See other Editorial Articles
Title: The NRA's new cause célèbre. (author blames drug raid death of Atlanta woman on NRA )
Source:
The New Republic
URL Source: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w061211&s=perlstein121306
Published: Dec 13, 2006
Author: Rick Pearlstein
Post Date: 2006-12-13 20:04:04 by SmokinOPs
Keywords: drug war, gun control, bootlicker
Views: 167
Comments: 9
On November 21, at around 7 p.m., narcotics officers in vests that said police (but not full uniforms) served a no-knock warrant to 933 Neal Street in Northwest Atlanta. The resident, Kathryn Johnston--88 years old by some accounts, 92 years old by others--pulled a pistol on the intruders. The police fired on their assailant. When it was over, three officers were wounded and Johnston lay dead. The warrant, alleging drug activity at her address, appears to have been issued in error. And, although the FBI is investigating, the Fulton County Assistant District Attorney defended his cops: "This seems like another tragedy involving drugs." Actually, it seems like another tragedy involving gun policy. On July 1, a new Georgia law went into effect granting anyone who feels attacked on his or her property the "right to meet force with force, including deadly force." Georgia Senate Bill 396 also immunizes such a shooter from prosecution and civil penalty (though not, in Johnston's case, from return fire). It's not unreasonable to suppose that, had this law not passed last summer, Johnston might not have fired on those strange men barging into her house, and she might be alive today. Expect more Kathryn Johnstons. Unnoticed by most of the national press, 2006 became the year the National Rifle Association (NRA) got its way--and average citizens in almost a dozen states earned more leeway to shoot first and ask questions later than, in some circumstances, officers of the law. advertisement Subscribe Today! Starting in 2005 in Florida, the NRA has promoted what it calls "stand your ground" laws. They claim these laws are merely the statutory formalization of a traditional concept--what they refer to as the "Castle Doctrine," after a mellifluous passage in Book Four of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. But statutory language that has been sold to legislators as something uncontroversial--"the Castle Doctrine, in essence, simply places into law what is a fundamental right: self defense," as an NRA newsletter puts it--is in actuality quite radical. Existing statutes and court precedents impose a "duty to retreat" in the face of a mere intruder. Genuine self-defense is legal--always has been, always will be. For over 200 years, distinguishing self-defense from vigilantism was for police, prosecutors, juries, and judges to decide. The new laws leave it up to you and me. In Arizona's, passed in April, a shooter "is presumed to be acting reasonably"--and their target is presumed to intend bodily harm--if the target "unlawfully or forcefully enters or entered the person's residential structure or occupied vehicle"--or merely "is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the residential structure or occupied motor vehicle to further an unlawful activity." An unarmed thief who enters through a front door accidentally left unlocked may end up with, as punishment, a summary execution. Notes NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam, "If someone breaks into your dwelling, it's reasonable to assume that person is in there to do you harm." The law is even more broad in Florida, Georgia, Kansas, and Oklahoma, where the same immunities apply in any place you have a legal right to be. (Perhaps they should call it the "Kingdom Doctrine.") If innocent bystanders die during a shooting falling under the NRA's version of the Castle Doctrine, some believe it might mean immunity from prosecution. That's why either Damon "Red Rock" Darling, a convicted drug dealer, or Leroy "Yellow Man" Larose--both of whom, according to The Miami Herald, plan Castle Doctrine defenses once it is determined whose bullet cut down nine-year-old Sherdavia Jenkins on her front porch in Liberty City during their gunfight--could escape a murder charge or even a civil suit. (The NRA's Arulanandam says, "Look, any law on the books will, you know--there are going to be people who are going to try to take advantage of the laws on the books.") The new stand-your-ground laws are so frightening because they cover shooters who simply feel at risk. In Winter Haven, Florida, Justin Boyette meant no harm when he approached Michael Brady on Brady's lawn, unarmed, possibly to shake his hand. Brady felt menaced and shot him anyway. Brady feels deeply remorseful--but was the first person to be cleared by the Castle Doctrine defense nonetheless. But the new stand-your-ground laws provide little guidance about what happens once cases reach the courts. A state prosecutor in Kentucky, Kimberly Henderson Baird, was so baffled about how the new law applied to the case of a drug dealer beaten to death by one of his customers that she gave up and accepted a manslaughter plea (it covers "force," not just guns). "[If] we couldn't understand it ourselves, how are we going to get a jury to understand it?" The victim's sister, upon learning that her brother's killer would be eligible for parole in two months, noted Kentucky's new law "basically says if anyone comes into your home, and if you have a grudge against them or anything, you can do this and get away with it." She wonders whether the legislature "thought things through." Good question. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, as soon as the 2006 legislative sessions opened, the NRA roared into action so quickly that gun-control groups were blindsided. Bills were introduced in Georgia and South Carolina on January 10; Arizona's was first read two days later; Kansas's the day after that; South Dakota's was signed by February; and, by summer, ten new stand-your-ground laws were in force. Texas is scheduled to introduce its own in January 2007. The NRA has described it as a train "chugging throughout the nation, reuniting Americans with the right to protect themselves and loved ones from danger." Both Democrats and Republicans have been glad to grease the rails. Only one state senator voted against Kentucky's law; Georgia's passed the state Senate 26-1. Democratic governors signed them in Louisiana, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Michigan. Some states specifically withhold immunity from those who shoot cops. Johnston's Georgia, however, does not. News of the Atlanta tragedy broke on November 21--a day before the forty-third birthday of the modern gun-control movement. On November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy was murdered with a rifle purchased by mail. A conservative Democrat, Senator Thomas Dodd, introduced a bill to outlaw the practice. Soon after, the NRA transformed itself from a hobby club for sportsman into a civil rights organization for vigilantes. One of the Dodd bill's strongest supporters was the slain president's brother; for that, the NRA magazine, American Rifleman, suggested Ted Kennedy was a follower of communism. The NRA has refined its rhetoric since. "On behalf of all NRA members and gun owners in Georgia, I want to thank Governor Perdue for signing this self-defense bill," the NRA Institute for Legislative Action's executive director, Chris W. Cox, announced in April. "Now Georgians can defend themselves against an attacker." Meanwhile, a ways down the food chain, Johnston, who defended herself against cops she reasonably presumed to be attackers, has become a Second Amendment martyr. "It goes without saying that the late Kathryn Johnston, a heroic 92-year-old pistol packing Atlanta resident, had every right and reason to open fire on the goons who were in the process of breaking down her front door," reported Free Market News Network. It seems likely that Atlanta's finest screwed up. But, even so, cops already have a hard enough job without the NRA's state-sanctioned shoot-first blessing bearing down on them in eleven states and counting.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: SmokinOPs (#0)
She should have used a 12-gauge with slugs. Those bullet-proof vests wouldn't have stopped them.
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
As I said as a joke a few years ago: "What kind of world are we living in where a person can't kick in someone's door in the middle of the night while waveing guns in the faces of the owner and their family without being shot at by the home owner? I...I just don't want to live in that kind of world."
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
maybe these cops will think twice before breaking down the front doors of innocent people !
When the going gets weird the weird turn pro. - Hunter S Thompson
They might want to consider knocking. LOL! Maybe the new laws will put an end to no-knock raids. And it's about time.
After re-reading this peice I can boil the author's view down into into this: "Oh noes! Now the proles have the same rules of engagment as the police!" Statist pukes want a world where the beloved FEDGOV agents can kill with impunity but Joe-6-pack is a "gun nut" when he shoots an intruder who breaks his door down at 2am. Edit to add: How many here at 4um catch the irony that people wring our hands over someone maybe shooting an innocent person mistaken for a intruder, but blowing away entire nations because they might harm us is not only fine and legal, but patrotic?
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
I read a book that contained old newspaper clippings from here in Delaware. One of the stories was about a running gun battle between liquor agents and a bootlegger from the running boards of moving vehicles right in front of the college. They drove past the school at high speeds shooting at each other, but the article didn't mention if any students were present at the time. It was the onerous enforcement of The Volstead Act that led to juries refusing to convict for non violent alcohol offenses. This is why essentially the same congress that passed the 18th amendment repealed it with the passage of the 21st. They didn't want people to get in the habit of overturning bad law at the jury level. Unfortunately, so many of the people who could hang criminal juries today have dropped out and refuse to serve, and because they don't vote their states don't have them listed as eligible jurors. The way to end this madness is to keep our mouths shut and to get picked for criminal juries, and if we can't convince 11 others to exonerate then we must have the courage to hang the jury all by ourselves. What we say is very important, though. If we blab that we don't agree with criminal drug laws the judge will remove us and put a dutiful alternate in our seats. But, if we say that "I think that cop lied" then we can singlehandedly sabotage prosecutions for non violent, victimless "crimes" such as "smokin' that sheeut".
A bunch of masked guys with guns are "mere intruders"? The "duty to retreat" is immoral and also ridiculously impractical. Does the author actually expect a 92-year-old woman to leap out of the window? Retreating from my apartment would be nearly impossible, and I'm not even close to 92. That's before we even get to the point that turning your back on an attacker is almost never a good move.
bang
#2. To: SmokinOPs (#0)
It seems likely that Atlanta's finest screwed up. But, even so, cops already have a hard enough job without the NRA's state-sanctioned shoot-first blessing bearing down on them in eleven states and counting.
#3. To: SmokinOPs (#0)
But, even so, cops already have a hard enough job without the NRA's state-sanctioned shoot-first blessing bearing down on them in eleven states and counting.
#4. To: christine (#3)
Long Live Rock! - the man
#5. To: christine (#3)
maybe these cops will think twice before breaking down the front doors of innocent people !
#6. To: SmokinOPs (#0)
(Edited)
#7. To: SmokinOPs, Zipporah, christine, rowdee, robin, Diana, Ferret Mike, Neil McIver (#0)
#8. To: SmokinOPs (#0)
Existing statutes and court precedents impose a "duty to retreat" in the face of a mere intruder.
#9. To: ChareltonHest, Critter (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest