The Conflicted Leftist
Fairly routine good news, however the real story is further down, the comments of one Jeff Blackburn, a leftist lawyer, founder of the Texas Innocence Project, and smart enough to really know better. story here
Arcay explained Thursday that the day before, he was preparing for work and heard the front door rattling shortly before 8 a.m. Assuming it was neighbors, Arcay went to open the door but stopped short when glass on the door was shattered by two men breaking it down. “They came in and pulled knives,” he said. “They said they were going to take everything I had.” Arcay yelled for his roommate, who has rented the back room of Arcay’s home for the last three months. The 22-year-old roommate, whose name neither Arcay nor police will reveal, came into the living room carrying Arcay’s shotgun, Arcay said. Arcay said he warned the two intruders – later identified by police as 22-year-old Daniel Hayward Bartlett and Justin Campbell, 19 – that the weapon was loaded. He said they replied, “(Expletive) that shotgun.” Arcay’s roommate shot both men, and Bartlett stumbled outside before collapsing on the lawn.
Hmmm, “fuck that shotgun” would probably not be the most prudent reaction…especially when looking down the wrong end of one after having smashed your way into the holder of said shotgun’s residence. Amarillo police filed no charges against the shooter…obviously. See here for more.
Which then leads us to a “comment”, apparently sought out by a tv reporter, in this moronically titled article (sounds like some 3rd world disease) ”A Possible Case of Castle Doctrine” here from Jeff Blackburn…
“When you tell people they can shoot more people that they could before, violence is going to increase and that’s what we’ve got with this,” says Criminal Defense Lawyer Jeff Blackburn. Blackburn says people are more apt to abuse this law because they have it’s protection.
Make sure you click and watch the video in the above article, Blackburn’s quotes in the video are better than the text quote, it really gets down to the essence of the problem as Blackburn sees it…watched it yet? Yes he did say that the purpose of the law is to “increase violence”. As a citizen (as opposed to what?) he thinks “it is a boneheaded piece of legislation designed to appease the gun freaks.” Do you suppose that Blackburn feels the same about other “protections” in the criminal law?
Blackburn back in March of ‘08 however believed this…
Local defense attorney Jeff Blackburn says this is the age-old debate of people versus government. He says “it gets the business of real law enforcement somewhat out of the hands of the law enforcement apparatus.” Giving that business to the people is why he says the law should be in place. He says “I’m in favor because it expands the power of the people against the government.”
What I find instructive in this seemingly contradictory statement is the title of the article and the obvious context in which the reporter sought out the quote. Note the title of the article in the second piece is “Castle Doctrine Would Let Some Guilty Go Free, Prosecutors Say”. In this article note Blackburn is pitted against James Farren, a local D.A., and buffoon himself. I can imagine that the reporter called Blackburn and said something to the effect of we need some quotes to balance Farren’s comments about how guilty people might go free in this article we’re doing…how about it? If the subject of the article is “some guilty going free” well then Blackburn must be all in favor of that.
It must be difficult to be such a conflicted leftist. Gee I like criminals getting away with things but gee I am programmed to hate guns so much that I have to say this kind of bullshit. And to be clear, as a criminal defense lawyer, Blackburn is “real happy about it because it means that more people don’t get prosecuted.” So the question of whether they need to be prosecuted is irrelevant to Blackburn, the important thing is simply that “more people don’t get prosecuted.” That is the societal benefit of the law to him. Obviously then, there is no societal benefit in a homeowner defending himself, say preventing his own assault or murder. Society, as we have known all along with the wish they were dead crowd, is better off if these people (in this case the shooter/resident) had been unable to defend himself and had been robbed or killed or both. Blackburn obviously prefers that you be forced to simply trust the home invader to do the right thing.
Blackburn knows, trust me he knows (he isn’t stupid), that the castle doctrine doesn’t change whether or not you can “shoot someone”. You are entitled to “shoot someone” if you are in reasonable fear or death or serious bodily injury. You always have been. The original shooter in this story always has been. The castle doctrine does however impact your need to flee inside your own home or vehicle. Blackburn obviously would prefer it if you were forced to flee from your home, or at least attempt to… and if you die trying oh well-you were just a gun freak anyway, it isn’t like we lost someone important, like a potential fee paying client for me. Blackburn would prefer that you fled, at the price of leaving your wife, kids, granny whoever, behind at the mercy of the home invader. This is the preferred society of Blackburn. From all publicly available information, this is a good shooting, with or without contracting a nasty case of castle doctrine.
You can also be certain that Blackburn’s idiotic rationale he spouts doesn’t apply to Blackburn. Were he faced with the same problem he would do the same as any other citizen. This rationale only applies to you-the “gun freak”, the ordinary citizen. Blackburn wouldn’t (at least seemingly wouldn’t have the gun to attempt to defend himself-but you have to be careful, because gun hating leftists often do secretly get their own gun, see Carl Rowan, just in case their grand social theories don’t work out and someone is about to actually harm their pathetic asses-you see gun control is good for you but maybe not for them, they are special) have a gun to defend himself, but you can be certain that he would try, however feebly, to defend himself were he in the same situation. Despite their idiotic rhetoric, you can be sure that were Blackburn being beaten, stabbed, or shot, while reclining in the hemp chair watching Bill Moyers, in the last seconds of his existence he would wish that he had some other option besides being prey. Even if it meant having the hated police arrive just in time to employ deadly force on his attacker. He would. But as for you? Please. You are not among the annointed, so blessed with intellect, and politically correct thinking to be worthy of getting away with Blackburn’s hypocrisy. No soup for you.
I think this flavor of leftist truly believes that in this situation, he would simply need to announce to the home invader “hey! I’m a leftist! I feel your pain, I’m your friend! Now please go rape, rob and murder someone else.” At this point the perp thinks wow, well I can’t rob these princes of compassion…I think I’ll go rob someone else.
Until recently this would have been my total view on the take of leftists on this issue. However I have encountered some who indeed support the constitution…all of it…including that one troubling amendment…and not only believe in it, but lets say exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Good for them. I have much respect for them. Blackburn? Not so much. Rarely do you see such idiocy spouted publicly on tv. This type of idiocy unfortunately obscures, at least for me, some of the good work that Blackburn does/has done. A shame, really.
