Excellent Supreme Court ruling on civil rights today
If you've never read an actual US Supreme Court ruling and are curious to see what they look like, this is a great one to explore, just 12 pages, issued today:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 8_aplc.pdf
It's not an actual decision on a case; it's what is technically called a grant of certiorari, opening the way to a new trial by vacating (cancelling) the ruling of a lower court -- in this case, the Massachusetts state Supreme Judicial Court. The case involved a formerly homeless woman who had been assaulted and repeatedly threatened by an abusive ex-boyfriend. She acquired a stun gun for self protection, and when someone noticed the stun gun in her purse she was arrested and convicted of possessing an illegal weapon; Massachusetts law had declared stun guns illegal. She appealed that conviction and the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court denied her appeal -- she was not (they said) allowed to possess a self-defense weapon and was guilt of a felony.
The US Supreme Court today vacated that decision and will allow the woman to get a new trial. The text of that ruling, linked above, is in two parts. The first two pages are the simple unanimous ruling of the whole court ("Per Curiam"). The next ten pages are a separate concurrence by two of the justices that absolutely slams the Massachusetts court for their terrible decision:
"A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds.... If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe."
If you care about women's rights to protect themselves from assault and rape, and the civil rights of all citizens, including poor and homeless people, this is a good day.
_________________
There Are Four Lights!
The entire premise of the case seems odd...
It is well established that tasers are a lot less dangerous than conventional firearms, with some estimates of a lethality rate of less than 0.0004 %.
Sources:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129 ... l.pdf+html
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129 ... tml#ref-10
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22674039
Please note that the first study is made *by* Taser, but the second (critical) study does not dispute the very low prevalence of lethal taser use.
By attempting to ban tasers, people may opt for purchasing conventional firearms instead (explicitly protected by District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, as mentioned by SCOTUS in the above Per Curiam opinion).
This development would be particularly dangerous for women, as women are 2.84 times more likely to be victims of homicide if there is a (conventional) gun in the household.
Source: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426 (See figure 3)
