The ethics of "going green", recent court rulings, and a bill that limits your ability to fire a gun on your own property in a rural area advances (oh, and GOP gun bills, as expected, die).
Presented in the spirit of balance and of reading widely: the ethics of going green.
I do not share the concerns of the people mentioned in the article below. That is, I'm not worried about going electric in an effort to combat climate change.
I say that for a couple reasons.
One, I think my (our) time and money is better spent picking away at bigger targets than me, and I also think that our time and money are better spent adapting to what I believe will be a much smaller climate change effect than the existential crisis folks would have us believe.
Two, I'm not in need of new things all the time and my habit is to buy decent things and use them til they don't work anymore, I guess I'm pretty cheap in that regard.
Still, there are those who differ with me and are concerned about the ethical question of replacing fossil fuel appliances, tools, and vehicles with electrics on a shorter time scale due to climate change concerns.
If you stop and think about it, putting yourself in that camp if you're not already, it is a valid question. What's better: changing now and "wasting" the fossil fuel stuff or waiting or ... ?
Whether this is an issue that touches your heart or not, I'd recommend giving the article a look and some thought. It never hurts to see things from another's perspective. It never hurts to consider a question put in earnest.
Presented in that spirit.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/01/31/colorado-ethics-recycling-reuse-climate-change-clean-energy/
Reading up on court rulings may not be sexy, but it is important. Two new developments that caught my eye.
A new rule in criminal trials?
Stop and think for a second about the "hows" of what you see in court. Not the why (I mean it makes pretty good sense that people get to see the witnesses against them, or that the evidence in a trial needs to be available to everyone), I mean the how.
What are the rules that govern the way things get done. E.g. When you pick jurors how many challenges (and for what reason) do you get? --See, for instance, my earlier post and open letter on this topic.
The article below deals with what a judge would say to a jury with regard to the meaning of "reasonable doubt". I mean, we all know the rule, but what does the judge say to the actual people in the courtroom?
Those instructions, like the jury selection one earlier, are usually decided on by a group in the judiciary, often made entirely of judges.
The article below details a recent ruling by the Model Criminal Jury Instructions Committee with regard to what judges say when instructing the jury on the meaning of "reasonable doubt" and it, surprisingly, has both prosecutors and defense attorneys upset.
They're upset for different reasons (prosecution mostly because of the sudden change, defense because of the sudden change AND the changes themselves), but both are crying foul.
There's more in the article if you're interested in some of the details (and, there doesn't appear to be complete unanimity with regard to how defense and prosecutorial attorneys feel which is also detailed).
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/prosecutors-defense-lawyers-blindsided-by-new-reasonable-doubt-instruction/article_78032512-9e8d-11ed-a1c4-8b6647e2f70f.html
AND…
Related:
Seemingly little decisions have a way of coming back on people later.
The article below details a recent Colorado Supreme Court decision on what it means to transfer a firearm.
In reading the article, it seems that this is a case where the woman who got the criminal charge knew what was going on; i.e. that she knew what she was doing was wrong and I think that has some bearing on things.
Still, recall that we have a common law legal system in this state, so as decisions are made by judges as to what the legal meaning of "transfer" is, that has bearing on future cases.
These sorts of things are not insignificant.
https://www.lawweekcolorado.com/article/court-opinion-colorado-supreme-court-opinion-for-feb-6/
Limiting what you can do with firearms on your own property in rural Colorado—another Democrat bite at the apple (oh, and if you had any delusions about GOP gun bills standing a chance, you’d best to leave them here).
Update on the bill that could allow local governments to limit rural Coloradans use of firearms on their own property.
I hope that line above caught your attention if my earlier post did not.
The bill I posted about earlier last week passed its committee hearing and is now headed to the full house for a vote. After that it will head to the Senate.
If you are concerned about this one as I am, I urge you to write or call or you Colorado State House Representative. I have a feeling it will pass the House, and so continue to watch and be in touch with your Senator.
Remember what I said about chipping away at your rights until you have nothing left? This is one example.
More context and info in the link below.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/legislature/proposal-allowing-counties-to-bar-gun-discharge-on-private-property-advance-dems-kill-gop-gun/article_18ba5612-a800-11ed-ab9a-7fec41403dd0.html