Something is wrong…

January 5, 2012

When someone is breaking into your house and is armed with a big knife, and you feel you have to ask permission of the police to protect yourself and your baby:

A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year’s Eve, less than a week after the baby’s father died of cancer.

Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband’s funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.

On New Year’s Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley’s home.

As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.

McKinley then got on the phone and called 911 for help and inquired if it was okay to shoot the men if they got inside. Kudos to the 911 dispatcher who told her to do what she had to do to protect her infant, and to McKinley for having the presence of mind to overcome her hesitation and fire.

But why in Heaven’s name is it even a question one should think to ask? Two big, armed men breaking in are obviously not there for tea and cookies.

The article notes that only roughly 30 states have enacted into statute the common law “Castle doctrine,” under which a person has the right to protect his home and life from invasion. The other 20 or so states require the soon-to-be-victim to make a reasonable effort to flee before using deadly force, otherwise he or she may face prosecution (1). Surely I’m not the only one who thinks this is (to be polite) dumb?

Thankfully, Oklahoma is not one of those 20 states, but it’s still disturbing that we’ve so bred into our society a sense of dependency that, even in the most conservative, self-reliant regions of the country, there are people who feel they have to ask if it’s okay to protect themselves… or their baby.

via Legal Insurrection

Footnote:
(1) The news report notes that they could find no instance of anyone in the US being prosecuted for similar self-defense shootings. But, while I can’t find a citation at the moment, I’m sure I’ve read of homeowners in the UK being prosecuted for shooting housebreakers.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Shocker: MSM fakes information in “mutant shark” story to promote climate-alarmist agenda

January 5, 2012

I knew it! I just had a feeling there was something funny going on here!

Remember the story about hybrid sharks I posted about the other day? I mocked it for it’s use of weasel words to scare the reader and push a climate-alarmist, pro-AGW agenda. The story was cited by several news outlets under different bylines (I quoted the original AFP report by writer Amy Coopes), but a Business Insider story by Dina Spector carried (for a while) an even more lurid headline:

“The World’s First Hybrid Shark Is Another Scary Sign That Global Warming Is Real”

At Watt’s Up With That, a commenter wrote directly the researcher cited in the articles, Jess Morgan, to ask her if she really said anything about shark hybridization being possibly related to global warming/climate change. Here’s her answer:

Quote not correct – I have now stated numerous times that it is extremely unlikely that climate change caused the hybridization event – however, the hybrid-Australian blacktips are now being seen further south of their known range (Australain blacktips have a tropical distribution) in cooler waters suggesting that the hybrids may have a wider temperature tolerance than their parents (ie the hybrids may be better adapted to handle changing water temperatures). That long statement is being condensed and printed as your quote below.

(Emphasis in the WUWT post)

Well, well, well. As Arte Johnson might have said, “verrry interesting… but shtinky!” Whether Spector or Coopes or someone else was the original source, and whether the misrepresentation of Morgan’s words was deliberate or unintentionally born of a do-gooder’s enthusiasm, what might have been an interesting bit of scientific reportage was transformed into street-corner preaching for the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming, agenda journalism of the worst sort.

It’s a prima-facie example of what Professor Bob Carter has called “noble cause corruption,” the perversion of of scientific (and other) ethics in the service of some cause or vested interest, rather than empirical truth:

Such corruption arises from the belief of a vested interest, or powerful person or group, in the moral righteousness of their cause. For example, a police officer may apprehend a person committing a crime and, stuck with a lack of incriminating evidence, proceed to manufacture it. For many social mores, of which “stopping global warming” and “saving the Great Barrier Reef” are two iconic Australian examples, it has become a common practice for evidence to be manipulated in dishonest ways, under the justification of helping to achieve a worthy end. After all, who wouldn’t want to help to “save the Great Barrier Reef”?

And this is yet another example that journalists are no more immune than cops or scientists — or anyone. It also serves as a healthy reminder to us all to read critically and, when possible, do like the commenter at WUWT and go straight to the source when something catches our eye, rather than relying on authority.

Be sure to read the whole post at WUWT. At the end, you’ll see Business Insider was forced by all the embarrassing questions to change both its headline and article text.

PS: As of this writing, AFP/Yahoo has not corrected the text of the article I originally quoted. Also, be sure to check out Bob Carter’s excellent critique of the “science” behind the theory of dangerous man-caused climate change, “Climate: The Counter-Consensus.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,157 other followers