One Citizen Speaking

Previous month:
July 2019

Next month:
September 2019

KATE STEINLE'S KILLER GIVEN A PASS ON GUN CHARGES WHILE THE PROGRESSIVES SEEK TO DISARM US ALL

Once again the progressive socialist democrats abandon common sense and seek to punish the vast majority of law-abiding citizens for the acts of a few criminals, crazies, and terrorists. In effect, creating a large victim pool that might be so terrified that they will welcome a larger, more totalitarian government and nullify the constitutional safeguards to our freedom.

These are the basic gun control facts: one, criminals, crazies, and terrorists do not respect nor obey laws; two, strict gun control laws do not work; three, creating a larger victim pool encourages armed thuggery and oppressions; and four, people denied one type of weapon will find another means to carry out their heinous acts.

Proof that the progressive socialist democrats, especially those in San Francisco have more compassion for illegal aliens than they do for the victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens…

Travesty … the San Francisco First District Court of Appeal overturns the gun conviction of Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, on a technicality. The illegal alien who was previously deported FIVE times, had seven felony convictions, and was on probation in Texas at the time of the shooting, claims he found a gun and it went off while he was handling it. Steinle, walking on the boardwalk died in her father’s arms, pleading for his help.

This appeal arises from circumstances resulting in the tragic death of a young woman. While walking on a crowded San Francisco pier early on a summer evening with her father and a family friend, Kate Steinle was struck in the back by a bullet and died.

[OCS: Had Kate Steinle been a minority, the progressives would still be marching and screaming “No Justice, No Peace.”]

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, who was holding the gun when it fired the shot that killed Ms. Steinle, was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm after a jury acquitted him of murder, involuntary manslaughter, and assault with a firearm.

[OCS: I do not care how an illegal alien felon ended up holding a gun that fired and killed another individual.]

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of momentary possession.

[OCS: Momentary possession was a theory and was not substantiated by evidence.]

In determining whether a court erroneously failed to instruct on an affirmative defense, we consider whether any substantial evidence supported the defense and whether it was inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case. We are not permitted to reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses, and any doubts as to the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant instructions must be resolved in favor of the accused.

[OCS: The Appeals court was limited to answering the sole question about a jury instruction – not to reverse the actual conviction.]

At trial, defendant’s theory was that he was sitting in a swivel chair on the pier, bent over to pick up an object wrapped in rags, a gun fired accidentally, and he immediately threw the gun in the water to stop it from firing.

Critical to defendant’s theory of the case was proof that he did not know the object he picked up was a gun. After a careful review of the record, we find substantial evidence presented at trial permits at least two reasonable inferences: one, that defendant knew he held a gun and did not possess it solely with an intent to dispose of it, and two, that he was unaware he held a gun until it fired, at which time he threw it away to stop it from firing.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defense, as we must, we conclude the trial court erred in failing to give the momentary possession instruction. Because the error was prejudicial, we are compelled as a matter of law to reverse.

[OCS: He lied to officers regarding his identity, presence at the crime scene, and his actions, so why should anyone believe his story that was most likely concocted by the defense?]

At the beginning of the interview, defendant told officers his name was Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez and repeated several times that he was born in 1863. He had been sleeping on the street during the previous week.

The officers repeatedly told defendant they had witnesses who saw him throw a gun in the water and asked him if he threw a gun in the water. Defendant said no, that he was walking somewhere else and eating cookies far away from the pier, near the baseball stadium. Defendant initially denied having been on the pier at all. He denied knowing a girl had been killed, and denied seeing or hearing anything.

Gerald Smith, the supervising criminalist for the firearm and toolmark unit within the police department’s criminalistics laboratory, testified the gun had a number of safety features to prevent the gun from discharging accidentally and did not have a “hair trigger.”

Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct on momentary possession. Specifically, he asserts the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on his theory of the case, and alternatively, the court erred in failing to give the momentary possession instruction when requested by defendant because substantial evidence supported the defense and it was not inconsistent with defendant’s theory of the case. <Source>

Now the progressives want to disarm everybody…

March for Our Lives Proposes Confiscating Up to 117 Million Guns

March for Our Lives announced a new gun control plan on Wednesday that would potentially confiscate more than 100 million guns and implement other restrictions on the ownership of firearms.

[OCS: Out of the 393 million civilian-owned guns located in an estimated 120 million households, the total number of gun deaths is a statistical rounding error – with most of the deaths related to suicides, not criminal activities. So why punish the majority of American citizens and overturn the Second Amendment? It is not about preventing violence, but softening up the underbelly of America to make it more vulnerable to our enemies, both foreign and domestic.]

The plan, titled A Peace Plan for a Safer America, calls on the federal government to institute buybacks to reduce the number of civilian-owned guns in the United States. As the plan notes, last year the Small Arms Survey estimated there were more than 393 million civilian-owned guns in the country.

March for Our Lives supporters said the proposed buybacks are part of an intentionally provocative plan designed to upend American gun culture. Many of the ideas in the plan are decades-old favorites of gun control organizations. While the confiscation of more than 100 million firearms from Americans may be the most audacious goal, it is not the only idea in the plan. The group also called for a ban on ownership of firearms without a special license from the federal government and payment of licensing fees. The system briefly sketched out in the group's plan would require Americans, of whom about 120 million already report having a gun in their home, to have an in-person interview with law enforcement and provide references before the official would grant a license to purchase a firearm. The license would need to be renewed every year if granted.

The gun control group also called for a national registry of firearms sales, a ban on anyone under 21 possessing any firearms, expanding the categories of people prohibited from possessing firearms, limiting how many firearms Americans can buy each month, and legislating requirements on how Americans store their guns. The plan demands greater federal funding for various gun violence, domestic violence, and suicide prevention programs. It also calls on the president to declare a national emergency on gun violence and appoint a "National Director of Gun Violence Prevention."

[OCS: It is never about individuals being held responsible for their actions, it is about the progressive trial lawyers going after third-parties with deep pockets.]

The March for Our Lives plan also calls for the firearms industry to be held legally responsible for criminal acts committed by third parties using their products.

[OCS: The best reason for ensuring the reelection of President Trump and the appointment of another constitutional textualist on the Supreme Court when progressive fanatic Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg steps down.]

It asks the Supreme Court to "reexamine" its landmark gun rights ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that the city could not outright ban the ownership of handguns because the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. March for Our Lives said the next administration should institute a gun control litmus test for judicial nominees.

"The next generation of federal judges appointed by the President need to be champions of gun violence prevention and a different interpretation of the Second Amendment," the plan said. <Source>

Bottom line...

America needs to stay strong, to hold individuals, not the collective, responsible for their actions. Enough of this progressive socialist democrat claptrap.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

Permalink | Comments (0)

ANOTHER OF THE ALMOST ANONYMOUS "DEATH PANELS"

It is possible to be well-credentialed and well-intentioned and still be capable of causing significant misery and death …

Few individuals have ever heard about the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, let alone know that this particular group’s findings are often behind the reimbursement criteria of Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers. By definition, evidence-based medicine is biased against "outliers" and senior citizens who are most vulnerable to chronic and/or life-threatening diseases during their later years. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that screenings for serious medical conditions are “contraindicated” or limited for senior citizens and those who are unlikely to benefit from the treatments suggested by an adverse screening finding.

What is the USPSTF?

The USPSTF is an independent panel of non-Federal experts that makes recommendations on clinical preventive services, such as screenings, counseling, and preventive medications, to primary care clinicians. USPSTF recommendations apply to people with no signs or symptoms of the disease, and are based on a rigorous, systematic review of peer-reviewed evidence. The group is funded, staffed, and appointed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

[OCS: While the panel’s findings are said to be targeted at primary care clinicians, it remains a fact that most federal and private insurers generally use these findings to justify their reimbursement policies or to make the insured and their physicians jump through hoops to get a screening authorized for payment.

Most peer-reviewed medical studies are garbage. One, the sample size is too small; two, comorbidities are often unaccounted for or uncontrolled; and three, are limited to those who routinely participate in the publishing process.]

USPSTF members are primary care providers (such as internists, pediatricians, family physicians, nurses, gynecologists/obstetricians, and health behavior specialists) who are experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine. Members are required to disclose any possible conflicts of interest for each topic under review. <Source>

[OCS: the panel does not appear to go beyond primary care physicians or those with expertise in medical economics, health care distribution, or administrative activities to include subject-matter experts.

There are no oncologists, no cancer surgeons, and no specialized interventional radiologists specializing in cancer on the board.]

Sample findings – Pancreatic cancer:

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force) today published a final recommendation statement on screening for pancreatic cancer. Based on the current evidence, the Task Force again recommends that adults without signs or symptoms should not be screened for pancreatic cancer.

While pancreatic cancer is rare, it can be deadly. It is the third most common cause of death from cancer in the United States. In most cases, pancreatic cancer is not found early enough to be treated effectively, and the likely outcomes are poor. Even when the cancer is found early and treated with surgery, the average survival is only 36 months.

“Pancreatic cancer is an uncommon, but devastating disease with low survival rates, even in those detected at early stages,” says Task Force member Chyke Doubeni, M.D., M.P.H. “Unfortunately, at the present time, screening for pancreatic cancer in people without any signs or symptoms would cause more harm than good and therefore should not be done.”

Sample findings -- Colorectal Cancer:

The decision to screen for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years should be an individual one, taking into account the patient’s overall health and prior screening history.

Adults in this age group who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit.
Screening would be most appropriate among adults who 1) are healthy enough to undergo treatment if colorectal cancer is detected and 2) do not have comorbid conditions that would significantly limit their life expectancy.

Sample findings – Lung Cancer:

Adults Aged 55-80, with a History of Smoking

The USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery.

Sample findings -- BRCA-Related Cancer

Women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutation … The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with breast cancer susceptibility 1 and 2 (BRCA1/2) gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool. Women with a positive result on the risk assessment tool should receive genetic counseling and, if indicated after counseling, genetic testing.

Women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potential harmful BRCA1/2gene mutations … The USPSTF recommends against routine risk assessment, genetic counseling, or genetic testing for women whose personal or family history or ancestry is not associated with potentially harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations.

The real problem with using peer-reviewed literature to make public policy is that if you are outside of the norm, you are out of luck unless you are wealthy or politically-connected…

Bottom line…

This is another way unaccountable individuals deeply influence federal policies. But even worse, the use of such panels, commissions, and boards inserts a clerical decision-maker or computer algorithm between you and your doctor. I cannot tell you how to assess the value of your life, whether or not you want to avoid significant pain to pass quietly into the night or want to fight with everything at your disposal to gain a few additional precious moments with your family. If there is any limitation to the healthcare you receive, it should be between you and your physicians and spiritual counselors. Not a clerk or a computer with an end-of-life predicting algorithm.

And, since we are on this unpleasant subject, make sure you have a will (why leave it to the government) and an advance directive designating your wishes in the case of incapacitation,

Be safe and be well.