Or is it kill-em-all and let God sort 'em out?

Or is it Shoot First and Ask Questions later more accurate?

I wonder what was wrong with our laws that made law enforcement investigate a person who killed another person, and then hold the person who did the killing in custody until bail is set; no matter whom it is, or where it is, at home or concealed carry on the street.

What is wrong with the above system of law?

Schrödinger’s Cat Paradox is a good analogy for the circumstances and the motives of why someone get’s killed, let us remove the quantum mechanics in this case: Is the cat dead or Alive in the Box? http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/ardlouis/dissipative/Schrcat.html

Or in the case of a killing: Is it murder or is it self-defense? You don’t know until you open the box. The box is the investigation into the killing. The box which holds the uncertainty and asks for investigation is circumvented by the pre-assumption that the cat is alive and or that the killing was based on self defense.

Why has the burden of proof being put on the dead with these ALEC template laws?

“Stand your ground”, “The Castle Doctrine”, and the word of the shooter taken as truth. When did the word of the shooter become proof of innocence in America?

The NRA and pro-gun extremists have gone too far with these laws that create a roadblock to law enforcement and take away due process and automatically give via Law the benefit of the doubt to the person who killed the “supposed” perpetrator.

Why is the roadblock needed?

These “self-defense” laws that circumvent due process are needed and wanted by pro-gun extremists in order to compliment the use of these weapons. It is not enough just to “carry” the weapons as a threat to a potential perpetrator. What good is a threat if not followed up with action?

Examples need to be created to justify the laws.

It is a circle within a circle, a wheel within a wheel; a snake eating its tale.

Examples cannot be made under the current law’s of due process when someone is killed in the name of “self-defense”, they just might be tried for murder, and we can’t have a law abiding gun owner go to jail for exercising their right to shoot if they feel threatened (even if they are not threatened and they might not be law abiding?).

Blood must be spilled, bullet’s must be set loose, as a warning to all potential hooded thugs (even if they are not, or may look like one) as justification for carrying a gun or killing someone with their hands up on your porch with cops 300ft away.

I 100% stand by the right of Americans second amendment to own guns, but there have always been constraints on when to use them because the gun’s main purpose is to kill other human beings. Self-defense is the threat of Death.

There’s this myth perpetrated by the NRA and other pro-gun extremists that somehow that “legal” gun owners are more responsible, more disciplined, and more law abiding then the rest of us, as if “legal” gun owners can crack walnuts with the butt of their loaded Desert Eagle with the safety off and not go off in their face! There are handgun owners that have been trained when and when not to use their weapons in a possible self-defense situation, but the vast majority of gun owners are just like everyone else and are not trained well. They do not have the discipline and are not more responsible as a soldier or a police officer in the same situation.

American’s with guns, even if they say they have used them in self-defense should not be given a free pass when they have killed another human being.  This is exactly what these two laws do; they enable those who are willing take advantage of these laws to take another life.

They should have to go through the same process as anybody else who kills another human being.

 Here's the truth that conservatives hear on a daily basis on the AM Radio:

Liberal Judges are all activists, Journalists are liberally Biased, School board members are liberally biased, teachers are liberally biased, DA’s are liberally biased, a worker with a liberal bias makes a person a parasite a so called non-producer, etc…

 Which means of course that anyone who is liberal or anyone left of right is incapable of being objective and acting professionally; it’s just the mere “being” or “Act of...” which make this fact.

 Or in my case since I am liberal: incpable of being a commited hard worker, since if you follow the logic the label makes it so.

 The 180 degree opposite of course is true for professionals who are conservatively biased:

Conservative judges, well they always follow the law and precedent and if they don’t follow those the excuse is that their rulings fix mistakes of liberal judges, conservative journalists or those that may have not revealed they are are not biased, and the pundits who tell you their right-wing bias makes it okay to omit facts that contradict their opinion, conservative school board members well they would never push their power to alter a district, and the DA’s, Sheriff’s and Attorney General’s enforce the law 100% and don’t let their Ideology get in the way, that conservative teachers never every would push their ideology on their students, etc…..

How does being “conservative” make one un-biased professionally?

How does slapping the label “conservative” remove the human condition of putting bias into a profession, while at the same time having the label “ Liberal” or “Recall petition signer” automatically put bias into a professional?

How does the mere invocation of definition of “conservative” as a label automatically make one able to be un-biased?

Why then does the invocation of the label, “liberal” or “recall petition signer” on a professional automatically make a person incapable of not to being biased?

This is a bald faced double standard and must take conservatives massive quantities of energy to lie to themselves to make this a reality on a daily basis.

A label does not, automatically imbued professional ethics, nor does a label automatically prove absence of those ethics.

“We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November. Any questions?” TN

http://news.yahoo.com/ted-nugent-meet-secret-over-obama-comments-183622828.htmlI

This type of language and rhetoric will lead to the death of innocent people in our country and assasination of poltical opponents.

       I the great El Pickardo, have been letting these two issues simmer for awhile to see what was going to happen, to see if they would go away.

They have not.

 These issues are exposing how extreme the majority of WI conservative republicans have evolved into (or maybe I should have said created as?).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/wisconsin-abortion-sex-education-bills-pass_n_1345873.html

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/wisconsin-medical-society-asks-walker-to-veto-abortion-bill/article_f6d52736-72bc-11e1-947f-0019bb2963f4.html

The Anti-Abortion/Sex Education Big Government legislation:

1)     The bill bans insurance companies in the Affordable care act exchanges to cover abortion.

2)     Tells doctors what they can say to their patients regarding Abortion and infringes on the doctor-patient relationship.

3)     Bans hormonal contraception without a Doctors consent and can not prescribe it via a webcam.

4)     Schools have to emphasize Abstinence but do not have to discuss contraception. (The Repub’s say schools get more choice? Right? How can you do that with this mandate???)

5)     If a doctor does not follow this law makes it a Class I felony and a 10,000 fine.

So much for small government conservative Republicans!  

They have screamed, “Keep yours hand off my healthcare President Obama, We WI Republicans reject your public mandate for everyone to buy health insurance (Car insurance is okay though), and then go and pass this legislation?

Scott Walker signs it which inserts government into the Doctor-Patient relationship and finally into a women’s uterus, while making it illegal to perform certain parts of a legal procedure and simultaneously says it gives School Districts more leeway in their sex education classes but then forces them to emphasize abstinence! Huh! How can a school district have more choice but then be mandated at the same time? Tell me conservatives how can you use this logic. Sybil, is that you Sybil?

I keep on getting told that “Big Government” is not a conservative principle.

Big Government is a conservative value when it comes to social and religious princples. They will use government in any way to push their agenda.

Employer Discrimination – A Wisconsin Republican Value:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/midwest/2012/04/09/242583.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/scott-walker-wisconsin-equal-pay-law_n_1407329.html

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/12/cory-mason/wisconsin-gop-bill-would-repeal-law-ensuring-pay-e/

1)     “The legislation eliminates compensatory and punitive damages for acts of employment discrimination or unfair honesty, according to the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI). The bill repeals 2009’s Act 20, which for the first time imposed punitive and compensatory damages under Wisconsin’s employment discrimination law.”

2)     “Under current state law, employees who prevail in discrimination lawsuits can collect between $50,000 and $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The Republican bill blocks anyone from collecting such damages in employment discrimination suits.”

3)     HP, “The 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues via which to press charges. Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court.”

4)     PF “The law does not ensure pay equity, but rather gives discriminated workers the right to sue in state court for compensatory and punitive damages. So, if the GOP-backed bill is signed into law, that right to sue would be lost.”

5)     Fact: This bill makes it more difficult for discriminated people (black, women, and homosexuals) to sue for punitive damages. State courts are easier than federal courts to do this. Scott Walker and WI Conservative Republicans have made it easier to discriminate based on race, sex, gender, and soon political ideology.

Oh! It makes me feel so warm to hear Glenn Grothman’s words of wisdom who lead the repeal of the equal pay act, you know the upstanding west bend state senator that said single parenthood is a cause of child abuse, “You could argue that money is more important for men,” he said. “I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.”

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-11/news/31326804_1_wage-gap-wage-bill-discrimination

   Obviously, father knows best and this is the reason why women on average make .77 cents to the 1.00 dollar a man makes and the obvious reason that lovable slob Grothman uses, why Women should not be able to sue in state court for damages.

 Yet, this is bigger than a war against women.

    I’ve secretly changed the adjective “Women” Wisconsinite (might be your wife, girlfriend, daughter, aunt, or mother) with “African” Wisconsinite (Black) and found out that it’s not just about making it harder for women to fight discrimination, but that this bill is about making it more difficult by barring Wisconsinites to sue and punish businesses and corporations for denying fair pay to anyone.

I never thought that weakening anti-discrimination laws was a Republican value or is it a new conservative principle?

Take Away: Big government pushed by Conservative Republicans is okay for social and religious intrusion into education and the uterus, while big government that protects people from pay discrimination based on race, sex, or sexual orientation by business & Corporations is bad.

   Hey! I think I just saw a double standard.