Previous Post
Next Post

“This is huge. Yes, it’s bad that now you could shoot someone if you think they’re going to steal your TV in your house. That’s terrible. But the part we have to really pay attention to is this completely changes our understanding of how we prove self-defense in this state and what self-defense means.” – Rev. Nancy Nord Bence in Minnesota Republicans introduce two extreme gun bills [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • And in other news, trying to jump the Snake River canyon on a motorcycle could lead to serious injury or death.

    • Why not pass a law requiring everyone who owns a television to leave it out by the curb whenever they aren’t watching it. That way, persons of loose morals could simply carry it away and avoid breaking into houses. The world would be a nicer friendlier place.

  1. Yes, it’s bad that someone thinks they’re going to steal your TV in your house with no possibility of consequences.

    Remind me again who the criminal is, Reverend?

    • In her mind, and the mind of witless people like her, everything about you, even your life is to be sacrificed to criminals without resistance. After all, giving criminals what they want means they will go on their way and leave you alone. You know that because there has never been a case where someone not resisting was injured, or killed. Sorta like in the UK, where self-defense with a weapon is a crime because police, or something.

      • “After all, giving criminals what they want means they will go on their way and leave you alone.”

        Except that they have already NOT left you alone. People with this mind set don’t “get” it. Let’s say that burglary and robbery were suddenly not illegal. (Crazy, I know.) Is that the sort of world that the good reverend wants? What about the Commandments prohibiting stealing and coveting? Did she forget about those? Time to back to school.

        • Sam I Am,

          I got your point. I’m sadly aware of this fantasy failing in real life.

          Mine was that people (including police chiefs and sheriffs) really believe and state that if you give robbers what they want that you’ll be OK.

        • Too bad there is no punishment for pushing that lie after someone (it only needs one) is killed for complying with an attacker’s demands. Those stories do not go unreported, so whoever afterward says “you are safe if you comply” should suffer some sort of personal loss.

    • No One Of Consequence,

      “… it’s bad that someone thinks they’re going to steal your TV in your house with no possibility of consequences.”

      It is much worse than that. Notice Ms. Bence’ comment, “… this completely changes our understanding of how we prove self-defense in this state …”. Did you catch that? Ms. Bence and her ilk reject our longstanding bedrock legal principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

      This should not really come as any surprise, though. Gun grabbers (including Ms. Bence) reject the sanctity of human life and elevate the Almighty State above all. Anything goes that improves the expediency of the Almighty State.

        • It is all a piece of the same. Leftists, liberals, statists, Demoncrats all preach avoidance of confrontation. It conditions the mind to submit when government commands.

      • Sorry, Uncommon, that shot hits wide right of the mark. Self-defense is typically an affirmative defense, which means that the defendant has to prove that his infliction of an injury or death on another was justified. The State only has to prove that the defendant killed the other.

        Now of course there are exceptions, such as in Castle Doctrine and stand your ground jurisdictions, in which it is presumed that you were acting in self defense if you injure or kill someone who broke into your house. The details of those laws vary. In California, for example, the presumption places the burden of proof on the prosecution to show that the defendant was not acting in self-defense, a high burden indeed.

        But if you are out in the street, those presumptions no longer apply, unless and until it is established that the other person was the initial aggressor/thief, which defendant has the burden of proving.

        • Mark N.,

          Thank you for responding. Can you please explain the supposed logic behind that? Killing someone is only a crime if the defendant killed out of negligence or malice … and it is most certainly NOT a crime if the defendant killed to save innocent life. Since every crime requires an action (killing in this case) AND negligence/malice, why does the prosecutor only have to prove the action and not the negligence/malice … especially when witness statements and evidence at the crime scene allow for the definite possibility that the defendant killed to save innocent life?

          Having to prove that our actions were justifiable, rather than government having to prove that our actions were negligent/malicious, sounds like another example where our justice system elevates expediency (for government) above justice. Remember, every killing could literally be righteous. That fact that some are not is not adequate justification to make every defendant prove anything.

        • Generally, in most jurisdictions, an “affirmative defense” is a stipulation that the action of the defendant happened; no disputing that particular fact. The “Affirmative” part relates to mitigating factors that permit the commission of a crime in order to achieve a higher order of positive outcome. For instance (since we are talking guns), a person in a gun store, not armed that particular day, who sees a bad guy with a gun up against the head of someone in the parking lot. Our erstwhile good guy, grabs a gun from display, a box of ammo, puts two rounds in the cylinder, runs outside and pops the bad guy. Three “crimes” were committed by the good guy: theft of gun and ammo, discharging a firearm inside the city, killing another human (which will remain a homicide, regardless of court verdict). Good guy is arrested and charged with all three crimes. Good guy declares “Affirmative Defense” in the act of preserving the life of an innocent (greater good, and justifiable homicide). The three acts (crimes) did occur, and are confessed to by virtue of assertion of “Affirmative Defense”. Now the prosecution does not need to prove the three acts of the good guy were committed. However, the prosecution must prove the good guy did not act in defense of another, did not act in self-defense, has no justification for the homicide, only intended to steal the revolver and two rounds of ammunition. So the matter goes to the jury, and the judge explains that if the jurors believe the good guy committed the crimes, but the jury is convinced the theft and killing were justified under the circumstance, they should return a “Not guilty” verdict. If the jury finds the affirmative claim to be without merit, they should return a “Guilty” verdict. So, yes, one must admit to a crime in order to force the prosecution to prove the crimes were not committed for the higher purpose of saving the life of an innocent victim.

          Details of “Affirmative Defense” may vary, but the legal theory is the same everywhere.

          Of course, the choice of defense attorney is crucial; life or death.

  2. Wow! I’m an extremist, apparently, for taking the “shall not be infringed” part literally. Cool. I can live with that.

    • Burglary even. But they’ve expected us to just live with robbery for some time, since they made carrying weapons of self defense illegal.

      • “Burglary even”

        Maybe I’ve got it wrong, but isn’t burglary stealing from an unoccupied building” If you’re present, wouldn’t it be considered a home invasion/robbery?

        • I think it’s only robbery if you are confronted by the criminal. If you sleep right through it while they sneak out with your TV I think it’s still just burglary.

        • The legal definition of “burglary” varies from state to state and even from time to time. When I was a cop (a long time ago) burglary was defined in this state as “the breaking and entering of a dwelling place during the hours of darkness”, the old Common Law definition of the act. The definition of burglary is now classified in four degrees ranging from 1st (“breaking and entering the dwelling of another person with the intent of committing a theft or violent crime”) to 4th degree (“breaking and entering a dwelling, storehouse, yard, or garden of another person with the intent of committing a theft”). In some places such as California, the definition of burglary extends even to locked motor vehicles. Auto burglary is defined under California Penal Code 459 as entering any vehicle when there is evidence of forced entry, with the intent to commit grand or petty larceny or any felony.

        • The common law definition of burglary is “the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another with intent to commit a felony therein at night.” Most legislatures have removed at night and added other places. Often the different places are different crimes with all new names. In Texas we have Burglary of a Habitation and Burglary of a Vehicle, for example. Neither one has to be at night.

  3. running through the dialog in my head:

    “Don’t shoot. I’m only here for the TV”
    “Which one?”
    “Sanyo 32”
    “The remote is the one with the round bottom and the green buttons”


    “Why the #$%% would I believe a &@$!sack in my house taking my &@$!?” and cap him.

    • If you can get some moron criminal to “steal” a 32″ Sanyo CRT, you should buy them lunch too.

      I had great fun getting rid of my old 36″ Panasonic…

      • I have had two Zenith console televisions. Not a thing wrong with them, beautiful cabinets, but obsolete.
        What’s a guy to do? One afternoon I got a wild hair up my kazoo and decided to perform surgery on the one in the living room that serves as a parking spot for my 55″ Samsung HD Smart TV. I decided to turn it into a dog bed.
        Let me tell you that it was easier thought up than done. The CRT was heavy has hell and I had to remove the speaker boxes and reduce their size which needed to be in place for the speaker grills to be place or it would have looked terrible. It was one of those, projects we think will be a 45 minute job that actually takes four hours. The odd thing, my dog only lays in it when she’s telling me it’s time for bed. She won’t go to bed until I do.
        Oh well, it was a nice idea.

  4. From Star Tribune Sept 13, 2016.

    “At one point, the exasperated Lutheran minister wrote on Facebook that she would be willing to leave her parish work “if someone would pay me to work in gun violence prevention,” she said. That opportunity came this year, when she left a 20-year ministerial career to take the helm of Protect Minnesota, a nonprofit working to end gun violence through advocacy, education and organizing.”

    Apparently anti-gun funding is greater than the weekly offering of the community. For a few coins Rev. Nancy Nord Bence, is a Judas to peoples right to lawful self defense.

      • I would go so far as to say that anyone who is a congregant of any church that allows the blasphemy of a female preacher is a Heretic.

        Chain the doors, burn the church.

        • If we look at parts of the ancient church, having a female preacher is not blasphemous — but then they didn’t have just one office that mashed together pastor, preacher, visitor, priest, and more. To those parts of the church, so long as the chief minister was male, the rest could be whoever the Spirit gave the gifts to, so if a woman was a superb preacher, she was ordained as preacher — but only as preacher; she didn’t do visitation, or teach, etc.

          Indeed it can be argued (and has been) that to have a ministry without both male and female is a denial that Christ died for all humans so that to have a complete ministry we should have both. But the head in any church should be male, as that is the form Christ took, and the head must more closely correspond to Christ.

          This actually is found in the New Testament, where there are some make-female teams (one of them constituting the first theological seminary of record). They tend to be husband-wife teams, and the male is the head of the team.

          But even so, there was at least one church where Paul appointed women to lead, because there were no men fit at the time.

          The one place where women never served was what the old church called the Sacrament of the Altar, standing in for Christ to be used by the Spirit that His Words might once again be heard saying, “This is My Body…. This is My Blood.” Only the chief minister did that, and that chief minister was male — always.

      • Judas betrayed his leader and his fellow disciples. This woman is betraying neither her leader, nor her disciples. That is, her political leaders and disciples. To her leaders and supporters, she is preaching another gospel.

        • “This woman is betraying neither her leader, nor her disciples. That is, her political leaders and disciples. To her leaders and supporters, she is preaching another gospel.”

          True and add when no longer behind a pulpit, her work betrays fellow citizens second amendment. Interesting that passion for a cause trumps twenty years of service to the faithful…for a pile of coin.

  5. I don’t shoot people for what I think they are going to do. I shoot them for what they are doing.
    Someone illegally entering the home of an armed citizen expects to be shot. I have an obligation to deter crime through use of force. It’s a social contract. I don’t see any room for a grey area here.

    • “12. By the same reason may a man in the state of Nature punish the lesser breaches of that law, it will, perhaps, be demanded, with death? I answer: Each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like.”

      Book II – Of Civil Government – John Locke, 1690

      ’nuff said.

    • This woman repeated the lie that Zimmerman’s defense was “SYG.” It was not. Stand Your Ground had nothing whatsoever to do with his self-defense shoot of Martin. The evidence showed that Martin was pounding Zimmerman, and resistance to this was straight-up self-defense, no SYG needed. Fish swim, ducks waddle, leftists lie.

  6. So like if I kicked in her door and walked out with her TV she’d be totally cool, right? No cops or anything? I just need it to sell for food you know. Gotta feed the babies.

    • Silly person, In your required interview with invaders, you must ascertain their intentions with kind, gentle and soothing conversation. If they say they have good intentions, you are required to believe them.

  7. The problem with her line of thinking is no one has a casual and honest conversation with a forcible entry into their home. “Goodmorning chap, are you here to murder me, or just steal the tele?” “Why pardon me Mr. Homeowner, if you’d be so kind as to refrain from violence, I’m just here for the jewelry” “That’s just dandy, I totally believe the word of a burglar and I also would hate to have this come to violence. Shall I put on a cup of tea?”

    I don’t know why I did that in a British accent. What I DO know is a criminal having just committed forcible entry who gets caught is either going to run or fight. Who really wants to wait until the criminal has chosen what they’ll do and made the first move?

    Do you want to get stabbed? Because that’s how you get stabbed.

  8. Minnesota has been steadily expanding gun rights during every long session. We have a very effective state level gun rights advocacy group called the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance.
    As for the Claim that the Governor will likely veto both bills, while that is a possibility, he publically said he was going to veto the bill legalizing suppressors and in large part due to the feedback he received ended up signing it.
    I’m sure we’ll also be seeing bills introduced by the gun control lobby during this session, though I cant honestly recall the last time one of their bills passed.

  9. Those two “extreme” bun bills would restore the following rights to residents of Minnesota:

    1. Permitless carry
    2. Castle Doctrine
    3. Replacing Duty to Retreat with Stand Your Ground


    The first is “permitless carry,” granting anyone in Minnesota the right to carry a gun wherever they go.

    Sorry, “CityPages”, but that right is not Minnesota’s to grant or to deny. That right is a natural, God-given right – and one that is constitutionally protected against government infringement. (Oh, and the only only people who bother to get carry licenses are the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, aren’t constrained by laws requiring carry licenses.)

    The second is “stand your ground,” which has two prongs. In your own home, you can shoot to kill in order to prevent a felony — such the stealing of a TV or the writing of a bad check.

    Right: because if someone forcibly enters your home, their sole intent is to write a bad check.

    Most sane states have laws that make the forcible entry into one’s home prima facie evidence of intent/reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

    Anywhere else, you can shoot to kill if you feel like you’re being personally threatened. You don’t have to try to run away first….

    Because forcing law-abiding people to run away, while the violent criminals who threaten them know that their victims have to do so, works out so well.

    For one, forcing a would-be victim to ignore what may be the most viable option gives the criminals the upper hand, tactically. For another, forcing the law-abiding to cede ground to the lawless is immoral and depraved. The actions of the law-abiding should not be constrained by the actions of the lawless.

    And of course, this complete lie, that the anti-rights crowd keeps pushing with respect to SYG laws:

    …And you won’t have to prove that you had a solid reason to be afraid in the first place.

    Sorry again, “CityPages”, but SYG merely replaces the legalized duty to retreat. It does not remove the requirement of reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm (or the related justifications, such as the commission of a forcible felony). There are nuances in each state, of course; but in every state, the use of deadly force must be justifiable.

    Here’s how it reads in HF 238 (pdf):

    Subd. 2. Circumstances when authorized.
    (a) The use of deadly force by an individual is justified under this section when the act is undertaken:
    (1) to resist or prevent the commission of a felony in the individual’s dwelling;
    (2) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believesis an offense or attempted offense that imminently exposes the individual or another person to substantial bodily harm, great bodily harm, or death; or
    (3) to resist or prevent what the individual reasonably believes is the commission or imminent commission of a forcible felony.
    (b) The use of deadly force is not authorized under this section if the individual knows that the person against whom force is being used is a licensed peace officer from this state, another state, the United States, or any subordinate jurisdiction of the United States, who is acting lawfully

    And no SJW screed against SYG would be complete without this little gem:

    The most famous stand your ground case in recent memory is that of George Zimmerman’s killing of hoodie-wearing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. At the time, Florida’s stand your ground law ensured that Zimmerman could shoot if he had a fear of Martin, even if he wasn’t afraid enough to run away.

    (Should well tell the poor dear that George Zimmerman never invoked Florida’s SYG statutes, and that his defense was standard, run-of-the-mill self-defense? Should we tell her that George Zimmerman’s self-defense claim would have held true even under Minnesota’s current duty-to-retreat statutes, because at the time that Zimmerman used deadly force in self-defense, Trayvon Martin was straddled on top of him, and Zimmerman had no ability to retreat?)

    • “Forcing the law-abiding to cede ground to the lawless is immoral and depraved” So much this! I’m so gonna steal that.

    • Great comment. Theft of property is a form of fractional murder, stealing the hours of your life you invested in acquiring said property. The notion that property crime (alone) is less objectionable than interpersonal violence is a vile lie.

  10. She said the largest rise in suicide is among men 24 to 35. I would wager that a substantial percentage of that group is veterans because the rate of combat vet suicide is always off the charts compared to the same age group in the general population. Maybe, instead of wasting her time, she should do something to help the nen and women who put their lives on the mark for her freedom. All gave some. Some gave all.

  11. Love the strawman argument:

    “Look at the fear of immigrants we have in this state,” Nord Bence says. “You have been told that we have to worry about these Somali immigrants because they’re terrorists, and now you see a guy who looks like a terrorist, and you have no duty to retreat before using deadly force, and the presumption of innocence is with the shooter. … It’s going to lead to a wholesale arming of communities that feel threatened by this because if you were, say, a Somali immigrant in St. Cloud right now with all of the racial tension that’s going on, this bill is reason for you to be afraid.”

    Talk about a leap

    I hate Dayton BTW

    • “And the presumption of innocence is with the shooter”

      They say that like it’s a bad thing. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Oh right, we went away from that decades ago.

      • According to what I have seen and read, in most places if you discharge your firearm in self-defense, you only have an “affirmative defense”, and that only after you are arrested and charged. I think the “affirmative defense” defense is a matter of having prosecutors prove you were not in self-defense when you discharged the weapon and injured or killed the bad guy. so, the shooting itself is stipulated (by you) as having discharged a firearm, injuring or killing another person. sounds like “innocent until proven guilty”, but is actually an admission you broke the law, but the prosecutor must prove it wasn’t self-defense.

        • See my post above. Affirmative defense is something that the defendant has to prove. However, certain presumptions apply in the home in some (maybe most) states) that provided that the defendant is acting in self-defense if someone enters the home with “force.” If the presumption applies, then the prosecutor has to prove defendant was not acting in lawful self defense.

        • In my state, wherever you use a gun in defense you are “guilty of discharge of a firearm”, at the least. next level, you are charged with some sort of crime regarding injury/death to another. Under normal circumstances (a criminal discharging the firearm, and injuring another), you are convicted of the “discharge”, then can be tried for the injury. in self-defense situations, you can be tried for both actions, but the prosecution must prove the action was not self-defense. the thing that galls is that to reach the “affirmative defense” you effectively plea “guilty” to the firearm discharge ‘crime’. if you are subsequently cleared of all the charges, you get the honor of being declared to be justifiably committing crimes.

    • “It’s going to lead to a wholesale arming of communities that feel threatened”

      Lordy mercy, I should certainly hope so! What do we think their reaction to feeling threatened *should be*, if not to arm themselves?

    • Ironically, the MN’s Somali immigrants are THE most common source for US-based ISIS supporters. Maybe a little wariness is merited?

  12. I would never, ever, ever, shoot someone because I thought they were going to steal a TV in my house. That would be unethical.

    I would, however, shoot them because they broke into my house and I don’t know what all they are there for, so I have to assume the worst. My state has Castle Doctrine. If someone breaks into my house, I will let them know the cops are on their way and I have a gun and order them to get the hell out. If that doesn’t scare them off, I have to assume they are a threat and I will put rounds on target immediately. The whole TV thing is a libtard smokescreen. It has nothing to do with it.

    • “If someone breaks into my house, I will let them know the cops are on their way and I have a gun and order them to get the hell out. If that doesn’t scare them off, I have to assume they are a threat and I will put rounds on target immediately.”

      • Typical stick & drywall homes are tissue paper to gunfire. If someone breaks into my home I’m sure as heck not going to call out or talk to them, inviting a mag dump through a wall. I’ll call 9-1-1 and if said intruder is fool enough to come into view, that (by definition) is all the confrontation needed to initiate direct self-defense. Someone inside the walls is by definition a threat.

    • I agree.
      If someone breaks into my house, and I announce that I have a gun, and t hey must leave immediately, they should leave immediately.
      If they don’t, that means they think they have the upper hand, and that makes them extremely dangerous. At that point, there is no one who could reasonably doubt that I fear for my life.
      Except for liberals.

  13. This sounds like the kind of advice from someone who was bullied in school, and just bent over and took it. “Just give him what he wants and he’ll go away!” That’s some weak, soft-assed sh!t there.

    And God deliver us from people with “Reverend” in front of their name. I know they aren’t all like this “reverend”, but it seems more often than not, whenever “Rev.” Whoever opens their mouth, it has nothing to do with religion, but of course they make it sound like it does. I’ll see you in church, but after 11AM, I don’t care what you have to say.

  14. If I was in the habit of running I would not have the heart condition that makes retreating an unacceptable option.

    If I was in the habit of running I would be quite capable of leaving an assailant curled up in a ball puking, which was kind of a habit for the first two thirds of my life. the two thirds of my life when I could put a 3500 watt generator in a truck bed with the tailgate up.

    now, at 62 with an ICD, my one survival option is pop a cap in their ass. the idiot notion of retreating only works for the energetic and agile.

    anent Castle Doctrine – 10.8 miles from town with a 400 foot driveway – you did not get here by accident, you did not select this house at random, spare me the bullstuff.

    • Even when you were young, strong and fast, you couldn’t outrun a bullet.

      Although I live in a “duty to retreat” state (Nebraska), retreat in a public space is required only if it is a completely safe option. It might be safer to run from an armed mugger than to fight him but it’s not completely safe since he could shoot me in the back. Therefore, I’m allowed to fight him if I so choose.

  15. I wonder if this special Snowflake who is an ordained Minister has read her Bible, if so what does she think about the passage where Jesus States buy a sword, sell you clothes if you have too; or the passages referring to break in’s during daylight and dark? {at night you can wack the guy} day time you must not kill him or her but can stop them!
    These Holier than Thou bible thumper’s know better than us, what we want or need! should be two states of Minnesota those plastic wacko’s living south of Rush city! and the Rural Real people North of there.
    Amazing how intelligent People will sell their souls to the bigger paycheck!`

    • In NC if they are breaking down your door, you CAN shoot thru door. If they are climbing in thru your window, you can shoot them IN the window. Do not have to wait until you are out in harm’s way. Stand your ground, no duty to retreat, applies to ANYWHERE you have the legal right to be (aka no trespassing).

  16. First the Libtards push for (Not Constitutionally founded) separation of Church and State, then they throw their church aholes at us telling us what the state should do.

    When you set your limits to your own defense too close, they are overcome with the slightest of momentum, attempting to pre-empt someone from violating those limits then requires greater force at a faster speed. Best not to shave it down to the felt, and the person coming after it decides whether the tv was worth their life, not you.

    • The Constitution was supposed to prevent the establishment of a Government Religion. Along came the Progressives and here we are with a Theocracy whose sacraments are the list of groups with special privileges. Heaven help you if you object, because you’ll be branded with a scarlet letter of the -ist or -phobe you blasphemed.

  17. This is just more of the same old, “Don’t be mean to the poor, mistreated, misunderstood criminal. You have no right to place your welfare above his.”

  18. Extremists in the Legislature?

    First of all let’s see.
    Door kicked in. Perp says, “we’re only here for your TV.” You say, “Oh okay” and you go back to bed.
    Is that how it’s supposed to go?

  19. The problem with laws requiring you to “try to get away” is that sometimes you can’t

    When I lived in Ohio I met a guy who’s brother ran afoul of this. Literally stuck in a blind alley with two knife welding assailants. So he perforated one who subsiquently died. Dragged into court and found not guilty by a jury and nearly bankrupted by it. Then sued by the low-life’s family.

    He lost everything. House, wife, kids all gone. That dipshit with a knife may as well of killed him. It’s not self defense if you lose everything anyway.

    IIRC Ohio later changed that law.

      • @ Sam I Am
        I think I’d need a program that automatically changes intended text to “colorful”
        I’m trying to present myself more presidential these days and negate the TTAGs staffs need to alter my text in order to maintain appropriateness .
        I’m sure RF has better things to do than fix my inconsequential inane ramblings.

  20. I am sorry to say this, but I have reached the point where there is no longer any way that I can trust or respect anyone who uses the title “reverend”. It seems that the title always accompanies some bozo who plans to set our society ablaze (literally) by pushing their followers with emotionally charged leftest banter. Their actions are typically counter to the behavior their claimed religion demands, and there is always evidence of narcissistic personality disorder. In my opinion, these people seem happy to lead their followers down through the gates of hell to achieve their political goals and prove their self-importance. Like many things, the left has ruined the title “reverend”.

    • “Reverend.” And off we go generalizing from minimal data.

      The vast, vast majority of people with that title go quietly about their calling of caring for their flocks. Most use it only on the church letterhead and in official correspondence. A good number put up with the title if it appears in some small news article mentioning them.

      Those who love to hear it (yes, I’m thinking of you, with initials of a repeated consonant) are the issue.

  21. I also noticed she is repeating the “innocent 17-yr old Trayvon” lie – “… George Zimmerman’s killing of hoodie-wearing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. At the time, Florida’s stand your ground law ensured that Zimmerman could shoot if he had a fear of Martin, even if he wasn’t afraid enough to run away.”

    She “forgot” to mention that Trayvon (6’3″, 250lbs) had Zimmerman pinned on the sidewalk and was slamming Zimmerman’s head into the cement when Zimmerman fired one shot to protect his life.

    Hey, libs lie – that’s who they are.

    • Yea, the only picture the media used of this thug was from when he was 12 year’s old. Didn’t anybody take a mug shot of him after 12?

        • Did the jury see the selfies? I do not know, but if representing the family (or prosecution), I would argue that the selfies are highly prejudicial, intended only to inflame juror emotions, and not probative because they offer not evidence of a crime, imply past bad acts not before the bar.

  22. I guess I’m TERRIBLE for thinking that I should be safe in MY home and no one should be able to break into MY home, steal MY belonging, which I paid for with money from MY job. I guess I’m TERRIBLE for thinking that My life, MY liberty and MY happiness in MY home is less important than a criminal. If that makes me TERRIBLE, I’m perfectly fine with that.

    This situation is best summed up in the words of the British statesman, Edmund Burke, who many years ago said: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

  23. I’ll take my chances. Looking into carry insurance which I’m pretty sure would work in home invasion/pervert ib the home…

    • Being somewhat timid about making a decision to buy a gun, I studied a lot of things, insurance being one of them. If you home is broken into, homeowners insurance MAY cover the damage caused by the break-in. Homeowners insurance MAY cover damage due to physical combat. MAY cover damage caused by gun fire. Be certain you know what is which. Homeowner insurance MAY cover injury and damage you, or a guest, caused through negligent discharge. Straight replacement coverage for loss or damage of a firearm may have serious exceptions. Concealed carry insurance is more tricky than you may think. First, none that I have seen covers damage to, or loss of, property. The coverage is either straight covering of expenses for a trial, reimbursement for expenses for a trial. All expenses are not covered; know which are not. Some “payment” follows only after you are acquitted at trial. None I say covers appeals. None covers living expenses for your family due to your incarceration. When you read what these “concealed carry” programs offer, do not read with the expectation of seeing what you wish, but be skeptical so that you see what is really there. Compare every offering word-for-word. Old rule: if it ain’t specifically in the contract, it ain’t in the contract.

      • On the other hand, having someone come up with the retainer of $5K and paying another $5 to $100,000 for trial costs can be a great thing.

        • Not all gun owner/concealed carry insurance provides immediate payment for anything. There are products that provide only a lawyer to represent you at booking and arraignment. After that, you must prevail at trial in order to receive any funding (often there is a committee, and if they can find a way to consider you guilty of a bad shoot, you will not be granted any funding). Some policies also have caps on amounts available to you; some do not. Not every legal service contract provides “bail”, either. Hence my recommendation to be skeptical when evaluating whatever legal representation package is in front of you.

    • USCCA best coverage & deal out there, check it out. Really reasonable rate for a lot of coverage. Covers ANY weapon of opportunity, down to your physically beating the thug. Also does not matter if you ignored that unarmed victim notification sign. Pays up front, provides top notch 2A lawyer, you pay nothing back.

  24. I have a 32” crt in the basement. It weighs about 150lbs. If you can pick that sucker up, navigate a half flight of stairs, long carry 200ft to the fence and jump the fence with everything intact… you just did me a favor and you’re likely too tired to outrun the police.

  25. What these imbeciles fail to recognize is that a piece of personal property isn’t just like a rock or a stick. A piece of personal property is a piece of life. How big a piece depends on how much of a person’s life was invested in obtaining it, how much has been invested in enjoying it, and as a result how much anger/pain/frustration will result from its removal.

    As an example: I had a collection of four each of the state quarters, all untouched by human hands. Worth fifty bucks, right? Except, no — it was literally irreplaceable, because those quarters were picked up the first day the bank here got them, by my dad, who gave them to me over dinner. So the creep who stole them didn’t steal fifty bucks, he stole something that cannot be fixed by money — he stole a chunk of my life and also of my dad’s life, and it is not possible in this universe or any conceivable one to restore that. Even should the thief sow up one day with $10k as an apology, it wouldn’t begin to touch what he actually stole.

    So if I’d been there when he was taking my collection, would I have used force to stop him? Frak yes! Lethal force? If he didn’t drop the quarters and get his barbarian body out of my abode, then yes — bang.

    Looking around my house, there’s not much I own that doesn’t qualify as having a similar importance. And since liberals are all touchy-feely, how is it they don’t understand that the proper response to someone ripping a chunk out of my life is to stop it with whatever force is available?

  26. And the local Lutheran minister wonders why I don’t darken his doors.

    Between the idiotic Lutheran zeal for importing savages from the third world and this bombastic bimbo, well, they don’t have to worry about me darkening their doors for another week and ever again.

      • Ah, generalizations.

        Better than nine of ten Lutherans I know register Republican, Libertarian, Constitution, or Independent (in that order). One in five Lutherans I know carry most of the time. Well more than half go hunting regularly.

        But then they’re not the version who hold that believing in the bodily Resurrection of Christ is optional and that the Bible “contains” the Word of God — which is almost certainly the batch this unfaithful pastor-type person comes from.

  27. I wouldn’t shoot someone running off with my TV. It’s not worth it to me.

    But I don’t mind if someone else wants to make a different choice.

  28. Since I live in a Liberal Progressive utopia. Where the crazy mad communists run everything. Where good is bad, and bad is just misunderstood. Because bad has lived in an economically challenged neighborhood. Where wealth wasn’t disturbed with your TV. So from my states logic is…You should be licensed to have that TV, and it should be registered. Of course, after an extensive Universal background and mental healthcare check …With multiple Local/ State Police permissions….Because TV is full of “Fake News”. And you may now be a FOX news racist….lol….Bad still needs your TV…..


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here