Just how nutso is the Missouri state legislature? This is how nutso: This week one of the legilators introduced a bill to legalize murder.
The Kansas City Star explains,
State Sen. Eric Burlison, a Republican lawmaker from near Springfield, wants to give qualified immunity to suspected murderers. Here’s his proposed law: “A person who uses or threatens to use force in self-defense is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless such force was used against a law enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the person reasonably knew or should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer.”
Burlison believes it is OK for a person to use physical or deadly force by simply fearing for their life — a “presumption of reasonableness,” his bill calls it. The proposed law prohibits police from even detaining those suspected of violence. In effect, killers would be rewarded. And he’s not the only supporter. The measure has already advanced to the Missouri Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee.
Here’s the text of the bill, SB 666. Seriously. I’m not making this up.
So if I came to seriously dislike somebody and decide to eliminate them, I can shoot and kill that person and be safe from prosecution as long as there are no witnesses? I can just say it was self-defense and go my merry way? Okay.
It may not surprise you to learn that some people think this is a grand idea.
Mark McCloskey, an attorney and pardonee-turned-Senate candidate, is leveraging his gun-hero status to support a Missouri bill nicknamed the “Make Murder Legal Act” by its opponents. The legislation, which happens to be numbered S.B. 666, is a Republican-driven effort to upend one of the most standard procedures in criminal law and to expand Missouri’s “Castle Doctrine.”
The McCloskeys are in Jefferson City this morning – front row for a Senate hearing on a bill by Sen. Eric Burlison, R-Battlefield, that would strengthen self-defense arguments in MO #moleg https://t.co/KO6cx8TlAG pic.twitter.com/jG4xyuyae7
— Galen Bacharier (@galenbacharier) February 1, 2022
Missouri already has a “stand your ground” law that requires defendants to prove they reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to defend themselves.
This Law & Crime article explains that, normally, defendants claiming self-defense “must prove that they feared for their safety or the safety of another person, that the fear was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and that they used force in response to their belief that force was necessary to protect themself or others.”
The “objectively reasonable” standard, normally, “measures whether the situation as a whole should have been perceived as fearful by someone thinking logically in the defendant’s shoes. A defendant whose fears were unreasonable, exaggerated, or blown out of proportion will lose a self-defense claim.”
But under SB 666, it’s presumed that fears were reasonable and up to the prosecutor to show that they weren’t. So, as I said, if there are no witnesses or surveillance videos the prosecutor may be helpless to prove the act of violence wasn’t self-defense. Several of the state’s prosecutors have spoken up to call SB 666 the “Make Murder Legal” act.
And then there’s our senator, Josh Hawley. A few days ago Sen. Hawley sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling on the Biden administration to drop longstanding U.S. support for Ukraine’s eventual membership in NATO. In other words, give Vladimir Putin what he wants. When I heard this I promptly sent an email to Hawley’s office telling him that Neville Chamberlain would be proud.
Hawley’s letter argues, in brief, that if we’re messing around defending Ukraine’s right to join NATO we’d be taking our eye off China. Certainly it would be nice if Ukraine keeps its independence, but “we must aid Ukraine in a manner that aligns with the American interests at stake and preserves our ability to deny Chinese hegemony in the Indo-Pacific.” Apparently we can’t support Ukraine’s eventual acceptance into NATO and keep an eye on the Indo-Pacific at the same time.
And then he adds a couple of paragraphs about how other NATO countries aren’t paying their “fair share” of collective defense expenses, which was an ignorant argument when Trump made it, and it hasn’t improved.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger responded to the letter by calling Hawley “one of the worst human beings, and a self egrandizing con artist,” and I can’t argue with that.
And then Hawley tweeted this:
If Russia invades Ukraine, the Biden Administration can blame one person above all: Joe Biden. He’s given Putin his own slush fund in Nord Stream 2 and failed to aid Ukraine when he could have. No amount of name calling will hide his abject failureshttps://t.co/SvIcfK9ULB
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) February 2, 2022
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an editorial in response headlined Hawley posts a fist-pump to ignorance with his position on Ukraine.
Perhaps the young senator should be forgiven for his naivete regarding Russia. He wasn’t even born during the worst years of the Cold War, and he was still in diapers when Moscow invaded Afghanistan and dominated half of Europe. So he might not remember why containing Russian expansionism remains such a big deal for older Americans. Republicans these days seem averse to reading any history that makes them feel bad about themselves, which could explain why Hawley’s ignorance is so embarrassingly on display in Washington.
First-rate snark there, Post-Dispatch. Bravo.
A short history lesson is in order. Biden became president a year ago. Before that, Donald Trump was president. Trump is the one who denied military aid to Ukraine to extort its leader into helping with Trump’s reelection effort. The person who failed Ukraine was Trump, and it earned him an impeachment. Biden in the past year has shipped around $650 million in military aid to Ukraine as Russia amasses more than 100,000 troops on its border. So Kinzinger’s “con man” critique of Hawley seems precisely on target.
Hawley describes Europe as a “secondary theater” and suggests that the only international situation worthy of administration attention is China. He outlined his limited understanding of world affairs in a three-page letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Hawley was “parroting” Moscow’s talking points and “digesting Russian misinformation.”
The right-wing echo chamber is all-in on the idea that Russia’s threats to Ukraine are really Joe Biden’s fault, but I’ve seen some on the Left repeat the same thing. Let’s just hope Putin stands down.
The famous Hawley fist bump of January 6.
The proposed Missouri law rivals the 'what the hell' factor of the proposed Oklahoma law that will allow public school teachers to be sued for $10,000 each and every time and each and every student that they teach something that "offends the student's deeply held religious beliefs".
If Oklahoma passes that law, I am thinking of a trip to Oklahoma to sue all biology and geology teachers. Now I will have to route around Missouri to get there.
If you do have to go through Missouri, wear a bullet-proof vest and be careful to not pisss anybody off. That's true whether they pass that fool law or not.
You know, it useta(sic) be, a coupla(sic) times a year, I useta get that, "AHHHHH ZOMG!!! What the fudge is going on?!? Madness! Madness all around me! All I see is madness all around: Up! Down! Left!…" You get the idea.
A coupla times a year. A year. A year! This BEFORE!
Bt: Before tRUMP.
Now?!? NOW?!?!? Rare's the day I don't wake up feeling something like a smothering fog of worry, collapsing all around me. That worry, that "Eve of Destruction" feeling beginning to constrict the air around me. Everything all around me. Constricting slowly down my spine. And all the way down to my soul…
All around me… Down to my soul…
Oy… Today is just such a day…
__________________________________
Also too: maha? Are you sure Sen. Joke (ass)Hawly knows who Neville Chamberlain is? He may have gone to an Ivy League school, but hearing that hasn't impressed me since I started to work with a few of them early in me career. Couldn't stand most.
But I digress. I bet Sen. Joke (Ass)Hawley thinks Neville Chamberlain :Was the younger brother of that giant old Black basketball player. You know him… He scored a 100 points in a game they tell me. Oh man, what was Neville Chamberlain's brother's name?!? Wes? No. Crap! What was it?!? Now I won't be able to sleep.
___________________________________
Also too: Three: A "presumption of reasonableness?" "Objectively reasonable?"
Me thinks they doth protest 'the idea that they aren't always and at every nano-second of the day the very Godly, but humble… Godly, but humble, model of godly reasonableness too much.
Did I mention that they thought of themselves as being very "godly?" Yes? Good.
____________________________________
BTW, & Also Too: Four: This absolute!y heinous bill? I'd call this the "To Kill Any F*cking Turd Bill."
So if you have to kill?
Remember: Kill Reasonably.
Whoops!
I missed a comma towards the bottom, so you may think I didn't know that "Wilt" was the first name of Neville Chamberlain's "brother" (not a brother). That searching around language was supposed to be in Sen. Josh Hawley's "voice."
See! I told you today I woke up thinking today's gonna suck. Proof, now I have. Proof!
Dead Men tell no tales. Shoot 1st Get off free.
That is one serious piece of social engineering Missouri has going there. As I have been saying the days of Missouri as a training ground for nationally prominent politicians is a thing of the past, but now they are breaking in a new generation on the cutting edge of politics. Unfortunately, their vision of America's future might not be in sync with those who might think utopia is the aim, but we need a state that caters to out of favor Russian Oligarchs and Republican Politicians that have run afoul of the law. I guess Missouri is the chosen place to retire them, but they will need laws that favor the criminal elite. This will result in many new jobs, especially in the high paying hit man field. We will call them personal security officers but with the better pay scale of course. Oh, the business skills they teach in those elite Missouri schools. They are really an utter marvel. The new age politicians they are churning out are the republicans answer to the democrat's squad. This new group of political prodigies will be less diverse and go under the title of the boob squad which they think has a British sort of elite air to it. (don't go out there and goggle that up as the King's English seems to have acquired a bit of an internet mutation. I'd suggest using an old-fashioned book type dictionary to look up boob if you feel a need to.) There are just a lot of unintended consequences in the world these days. At least the school of hard knocks educates all social classes to some extent. The elite seem to be slow learners in this school system though.
Has anyone felt threatened when some jacked up bigass pickup truck parks next to you in the parking lot? Isn't blocking my vision or breaking my passenger door window with their door that is over four feet off the ground a threat to my well being and property? Include the MAGA hat and the rifle on the back window rack to complete the threat would I presume it reasonable to shoot first?
Of course I would have to go and buy a gun first, because this is just an example of the thought process going into presumption of reasonableness, since there is no real reference to time frame in the bill. I may continue to feel threatened for months later.
Of course, nothing threatens many white people like seeing melanin enhanced people in their vicinity. Just ask George Zimmerman.
I hope the bill gets defeated, or else lots of luck to Missouri.
At least they haven’t yet called it Kyle’s Law
Here's a classic stand your ground. What are you supposed to do when some jerk wants to ring up more than 10 items in the express line?
Argument leads to fatal shooting in checkout line of grocery (msn.com)
Flip this around and look again. The law can't be written to favor a conservative who kills a liberal (as it is intended to function.) It works to limit law enforcement and prosecutors who might otherwise arrest and prosecute. The law creates the presumption of innocence if the shooter (survivor) utters either of two magic incantations – " I was afraid for my life." or "It was self-defense." (Ignore the fact that the victim was unarmed and shot in the back.) If there isn't overwhelming proof that the shooter was the aggressor, he walks.
The psychology of the law is intended to authorize intimidation by regular citizens because the state government can't participate in KKK-style raids on the minority neighborhoods that are getting uppity. Fascism in Germany grew under just such a tactic – "brown-shirts" who were not an official branch of the government, military or police, conducted extrajudicial murder with impunity. (See: Night of the long knives.) But the dynamics are reversed – this won't work.
In Germany, the "brown shirts" weren't known (by name and address.) The resistance to Hitler, names and locations, were known and targeted. There's a huge scary secret cabal called "Antifa" who are burning down entire cities. (Why this bothers Trumpsters, I'm not sure. They hate urban dwellers. But I digress.) Suppose Antifa put up a website praising the opportunity the law provides for Antifa to conduct assassinations without consequences. The legislators who sponsored the law are known. Their home addresses could be found with little effort. Likewise their pictures. In MO the conservatives are known and love the limelight.
Name three members of Antifa in MO. In the entire USA?
So Antifa, that sinister org, posts a list of people who should be considered armed, dangerous and opposed to liberals doing anything like participating in government or breathing. They should publish where and how to avoid these people because those conservatives would probably kill liberals on sight. Being in shooting range of them is cause for any liberal to be afraid for their life. To the point that liberals would be within the law to take whatever action of self-defense would allow them to stay alive.
Put a bulls-eye on the sponsors of this lunatic law and see how fond they are of it then.
Just sayin'.
This "Make Murder Legal" bill is mostly about one thing: Giving racist trump supporters legal cover to murder liberals in general and POC in particular. It's the (Il)logical progression of the racist "Stand your ground" laws the south embraced so enthusiastically a few decades ago.
Sorry to hear about the Right-To-Murder law. Glad I live in a Blue State, but that's not gonna help if/when GOP takes over Federal Gov't again.
On the subject of Josh Hawley, I heartily agree with Kinsinger's assessment. But Hawley isn't (entirely) wrong about US hysteria about the possibility of a Russian "invasion" of Ukraine.
US MSM reporting on the "crisis" sounds way too much like what we heard before our invasion of Iraq.
First, the 100,000 troops reported to be gearing up to invade Ukraine would be nowhere enough to take anything close to a majority of the country, much less hold it. (The German & Soviet Armies that battled over that area in WWII each contained – and lost – MILLIONS of men). OTOH, those Russian troops *would* be plenty to support the separatists in the Donbass region, if Ukraine tried to regain control of that region by force. IMO, this is what Biden was talking about when he used the word "incursion" in his big Press Conference a couple weeks ago; I was very glad to hear that distinction, even though the White House had to waste the next couple days "clarifying" that "slip". It appears that Biden doesn't want to risk nuclear war over a region of Ukraine which is ethnically, linguistically, and politically more Russian than Ukrainian.
Us Americans still tend to imagine that we are the World Police, using our military power to enforce our "infallible" moral judgement. For10-20 years after the collapse of the USSR, we really were THE Global Hegemonic Power, but those days are gone. We are still the only country that can project power anywhere on the planet, but we need to recognize & accept that Russia has recovered – economically, politically, and militarily – to the point that they are a significant Regional Power, able to resist any application of US Power near their borders.
If we sent US troops to join a Ukrainian attempt to reconquer the Donbass, most of them would come home in boxes (unless, of course, nuclear war made repatriation of dead soldiers irrelevant…).
Also, in the larger strategic view – and longer run – Hawley isn't wrong about China being a far more significant competitor than Russia. Remember, we won WWII based on our overwhelming Industrial might, supplied by a broad & deep resource base, and linked by what was then modern infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams, power lines, etc). Which country now has the strongest industrial base and the best modern infrastructure?
IMO, rebuilding the USA – industrially, economically, and socially – is a much higher priority than getting into a fight with Russia.
Where is the line? If you take the stance that it's WRONG for a larger country to invade and absorb politically & economically a smaller neighbor, the "Why defend Ukraine?" answers itself. When you don't apply a moral metric to the question every small country is ripe for the taking if you have the military and the aggressive leadership.
It's the political equivalent of, "I can rape Sally when I want because her family is poor and has no powerful families as allies." Not fun if you are Sally and the policy says the quiet part out loud. There is no right or wrong – just wealth and who you are friends with.
You do not have to remind me that the USA has failed more often than they have lived up to their rhetoric. But I believe in the principles we're supposed to stand for!
I'm glad we left Afghanistan for the same reason I was glad we left Vietnam. In both countries, the US was suckered into spending loot and lives for a thoroughly corrupt government 'leading' a populace who weren't interested in the war the US was financing. I don't think that describes Ukraine – they're less corrupt than they were with a long way to go but the revolution they bled and died for in 2014 was the real deal. They wanted to set their own destiny, have trade with Europe, elect leaders who reflected real principles.
One of the low points in US politics was abandoning the Kurds to Turkish aggression. (We didn't kill them – we just stood aside.) Ukraine might grow up to be as noble as Turkey is vile if they have a chance.
Putin does not want a shooting war – it's bad politics. He wants the world to stand aside so that Ukraine has no choice but to accept the rape and pretend it's not so bad. On the other hand, Putin will back down if (it's just a training exercise – not an invasion. Putin can change his mind and not go for it.)… if NATO and the US plus the global banking community let Putin's billionaire friends know that sanctions will cripple them if Putin crosses the border.
Where is the line? If you take the stance that it's WRONG for a larger country to invade and absorb politically & economically a smaller neighbor, the "Why defend Ukraine?" answers itself. When you don't apply a moral metric to the question every small country is ripe for the taking if you have the military and the aggressive leadership.
It's the political equivalent of, "I can rape Sally when I want because her family is poor and has no powerful families as allies." Not fun if you are Sally and the policy says the quiet part out loud. There is no right or wrong – just wealth and who you are friends with.
You do not have to remind me that the USA has failed more often than they have lived up to their rhetoric. But I believe in the principles we're supposed to stand for!
I'm glad we left Afghanistan for the same reason I was glad we left Vietnam. In both countries, the US was suckered into spending loot and lives for a thoroughly corrupt government 'leading' a populace who weren't interested in the war the US was financing. I don't think that describes Ukraine – they're less corrupt than they were with a long way to go but the revolution they bled and died for in 2014 was the real deal. They wanted to set their own destiny, have trade with Europe, elect leaders who reflected real principles.
One of the low points in US politics was abandoning the Kurds to Turkish aggression. (We didn't kill them – we just stood aside.) Ukraine might grow up to be as noble as Turkey is vile if they have a chance.
Putin does not want a shooting war – it's bad politics. He wants the world to stand aside so that Ukraine has no choice but to accept the rape and pretend it's not so bad. On the other hand, Putin will back down if (it's just a training exercise – not an invasion. Putin can change his mind and not go for it.)… if NATO and the US plus the global banking community let Putin's billionaire friends know that sanctions will cripple them if Putin crosses the border.