Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
I don’t comment on these very often, because too much of the time it seems like I have to keep researching to find out the whole story even though, examining the pattern as a whole, it seems almost all of these Castle Doctrine defenders end up being justified. That having been said, this looks to me like a complete run-down of everything that matters, at least, what the network saw fit to put on the air…
I note that every single word in that item is concerned with re-actions, not actions. Except, that is, for Ms. Jackson and the intruder. I don’t hear anything about officers being dispatched to the scene, which is odd since the call is supposed to be twenty minutes and Jackson is repeatedly begging that someone be sent.
At the two-minute mark in this tape, or thereabouts, the dispatcher makes a reference to someone being on the way. Wonderful.
Google and I are not getting along with each other well enough to figure out what happened to this investigation, and the District Attorney’s decision about whether or not to press charges. It’s been two years by now. Maybe that means she’s clear; I hope so. I hear on the tape the dispatcher is advising her “you can defend your property if you need to” at about 5:47. On the teevee newscast they make a comment about Oklahoma state law that backs this up.
I don’t see why this was called a homicide at all. I don’t see why it was referred to the D.A.’s office.
It looks to me like there’s a lot of fuss and trouble being made to provide answers to the public that nobody needs, and nobody’s demanding, while other questions are being neglected. I don’t know if anyone is too worried about being protected from Donna Jackson and her shotgun. On the other hand, most people if put in her situation there, I think would rather wait ten minutes than twenty for some help to arrive, and five minutes would be even better. Why did it take twenty? When they said “opened an investigation” I thought it would be about that.
It sounds like there’s a lot of adrenaline going, on the dispatcher’s side of the call, after the shot was fired that wasn’t there before. Thought I heard someone say “get someone out there” just before that point, which sounds really bad to me. Hearing a lot of detail about where exactly she lives, three minutes afterward, which sounds even worse.
Can’t find out anything about this after this turning-over-to-D.A. thing. I hope that means Ms. Jackson beat the rap. Dispatcher seems to be about as useless as a bag without a bottom, although I get the feeling that’s got to do with process and procedure. Sheriff’s office contributes two pieces of helpful information: Who the perp was and what might have been wrong with him, and what they’re doing to protect the public from the homeowner with a shotgun. Hooray!
In that TV newscast up there, beginning to end, it’s treated as a bad thing that just happens to people now & then, completely unavoidable, like a tornado. More than half of the information we get from the interviews, on a time basis, has to do with how people felt. Nobody takes action to prevent a damn thing, except one person, and she’s in trouble for it.
Just going off this, it seems we are devolving into a pussy society and we deserve every bad thing that is coming our way. Human interest and drama drama drama, but no will to confront evil. Not much effort going on to protect the innocent. There’s a law that says Ms. Jackson is within her rights, but at some point at least, it seems that law isn’t counting for very much.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The reason it’s investigated as a homicide is that “homicide” literally means the killing of a human by another. It’s not (in legal terms) a synonym for murder. Oklahoma law probably requires the DA to investigate all homicides, and to determine if charges are appropriate. The homeowner shooting the burglar was a homicide, but not an unlawful act. The homeowner could also be referred to as a homicide, i.e. a person who has killed another, but that’s an archaic usage.
The reason that local news stories tend to dwell on how everybody “felt” about what happened is that local news viewers are overwhelmingly women. News producers know that, and know that their audience reacts well to the “feelings” meme.
- Gordon | 11/21/2011 @ 09:54Those points do make good sense, and I hope that’s all there is to it.
I do have to note that in other parts of the country, events take place very much like this one. Not all of those reach this referral-to-DA point; someone makes the call before then, that it was self-defense and all on the up-and-up.
As far as the feelings thing, my objection isn’t quite so much that they are mentioned, as that they completely freakin’ dominate. I would think a mostly female audience would have some concerns about things not spiraling this far out of control, if God forbid one among them is placed in this kind of situation.
- mkfreeberg | 11/21/2011 @ 10:07Morgan,
We had an interesting situation here in Minneapolis recently. A CCP-licensed citizen saw a woman being robbed and beaten in a grocery store parking lot in the inner city. He gave chase, and the robber eventually turned and pulled out a gun. The good Samaritan pulled his own pistol, and shot and killed the robber.
The Samaritan was not arrested. The case was referred to the county attorney, who decided that there was no need for further action.
The local media originally took the angle that the Samaritan was a bad guy who ruthlessly gunned down a poor helpless person. This was aided by interviews with the dead man’s sister and mother, who talked about what a good boy he was (this sister is now charged with being an accomplice to robbery). Only after the CA made it very clear that the Samaritan had acted lawfully (and heroically) did the media change their tune.
Here’s a link to a local blogger with a good summary:
- Gordon | 11/21/2011 @ 11:11http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=24173
I understand completely what you’re trying to say, Morgan, and you’re right of course.
That said, I think Gordon here is saying that certain procedures have to be followed in a case like this – the police have to verify the facts and make absolutely sure that the Castle Doctrine (or whatever it is called in OK) actually applies. I am sure that if everything is on the up-and-up and the homeowner is telling the truth, she’s got nothing to worry about.
You have to remember that a person is dead. A human being has been killed, dead at the hands of another. Justified or not, that is an immutable fact, and killing someone is a serious act. This is not vandalism or even just burglary we’re talking about. The local government authorities have a duty to make sure that act of killing took place under the correct set of circumstances. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; I’ll get upset when I find out that the homeowner was telling the truth and STILL went to jail.
As for the local news’ take on the situation, what can you say? It’s been sensationalized for consumption by a public that feels, rather than thinking its way through life. What’s that bit you’re always saying about “architects” and “medicators?”
On a side note, it says a lot that a law needed to be passed in the first place to reaffirm a person’s right to defend his home and family from intruders, something that’s been a given for pretty much all of human history up until modern times. Laws like this were passed in order to put a stop to the insanity of homeowners being sued and/or prosecuted simply for doing what any of us would have done.
- cylarz | 11/21/2011 @ 22:56From the Oklahoman, 12/9/09:
Source: http://newsok.com/law-allows-fatal-shot-lincoln-county-official-says/article/3423575
- CGHill | 11/25/2011 @ 20:13