by We are fast moving into the world of quick curing so we may better kill and that is a strange disconnect in a society where we are required to claim our care for each other.
Like Salome in antiquity — who was rewarded for her dance with the granting of any wish from King Herod — chose a false cure for a certain death and a killing from her own curse. John the Baptist never saw his beheading coming until he appeared on a silver platter.
We have three current examples of the Salome False Reward Syndrome — all guaranteeing a certain end — and they are all wrapped in illusion and the sanctity of protecting the common welfare.
MO GUNS CURE
Missouri became the 19th state to allow people to shoot intruders without fear of prosecution or
lawsuit.
Is this a new form of state-sponsored killing? Or is this return to Old West Justice to be expected in free-for-all times? Is the security of a shotgun Salome’s craven dance to a deadly end?
Gov. Matt Blunt signed legislation allowing Missourians to fatally shoot intruders without fear of prosecution or lawsuits. In California, in order to use deadly force to defend yourself, you must have an honest and reasonable belief that you are in immanent danger of death or great bodily injury from an unlawful attack, and that the acts are necessary to prevent the injury.
“We believe that the law should always protect the innocent victim of
crimes and the burden should be against the criminal,” said Ashley Varner, spokesperson for the National Rifle Association, which supports Missouri’s castle doctrine“If they have to think twice about entering someone’s house because they might get shot than the whole society benefits.”
DOCTORS THAT KILL
Denying the Hippocratic Oath, some Muslim doctors are training not to cure,
but to mastermind killings. Are these doctors living examples of sociopaths?
How can one choose a life of medicine in order to foment mass murder? Is the swearing of an oath to heal and to “first do not harm” the same Salome misbegotten wish spoken from a dark mind?
The instincts of the alleged occupants of the Jeep were supposedly the opposite: that is, to take lives. Dr Bilal Abdulla, 27, British-born and who had worked at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley for almost a year, was, as the son of a doctor, in some ways born to heal. Somehow, though, he appears to have forsaken that path and to have turned on the country of his birth.
His new allegiance, it is believed, was to a bloody jihad against the West.
The news that, of the eight suspects arrested in connection with the
police investigations into the attacks in London and Glasgow, most were
doctors or medical students has shocked the public and, in particular,
Britain’s Muslim community.While medicine and engineering – the latter the discipline in which the Jeep’s second alleged occupant, Kafeel Ahmed, holds a doctorate – have long been the two most prestigious professions for Muslims, it has become clear that they are also the favoured occupations for many Islamic extremists: Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda, trained in engineering and Ayman al-Zawahiri, his
deputy, qualified as a doctor. Both professions have now been exposed as fertile breeding grounds for terrorism.One theory after recent events is that al-Zawahiri developed a plan for seeking out young recruits among those who might be seen as highly educated and “Westernised”. The fact that most speak fluent English and practice professions that make emigration to the West easier, would have been an added attraction. In 2004, when there was a nationwide recruitment crisis in the NHS, al-Qaeda exploited the situation by slipping some extremists into Britain.
LONDON PANOPTICON DANCES INTO NEW YORK
The NYPD Panopticon was not enough for New York City, so they’re importing pity and fear from London in the ultimate compromise of security and satiety for trembling and yearning. Is an unwilling, but persistent, King Herod now ready to grant wishes that kill and invite temptation and persecution of the all in favor of the few?
By the end of this year, police officials say, more than 100 cameras will have begun monitoring cars moving through Lower Manhattan, the beginning phase of a London-style surveillance system that would be the first in the United States.
The Lower Manhattan Security Initiative, as the plan is called, will resemble London’s so-called Ring of Steel, an extensive web of cameras and roadblocks designed to detect, track and deter terrorists. British officials said images captured by the cameras helped track suspects after the London subway bombings in 2005 and the car bomb plots last month.
If the program is fully financed, it will include not only license plate readers but also 3,000 public and private security cameras below Canal Street, as well as a center staffed by the police and private security officers, and movable roadblocks.
How do we fend off these evil-doing, modern day, Salomes who are begrudgingly enabled by their gang of Herods — all waiting to please despite their false protestations against the first unredeemable sin?
Hi David,
All of these actions come from fear.
The law has always recognized a principle that if you are trapped inside of your house, can’t escape, and have a fear that the intruder is threatening your life, then using deadly force is acceptable. However, without some sort of codification of this principle, homeowners were still open to lawsuits filed by the intruder’s families. People fear crime — some probably with good cause — and therefore are willing to arm themselves inside fortified houses. Fear of criminals and fear of their families suing victims of home invasions has lead to laws that sanction the use of deadly force inside of ones castle and last place of retreat.
If the threat of lawsuits didn’t loom so highly in the American psyche, we probably wouldn’t have laws like Missouri’s.
Here’s a case where a doctor shot an intruder who threatened his family in Wisconsin and ended up being sued for “loss of earning capacity” — even though the individual is incarcerated:
Hi Chris!
Fear is a great motivator and it is used as a “get in line” cudgel by our political leaders to keep us in line.
I am all for protecting oneself in the home — but don’t some of these laws require geography of the body to have the full effect of the law enforced for protection — i.e. you can shoot a perpetrator in the front, but not in the back because getting shot in the back indicates cowardice on the shooter side and/or the perp was fleeing from the scene on their side?
How much force is enough force? Can you tie the guy down and then shoot him?
Must you shoot to kill or is shooting someone’s foot off with a shotgun enough of remedy to remove the threat?
What about the roles justification, recognition and intent play in these domestic police actions? With these Right to Shoot laws, isn’t it too easy for people with guns to start shooting at fearful shadows when some of those shadows might be innocently created by the paper boy or the meter reader or the local Sheriff checking up on you?
Hi David,
I’d be more comfortable with a law that examined the totality of the circumstances before granting a blanket privilege allowing for the use of deadly force against anyone located inside of ones home. The requirement that someone retreat is a good one for public spaces and other situations. Inside of one’s home, an argument can be made that there is no other place someone can retreat to safely.
I’m sure there will be some misuse of the new law by people who think that they’ll be able to get away with something.
I haven’t seen the new law, but I assume it won’t let anyone get away with “whacking” their enemies as long as they are inside of the person’s house.
Of course, the story about the Japanese exchange student who was shot in Louisiana shows that there are a lot of people ready to shoot first and ask questions later.
Maybe people should turn down party invitations in Missouri for a while. Instead of going to your friends’ houses, why not invite them to yours.
People end up doing crazy things when they are controlled by fear.
Maybe a better law would have been one that would limit the ability of criminals to file lawsuits against their victims when the are injured while committing their crimes. Limiting the ability of a criminal to file suit for lost wages because of incarceration would be a better remedy.
Hi David,
To go back to the other questions, it would seem that the law should take into account the facts of the situation. If you had incapacitated someone and they were no longer a threat — i.e. the intruder was tied to a chair, knocked out, fleeing the premises after seeing the weapon — that should tip the act into something that shouldn’t be covered by the immunity provided by the law.
Laws should allow the use of deadly force only when the threat of death or severe bodily injury is imminent. If the threat of immediate harm has passed — i.e. the home invader is running away — it doesn’t seem fair to allow a homeowner to shoot that person in the back.
But, if the criminal had a gun and was aiming at a family member and someone shot him or her in the back, that would be a different story.
In all of the cases, they facts and evidence should be examined.
I doubt that the law would provide a blanket “get out of jail” card for any “foul play” situations.
Chris —
Exactly! I, too, am worried about outlaw justice in the hands of homeowners. I always like the retreat clause in these statutes of old — if a robber entered you house, saw you standing there with a loaded shotgun and turned around to leave YOU CANNOT SHOOT. They are in retreat. You cannot pull that trigger and not be in trouble with the law later.
If, however, that same robber lunged at you instead of turning to run, then you were justified to shoot to kill.
How many homeowners can make those sorts of instantaneous life and death decisions especially when trained police officers struggled with the use of deadly force every day?
Now robbers who enter a home and get cut on glass or get whacked with a booby-trap — I have no empathy for them because they never would get hurt if they were following the law. Those people should not be allowed to sue under any circumstance.
Chris!
All your warnings and caveats are right on point and complicated and nuanced and requiring a clear mind in the middle of the night with a loaded gun in your hands. That’s what makes me nervous about these laws: Their absolute corruptibility in good hands, let alone evil hands.
You have a dispute with your neighbor. You invite him over to bring back your chainsaw. You see a person with a chainsaw coming in your garage door and you shoot! On purpose or by mistake? That’s a decision for a court and a jury and not for the homeowner to make under the premise of a protecting law providing blanket protection to shoot.
Or, just think of could happen if someone with a Jeffrey Dahmer type mind decided to pull people into his house …
That’s a spooky thought, Chris!
Hi David,
That Missouri law is crazy! Remember in “An American Beauty” when Kevin Spacey’s neighbor thinks he’s gay? Aye, yie, yie! I can see a whole host of problems with that law.
Regarding the terrorist doctors, it’s sickening. Nothing is sacred.
Regarding the “big brother” cameras, top-down management from the White House. But I thought we were going to fight the terrorists “over there”?
Donna
Donna!
I agree that MO law is wacky! Whacked, even! 😀 It’s asking for trouble and killings will find their way verified under that law. I was not a fan of the “American Beauty” movie.
Terrorist MDs are frightening. Bin Laden had the plan. Quite brilliant to see it in action, unfortunately.
Heh! The cameras do indicate the terrorists are here and not there.
Speaking of terror — I watched this over the weekend and I can’t get it out of my mind:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=911+Mysteries
The video says it’s 2 hours, but it’s really only 90 minutes. I couldn’t stop watching it.
Hi David,
I was not a fan of “American Beauty,” either. I brought it up because Spacey gets shot by the guy next door who thinks he’s gay and having a relationship with his son. It’s a case of misreading reality. I brought it up because of your comment to Chris,
“You have a dispute with your neighbor. You invite him over to bring back your chainsaw. You see a person with a chainsaw coming in your garage door and you shoot! On purpose or by mistake?”
This law could lead to unimaginable crimes of mistaken reality.
Do you think there was some sort of conspiracy behind 9/11?
Donna
Right, Donna! I got your connection to American Beauty and it’s a good one.
Yes, 9/11 was a demolition job under cover of international terrorism. There’s no doubt about that now if you believe your eyes and videotapes don’t lie.
Science also makes it clear steel core buildings don’t fall like the two towers in that pattern from fire alone. There was also way too much unburned paper “blow out” of the building that could’ve been incinerated in the wreckage.
The classic demolition of WTC7 is even more evidence of preplanning.
Hi David,
It’s very scary. Terrifying, actually. I watched some of that video. I watched it to the part where they showed how the core would have remained if there had only been fire. It was weird. I don’t want to believe there was a conspiracy.
Donna
Donna —
Keep watching. Bush’s brother Marvin was head of the security firm for the WTC and Dulles airport.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
The weekend before 9/11 the entire WTC was shut down. No electricity. “Internet cables” were being installed.
5 days before 9/11 the PATH Police withdrew their bomb-sniffing dogs from daily duty.
The night before 9/11 a FEMA team was dispatched to NYC for “emergency training.”
Multiple reports from firefighters and eyewitnesses of “cascading explosions” before any floors started to fall and the first explosions after the planes hit came from the basement area.
White smoke from the basement of the WTC indicating a bomb explosion and the destroyed lobby is proof of that demolition.
The “bathtub” was cracked. By what? Falling debris? Or a shape charge in the basement? A building falling down doesn’t crack 8 feet of concrete outward into the Hudson river.
How did all both WTC buildings fall so neatly into the basements of both buildings? That’s a classic, planned, demolition tactic. You blow up the basement first to make room for the rest.
It took military grade explosives to demolish both towers and WTC7 in order to create molten metal. They even name the explosive that can do that in the documentary. The evidence of the shape charges are in the steel girders right after the smoke clears.
Hi David,
Do you really believe all of this? I can’t go to sleep tonight.
We can take a little solace in that Bush’s empire appears to be crumbling, but not soon enough!
Donna
Hi David,
My roommate told me about the “conspiracy” behind 9/11, I just thought he was drunk. He even talked about a “documentary”, now I know what he was talking about.
Sometimes you don’t want to believe the reality even if you can clearly see it because it’s so bizarre…
Hi Donna —
There were always things that never made sense to me. That documentary doesn’t make a single argument. It provides bits and pieces of facts that, when taken in the entirety, creates an incredible image of what really happened that makes much more sense than the official story we’ve been spoon-fed from moment one. It is shocking and sad and undeniable.
Here’s a website that just presents wonderings. Many of the video links are, indeed, scholarly and scientific and inquisitive:
http://911scholars.org/
I haven’t really slept since Sunday.
I find it completely awful that in the attorneys case Bush is claiming executive privilege in his refusal to let his aids testify even though he claims he wasn’t directly involved in any of the conversations.
Katha —
I don’t like the word “conspiracy” because it has such a terrible and wacky meaning in the American meme. I prefer “additional facts” because that’s what that documentary presents — news footage, live interviews and science to add new information into the pot of “What We Thought We Knew.”
The end result, for me anyway, is that something very wrong went on that day, and we need to know more.
Hi David,
Yes, that invoking of “executive privilege” was very disturbing indeed.
Donna
Hi David,
The whole thing sounded so weird that I didn’t pay much attention to it, at least till date.
And now I am extremely confused. But I also know so many things are still unknown and probably we have to live with this vascillating/confused state for some time longer…wondering – what to believe?
Donna —
It is, indeed, sickening!
I read over the weekend that 45% of the American people support impeaching Bush and even more than that in impeaching Cheney. Why aren’t the Democrats reacting?
Katha —
Watch the documentary. The whole thing. The entire “falling” of the WTC is based on our knowledge of believing what we are told. There isn’t an independent architect, demolition company or structural scientist who believes the towers really pancaked as we’ve been told and that’s the trouble. We believe what we do not know because we do not know what questions to ask to know better.
Hi David,
I guess because they are so concerned about the upcoming election they don’t want to rock the political boat. Spineless. Absolutely spineless.
Donna
Donna —
Absolutely spineless. When Obama says “no impeachments” he loses a lot of his appealing wild wolf standing and just confirms his role in the “Ole Boys Club” of politicians.
Hi David,
Where are the Teddy Roosevelts? Where are the candidates with some male parts shaped like Christmas ornaments? That includes Hillary. 😀
Donna
Yes David, I watched the documentary for first half an hour or so…I couldn’t help coming back here and writing.
I will watch the rest at night.
You are right, we believe what we don’t know because we don’t know what questions to ask to know more.
When I come to know “something” that doesn’t make real sense, my gut feeling always try to understand the “why” behind it…
When I first heard it I simply ignored it because that spared me from racking my brain for the “why” – as I am doing it now.
Donna —
We need something exciting and different. I don’t think we’re going to get it. Big Money plays the Old Game and we’re stuck with two choices, not three.
Well said, Katha!
9/11 is now a myth and a rationale for war and an entire presidency. To doubt the official story is to realize your system of government may be permanently corrupt in some very dangerous ways. We need to know the truth, though, and we get there by asking uncomfortable questions against the mainstream mindset.
Hi David,
Yes, you are painfully correct. In the words of a pirate, Arrrrgh!
Donna
David,
I just lose my mind when I try to think about the grand scale of the plot – whatever the reason may be.
In fact, it’s beyond my capacity. I am not an idea person, I try to find solid rationale/logic – this documentary completely bewildered me.
Katha!
You must work through it! They are counting on smart people being bewildered by the incomprehensible! Think of it as possible. Then work it out logically from there.