tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post1174928673702471045..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: The Whites-Only Second AmendmentDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-67921423418395846752016-07-08T08:28:34.133-07:002016-07-08T08:28:34.133-07:00“If possession of a gun by a black man is sufficie...“<i>If possession of a gun by a black man is sufficient to justify a police shooting, then possession of a gun by anyone justifies it.</i>”<br /><br />I heard some of the comments of the girlfriend of the guy who just got shot in Minnesota. I thought she showed surprising self-restraint. I imagined being in her shoes, and saying this: <br /><br />“I know police officers. I know they want to support their fellow officers. That’s natural, and it’s laudable. But in this case, the cost of that support is too high. If officers really want to support their fellow officers, the single most important thing they can do is ensure that this one officer pays for what he did.<br /><br />Because everyone is waiting to learn what the law is in Minnesota. Can you justify killing someone just ‘cuz he’s carrying a weapon? The day that cop gets sent to prison, we’ll know that it isn’t. Alternatively, the day that cop goes free, we’ll know that it is. And I cringe to imagine what mayhem we will see on the streets of Minnesota that day—<i>especially</i> for cops.<br /><br />I lost the man I love ‘cuz he was carrying a gun. So I want to talk to people: Does someone you love carry a gun? If so, please TALK to that person—especially if he’s a cop. TELL THEM how important it is that we send a clear message that you can’t shoot people merely because they’re legally armed. And think about what you would say if you were sitting where I’m sitting. Because if we can’t fix this, eventually – you will be.”EWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07704258203202907249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-34334443124914010562016-07-08T08:23:33.753-07:002016-07-08T08:23:33.753-07:00“If a state allows concealed carry, then telling a...“<i>If a state allows concealed carry, then telling an officer that one has a concealed (and permitted) handgun can't justify even heightened anxiety, let alone fear for one's life.</i>”<br /><br />As a matter of fact, yes. A cop would get convicted if he said, “Based solely on the fact that the victim said he was legally bearing a concealed handgun, I feared for my life and therefore shot him.”<br /><br />But as a matter of doctrine, it is unclear to me that someone’s legal behavior could <i>never</i> constitute grounds for fear justifying the use of deadly force. Could you justify shooting the toddler ambling toward the nuclear trigger? Ambling is legal, yet still might result in disaster. (Admittedly, at the moment I can’t come up with any remotely plausible hypotheticals involving concealed carry….)<br /><br />And moreover, even if you could not justify fear based on some legal behavior in isolation, any cop would be able to cite multiple factors that, in combination, contributed to his fear. And the fact that those factors were each legal, in and of themselves, would not mean that they could not, in combination, justify fear. <br /><br />For example, imagine a cop learns that a homicidal nut in the vicinity is weaving back and forth in a rusty green Gremlin, shooting cops. The cop finds himself trapped in an alley as a rusty green Gremlin weaves down toward him. Now, driving a rusty green Gremlin is not illegal. Weaving is not necessarily illegal. But given the totality of circumstances, the cop might be justified in employing deadly force in his own defense.EWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07704258203202907249noreply@blogger.com