| | | >> So, I don't know why you would think I would viewed this differently five years ago. Because she's a woman? Because she's a Trumpist? One can feel sympathy for her without abandoning principles. To do otherwise would be hypocrisy.
I don't know what made her act as she did or what she was thinking. But we, as a people, generally do not presume we know the intent of another. Sometimes, we can infer it.
For example, suppose she had a gun, knife, or club in her hand. That would have enabled the shooter to presume he knew the intent and probably be on solid ground in the shooting. Although, personally, as a human, I think if it were me, I would not have taken her life from whatever, 15-20 feet away without a warning. But I have friends who are former cops and we have discussed this kind of situation in the past -- in reference to the shooting of a guy carrying a knife, confronting cops. Anyway, they pointed out that a guy with a knife in his hand can close what looked to be 15 feet really quickly and cops are aware of this.
So, if there is a weapon involved, that changes everything.
I don't know anything about this woman other than she was an Air Force veteran. I think she believed the entire crowd was going to advance, and she chose to be the first.
But the crowd advancing in the Capitol, while a crime, is not a combat zone. If people are breaking and entering en masse, it is not okay to just open fire. At all. And certainly not before the first person through even touches the ground without being challenged. There have been soldiers in the Iraq War who were convicted and sentenced
The Rule-of-Law requires due process of law. Both sides are entitled. The shooter may have been interrogated gently, I don't know, but the People do have a right to know why he is being cut loose without the decedent getting her due process.
We could rehash the various cases; but I do think the Trayvon Martin incident was a critical time in that people had to think about "stand your ground" and what it meant to them. At the time I was okay with it, but a couple things later changed my view on it. Notably, his killer has behaved in a manner that made me believe his innocence was in question. But mostly, an episode of The First 48 which involved a guy chasing down another guy with a butcher knife after the victim was caught breaking into his truck -- that episode, when I found out a while later the guy got off on Stand Your Ground -- really bothered me (brief clip):
youtube.com
This fellow got off, but shortly thereafter was himself a murder victim.
But this was more clear cut than Trayvon: This guy could have called the cops. I don't even think anything was taken. He was a block from his apartment when he killed the guy IIRC. So Stand-your-ground is not as iron clad as FL wanted to make it at the time. They have it here, but it seems more reasonably implemented.
But there was not a "stand your ground" issue here. While, at the time, I knew the lawyer who argued and won the Heller case, I didn't really follow it that closely. I think at the time I did agree with it.
The bottom line, I don't think this a major legal issue: good sense tells you that a killing like this requires an investigation with the truth coming out to citizens, not merely to a partisan group in Congress. I have written my Congressman and a couple others, but the truth is I've never really felt one my letters changed anyone's mind about anything.
You should a lot more alarmed about what's going on with the Democrats in DC right now than anything that happened under Trump. If something you think Trump did was as bad as what they're doing right now (e.g., planning to expand the Court by 10 justices, to eliminate the lifetime appointment, plans to expand other high courts around the country, and of course, the insane use of 10s of Executive Orders in the form of dictatorship, all this is cause for great concern.
The riot at the Capitol was people doing what they do after an election is stolen.
|
|
