Standing Zimmerman's Ground

"Welcome to the neighborhood, sucker."

City officials in Sanford, Florida, where George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, have rejected the resignation of Bill Lee, the chief of police who initially defended his own professional malfeasance by claiming that under the state's "stand your ground" law he could not arrest Zimmerman for the shooting.

Following Martin's death, the 200-pound Zimmerman claimed that the 140-pound deceased had assaulted him to the point that Zimmerman shot his assailant in fear for his own safety. The Fox Noise machine and the right wing punditry jumped gleefully into the melee with their usual murky grasp of fact, urging not only that the shooter be exonerated, but canonized in the bargain, a poster child for real Americans standing up for their rights against a . . . .well, against some skinny black kid.

I doubt that Zimmerman is a homicidal maniac, or even a particularly bad sort [I'll take that back] - he's clearly neither a hero nor the sort of person who should own a handgun. He is rather the product of a culture in which guns are endemic, a symbol of manly independence and moral integrity, resident in a state where they are poorly regulated and where their ready use is sanctioned. He nurtured ambitions to be a law enforcement officer, a trade which uses guns as a matter of course, often as a matter of first recourse, and with a near blanket immunity for their consequences. Police forces get to police themselves while they police the rest of us. It must have sounded like a fun career, and Zimmerman is neither alone nor evil in wishing to join the excitement. He was doubtless practicing for the pros that evening on his voluntary neighborhood watch.

Professional gun etiquette

Bill Lee's malingering indecision also has its mitigating considerations in this weird cultural allegory in which the National Rifle Association has effectively employed state and national legislators as its shills and lobbyists. I'd guess that most of the NRA's membership is a reasonable group of hobbyists, hunters and sport shooters who favor some level of gun sale monitoring, and who find themselves very much at odds with an increasingly militant and detached leadership. But even though Bill Lee was understandably confused by Florida's "stand your ground" statute, he should be fired.

Zimmerman's story about what happened that night is self-serving and probably concocted - while he was walking back to his vehicle, Martin came up from behind and attacked him. But even allowing it to be true, here are the circumstances: while walking home through a neighborhood where he had every good reason to be, all the while minding his own business, a teenager is stalked in the dark and then accosted by a stranger considerably bulkier than he is. Following this exchange, Martin (by Zimmerman's account) followed him and then punched him. If this were the true account, then even by Zimmerman's tacit admission Martin would have been doing nothing more than standing his ground, entirely within the law of the state where he resided.

Unfortunately, in the civic climate fostered by NRA-sponsored shoot-to-kill legislation, in a political system that lives in callow terror of the NRA, the person with the gun has legal primacy. His right to carry a gun and to use it is somehow sacrosanct. It's the poor sod who is unarmed, particularly one who has the misfortune to be a black Florida teenager, who has no right in the matter - even when (as Zimmerman claims of Martin) he stands his ground. To have the full protection of the law, he should have had a gun, because the law is in place first of all to protect the rights of gun owners, not casual nighttime pedestrians minding their own business. 

How did it ever happen that the presumption of law now favors the shooter? If the issue were reversed, if Zimmerman the stalker had been laid out by a length of two-by-four or some such "repurposed" bludgeon, I'd bet Officer Lee's duty would have been preternaturally clear to him. He should go - he doesn't understand who it is that laws are supposed to protect.

 "The gun is fine, but you can't wear that shirt in here, sir."

Great Bores of the Modern Age: Newt Gingrich

"The right to bear arms comes from our creator, not our government . . . . A Gingrich presidency will submit to the UN a treaty that extends the right to bear arms as a human right to every person on the planet.”

    - Newt Gingrich at the NRA forum, Celebration of American Values Leadership, April 13, 2012

"Is there a Mister Newt Gingrich at home?"

Let's be clear about this: it now transpires, in the fevered logic of the American right, that a person who lacks a photo ID in this country does not have the right of franchise; none of us has the right to health care we can afford; some of our citizens (many of them aligned with Gingrich) argue that women have right of access neither to contraceptives nor to abortions; and yet every person - on the planet - has the right, endowed by the creator no less, to have and carry a gun? And more, since many states have extended "personhood" into the womb (in the case of Arizona even before fertilization occurs), it's anyone's guess how many little unnamed zygotes, cytoblasts and homunculi might qualify for concealed carry permits in this country alone. "Mommy doesn't like you playing with guns" just doesn't carry any weight in the modern age.

"I have a gun, Daddy has a gun, my zygotes have guns."

For my text today, (since someone mentioned the creator) I have chosen a passage from Genesis, chapter one: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And he gave unto each, male and female gave he unto them, a cache of automatic assault weapons, and handguns without number, that they might have dominion over the face of the earth." 

I mean, fer Chrissakes, if the creator hadn't wanted us to have dominion, then he would have made animals bulletproof - not to mention people. QED, right?

Eve, American-style

As it happens to be Gingrich we're talking about, "the planet" would also include the moon. And presumably the Afterlife, where the streets of Paradise will be littered with small-arms shell casings of gold. Heaven will be like a paintball paradise with real gunfire, where no one ever gets seriously injured (they're already dead, see?) Admittedly a little gunplay could relieve the tedium of eternal self-consciousness, but for myself I was hoping to get in a little quiet flyfishing by the rivers of Babylon or wherever we're ultimately parked.

The notion that rights are endowed by divine fiat rather than by an enlightened system of government is the sort of superstition that could find an audience only in this country and in some retrograde African kingdoms. To suggest that God has granted a universal right to own a gun is shameless delusional humbug, beneath comment, particularly in the aftermath of several noteworthy bullet-riddled episodes in the past month, which any internet search will find quickly. And why stop at small arms? By the same argument, shouldn't it be any person's right to own some rocket-powered grenade launchers, an armored tank and maybe a Mercedes Benz in the garage? This way lies madness, of course. Lifting international bans on arms dealing would, by these lights, be a form of humanitarian aid.

Gingrich is not talking about the typical American hunter, nor the gun aficionado who keeps a locked collection of firearms, some of which as artifacts can be quite nifty things, I'm told. A couple of things seem to have escaped his notice: first, the members of al Qaeda are persons on the planet who will also share in Newt's magnanimity; and second, a New York court has just ignored the creator's wish for his creatures by sentencing a Russian arms dealer, Viktor Bout, to 25 years for selling guns to the same al Qaeda.

No, Newt's peculiarly American vision of global human rights, which incidentally brought down the house at the NRA forum, looks more like this:

"Putting the Infant in Infantry"

'The Law is a Ass'

. . .  as Dickens's Mr. Bumble succinctly reminds us. 

Mr. Bumble (by 'Kyd')

This one gets filed under "You Can't Be Too Careful." An Oklahoma state senator named Ralph Shortey has introduced a bill in his state's legislature to ban the use of aborted human fetuses in food, "despite conceding that he's unaware of any company using such a practice." (This according to HuffPost.) The honorable senator "discovered suggestions online that some companies use embryonic stem cells to develop artificial flavors, but added that he is unaware of any Oklahoma companies doing such research." Not the first time the Internet has sent some poor sod off on a fool's errand.

Senator Shortey's primary concern appears to be the rumored use of embryonic stem cells to develop food ingredients such as flavor agents. The University of Oklahoma student newspaper first broke the story, reporting that Senate Bill 1418 "effectively bans the selling or manufacture of food products that contain aborted fetuses or which used aborted fetuses in the development of their ingredients." Which suggests that the senator hopes to spare fellow Oklahomans the prospect of tiny fingers, lips or eyeballs protruding from their deep-fried calamari-and-okra plates.

"There's only two apiece."

An FDA spokesperson says the agency "is not aware of this particular concern." Which has never been a reason for the peculiarly vigilant not to suspect that it might be going on somewhere and to propose visionary legislation to forestall any possible future malfeasances. Proscriptions against sh'aria law proposed by various legislative bodies are kindred pieces of forward-looking legislating.

Hon. Ralph ("Hold the Eyeballs") Shortey

According to the HuffPost story, Shortey has not been behindhand in sponsoring other such visionary legislation. "He sponsored a measure . . . to crack down on illegal immigrants by authorizing law enforcement to seize their homes and vehicles, and to deny Oklahoma citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants. He also offered an amendment to a bill that would have allowed legislators to carry firearms anywhere in the state, including the floor of the House and Senate. This year, Shortey has introduced a bill . . . amending the Oklahoma Constitution to abolish the Court of Criminal Appeals." The Hon. Senator apparently regards the denial of Oklahoma citizenship to be in some way disadvantageous.

As it seems the best legislative minds are thinking preemptively these days, there are lots of other things besides embryonic cannibalism our elected representatives might render unlawful in their unstinting effort to make every genuine American's life a better, more secure one. For starters, how about a few strictures on the wily Islamic enemy on our Christian soil,  just to close loopholes?

• A law making it a crime for any adherent of Islam, whether native born, naturalized or a visitor in our country, to carry out a suicide bombing.
• Ditto for lying to further the scheme of Islamic world domination.
• A law prohibiting the grilling, frying, or the otherwise preparing for consumption any halal meats on domestic or international airline flights.  
• A law making it a crime to conspire against the United States or against the public peace in any foreign (non-English) language.

Then of course there should be other laws guaranteeing the rights of God-fearing Americans, for example why shouldn't there be . . .  

• A law permitting that citizens may shoot intruders who otherwise pose no threat to the shooter's safety, and generally to kill other citizens in defence of private property. Oh - they can already do that in Florida?

"Welcome to the Sunshine State. Was y'all makin' eye contact?"

• Well, then, maybe some more prohibitions (since we really seem to prefer them over general liberties) - a law requiring all sale copies of the Koran to display prominently the Surgeon General's warning about the effects on the eyesight of prolonged reading. 

 "Just one word - 'world domination.'

• A law making it a crime for any foreign-born alien, whether illegally, legally or maybe resident, to eat their own children.
•  A law prohibiting "ass coning" or other such use of an offroad motorized vehicle on public roads in any manner calculated to cause any offense to any legally resident person.

The law is a ass indeed.

The Bear in the Backyard: A Legal Drama

A relative found [Sam French] face down in his carport “talking gibberish”. . . .He later told medical personnel that he had been conversing with a bear in his backyard and hearing voices. . . .After a brief hearing, in which Mr. French’s lengthy history of relapses never came up, he walked out with an order reinstating his right to possess firearms. The next day, Mr. French retrieved his guns.“The judge didn’t ask me a whole lot,” said Mr. French, now 62. “He just said: ‘How was I doing? Was I taking my medicine like I was supposed to?’ I said, ‘Yes, sir.’ ”  

 -  "Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back" (New York Times, July 2, 2011)

The Bear in the Backyard

Your Honor, my client appears before the court today to petition the court to do its duty by allowing him to repossess firearms that were unlawfully taken from him by well-meaning but overzealous relatives. My client assures the court that he bears nothing more than an unspecifiable free-floating malice toward his daughter and son-in-law; and if the court will allow, he reminds the court that his people are not conversant with the principles of psychiatry. We also submit to this court that other court records attesting their familiarity with modern pharmaceuticals do not constitute evidence of medical expertise.

 Prozac, the gun owner's neighbor's best friend

We also insist - well, suggest, Your Honor - that my client's medical history is not relevant to this hearing, should not be a part of the record and should play no part in your ruling on this matter, which should be limited to the incident under discussion without reference to any past episodes -  however similar they may seem to the inexpert eye. My client is not on trial here, and certainly not on trial for his past lapses. A firm grasp of reality, clear memory or coherence have never heretofore been criteria for the freedom of gun ownership any more than they have been a reqiuirement for the constitutional exercise of free speech.

As to freedom of speech, we further submit, Your Honor, that seeing as the court permits our nation's young people unlimited access to video games under their First Amendment rights, it is no leap of argument to presume further that an adult's history of relapses and involuntary commitments should not prejudice the court's favorable decision in my client's Second Amendment suit. Every American, man and boy, has the constitutionally guaranteed right to pwn noobs [sic] in the privacy of his or her own home; the same guarantees should apply to gun owners across this great nation.

As to my client's lying face down in his carport, my client submits that while in the process of changing the oil in his treasured Monte Carlo, he lost a very small screw - literally lost a screw, Your Honor, no manner of speaking intended here. While searching for the missing part, we submit that his daughter came into the carport, started the aforementioned automobile and drove it away. We have time-stamped receipts for two corndogs and a pint of Crown Royal purchased from a Stop-n-Shop, and a witness who will testify that she saw my client's daughter at the convenience store. My client also submits that the "gibberish" he was supposedly talking was merely the regrettable if understandable profanities that escaped him as his prized "classic" backed over him and drove down the street. 

If I might approach the bench, Your Honor? May I also hasten to remind Your Honor that this is only the General District Court for the Commonwealth of Virginia - I respectfully submit that the proper mandate of this body is small claims, traffic infractions - you see my point? Any ruling in these chambers that would remove or impair the constitutional rights of any citizen in otherwise good standing should be undertaken with due caution. My client's medical history is not on trial here today. I am certain that Your Honor need only recall the generous services of the National Rifle Association in your recent reelection to the bench to make your course clear in this matter.

 Point it at me.

To conclude, Your Honor - regarding the bear incident - my client admits that this wasn't exactly Red Sovine talking with Teddy Bear.  He tells me that the bear was a frequent visitor to his yard. My client forebears to name the bear in question, but assures the court that in future the aforementioned bear will present no further difficulties.