Uncategorized

A group of 50 teens attacks a man while he is on private property. The story makes some hay by pointing out that the teens were black. Let me start this by saying that I don’t care what color you are. If you attack me in a place where I have a right to be, Florida Law says that I have a right to protect myself, and meet force with force, and that law includes the use of deadly force, if that force is needed to protect me or my family from a threat of serious injury.

The only question here is whether or not a crowd of 50 teens are powerful enough to cause serious injury to a 39 year old male. (OK, a 40-something in my case) It would appear that it does, being that the victim in this case spent several days in the ICU as a result of the attack. As we all should be aware, head injuries can easily be fatal. Even though, in this case the injuries did not kill the victim, the only reason they did not is because they got tired of beating him and left.

The Brady Campaign opposes Florida’s law. It seems that after Florida’s law was enacted, the Brady Campaign placed billboards all over the state, and handed out flyers at the airport.

The Brady Campaign would rather see rampaging groups of teens roaming the countryside and beating up law abiding citizens, than see those same citizens defend themselves. According to them, a person is morally superior if he runs away, thus allowing a band of savages to beat his wife and children, rather than committing the unpardonable sin of defending himself.

Well, let me tell you: I ain’t goin’ out like that. You are perfectly safe from me and my weapons, unless you and 49 of your friends attack me in my neighbor’s yard, or the gas station. Likewise, avoid trying to rob me, or beat me with a tire iron. For if you bring violence, I will respond with lethal force, because I am not going to lie there and hope my life will be spared because you become bored with beating me.

Marco Rubio, a candidate for Senate from my own state of residence, is attempting to get elected for the Senate seat being vacated by Mel Martinez. He had this to say on Twitter:

I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours. #sayfie #tcot #nra

I think that this is true. An armed people is much more difficult to oppress. True to form was the Huffington Post reply:

But when I consider the sorts of things the Iranians could stand to borrow from America, a poorly worded amendment dealing with gun ownership rights and militias is way down the list. I think that maybe Iran could stand to have some separation of powers, a line between church and state, a free press, freedom to worship, the right to assemble, the right to speak freely, a freedom from unlawful searches, due process of law, womens’ suffrage, and a government that doesn’t terrorize its citizens with armed thugs or threaten its neighbors through terrorist proxies.

I have a question for you: Just how do you think that those rights are safeguarded? How does a disarmed populace fight off a totalitarian, theocratic dictatorship? After all, Iran has already proven that they do not have free elections, they have already shown that they are willing to kill their own citizens, censor their press, persecute on religious grounds, and generally commit all of the atrocities that you speak of. So with all of this in mind, just how do you suppose that an unarmed populace will win these freedoms?

The more disparity there is between the force that the citizens of a government can bring to bear, and the force that a government can bring to bear on its people, the bloodier that fight for freedom will be.

In the US Constitution, all of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights are important. The Second plays an important part in securing the others, for a government that is outnumbered 100 to 1 by a well armed populace will think twice before gunning down young women in the streets.

So many lefties are so fond of saying that “if the protesters had guns, then the situation would be a bloodbath.” I would point out that there are some words that come to my mind when only the oppressors have weapons: massacre, genocide, purge.

People who believe that everything in life can be solved without violence are living in a fantasy world where no one is ever greedy or power hungry. Let us hope that we in the United States never have to learn any different.

Last month I reported on an incident in which an Oklahoma Highway Patrolman by the name of Daniel Martin choked a paramedic because the Trooper believed the medic’s EMT partner flipped him the bird.

More information has come to light. The DA has determined that there were crimes committed, but decided that charges would not serve the public interest. In other words, the police are not being held accountable for violating the law, and violating the civil rights of the motorists they pul over.

District Attorney Max Cook (District 24) sent the letter to Colonel Van M. Guillotte on the same day he publicized his decision not to file charges in the May 24 incident captured on video.

In the letter DA Cook wrote, “It is my opinion Trooper Martin’s handling of this situation was inappropriate from the outset.” Cook added, “… I expect law enforcement officers to treat all citizens with respect. I do not think this can be said about Trooper Martin’s actions on May 24, 2009”.

The letter was first made public by the Okemah News Leader.

The OHP now says it has closed the investigation into the confrontation between Trooper Daniel Martin and a Creek Nation ambulance crew. A day earlier a spokesman finally confirmed that Martin has been on administrative leave. OHP still refuses to release the dash-cam video from Trooper Martin’s vehicle.

I wonder why that is? Could it be that the trooper is made to look more guilty on the dash cam video? Also of interest is the fact that Trooper Iker, the other Trooper present during the incident, claims that he sht off his dash cam during the incident, because he didn’t think it would be needed. In yet another surprise admission, the Trooper admits that the woman who was in the patrol car with him during the incident was his wife. Must be nice to mix business with pleasure.

This trooper is a hothead, and is not fit to wear a badge or carry a gun. This cannot be an isolated incident. I wonder if this is the standard that the OHP aspires to. I also find it predictable that when a cop is accused of breaking the law, the dash cam video is always lost, missing, damaged, or the police just refuse to release it. The OHP is whitewashing the incident, and is also claiming that the Trooper did not violate policy, either through the use of force or by allowing hi wife to ride along with him.

I hope the Paramedic lawyers up and sues these Troopers and the OHP for violating his civil rights. In my opinion, this was aggravated battery- this was a person who (even according to the DA) committed a crime. The fact that he did this while armed makes this aggravated battery. Just because he is a cop does not excuse this in my mind, it in fact makes this worse.

Edited to add: Read the DA’s letter to the OHP here. Hat Tip to STATter911 blog