Once again, we see that a "compassionate, humane, caring" Democrat political machine not only leaves its most vulnerable citizens unprotected, the system is rigged so those people are unjustly punished as well.
The case of Sherderian Sutton:
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/1 ... d=15585797
The cable people as well as the police and court system have, in my opinion, all behaved despicably in this matter.
In most parts of the US, those which many of us would consider "normal" parts of the country, things might well have gone differently:
Item 1. So what if she had a gun? It's her property, and legal under PA law for her to keep and bear.
Even if the woman was pointing the gun, instead of (as she claims) merely holding it at her side, so what? It seems to me that, under the law being used to charge her, pointing it in this case legitimately falls under "protecting one's self", to which the law does not apply.
Moreover -- if I'm standing on someone's property banging on their back door, even if they put a shotgun in my face and yell "git off mah proppiteh!" (which this woman did NOT do), my response will be "yes ma'am" (or sir) and leave. And most emphatically NOT go weaseling to the cops. It's that person's right to protect themselves and their property, and unless they shoot me in the back while I'm leaving, there's NOTHING wrong, abnormal or reportable about them brandishing a gun as part of that.
Too bad the weasel cable people didn't think of it that way. I wonder if any of them have criminal records, and resent a homeowner having the means to see off an actual intruder?
Could it be that one of them is a racist who dislikes the idea of a black person being armed? There are still a few people like that around, sadly.
Item 2. When the report was made to the police, here's how the conversation should have gone:
The case of Sherderian Sutton:
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/1 ... d=15585797
The cable people as well as the police and court system have, in my opinion, all behaved despicably in this matter.
In most parts of the US, those which many of us would consider "normal" parts of the country, things might well have gone differently:
Item 1. So what if she had a gun? It's her property, and legal under PA law for her to keep and bear.
Even if the woman was pointing the gun, instead of (as she claims) merely holding it at her side, so what? It seems to me that, under the law being used to charge her, pointing it in this case legitimately falls under "protecting one's self", to which the law does not apply.
Moreover -- if I'm standing on someone's property banging on their back door, even if they put a shotgun in my face and yell "git off mah proppiteh!" (which this woman did NOT do), my response will be "yes ma'am" (or sir) and leave. And most emphatically NOT go weaseling to the cops. It's that person's right to protect themselves and their property, and unless they shoot me in the back while I'm leaving, there's NOTHING wrong, abnormal or reportable about them brandishing a gun as part of that.
Too bad the weasel cable people didn't think of it that way. I wonder if any of them have criminal records, and resent a homeowner having the means to see off an actual intruder?
Could it be that one of them is a racist who dislikes the idea of a black person being armed? There are still a few people like that around, sadly.
Item 2. When the report was made to the police, here's how the conversation should have gone:
"Police desk"
"Yes, I work for the cable company, and[story from article]"
"What did you do next sir?"
"Why, I just worked happily in the backyard"
"You weren't afraid then sir?"
"Well..."
"Sir, if you were in fear, why did you stay on the property?"
"Umm....
"Sir, get the hell off my phone, and if you waste any more of my time I'll book you for filing a false report to the police." [click]
Instead, we have the despicable and wrongheaded response from the police that the article describes.
They COULD have paid a visit to make sure it wasn't a crack house or something, then left without making a charge or an arrest. No charge need have been filed at all.
Instead, they took this mother away from her 2 teenage kids. A mother whose third child had been MURDERED (and the cops never caught the killer). Then sent her home at 2AM (in Philadelphia) unarmed, having confiscated her gun and her permit (which you can't get unless you pass a background check, which tells you she's fairly clean).
Maybe they wanted to respond differently, but were afraid that their illustrious police chief, who along with the mayor has made no secret of his hatred for guns legally in private hands, would have punished them for failing to take this bold action against a bereaved mother.
Item 3. A judge in any sane part of the country should throw the case out. We can only hope.
Item 4. Even if the case is thrown out, or she is found innocent, she still has to petition a court to get her gun and permit back. Huh?
This is nothing more than pure official spite against gun owners, and possibly a law that would not stand up to honest judicial scrutiny.
If you are innocent, you are to be made immediately whole again for anything the state has done to you in the meantime. Period.
Except in Philadelphia, apparently.
The city of Philadelphia has long made its view clear, under several administrations, police chiefs and attorneys general, its venomous hatred of Pennsylvania's "shall issue" concealed carry law, which that city was compelled to begin honoring in 1996 (after which the murder rate dropped considerably, incidentally).
This combination of official vindictiveness, and a system slanted in ways that both benefit criminality and satisfy a particular political ideology, has as usual resulted in official failure to protect, and gratuitous persecution of, the most vulnerable in society -- people that this political ideology is SUPPOSEDLY devoted to protecting the most. Sadly, as seen in places like the USSR and North Korea (run by -- let's face it -- co-ideologues of Philadelphia's ruling party), this claim emanates from Opposite Land, and the reverse is the case in practice.
In the rainbows-and-unicorns world of the Democrats, aren't these Big Strong Heroic Men of the city government and police supposed to be protecting bereaved mothers and their children?
Instead, these Big Strong Heroic Men are persecuting her, and failing to protect her children (one of whom is already dead).
Way to go guys. You give that bereaved mother what for. Make you feel like big men, does it?
The US Dept of Justice (under Clinton no less) estimated in 1994 that in the US, guns are used defensively about 1.5 million times per year. In the vast majority of those cases, no one gets shot. The gun is only displayed (as this woman did), audibly cocked, or simply referred to verbally by the owner.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
That's 1.5 million crimes per year deterred, with no one getting hurt.
Apparently that's something the government of Philadelphia doesn't want happening in its town.
They COULD have paid a visit to make sure it wasn't a crack house or something, then left without making a charge or an arrest. No charge need have been filed at all.
Instead, they took this mother away from her 2 teenage kids. A mother whose third child had been MURDERED (and the cops never caught the killer). Then sent her home at 2AM (in Philadelphia) unarmed, having confiscated her gun and her permit (which you can't get unless you pass a background check, which tells you she's fairly clean).
Maybe they wanted to respond differently, but were afraid that their illustrious police chief, who along with the mayor has made no secret of his hatred for guns legally in private hands, would have punished them for failing to take this bold action against a bereaved mother.
Item 3. A judge in any sane part of the country should throw the case out. We can only hope.
Item 4. Even if the case is thrown out, or she is found innocent, she still has to petition a court to get her gun and permit back. Huh?
This is nothing more than pure official spite against gun owners, and possibly a law that would not stand up to honest judicial scrutiny.
If you are innocent, you are to be made immediately whole again for anything the state has done to you in the meantime. Period.
Except in Philadelphia, apparently.
The city of Philadelphia has long made its view clear, under several administrations, police chiefs and attorneys general, its venomous hatred of Pennsylvania's "shall issue" concealed carry law, which that city was compelled to begin honoring in 1996 (after which the murder rate dropped considerably, incidentally).
This combination of official vindictiveness, and a system slanted in ways that both benefit criminality and satisfy a particular political ideology, has as usual resulted in official failure to protect, and gratuitous persecution of, the most vulnerable in society -- people that this political ideology is SUPPOSEDLY devoted to protecting the most. Sadly, as seen in places like the USSR and North Korea (run by -- let's face it -- co-ideologues of Philadelphia's ruling party), this claim emanates from Opposite Land, and the reverse is the case in practice.
In the rainbows-and-unicorns world of the Democrats, aren't these Big Strong Heroic Men of the city government and police supposed to be protecting bereaved mothers and their children?
Instead, these Big Strong Heroic Men are persecuting her, and failing to protect her children (one of whom is already dead).
Way to go guys. You give that bereaved mother what for. Make you feel like big men, does it?
The US Dept of Justice (under Clinton no less) estimated in 1994 that in the US, guns are used defensively about 1.5 million times per year. In the vast majority of those cases, no one gets shot. The gun is only displayed (as this woman did), audibly cocked, or simply referred to verbally by the owner.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
That's 1.5 million crimes per year deterred, with no one getting hurt.
Apparently that's something the government of Philadelphia doesn't want happening in its town.
