Skip to main content

Originally posted to Comics on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 02:50 PM PST.

Also republished by Support the Dream Defenders, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), Shut Down the NRA, Black Kos community, Firearms Law and Policy, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The global warming reference at the end (22+ / 0-)

    was a nice touch on top of a hard-hitting toon. Good job.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 02:53:10 PM PST

  •  Those poor worms! (9+ / 0-)

    That guy is stepping on the worms! The humanity!

    Oh, and he's shooting someone, but never mind that --  THE WORMS! THE POOR DEFENSELESS WORMS!

    Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

    by ontheleftcoast on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 03:09:39 PM PST

    •  SAVE THE WORMS! (0+ / 0-)

      Your exactly right, but other posters, like myself, realize that the main issue here is THE ENVIRONMENT.
      Consider this: Polar and Arctic Sea ice is at record levels, global temperatures have flat lined for over 17 years, and this winter has broken records in America from coast to coast. All of this is, of course, irrefutable evidence that Global Warming is at fault and if we don't off set our Carbon footprint...each and everyone of us..our children will live in a wasteland with NO, that's ZERO, social services or affordable health care. Your concern for the Worms is commendable, but to save them we must first stop the NEOCONS from destroying the planet!  Please do all you can to help George Soros save our children! Send as much money as you can to him here:
      https://secure3.convio.net/...

      •  WOW REALLY (0+ / 0-)

        You sound just as crazy and evil as you speak of the so called NEOCONS of being so. Thirty years ago scientists thought that global cooling was something. And now you are telling me that we have made a 180 degree turn to global warming. The earth naturally fluctuates in temperature, and me driving my car is not going to create the apocalypse that you speak of.

        •  Count on a "Conservative Patriot" for the usual (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brown Thrasher

          ignorance and dishonest repetition of bogus talking points and shows no familiarity with or understanding of science and the concept of evidence. Even his own formulation of natural fluctuation allows for 180 degree turns. But for these deniers, it's all about having no responsibility and no need to change behavior.

  •  the comma is essential (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mungley, LilithGardener

    dirtbags must always stand their ground

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    DEMAND CREATES JOBS!!!
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights to talk about grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 03:13:23 PM PST

  •  Tipped & rec'ed (5+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 03:16:05 PM PST

  •  ALEC is working on making all of our ground (6+ / 0-)

    just like Florida's with their free to commit homicide bills.

    I guess this is a good temporary measure for those who just can't wait.

    Good one.

    I ain't often right, but I've never been wrong. Seldom turns out the way it does in this song.

    by mungley on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 03:19:33 PM PST

  •  Given the way SYG has been sold (8+ / 0-)

    across the country, upending 700 years of "duty to retreat", there certainly seems like there's been a morbid marketing aspect to the whole thing thanks to ALEC and the NRA.

    KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

    by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 03:23:22 PM PST

    •  Right, SYG is to increase gun sales (7+ / 0-)

      nosotros no somos estúpidos

      by a2nite on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 03:28:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Could you point me to the "historical" record (5+ / 0-)

      you're referencing here:

      "700 yrs of duty to retreat"...this is a modern concept.  There has always been a Castle Doctrine from the beginning of any "social order" within our species.

      I've done a preliminary search and all I can come up with is a wiki entry on "forcible entry into a home or tenement":

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Blackstone

      In the next place, such homicide, as is committed for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, is justifiable by the law of nature; and also by the law of England, as it stood so early as the time of Bracton, and as it since declared by statue 24 Hen VIII. c. 5.

      If any person attempt to burn it, and shall be killed in such an attempt, the slayer shall be acquitted and discharged. This reaches not to any crime unaccompanied with force, as picking of pockets, or to the breaking open of any house in the time of day, unless it carries with it an attempt of robbery also.

      Note that "the use of force" is the qualifier.  Someone can't be killed for the petty crime of pick-pocketing.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 07:52:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As far as I recall (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fcvaguy

        The duty to retreat has been around for hundreds of years, starting in English common law, which was then transferred with the English colonists to the US. The law that I remember reading about started off as requiring even a man in his own home to retreat until his back was against the wall before he could justifiably kill an intruder.

        The wording lets you know how old the law is. That wording makes no sense if people have guns. The law was based on a society in which people used contact weapons. The idea was that if someone in their home faced an intruder, if the person at home backed himself up 10-20 feet, he would be out of range of any possible weapon. If the intruder kept coming after that, only then would killing the intruder be considered justifiable self-defense.

        Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

        by moviemeister76 on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:26:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  " The law that I remember... (0+ / 0-)

          reading about started off as requiring even a man in his own home to retreat until his back was against the wall before he could justifiably kill an intruder."

          From your own link:

          Castle Doctrine is another English Common Law adopted in America to remove people from the "duty to retreat" when attacked in their own home... Nobody has ever had to retreat when threatened in the home.... Everywhere else, one must try to retreat when threatened if it is safe to do so
          •  That is true (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fcvaguy

            However, the commenter is trying to say that the duty to retreat is a modern law. It clearly is not. In fact, as far as I can tell, the Castle Doctrine is actually newer than established common law that required a duty to retreat. Historically, this would make sense as laws before that in England treated people as subjects, as property, rather than how we view human beings today. The duty to retreat was established because the Crown didn't want people killing each other as that would lose them soldiers and taxes. The Castle Doctrine wouldn't even make sense before the Enlightenment when the idea of individuality came to the forefront.

            Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

            by moviemeister76 on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 08:58:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I must beg to differ here...Castle Doctrine is (6+ / 0-)

              in the Old Testament, it's not a "modern concept" evolving out of "a duty to retreat".  

              Exodus 22:2-3 “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. (3) “But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”
              The problem between Castle Doctrine and "Stand Your Ground" has already decided by the Supreme Court in 1895 in the Beard v US case.
              In our opinion, the court below erred in holding that the accused, while on his premises, outside of his dwelling house, was under a legal duty to get out of the way, if he could, of

              -cut-

              The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner and with a deadly weapon, and if the accused did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily injury.

              If there is some other historical reference that I'm not aware of, please help me out and present it.  Castle Doctrine predates "duty to retreat" by thousands of years.  But I could be mistaken here and I'd hope to elucidate this further.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:38:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The thing is (0+ / 0-)

                If you are going to bring up the Bible, doesn't that bring with it issues as you are quoting the Old Testament, which was pretty much overturned when Jesus showed up?

                And, really, if it gets down to it, the Bible is quite contradictory. After all, what is more clear than Thou Shalt Not Kill?

                In terms of established common law in England, however, I still stand with the idea that the duty to retreat is older than the Castle Doctrine. The first predates the Enlightenment concepts of individual rights, not to mention guns.

                Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                by moviemeister76 on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 10:22:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The bible as a religious document isn't the (6+ / 0-)

                  point.  The bible as a historical document, is a different animal.

                  The 10 commandments???  The Hebrews view the Old Testament as the law.  Part of their interpretation was that you had an inherent right to protect your home.  There is a different between what you misinterpret as "kill"..."Thou shall not murder" is more accurate.  "murder" is with intent and forethought.
                   

                  Indeed, “kill” in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb “harag.” However, the verb that appears in the Torah’s prohibition is a completely different one, ” ratsah” which, it would seem, should be rendered “murder.” This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.
                  What's more clear than the instinct of self-preservation and marking ones territory. Its the way of the world, most species defend their territory and their "homes".

                  Without verifiable historical documents to establish your beliefs here, I cannot agree.  History shows us a different story.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 11:56:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Bible as a historical document (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Silvia Nightshade

                    moviemeister is right. If you look at the bible as a code of law, Jesus was basically the Supreme Court who ruled the Old Testament unconstitutional.

                    All of our laws are rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics embedded in the New Testament. Thats why Christians no longer fuss about eating shellfish.

                    KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                    by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:26:05 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ROFL, okay...Jesus, never invalidated the (5+ / 0-)

                      old testament.   You still have the right to demand an eye for an eye, but better the man whom turns the other cheek.  Then we have the fact I was taught the 10 commandments in Catholic School, those were written and presented in the Old Testament, not the New T.

                      I'm truly surprised you make this claim that our laws are based on the New Testament.  Are we therefore a Christian Nation?

                      I'm pretty sure we are not.

                      Either way, the fact remains that the concept of the "castle doctrine" was well established "common law" throughout history and existed long before the "evolved" legal theories for "duty to retreat".

                      The question I asked if you could provide your references for your claim of 700 yrs for this new belief system. Maybe you've misunderstood the "castle doctrine", which was established in law as such in 1628.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 08:56:23 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Thats why there are so many Christian denomination (0+ / 0-)
                        You still have the right to demand an eye for an eye, but better the man whom turns the other cheek.
                        Not all Christians believe that, especially Catholics and liberal Protestants. And I don't feel like refighting the Reformation.

                        KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                        by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 09:32:41 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I know...they chose whatever words suits them (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          CarlosJ, Tom Seaview, FrankRose, ER Doc

                          and then make religions out of them...Like the Mormons did.

                          Either way, these points are leading us astray.

                          I honestly have not found any historical documents whereby "duty to retreat" is older than the concept of "castle doctrine".

                          As Wiki points out, "castle doctrine" is at least as old as the Roman Empire...

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 09:44:37 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Its not just a historical document (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea, moviemeister76, fcvaguy

                      It also forms the basis for Jewish Religious law (Halachah) and up until the Napoleonic Era was the basic for civil law in Jewish Communities in much of Europe (the community paid what was essentially a bribe to the local noble to be permitted to exist and manage their own affairs, IIRC).  

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/...

                      In Haredi communities, even today, it also forms the basis of law except where it conflicts with civil law.  

                      Jesus from a Jewish perspective never met the requirements to be the Messiah.  

                      I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                      by DavidMS on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 10:16:04 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I had forgotten that (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        fcvaguy

                        That's why Catholics and Protestants always tell me that the OT only applies to the Jews. Thanks for the info.

                        Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                        by moviemeister76 on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:18:39 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Understood, but the concept of "duty to retreat" (5+ / 0-)

          was never written into law as such until courts decided to create a dichotomy. The majority of US States do not have a "duty to retreat", 31 vs 19.

          Blackstone, the source of many of our interpretations of common law leads credence to three types of homicide. 1. Justifiable 2. Excusable and 3. Preventative.

          The first two cover what we understand as "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground".  The third is never a legitimate defense.

          They cannot therefore legally exercise this right of preventive defense, but in sudden and violent cases; when certain and immediate suffering would be the consequence of waiting for the assistance of the law. Wherefore, to excuse homicide by the plea of self-defense, it must appear that the slayer had no other possible means of escaping from his assailant.
          The link you provide reverses actual historical fact.  Castle Doctrine predates "duty to retreat".  

          Even gun fearing Massachusetts had to pass "Castle Doctrine laws" after courts repeatedly "got it wrong".

          The case of Roberta E. Shaffer in 1971 points out the problem.

          An argument over breakfast that morning escalated between the two and Ferruzzo once again threatened Shaffer. Frightened for her life, Shaffer sought safety in the basement with her children. Ferruzzo stood at the top of the stairs yelling to Shaffer that if she did not come back up he would go into the basement and kill both her and her children. Before Shaffer could get law enforcement on the phone, Ferruzzo started to descend the stairs. Terrified for her and her children’s lives, Shaffer loaded a .22 LR rifle and shot Ferruzzo dead. Shaffer was convicted of manslaughter.
          I was just hoping to uncover the source of this internet meme...thanks for the link though.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:05:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not sure I understand (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AaronInSanDiego

            England had a vast amount of common laws which were established by court rulings. That's just kind of how they rolled. It's how we roll as well.

            And I can find no evidence that the Castle Doctrine is older than the Enlightenment period. It wouldn't even make sense for it to be older than that, as I wrote in another comment. The Castle Doctrine has the Enlightenment, the idea of individuality, all over it. The duty to retreat does not and comes across as much older.

            And I know who Blackstone is. After all, his Commentaries gets cited in our own court cases pretty much every year.

            Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

            by moviemeister76 on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:19:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here...this is what I understand history to be (5+ / 0-)

              Castle doctrine

              The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western Civilization since the age of the Roman Republic.[2] The term derives from the historic English common law dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle". This concept was established as English law by 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628.[3] The dictum was carried by colonists to the New World, who later removed "English" from the phrase, making it "a man's home is his castle", which thereby became simply the castle doctrine.[3] The term has been used in England to imply a person's absolute right to exclude anyone from his home, although this has always had restrictions, and since the late twentieth century bailiffs have also had increasing powers of entry.[4]

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 09:44:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Except (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AaronInSanDiego

                The only evidence of when it cropped in that quote is no earlier than the 17th century. And again, the very concept of the Castle Doctrine aligns with the Enlightenment, the concept of individuals and property rights.

                Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                by moviemeister76 on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 10:17:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I cannot follow your logic, honestly. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tom Seaview, FrankRose

                  This argument about the "enlightenment and individual property rights".

                  The coin of phrase, "castle doctrine" was not referenced as such until the Blackstone era...but as he points out, just because he labeled "home defense" as such, at that time does not invalidate the thousands of years of history previously.

                  The "concept" of defending your home isn't new.  "The duty to retreat" is.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 12:00:39 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  In reply to the quote, "to excuse ... assailant" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, FrankRose

            To be honest, the more I see of some trying to falsely characterize SYG as an excuse for whites to murder blacks, the more turned off I become about their portrayal of SYG.   Turning it into an, emotion based racial issue is just not persuasive.  I am sure those who believe it to be a racial issue will disagree.

            Just because some dirt bag, no pun intended, abuses the concept doesn't mean that it is a bad concept.  From the cases where courts got it wrong, I understand the need for and support both Castle Doctrine and SYG.

            "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

            by blackhand on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 10:48:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  The Forcible Entry Act of 1381 (0+ / 0-)

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        You can find several references to the act when researching Stand Your Ground, Duty to Retreat, and Castle Doctrine.

        KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

        by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 04:18:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This isn't about "duty to retreat"...this is where (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DavidMS, Tom Seaview, FrankRose

          we get our 4th Amendment from.

          From the footnotes at your link lead to this:

          Criminal Law Act 1977

             The Forcible Entry Act 1381
              15 Ric 2 c 2
              The Forcible Entry Act 1429
              The Forcible Entry Act 1588
              The Forcible Entry Act 1623
          It's clearly about the 4th Amendment we currently have today.

          I'm still missing your evidence for this theory of "duty to retreat" being 700 yrs old.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 09:05:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was answering your questions regarding (0+ / 0-)

            the 700 year history of "Duty to Retreat".  If you follow the link you will see it was Norman law in England and had to deal with the duty to retreat in the context of property theft, even in the home.

            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 09:30:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Uh.. (0+ / 0-)

      "700 years"? I didn't realize that law was on the books for so long.  The fact makes it even MORE critical that we do something. Thank you for putting out the facts and setting the record straight!
      What can we do now, fcaguy, to stop this mass genocide and require EVERYONE to either obey or run from their assailants instead? I think that if everyone were required to do what these disadvantaged young men and women ask them to do there would be no further violence.  A law making it a crime not to obey the disadvantaged would solve this problem.  Also, its time to criminalize the NRA and all conservative talk radio, editorials, and it's single TV network, FOX. What do you think?

  •  Did you have to draw the gun to make it look so... (3+ / 0-)

    deadly?

    /snark...

    Baby, where I come from...

    by ThatSinger on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 04:05:52 PM PST

  •  Tipped, rec'd and republished. (4+ / 0-)

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 04:06:46 PM PST

  •  Rec'd And Tipped. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moviemeister76

    Brought To You By That Crazed Sociologist/Media Fanatic rebel ga Be The Change You Want To See In The World! Gandhi

    by rebel ga on Wed Feb 26, 2014 at 06:40:15 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site