Monday, October 21, 2013

Blog 9


No one should be exempt from the law, including those who enforce it.
Last March, Indiana’s former Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law an amendment allowing citizens the right to use deadly force against public servants who unlawfully enter their homes, according to an article by Bloomberg News.
Indiana is the first state to allow the use of lethal force against police officers in circumstances of unlawful intrusion. This is a huge step forward in respecting the citizen’s right to self-defense, as well as the rights of the homeowner.
The measure amends the 2006 Castle Doctrine Bill, which allows deadly force to stop illegal entry into a home or car. Essentially, the term "public servant" was added following the court's ruling in order to encompass all people under the law – badges or not. [DASH TO EMPHASIZE LAST ELEMENT OF SENTENCE]
The law was revised after the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers," according to the Indiana Law Blog.
The ruling in question was in response to the May 2011 Indiana case Barnes v. State. It was a domestic violence call that resulted in the assault of the responding police officer. Before the amendment to the law passed, citizens like Barnes had no right to protect themselves from abuse at the hands of authorities.
Proponents of the Second and Fourth Amendments – those who support the ownership of firearms and security against unlawful searches – are celebrating the recent revision. In today’s increasingly totalitarian society, it is necessary to honor the ideals of the Constitution and fight for the rights given to us by America’s forefathers.
Although the revision passed both chambers of the legislature by wide margins, the amendment has been met with an uproar of opposition from police organizations. [ONE-SENTENCE PARAGRAPH]
According to an article by Bloomberg News, Tim Downs, who is head of Indiana’s largest police union, opposes the revisions by arguing it opens the door for assaults on police officers. Downs states, "It just puts a bounty on our heads."
Do police officers really believe people are going to start shooting cops just because it is legal? [RHETORICAL QUESTION]
This argument gives the impression that Indianans can wantonly open fire on police officers and be under the protection of the law. However, this is not the case. [USE OF HOWEVER]
The revision clearly states, “A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary,” according to the Senate bill.
The word “reasonable” appears multiple times in the revision to the Indiana law in order to stress that the amount of force a resident chooses to apply must be reasonable according to the circumstances. If a police officer walks onto a person’s lawn because he heard something suspicious, Indiana residents do not have free rein to immediately shoot him down.
The only reason police officers are opposed to the revision is because it weakens their power and diminishes their image of supremacy and provides another means to hold them accountable for violating citizen rights. [SIMPLE SENTENCE WITH COMPOUNDED VERBS CONNECTED WITH ANDS]
If you do not think police often overstep their authority then type into the Google search bar, “police officer abuse of power.” [USE OF THEN] You will be shocked at the type of stories you will find that popular media sources choose not to cover.
Police officers have shot and killed countless innocent people, blaming the dim lighting of the room or the glinting wristwatch that looked like a gun. In nearly all of these situations the officers were cleared after prosecutors determined they made a reasonable error in judgment given the circumstances. Now in Indiana, citizens will finally be permitted the same consideration.
Society has granted members of law enforcement enormous power over citizens to preserve social order and keep the peace. They are allowed a great deal of freedom when deciding which laws to enforce, when and against whom. Yet, how much freedom should they be allowed, and at what level of responsibility? [REAL QUESTION]
The problem is many police officers have forgotten that they are merely common citizens appointed to maintain order. Police officers are beginning to view themselves as more than enforcers of the law, but rather as the law incarnate. [USE OF THAN]
If you still doubt the United States has evolved into a police state, look at recent headlines: NSA spying program, mass incarceration for drug possession, drone programs and SWAT teams knocking down doors for anti-government comments on Facebook. [LONG SENTENCE] The clear confirmation is terrifying. [SHORT SENTENCE]
The formation of a police state and Orwellian society is not on the rise; it’s already here. State legislators and citizens can no longer afford to sit back and fail to take action while we are being stripped of the few rights we have left.
We should applaud Daniels for pushing the revision of Indiana’s Castle Doctrine law and encourage other states to follow his lead. It will protect the rights of the homeowner and help to limit the abuse of the power of the badge. Stand by the principles of our liberty-seeking nation; no one is above the law.

Monday, October 14, 2013

Blog 8


Just from reading the title of the novel, readers can gain some level of understanding of the two main characters of the story. Ari, the narrator of the story, shares his name with Aristotle, the Greek philosopher [APPOSITIVES SET OFF BY COMMAS]. Readers quickly learn that Ari embraces the legacy of his name by being some sort of philosopher himself. He often talks about figuring out the secrets of the universe, and questions everything by asking questions, such as, “Why do birds exist, anyways” (Saenz 54). Prompted by this question, his friend Dante, who shares his name with Dante – the Italian poet – replies “Birds exist to teach us about the sky” (54) [APPOSITIVE SET OFF BY DASHES]. Dante has many poetic, beautiful, and romantic answers to Ari’s questions throughout the novel, and loves reading poetry as a hobby [ADJECTIVES OUT OF ORDER]. The author (Benjamin Alire Saenz) has created characters that closely match their names, yet their names are seemingly the only thing they fit into [APPOSITIVE SET OFF BY PARENTHESIS].
Both boys struggle with their Mexican-American ethnicity and the stereotypes they associate with it. One day Ari blatantly asks Dante, “It bothers you that you’re Mexican, doesn’t it?” (39) Dante replies with an honest “Yes, it bothers me,” (40). This is a common struggle for new generations of mixed ethnicities, who feel as though they are a hybrid subject that does not belong to the country of their ancestors or the country they grew up in. Dante explains their struggle when he says, “my dad’s parents were born in Mexico. They live in a small little house in East LA and they speak no English and own a little restaurant. It’s like my mom and dad created a whole new world for themselves. I live in their new world. But they understand the old world, the world they came from – and I don’t. I don’t belong anywhere,” (88). The old world vs. the new world binary that Dante discusses reveals his feelings of being lost and not “fitting in” to either of them. The two Mexican-American boys, caught somewhere in the third space of the binary, struggle to find their place in the world [PARTICIPIAL PHRASE]. Characteristics of the third space are: establishing alternate ways of knowing, creating alternative ways of producing knowledge, and refusing to look at things as either black or white [APPOSITIVE SET OFF BY COLON]. Dante and Ari constantly challenge what is considered to be normal. They do not to see things as black or white, but find a gray area for their ideas and thoughts to live in.