I apologize for the repeated posts about New Hampshire Attorney General Joseph Foster but when the AG, a known partisan Democrat appointee, comes out on cue toeing the Obama Administration Stand Your Ground narrative behind him, it is difficult for this dog to leave that particular bone alone.
So in keeping with what has turned into NH AG Joe Foster week, and while we wait for him to explain if George Zimmerman had any rights or how he still had an obligation to retreat while Mr. Martin was on his chest smashing his head into the pavement, it only seems fitting to bring up at least two more points.
First, the State Attorney General works for the Governor, so we can safely say Maggie Hassan has a shared vision for resurrecting a repeal of SYG in the granite state, something the AG is more than happy to be the front man for. Given her history we also know that Governor Hassan is also itching’ to support expanded background checks and expanded and more numerous victim zones, places where she would prohibit the carrying or possession of firearms. New Hampshire state Democrat party leadership is committed to the failed policies of other crime-ridden progressive war zones created by failed Democrat gun policy that intentionally leaves the criminals armed and the law abiding citizens defenseless so they are all in agreement and there are mountains of evidence to support that.
Second, it is important for all concerned to understand that their shared view on SYG is actually a minority view among the majority of Americans, and their state legislatures, which may in fact qualify the Democrats stand on Stand Your Ground as being an extremist view. Thirty-One states agree that….
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
“Not engaged in unlawful activity.” That means you cannot, in the commission of a crime, use stand your ground as an excuse for firing or firing back.
And by the way, if it takes a village to raise a child then shouldn’t it take a village to protect that child, or his mother, or their property?
When we look at the situation in Florida, the idea of the Castle Doctrine being “extended to the village” comes into sharper relief. The reason, as demonstrated in the Trayvon Martin case, is ironically proven by those complaining about the shooting the most loudly. They argue that Trayvon Martin had every right to be where he was – on a public sidewalk – and should not have been confronted to begin with. But what of the other party in the case? Did he – or would anyone for that matter – have the same right to move freely in the public square? And if someone leaps out on public property and, for example, punches you in the nose and pins you to the ground, where does this duty to “flee if possible” originate?
Further, how does the Holder Theory of Conflict Resolution square with the fundamental principles of our people? When trouble erupts, does he wish to define our legal system for people who run away? If you see a little girl being pulled screaming into a van by some pedophile, and you happen to be an open carry citizen, does Eric Holder admire the person who rushes in to help or insist that you first evaluate if there is some safe route of escape you can take to avoid the chance that you might injure the perpetrator? This essentially cedes the field of battle to evil to ensure that it is not unduly inconvenienced by good.
AG Foster, riding on the shoulders of Eric “In Contempt of Congress” Holder–who is more interested in politics than justice, something that perhaps AG Foster shares with the embattled Holder, would like the New Hampshire Legislature to take another look at placing people in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why they didn’t or couldn’t run away, to a jury that wasn’t their either, perhaps fifteen months after an incident occurred, for which the majority of County Attorneys in NH (who were also not there) are more likely than not to prosecute, for daring to protect the lives of women and children rather than retreat to a position from which one could safety provide some account of the circumstances leading up to the death they were, by law, sort of kind of, prohibited from preventing. An account that will most certainly be challenged in court by any defense attorney because it is difficult to be certain what one did or did not see….while running away.
On the whole, as with most Democrat policies, asinine does not begin to do it justice. A repeal of SYG makes no sense with regard to the personal and unalienable right to self-defense itself. It runs counter to the basic human instinct to protect or rescue someone else from harm if you are able. It gives criminals a defacto force advantage everywhere you or your family have a legal right to be because criminals have this inconvenient habit of not following the law. And it would force law abiding citizens to juggle the likelihood that should they act instinctively to defend themselves or others they will probably be charged with a crime by the very people who were not only NOT there to defend law abiding citizens but are under no obligation to do so because it is physically impossible for them to be everywhere an unlawful act might occur.
So much for all that ‘village’ crap.
So rather than allow you as a descendent of a long history of the civilian right to protect the common good and those in it (where another aspect of the prickly idea of ‘the militia’ comes into play) from any enemy of law and order (with the longstanding right of citizens arrest etc.), or to act as the heir to the natural right to self-defense of yourself, your person and your property, as well as the persons and property of other law abiding citizens, they’d rather you run away.
What Governor Hassan, the majority, if not all New Hampshire Democrats (pending their denouncing it), and Democrat Attorney General Joseph Foster want is to create an environment where criminals know they have a state mandated advantage even if there are law abiding citizens nearby who happen to be armed.
So it appears that the professional left is more interested in the investigation of robbery, rape, and murder than reducing their number. That would explain Chicago. But then Illinois just passed legislation allowing legal concealed carry. Even that state appears to be moving away, if only slightly, from the Democrat culture of creating victims by statute, while New Hampshire Democrats are trying to find ways to make more of them.
