Home decor I can get behind
Madlad 3d printed a graboid – took a year on an Ender 5 pic.twitter.com/4HgOkk7wCO
— Louis vil LeGun (@LouisvilleGun) March 10, 2023
I want that.
Paradigm is Shifting Again: Lord of the Flies in the neighborhood.
Murfreesboro, TN detective explains rise in teen ‘shootings, homicides’ (wkrn.com)
Amazingly, a good article without the proverbial political BS about crime, at least not very much.
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. (WKRN) — During the 10-year period between 2006 and 2016, Murfreesboro Police Department Lt. James Abbott said there were only about two or three homicides where the suspect was a juvenile.
By around 2017, things began to shift. Abbott said there has since been an average of one to two homicides involving juvenile suspects in Murfreesboro each year, with two reported in 2021 and one reported last year. In total, there were around 10 homicides reported those years.
Murfreesboro is a town, not a Metropolis like Nashville. So even though the numbers are not impressive in quantity, they are worth of attention percentage-wise.
Rising juvenile crime has been a trend across the state, and although crimes committed by juveniles only account for about 1% of violent crime in Murfreesboro, Abbott said it is as problem that has steadily grown worse, with many names popping up more than once.
“Names popping more than once” The old and much-derided concept of the small core of super-criminals surfaces again. It has been what? 40 years that the idea was confirmed, and yet little in effectiveness has been achieved to target them? We love to keep repeating mistakes in the name of stupid politics.
Just in the past few years, Abbott said there have been two separate homicides where investigators were able to use a juvenile’s “GPS tracker,” or ankle monitor, to track them to the area of the crime.
As much as I would like to attribute the fact that kids are unexperienced and stupid as the cause they went on to murder people while wearing a Lo-Jack, I believe they do so because they do not care one way or the other. What are they going to do to them anyway? The law restricts in many cases what can happen and cops are more and more reluctantly to treat them like adults because they know they will be vilified and put under a legal microscope for “mistreating” the poor little misguided angels.
With several law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors cracking down on gang activity in past years, Abbott said investigators no longer see teens joining organized gangs like before. Rather, they are forming what he refers to as “social networks.”…
Abbott said it’s not uncommon to see groups of 15- to 16-year-old kids forming their own “gangs” and carrying out violent acts, partly driven by “stuff they see on social media.”
“Some of the very same kids we’re talking about dealing with, their parents are the ones in the federal prison,” Abbott said. “So, they were born into it, but the gang wasn’t there when they got old enough to be in it. So, it’s like ‘Hey let’s create our own little clique and do our thing’.”
Crime is old but is brutally Darwinian. So, the idea the new crop of Baby Criminals created a new way to associate and do crime in a way Law Enforcement and Justice is not accustomed to deal with makes perfect sense and is scary because we know how long it takes for government to hit the rudder and make a course correction.
Abbott estimates that almost 70% of drive-by shootings, or reckless endangerments, in Murfreesboro in recent years and months have been committed by juveniles. According to the MPD, there were a total of 14 reckless endangerments reported in 2021 and 13 in 2022.
If they can get away with it, why not do it? Drive-Byes are the cool “safe” crime.
“When we talk about these shootings and things, they’re not just suspects or offenders in these cases, they’re also the victims,” Abbott said. “Most people that co-offend are more likely to be, especially in these types of crimes involving firearms, victims of gun violence.”
About the only good thing is trash taking itself out. They are not victims but consequences of their own behavior. There are victims and are the innocent bystanders caught in the live version of some video game or social trend they are emulating.
Based on data from the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, many of the guns involved in those crimes can be traced to auto burglaries and thefts, and Abbott said some firearms have been on the streets for up to a decade.
“It’s not uncommon for us to see firearms from Memphis, Jackson, Nashville, Chattanooga and other surrounding cities where these firearms were used (in crimes) possibly two, three, I think the furthest one I’ve seen back was 10 years,” he said.
Do I need to repeat myself here? Secure your fucking guns people. And In Tennesse, you have an almost continuous tax-free holiday for gun safe and similar devices so there is no excuse not to have your unused guns under lock and key.
Abbott said some family members “take it to heart” and do what they can to intervene. However, he said there are some situations where that parental figure is not present, and some children lack the support system needed to keep them from reoffending.
Ouch, you know heat is going to come down on the Lt for “racism” or some other equally stupid political tomfoolery.
What is the take for us as Civilians? I believe we fail in our planning to be aware of “children.” I believe it is hardwired in all of us that the young ones are to be protected because they are weak and incapable of harm. Unfortunately, that leaves us with and extended reaction gap time when we are confronted with the ugly truth of young teen praying and spraying in our general direction. It is an exaggeration, but probably we should consider youngster who is not crawling as a potential threat.
Six-year-old boy will not be charged for shooting school teacher in US | Al Arabiya English
Prepare accordingly.
Friday Feedback
You know you’ve been reading to much law geek language when you get two cases totally confused. I claim as a defense that Judge Benitez in his conference meeting with parties was talking about opinions given in one case while talking about another and it looks like the state managed to get it confused too.
This was so bad that I had to revise the article. This is different from an update in that to much changed. I hope the method I used was useful.
It is all infringements.
I’ve started a new series which I’m calling Legal Arguments. This is how I see the state currently arguing. I’m also going over some older cases that were used to establish case law against us. Hopefully you all find them interesting.
There are a number of cases happening in other parts of the country. The CCIA challenges are currently waiting for oral arguments before the Second Circuit. We are waiting on an opinion from the Forth Circuit regarding Maryland’s AWB. There is a very upset District Judge in New Jersey that is about to hand NJ their asses in a sling regarding Koons et al. v. Reynolds et al 1:22-cv-07464. NJ has threatened to appeal to the Third Circuit court if she doesn’t rule right now.
On the fun side of the world, it is beautiful today. The sun is shining off the snow, the trees haven’t be cut back so far as to destroy the view. Power is up. Oil tank is 4/5 full and the Furnace just got its yearly servicing for the first time since we bought the house over 10 years ago. (Things you don’t know as a homeowner).
The furnace thing was sort of funny. It stopped creating heat. I went down to check on it. Couldn’t get it to fire. Called the heating people. They sent out a tech. He spent the rest of the day doing service. Turns out that we are considered long time customers as we’ve been buying oil from them since we moved in. The tech looked at it and decided to bill it out as yearly service instead of emergency call out. It cost a bit more in parts but those were parts that should have been replaced yearly.
Enough, I hope you all had a great week and will have a great weekend.
Give us your thoughts below!
Reader Prompt regarding “Busting the Durable Myth…”
Reader David Douglass provides the following comments about Busting the Durable Myth That U.S. Self-Defense Law Is Uniquely ‘Harsh’ By T. Markus Funk, Ph.D.
Awa, you’re correct about Fink’s manner of writing, but the context and conclusions of that writing are completely misplaced because he doesn’t fully understand Use-of-Force Law in the U.S. I’ll post an example and my take on it.
Example:
To illustrate the real-world impact of this honest-belief-only standard, recall embattled Rittenhouse prosecutor Thomas Binger. In his closing arguments, Binger asked the jury repeatedly what a “reasonable person” would have done in Rittenhouse’s position: “Would you have gone out after curfew with an AR-15 looking for trouble? Would you have aimed at other people? Would you have tried to use the gun to protect an empty car lot? No reasonable person would’ve done these things!”
Prosecutor Binger’s near-singular focus on the alleged unreasonableness of Rittenhouse’s conduct serves to highlight how game-changing England’s honest-belief standard is. In England, the jury would not need to be persuaded of the objective reasonableness of Rittenhouse’s asserted belief that deadly force was required to ward off an imminent attack. Instead, Rittenhouse would be entitled to an acquittal if the jury merely concluded that he honestly held his belief. Suffice it to say that it does not take a practitioner with years of in-the-trenches experience to recognize that this honest-belief-only standard imposes significant additional burdens on prosecutors. It removes the objective reasonableness safeguard and requires prosecutors to focus their entire energy on the difficult task of disproving defendants’ claims about what they were thinking when they, say, pulled the trigger.
Example: In Germany, on the other hand, Rittenhouse would have merely had to persuade the fact finder that his exercise of deadly force was necessary to prevent the attackers from, among other things, robbing, assaulting, or battering him. Prosecutor Binger argued that “Joseph Rosenbaum was chasing after the defendant because he wanted to do some physical harm to him, but you don’t bring a gun to a fist fight.” Such a contention could carry weight in the United States. But if prosecutor Binger made this argument in Germany, he would be conceding that a non-trial attack was in Rittenhouse’s future, thereby all but guaranteed a speedy acquittal.
My Take:
Fink has misapplied Rittenhouse case by presenting prosecutor Binger’s distorted interpretation of Rittenhouse’s use of force as if it is a true representation of the application of US Use of Force Law, which it is not. And as the end result of the case played out, it turns-out the Rittenhouse case was completely in agreement with Germany’s laws, proving that US Law accurately applied as intended, actually produces the same end result—justified use of force. Fink uses the grossly distorted leftist liberal interpretations of US LAW as presented by Binger as if it is an example of the legal intent of US LAW. Just because a liberal leftist prosecutor grossly distorts the law as written and applied it deceptively, using outright lies, doesn’t mean it’s a credible example of how US Law regarding Use of Force should be upheld by prosecution in a court of US Law. Only a liberal leftist mindset would believe Binger was “embattled”, meaning the prosecutor here was bond by law and doing his legal duty and was therefore credibly representing the law as written i.e., Rittenhouse had no right to, use-o -force law protection. This is not a good example of the point Fink believes should be considered to prove his assertion. But he believes it is. He therefore gives the liberal leftist mindset on Use of Force, credence by using an incorrect interpretation of Use of Force Law. Fink doesn’t make a distinction of, nor separate, social activism from actual law.
Fink later states again, the Binger’s argument could ‘carry weight’ in the USA but not in Germany. This is again conflating Use of Force Law regarding objective reasonableness by disregarding or omitting subjective reasonableness as a key determiner in judging objective reasonableness. To be “Objective” one must understand the defendant’s subjective reasoning, in error or not.
.
Fink’s final statement: Ultimately, such impactful misconceptions distract us from having a more fully informed debate about the appropriate role of, and justification for, self-preferential deadly force in a modern, democratic nation. Correcting such fallacies, then, is a vital first step towards a more balanced and promising conversation about criminal justice reform in a pluralistic society like ours.
.
I believe he does not realize that he in fact has added to ironically, ‘misconceptions which distract us from having a more fully informed debate…..’ by using bad cases upon which to base his premise. But perhaps he knows exactly what he’s doing. After all, prosecutors across this nation cringed at the legal arguments presented by Binger on Use-of-Force Law in the Rittenhouse Case.
— Why are they arguing outside of Bruen comment section
David, what you are saying is interesting but I do not read it the same way.
Self-Defense is an affirmative defense. At that point the state, represented by Binger, has to prove that it was not self defense. There are certain requirements for an action to be considered self-defense.
- Innocence. You can’t start the fight
- Imminence. The threat is either happening or about to happen very soon
- Proportionality. The response has to match the level of threat. You don’t get to shoot somebody because they spit at you.
- Avoidance. Could you have avoided the fight?
- Reasonableness. Were your actions reasonable as perceived by an outside source
You can’t say “I was scared for my life” because somebody is across the street yelling towards you. That same person rushing across the street towards you could be reasonable.
For example:
Miguel! Miguel! It’s been ages!
Woman rushes across the street towards Miguel who shoots her dead because that’s what a reasonable person does when an old acquaintance crosses the road to meet you.
The other side of that example is that it isn’t a woman from his past, instead it is a beefy angry looking bald dude a big hammer and sickle tattoo who is yelling in anger before making a bull rush across the street after dark.
One is reasonable, one is not.
Binger was attempting to get the jury to determine that Kyle’s actions were not reasonable. The aspects of self-defense will be given to the jury as jury instructions before they go to deliberate. The word “reasonableness” will be in those instructions.
If Binger can convince the Jury that Kyle had not acted in a reasonable manner then the Jury might find Kyle guilty. The defense would have and did make the argument that “reasonableness” is in regards to the act at the time of the act.
Was it smart for 17 year old Kyle to be in that location, at that time, carrying an AR-15? Not for me to say. I would not have wanted my 17 year olds anywhere near that location, armed or unarmed.
Regardless, there was nothing that was happening at that moment in time when Kyle was at the car lot that has any bearing on the case.
Dr Funk is comparing English Law to US Law. He is saying that since “reasonableness” is not part of the requirements for a self-defense claim in English Law, Binger’s argument would make not difference at all.
I didn’t see anything I really found wrong in Funk’s paper. I think he did an Okay job of showing that US self-defense law is reasonable in its limits and freedoms.
Regardless, thanks for bringing the paper to my attention.
The hysterics over Tucker’s coverage of J6 is the swansong of the system’s grip
The end of 2022 and the beginning of 2023 is an era that will go down in history.
In the last few months, what exactly has been confirmed as fact that we were told were conspiracy theories in 2019 through the 2022 election cycle.
Social media did in fact collude with the FBI to control the flow of negative Biden information.
The FBI did collude with social media and the legacy media to fabricate bad Trump information.
Hunter Biden was even more corrupt than anyone could possibly imagine and is inexorably tied to his father.
COVID did come from a Chinese bio lab. It was created with the help of Dr. Fauci and funding from the US government. It was probably a bioweapon.
Natural immunity was better than the vaccine for almost everyone.
The vaccine was at best ineffective, and at most dangerous for all but the most compromised people with multiple co-morbidities.
Kids are not resilient and closing schools devastated children permanently.
And now, everything that we were told about January 6th was a lie by the uni party to destroy the legacy of Trump and his supporters.
Tucker Carlson has been releasing the video of that every night this week.
Every single narrative of the last three years is crashing down.
The J6 narrative is the most salient because we have the video. People can see that what they were told for 26 months was a lie.
The credibility of the system is gone. It’s worse than gone. They are Captain Worngway Peachfuzz, everything they say is diametrically the opposite of the truth.
There is no reason to listen to these people at all, everything they say is a lie to gain and preserve their power.
That is 100% transparent to everyone.
They are hysterical because it’s undeniable and unassailable that the emperor’s cock and balls are hanging out in the breeze and we refuse to believe them that he’s a woman in a beautiful dress.
Insurrection Voiceover.
Hits it right in the head and ridicules the whole comparison with Pearl Harbor and 9/11.