This post is a continuance of yesterday's post "Guns are not the answer". The reason I am regurgitating this is because I just read the story of Daniel Adkins today. If you want to read about it here is the link: http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/crime/taco-bell-shooting-victim-was-holding-leash-not-weapon-4-4-2012
Daniel was unarmed and argued with a driver of a vehicle at Taco Bell. The driver shot Daniel because the driver felt Daniel was threatening him. Again, Daniel did not have a weapon but he did have his dog, Lady with him. Daniel's family says he was 29 years old but had the mental capacity of a 12 year old. This is such a sad story. When are people who supposedly have the mental capacity (yes, I am talking about the driver in this instance), just going to learn to walk or drive away? Is it really worth shooting someone over? What exactly are you trying to prove to yourself? I know situations that are emotionally charged can become out of control but learn to control yourself! We are all guilty of letting our anger or fear take over but in order to be a rational being we must learn that we cannot let those emotions overcome good judgement.
Again, guns are not the answer, rational thought is the answer. The driver has yet to be charged in this case and is claiming self-defense.
My sympathy to Daniel's family, as no matter what happened, he did not deserve to die.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Guns are not the answer
Shoot someone and all your problems go away, right? Is that how we handle things in America, by the way of the gun??
Some cases that come to mind are the following:
It has been in the news for a few months but the obvious one to come to mind is the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. Then there is the controversial case of Cisco, the dog who was shot by an Austin police officer (the police officer was at the wrong address). In Westlake, Ohio, back in 2010, Callaway, a yellow lab was shot and killed by a police officer, who came to the property to investigate a burglar alarm. The last case I will mention is the case of Joe Horn, a Texas man, who shot two burglars that were robbing his neighbor's home. I won't go into the explicit details of each case but Trayvon Martin and the two burglars were unarmed. The dogs were of course unarmed as well, unless you count their teeth or bite as a weapon. Joe Horn was cleared of any wrongdoing and Mark Morales, the police officer who shot Callway was also cleared of any wrongdoing. The Zimmerman and Cisco cases have yet to be resolved.
Shoot to kill?? Is it necessary for us to be judge, jury and executioner with a gun? Didn't the dogs in both cases above have the right to defend themselves? Afterall, the police officers were the "intruders" and on the dog's property. The dog does not know what the officer's intentions are, unlike us they can only vebalize by "barking". They were defending their property. Don't we all have rights as citizens to defend our property? There are other ways to handle agressive animals, shooting to kill in any case, should be an absolute last resort, especially if you are on the dog's property. I know there are instances that it is justifiable to shoot a dog but I don't believe in either one of these instances it was necessary.
Joe Horn was not defending his property, neither was George Zimmerman(although to be fair, it was his neighborhood). Joe Horn shot the two burglars, yes they were stealing but they were unarmed, yes they were breaking the law but they were not threatening Mr. Horn's property, yet he was cleared of any wrongdoing? Why, is it ok for him to be a vigilante? George Zimmerman, has yet to be tried in a court of law, yet he chose to follow Trayvon Martin (who was only walking in the neighborhood & not committing any crime) and somehow Trayvon ended up dead. In both of these cases, 911 operators told both shooters to back off and not follow the "perpetrators" but because both had guns they felt it was ok to take the law in their own hands? This America is no longer the Wild West or is it?
Are we so comfortable with a gun in our hand and power hungry that the right to have arms has blinded us on what is fair and just? I do not have a right or wrong answer, but I do know this, guns are not always the answer and as citizens we have to be held accountable for our actions, that includes police officers, as well. We are supposed to believe that police officers uphold the law and we are to follow their example, yet it seems to be shoot first, ask questions later, is that they way it is supposed to be? Whatever happened to trying to resolve a situation and not have it escalate? People seem to be much more comfortable with a gun in hand rather than talking and listening. I guess it is much easier to shoot with a gun then actually have a conversation. Remember this, anytime you are brandishing a weapon, your life will never be the same. Go ahead, shoot first, ask questions later but what kind of example are you leading and what kind of life will you have left? Reputation-gone, out the door? Do you think people will believe your version of events and that you were justified? Can you take the heat? Are you willing to put everything at risk for what you think is just and right? Guns are not always the answer. Pull the trigger and your life will never be the same. Guaranteed. There are consequences to everything we do in this life, go ahead pull the trigger and see what happens. Being a power hungry vigilante is not the answer. And just because you are holding the weapon, does not make you just and right.
Some cases that come to mind are the following:
It has been in the news for a few months but the obvious one to come to mind is the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. Then there is the controversial case of Cisco, the dog who was shot by an Austin police officer (the police officer was at the wrong address). In Westlake, Ohio, back in 2010, Callaway, a yellow lab was shot and killed by a police officer, who came to the property to investigate a burglar alarm. The last case I will mention is the case of Joe Horn, a Texas man, who shot two burglars that were robbing his neighbor's home. I won't go into the explicit details of each case but Trayvon Martin and the two burglars were unarmed. The dogs were of course unarmed as well, unless you count their teeth or bite as a weapon. Joe Horn was cleared of any wrongdoing and Mark Morales, the police officer who shot Callway was also cleared of any wrongdoing. The Zimmerman and Cisco cases have yet to be resolved.
Shoot to kill?? Is it necessary for us to be judge, jury and executioner with a gun? Didn't the dogs in both cases above have the right to defend themselves? Afterall, the police officers were the "intruders" and on the dog's property. The dog does not know what the officer's intentions are, unlike us they can only vebalize by "barking". They were defending their property. Don't we all have rights as citizens to defend our property? There are other ways to handle agressive animals, shooting to kill in any case, should be an absolute last resort, especially if you are on the dog's property. I know there are instances that it is justifiable to shoot a dog but I don't believe in either one of these instances it was necessary.
Joe Horn was not defending his property, neither was George Zimmerman(although to be fair, it was his neighborhood). Joe Horn shot the two burglars, yes they were stealing but they were unarmed, yes they were breaking the law but they were not threatening Mr. Horn's property, yet he was cleared of any wrongdoing? Why, is it ok for him to be a vigilante? George Zimmerman, has yet to be tried in a court of law, yet he chose to follow Trayvon Martin (who was only walking in the neighborhood & not committing any crime) and somehow Trayvon ended up dead. In both of these cases, 911 operators told both shooters to back off and not follow the "perpetrators" but because both had guns they felt it was ok to take the law in their own hands? This America is no longer the Wild West or is it?
Are we so comfortable with a gun in our hand and power hungry that the right to have arms has blinded us on what is fair and just? I do not have a right or wrong answer, but I do know this, guns are not always the answer and as citizens we have to be held accountable for our actions, that includes police officers, as well. We are supposed to believe that police officers uphold the law and we are to follow their example, yet it seems to be shoot first, ask questions later, is that they way it is supposed to be? Whatever happened to trying to resolve a situation and not have it escalate? People seem to be much more comfortable with a gun in hand rather than talking and listening. I guess it is much easier to shoot with a gun then actually have a conversation. Remember this, anytime you are brandishing a weapon, your life will never be the same. Go ahead, shoot first, ask questions later but what kind of example are you leading and what kind of life will you have left? Reputation-gone, out the door? Do you think people will believe your version of events and that you were justified? Can you take the heat? Are you willing to put everything at risk for what you think is just and right? Guns are not always the answer. Pull the trigger and your life will never be the same. Guaranteed. There are consequences to everything we do in this life, go ahead pull the trigger and see what happens. Being a power hungry vigilante is not the answer. And just because you are holding the weapon, does not make you just and right.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Hello, it's been a while
Oh yes, I am back. I didn't forget about this blog but my life has changed a bit in the past few months. For the better? Yes, but not in the way I have expected. I won't bore you with the details but I feel less stagnant and more hopeful than I have in a long time. Anyway, what has inspired me to write, why yes this lovely lady's article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2124246/Samantha-Brick-downsides-looking-pretty-Why-women-hate-beautiful.html
I won't snark or hate on her because she obviously needs some kindness in her life; however, this has made me think about my own standards of beauty and what is beautiful anyway?
I never thought I was even remotely attractive until college. I suffered from low self-esteem thoughout my entire life. I had terrible acne and was teased about it. I also developed rather early, so I was gawky and awkward, never athletic, so I knew that because my physical presence was imperfect, I had to make up for that in other areas. I hid from the world behind books and sarcasm, because those were the only ways I knew how to stand out. I may not have been beautiful but I made myself unique in other ways. Instead of going with the crowd, I went against convention as much as I could.
Beauty does not have be about convention. Beauty can be many things. One does not have to be tall, blonde or model thin to be beautiful. Some of the most beautiful women I know, possess a light I never could possess. They have a goodness, a beauty of their own. Physically they may be "imperfect" but they encompass a happiness, a loving nature that I could never have. They see beauty in others as much as they see it in themselves. That is true beauty.
There are days, I wish I could afford plastic surgery to become "more beautiful" but alas, I know that is not reality. I wish I had better skin and prettier legs. I envy those women with great legs and skin but I know realistically I am who I am and that I should be lucky that my skin is not burned and that I still have all my limbs because there are people out there not as lucky as me. Envy I may have, but hate I do not for beautiful women because I know I will never be one of them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2124246/Samantha-Brick-downsides-looking-pretty-Why-women-hate-beautiful.html
I won't snark or hate on her because she obviously needs some kindness in her life; however, this has made me think about my own standards of beauty and what is beautiful anyway?
I never thought I was even remotely attractive until college. I suffered from low self-esteem thoughout my entire life. I had terrible acne and was teased about it. I also developed rather early, so I was gawky and awkward, never athletic, so I knew that because my physical presence was imperfect, I had to make up for that in other areas. I hid from the world behind books and sarcasm, because those were the only ways I knew how to stand out. I may not have been beautiful but I made myself unique in other ways. Instead of going with the crowd, I went against convention as much as I could.
Beauty does not have be about convention. Beauty can be many things. One does not have to be tall, blonde or model thin to be beautiful. Some of the most beautiful women I know, possess a light I never could possess. They have a goodness, a beauty of their own. Physically they may be "imperfect" but they encompass a happiness, a loving nature that I could never have. They see beauty in others as much as they see it in themselves. That is true beauty.
There are days, I wish I could afford plastic surgery to become "more beautiful" but alas, I know that is not reality. I wish I had better skin and prettier legs. I envy those women with great legs and skin but I know realistically I am who I am and that I should be lucky that my skin is not burned and that I still have all my limbs because there are people out there not as lucky as me. Envy I may have, but hate I do not for beautiful women because I know I will never be one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)