when Obama might fall victim to an assassin.

The sign solicited $1 entries into ‘The Osama Obama Shotgun Pool,’ saying the money would go to the person picking the date closest to when Obama was attacked. ‘Let’s hope we have a winner,’ said the sign, since taken down.”

More from AP: “One of the most popular white supremacist Web sites got more than 2,000 new members the day after the election, compared with 91 new members on Election Day, according to an AP count. The site, stormfront.org, was temporarily off-line Nov. 5 because of the overwhelming amount of activity it received after Election Day. On Saturday, one Stormfront poster, identified as Dalderian Germanicus, of North Las Vegas, said, ‘I want the SOB laid out in a box to see how ‘messiahs’ come to rest. God has abandoned us, this country is doomed.’”

The “Daily Show” Mocks the Story That Fear of President-Elect Obama Is Driving Assault Weapon and Gun Sales — Blames Right-Wing Media For Stoking Fear
Gun Guys

[Open link to] Watch the hilarious Daily Show’s take on the purported story being pushed by the gun industry and lobby that the election of Sen. Obama is causing paranoid gun owners to go out and buy yet more military-style assault weapons and firearms. ++

After Obama’s win, white backlash festers in US
The election of a black president triggered at least 200 hate-related incidents, a watchdog group finds.
Patrik Jonsson, The Christian Science Monitor
November 17, 2008

Atlanta - In rural Georgia, a group of high-schoolers gets a visit from the Secret Service after posting “inappropriate” comments about President-elect Barack Obama on the Web. In Raleigh, N.C., four college students admit to spraying race-tinged graffiti in a pedestrian tunnel after the election. On Nov. 6, a cross burns on the lawn of a biracial couple in Apolacon Township, Pa.

The election of America’s first black president has triggered more than 200 hate-related incidents, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center – a record in modern presidential elections. Moreover, the white nationalist movement, bemoaning an election that confirmed voters’ comfort with a multiracial demography, expects Mr. Obama’s election to be a potent recruiting tool – one that watchdog groups warn could give new impetus to a mostly defanged fringe element.

Most election-related threats have so far been little more than juvenile pranks. But the political marginalization of certain Southern whites, economic distress in rural areas, and a White House occupant who symbolizes a multiethnic United States could combine to produce a backlash against what some have heralded as the dawn of a postracial America. In some parts of the South, there’s even talk of secession.

“Most of this movement is not violent, but there is a substantive underbelly that is violent and does try to make a bridge to people who feel disenfranchised,” says Brian Levin of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. “The question is: Will this swirl become a tornado or just an ill wind? We’re not there yet, but there’s dust on the horizon, a swirling of wind, and the atmospherics are getting put together for [conflict].”

Though postelection racist incidents haven’t posed any real danger to society or the president-elect, law enforcement is taking note.

“We’re trying to be out there at the cutting edge of this and trying to stay ahead of groups that are emerging,” says Special Agent Darrin Blackford, a spokesman for the Secret Service, which guards the US president.

“Anytime you start seeing [extremist propaganda] floating around, you have to be concerned,” adds Lt. Gary Thornberry of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, a member of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. “As far as it being an alarmist situation, I don’t see that yet. From a law enforcement point of view, you have to be careful, because it’s not illegal to have an ideology.”

After sparking conflict and showdowns in the 1990s – think Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing – white supremacist and nationalist groups began this century largely splintered and powerless. Though high immigration levels helped boost the number of hate groups from 602 in 2000 to 888 in 2007, key leaders of such groups had died, been imprisoned, or were otherwise marginalized.

But postelection, at least two white nationalist websites – Stormfront and the Council of Conservative Citizens – report their servers have crashed because of heavy traffic. The League of the South, a secessionist group, says Web hits jumped from 50,000 a month to 300,000 since Nov. 4, and its phones are ringing off the hook.

“The vitriol is flailing out shotgun-style,” says Mr. Levin. “They recognize Obama as a tipping point, the perfect storm in the narrative of the hate world – the apocalypse that they’ve been moaning about has come true.”

Supremacist propaganda is already on the upswing. In Oklahoma, fringe groups have distributed anti-Obama propaganda through newspapers and taped it to home mail boxes. Ugly incidents such as cross-burnings, assassination betting pools, and Obama effigies are also being reported from Maine to Alabama.

The Ku Klux Klan has been tied to recent news events, as well. Two Tennessee men implicated for plotting to kill 88 black men, including Obama, were tied to the KKK chapter whose leader was convicted in a civil trial in Brandenburg, Ky., last week, for inciting violence. The murder last week in Louisiana of a KKK initiate, allegedly killed after trying to back out of joining, came at the hands of a new group called Sons of Dixie, authorities say.

“We’re not looking at a race war or anything close to it, but … what we are seeing now is undeniably a fairly major backlash by some subset of the white population,” says Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report in Montomgery, Ala. “Many whites feel that the country their forefathers built has been … stolen from them, so there’s in some places a real boiling rage, and that can only become worse as more people lose jobs.”

In an election in which barely 20 percent of native Southern whites in Deep South states voted for Obama, the newly apparent political clout of “outsiders” and people of color has been unnerving to some.

“In states like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, there was extraordinary racial polarization in the vote,” says Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. “Black Americans really do believe that Obama is going to represent their interests and views in ways that they haven’t been before, and, in the Deep South, whites feel exactly the opposite.”

But for nonviolent secessionist groups like the League of the South, the hope is for a more vigorous debate about the direction of the US and the South’s role in it, says Michael Tuggle, a League blogger in North Carolina.

Mr. Tuggle says his group isn’t looking for an 1860-style secession but, rather, a model that Spain, for one, is moving toward, in which “there’s a great deal of autonomy for constituent regions” – a foil to what is seen as unchecked, dangerous federal power in Washington.

“To a lot of people, the idea of secession doesn’t seem so crazy anymore,” says Tuggle. “People are talking about how left out they feel, … and they feel that something strange and radical has taken over our country.” ++

Post-Election Spike In Gun Sales? Don’t Believe the Gun Lobby’s Hype and Sell Job.
Gun Guys
November 10, 2008

The press has been full of reports in recent days of gun shop owners across the country claiming sales have climbed dramatically since last Tuesday’s election.

Said owners attribute this supposed spike to Barack Obama’s election as, per the quoted remarks of a Seattle gun shop owner: “He wants to take our guns from us and create a socialist society policed by his own police force.” (see http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/07/america/gun.php)

Overlooking the craziness of this gun retailer’s sentiment, I am highly skeptical of the sales claims. Note that gun dealers are the ones making them. I’ve seen this happen numerous times over the years. Gun dealers have long believed it will gain them more sales if they rouse the press by claiming a huge spike in sales due to some major event (9/11, Katrina, Pelosi’s ascension as Speaker of the House, Britney and Justin’s break up).

And, of course, if you’re in a declining industry and dependent upon lethality for sales and profits, best to try and scare folks.

But, the news is that it’s a mainly just a sales technique. Nothing for the non-gun owning majority of us to be concerned about.

The press falls for it over and over. Then, a few months after the relevant event the real sales figures come out and we learn (although it gets very little press attention) that the supposed enormous spike was really a moderate and temporary increase, at best (or, depending on your point of view, at worst).

The data, in fact, show long-term and permanent declines both in the number of federally licensed gun dealers (FFLs) in America and the portion of the population owning guns.

According to data compiled from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives the number of FFLs in the US dropped by 79% during the period 1994 to 2007, from 245,628 across the country at the beginning to 50,630 at the end (http://www.vpc.org/studies/dealers07.pdf).

Further, according to the 2006 General Social Survey of the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center, which has followed American attitudes toward guns and ownership thereof since 1972 (26 rounds), the percentage of households in the United States reporting having any guns in the home has fallen from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006, a decline of almost 20 percentage points (http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunownership.pdf). Happily, the rate of ownership in New Jersey is far lower yet.

One further point - I’m inclined to believe that the vast bulk of folks buying guns per recent gun shop owners’ claims are repeat buyers, they already have guns at home.

You can see it, can’t you?

The ‘boys with their toys’ using any excuse to do the old: “Hey, Honey, because (Obama was elected, a big snow is predicted, an old tree looks frail, any excuse for a new toy) I need to go down to the (gun shop, hardware store, etc.) and pick up a new (gun, snow blower, chain saw, whatever).”

I doubt there are many new buyers.

So, again, this ‘crisis’ is of far less concern than the press makes it.

It’s really no big deal. ++

Domestic violence abusers could get gun rights
The Supreme Court will decide whether people convicted of misdemeanor assault against their spouses or partners should have their 2nd Amendment rights restored because of a flaw in federal law.
David G. Savage, LA Times
November 11, 2008

Reporting from Washington — Thousands convicted of a misdemeanor for threatening or assaulting a spouse or girlfriend could once again own guns because of a flaw in the federal law.

That prospect grew more likely Monday after the Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing to a government lawyer who argued that a crime of domestic violence should result in a loss of gun rights.

Neither families nor police officers should face “the powder keg situation of a domestic offender with a gun,” said Nicole Saharsky, a Justice Department lawyer.

But she ran into sharp questioning from justices who said the law was badly written.

Congress in 1996 sought to strengthen the laws against domestic violence. Before, only persons convicted of violent felonies in such situations lost their rights to own a gun.

Going a step further, lawmakers adopted an amendment to take away gun rights for those who had a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” on their records.

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), the amendment’s sponsor, said he was closing a loophole. In domestic violence cases, local prosecutors often agree to have defendants plead guilty to a misdemeanor assault or battery, which usually calls for less than a year in jail, he said.

“There is no reason for someone who beats their wives or abuses their children to own a gun. When you combine wife beaters and guns, the end result is more death,” Lautenberg said in the Senate before the amendment was enacted.

But last year, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia cast doubt on the law’s reach. Its judges decided the federal gun ban did not cover misdemeanor convictions involving assault or battery at home. Instead, it said the federal ban applied only to those convicted under a state’s domestic violence law.

That would make the federal gun law “a dead letter in two-thirds of the states,” according to the government’s lawyer. Saharsky said most states do not have misdemeanor laws specifically targeting domestic violence.

Justice Antonin Scalia was unswayed by that argument. “People are governed by the law that is passed, not by the law that Congress intended to pass,” he said. He and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the law as written appeared to apply only to domestic violence measures, not the more common laws against assault and battery.

Scalia wrote the 5-4 opinion in June which held for the first time that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to have a gun. He said then that the decision did not shield criminals who committed serious crimes with a gun.

But during Monday’s argument, Scalia said possessing a gun was “lawful conduct,” and a wife-beating charge lodged against a West Virginia man was “not that serious an offense.”

The government lawyer shot back that the defendant “hit his wife all around the face until it swelled out, kicked her all around her body, kicked her in the ribs. . . . ”

“Then he should have been charged with a felony,” Scalia interjected, “but he wasn’t.”

The defendant, Randy Hayes, pleaded guilty in 1994 to misdemeanor battery of his then-wife. Ten years later, police responded to a domestic violence call from his home and learned he had owned or sold several guns. He was convicted of illegal gun possession under the 1996 amendment.

The case of U.S. vs. Hayes does not turn on the 2nd Amendment, but instead on how the justices read the words of the 1996 law.

“This statute is a mess,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy commented at one point.

Roberts noted that California, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio have misdemeanor domestic violence laws. People convicted under those measures would not benefit from a ruling that limited the reach of the federal law, he said.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said a ruling for Hayes “could re-arm thousands of convicted domestic violence abusers.” About 14% “of all police officer deaths occur during a response to domestic violence calls,” the group said.

On the other side, the Second Amendment Foundation said the “fundamental right” to own a gun should not be taken away over a misdemeanor. ++

“Justifiable Homicides” Are on the Rise: Have Self-Defense Laws Gone Too Far?
Liliana Segura, AlterNet
November 14, 2008

With shoot first/ask questions later legislation passing across the country, are more Americans getting away with murder?

One year ago today, a 61-year old Texan named Joe Horn looked out his window in Pasadena, just outside of Houston, and saw a pair of black men on his neighbor’s property. It appeared to be a burglary in action, so he called 911. But as he described what he saw to the emergency dispatcher, he began to get agitated. The police would take too long to get there, he decided. Instead, he’d stop the crime himself.

“I’ve got a shotgun,” Horn told the 911 dispatcher. “You want me to stop him?”

The dispatcher tried to talk him down. “Nope, don’t do that,” he told Horn. “Ain’t no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?”

It was not OK with Horn. With the dispatcher still on the phone, he grabbed his gun, went outside, yelled, “Move, you’re dead!” — and shot the two men in the back.

The victims turned out to be two undocumented immigrants from Colombia, Diego Ortiz and Miguel de Jesus. Both died on the scene.

The killings sparked instant controversy nationwide, with some labeling it a deplorable act of vigilante justice, and others calling Horn a hero for defending his neighbor’s property.

Because the victims were in the country illegally, the controversy was further fueled by the ugly, ongoing fight over immigration. Protesters who arrived on Horn’s block to call for justice for his victims were met with counterprotesters waving signs in support of their neighbor. “Once again, our chaotic immigration system has led to death,” Bill O’Reilly fumed on Dec. 6, 2007.

This summer, Horn was officially cleared of wrongdoing, when a grand jury failed to indict him on any charges. The decision was met with dismay by the families of Ortiz and de Jesus. Diamond Morgan, Ortiz’s widow, will now raise their infant son without him. “It’s horrible,” she said about the 911 recording. “(Horn) was so eager, so eager to shoot.”

“This man took the law into his own hands,” Stephanie Storey, de Jesus’ fiancee, told reporters. “He shot two individuals in the back after having been told over and over to stay inside. It was his choice to go outside and his choice to take two lives.”

But Horn and his attorney claimed that in addition to protecting his neighbor’s home, he was acting in self-defense. “He was afraid for his life,” his lawyer, Tom Lambright argued. ” … I don’t think Joe had time to make a conscious decision. I think he only had time to react to what was going on. Short answer is, he was defending his life. ”

But the 9/11 recording tells a different story:

Horn: He’s coming out the window right now, I gotta go, buddy. I’m sorry, but he’s coming out the window.

Dispatcher: Don’t, don’t — don’t go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr. Horn?

Horn: They just stole something. I’m going after them, I’m sorry.

Dispatcher: Don’t go outside.

Horn: I ain’t letting them get away with this shit. They stole something. They got a bag of something.

Dispatcher: Don’t go outside the house.

Horn: I’m doing this.

Dispatcher: Mr. Horn, do not go outside the house.

Horn: I’m sorry. This ain’t right, buddy.

Dispatcher: You’re going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun, I don’t care what you think.

Horn: You want to make a bet?

Dispatcher: OK? Stay in the house.

Horn: They’re getting away!

Dispatcher: That’s all right. Property’s not worth killing someone over, OK?

Horn: (curses)

Dispatcher: Don’t go out the house. Don’t be shooting nobody. I know you’re pissed and you’re frustrated, but don’t do it.

Horn: They got a bag of loot.

Dispatcher: OK. How big is the bag? … Which way are they going?

Horn: I’m going outside. I’ll find out.

Dispatcher: I don’t want you going outside, Mr. Horn.

Horn: Well, here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going.

Dispatcher: Don’t go outside.

Horn: (yelling) Move, you’re dead!

(Sound of shots being fired)

Besides being a disturbing recording, the tape is also notable for what it reveals about the moments before Horn saw Ortiz and de Jesus emerge from the window. “I have a right to protect myself too, sir,” Horn argued with the dispatcher. “… And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it.”

Horn was referring to Texas’s newly enacted Castle Law, signed by Gov. Rick Perry on March 27, 2007, and which had gone into effect that fall. The law, as described by the governor, “allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that they use deadly force.” Its benefit, Perry said, is that “it protects law-abiding citizens from unfair litigation and further clarifies their right to self-defense.”

It may seem like a stretch to say Horn was acting out of self-defense. As CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin observed after listening to the tape, “He does not appear to be someone who’s in a panic. It’s a very cool and rather chilling determination to go out and use his gun, against the instructions of the 911 operator.” Nevertheless, the new statute ultimately saved Horn from prosecution. Whether or not the law was designed to protect private property as much as human life, rather than “clarifying” the right to self-defense, as Perry claims, the practical effect of Texas’ Castle Law appears to be a broadening of the definition to an unprecedented — and deadly — degree.

“Stand Your Ground” Laws

The Castle Law is not some wild Texas invention. In fact, the “castle doctrine” is a concept that dates back to English Common Law. As Ohio State law professor and criminal justice expert Joshua Dressler explains, the castle doctrine basically dictates “that your home is your castle; it’s the one place where you should be able to be free from intrusion.” This idea has provided the legal basis for self-defense legislation across the country for years — legislation that traditionally has also acknowledged a person’s “duty to retreat” in the face of a threatening situation. “The law has always taken the view for self-defense that someone can use deadly force to respond to what the person reasonably believes is a threat,” explains Dressler. But, he adds, “the old law tended to be that people ought not to use deadly force until absolutely necessary. They tended to require people to find non-deadly solutions.”

Recent decades have seen some exceptions. One precursor to the new Texas law is a 1985 Colorado law, nicknamed the “Make My Day” law, that treats property crimes as legitimate grounds for the use of force. The law came under national scrutiny in 1990, when an 18-year-old named Laureano Jacobo Grieigo Jr. was shot in the head by a 69-year-old-man as he fled his the man’s home in an unsuccessful robbery attempt. No charges were filed, and an article published in the New York Times at the time called the law an “unusual” statute “that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force — including deadly force — against an invader of the home.” (The same article quoted a criminologist at Florida International University, Dr. William Wilbanks, who warned that the law was ripe for abuse. “The danger is not that this kind of law will be abandoned, but that it will be extended even more,” he said. ”The public sentiment is clearly behind this kind of law.”)

Almost two decades later, Texas’ Castle Law is part of a wave of similar legislation passed by states throughout the country, building upon the castle doctrine and broadening the right of civilians to use lethal force under the auspices of self-defense. The new laws are particularly expansive in that they go beyond the boundaries of private homes to include cars, workplaces or anywhere else a person may feel threatened. In this sense, says Dressler, “what is happening is that the castle doctrine is becoming less important.”

Leading the pack was Florida. In 2005, Gov. Jeb Bush signed a law that, as written, “authorizes (a) person to use force, including deadly force, against (an) intruder or attacker in (a) dwelling, residence, or vehicle under specified circumstances.” The law “provides that person is justified in using deadly force under certain circumstances,” and “provides immunity from criminal prosecution or civil action for using deadly force.”

Formally called the “Protection of Persons/Use of Force” law, it became known as the “Stand Your Ground” law.

Heavily backed by the National Rifle Association, Florida’s new law alarmed more than just gun control advocates. Many people were appalled at the fact that it could apply in public spaces. As the Christian Science Monitor reported at the time:

“Most significantly, (the law) now extends that right to public places, too, meaning that a person no longer has a duty to retreat from what they perceive to be a threatening situation before they are entitled to pull the trigger. Members of the public may now stand their ground and “meet force with force,” it states, without fear of criminal prosecution or civil litigation. “It’s common sense to allow people to defend themselves,” said Gov. Jeb Bush (R) as he signed the new law.”

Only 20 state legislators opposed the law. One Democratic critic worried that it could “turn Florida into the OK Corral,” but other Democratic politicians “admitted that they did not want to appear soft on crime by voting against it.” It helped that one of the driving forces behind the law was Marion Hammer, a lobbyist who argued that the law would protect women against abuse and assault. She “characterized herself as a feminist,” recalls Dressler, “but … more relevantly, was a former president of the NRA.”

Mere months after the passage of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, similar legislation was being proposed in more than 20 states. The NRA was happy to take the credit. “Today, the NRA is feeding the firebox of Castle Doctrine legislation in states throughout the country,” an article posted on the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action Web site boasted, crediting itself with “reuniting Americans with the right to protect themselves and loved ones from danger.”

“Justifiable Homicides” on the Rise

Today, there are similar new laws in at least 15 states across the country, and while it may be too early to know the effects, in Texas, the newly passed Castle Law was followed by a series of shootings that prompted questioning over the potential “sudden impact.” “Does new law make them quicker to pull the trigger?” asked the Dallas Morning News in January. (At least one source said yes: “I think the Castle Law has more citizens thinking about fighting back, knowing they’re protected from being sued later,” said a Dallas man who shot and killed a man who broke into his garage, “where he stored thousands of dollars worth of tools.”)

Anecdotal evidence aside, one recent government report suggests that the laws may be having some effect. A little-noticed study released in mid-October by the FBI found a spike in the number of “justifiable homicides” recorded in the past few years.

The FBI defines “justifiable homicides” as “certain willful killings” that “must be reported as justifiable, or excusable.” This includes “the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty” and “the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.” According to the report, in 2007, police officers killed 391 people — the highest number since 1994 — and private citizens killed 254 — the most since 1997.

Although the report got little attention in the press, an article in USA Today quoted criminal justice experts who cited “an emerging ’shoot-first’ mentality by police and private citizens” as a possible explanation.

Dressler agrees. “What’s been happening is that a lot of states have broadened their homicide rules to give greater authority to citizens to use deadly force in circumstances that in the past would not have been permissible,” he says. Expanding “stand your ground” style legislation “means that there are going to be, in the future, many more homicides perpetrated by citizens against other citizens — homicides that were in the past viewed as criminal now will be seen as justifiable.”

“If you talk to prosecutors, the message that they’re getting is, really, don’t even prosecute cases that come close to the category of what is now deemed ‘just homicides.’”

Whether a killing is “just” or not is currently determined by local police departments, to whom the concept is long familiar. “Police, of course, use justifiable homicide, both in self-defense and in crime prevention,” explains Dressler, “but now a couple things are happening. One is the reality that … thanks to the NRA, some fairly conservative judges, Republicans, we’ve really become an armed nation. Far more people possess guns today than in the more distant past, and that means that when a police officer is dealing with someone, they have much greater reason to fear that the person they’re dealing with is armed.” This, perhaps, helps to explain the rise in “justifiable homicides” committed by police (not to mention the rise of “non-lethal” weapons like tasers, themselves deadly weapons).

The recent FBI study is not the first time the government has tracked the number of “justifiable homicides” committed by police alongside those committed by civilians as if they were equivalent phenomena. But given that police officers are, at least in theory, trained to be uniquely authorized to use force in a law enforcement capacity, to what extent do these new laws blur the distinction between police and civilians?

“I think the creed of the NRA is that citizens/civilians have the right to use deadly force because the police don’t (or cannot) protect us,” says Dressler. “So, under that view, yes, the distinction is blurring.”

More Homicides Will Be Seen as Justifiable

Although it may be an old concept, the notion of “justifiable homicides” is itself a slippery one. Anti-abortion extremists, for example, have used the term to describe the killing of abortion providers, on the grounds that they are defending the lives of the unborn. But perhaps more alarming is the positive connotation the term holds for some. When a Memphis paper reported earlier this year that the number of local justifiable homicides “jumped from 11 in 2006 to 32 in 2007,” it quoted a firearms instructor whose (admittedly unscientific) explanation was that “the thugs have started running into people who can protect themselves.” It’s a rather glib way to talk about murder, and the perverse effect is to cast the killings as a positive trend. In Memphis that year, the 32 “justifiable homicides” included four killings by police officers. “All were found to be what internal affairs investigators term ‘good shoots,’” according to the report, which explained that “Tennessee law gives citizens the right to defend themselves if they have a reasonable and imminent fear of harm from a carjacker, rapist, burglar or other violent assailant. They can also employ deadly force to protect another person.”

But what about another person’s property, as in the case of Joe Horn? If a person can shoot two men in the back and get away with it — and, indeed, if he cites his legal right to do so — haven’t these laws gone too far?

Dressler thinks so. “My fear is that these changes in self-defense laws will lead to a lot more homicides — and that a lot more homicides will be seen as justifiable.” ++

New Gimmick By Gun Industry: A Sales Tax Holiday In South Carolina To Encourage More Gun Sales
Gun Guys

Diocese rebukes priest’s claims that Obama voters must confess
Catholic News Agency
Nov 15, 2008

Charleston — The Diocese of Charleston is distancing itself from the actions of a Catholic priest in Greenville, South Carolina, who made remarks in a letter to parishioners suggesting that those who voted for Barack Obama should not receive Holy Communion until they go to Confession.

Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin, Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, said on Friday afternoon that the Catholic Church’s “clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion” has been “pulled into the partisan political arena” by the priest’s letter which was posted on the web site of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville.

Writing in his November 9 letter, Father Jay Scott Newman said that the election has revealed “deep and bitter divisions within the United States and also within the Catholic Church in the United States.” Saying the divisions can be compared to a “culture war,” he named abortion as the “central battleground” of the conflict.

In the priest’s description of the abortion debate, one side regards abortion as “a murderous abomination that cries out to Heaven for vengeance” while the other regards it as “a fundamental human right that must be protected in laws enforced by the authority of the state.”

“Between these two visions of the use of lethal violence against the unborn there can be no negotiation or conciliation, and now our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president,” Father Newman claimed.

Noting that a majority of self-described Catholic voters helped President-elect Obama win the election, the priest declared:

“Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law.”

He said such persons should not receive Holy Communion until they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance.

In judging the sinfulness of acts, moral theology distinguishes between “formal” and “material” cooperation. In the former, a person directly wills and assists in an evil act. In the latter, a person indirectly assists in an evil act without intending that act be done. Whether material cooperation is sinful depends on its proximity to the evil act.

In a September 9 joint pastoral letter, Archbishop of Kansas City in Kansas John Naumann and Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph Robert Finn said that “remote material cooperation” like voting for a candidate who supports intrinsic evils is permissible for “proportionate reasons.” However, they questioned whether consideration for a candidate’s sound positions on other issues could ever outweigh considerations regarding the candidate’s support for intrinsic evils.

Father Newman’s letter continued its discussion of Obama, saying “we must always and everywhere disagree with him over abortion” but he insisted Catholics must pray for the President-elect and obey him where morally permitted.

“Let us hope and pray that the responsibilities of the presidency and the grace of God will awaken in the conscience of this extraordinarily gifted man an awareness that the unholy slaughter of children in this nation is the greatest threat to the peace and security of the United States and constitutes a clear and present danger to the common good,” the priest wrote.

Father Newman told The Greenville News that the responses to his actions have been positive by a ratio of about 9 to 1. The priest said he would not actively deny sacraments to Obama voters, explaining that the Church denies no one Communion unless doing otherwise would cause “grave scandal.”

Soon after the priest’s actions were reported, Stephen Gajdosik, a spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Charleston, told the Greenville News that calling to penance those parishioners who voted for a pro-abortion rights candidate is a question of how best to deepen a flock’s relationship to God and a matter left up to local priests. He reportedly said such a move is appropriate and in line with Church teaching.

He added that for someone to be guilty of cooperating with evil, a person would have to know the consequences of their action and purposefully vote anyway for the candidate who supports legalized abortion.

Monsignor Laughlin, the diocesan administrator, in his Friday statement charged that Father Newman’s actions have “diverted the focus” from Catholic teaching on abortion and “do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.”

The monsignor then cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the topic of conscience, stating “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” He also quoted a passage on the formation and examination of conscience.

“Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith,” the monsignor commented. “Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.”

“The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church,” Monsignor Laughlin continued.

He closed his Friday statement with an exhortation to pray for the president-elect and all elected officials “with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child.” ++

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Entry Filed under: Political Waves