That "Macho Democrat" Thing

David Weigel | January 10, 2007

Former congressional candidate Paul Hackett, whose near-miss loss in a safe GOP seat hinted at the Democratic wave to come, is under investigation for chasing down men who crashed a car into his property.

The incident happened around 4:30 a.m. Nov. 19. Police were called to Hackett's Indian Hill house after Fee failed to make a curve and ran into a fence at the home on Given Road, according to the police report.

When [Ranger Paul] White arrived at the house, Hackett's wife, Suzi, told him that her husband had called her to say he had stopped the men on Keller Road.

White called for backup. He arrived at a driveway in the 8700 block of Keller Road to find the three men lying face down near their small, black car and Hackett's pickup truck. With a flashlight, White saw a strap on Hackett's right shoulder and "what appeared to be an assault rifle hanging along his right side," White's report said.

White told Hackett to put away the rifle and "not take things into his own hands."

This is the most interesting part, or at least the part most open to interpretation:

"He told the boys to 'Get the ---- out of the car and get on the ground.' ... He said he did not touch the vehicle with the rifle and maintained his distance. 'I knew they saw I was armed,' he said. He said he had done this about 200 times in Iraq, but this time there was not a translation problem," the Indian Hill police report said.

Macho Democrat explanation here.

Comments

|1.10.07 @ 2:49PM|#

Good for him. If I could get a tax credit, I would gladly fire my local police and outsource the job to Hackett.

|1.10.07 @ 2:53PM|#

Hackett appears to be a few peanuts short of an "Oh Henry" bar.

|1.10.07 @ 2:57PM|#

sweet

|1.10.07 @ 2:58PM|#

Hackett appears to be a few peanuts short of an "Oh Henry" bar.

Yeah...he should have waited patiently for the cops to arrive, take a statement and then tell him they will contact him if anything comes up.

Good for him. And good for him for not doing anything stupid like assaulting or administering some kind of vigilante justice.

I'm sure he'll be charged with some kind of illegal use of a firearm or something though.

|1.10.07 @ 3:10PM|#

Aresen's comment is, sadly, indicative of just the kind of pansy-assed state we live in today, where any and all disputes are settled by "the authoritaws", and folks who attempt to protect their property of their own accord are seen as wackjobs. This is what happens when we put all of our trust and stock in The Authorities. And it's just fucking pathetic. If more people had the cool-headed nuts that this guy had, then perhaps we'd have less crimes against persons and property in this country. I'm not saying everyone should be walking around with M4's and pushing it in the face of anyone who looked at the crossways...but if this country wasn't so bloody afraid of guns, and wasn't so bloody dependent on the State for everything from diapers to home defense, then perhaps people might think a little harder before commiting criminal acts. You can be damned sure that these hit-and-runners (no pun intended) won't be attempting anything like that again anytime soon, as it should be.

I. Self. Divine.|1.10.07 @ 3:16PM|#

Evan! hit it on the fucking nose.

|1.10.07 @ 3:19PM|#

but if this country wasn't so bloody afraid of guns

Took me till near the end of the post before I realized Evan! lives in England.

|1.10.07 @ 3:20PM|#

It is not clear what happened. Did these guys intentionally destroy his property or just miss a curve? I will be the first one to support someone's right to defend their property. If these guys were there tearing things up or breaking into the home, I would have no problem if Hacket had shot them. But, if they just had a innocent wreck and Hacket pulled a gun on them, Hacket needs to go to jail. That is bullshit. If this guy had done this so many times in Iraq, then he ought to know that every time you pull a gun on someone you run the risk of actually having to shoot them. That is why you don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it. If these guys were innocent people who just happened to miss a curve, Hacket needs to go to jail.

creech|1.10.07 @ 3:22PM|#

Right on. Here in rural Penna., a guy got arrested for making terroristic threats, etc. when he notified some yahoo who cut him off and then climbed out of his car and threatened him, that he had a gun and the yahoo better climb back in his car and leave. Said yahoo called 911.

|1.10.07 @ 3:23PM|#

That is differnt though creech. Did these guys threaten Hackett? If they did, I am with you. If they did not, then Hackett had no right to pull a gun on them.

|1.10.07 @ 3:24PM|#

Amen to that. A few months ago there was a rash of break-ins and vandalism on my friends block. I was over there hanging out one day and their landlord called down to say he saw a group of teenagers breaking into my car. We all run out and the window's smashed so we jump in and ride around looking for the little fuckers. We saw them, chased them down, and sat on them till the cops showed. Got my window paid for by one of their mothers, and there have been no break-ins on that block since.

|1.10.07 @ 3:27PM|#

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/10/BAGPQNG2MM1.DTL

Reasons conceal and carry should be mandatory. Perhaps Hackett was right. If these guys were typical teenage punks out destroying stuff, I am all for it.

|1.10.07 @ 3:28PM|#

John,

Their crime was eluding the responsibility of paying for the damages they caused. People should be able to do stuff like that with no intended consequences? Of course he would be completely remiss to have shot them, but I bet just the sight of that thing was enough to put the fear of god into them, and if they weren't scared, what's to stop them from just getting back in the car and driving away?

|1.10.07 @ 3:29PM|#

Given the fact that Rafferty didn't shoot or hurt anyone, and the end result is that he knew who it was who damaged his property and justice was served, I don't see how you could argue that he "needs to go to jail". You could make a libertarian argument that some penalty should be assessed against him for creating an unnecessarily dangerous situation, but jail, no.

ChrisV82|1.10.07 @ 3:29PM|#

Evan!, I live in a city where people who carry guns inevitably blow each other way. Now, I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to have guns, but I don't really buy the idea of people being allowed to run after each other with weapons.

To quote from page 174 of the November 2006 issue of Philadelphia Magazine,

[Criminologist Lawrence Sherman's] hypothesis was that police officers, by aggressively enforcing laws against carrying concealed weapons at crime "hot spots" such as drug corners and nuisance bars, would discourage people from carrying guns, and that this decrease in gun-carrying would lead to fewer gun crimes. This was a great departure from the standard model of rapid response and random patrol.

The idea is to have people cool off before having access to their firearms. While having calm people with guns isn't that big of a deal, a bunch of impassioned and/or angry people with weapons bothers me, as it should you.

Honestly, I have no idea why anyone would trust their fellow human being to act responsibly, especially in the heat of the moment.

|1.10.07 @ 3:29PM|#

Sorry, Hackett, not Rafferty. It's been a long day...

|1.10.07 @ 3:30PM|#

Did these guys intentionally destroy his property or just miss a curve?

I don't see why that matters in this particular case. Based on my reading, they fled the scene of an accident. Whether they hit my property intentionally or not, their fleeing justified him chasing them down and holding them until the authorities arrived, so they can be held accountable.

|1.10.07 @ 3:33PM|#

Chris, I live in Philly, too, and it's simply false to say that people with guns "inevitably blow each other away". The vast majority of the murders here have been gang-related; so it's more accurate to say that you live in a city where gang members with guns inevitably blow each other away. Or, simply, that your city's gangs are at war.

|1.10.07 @ 3:39PM|#

"I don't see why that matters in this particular case. Based on my reading, they fled the scene of an accident. Whether they hit my property intentionally or not, their fleeing justified him chasing them down and holding them until the authorities arrived, so they can be held accountable."

Yes they should be, but pulling a gun is a big deal. I dont' think you pull a gun on someone unless you have reason to beleive that your safety is threatened. I am as pro second amendment as anyone, but you don't just go around shoving guns in people's faces, I don't care how much they deserve it. I can't get the article to come up because I am not a subscriber. I want to know the facts. But, I don't see how he had a reason to pull a gun on these guys. What if one of them had just said screw you and taken off running, would you guys think it would have been okay for him to shoot the kid? I don't. If he can't shoot someone, then why pull the gun and risk having to use it or accidentily using it?

dhex|1.10.07 @ 3:40PM|#

"Honestly, I have no idea why anyone would trust their fellow human being to act responsibly, especially in the heat of the moment."

well, you find a far lower incident of crime, especially violent crime, with people who have concealed carry permits.

it's important to differentiate between someone who's carrying a gun within the legal sphere and within an illicit sphere (stuck in a shitty neighborhood, participation with or victimization by people involved in grey and black market/underground economy areas, etc).

Sam Franklin|1.10.07 @ 3:40PM|#

I'm sure he'll be charged with some kind of illegal use of a firearm or something though.

The tort is assault, and that is probably the criminal charge, too.

Hackett better hope some of the paint from his fence ended up on that truck. Otherwise it is one (kind of hot headed) witness against three, and Hackett will go down harder than he otherwise would.

I.Self.Divine.|1.10.07 @ 3:42PM|#

Honestly, I have no idea why anyone would trust their fellow human being to act responsibly, especially in the heat of the moment.

A perfect reason to have carry a gun.

Sam Franklin|1.10.07 @ 3:43PM|#

Not to mention the fact that the driver may have been on his way to the nearest easily-available telephone to report the (non-injury accident). We'll never know one way or the other on that part now.

|1.10.07 @ 3:43PM|#

"Honestly, I have no idea why anyone would trust their fellow human being to act responsibly, especially in the heat of the moment.

A perfect reason to have carry a gun."

Carrying is different than using or threatening to use it. Yeah, you should be able to carry a gun, but that doesn't mean you should be able to threaten people with it just because they are doing something to piss you off.

I. Self. Divine.|1.10.07 @ 3:44PM|#

Preview is my friend. He makes me look like less of an idiot. Preview is my friend. He makes me...

VM|1.10.07 @ 3:44PM|#

Dhex with the awesome paper on this subject!

Zach and Chris: I lived in Philly for a year back in 1993(23rd and Green). Do either of you remember this?

Officer Stephen Dmytryk

His team caught some yutes in the act of stealing my car. RIP.

I. Self. Divine.|1.10.07 @ 3:48PM|#

Not to mention the fact that the driver may have been on his way to the nearest easily-available telephone to report the (non-injury accident). We'll never know one way or the other on that part now.

Regardless, that is still fleeing the scene of an accident. At best.

Carrying is different than using or threatening to use it. Yeah, you should be able to carry a gun, but that doesn't mean you should be able to threaten people with it just because they are doing something to piss you off.

I agree that we can't be going around pulling guns on everyone, but in the event that someone commits a crime against you (note the difference between being the victim of a crime and merely being pissed off) how is it not your right to defend your property/ensure punishment for such a crime?

|1.10.07 @ 3:48PM|#

VM, I don't remember it, because I was 10 at the time. Sad to hear it though.

VM|1.10.07 @ 3:49PM|#

He was a good Officer.

dhex|1.10.07 @ 3:49PM|#

"Dhex with the awesome paper on this subject!"

this much is true. to quote myself:

"The evidence also seems rather clear that concealed-carry licensees commit crimes at a far lower rate than non-permit holders, if only for the obvious reason that those who would go through the trouble of getting a permit are putting themselves on file as a weapon-holder with law enforcement officials. For example, there were 247,345 active concealed-carry licenses in Texas as of December of 2005. Since 1996 there have been 3,269 license revocations and 2,229 suspensions - out of nearly a quarter of a million permits issued (Concealed Handgun Licensing Bureau, Texas Department of Public Safety, Demographic Summary). This is not portrait of chaos that gun-control advocates paint. Most devastatingly for their cause - in 2001 there were 180 CCW permit holders convicted of various crimes. Non-permit holders, on the other hand, were convicted of 35,070 crimes, meaning permit holders made up .51% of all convictions. Permit holders accounted for .63% of murders, .66% of sexual assaults and 0.75% of aggravated assaults. There was also only one conviction for the deadly discharge of a firearm by a license holder (Concealed Handgun Licensing Bureau, Texas Department of Public Safety, Conviction Rate Breakdown for CCW Licensees)."

the texas ccw office, btw, is totally wigged out when you tell them you're a grad student from new york city doing research. especially when you call them five minutes after opening.

|1.10.07 @ 3:50PM|#

I can't believe that John is the voice of reason here.

Carrying a gun, and using to protect yourself, and even using it to protect your property, is one thing.

Hackett didn't do any of these. He pulled a gun on people who were fleeing - not to protect anyone or anything, but to "get 'em."

Is that one of the inalienable rights protected by the second amendment - to allow individuals to pursue justice against those they feel have wronged them?

VM|1.10.07 @ 3:50PM|#

QFMFT, dhex!

|1.10.07 @ 3:51PM|#

Not sure about the laws where this occurred, but as I learned in my CCW class on Monday, here in AZ pulling a gun on someone is aggravated assault, unless you feel your life is in danger. I don't see the threat here, so following them and calling the cops would have been the best choice. I hope Mr. Hackett has good attorney on retainer.

Nick

|1.10.07 @ 3:52PM|#

"how is it not your right to defend your property/ensure punishment for such a crime?"

You don't have a right to defend property with life threatening force. That is common law. Now of course, you do have a right to defend yourself if you feel your life is threatened. I would be the first one to admit that if someone breaks into your house, you have a right to assume that they are there to do you harm and shoot them. In this case, the people were fleeing the scene. The damage was already done. It is difficult to see how Hackett could have thought that his life or safety was in any danger because these guys were fleeing an accident. The only danger he was in was created by him chasing them. You can't shoot someone for running into your fence, even maliciously. It follows then that Hackett couldn't pursue these guys with a gun to essentially make them pay for his fence.

Sam Franklin|1.10.07 @ 3:55PM|#

Regardless, that is still fleeing the scene of an accident. At best.

I think the lawyers will characterize it as fleeing a hot head with a gun.

In any event, I don't think the law should encourage people to be knocking on people's doors at 4 am.

So you head for the nearest pay phone. unless an unmarked truck with a gun rack is chasing you, in which case you do what you d**n well please.

|1.10.07 @ 3:55PM|#

I don't think it was wise of him to pursue the perpetrators, however, since everything turned out ok, I see no reason to be an intertron quarterback.

|1.10.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Well, joe, if individuals lack the right to pursue justice, how can they delegate it to the state?

Sam Franklin|1.10.07 @ 3:56PM|#

,i>So you head for the nearest pay phone. unless an unmarked truck with a gun rack is chasing you, in which case you do what you d**n well please.

up to and including putting a bullet in hacket's head or a knife in his heart.

|1.10.07 @ 3:56PM|#

This incident doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is his statement.

"He said he had done this about 200 times in Iraq, but this time there was not a translation problem,"

What's ok in Iraq is not ok here. The last thing we need is for people who served over to think they can treat us like they treated Iraqis.

He's lucky the car didn't backfire, or someone make a fast move.

|1.10.07 @ 3:57PM|#

Also, I find it quite peculiar that Chris doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between a gun-toting criminal, and an upstanding citizen with a carry permit.

dhex|1.10.07 @ 3:57PM|#

it's the difference between self-defense and vigilantism.

self defense: shooting someone who has broken into your home

vigilantism: chasing someone out of your house and shooting them half a block away.

Ryo|1.10.07 @ 3:58PM|#

From the Enquirer article (which isn't behind a subscriber wall btw) - Hackett claimed he never pointed the gun at the 3 guys.

|1.10.07 @ 3:59PM|#

"Well, joe, if individuals lack the right to pursue justice, how can they delegate it to the state?"

Sam Franklin|1.10.07 @ 4:01PM|#

From the Enquirer article (which isn't behind a subscriber wall btw) - Hackett claimed he never pointed the gun at the 3 guys.

You don't have to wait for someone to actually point a gun at you to shoot them dead in self defense and/or defense of others.

You merely explain that the man you shot said he was going to kill you while holding his gun. That is all you need to acquire the legal right to ventilate him.

|1.10.07 @ 4:01PM|#

This is great mediageek.

|1.10.07 @ 4:03PM|#

I actually w/ Sammy. Because the guys who wrecked the fence were not attacking Mr. Hackett, he actually becomes the aggressor. Please don't misconstrue anything I am saying. I am merely applying the informaion I have gathered from CCW classes about using deadly force. This situation does not meet the requirements for pulling a gun. And these are the rules in AZ, a very gun friendly state.

Nick

|1.10.07 @ 4:03PM|#

Chasing somebody down and trying to make some sort of a citizen's arrest is not really in line with what most state's laws allow us to do legally with our guns. I'm also a big time pro-gun guy, and I believe in the right to carry and defense. As a responsible gun owner I try to obey the laws, to the letter. When law abiding gun owners get into trouble or do something questionable, it only attracts the attention of the anti crowd and gives them fuel for their fire. If this guy cares about his 2nd amendment rights, he should know better.

Whether or not this type of thing should be legal is certainly up for debate, but I doubt that it is under the current laws of his state.

|1.10.07 @ 4:03PM|#

Joe, if someone steals something from you, do you believe you should have the right to chase them down and retrieve it?

If so, how is it different if someone damages your property and then flees? In effect they're stealing because they left X amount of damage that now you (or your insurance) will have to pay for. By chasing them he clearly was protecting his property.

Now admittedly pulling a gun is extreme. But he didn't shoot anyone and it seems clear that he had no intention of doing so; and it got them to stop. Justice was served. You're saying he should go to jail for that?

|1.10.07 @ 4:05PM|#

John covered the essentials. A response must be appropriate and proportionate.

If one of those kids had pulled a gun [or worse, what Hackett only thought was a gun], Hackett could be up on a murder charge. Or dead himself.

Nutbar. Through and through.

|1.10.07 @ 4:06PM|#

tarran,

Do you recommend we allow John to stock up on military hardware, round up a bunch of buddies, and go shoot people in foreign countries?

We delegate powers to the state that we deny individuals all the time. The monopoly on the use of force is the defining characteristic of a government.

Shall I go to your house to collect the funding I need for the services the state provides? Um, no, I think I'll let the state handle that.

|1.10.07 @ 4:08PM|#

Nobody argues that it could have turned into a real bad situation. But John is basically arguing that since a mishandling of the situation could have resulted in a bad outcome, regardless of the fact that by any measure it was a success, this guy should go to jail. That just offends common sense.

|1.10.07 @ 4:09PM|#

zach,

I have the legal right to chase them down and demand my property back.

I do not have the right to hit them with a brick and take it back. I don't even have the right to threaten them with the brick.

I don't think Hackett should go to jail - there's mitigation all over the place here - but that's not the same as declaring his actions appropriate.

|1.10.07 @ 4:09PM|#

Sorry again, nobody argues that it could not have turned into a real bad situation.

|1.10.07 @ 4:10PM|#

Well then joe, I agree. I was responding to John's statement that he "needs to go to jail", and since you declared him the "voice of reason" on the subject I thought you agreed.

Sam Franklin|1.10.07 @ 4:10PM|#

I think it would be funny if they charged Hacket with interfering with the driver's attempt to report the accident in a reasonable manner.

Poetic justice.

|1.10.07 @ 4:11PM|#

dhex ...

By my back of the envelope calculation that makes cc licensees about half as likely to be convicted of a crime than the Texas population as a whole. If that's close, it's impressive.

Do you have the figures on firearms offenses only?

|1.10.07 @ 4:14PM|#

I'm all for protecting your property, but even if this was teenage vandalism, by holding them at gunpoint like that, Hackett showed himself to be a total asshat who blew things way out of proportion.

|1.10.07 @ 4:18PM|#

I don't know how it is in other states but where I live, there is the weapons carry permit law has no legal requirement that the weapon by carried in a concealed manner. It is merely a presumption that that is the intended manner in which it will be carried by most people.

If Hackett was carrying his assault rifle (and it would only be a REAL assault rifle by the way, if had a selector switch that allowed fully automatic fire as opposed to semi-auto only - which are not assault rifles), then he couldn't have carried that in a concealed manner.

Carrying it and not pointing it at someone doesn't constitute a threat any more than if he had been wearing a Colt peacemaker in a western style holster.

|1.10.07 @ 4:19PM|#

Guys, remember the outrage over the SWAT teams in Fairfax serving warrants -- unneeded escalating of a nonviolent situation and people end up getting killed. Its surprising to see people against the SWAT teams essentially in favor of this guy bringing a gun into a situation and threatening people when it was not going to be used.

Gilbert Martin|1.10.07 @ 4:21PM|#

"Shall I go to your house to collect the funding I need for the services the state provides? Um, no, I think I'll let the state handle that."

LOL

In your particular case, you'd have no choice anyway as you have undoubtedly never lived a single day in your life when you would have been physically tough enough to ge the job done.

|1.10.07 @ 4:22PM|#

All the following is from:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/11/paul_hackett.html

That talent for idiosyncratic synthesis-military ethic equals war on poverty-provided Hackett with a strange-bedfellows collection of campaign planks. He advocated for standard liberal issues by invoking red-state red meat, and vice versa. In a debate with Schmidt, he said, concerning gay marriage: "I don't want the government in the bedroom any more than I want it in my gun safe or telling me how to worship." And, on abortion: "If you don't want government in your personal life when it comes to choice, you have to be consistent about that with guns."

Hackett loves guns, and loves talking about them, especially to squeamish liberals such as the campaign staffers whom he delighted in taking out shooting on the weekend. He declares flatly that Dem- ocrats are "wrong on guns. I think they need to accept that." During the campaign, he'd quietly reassure skeptics that he supported enforcing existing federal gun laws, but it was his enthusiasm for hot lead that won him converts.

"I always thought gun control was when you hit your target," he chuckled to a guy in a T-shirt in front of the GE factory gate. Jim Smith, a machinist and union rep, was thrilled: "He's like a rank-and-filer. And he's not a clone of any party."

|1.10.07 @ 4:24PM|#

If I could just add, as a former liberal, this is precisely the situation, albeit infrequent as it occurs, that gun control proponents harp about. Gun control isnt about hunting, and it isnt about self-defense of ones home, its about people settling more petty matters with guns, in the streets.

|1.10.07 @ 4:24PM|#

I was thinking about the property owners at 8700 Keller Road. Would they be justified in killing Hackett for coming onto their property with a gun? I tend to think so.

I. Self. Divine.|1.10.07 @ 4:25PM|#

John: 1 Self: 0

Ok, I'll admit, I may have been a bit too eager to jump on the "YAY GUNS RAH RAH RAH" platform.

|1.10.07 @ 4:26PM|#

I didn't say the guy should go to jail, I was saying that if the facts are that he threatened someone with a gun who innocently had an accident in his yard, he ought to go to jail. I said several times, I wasn't sure what the facts were and wanted to know them.

Now knowing the facts, I think he acted completly irresponsibily. While I don't think he should go to jail, something ought to be done to the guy. Threatening someone with a gun is assault. He had no right to do it and put people's lives in needlessly in danger. I am all for gung ho justice as much as the next guy, but I can't justify this. What he did was a crime and the cops should not look the other way, even if he doesn't deserve to go to jail.

I. Self. Divine.|1.10.07 @ 4:30PM|#

That said, I guess before I make any judgment on punishment, I would like to know whether he pointed the gun, or merely had it in his possession.

Sam Franklin|1.10.07 @ 4:30PM|#

The best remedy here is civil liability. the boys pay for the fence, which will be offset in part by the $100,000 Hacket gives them each for putting them in fear, indignity and discomfort.

|1.10.07 @ 4:33PM|#

In your particular case, you'd have no choice anyway as you have undoubtedly never lived a single day in your life when you would have been physically tough enough to ge the job done.

Ooooh!!

Gilbert Martin|1.10.07 @ 4:33PM|#

"I would like to know whether he pointed the gun, or merely had it in his possession."

That is indeed a key distinction. Merely carrying a gun in open view of someone else does not automatically qualify as threatening them with it.

dhex|1.10.07 @ 4:34PM|#

apostate jew:

"Do you have the figures on firearms offenses only?"

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

as of 2001. they didn't have anything later than that (and weren't very helpful to boot, but such is the nature of public employees).

i think what it actually means is that someone who is going to go to that kind of trouble to get a permit realizes two things a) they're on record as having a CCW, which will not help them at trial and b) might make the cops more likely to react poorly to any overt aggression on their part.

more crudely, it's not that CCW holders can't be fuckwits, it's that they're less likely to be fuckwits for a number of reasons. (in the area of violent crime; most revocations seem to be for DWIs or for being dead)

|1.10.07 @ 4:36PM|#

Gilbert,

Arizona is an open carry state also. Open carry means on your person, in the open. In a holster, on your hip, with your shirt hiked up, and behind the gun, is open carry. Pulling the gun and presenting in a threatening manner goes beyond open carry to brandishing which is assault. This was a rifle(not an assault rifle for the reasons you mentioned, but it looked like one so that is just more fuel for anti-gun people), even if he didn't point it, the situation he created by chasing them and ordering them on the ground, lends itself to brandishing.

Nick

dhex|1.10.07 @ 4:37PM|#

eh, i might as well go whole hog:

http://dhex.org/cuny/persuasion/oconnor-final_policy_proposal_project.doc

it's not perfect, but school + work = corners cut. (it was for a public policy/theories of persuasion class, hence the nonexistent policy i'm proposing)

Sam Franklin|1.10.07 @ 4:39PM|#

Why do any of you think that hacket is telling the truth when he said that he did not point the gun at them?

(given the chase and trespass, I don't think this is a particularly germane point, but I mean don't any of you have bullshit detectors?)

fyodor|1.10.07 @ 4:41PM|#

John,

Naturally you think police should be able to carry visible firearms when they apprehend suspects, right? But you don't think citizens should be able to?

|1.10.07 @ 4:43PM|#

I didn't say the guy should go to jail, I was saying that if the facts are that he threatened someone with a gun who innocently had an accident in his yard, he ought to go to jail.

Right, and I disagree.

|1.10.07 @ 4:50PM|#

"Why do any of you think that hacket is telling the truth when he said that he did not point the gun at them?"

Because it's funny to watch you froth at the mouth.

|1.10.07 @ 4:50PM|#

Do you recommend we allow John to stock up on military hardware, round up a bunch of buddies, and go shoot people in foreign countries?

Do I recommend he do it? No, Recommend that we stop him? Also No. I think if he wants to raise an army and go protect the indigenous people of Darfur from the Janjaweed, more power to him.

We delegate powers to the state that we deny individuals all the time. The monopoly on the use of force is the defining characteristic of a government.

I'm confused. You are saying you delegate a power that is denied to you? How is that possible? Isn't that a little like spending money you don't have? Oh yeah, you work for a government.*

Shall I go to your house to collect the funding I need for the services the state provides? Um, no, I think I'll let the state handle that.

Joe, just because a different member of your gang makes sure that I am paying the protection money I "owe" does not somehow magically make it OK. It does not matter whether you or the members of your gang who specialize in collections are extracting the tax, I am still equally screwed.

I remember you praising me for posting Sir Robert Peel's rules of policing many moons ago. I call your attention to the following element in those rules which you once held in esteem.

"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

*Sorry, I couldn't resist that bit of snark

|1.10.07 @ 4:52PM|#

Good job advertising your prejudice, Gilbert. Now tell me how much change I've got in my pocket.

"I would like to know whether he pointed the gun, or merely had it in his possession."

When the police arrived, Hackett was outnumbered 3:1, and yet the three were lying face-down on the ground with their hands behind their heads, while he stood over them holding the rifle. Come on, people.

dhex, besides self-selection, there is also government-selection. People with criminal or mental health records who apply for the permits don't get them.

|1.10.07 @ 4:53PM|#

"most revocations seem to be for DWIs or for being dead"

If the dead can vote - a grand tradition in many democracies - they should be allowed to carry guns.

|1.10.07 @ 4:55PM|#

tarran,

"You are saying you delegate a power that is denied to you? How is that possible?"

Word games. Playing dumb about what "delegate" means. How pathetic.

If you're going to argue disingenuously like this, don't expect me to respond to your points.

|1.10.07 @ 5:00PM|#

dhex ...

Thanks. That gives the context although it would be helpful if the Texans would state the percentages by cc licensee and non-cc licensee.

Your figures put cc licensees at about one percent of the population so I now see that as of 2001 were only more likely to be convicted of three crimes - unlawful carry by a licensee (natch), indecency with a child (!) and harrassment.

With such small samples we probably shouldn't conclude that cc licensee equals pedophile but let's do it anyway, for Joe's sake.

And I love the quote below ...

"... most revocations seem to be ... for being dead."

|1.10.07 @ 5:05PM|#

When the police arrived, Hackett was outnumbered 3:1, and yet the three were lying face-down on the ground with their hands behind their heads, while he stood over them holding the rifle. Come on, people.

Objection -- argumentative.


I read all the posts...and I still can't get too worked up over a victim apprehending his fleeing suspects, even if he was carrying a gun. he was outnumbered and who knows if they were armed, or drunk or anything like that.

I don't agree with the helpless victim reactions that many people here are advocating. Victims of crimes shouldn't be expected to sit back and wait for authorities who really don't treat incidents like these as important, when they are capable of fighting back and assisting the police to hold these people responsible.

Would I prefer he didn't have a gun?? Sure. Did he use it responsible in this case? I think so. And I would hardly consider this vigilantism -- because he didn't punish these people. he merely detained a criminal until the police arrived.

vigilante: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily

|1.10.07 @ 5:05PM|#

I can't believe that John is the voice of reason here.

I can't believe that John, joe, and I all agree on a subject. Planetary alignment, indeed. Time to drive to Wendover and try my hand at the blackjack tables.

I've been a Utah concealed weapon permittee for over 10 years now, and even in gun-loving Utah this conduct would be considered improper and excessive, if not outright illegal.

State laws may vary, but I cannot believe that Ohio law would authorize a private citizen who does not face an imminent threat to life or limb to arm himself and apprehend three suspects of what would be considered to be misdemeanor hit-and-run (as opposed to the more serious Reason kind...okay, I won't quit my day job, but I will be here all week).

When you draw your gun as a citizen in Utah you only are authorized to do so in order to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or someone else, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Three kids running over your fence wouldn't authorize it in Utah, and I highly doubt Ohio would be more liberal in that regard.

Perhaps that is why this incident was being heard by a grand jury in the first place, and why Hackett was described to be upset by the leak: He might be the target of the criminal investigation.

Philosophically speaking, I don't have much heartburn with his actions. But the law is the law, and if your average Joe (not our joe; he's certainly not average) can't chase down yahoos who scrape the paint on his double-wide, then upper-class political candidates shouldn't be able to either.

thoreau|1.10.07 @ 5:07PM|#

I can't believe that John, joe, and I all agree on a subject. Planetary alignment, indeed.

This is what happens when a crazy guy like "Sam" is allowed to monopolize the thread. People who would otherwise be happily debating each other unite against the crazy guy.

Yesterday joe and John united against "Sam" in a discussion of war, law, and terrorism.

"Sam" is a uniter, not a divider.

|1.10.07 @ 5:16PM|#

With appetite whetted, I found a total of 1,331 murders in Texas but only 158 convictions. Yet they claim a murder clearance rate of 68% (which they define as arrest or "exceptional means").

They either have a lot of multiple murderers (gangs of chainsaw massacre-ers?) or some serious problems convicting accused murderers.

|1.10.07 @ 5:18PM|#

Perhaps it would be wise to wait until more facts come in. The article is based on a police report and some leaks from a grand jury.

|1.10.07 @ 5:19PM|#

Ohio doesn't have citizens' arrests?

ChrisV82|1.10.07 @ 5:22PM|#

Also, I find it quite peculiar that Chris doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between a gun-toting criminal, and an upstanding citizen with a carry permit.

I am not saying people do not have the legal right to carry a gun. I am saying that people do not have the right to use their gun when they are pissed off.

It's easy to say that the violence in Philadelphia, for example, is gang wars and drive-bys, but a fair amount of it stems from guys who get offended at some guy looking at his girl the wrong way or stepping on his sneakers or some stupid shit like that.

Paul Hackett has a right to own an assault rifle to shoot animals (during season), defend his home and family, etc. Really, the issue is whether defending his home includes allowing someone to get into a vehicle and pursue someone else with a deadly weapon. Paul Hackett turned into Road Warrior mixed with Judge Dredd.

I have pissed many people off, and many people have pissed me off. That's life. What we don't need in the equation is people shooting each other, or even pointing guns at each other. And for the record, under the law, deadly force is not allowed simply to defend property or your house. While I think perhaps people should have the right to shoot an intruder, it is not actually a right. The second amendment certainly doesn't say "citizens have the right to haul ass and hunt people down."

|1.10.07 @ 5:24PM|#

Hey, John, look at me!

I criticized a Democrat!

|1.10.07 @ 5:26PM|#

"This is what happens when a crazy guy like "Sam" is allowed to monopolize the thread. People who would otherwise be happily debating each other unite against the crazy guy."

Nuthin' like takin' a dip in the Corn Syrup Jacuzzi.

VM|1.10.07 @ 5:32PM|#

"Paul Hackett has a right to own an assault rifle to shoot animals "

I find your phrasing there to be interesting, "an assault rifle". Not a gun, nor a rifle, but an assault rifle.

Was that a deliberate use, a naive use, or just random use?

But then, if I understand your larger point, is that you're concerned that people will draw and shoot over an incident that back in the day you'd call 'em a name over or give 'em the finger. Is that correct? It is a reasonable position, and I can certainly understand where you're coming from.

In states with concealed carry, was there an increase in this type of violence after the law went into effect? Or, would it be if you're carrying an illegal weapon to begin with, then it'd be more likely to be used?

In other words, taking into account joe's point about "government selection bias" and your concerns about the violence in Philly, are there grounds for such suspicions?

Even if there isn't, the tone on this thread, surprisingly, has been quite good - so maybe this application of the precautionary principle could get fleshed out a bit more.

|1.10.07 @ 5:35PM|#

Joe, sweetie, I am not playing word games.

You have repeatedly claimed that the state is an agent acting on behalf of "the people".

The state is an organization of people. You claim that they have the moral right to exercise powers that are denied to people outside the organization.

Why do they have that power when other people lack it? What gives the Belmont Police department the moral power to chase me and arrest me at gunpoint, when I lack it?

These ain't puerile word games, but serious questions.

But hey, you're welcome to follow the example of brave Sir Robin whenever you wish.

dhex|1.10.07 @ 5:36PM|#

"dhex, besides self-selection, there is also government-selection. People with criminal or mental health records who apply for the permits don't get them."

very true, joe. i was also working against the standard pro-control model, which is that guns = violence, period. since i'm making a case (imaginary, of course) for nyc to liberalize their gun laws, i started by addressing some of the most basic objections.

"With appetite whetted, I found a total of 1,331 murders in Texas but only 158 convictions. Yet they claim a murder clearance rate of 68% (which they define as arrest or "exceptional means").

They either have a lot of multiple murderers (gangs of chainsaw massacre-ers?) or some serious problems convicting accused murderers."

that's a good question. might also be a lot of bullshit on murder arrests? or a lot of unsolved gang murders, that sort of thing?

the indecency with a child thing also strikes me as odd. i'd love to know more about that in particular.

fyodor|1.10.07 @ 5:41PM|#

I am not saying people do not have the legal right to carry a gun. I am saying that people do not have the right to use their gun when they are pissed off.

How about when their rights have been violated?

Okay, when their property rights have been violated?

|1.10.07 @ 5:43PM|#

When the police arrived, Hackett was outnumbered 3:1, and yet the three were lying face-down on the ground with their hands behind their heads, while he stood over them holding the rifle. Come on, people.

If this guy had chased me down this way I would have done what he said, that is, just seeing the gun. I also don't have two friends that would be into trying to take a guy holding a gun, either. So ... but hey, maybe joe is just the adventurous type.

|1.10.07 @ 5:46PM|#

Evan and others, the reason we allow the Police/Authorities to hand out justice and not the party that has been voilated is to insure the spirit of Justice, innocent untill proven guilty, is handed down by an impartial, unbiased 3rd party. You cannot expect the 'victim' to hand out unbiased justice and why we have a rule of law in the first place. We dont live in the old west, regardless of your desire for it to be that way.

In this case, the fact that nothing bad happened as a result does not change the fact that chasing down the 'criminal' and holding them at gun point was any less criminal then the hit and run. I suspect that if the roles were reversed and anyone standing in defense of this self served justice were looking down a barrel of a weapon for a percieved violation of some ones property would be the first person jumping at the chance to sign a criminal complaint.

And just to clarify, I am not defending the alleged hit and runners, nor am I taking a stand against owning firearms. (I own a number of them, and am the first to jump in defense of the 2nd amendment, which just does not apply in this case) but I am taking a stand in citizens acting as law enforcement agents.

|1.10.07 @ 5:52PM|#

If some kid accidentally drove off the road into my property, I would just figure he got enough of a scare for awhile and let him on his way. But I am one hell of a guy.

|1.10.07 @ 5:55PM|#

Fyodor,

So if someone rips off my music I can chase them down and hold a gun on them untill the FBI shows up?

How about someone who just let thier dog shit in my yard?

How about that asshole that just opened his car door and left a big ass gash in my door panel?

The neighbor that keeps throwing shit over my fence??

I bet the homeowners in the New London eminent domain case should have just shot everyone involved.. after all they were just defending thier property rights.

This is the very reason we have laws and parties responsible for enforcing those laws...parties involved have too much emotions invested to be expected to act in a resonable manner.

Again, I find myself having to post a disclaimer, if someone has just broken into your house, by all means fill them full of lead....

|1.10.07 @ 5:55PM|#

"It's easy to say that the violence in Philadelphia, for example, is gang wars and drive-bys, but a fair amount of it stems from guys who get offended at some guy looking at his girl the wrong way or stepping on his sneakers or some stupid shit like that."

And of those people who engage in such activity, how many of them are concealed-carry permit holders?

As I stated before, I think that Hackett was wrong to give chase, but you seem to be taking this one example as proof that anyone who carries a gun is just an angry nut waiting for the slightest excuse to kill someone.

|1.10.07 @ 6:08PM|#

It's easy to say that the violence in Philadelphia, for example, is gang wars and drive-bys, but a fair amount of it stems from guys who get offended at some guy looking at his girl the wrong way or stepping on his sneakers or some stupid shit like that.

How much is a "fair amount of it"? How do you konw this? I agree this is the impression the press creates in the city -- that guns themselves are the main problem the city faces -- but if you actually read the articles, they almost all include some reference to drug- or gang-related violence. This of course doesn't make the environment any less scary, but the truth is that the problem with this city is not otherwise normal people whipping out guns because of road rage.

|1.10.07 @ 6:12PM|#

In truth, how can we konw anything?

Kap|1.10.07 @ 6:18PM|#

dhex: CHLs in TX are 75% male and skew older than the general population. That accounts for the higher than average indecency with a child. That's an "old guy" crime. Harassment is maybe the same, maybe a plea down from brandishing?

I'm of the impression that several CHL states have conviction-rate reporting requirements similar to Texas'. I would guess that these are riders attached to the CHL bills by opponents who realize they are going to loose, but figure that the reporting requirements will at least arm them with statistical ammunition to use in their attempts at repealing the law later down the line. To my understanding several states have shown CHL holders to be more law-abiding than the general public, and none have shown them to be worse.

Keeping in mind that the CHL population is typically half-again as male as the rest of society and - let's be honest here - most crimes are committed by men, the disparity is perhaps even greater than the raw numbers you saw. To be honest though, you would need to compare a (21+ years of age, no nontrivial prior criminal convictions) sample with the CHL population to have a true apples-to-apples comparison, perhaps the lower rate is a function of that selection criteria rather than CHL holders' collective personality traits.

Either way though it would support the view that crime isn't a function of the firearm but of the person wielding it, i.e. if you haven't become a criminal by age 21 you likely won't ever become one, and the corollary that 90-whatever percent of crimes are committed by 10-whatever percent of the people. It's a software, not hardware problem, per what Zach just said.

Having said that, I'm a CHL holder in Texas, carry frequently, and have been in a few decision point situations, and I think what Hackett did was out of line and stupid. He'll be lucky to get out of this with only a 4-5 figure sum in lawyer's bills.

(Also, in Texas you can use deadly force to protect property, although even here I think his actions wouldn't fly. I'll look through my CHL class stuff tonight and post the relevant section.)

|1.10.07 @ 6:23PM|#

You cannot expect the 'victim' to hand out unbiased justice

Pfftht ... Detaining someone until the cops show isn't justice. I have a feeling these kids would be just fine with that being the end of it. Justice is what comes after the cops get hold of you.

fyodor|1.10.07 @ 6:25PM|#

kanabiis,

So if someone rips off my music I can chase them down and hold a gun on them untill the FBI shows up?

Well so far, I've only asked questions, not stated a position. But yeah, at the moment I can't see why not, if the "someone" is trying to get away. Same for the shitters and gashers. But as for:

I bet the homeowners in the New London eminent domain case should have just shot everyone involved.. after all they were just defending thier property rights.

Uh, that's a little different, obviously. No one was fleeing justice in the New London case. Abusing an interpretation of justice is not fleeing it.

This is the very reason we have laws and parties responsible for enforcing those laws...parties involved have too much emotions invested to be expected to act in a resonable manner.

Well that's what's known as begging the question. Show how Hackett behaved unreasonably and I'll agree there oughtta be a law.

Evan and others, the reason we allow the Police/Authorities to hand out justice and not the party that has been voilated is to insure the spirit of Justice, innocent untill proven guilty, is handed down by an impartial, unbiased 3rd party. You cannot expect the 'victim' to hand out unbiased justice and why we have a rule of law in the first place. We dont live in the old west, regardless of your desire for it to be that way.

A nice bit of oratory, but not applicable because Hacket (so far as we know) did not attempt to dispense justice, only apprehend suspects. If Hackett had whipped the kids or something in retaliation, you would have a solid point. But all he did was what was apparently necessary to apprehend them, in a manner apparently similar to what we would expect cops to do. While I'm not solidly set on this position and am open to being persuaded otherwise, I can't at the moment see why that's wrong. Now, if it comes out that Hackett did more than that, then of course that's different. But if all he did was what was necessary to apprehend the kids in a manner similar to what we would expect from copes, well...?

|1.10.07 @ 6:48PM|#

This kind of story is always so fun. Just vague enough that everyone can project their bias into it. The gallant and righteous gun toting property owner, the wild eyed unhinged vigilante vet. I bet those kids were shitting their pants, though.

Sam Franklin|1.10.07 @ 6:50PM|#

This is what happens when a crazy guy like "Sam" is allowed to monopolize the thread.

"allowed to monopolize"?

my market share never even gets up to 25%!

|1.10.07 @ 6:54PM|#

Fyodor,

The article leaves out many details, so we are only working on speculation at this point...

How exactly did Hackett get these kids to pull over, let alone get on the ground with hand on heads as stated in the article. One can assume with reasonable logic that Hackett was not in his car/truck just waiting on the next run away car to crash through his fence, and drive off thus giving him opportunity to give chase. So you could reasonably conclude that after geting in his car/truck to give chase, he spotted what appeared to be the guilty parties, gave chase, and pursuaded them to pull over. You could also reasonably conclude that such convincing was done under threat of violence, since he clearly displayed a firearm. That in itself, when done by a citizen and not a law enforcement officer, in most states, is a crime, since he did not seem to be in any danger of life or limb, and was not in his home.

My point being, he in the act of 'catching the criminal' broke at least one, if not more laws, which should not, and cannot be allowed. No matter the outcome, or if he had caught the right people. Thats what we pay police investigators to do, investigate crime, and catch the criminal, if Hackett wanted to help, he could have taken thier license plate number down, or called in a tip to crime stoppers.. but breaking the law by using a firearm in threat of violence is not the way.

fyodor|1.10.07 @ 7:26PM|#

kanabiis,

My point being, he in the act of 'catching the criminal' broke at least one, if not more laws, which should not, and cannot be allowed.

I guess I was trying to discuss whether what he did should be against the law as opposed to whether it actually was. Since I disagree with all sorts of laws on the books (and I bet you do, too), and I don't know the guy personally, the latter is hardly interesting (unless it differs from the former). And for the sake of argument, I'm willing to assume he's telling the truth. Obviously if he threatened, pistol-whipped and sodomized the kids, that, as I've already made clear, is different. I'm not trying to try the guy--that's for someone else to do--only discuss the scenario as we know it.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.10.07 @ 7:56PM|#

All Democrats used to be Macho. My FDR lovin' grand dad had lots of guns, regularly punched out people that pissed him off, and didn't take crap from anybody.

Something happened when the New Left took control of the Democratic Party sometime around the MisGovern nomination.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.10.07 @ 8:00PM|#

How about someone who just let thier dog shit in my yard?

Shotgun.

How about that asshole that just opened his car door and left a big ass gash in my door panel?

Pipe Wrench to the windshield.

The neighbor that keeps throwing shit over my fence??

Throw it back after setting it on fire

I bet the homeowners in the New London eminent domain case should have just shot everyone involved.. after all they were just defending thier property rights.

Bingo

Kap|1.10.07 @ 8:34PM|#

As promised, the law in Texas. My reading of PC 9.41 Protection of One's Own Property and PC 9.42 Deadly Force to Protect Property would tend to rule out the legal use of deadly force in this situation. However PC 9.04 would seem to offer an out, if he claimed that he was only threatening not intending to use deadly force.

(I'm assuming that Texas has the most lax laws in the country regarding this.)

Also, I find his claim that he kept his finger off the trigger and didn't point the gun at the kids to be credible, that's standard contemporary firearms training and presumably an ex-combat soldier would have that drilled into his head to the point of being an involuntary muscle response.

The 28 rounds in the magazine thing is the practice by some experienced shooters of AR-pattern rifles to load a 30-round magazine 2 rounds short for reliability reasons. Presumably he was telling the officer this in case it was alleged he shot twice owing to the round count in the mag.

lunchstealer|1.10.07 @ 8:54PM|#

"I bet the homeowners in the New London eminent domain case should have just shot everyone involved.. after all they were just defending thier property rights."

Bingo

Actually, I believe the etiquette in eminent domain cases is to present your protest with a large axe or polearm.

|1.10.07 @ 9:53PM|#

tarran,

I can't believe I have to explain this. I guess I was giving your the benefit of the doubt, and not taking your confusion at face value.

The Belair Police get the authority to arrest you at gunpoint, which you cannot do, from the same place that the Mass Dept. of Revenue gets the right to demand my money, which you also cannot do; from the statte constitutions, which empower the government to engage in certain actions that would be criminal for individuals acting on their own authority. These governments get their authority - the authority to engage in behaviors, and the authority to forbid individuals from engaging in them - from the consent of we, the people. Not from God, not from their ability to grab and hold power, not from tradition, but from the people.

|1.10.07 @ 10:40PM|#

Given the rifle was labeled an "assault weapon", I'll have to assume the police fired it and determined it was fully automatic. Yeah, that's it.

Paul|1.10.07 @ 11:54PM|#

Honestly, I have no idea why anyone would trust their fellow human being to act responsibly, especially in the heat of the moment.

Which is precisely why we own guns. I mean, have you seen how cops act in the heat of the moment?

Paul|1.11.07 @ 12:02AM|#

These governments get their authority - the authority to engage in behaviors, and the authority to forbid individuals from engaging in them - from the consent of we, the people. Not from God, not from their ability to grab and hold power, not from tradition, but from the people.

Queue majestic orchestra music, look wistfully into the sunset...

Like anti-terrorism phone taps 'n stuff, right?

Yeah... it gets *some* of its power from the people, and much of that power is quite indirect. The lines between "regulation" passed by unelected officials and "laws" passed by elected officials have become so blurred that it's not even worth discussing the difference.

joe, like it or not, we have a government so centralized and powerful, that it works tirelessly to strip the active participation of its people by making itself more centralized and more powerful.

|1.11.07 @ 2:08AM|#

Evan, I agree with a lot of what you wrote, you forgot to add that teh culprits will probably be filing lawsuits for being "traumatized".

The answer is "proportionate response"; detaining and then shooting the vandals would have been wrong, but this guy was not wrong to detain people who had damaged his property. Sure as hell, the driver wasn't going to stop and offer to pay for the damage he caused.

Anyone who has been on patrol in Iraq is well aware of how to properly handle a loaded friearm and not shoot someone.

Not all people who carry weapons blow away all other people who carry weaposn; I'd like to see if gunowners who follow the pocedures for gun safety and concealed carry are more or less likely to shoot someone as aooposed to a criminal illegally carrying a gun.

perilisk|1.11.07 @ 8:44AM|#

Not sure I like the idea that people in an egalitarian society should be punished for acting like cops, assuming they do act with the professionalism expected from law enforcement officers. There are too many officers who already think of themselves as the knights to the citizen-serf, which probably explains some of the brutality and corruption. Why exacerbate that attitude by codifying it in law?

|1.11.07 @ 9:41AM|#

These governments get their authority - the authority to engage in behaviors, and the authority to forbid individuals from engaging in them - from the consent of we, the people. Not from God, not from their ability to grab and hold power, not from tradition, but from the people.

What do you mean, "we the people". I haven't given my consent. Which "we" are you talking about?

The people who wrote the Massachusetts state constitution are long dead and rotted. I don't think any more than a few thousand residents actually know what's in the Mass Constitution. Are those the "we" you are talking about?

Now, the way constitutions are supposed to get their legitemacy is that groups of people choose representatives, and that these representatives then draft the document. But the mechanics of it show it is hardly some consensual act. Since not everyone is allowed to go or select a representative tha tis pleasing to him, some people are either unrepresented, or have a person claiming to represent them who does not act the way they would want them to. Then, when these "representatives" convene, they don't all agree. So naturally to produce a document, rules are drafted, wherein a majority or a supermajority can override the will of a minority. So some of these "representatives" find that the constitution they helped draft contains clauses that they don't agree with.

In the end, a constitution is a document produced by a subset of a subset of a large group of people. The organization dewscribed then imposes the will of of this tiny sliver of people on everyone else.

Why should this sliver of the population be allowed to claim a monopoly on the use of deadly force, whereas anothe sliver of people are denied to even have the right to do so? What imbues these constitutional conventions which such awesome power which is supposedly denied to aotheer slivers of the population, say the shareholders of IBM or the residents of Concord Ave?

Of course this is all arguing theology - in the reality based world, constitutions are usually window dressings to legitimize a change that has already taken place.

The way an organization becomes a government is that it seizes power, usually violently. Then over time its rule comes to be accepted as being part of tradition. Here I am going to quote Hayes:

"Nowadays the individual is born into the State [as versus the Church], and the secular registration of birth is the national rite of baptism. With tender solicitude the State follows the individual through life, teaching him in patriotic schools the national catechism, and commemorating his vital crises by formal registration not only of his birth, but likewise of his marriage, of the birth of his children, and of his death. And the death of national potentates and heroes is celebrated by patriotic pomp and circumstance that make the obsequies of a mediæval bishop seem drab.... Every national State has a 'theology--a more or less systematised body of official doctrines which have been deduced from the precepts of the 'Fathers' and from admonitions of the national scriptures, and which reflect the 'genius of the people' and constitute a guide to national behavior."

The idea that the state was constructed to serve the people as its agent is as silly a superstition as that practiced by any cult or religion.

dhex|1.11.07 @ 10:23AM|#

"The idea that the state was constructed to serve the people as its agent is as silly a superstition as that practiced by any cult or religion."

yet fires get put out, and streets get paved, and the occassional block grant distributes funds. etc.

i'm not a huge fan of melodramatic libertarianism, frankly, because while at root such emotions may be partially true or justified - i.e. we don't get a direct 1-1 choice in what happens in all things - it's a kind of "meat is murder" thing. yes, meat is murder, and murder is delicious, but that doesn't solve or even contribute to the issue of the ethics of eating animals. it does nothing to help convince people otherwise, though it is no doubt emotionally useful.

not that i disagree in the overall about the encroachment of the superstate; but throwing hissy fits about it doesn't do anything. it's part of what makes the LP sausage party so undelicious. (the secret ingredient is severe mental illness!)

|1.11.07 @ 11:22AM|#

Why would the teenagers pull over if the gun -wasn't- pointed at them? I can't think of any reason they wouldn't have continued on their way, other than the JESUS CHRIST THIS GUY IS GOING TO SHOOT US WHAT THE HELL MAN WHAT THE HELL response, and even then it seems like the best option would be to duck below the seats and floor it.

|1.11.07 @ 11:56AM|#

Also, I find his claim that he kept his finger off the trigger and didn't point the gun at the kids to be credible, that's standard contemporary firearms training and presumably an ex-combat soldier would have that drilled into his head to the point of being an involuntary muscle response.

For the record, Hackett isn't a "combat soldier"; he's a major who is assigned to headquarters as a civil affairs officer; during the battle of Fallujah he coordinated humanitarian aid. He was not leading troops into combat.

Now before everyone yells at me for "questioning his patriotism", by all accounts Hackett served honorably and efficiently, served in a combat environment, and even survived an IED attack. He probably had several opportunities to use his weapon, and I'm sure he has repeatedly qualified with the M-16 and the M-9 pistol.

But his statement that he "did this 200 times in Iraq" is pure bull. Patrolling the streets and apprehending suspected jihadis is the work of junior officers and enlisted men, not civil affairs officers attached to headquarters. Especially since he only spent 7 months there, meaning that he supposedly apprehended someone an average of nearly once per day.

Either the cops distorted his statement (quite possible) or Hackett was so hopped-up on adrenaline he said "200" when he meant "2" (also quite possible), or he's just a vain braggart who was trying to impress the police (my view). But 200 times? Hardly.

|1.11.07 @ 12:08PM|#

Incidentally, the more I read about this story, the more I believe that Hackett is the target of a criminal investigation, most likely for some violation of Ohio law governing the use of deadly force. A grand jury is reviewing the case, Hackett has retained a lawyer, and most importantly Hackett is described as being "upset" about the grand jury leaking the information to the media. If he were the unquestioned hero in this incident, I'm sure he would love to have the media report that.

But since he's potentially facing criminal charges, and using an AR-15 to apprehend kids who ran into his fence probably won't play very well to his potential constituents, he realizes that his political career has taken a big hit.

|1.11.07 @ 4:20PM|#

Well tarran, I hold those truths to be self-evident. Ergo, I don't HAVE to be able to explain them rationally.

Yup, it's ideology. It's the ideology that produced the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It's based on non-falsifiable statements, because it is a statement of faith.

You don't like my ideology? Well, fortunately for you, the people who articulated it set up a government based on its principles, which means you get to disagree as loudly and publically as you like.

I trust you won't be appealing to those people's "original intent," or otherwise invoking them, in any future arguments.