Ammo For Sale

« « Nepotism | Home | Well, that might explain it » »

Stand your ground misrepresented – again

This time, at the Denver Post:

The legislation, House Bill 1011, sponsored by Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, would expand the current home-intruder law to include people who feel threatened by another person while in their cars and businesses. It creates the “presumption” that the person in the house or car or business “has a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury” to themselves or others.

Current law places the onus on home occupants to prove they were in fear of their lives. Gardner’s bill places the burden on police and prosecutors to prove they weren’t. That’s preposterous.

And, precisely, why is it preposterous:

We’re satisfied that Colorado already has ample law to immunize potential victims of, say, carjackings and business intrusions from prosecution. Moreover, HB 1011 has the potential to expand gun violence. Colorado law allows people to carry concealed weapons in their homes, cars and businesses. It seems to us that this measure will have the unintended consequence of providing cover to criminals, including gang members, who decide to shoot from their cars.

Well, when you make shit up, it is preposterous. What the bill actually does, as stated in the article, is create the presumption of innocence. A gang banger shooting from a car should be fairly easy to prove that it’s not a self-defense situation.

4 Responses to “Stand your ground misrepresented – again”

  1. Xrlq Says:

    A gang banger shooting from a car should be fairly easy to prove that itís not a self-defense situation.

    Not necessarily. Maybe his target was a rival gang-banger, and he thought the other guy was going to shoot him so he shot back, first.

  2. SayUncle Says:

    Could be, I suppose.

  3. Rustmeister Says:

    But in that case, I’d have to wonder how legal the gun-owner(s) would be.

  4. _Jon Says:

    There is a good point to that article.

    It is so full of shit that it makes the opponent to the bill look like an idiot.
    It makes his objection appear asinine and full of hyperbole.

    The net result of that is anyone who opposes the bill can be compared to him and placed in the same cesspool of stupidity. Only true Liberals are happy being seen as associated with the likes of lunatics, so this moron’s “argument” will serve to push the “center” away from opposing the bill. Which means they will either support or abstain from it.

    Both of which are good for those who support it. (In the sense that “abstain” is better than “oppose”.)

Used three kinds of generics. I liked the Levitra Pills more, although the others acted quite well. Perhaps it all depends on the characteristics of each organism.