Andrew Branca takes on the New York Times and Taco Stand on Stand Your Ground.

I had a post halfway done, but I saw that Andrew had done his work, so I leave it to the professional to take them down piece by piece.

I imagine we’ve all chuckled at the mindlessness which the New York Times provides opportunities to observe the Murray Gell-Mann amnesia effect in action.From my own perspective as an expert in use-of-force law I fail to recall a single instance in which the NYT has so much as approached factual accuracy or displayed contextual understanding in a piece on self-defense laws in general or “stand-your-ground” in particular.This morning’s editorial, “More Stand Your Ground Mischief in Florida” is no exception. What has the NYT Editorial Board all in a tizzy this time is a proposed change to Florida’s self-defense immunity law.

Source: Stand-Your-Ground | Self-defense Immunity| Florida

I love his closing:

What the NYT fails to recognize is that what Florida has is not a “stand-your-ground” problem, it is an “abusive prosecutors” problem.  Had prosecutors ceased their over-reaching in currying political favor this proposed change to the state’s self-defense immunity law would never have seen the light of day.

And we have seen that again and again.

3 Replies to “Andrew Branca takes on the New York Times and Taco Stand on Stand Your Ground.”

  1. Howdy Miquel,

    Mr. Branca’s article was both very clear and a bit disturbing. The Sunshine state seems to be developing a severe case of highhanded government officialdom recently. And the judicial branch legislating controls on these officials is quite proper.
    First we had the lack of common sense in regards to accidental exposure of firearms by permit holders and now we have issues with laws pertaining to the use of force.
    Of course, those officials that the law is aimed at, are having some hurt feelings at present, but they’ll get over it. Or not, it really doesn’t matter. They just need to understand where they stand in regards to who is working for whom.




    0



    0
  2. It seems to me that the lawyers who are all butt-hurt over this shift in “we’ve always done it this way” methodology and who keep saying that “the law is fine the way it is” should consider an alternative remedy such as removing immunity from the rouge prosecutors like Angela Corey, who abuse the system with impunity, as well as the judge who let her get away with it. In a perfect world the legal system should work. But the system has been gamed to the point where those who abuse it (Corey) are able to hide behind the protections that were put into place to keep the bad guys from abusing the good guys.

    This new law is simply The People being tired of legal abuse where the abusers pay NO penalty for ruining peoples lives as well as their finances while trying to make political points for themselves, without regard for true justice. No, it may not be the most perfect solution, but it does push the system in the right direction. And it may have some unintended consequences, so what? Most laws do, and the politicians just tell us to suck it up when it isn’t fair in our direction. It’s time for the fairness to run in OUR direction for a change. If the legal system won’t police it’s own, then it’s time for another part of the government triad to do the job, just like they did with putting teeth into the law concerning the state having total say in gun laws to prevent the patchwork of legal landmines that the local govt’s created (ignoring the law themselves).

    Same for the Open Carry law and the Campus Carry law being discussed. If the State and all of it’s various minions would stop gaming the enforcement of the law instead of abiding by the intent then we wouldn’t HAVE to push out the limits. It’s time to take back our freedoms from the statists and authoritarians.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .