• Home
  • Archive by category 'self-defense'

Archive for ‘self-defense’

Zimmerman: Guilty or Innocent?

“Zimmerman: Guilty or Innocent?” by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

I don’t claim to know the answer to the question. It’s obvious that the public, aided and abetted by the media, has already made up its collective mind. ZIMMERMAN IS GUILTY AS CHARGED! This was the opinion of the general public even before the trial started. Add to this the general opinion of the masses that an accused person is guilty because the person was arrested and charged.

Wow! Think of all the tax dollars that could be saved if we just substituted the media, leading the masses to popular “opinion”, for the legal system.

But, hold on a minute. Our legal system is based on the practical assertion and principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I guess the media and the masses don’t get it. Here’s a Facebook post you might want to read just to get some perspective on cases like this where a defendant is claiming self defense to justify a homicide. And remember that “homicide” is a morally and legally neutral term. Its meaning is too narrow for making decisions about how to treat the act and its results. Homicide can be “justified”, as in the case of legitimate self defense, or “unjustified”, as in the case of premeditated murder.

 

Gun Free Zones-An Oxymoron in the Gun Control Debate

“Gun Free Zones-An Oxymoron in the Gun Control Debate” by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

The only real gun free zones are closed and secured locations with controlled access, staffed by armed guards and requiring inspection of persons entering, including anything they are wearing and carrying. Areas marked with gun free zone signs, either required by law or policy, are a fraud on the public and are, in fact, a threat to public safety.

If a licensed citizen carries a gun into such an area, that person commits a crime even though the only crime is violating the law or policy establishing that zone.

If a person with criminal intent wants to go into that zone to actually use that gun to shoot one or more people, what makes anyone think that the sign would deter that person with that intent from that behavior? And, if an otherwise lawful citizen were to violate the law or policy and deploy a prohibited weapon to stop the person with murderous intent, why should that citizen be declared a criminal? Since when is exercising the right to self-defense, a Constitutional and Human Right, a crime?

Irrational, feel-good measures, such as gun free zones do not stop criminals or the insane. Such laws and policies only disarm those who are no threat to anyone. Gun free zones create an illusion of safety only to those deluded enough to believe they work.

Public officials who promote such ideas are either deluded themselves or are acting in a calculated and cynical manner in pandering to the fears of the public they work for. Do you hear me, Seattle Mayor McGinn? And Mayor Bloomberg of NYC and all the other mayors in this country who have joined your club.

 

Understanding the Second Amendment Easy, If…

“Understanding the Second Amendment Easy, If…” by John F Hays, Seattle Private Investigator.

You don’t have to be a lawyer and a constitutional law expert to understand the Second Amendment. The meaning of the Second Amendment is obvious to anyone who knows (1) our history, (2) knows that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights, not government rights and (3) understands grammar.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment acknowledges our human right, pre-existing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, while stating the interest of the government in not restricting or interfering with that right.

A study of our history leading up to the formation of our country and the writing of the Constitution, shows no evidence of government interest in controlling citizens’ possession of arms. If you know of any evidence to the contrary, provide it to me as a comment to this post.

Stipulated: The Bill of Rights is about individual rights, not government rights. Any argument?

The action part of the wording of the sentence that makes up the Second Amendment refers to a right that “…shall not be infringed.” This wording obviously recognizes a right that pre-exists the Second Amendment, as you can’t infringe on something that doesn’t already exist. The first part of the sentence does nothing more than state the government’s interest in maintaining and not interfering with that right. Does anyone reading this post claim that our language has changed so much since then that my interpretation is wrong.

If you accept this argument but you believe that the Second Amendment is an anachronism that should be eliminated from the Bill of Rights within the Constitution, good luck getting that changed.

 

Is Self-Defense a Social Evil?

“Is Self-Defense a Social Evil?” by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator

The issue

Is self-defense an anachronism and a social evil?

Do you believe you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence? Who is responsible for insuring that right? At the societal level, it’s the government aided by the community. At an individual and family level, it’s the individual, the family and community, aided or not by the government.

I’ve heard people claim that personal security is the job of the police and that self defense is an anachronism in our modern country, especially when the means of self defense is a gun. This claim is often made by otherwise intelligent people who are too frightened to see the truth and who are afraid to recognize their own responsibility. Recognizing and acting on this responsibility requires people to do the work to prepare to protect themselves and their families and it requires them to suppress their fear of getting their hands dirty. It’s odd that these same people are OK with hiring mercenaries to do their dirty work for them. Is this the self-righteous piety of the pseudo-pacifist? Is it fear? Is it cowardice? Is it self-delusion? Is it some combination of these factors or something else entirely.

The truth

The police are not responsible for your individual security. Rational/logical argument: it’s the math. Legal argument: it’s the law.

The math argument only requires that you determine two numbers, the number of police officers in your community and the population of your community. The ratio of the first number to the second gives you a small fraction, doesn’t it?

The legal argument is that the courts have ruled on a number of occasions that the police aren’t responsible for your personal security. Just read the following references.

A 2005 Supreme Court decision: http://nyti.ms/V9cUKG

An example: Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: ” Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community. . . .”

A good general discussion: http://bit.ly/V9dDvl

The question

It’s obvious that you have both the right and the responsibility for your own self defense and that of your family. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

 
© 2012 HSI Investigations, A Seattle Private Investigator