Month: April 2013

The blood lust returns

by digby

I’m sure most of you don’t watch Fox News. I try not to watch too much of it because it’s bad for my blood pressure. But I’ve been paying closer attention the last few days just to see how they’re dealing with all this.

Here is a pretty good example of the commentary there over the past four days. I just thought you should know:

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Emotions are running very high in the wake of last week’s deadly Boston marathon bombing. And over the weekend, New York State Senator Greg Ball found himself in a little bit of hot water for suggesting that the authorities should torture the suspect that was taken into custody.

He posted a tweet, which read in quote, “So, (expletive) #2 is in custody. Who wouldn’t use torture on this punk to save more lives?”

Joining me now, the lawmaker from the Empire State who posted that, New York State Senator Greg Ball. How are you? Welcome back.

STATE REP. GREG BALL, R-N.Y.: I’m really well. Blessed.

HANNITY: I don’t believe enhanced interrogation is torture. I don’t. We only water boarded three people — most people don’t know that — and it was done under very strict guidelines, very limited amounts of times, medical supervision was there. Everyone forgets that part of it and they say we tortured, tortured. But Obama advanced that narrative. But enhanced interrogation, sleep deprivation, loud music —
BALL: Which by the way many of our own troops and intelligence officials go through.

HANNITY: That’s right, they train. Ollie North was waterboarded as part of his training.
You are saying more enhanced interrogation?

BALL: This is what I said. Even Alan Dershowitz — what a great name — but he even agrees to the ticking bomb theory, that if you can save innocent American lives in those instances that those enhance tactics are indeed — would be called for and could be used.

This is — a lot of politicians are full of crap. They refuse to say what they really believe because, “Oh my God, if I say what I really believe I may not get re-elected again.” Maybe this isn’t a good part of my re-election strategy, but it’s from my heart in saying if we can save an innocent American life —

HANNITY: Get the answers! What does he know? We need to know what he knows.

BALL: Right.

HANNITY: I’m angry about this Mirandizing that went on here. Let me give you an example. I was watching last week and there was a period of time when everyone in Watertown was told, go in your house and close your doors.

Now I lived in Rhode Island for five years of my life, and every time I go into Massachusetts, mandatory one year jail sentence if you have a gun. Most people in Watertown, I would tell you, because gun laws are so strict, they don’t have guns.

So they are told to go into their homes, there’s a terrorist with bombs and guns walking around your neighborhood, I’m thinking you are a sitting duck.

BALL: Sean, it’s really scary if you look what is happening in politics today. I think people from various sides of the spectrum of looking at it. We’re in these 30-second responses. If you look at the legislation that’s passed, look at Cuomo’s gun —

HANNITY: If I was locked in my house, I have seven bullets in my gun.

BALL: Look at Cuomo’s gun legislation that he just rammed down our throats. We have retired law enforcement who are now criminals. We have active on duty military who are criminals. The New York Stock Exchange and other critical infrastructure in New York City, those private security guards have been turned into criminals.

HANNITY: Listen to Dianne Feinstein on this issue. What are the poor people supposed to do? There’s a terrorist on your backyard, in your neighborhood, on the loose, we don’t know where he is, just lock your door and by the way don’t come out of your house. And if you don’t have a gun, how do you defend yourself if he walks into your house?

Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “FOX NEWS SUNDAY”)

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: Would people like to have had guns?

SEN. DIANE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.: Some may have, yes. But if where you are going is do they need an assault weapon, I don’t think so. As the vice president said —

WALLACE: Shouldn’t they have the right to decide whatever weapon they feel they need to protect themselves?

FEINSTEIN: How about a machine gun then? We did away with machine guns because of how they are used. I think we should do away with assault weapons because of how they are used.

WALLACE: Semiautomatics, that’s the most popular rifle in America.

FEINSTEIN: You can use a 12-gauge shotgun and have a good defensive effect and there’s the element of surprise. Now you’ve got police all over the place in Watertown. So I don’t really think that this is applicable. I think there are people that want to make this argument.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HANNITY: She is clueless! The vice president is clueless!

BALL: For a U.S. senator to compare the effectiveness of a modern sporting rifle to a 12-gauge shotgun shows she’s a complete idiot on this issue. She doesn’t know the front end of a white tailed deal from the back end of a thoroughbred horse. And she’s the one introducing legislation effecting legal, law-abiding sportsmen!

HANNITY: She ought to take a look on YouTube of some people shooting shot guns, and right back and boom! An AR-15, you don’t have that kick.

BALL: I wouldn’t want to have terrorists knocking on my door and to protect that with only a 12-gauge shotgun.

HANNITY: I have to get out of New York, only seven bullets in my gun. This state is taking people’s rights away left and right.

I want these guys. I want them found as you do. I think this was a big mistake we made tonight.

BALL: Sean, it’s scary where this country is going. I hope good Americans use this as a wake-up call and realize if this is the new norm we better wake up.

HANNITY: Senator, thanks for being with us. Appreciate it.

You can watch the video at the link.

This isn’t an unusual dialog in Fox bizarroworld this week. It’s typical.

And they are very excited.

.

Elizabeth Warren proves that economic populism is good politics

by David Atkins

Elizabeth Warren’s approval ratings are looking extremely good:

According to a poll conducted by the Western New England University Polling Institute through a partnership with The Republican/MassLive.com and CBS-3 Springfield, 49 percent of voters approve of the job she is doing in Washington while 26 percent say they disapprove.

But while she remains popular with Democrats and moderately popular with independent voters, some of whom helped elect her over Republican Scott Brown in November, GOP voters are still not sold on the former Harvard Law School professor.

Democratic voters overwhelmingly approve of Warren’s performance, with 76 percent of those surveyed giving her a positive reviews compared to the 7 percent who disapproved. Independent voters were split, with 42 percent saying they approve and 31 percent saying they do not.

But when it comes to support from across the aisle, only 16 percent of Republicans say they approve of her performance, with 55 percent saying they disapprove.

So Elizabeth Warren is pleasing Democrats and independents through her outspoken economic populism, while marginalizing herself among Republicans. The end result is that her approval rating is double her disapproval.

Other Democrats can pull off the same trick. Other states are often more conservative than Massachusetts, of course, but it’s not independents in Montana are any friendlier to hedge fund manager and other Wall St. types than independents on the eastern seaboard.

Elizabeth Warren is not just supporting good policy. She’s channeling what Americans really feel. That’s not just good policy; it’s good politics. Unless you’re a Democrat representing a majority Republican district, there’s no reason not to do likewise. Any Democrat in a blue state or district falling short of the Elizabeth Warren standard is doing so because they want to, not because they have to.

.

What’s the matter with Kansas?

by digby

It’s run by these people:

The massive anti-choice omnibus bill passed by the Kansas legislature this month has now been signed into law, according to the Associated Press.

HB 2253 will strip tax credits for those who want to write off medical expenses associated with abortions, continue the state’s ban on all abortions after 20 weeks, even in rape cases or cases of fetal anomalies, extend so-called “conscience protections” for those who say they are being forced to participate in actions that they “reasonably believe” might cause an abortion, provide patients with inaccurate medical information prior to terminating a pregnancy and even write into the constitution that “life” begins at the moment a sperm fertilizes and egg.

That’s exactly what Republican Governor Sam Brownback hoped to see. “All human life is sacred. It’s beautiful,” Brownback said at the bill signing ceremony. “With this, we continue to build this culture of life in our state.”

I’ll give Brownback some credit. He is against the death penalty, which is unusual among these alleged life lovers.

The problem is that he values all human life tremendously, which is great, except for the human life that is a female of childbearing age. Although he has reluctantly agreed to allow abortion when the mother will die otherwise, his ongoing support for daft policies like this — and repeated emphasis on “innocent” life undermines his position:

Brownback co-sponsored applying 14th amendment protections to pre-born fetuses

A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right of life of each born and preborn human person.

The Life at Conception Act – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, and other moment at which an individual comes into being.

DEFINITIONS: For purposes of this Act: The terms ‘human person’ and ‘human being’ include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, cloning, and other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.

It’s very hard to see how you can confer “personahood” and equal protection for fetuses under the constitution while still protecting the life of the woman who could die if she doesn’t have an abortion. I’m going to guess that it would take, at the very least, the sort of legal appeals that this poor woman is undergoing in El Salvador right now.

Imagine the spectacle of a bunch of elders in black robes deciding from on high if a 22 year old woman or a zygote should be protected as a person under the constitution. It’s medieval.

By the way, it’s not as if Brownback is universally loved by Kansans:

Sam Brownback is one of the most unpopular Governors in the country. Only 37% of Kansas voters approve of him to 52% who disapprove. He meets with near universal disapproval from independents (22/66) and Democrats (14/81), but what really drives his numbers down is that even among Republicans just 55% approve of him to 30% who disapprove.

Unfortunately, the state is so Republican that it’s unlikely a Democrat can unseat him.

.

The new left Right

by digby

So, just as the Republicans are planning to attack Democrats who vote to cut Social Security (or possibly just endorse the Chained-CPI) it would appear they’re planning to attack Dems from the left on immigration:

A website the committee set up to attack Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff jabs him for “lik[ing] to waste taxpayer dollars almost as much as he likes the strictest immigration laws in the nation he passed as Speaker of the Colorado House.”

Indeed, Romanoff helped pass “several bills that Democrats call the toughest in the nation,” as the AP reported at the time. But the NRCC hit runs into trouble once you finish reading that sentence from the AP: “…and Republicans say don’t go far enough.” Even though the state’s Republican governor signed the bill, “Republicans said the legislation still left glaring loopholes, including allowing benefits for minors.” And this was 2006, long before Arizona’s SB-1070 and its copy-cat laws in Alabama, South Carolina and elsewhere. Since then, the GOP moved further to right on immigration while Romanoff moved left, even earning jabs for flip flopping.

And if the NRCC is attacking Romanoff for being too conservative on immigration, their guy is presumably more liberal on this issue, right? As it turns out, Rep. Mike Coffman, current occupant of the suburban-Denver seat, is no Marco Rubio.

Coffman (perhaps best known for a 2012 birther rant, for which he later apologized), co-sponsored a bill to repeal birthright citizenship; once said “The Dream Act will be a nightmare for the American people;” signed an amicus brief supporting Arizona’s SB-1070 law; and wanted to pass a law making all ballots English only.

Alex-Seitz-Wald, who reported this, concludes:

[I]t’s understandable why the NRCC would want to try to use Romanoff’s out-of-date position against him, considering that as many as 70 percent of Americans favor a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but when your party and candidate is well to the right of the guy you’re attacking, it’s impossible to outflank him from the left and mean it.

I think the operative part of that is “and mean it.” They don’t. They are just trying to manipulate a demographic they think is “low information” and won’t see through them. It’s very cynical. But I’m going to guess it won’t work for the Latino community the way it works with the elderly, simply because they aren’t activated by the subliminal prejudice that activated the seniors in 2010 (if you know what I mean.) In order to persuade people to willfully ignore the facts, they have to already want to. In this case, it’s just not believable.

But it can work quite well if Super PACs decide to get into this game as they have in the last couple of cycles. They don’t have to defend the Republican record. They can spend millions tearing down the Democrats without the public even knowing who they are. It’s very convenient for these sorts of shennanigans.

It should be noted that swing state Dems have it much easier when it comes to the issue of SS and medicare cuts. They can be openly against them, just as their constituents are, while still distancing themselves from the president and the Democratic leadership, which is what they always yearn for. Immigration presents a different set of challenges.

.

The stopped clock named Rand Paul

by digby

He’s right twice a day:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Monday that Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should not be treated as an enemy combatant, a stance that puts him at odds with some of his Republican colleagues.

During an interview with Fox Business, Paul told host Neil Cavuto that he disagreed with Republicans who have called for the enemy combatant designation for Tsarnaev.

“I think we can still preserve the Bill of Rights,” Paul said. “I see no reason why our Constitution is not strong enough to convict this young man, with a jury trial, with the Bill of Rights. We do it to horrible people all the time. Rapists and murderers, they get lawyers, they get trials with juries ,and we seem to do a pretty good job of justice, so I think we can do it through our court system.”

It’s a low bar for civil liberties, but at least he met it. It’s more than we can say for a whole lot of other people. (Well, today, anyway. Yesterday, there was this.)

Update: Also too, this today:

“If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them,” he said on the Fox Business Channel…

“Here’s the distinction, I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tube, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

Uhm, really? I think he’s a little bit confused. I get that he’s making the point that there’s little distinction between drones and guns as weapons. But from a civil liberties perspective it’s unwise not to be very clear that we aren’t supposed to just gun down robbers on sight in this country, at least not one’s who aren’t presenting an obvious threat to a police officer or someone else.

And coming from a 2nd Amendment absolutist it’s especially odd. After all, what if it’s just an average citizen exercising his constitutional right to openly carry a gun in a 7-11 and he happens to have fifty dollars in cash? It’s ok to hit him with a hellfire missile first and ask questions later?

I appreciate Paul’s concerns for our personal privacy, I really do. I believe that drones used for surveillance is a bad idea as well (and I really don’t think our decent public servants need to be subjected to seeing me in a hot tub.) But civil libertarians don’t usually (even tacitly) endorse the idea of shooting down suspected robbers on the spot. On the other hand, Paul is into forced childbirth as well, so he’s already something of a cafeteria civil libertarian.

.

Is horse trading the answer? (Well, it might be better than the alternative …)

by digby

Who could have guessed?

Sequestration exemptions are shaping up to be Washington’s newest version of earmarks.
Agencies, companies and other groups are on the hunt for Capitol Hill allies with the juice to save their pet issues from the full force of the across-the-board cuts. Some have already been successful.

The campaigns are just one example of Washington slipping back into business-as-usual, where powerful players are open to satisfying special interests, even on sequester — which wasn’t supposed to play favorites.

“This parochial interest nature of Congress is re-emerging in, I think, an unseemly way,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

“We’re moving into some dangerous territory if we just allow every member to pick areas that they think ought to be changed,” added Sen. Jeff Flake, the Arizona Republican who made a name for himself in the House by ridiculing earmarks in appropriations bills.

The article points out that this flies completely in the face of the intention of the sequester which was to force both sides to come together on a new budget. Remember, the idea was that the Republicans would be seeking to protect the defense industry and the Democrats would want to protect everyone else and so they’d be forced to deal.

But now that the cuts are starting to bite, the two sides are in there using their clout to make exceptions for their constituency. This would logically mean that when a Republican comes up with an exception to his favored defense contractor, a Democrat on the committee says, “sure, I’ll allow that as long as you agree to vote for my district’s mental health clinic.” Or a Democrat wants some Head Start money freed up and the Republican replies, “sure, if you’ll agree to keep my bomb factory funded.” It’s not optimal, of course. This is a really stupid way to fund our government. But it greases the skids in a polarized political world and could theoretically end the sequester cuts eventually if everyone plays the role they were assigned.

So how’s that going? Well …

The Obama administration has led the charge with exceptions, finding flexibility that it previously said it didn’t have. Pentagon officials have said they already plan to scale back the number of furlough days for civilian employees from 22 to 14, and Navy officials say they even could skip forcing staff to take days off entirely and still meet their budget-cut quota.

Ok, so much for holding the GOP’s feet to the fire on defense. Not surprising, of course. Unlimited money for defense is one area of bipartisan agreement, which is why the sequester was always idiotically tilted in the GOP’s favor. On the other hand, there are signs that all is not lost:

On Capitol Hill, meat inspectors and a popular military tuition program offer textbook examples on how to skirt sequestration as the two main items to score reprieves in last month’s continuing resolution that President Barack Obama signed into law.

Both issues had bipartisan sponsors who moved quickly to get their cause on the docket. And both also tugged at the heartstrings of fellow lawmakers, with warnings of soldiers unable to register for classes and threats of food shortages and Americans getting sick from eating tainted food.
“It was the right thing to do,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who joined with Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) on the tuition amendment.

“I think we made a compelling case that this directly impacted the private sector,” said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who partnered with Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on the meatpacker language that won voice-vote approval with an offset targeting a school breakfast grant program popular with the White House. “When you were furloughing the meat inspectors, you were furloughing a whole plant. I think that’s true. We had the facts to back it up.”

Other issues still simmering as possible candidates for sequester exemptions include the National Institutes of Health, where scientists fret that funding lapses will undercut the continuity needed for key areas of research. NIH advocates say they’re optimistic after House Democrats and Senate Republicans expressed interest in beefing up the institute’s spending levels during last month’s budget resolution debate.

The sequester has brought back the one thing that makes bipartisan governance possible: horse trading. It’s a terrible way to govern but in a system run by money and parochial needs, perhaps it’s the only way to do anything for the people. Certainly it’s better than the meat ax system (also known as “a balanced approach” and a “Big Deal”) has proved itself to be.

I still think the best thing to do is repeal the sequester and put forth a sane budget. But barring that, it looks as though we’re seeing how they plan to get around it. I’m sure it will result in the poor and vulnerable getting the short end of the stick since there are far more Democrats who will protect defense spending than there are Republicans who will defend spending on the poor and middle class. But if the Democrats even make the slightest effort to represent their constituency they might be able to substantially mitigate the damage.

It’s a crappy result on virtually every level, but that’s what the botched budget negotiations of the past few years have left us with. And the Grand Bargain can’t fix it (thankfully.) Now that they’ve started carving out exceptions, it’s hard to see how they go back.

The future of budget negotiations is looking clearer by the day: “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.” Waddaya gonna do?

.

Comedy Gold from a Very Serious Person

by digby

The limits of austerity:

Striking statements were made by one of Europe’s most powerful men on Monday night, when European Commission President José Manuel Barroso said the strict austerity measures thus far imposed on the EU’s beleaguered economies may have reached their political limits.

Although this policy is “fundamentally right,” it has nevertheless “reached its limits,” he told a conference in Brussels. “A policy, to be successful, not only has to be properly designed, it has to have the minimum of political and social support,” he added.

Lest you think that this signals a change in thinking based upon the clear evidence that they’ve totally cocked up everything, Atrios offers the translation:

A policy which increased prosperity and caused much less economic suffering would be wrong, but have more support.

There have been a few VSPs and institutions that have rethought their belief in the cleansing and purifying ritual of human sacrifice (notably the IMF) but for the most part the only thing they seem to be worried about now is that they’ve “purges so much rottenness” that the plebes might just start rebelling.

.

by digby

I know you’re going to be just as excited as I am about this:

Below are details on POLITICO’s coverage and involvement with this year’s White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner – beginning Friday with the release of POLITICO’s must-read WHCD guide and culminating on Sunday with the annual Allbritton-POLITICO Garden Brunch. 

FRIDAY, APRIL 26: 

WHCD GUIDE – Celebrity Politics: The Lines Blur Between Hollywood and D.C.
This annual magazine edition of POLITICO offers influential dinner attendees and readers alike a sneak peek inside Washington’s biggest weekend. The ultimate guide includes an exclusive interview with comedian and dinner headliner Conan O’Brien, an introduction to the WHCA board, profiles of scholarship and award winners, a look behind the scenes of the Washington Hilton and more. Nearly 40,000 copies of the magazine will be distributed around Washington including at more than 100 Starbucks locations. Stories from the magazine will also be available here. 

WATCH LIVE: WHCA SCHOLARSHIP LUNCH – The White House Correspondents’ Association will honor its scholarship recipients at a luncheon on Friday at 1 p.m. POLITICO will livestream the luncheon’s panel discussion with the winners. Watch the event at POLITICO.com/live. 

‘THE SCRUM’ PODCAST – POLITICO reporters will preview the weekend’s festivities, examine key moments from past dinners and analyze why Hollywood makes the pilgrimage to the nation’s capital each year in ‘The Scrum,’ POLITICO’s weekly podcast. Subscribe to each weekly installment of ‘The Scrum’ on iTunes. 

SATURDAY, APRIL 27: 

COMPLETE COVERAGE – As the one-stop destination for coverage of the WHCD weekend, POLITICO will have reporters at each of the biggest events, offering intel on everything from pre-dinner parties to late-night celebrations. Coverage will include live blogging, celebrity interviews, on-the-ground videos and must-see photo galleries. Get the latest in one click: POLITICO WHCD Complete Coverage. 

WATCH LIVE: DINNER PROGRAM – Tune in to POLITICO to watch this year’s dinner, including red carpet arrivals, the president’s remarks and entertainment headlined by Conan O’Brien. Watch here: POLITICO.com/live. 

POLITICO DINNER GUESTS – POLITICO is honored to host more than two dozen leading names in business at this year’s White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. Some guest highlights include: Marty Durbin, incoming CEO, ANGA; Steve Case, co-founder, AOL; Jim Cicconi, Executive Vice President, AT&T; Brian Moynihan, CEO, Bank of America; Don Baer, CEO, Burson-Marsteller; Tita Freeman, Executive Vice President, Business Roundtable; Clyde Tuggle, Senior Vice President, and Matt Echols, Vice President, Coca-Cola; Maria Pica Karp, Vice President and General Manger, Chevron; Lorenzo Simonelli, CEO, GE Transportation; Gary Cohn, COO, and John Rogers, Executive Vice President, Goldman Sachs; David Drummond, Senior Vice President, Google; James Murren, CEO, MGM Resorts; Mark Penn, Corporate Vice President, Microsoft; Wes Bush, CEO, Northrop Grumman; Peggy Johnson, Executive Vice President, Qualcomm; and Eric Spiegel, CEO, Siemens. Additionally, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck will be joining POLITICO. 

SUNDAY, APRIL 28: 

ALLBRITTON-POLITICO GARDEN BRUNCH – For the fourth consecutive year, POLITICO Publisher Robert Allbritton and his wife, Dr. Elena Allbritton, will open the doors of their Georgetown home for an exclusive, invitation-only brunch. Invited guests include: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), actress Kerry Washington, White House Social Secretary Jeremy Bernard, Hollywood couple Ed Burns and Christy Turlington Burns, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Director of the National Economic Council Gene Sperling and Allison Abner, actor Bradley Cooper, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, actor Daniel Day-Lewis, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, CBS President David Rhodes, Jordanian Ambassador Alia Bouran, British Ambassador Peter Westmacott.

This is your political and media establishment, folks. They are very serious about this.

And you have to hand it to Politico.  They’ve even abandoned the trivial celebrity worship and are just going straight for the CEO worship. It’s more efficient. (Oh, and Julian Castro, too.  Never say they’re not into diversity.)

.
.

Getting away with it

by digby

You remember this video, right? (How could you forget?)

Here’s a response:

Get your crying towels ready. The MOUs and CEOs are very sensitive creatures and they’re likely to just faint dead away if they see this. The humanity …

To learn more about Justice Banking, the official sponsor of Animal Kingdom, click here

There’s nothing reckless or negligent about failing to notice your gun is loaded, amirite?

by digby

Whew:

No charges will be filed against the man who accidentally shot and killed a Charlotte teenager in late 2011 in the town of Chadbourn, according to Columbus County District Attorney Jon David.

The announcement came months after the investigation began into the teen’s death. The District Attorney’s office had been waiting on some additional laboratory testing before making a final decision. A news release from the DA did not elaborate on what the latest testing did or did not show them.

Police say James Blackwell fired a rifle from inside his home on Third Avenue in December 2011 while attempting to clean it. Blackwell told police he thought the rifle was empty. A bullet from the gun hit three people outside the home, including Jasmine Thar, then 16 years old.

A news release states that this was definitively an accidental shooting and that Blackwell did not willfully nor intentionally appear to shoot Thar.

At least he didn’t accidentally kill her in an automobile crash. Then he could have been in serious trouble:

Vehicular homicide (also known as vehicular manslaughter) in most states in the United States, is a crime. In general, it involves death that results from the negligent operation of a vehicle, or more so a result from driving while committing an unlawful act that does not amount to a felony. In the Model Penal Code there is no separate category of vehicular homicide, and vehicular homicides that involve negligence. Both are included in the overall category of negligent homicide. It can be compared to the offense of dangerous driving causing death in other countries.

All states except Alaska, Montana, and Arizona have vehicular homicide statutes. The laws have the effect of making a vehicle a potentially deadly weapon, to allow for easier conviction and more severe penalties. In states without such statutes, defendants can still be charged with manslaughter or murder in some situations.

The victim may be either a person not in the car with the offending motorist, such as a pedestrian, cyclist, another motorist, or a passenger in the vehicle with the offender.

Of course there’s nothing negligent about cleaning your gun and failing to notice there’s a bullet in the chamber. It’s not as if a gun is dangerous or anything.

This isn’t all that uncommon. Justice is very oddly applied when it comes to guns in this country.

.