Thoughts On Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez, An Especially Dangerous Ethics Dunce

Quick, Tatiana! Michele Bachmann is on "The View" in 3 minutes!

Quick, Tatiana! Michele Bachmann is on “The View” in 3 minutes!

The “dangerous” part is illustrated by the section of the Washington Post headline that reads Mich. woman who shot at shoplifters gets 18 months probation….”  Then there’s the part that briefly made me think that the Post was becoming a hoax site: “…vows to ‘never help anybody again.”

A Michigan judge sentenced concealed carry permit holder Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez to 18 months of probation and took away the permit, as punishment for her shooting several  rounds at a shoplifter’s fleeing auto outside a Home Depot on October. 6. Disillusioned that the law took a dim view of her playing amateur “Starsky and Hutch,” she wailed, “I tried to help. And I learned my lesson that I will never help anybody again.”

Thoughts:

1. What an idiot. There is more stupidity packed into that statement than you will find in a room full of Ben Carson fans. She “tried” by shooting a gun at shoplifters? What she tried to do is irrelevant. Good intentions matched to moronic conduct mitigates nothing. Now, because she was properly punished ( I would say leniently punished) for irresponsible vigilante use of her weapon and what would have been excess force even if she had been Starsky, she’s going to punish humanity by never helping anyone ever again, so there! 

2. Everyone is arguing about how to prevent insane people from getting their hands on guns. What about stupid people? It is hard to tell who is likely to snap and go postal, but it should be easy to identify cretins like Tatiana. Surely it would be constitutional for there to be a baseline level of intelligence required before allowing a citizen to carry a concealed weapon.

3. I guess the reason nobody’s talking about limiting the idiot shooters is that it isn’t going to stop mass shootings, but then none of the measures being demanded by anti-gun hysterics (or proposed by President Obama) will have any effect on mass shootings, terrorism, or most criminals. But honest, well- intentioned idiots? We can stop them cold, can’t we?

4. This is where at least part of the car analogy favored by some NRA-bashers makes sense. Why can’t there be a required minimum competence written test for gun owners? Why is that unreasonable? Make it easy, so only the dumbest of the dumb won’t pass. Or have a minimum IQ limit before someone can own a gun. Below the cut-off, give them a toy that goes BANG!—they probably won’t notice the difference. Maybe there needs to be a special psychological test to weed out mothers who think it makes sense to take their loaded pistols to Walmart and leave them in their purses where their 2-year olds can grab them, or Home Depot shoppers who see a shoplifter and think, “It’s up to me!” as they draw their guns. It can’t be that hard to identify the real mouth-breathers like Tatiana, can it? Are they drooling? Do they think The View is edifying? Do they think the Kardashians are cool? Were they disappointed when Lincoln Chaffee dropped out of the race? Do they get excited about professional wrestling? Do they spring for extended warranties? Talk to phone psychics?

5. But seriously, folks…I wonder why the NRA doesn’t support a mandatory gun safety course, if not for all gun ownership, at least for a concealed carry permit. I assume it’s the camel’s nose argument; the rhetoric of the anti-gun lobby is so transparently aimed at incrementally making private gun ownership impossible that even minimal limits are seen as laying the groundwork for confiscation. Like so many things, it all comes down to trust. It is in everyone’s interest, including the idiots themselves, to be able to keep idiots like Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez from “helping” us by drawing guns. The fact that this appears to be beyond our political system’s ability to accomplish is as depressing a symptom of dysfunction and a leadership void as I can think of right now.

Meanwhile, my message to Tatiana is “Good, don’t help us. Don’t help anyone. The best way for people like you to help is to try to go about daily life without walking into walls and setting your hair on fire.

29 thoughts on “Thoughts On Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez, An Especially Dangerous Ethics Dunce

  1. It’s completely camel’s-nose-in-the-tent effect. As long as half the political spectrum pretty well can’t finish a 2nd Amendment discussion without ultimately revealing their policies inevitably require full dis-empowerment of the citizenry then there is absolutely no reason to budge in their direction at all. Compromise my ass.

    I would love an America where “well regulated Militia” could openly be practiced. But I won’t make one step that direction as long as the charlesgreens of the country are running around thinking that gun control goes too far when it ends up regulating things that aren’t even firearms. I won’t make a single step that direction when one side ultimately cannot acknowledge basic truths about life and nature and rights.

  2. Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez said, “I tried to help. And I learned my lesson that I will never help anybody again.”

    Based on her actions, shooting at non-violent shoplifting misdemeanor criminal(s) in a car nonetheless, then trying to define that as “helping” and then following that up with “I learned my lesson that I will never help anybody again” – that’s not the lesson you were supposed to learn you freaking idiot. I think I can justifiably define Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez as literally being stupid.

    Jack said, ” I would say leniently punished”

    I would say that is a gross understatement. The law needs to throw the book at people like this!

    In my opinion, Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez is an idiot, that honestly appears to be quite stupid. She should have been charged with FIRST DEGREE RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT which is a felony and stripped of her rights to own any firearms. She has shown, beyond any doubt, that she does not possess reasonable judgement skills to draw the line between when lethal force is appropriate and when it’s not. I really don’t care if she is put in jail or not, but she should face a rather large dollar fine and confiscation of firearms from her home; furthermore, why probation – in this case is likely not to be effective for anything unless it’s just there to make it easier/faster to throw her in jail faster if she is caught with a firearm.

    It’s cases like Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez’s that anti-2nd Amendment advocates misuse to blame the whole because of the one and to blame the whole based on the one, or the few, is not only illogical and unethical it’s simply immoral!

  3. I have long held that there should be some sort of baseline intelligence test to be allowed to vote, and I would surmise that lately as much harm has been done to our country by stupid voters as by stupid handgunners.

  4. I would also mention that Michigan is one of the states where -unless something has changed lately- carry permits are issued with no training required, only a background check. Here in Tennessee a permit seeker must first complete an eight-hour training and qualification course which concentrates on the law of self defense and on firearm safety. Only after successful completion of the course can the individual complete the permit process through the state Department of Safety. Our local Sheriff’s Office has been providing this training gratis for about twenty years.

  5. Once, when I was at the Providence Place Mall, I witnessed a shoplifing. She ran right past me as I reached the top of the escalator. If I had wanted to, I could have shoulder-checked her into a wall or tackled her and stopped her easily.

    I decided not to, since I figured even if I didn’t injure her and even if it was the right thing to do, this sort of intervention would be excessive for a simple theft.

    Firing a gun at a shoplifter has got to be, by its very definition, excessive force. What kind of shoplifter has a gun? Would that not make them a robber?

  6. I’ve always thought you should have to pass some type of test to own a gun. It doesn’t even have to be difficult or onerous. Just a written test that shows you understand not only firearm safety, but justified use of force and a state’s self-defense laws, and a practical test to make sure you won’t shoot innocent bystanders.

  7. 5. But seriously, folks…I wonder why the NRA doesn’t support a mandatory gun safety course, if not for all gun ownership, at least for a concealed carry permit. I assume it’s the camel’s nose argument; the rhetoric of the anti-gun lobby is so transparently aimed at incrementally making private gun ownership impossible that even minimal limits are seen as laying the groundwork for confiscation. Like so many things, it all comes down to trust. It is in everyone’s interest, including the idiots themselves, to be able to keep idiots like Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez from “helping” us by drawing guns. The fact that this appears to be beyond our political system’s ability to accomplish is as depressing a symptom of dysfunction and a leadership void as I can think of right now.

    Why could we not trust the state to run literacy tests for voting in an even-handed manner?

      • An illiterate person is not necessarily a fool. It could be argued that a blind person could fail a literacy test, should that person be prohibited from voting? Many who can’t read well are good, clear thinkers.

        I know you can respond by saying literacy is more than reading and that there would be options to allow for these situations but you have just made a new billion dollar bureaucratic industry that will be rife with problems.

        Equally, there are some highly literate academics that I wouldn’t trust to make a decision that affected the life of a snake, yet they would pass with flying colours! SOME; the nutty professor theme is overdone but not a total myth.

        The question is, shouldn’t people who are citizens in democracies, or in the case of our nations republics, be allowed to vote?

        I too support the idea of mandatory training, required in Australia to get ANY firearms licence. Again, not too many career criminals undertake it!

        You can’t get a concealed carry licence in Australia any more; unless you are a national parks employee or a bank teller and then you can just pick up a work gun at any old time. Don’t hang me on that last statement, it was the case a few years back but has probably changed now and certainly I believe banks no longer protect the cash.

        • Voting while stupid can have terrible, dangerous consequences, so if we’re keeping one misusable right, should’t we keep the other?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.