. . . Because it seems that I'll be eating a big dish of it. Back on Oct. 2nd, I wrote very critically about a firearms demonstration given for the benefit of the jury in the case of a shooting that killed two people and wounded another.
The idea of busing the jurors to a gun range for a ninety second demonstration of someone shooting a semi-automatic AK-47 clone seemed utterly unnecessary to me for determining someone's guilt or innocence in the shooting. It seemed to me that the real purpose of such a demonstration was some kind of politically motivated crusade against so-called "assault weapons."
As it turns out, though, I was operating on incomplete information and (my own) incorrect assumptions. I became aware of that today, when Gary Eastridge, the Investigator who conducted the demonstration, was kind enough to send me an email explaining some facets of the case of which I was unaware. Here is an excerpt:
The demonstration was done to give the jury, most of which had no firearms experience, some way of relating to the testimony of the chaos involved in the shooting. The defendant had claimed that he suffered post traumatic stress syndrome and that he just accidentally fired 13 rounds into the victims vehicle. The demonstration showed the jury the steps involved to load and fire 13 rounds.I had not realized that Simpson's (the defendant's) defense was that he had "accidentally" fired the thirteen shots that killed two people and wounded a third. I had assumed that he was claiming that it was not he who had fired the shots. A demonstration of the weapon itself, therefore, seemed superfluous (and struck my possibly overly suspicious mind as just a ploy to spread the irrational fear of "assault weapons"). On the other hand, a demonstration could be quite valuable in demonstrating the ridiculousness of a claim that the shooting was "accidental."
The bottom line is that I unfairly jumped all over the people behind the demonstration, without having taken the time to find out enough to be qualified to make such criticisms. Had I known more, I would have found little to quarrel with.
I was wrong, and I apologize.
Stumble it!
7 comments:
If ya got to eat it, eat it fresh. and season it with the fact you are getting more info out there than we we had before. Some things just sound so wrong. Like the Wisconsin guy that shot himself in the head three times.
Well, it is a good man who can apologize when he believes himself to have been in error.
I do find it curious though, that the people who always give sound bites on the news about "automatic" weapons and "assault" weapons etc. decide in this instance to show the semi-automatic nature of the firearm in question in order to obtain a conviction.
This is not an attempt to exonerate the murderer, but to point out the hypocrisy of the prosecution and investigative team. Any bets on whether they had ever described this weapon or others like as "automatic assault weapons"?
SA, I agree with you about the talking heads in the media, but in my discussion with Mr. Eastridge, we talked a bit about the "assault rifle," and "assault weapon" terminology, and he made it clear that he believes the Second Amendment protects civilian ownership of such firearms.
He and I disagree on the terminology, but he explained that he was referring to these guns that way long before politics hung such menacing connotations on those terms, and he seems to think that's the way it ought to be.
That's good enough for me.
I accept your judgment.
Faith, I guess. You'll be here long after I am gone and for that I am grateful for I have children and grandchildren that will survive me.
Damn! I'm glad you came back.
takes a big man to admit to his mistakes.
Speaking as someone who has never made a mistake, and thus never had to apologize, I wouldn't know.
Did I mention how smart and handsome I am, too?
But since you asked for specific help here, you might be interested in some crow recipes...
Don't let it get you down, my friend. You're out there doing more than 99% of all other gun owners to preserve our rights, and have my gratitude. When we essentially rely on "authorized journalists" to get our basic information on any given story, it's inevitable that there will turn out to be considerations known to the principles involved that don't find their way to the public--and I don't see anybody paying you to be an investigative reporter and do the digging needed to gain first-hand detailed knowledge on the breadth of issues you cover.
People of lesser principle would simply ignore inconveninent truths, or come up with excuses, or outright lies. That you not only do the right thing, but insist on doing so publicly, reveals an innate dignity and code of honor that anyone worth worrying about will respect, in spite of your obvious shortcomings, such as not being as handsome as me.
Did I mention how smart I am?
Thanks, everybody. By the way, I would never have guessed that there actually are crow recipes--kind of has me wondering about some of that "chicken" I was served when in the Army ;-) .
David, I'll bet you're a sharp dresser, too.
Post a Comment