That’s your word for the day. As gunnies, you’re gonna probably start using it a lot
adj noting or pertaining to a person who criticizes, judges, or gives advice outside the area of his or her expertise
I found this word in the comment section to this steaming pile of “journalism” bemoaning the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty, and the word could not be better applied as Slate’s Emily Bazelon is so far out of her league it’s almost sad yet she doesn’t let that niggling little fact stop her from burning through the pixels.
Montana’s law, however, gives people in this situation more leeway for a confrontation—this really is about standing your ground, for good reason or for bad. You can use force if you think it’s necessary to prevent someone from unlawfully entering a house. You can use force “likely to cause death or serious bodily harm” if you think that’s necessary to keep yourself from being assaulted. You don’t have to fear that you may be killed or seriously injured. You have no duty to retreat or call the police. And if you have evidence that your use of force was justified, it’s the state’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t.
She, and many of the commenters, have a problem with that. Seriously.
You see, the guy stood in his doorway, telling the guy storming up his driveway he had a gun. The guy entered his garage knowing there was a gun pointed at him. I would say that’s a clear cut indication the attacker was intent on doing harm.
Could the homeowner have closed and locked his door? Sure. In fact, that would have been (IMHO) a better option but that’s easy to say sitting here, safely behind a computer screen without some irate man who clearly is looking to cause violence bearing down on me.
SYG laws are there not to encourage people to kill with wanton abandon, but to let people know that self defense is not a crime and that it’s the state’s burden to prove you are guilty. This is common sense, but because it tends to involve icky guns, logic goes out the window for many of the commenters and the author herself. There will still be an investigation, and yes, it is possible to invite someone into you home, kill them, and claim self defense and get away with it; however, that’s been the case since time immemorial.
The entire premise of our court systems is innocent until proven guilty. These people demand that unless you are different than they are (i.e. you believe you are responsible for your own protection) then they consider you less than worthy of such protections.
Of course, the article whines about Treyvon Martin, a case that SYG was never even invoked, but why let details like that prevent a good rant about a subject you have little grasp over?