This blog features observations from Randy Turner, a former teacher, newspaper reporter and editor. Send news items or comments to email@example.com
Trust the MSM to focus on the least important part of the bill, because it's been made a political issue even though it never was a party of the Zimmerman-Martin shooting, and to date more blacks than whites have benefits from Florida's version of it.At worst, this addresses an ambiguity in Missouri judicial decisions, where we can't definitively state we live in either a Duty to Retreat or Stand Your Ground state. But at least in sane parts of the state like here, where the police say we have an "absolute right" to use lethal force against violent home invaders (!), we're unlikely to be crucified because, in 20/20 hindsight, a prosecutor get a jury to believe we failed to avail ourselves of every opportunity to retreat.Much more important is that, if Nixon's almost certain veto is overridden, Missouri will become the 11th Constitutional Carry state, where if you're not a criminal you'll be able to carry concealed without a license. And before anyone says "Dodge City!!!", note that Kansas has had Constitutional Carry for 10.5 months, and Dodge City and the rest of the state are doing just fine.
I love it when The Constitution gets to be in charge. It Is our highest law of the land after all.
[The Constitution] Is our highest law of the land after all.Except it isn't in practice. The legislature wouldn't have to be passing laws like this if our Missouri Plan picked judges were actually enforcing the Constitution.And it gets worse, the extension of the Castle Doctrine to anyone legally allowed in your home, vehicle, etc. is pathetic political posturing, because the existing law it depends on has been judicially nullified by jury instructions the lower courts are required to use (see the Missouri section of Self Defense Laws of All 50 States). So extending a right which doesn't exist in practice to other people will just get more good citizens in jail who believe they can trust the letter of the law.I'll believe the legislature is serious about our Constitutions (state and Federal) and constitutional law when they actually abolish the Missouri Plan instead of just talking about it, and impeach the judicial tyrants on the bench. In the meanwhile, we can't depend on any self-defense law, no matter how clearly it is written, we have to depend on the raw politics which got this law passed (but not yet overriding what I expect to be an inevitable veto, unless Nixon is delusional enough to believe his political career is not over after Ferguson), and which, at least in this corner of the state, makes it very unlikely any of us will be maliciously prosecuted for a legitimate act of self-defense, I'm sure our elected prosecutor would like to stay in his position.
I absolutely agree with you. Well stated.
Under the Missouri Plan, a non-partisan commission reviews candidates for a judicial vacancy and sends a list of candidates considered best qualified to the governor, who selects one. To remain accountable to the people, the judge stands election to be retained at the general election. Originally, the judges were not listed by political party.Legal scholars put forth ideas in the early 1900s to reduce the role of politics in the selection of judges. This became known as the Missouri Plan and has been adopted by many other states, but it seems that political patronage and influence in MO is now more important than judicial objectivity or scholarship.
Post a Comment