2015/08/02 ~ Racial Diversity & Labeling

FACEBOOK POST: Heard an insensitive person telling of having a small relationship with a legally blind woman……….when does being legally blind define who you are…….wow I’ve got to get into a better class of acquaintances!! No sympathy votes Please, just saying. Guess it just hit too close to home.

MY RESPONSE: I agree – on a somewhat related note I just got through a sociology class and we were discussing societies need to put labels of definitions onto everything and everyone. In the class discussion I brought up the point of societies basic need to put black (African Americans), white, Latino etc. to classify who we are and that that is a basic form racism (according to our textbook) and by doing so society has created racial separation instead of creating unity.

A fellow student made a comment stating that we are all different and she didn’t see a problem and then I chimed in with response that would we all stay diverse if we found out about aliens attacking or would that make us the same then? I got an extra ten points for discussion that day!

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 2, 2015 in Some Thoughts


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015/07/27 ~ Druggie Celebs Deaths

Why do we “celebrate” the life of someone who had some form of stardom or celebrity status? Just because they were a celebrity that has died? …and why do people take such concern over a drug addict they’ve never met who dies? They made their choice and knew the consequences before they first used. I understand the families pain but why the stranger?

Of course, in the news lately, we find the story of Whitney Houston’s daughter Kristina dieing from what appears to be a drug overdose – similar to how her Mom died. We also know about celebrities like – Michael Jackson, Judy Garland, River Phoenix, Marilyn Monroe and so many many more. Society shows great sense of mourning with television broadcasts of the services following death, processions, burial etc.

We don’t know these people (really) other than what we perceive them to be from watching them on television or big screen and have no loss. They are not a part of our daily lives and leave no gaps in our daily routine.

Is this a real form of mourning or is it again the case of humans being nosey with rubber neck syndrome? Are these just the response of societies change because of the ‘responsibility clause’? By saying responsibility clause I refer to societies need to not take responsibility for ones own actions or ignoring them altogether.

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 28, 2015 in Some Thoughts


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015/07/27 ~ Drug Testing Food Stamp Recipients

If a parent is on drugs and gets food stamps more than likely they are selling the food stamps for 25cents to 50cents on the dollar and the children get no food anyways. The point about should a druggie parent not receive food stamps is mute because a parent who is on drugs should lose custody of their children until they prove they are off drugs or a time frame has gone on and the court permanently severs their parental rights. The point of ‘You don’t necessarily need a steady job to survive tho??’ makes no sense….. unless a person plans to use the welfare system for their entire life (food stamps/money/help with rent etc.) and to be a permanent drain on a society being pecked to death already. I am not sure what world you think you live in but if you want a house, car, groceries, vacations etc. you need to work for it. Taxpayers are not a bank to front lifestyles.

Parents who are on drugs have access to programs to help them quit and rehab can be a rest-of-their-life kind of thing. If they choose to be a druggie they should not continue to drain the welfare system and deal with all of the consequences that come along with that decision. If you have money for drugs and alcohol consumption then you have money for food. The basic principal of a parent choosing to use money to buy drugs over buying food for their children, paying rent, buying a car or paying bills exposes reason for the child/children to be removed from the parents’ custody – what other selfish behaviors and choices is the parent making that is detrimental to the child/children.

If someone is using drugs and has a problem – it is their fault and the buck doesn’t need to be passed. When you are young you make borders for yourself like ‘I won’t have sex until I am married’ or ‘I am not doing drugs because it is wrong and life threatening’. When a person crosses that border and takes drugs for the first time it is their decision and no one elses and the consequences belong to them. No one deserves food stamps – it is not supposed to be a system that is used to supply lifestyle – it is supposed to be a system that an American citizen can use when times are rough and used then only until they are back on their feet.

Parents who use drugs are 72% higher risk of raising a drug addict as a child and more than 50% of drug user parents have anger and abuse problems.Why do some feel some food stamp recipients should and some shouldn’t be tested for? Who shall pick and choose and what criteria makes the food stamp recipient get tested or not. Its either all or none! Why should anyone fear getting drug tested anyways? Most of us have had employment which requires drug testing as part of hiring process.

People who have a ‘regular’ job often pay nothing/very little in taxes because they get a refund because they don’t make much. People who make bank that have been in school who have a career hold the bag for paying the majority of taxes.

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 28, 2015 in Some Thoughts


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

2014/12/23 ~ Stand Your Ground Essay

STAND-YOUR-GROUND-ASHLEY-PETERSON-EEW-MAGAZINEExamination of Stand Your Ground Laws and Rulings

            There have been a lot of media attentions in the news recently regarding the Stand Your Ground rulings involving many very questionable cases. These cases are confused by interpretations by lawyers and judges and others because the lines and clarity has not been defined within these laws. Individual states also have their own laws written so confusion can happen from one state to another with no Federal umbrella to confine the limitations of the laws. There are a few current cases that are raising major legal questions and concerns and are in great debate by lawmakers and those directly concerned with them. Stand Your Ground laws need clarity and confinement by Federal definitions to create cohesion with the United States between different states so the populous and the court systems can rule and reside over cases effectively.

In Laveen, Arizona, where a similar law is called “Make My Day”, Daniel Jr. Adkins was walking his dog past a local Taco Bell drive thru when a driver in a SUV, with his pregnant wife in the front passenger seat, came around the corner narrowly avoiding Adkins. The 22 year old driver and Adkins exchanged words and the driver later told investigators that Adkins air swung at him and his vehicle but never came into contact with either. He said he was still afraid of Adkins actions and what he might do with the weapon that he thought Adkins was carrying, described as a 3 foot bat or pipe. When Adkins had lifted his arms for the last time, the driver pulled out from his sweatpants a .40 caliber handgun and pulled the trigger. Adkins was struck in his chest and fell to the ground dead. While Adkins and his very faithful canine stay where they were the driver and his fiancée drove to the front of the Taco Bell and called authorities. The driver told police he had no choice but to shoot because the dog was in the way and he claimed to have no other options.

This case raises concerns about what someone would perceive as a threat and what actions they have to protect themselves, others and their property. The laws don’t describe “victims” requirements to not use lethal force if he/she has the option to flee to safety. The shooter chose to not drive away because a canine was in the way and he could not avoid hitting and possible killing the dog. However, he didn’t seem to have a problem with killing a human that he perceived to be threat to himself and his fiancée, because Adkins had a pipe, even though the shooter was well confined within his SUV. A choice was made between the life of a canine and Adkins, and whether to drive to safety to avoid Adkins even if striking the man, dog or both with his SUV. This is an example of where these laws fail both “victims” and “perpetrators”.

Stand Your Ground “allows those who feel a reasonable threat of death or bodily injury to “meet force with force” rather than retreat” (Bill Of Rights Institute, 2010). The “Castle Doctrine”, also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law, is a set of laws that define your right to protect yourself, your property and loved ones; but on your property. It also states and clarifies that if you as a victim have the opportunity to retreat you should do so and in some states if the “perpetrator” is in the act of fleeing you do not have the right to use deadly force. So why don’t Stand Your Ground laws enact the same legalities. The basis for these laws has been with humanity since the dawn of mankind because it is an instinctual trait that you have the right to defend yourself and simply keep what is yours.

The case of Jose Luis Gonzales and 13-year-old Francisco Anguiano raises questions about Stand Your Ground and how it relates to the “Castle Doctrine” and the confusion of Stand Your Ground are further questioned. In this case Gonzales was vacationing in Texas in his small ranch home during the summer. He had grown tired of repetitive break-ins into his home which construed of theft of mainly junk food. One night he confronted the thieves, ranging in age from eleven to thirteen, with a shot gun with the outcome being Anguiano dead and the others beaten with what looks to be the butt of the rifle. The young men tell a tale of being confronted by Gonzales with a rifle, beaten, told to lay on the ground face down, and then of Anguiano being told to “drop it” (referring to a bag of chips) and then being shot in the back. Gonzales explains that Anguiano started to raise his body away from the ground and he thought the young man may go for his legs and try to take him off his balance to take over the situation.

The question for this case comes from Texas laws stating Texans have the right to use deadly force in your home, workplace or vehicle to prevent a violent crime such as rape or murder. Did Gonzales have the boys subdued and had he had control over the situation where he had the ability to contact authorities and had reasonable conclusion he could keep them under control until the authorities arrived? Why were the boys bodies covered with what testimony said was repeated strikes from the butt of a rifle. Why was Anguiano shot in the back killing him almost instantly? Did Gonzales have an option to retreat when the boy “created a threat”? These questions seemed to be placed out of mind as the ruling gave Gonzales exoneration when Stand Your Ground was used, maybe inappropriately as a defense.

Stand Your Ground laws, also known as “Line in the Sand” and “No Duty to Retreat”, states that a person can use deadly force in defending themselves where there is a threat. They can do this without obligation to retreat before using deadly force which includes private and public property. Some situations justify a person using the Stand Your Ground law in court to defend themself in both criminal and civil courtrooms. It can also be used in immunity so someone can never be charged, detained and bars suit and arrest in the first place. Stand Your Ground laws “laws have increased the number of murder and manslaughter cases – rather than serve as a deterrent to crime” (Mulvaney, 2012).

The “Castle Doctrine states that a person has no duty to retreat when they or their home are attacked and some states go even further stating that a person doesn’t have to retreat even in the confines of their own home. Stand Your Ground type laws give a person the right to not abandon the area they stand upon if provoked or attacked as long as he/she has the right to be there in the first place. Some states state that the person must be carrying a firearm legally whether it be concealed or openly. “Today most states have some kind of castle law. The stronger laws do not require homeowners to attempt to retreat before using force to protect their domicile, and there are a select few states that have very strong stand-your-ground laws allowing citizens to use force in their car or at work without first trying to retreat” (Purves, 2011)

Stand Your Ground laws have been openly criticized as “Shoot First” laws by critics. These laws have given results of self-defense claims more than tripling in many states. The critics of the law as well as District Attorney’s offices say it is very difficult to prosecute individuals who kill or wound others and claim their actions in self-defense. Opponents to this law say the “victim” can say they are threatened with the only witness being the “perpetrator” who is now dead and can’t testify.

Stand Your Ground laws, whether you are completely opposed or in complete support of them, should be clarified to direct lawyers, judges and others how to rule, use and preside correctly and efficiently when it comes to cases where Stand Your Ground can be appropriately applied. Laws need to clarify and distinguish between cases of clear self-defense and un-needed violence towards individuals that were committing non-violent crimes or when retreat should have been made to prevent further crimes. This law is certainly a law of this day and age and is still very young, which shows in case after case of people committing crimes from assault and battery to murder and getting away with it because they use Stand Your Ground incorrectly and inappropriately.


{Copyright Jeffrey Scott Thomas – The Jibber Jabber Journal}


Leave a comment

Posted by on December 23, 2014 in Essy I Wrote


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2014/06/05 ~ Mom Words of Wisdom Speech

Here’s a “Cherished Lesson” from my Mom. You see, she never drank alcohol, smoked cigarettes, partied, gambled, or did anything people would consider loose. She was firm, loving, and very disciplined.

The military had nothing on her! Seriously!

She once told me, “Son, whatever you end up doing, be the best!”

“If you end up being a drug dealer, you better be the best drug dealer that’s ever lived!”.

I looked at her shocked and confused for a moment. Then asked, “What do you mean Mom? You know that isn’t going to happen because I don’t want to be and do that.”

She explained, “Life sometimes puts you in hard situations.You never know what you may have to humbly do to make it.”

“Of course, I would prefer you to be a doctor, lawyer, scientist or engineer. It’s what I prefer though! I don’t know what the future holds for you. I am a mother and I can only guide you.”

“Just remember that whatever happens be sure to hold your head high and do your best. Of course, I don’t ever want you to be a drug dealer I said that to get your attention and it worked.”

Gotta give it up to moms for pattern interrupts, wisdom and leaving behind lessons for eternity. I was a young teen when we had this discussion. It’s memories such as these that have helped me to endure anything…

{Copyright Jeffrey Scott Thomas – The Jibber Jabber Journal}


Leave a comment

Posted by on June 6, 2014 in Some Thoughts


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2014/05/08 ~ Freeloaders

freeloader t-shirtCan not stand people who do nothing to improve their lives and do not work to maintain their lifestyle or work to get things they need or want only to use people for handouts.


Go to school!!!

Improve yourself!!!!!

If you do not have the money for something do without it until you do. Don’t panhandle to people around you that fight to obtain what they need/want and keep what they have.

What values do you teach your children? What will you do when people who provide to keep your lifestyle (who aren’t the ones who should be doing this) are no longer amongst the living or run away because they are tired of being used?

One day you will wake up and realize the mistakes you made BUT will it be too late?


{Copyright Jeffrey Scott Thomas – The Jibber Jabber Journal}


Leave a comment

Posted by on May 9, 2014 in Some Thoughts


Tags: , , , , ,

2014/02/23 ~ School Shootings: Victims

bullySCHOOL SHOOTINGS: Yes, they are very sad and a terrible new reality to our everyday living (along with other public shootings) but I just got through reading about a victim who was shot who just came home. Now I have read a lot about this case and know better – although the press has made him to be a victim – school shootings often start with bullying and the inadequate handling of these activities by administration with the ineffectiveness of stopping said activities. This kid and the other ‘victim’ were no innocent bystanders – no they shouldn’t have been shot that should go without saying – but the latest article states the two are these angelic ‘victims’ when it has been shown that the shooter came through other people and could have shot them but had specific targets in mind and only shot these two which by all accounts terrorized the shooter. Yes, the shooter needs to pay for his crimes BUT don’t make people who are not victims be victims. Administrations need to deal with all forms of bullying swiftly and harshly to prevent children from being tortured in schools that lead to these shootings. Make administrations accountable for such behaviors and make people who society wants to make victims answer for their self-righteous self-centered mentality – don’t put them on a pedestal and act like they did no wrong – because THAT is wrong.

{Copyright Jeffrey Scott Thomas – The Jibber Jabber Journal}

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 23, 2014 in Some Thoughts


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers

%d bloggers like this: