HB 135: State v. Craig Moses - Granite Grok

HB 135: State v. Craig Moses

“In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous.” Tacitus

Fingers_In_EarsLiberals love to ignore inconvenient facts. Stick fingers in ears, close eyes and yell, “La-la-la-la-la!” Franklin resident Craig Moses was acquitted under the Granite State’s “Stand Your Ground” law.  Moses was arrested nearly a year ago in Nashua outside a nighclub and charged with criminal threatening with a deadly weapon after he and his cousin were severely beaten.

I attended the Senate hearing on HB 135 this week. As I sat there in that hearing with Attorney Penny Dean, I marveled at how the left who advocate for repealing Stand Your Ground worked tirelessly to make this exclusively a bill about gun use. Countless leftist, anti-freedom Kool-Aid slurpers step up to the table, many with pre-canned scripted arguments, sounding like a broken record, same theme, same concept, different verbiage. “We have to focus on the ridiculous level of gun violence in our country,” one Salem woman testified. I scratched my head with confusion.

It was Rep Jan Schmidt who recently wrote that people are generally confused about the purpose of HB 135. Indeed! but I think fewer of us who want the bill killed, are confused than those who advocate for it. It is not a gun bill. It is a bill about the use of force! Guns are just a mere pretext forced on us by liberals.

And despite this law being in place for two years now, Moses was still charged. Where liberals occupy the seats in the Halls of Justice, Any law will be molested, contorted, twisted for the ends of the liberal cadre. Nashua Police Department is famous and enjoys a history of  being about ‘their own program.’

Liberals also testified in that hearing, “there has been no cases necesitating  need for this law (SB 88- SYG) in the first place.”  “La-la-la-la-la!”

Penny Dean testified, giving clear examples of why  Senate Bill 88 was necessary when it passed over the veto of the Governor. Prosecutions that made this law necessary. Yet liberals continued to parrot examples from Florida. Even our own prosecutors made false equivalencies. Back when Senate Bill 88 was the “topic de jour,” Attorney General Michael Delaney took to the streets of Manchester, playing up tot he cameras, warning that  Drug dealers and Gangsters will use this law to get a pass on their criminal behavior and violence.  

Delaney’s statements give form to the notion that progressives rely on lack of attention, ignorance and absence of critical thinking to pursue an agenda of the government that cures all ills of the sheeple. Delaney full well knew this defense would not likely be available to a drug dealer or a gangster seeking to use this defense, when other predicate criminal offenses would most likely be in play for their criminal activity. He didn’t tell us that. Nope.

But from an economic point of view, who can blame Delaney? He is a lawyer who is now in private practice. Billable hours with lots of clients is what drives the success of any law firm.

Despite nobody being injured but Moses and his cousin, he was charged. Despite Moses brandishing the firearm, but not firing a shot, he was charged. Despite having this law on the books at the time of his alleged offense, County Attorney LaFrance still charged and indicted Moses. Despite arguing the lack of availability for this defense, the jury concluded otherwise. Despite the legals system’s best efforts to nullify this law. we now see exactly why this law is so necessary.

When it comes to liberals, the context is winners and losers. Government always seeks to win and the people will lose. That is their exclusive template. Craig Moses is both a winner and a loser because despite this law, he still had to fund his legal defense.  Fortunately, he prevailed and society has deemed his action as just, irrespective of the pablum pukers at the county attorney’s office or at Nashua Police Department.

The late great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “Law is the witness and external deposit of our moral society.” With that, I again posit this question. I have done so countless times and yet the progressives still yet ignore the question…

“If a county attorney receives a case where the fact pattern reveals an uncertainty. who wins? If the fact pattern of a case equally suggests that a person could retreat (I discount that silly notion of complete safety because nobody yet has been able to clearly define what that means) and yet, the fact pattern might also equally suggest perhaps that such person may not have been able to, to whom does the tie go to?

We can only hope that HB 135 will die in the Senate Committee, despite some of the silly and inane ranting we heard from both the left and the right on this.