Gun debate critic

Suppose you willfuly and intentionally planted your fist in someones face ... that constitutes assault. A felony that -under the current legal system- should land you before a judge and a jury of your peers, because you simply do not walk around hitting people, do you?

Well, the law it would appear isn't equal for all of us.

The major of Detroit who I can only guess leads his violent urban centre by example was charged with multiple assault charges. Now the DA is making him an offer, drop your title and you'll get away with it. Give up your job, and this violent crime you carried out against a fellow American will go completely unpunished.

Not to overdramatize, the good Major faces ten felony charges in two seperate criminal cases, but still. How would you feel if a charge for assault against you or a loved one (spouse, child) was being used as tender in a deal. The crime perpetraited against you or your dear ones will go unpunished, but fear not! This man, who when opposed by even the most incompetent of adversairies in the next election would not get re-elected, will have to give up his job.

How would you feel?

And don't tell me how this will allow them to better prosecute him, if the fact that he's a major would stand in the way of bringing him to justice for TEN FELONIES, than we've got seriously bigger problems.

The supreme court has confirmed that the second amendement does indeed mean what it sais.

I'm not very fond of the second amendement per se, in the sense that'd support the right to keep and bear arms with or without it, same goes for the right to freedom of religion and free speech. But this does constitute a legal victory for my side that will benefit at least the citizens of DC.

Uncle's a very busy bee in writing up posts on the matter.

Me? I'm off to read the news with this playing in the background.

There's been a lot of speculation on whether or not families of the mall shooting victims have grounds to sue the mall. The mall prohibited civillians from carrying firearms on the premises, but one of the first things they did afterwards was remove the "gun free zone" signs. Whether it was for liability reasons or for a sence of black humor (the mall wasn't really gun free after all), the presence of these signs with legal bearing were obviously important to someone.

Sami Barrak got a 26 million dollar settlement from the mall where he was shot. He argued that the mall didn't take adequate measures to protect the safety of its costumers. Would this be a legal precedent to other suits? Mind that this was a settlement, not a court decision, although he was originally awarded more than a hundred million by a jury!

At any rate, it would be an interesting trial to watch.