Richie Incognito's Accidental Racism: An Apologia

[OttoVonBismarck]

I just skimmed your post and didn't notice you had made such a distinction. But to be honest, in shall-issue concealed carry States I'm not aware of any that would prevent Zimmerman from getting a license. In may issue States it's obviously a crapshoot, those States are hinky on who they give permits to in the first place.

[CountDeMoney]

Maryland State Police would've shot him down in a heartbeat, based on the totality of his background.  The court-ordered alcohol counseling for cop-fighting would've been the final nail, even more so than the restraining order.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Was he in an actual altercation with a "sworn" officer? My understanding in VA is the ABC goons are sort of closer to code enforcement guys than real police, I think they carry pepper spray to handle unpleasantness but sort of like code enforcement or meter-ticketers their job is mostly to look for violation of specific code and then write up reports...and call the real police if they observe criminal activity.

And isn't Maryland "may issue?"

[Berkut]

Again, the article isn't about the law per se, but rather the culture that informs the law.

There might not be any state where Zimmerman would not be technically banned from owning a gun.

But there are plenty of cultures where the odds of someone like Zimmerman doing things like Zimmerman does is vastly lower than in the US. You can tell because those cultures have some small fraction of the yearly gun deaths that the US has...

The article is talking about the cultural meme in the US that states that free and easy access to lots of personal firepower is somehow making us all safer. And it is a completely ridiculous idea, because it means that we end up with a society where people actually says things like "Gee, I cannot imagine any state law that could prevent this fucking nutjob from strolling around carrying a concealed weapon looking for someone to shoot! So oh well, thems the breaks!"

[Barrister]

Was he in an actual altercation with a "sworn" officer? My understanding in VA is the ABC goons are sort of closer to code enforcement guys than real police, I think they carry pepper spray to handle unpleasantness but sort of like code enforcement or meter-ticketers their job is mostly to look for violation of specific code and then write up reports...and call the real police if they observe criminal activity.

I'm not sure where you're going with this Otto.

So it's "no big deal" to be in an altercation with uniformed peace officers who aren't "real police"?  And that people who get into altercations with meter-maids are A-OK to have a concealed carry permit?

[Valmy]

The article is talking about the cultural meme in the US that states that free and easy access to lots of personal firepower is somehow making us all safer.

It is pure gun lobby propaganda.  We do not have the right to bear arms so we can be safer, that is ridiculous.  But it was dreamed up because freedom and the Bill of Rights do not really stand on their own these days (presuming they ever did) you have to create some sort of positive policy outcome for them.  This can take us down some pretty bizarre paths like this.

[derspiess]

So it's "no big deal" to be in an altercation with uniformed peace officers who aren't "real police"?  And that people who get into altercations with meter-maids are A-OK to have a concealed carry permit?

  Seriously?  I mean, who hasn't slugged a meter maid at least once.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm not sure where you're going with this Otto.

So it's "no big deal" to be in an altercation with uniformed peace officers who aren't "real police"?  And that people who get into altercations with meter-maids are A-OK to have a concealed carry permit?

What neutral questions you're asking me, counselor.

I should first say, I'm on the record as being pro-gun control, as long as we never get to the point where police or some other degenerate group gets to "exercise judgment" about who should and shouldn't be allowed to own guns and who should and shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. I'm all for strict gun control, but where you qualify for the privilege to own and carry guns, I believe in an expansive privilege. But we're not talking about my positions on gun control. We're instead talking about whether Coates is making any sense by saying Zimmerman shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. Then Seedy comes in with the point about how, under current laws, the altercation with the police officer would be a reasonable reason to deny him a CCL.

That's when I speculated that I don't believe ABC officers are real police officers. So, why would that be different? Because under the current regime of laws getting into an altercation with a police officer is almost always more harshly punished, and considered a more serious crime, than getting into an altercation with anyone else. Should someone who gets into an altercation with a Macy's store clerk be banned from carrying a gun for life, if you otherwise believe people should have the right to carry? Because that's more how I see an ABC officer or a code enforcement officer. There is a reason they do not broadly have arrest powers, there is a reason they do not carry guns. I actually think it is reasonable, and the distinction is important. If someone is willing to get into a fight with a real cop, then that shows greater instability and troublesome mental state than getting into an altercation with a non-cop. Because everyone knows you don't fight a cop without serious consequences, and everyone also knows cop's walk around armed and are known to bust your head open if you get into it with them. So someone willing to, in spite of all that, fight a cop is a lot more concerning from the perspective of "should this guy have a CCL" than someone who gets into it with a minor functionary of the ABC.

Further, we're also assuming Zimmerman was in the wrong in his scenario. We don't know the particulars, maybe Zimmerman was let off easy (no conviction, pre-trial diversion) because there was weak evidence he even assaulted anyone, or perhaps the officer behaved improperly.

[Barrister]

I'm not sure where you're going with this Otto.

So it's "no big deal" to be in an altercation with uniformed peace officers who aren't "real police"?  And that people who get into altercations with meter-maids are A-OK to have a concealed carry permit?

What neutral questions you're asking me, counselor.

I should first say, I'm on the record as being pro-gun control, as long as we never get to the point where police or some other degenerate group gets to "exercise judgment" about who should and shouldn't be allowed to own guns and who should and shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. I'm all for strict gun control, but where you qualify for the privilege to own and carry guns, I believe in an expansive privilege. But we're not talking about my positions on gun control. We're instead talking about whether Coates is making any sense by saying Zimmerman shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. Then Seedy comes in with the point about how, under current laws, the altercation with the police officer would be a reasonable reason to deny him a CCL.

That's when I speculated that I don't believe ABC officers are real police officers. So, why would that be different? Because under the current regime of laws getting into an altercation with a police officer is almost always more harshly punished, and considered a more serious crime, than getting into an altercation with anyone else. Should someone who gets into an altercation with a Macy's store clerk be banned from carrying a gun for life, if you otherwise believe people should have the right to carry? Because that's more how I see an ABC officer or a code enforcement officer. There is a reason they do not broadly have arrest powers, there is a reason they do not carry guns. I actually think it is reasonable, and the distinction is important. If someone is willing to get into a fight with a real cop, then that shows greater instability and troublesome mental state than getting into an altercation with a non-cop. Because everyone knows you don't fight a cop without serious consequences, and everyone also knows cop's walk around armed and are known to bust your head open if you get into it with them. So someone willing to, in spite of all that, fight a cop is a lot more concerning from the perspective of "should this guy have a CCL" than someone who gets into it with a minor functionary of the ABC.

Further, we're also assuming Zimmerman was in the wrong in his scenario. We don't know the particulars, maybe Zimmerman was let off easy (no conviction, pre-trial diversion) because there was weak evidence he even assaulted anyone, or perhaps the officer behaved improperly.

You're not my witness - I'm allowed to cross-examine liberally.

Your argument about non-police uniformed officers is perverse.  It's 'not as bad' to get into a fight with them because they're not armed?  If anything the reasoning should be the reverse - the law should be harsher on anyone who assaults a peace officer who isn't armed with deadly force.  After all, the police officer can defend themselves, while the others can't (as well).

If there was diversion or no conviction, then why would we even be talking about an assault PO conviction?

[garbon]

I'm trying to see why it is reasonable for a person to be fighting anyone.

/I think the demonstration of poor impulse control should be a great reason to revisit whether a person should be allowed to carry.

[dps]

Your argument about non-police uniformed officers is perverse.  It's 'not as bad' to get into a fight with them because they're not armed?  If anything the reasoning should be the reverse - the law should be harsher on anyone who assaults a peace officer who isn't armed with deadly force.  After all, the police officer can defend themselves, while the others can't (as well).

Yet it's entirely common for the law to assign harsher penalties for assaults on police officers than for assaults on private citizens.   By the your logic, it should be the opposite.

[Capetan Mihali]

Your argument about non-police uniformed officers is perverse.  It's 'not as bad' to get into a fight with them because they're not armed?  If anything the reasoning should be the reverse - the law should be harsher on anyone who assaults a peace officer who isn't armed with deadly force.  After all, the police officer can defend themselves, while the others can't (as well).

Yet it's entirely common for the law to assign harsher penalties for assaults on police officers than for assaults on private citizens.   By the your logic, it should be the opposite.

There's a reason Ice-T and Body Count didn't have as much success with "Actuary Killer."

[Admiral Yi]

You're not my witness - I'm allowed to cross-examine liberally.

Can you please explain a) the logic behind this rule and b) what it means in concrete terms if one is granted permission to "treat the witness as hostile?"

[Sheilbh]

I like the Atlantic but I intentionally avoid anything Ta-Nehisi Coates and Conor Friedersdorf write. They are both one trick idiots.

I love Ta-Nehisi Coates.

I like Conor. I used to read him, but I think he's gone off the tracks a bit. He seems very angry. All the time. Often at the wrong things.

Edit: On Coates, his series of articles and blogs about starting to read about the ACW, then developing a serious interest, then almost an obsession are brilliant. They inspired me to read a couple of books on the ACW and are generally very interesting and engaging and well-written.

I think probably you all would like something of them.

[Capetan Mihali]

You're not my witness - I'm allowed to cross-examine liberally.

Can you please explain a) the logic behind this rule and b) what it means in concrete terms if one is granted permission to "treat the witness as hostile?"

b) Ask leading questions to/impeach the credibility of.

EDIT:  Though at least in Vermont law, during a criminal trial either side can impeach the credibility of its own witness.  (Anecdotally, this is often the State's privilege, when a prosecution witness starts to "forget" things or corrects his/her prior testimony at trial...)