Albuquerque police have announced that they have arrested the man responsible for the killing of Lilly Garcia, 4, in a road rage incident. Tony Torrez, 32, reportedly confessed to the crime and the police hit him with a long list of charges that should guarantee that he remains in jail most if not all of his life. Indeed, even a plea agreement at this point would likely place the sentence near the maximum level but, if Torrez confessed, there is little in terms of a defense to present without striking the confession on some grounds.
Alan Garcia was traveling westbound on Interstate 40 when Torrez cut him off in a Lexus in attempting to exit the freeway. The men exchanged words and Torrez pulled out a gun and fired at Garcia’s truck. He hit the four-year-old girl. With the witnesses and alleged confession, Torrez is toast absent some surprising development.
Torrez is charged with murder, aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, assault with the intent to commit a violent felony, shooting at or from a motor vehicle, child abuse, child abuse resulting in death and tampering with evidence. He was being held on $650,000 bail.
While the actions of Torrez leaves one, again, depressed about our society, it is important to note that Torrez was captured with the help of a tip. Moreover, two nurses stopped and rendered aid to Lilly until she was taken to the hospital. Finally, thousands of people have gone to a gofundme site to contribute to the family.
Just showing the picture below is enough to secure a death penalty.
[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
“In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”
[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”
[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”
[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”
[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”
[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”
[Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”
[Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”
[Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”
[Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”
[Schulman:] “(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.”
[Copperud:] “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’
[Schulman:] “As a ‘scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’
“My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
“(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and
“(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”
[Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
“(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion.”
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
————————-
From http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Olly,
“When you get to the point where you can identify HOW any of those quotes actually expresses FEAR, then let me know.”——— I bet your seven year old can let you know.
Here’s me not addressing the Constitutional question further up the thread, have your child translate it for you:
” In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.
When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense. One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal since they were “British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights” while another argued that this “is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense”. The newspaper cited Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the “having and using arms for self preservation and defense” among the “absolute rights of individuals.” The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.”
from : http://www.captainsjournal.com/2015/10/22/david-kopel-and-joyce-malcolm-versus-priya-satia-on-carry-of-guns-in-england/
Also posted the link on the other NJ homeless woman thread.
“merely straightforward reading comprehension and plain-text interpretation”
T. Hall,
My 7 year old is working on that as well. When you get to the point where you can identify HOW any of those quotes actually expresses FEAR, then let me know.
In the meantime, you STILL are dodging acknowledging the constitution as the supreme law of the land. And I’m not surprised you are resorting to the ad hominems; put down the shovel.
Olly,
I’m not projecting. These are your own fear ridden statements from this thread alone:
“I understand you already feel defenseless against our government; that is perfectly reasonable considering how they have become unconstrained by the rule of law.” Oct 22 @12:16pm
“Let’s go with no civilian owns a gun. This leaves ONLY government and criminals to possess guns, right?
What is the law-abiding citizen to do for self-defense against the criminal?
What is the law-abiding citizen to do to defend their rights from a government who will not be constrained by a disarmed citizenry?” Oct 22 @11:47am
“So because you personally have never been harmed by a criminal or your government, then everyone else should be denied their 2nd amendment rights? Using that logic, if the government has never stolen your personal property then no one else should have their 4th amendment protections.” Oct 22 @ 12:43pm
No projection is necessary, reading between the lines, merely straightforward reading comprehension and plain-text interpretation: You lump the government and criminals together in the same category; the government steals from you and harms you just like criminals; You think it’s reasonable to feel defenseless against the government; how else can you protect yourself against the government if you don’t have guns.
Elsewhere you compare yourself to the soldiers of the Revolutionary Army.
The fear in your writings leaps of the screen. Your statements and comparisons of the government to criminals borders on lunacy.
You’re a loser. I mean, You’re the loser. Of this debate. You stay locked and loaded, hunkered down wherever you are, we’ll hope and pray we don’t end up reading about you in the news.
In the meantime, you’ve officially made yourself irrelevant.
T. Hall,
Switzerland? When we amend our constitution to the point we look like Switzerland then WHAT they do may be relevant. Until then, we have OUR rule of law to follow whether you like it or not.
“The difference between you and me is that I am forthright about my fears. I am realistic enough to recognize that guns are a problem in this country, and intelligent enough to know see that government is the agent to solve this problem in a practical manner.”
Your projecting again but that is actually unimportant. If it comforts you to believe 2nd amendment proponents live in fear, go for it. It’s also of little use to debate your belief guns are the problem. Many people share that belief and again, if it comforts you go for it.
Where you absolutely FAIL is in your methods. Your duty as a citizen is not to give up your rights or to effort to have government take the rights of others to satisfy your needs/wants/beliefs. Your “agent” of change takes an oath to honor the constitution and they do so knowing their ignorant constituents will demand they do all sorts of things that threaten the very rights they were chartered to secure.
Until you acknowledge our constitution trumps your “realistic” beliefs and that no “agent” is above the rule of law, then EVERYTHING you propose is merely eloquent drivel.
Olly,
Apparently you haven’t had time to read further up the thread or haven’t bothered. Karen does take up a lot of screen inches with pointless complaints about Obamacare and the like.
If you had, you would see that I point to Switzerland for it’s well regulated firearms policy. Or maybe you’d prefer to pretend Switzerland doesn’t exist.
Furthermore, if you were honest, you would acknowledge the very fear of government you express throughout this thread, and your insistence that personal possession of firearms is the only thing keeping you safe and “free”, however much you try to waffle around your own defiantly quivering statements.
Karen is afraid. By her own statements, with a gun she fears nothing, but a gun will not eliminate that fear; the subtext of her writing is that she needs a gun to protect the alien, criminal, inner-city forces of evil that she fears. And rattlesnakes. I argue on behalf of rattlers for their biological role in the ecosystem.
So the fear and mistrust of the people and society around you is writ large throughout your comments on this thread and others. The subtext of her commentary about gang-members and inner city abuse and neglect and illegal aliens and the like is xenophobic and provincial.
Your comments are plain misanthropic and paranoid. You respect the institution of government but understand that people like me will (take power) and fail to respect the law. Who’s going to decide when the law isn’t being followed? You!? That’s what you claim you need firearms for further upthread, isn’t it?
Am I afraid? Yes. I am afraid of one someone being shot because somebody was having a bad day. I am afraid of being on the road when someone decides to start blasting in a fit of road rage or being in a parking lot when someone opens fire in a parking lot because they think somebody isn’t “following the law”. I am afraid of you selling your weapons to your paramilitary friends so they can go carry out acts of “patriotism”.
The difference between you and me is that I am forthright about my fears. I am realistic enough to recognize that guns are a problem in this country, and intelligent enough to know see that government is the agent to solve this problem in a practical manner.
The issue is not whether I possess a gun or not and it’s really not whether you possess firearms either, per se. (Although, based on your comments, I can only hope you live nowhere near me.) The issue is regulating firearms in a way that keeps them from falling into the wrong hands; the criminals, the irresponsible, and children. The issue is regulating firearms in a way that prohibits them from areas where they don’t belong, like schools, bars, and stores. The issue is introducing methods and technology to trace a weapon if it is involved in a crime.
As for the Constitutionality of the Roberts Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, time will tell. Not all decisions last. Look at Dred Scott; consider at your hopes for overturning Roe v. Wade.
I provided a summation of 200 years of Second Amendment jurisprudence above. You have not the integrity to treat with it. All you do is stamp your feet and proclaim “Don’t tread on me”. I consider your patriotism to false. And hollow.
You’ve lost the debate. Who’s next?
Guns are the problem and they make it too easy for the wrong people to do harmful things.
T.Hall – are the armed cowboys south of the Deadline in Dodge City the problem or are Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson? How about the armed citizens in the commercial district north of the Deadline? Guns are not the problem. That is just faulty thinking.
“I myself have agreed that people in your circumstances should have a right to possess firearms.”
T. Hall,
What you fail to realize or simply refuse to accept is your agreement is unnecessary. We already have the right to possess firearms and that right does not come from you, your community, your state, or your federal government.
I respect the rule of law and you respect the rule of men. This is why you still have not been able to provide the answer to this question regarding guns:
“Where should the community and by extension its governing body look to guide their actions?”
No, the answer is not to the really, really super smart people you elected to enact stricter gun regulations. No, it’s not a referendum on the ballot to see what the majority says. No, it’s not “statistics” that show… The FIRST place and LAST place you are supposed to look is the constitution. You begin with the rights and whatever is being proposed SHALL NOT infringe the rights. If it does, then go back to the drawing board and try again until you get it correct.
You continually characterize proponents of the 2nd amendment as fearful people, why is that? Why would you believe someone like Karen has fear because she is protecting her gun rights? I believe you are projecting your own fear. You have failed to demonstrate any competency on rights and the rule of law and without that then every argument must appeal to emotion. That’s where your argument falls apart and you are left with the snarky commentary.
No, T. Hall, we don’t fear the government. We respect the institution and we UNDERSTAND the people that fill its halls WILL fail just like you to follow the rule of law. We study history to UNDERSTAND what those people WILL do next and so far they are following the script. No, it’s those that are unaware what to expect that are living in fear. They are following the script and proponents of the 2nd amendment are simply not going to be grubered into disabling a right no government has the constitutional authority to take away.
If you don’t want guns then don’t have them. But when you project your wants and needs on your neighbors, community, state and country then expect push back from people that have not sunk to that level of ignorance where they will lay down their rights for your feelings.
And why are you claiming that you support rural people owning guns while still arguing with me about their using them?
THall:
“BTW: shooting rattlesnakes is a particularly foolish and wasteful act. Incidents of rattlesnakes bites are rare and they are an important control on rodents. I’m sure you’ll have a slew of anecdotes about the danger of snakes. Have at it, it’s the night shift.”
Actually, gopher snakes are excellent rodent control with none of the downsides of venomous snakes. When I find one I pick it up and move it where we have a rodent problem. The gopher snakes around here are quite docile. I do use non lethal deterrent as our first line of defense, and spread non toxic snake repellant along the borders of our yard. I also remove snake habitat from the horse corrals and around the perimeter of the yard to cut down on the attractant. So, again you are wrong. I like snakes, have had one as a pet before, so you’re really not doing very well analyzing me, are you? I send links to my ecologist relative to help me identify the more unusual ones.
The last snake we shot was in my backyard, having slipped through the snake fencing, could not get out, and was in the act of striking at my dogs.
So is your brilliant idea is to leave it there, where my pets and kid plays? Sure, it eats rodents, but it is also venomous. If I allow the rattlers to remain, then how am I going to feel when my horse, dogs, or child gets bitten? Have you ever seen an animal bitten by a rattlesnake? I have. Not good.
The reason why rattlesnake bites are rare is that you have to live near open space to get the most exposure. So . . . considering all the millions of people who live in CA the statistics would indeed be low. And, no, they don’t come slithering out of the hills chasing people. That’s why I do not need to shoot them very often. Although my aunt and uncle get 20 to 26 a year.
You do not know much about snakes, do you?
THall:
“Karen, OK, We got it, you live in the country, surrounded by rattlers and rustlers; I myself have agreed that people in your circumstances should have a right to possess firearms. Agreed. Why do you keep yammering on about this? Because I point out your xenophobic impressions of inner cities? Your fear is more palpable than you are aware of, and some of us here are pointing it out.”
Well, because of all the comments about how all guns are bad, and your own comments that guns are the problem.
What are you going on attacking me for now? Now I’m scared of cities? I’ve lived in a big city. Traveled around the world. Traveled by myself through a jungle. I’ve lived in low income housing where the neighbors were members of a Mexican gang. Again, not scared. Why do you think gun owners are fearful people? That’s such an odd statement. A cop ex boyfriend bought me my first gun.
The people who keep telling me I’m scared are the same ones who claim I am happy or dismissive when kids die. You know, irrational people getting emotional and personally offensive while trying, and failing, to appear superior.
Here is the CBO Report:
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43900-2015-03-ACAtables.pdf
Please note how much our spending on Obamacare is predicted to rise. I’m sure it will be fine because we have plenty of extra money left over for government spending, and never have trouble balancing our budget. And our roads and bridges are all perfect, too.
Is there a word press command that plays marching band music I can apply to the statistics proving how much Obamacare is harmful?
And, thank you Darren. That block quote command worked beautifully.
Oh, here is more good news for the True Believers to pretend they don’t hear, in order to assuage their guilt over what they have done to their neighbors:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/012715-736559-cbo-says-obamacare-will-push-10-million-of-employer-plans.htm
So . . . about that 47 million utter falsehood . . .
Ellen:
Are you familiar with gun laws from state to state? Here in CA, you have to have either a trigger lock or a gun safe in order to buy a gun. You need a background check at a gun show. I do think that public service announcements or other marketing could be very helpful to lessen gun negligence around children, just like those anti smoking ads with the pregnant woman smoking, seat belt ads, etc.
I have to say that it’s difficult to believe people who claim they are not for a total gun ban when they ignore the fact that current gun laws and negligence laws already cover this. And that people understand the need for guns in rural areas, but then post a series of cartoons mocking rural people.
That has been the trend on this and other threads on gun topics among the anti-gun commenters. And then of course there is the ubiquitous you-love-when-kids-die-if-you-disagree-with-me absurdity.
Oh, and I forgot to mention don’t forget that Medicaid figures are reported as “uninsured” even if they are renewing with the medicaid expansion.
How in the world does Obamacare do a great deal to eliminate abuse and neglect for children? That is a really interesting personal opinion presented as fact.
Since there is a huge deductible involved, even claiming it improves access to healthcare at all is debatable.
CHutton:
“The law allows people to appeal insurance cancellation. Some anecdotes demand greater scrutiny.”
Please go to healthcare.gov and actually read the requirements for special enrollment. I actually did challenge my termination and have the documentation to prove it. Non payment is not grounds for reinstatement, no matter the cause. It took me 30 days just to get this answer from an insurance company. If I got a lawyer, they still were operating within the ACA law. By that time I was desperate, and luckily my relative offered me a job at his company an hour and a half away.
Isn’t Open Enrollment just wonderful? Don’t you just feel the superior love for the poor and uninsured with that Open Enrollment requirement? God forbid you don’t pay your bill for any reason including identity theft. You’re screwed. Thank goodness the government knows better than I do what’s best for me. Oh, and what’s best for the insurance companies whose support they needed to ram this bill through.
Oh, and here is more information for those in deep, irrational denial. This, from CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/21/using-your-obamacare-plan-can-come-at-a-great-cost.html
The biggest hit on premiums and deductibles happened a couple of years ago. This year it’s been pretty steady. They hit us early and they hit us hard. Individual policies are the hardest hit with high deductibles, but employer-based policies are getting higher, too. The reason why the media can quote health costs slowing in recent years is that after you impose an 1100% increase in deductibles, anything after that is relatively minor. You’ve already decimated people’s pocketbook.
“Coleman pointed out that for 2015, the Internal Revenue Service’s definition of a high-deductible plan will be $1,300 for individuals, and $2,600 for families.
For the Obamacare plans, “they’re well beyond that definition,” Coleman said. Individual Silver plans on average are more than twice the IRS benchmark for high-deductible plans, and such bronze plans are nearly four times the benchmark, he said.
The Obamacare plans also are much pricier, in terms of deductibles, than job-based insurance.”
“The often-steep Obamacare deductibles, which are on top of monthly premiums that customers have to pay to have insurance, can come as a surprise to enrollees, said Kev Coleman, head of research and data for HealthPocket.
“You’re paying a lot of money for health insurance and then you go to use it, and then you say, ‘OK, until this deductible is satisfied, I might be paying completely for doctor and specialist visits?'” he said.”
“Cost remains a primary concern for many current and potential Obamacare enrollees. Multiple studies have shown that price, or the perceived price of insurance is the top reason why uninsured people continue going without health coverage.”
That’s not my anecdotal experience – it’s the IRS’ definition of a high deductible plan compared with Obamacare deductibles. That’s pretty hard to misinterpret.
How do you True Believers justify this as an “improvement?” Individual policyholders now pay Cadillac premiums for Catastrophic Only style Deductibles and get less coverage than before. Sure, they get 26 forms of free birth control, but the drug formula and networks are restricted.
It’s really hard to combat brainwashing and convince the people who vote to question what their government tells them.
And do you think that 47 million previously uninsured people gained insurance through Obamacare? According to the CBO, the figure was a fraction of that. The estimate is that 1 in 8 uninsured people were covered at a cost of millions of people losing coverage they liked with a million remaining uninsured because they could not afford Obamacare.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/04/01/how-well-is-obamacare-covering-the-uninsured-a-glass-half-empty-moment/
Ellen:
“Karen dismisses the 47 million that were uninsured before the ACA in the same cavalier way she dismisses accidental shooting of and involovling children.”
Totally untrue, but do not let the facts get in the way.
This is what it’s like to discuss important issues with a Liberal.
Me: There are two sides to every issue. Here are some facts and statistics, a Harvard Law study, and my own personal experience. Here is what’s wrong with Obamacare, some facts and the government website itself to back up my claim of my personal experience. And here is what they should have done instead.
You: You just love it when kids die, don’t you? And I’m just going to completely ignore what’s wrong with ACA. You just don’t care about poor people, do you?
Pointless, really. It’s not an intellectual exercise.
Obama is anxious to have all Americans covered by insurance. His plan was not to withhold insurance coverage. The law allows people to appeal insurance cancellation. Some anecdotes demand greater scrutiny.
On the other hand, some people have hated Obamacare since….since,,,,November 6, 2008. And some people have forecasted its failure since November 6, 2008…doctors giving up careers in favor of managing convenience stores. And some people cannot be more pleased than to able to recount an anecdote of yet another way for Obamacare to fail.
We’ve been through these stories before. Many Republican congresspeople made ads out of such charges. The ads, and the people, were all frauds.
Is there anything wrong with these solutions? Will the gun proponents find one thing they can agreed with here?
http://smartgunlaws.org/law-center-and-americans-for-responsible-solutions-release-commonsense-solutions-toolkit-on-protecting-kids-from-unintended-shootings/
Ellen – parents accidentally run over their children, are we going to ban cars? Retrofit rearview cameras on all cars?