Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Darwin would of approved of this! Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom Grumpy's hall of Shame

Obviously the man did not do his home work!

Trump Derangement Syndrome is REAL! Professor Shoots Himself in Protest of Trump

September 12, 2018 BFH Uncategorized 41

Evidence strongly suggests the loon professor intended on killing himself, taping a $100 bill on the school’s bathroom mirror which read, “for the janitor.” Apparently the aftermath of the shooting was to be so gory that he felt bad for the clean-up person. Alas, his firearm ability only managed a shot to his arm.
Before we get to the story I want to say that, sadly, Trump Derangement Syndrome is real, and the afflicted are a real danger. This guy brought an illegal gun into the school. There’s really no telling what he was capable of doing. It is time to take this disease seriously, and the first step is awareness.

At iOTW report we want to do our part and recognize an organization that is spreading the word about this mental disorder.

I believe it is a national security issue.
Be a good citizen and display the ribbon. Put it on your car. Put it on your mailbox. Wear it on your shirt. Send the ribbon to the people in your life that may be afflicted, signaling to them that you support them and are hoping they get the help they need.
Tell them that you don’t want them to be desperate, in a bathroom with a gun, because they might accidentally shoot a Trump supporter, and that wouldn’t be good.
Go HERE to get your stickers. Keep them in your wallet and hand them to people when they go into their spittle-flecked rants, inanely disparaging the best president this country has seen in decades.
(Full disclosure: This project has been initiated by an iOTWreport reader who wants to remain anonymous. We are happy to publicize this project for them and if you are a blogger, tweeter, facebooker, etc., we encourage you to do the same.)
Review Journal-
Mark J. Bird was charged last month with discharging a gun within a prohibited structure, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit and possessing a dangerous weapon on school property, court records show.
He was found bleeding from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his arm about 8:15 a.m. on Aug. 28 outside a bathroom in the Charleston campus K building.
The sociology professor was hired Aug. 26, 1993, and was an emeritus faculty member at the time of the shooting, college spokesman Richard Lake said. Bird was not scheduled to teach any courses during the fall 2018 semester.
Bird was employed with the college as of Tuesday, although Lake said it was not clear what disciplinary actions, if any, would be taken against him.
A 911 call was made after several CSN employees and at least one student saw Bird stumble out of the bathroom, bleeding, before he collapsed, the report said.
None of the witnesses — who later told police they only recalled hearing “a loud noise” — initially knew that Bird was armed and had shot himself, according to the report.
One college employee told police that he held Bird’s hand to calm him down as others tried to stop the bleeding. While waiting for authorities to arrive, Bird said he had shot himself in protest of President Donald Trump, police noted in their report. The report did not elaborate.
ht/ js
________________________________     Having seen a few suicides in my life.
Here is a little bit of advice. Mind you I am not condoning this or saying that you should do this!
But the only really effective way to do this follow these simple rules
A. Be Sober as booze really effects your aim a lot!
B. Do it outside as it is a lot easier to clean up afterward. But I have to give Bonus points for leaving a Tip. That did show some class!
C. Use the right gun that you have some experience with!
D. I suggest using any caliber above size of the 44 caliber.
E. That and if possible use either hollow points or semi wad cutters. Since they seem to ricochet less and lessen the chances of taking out somebody else. As the bullet might otherwise hit somebody else by accident.
F. Place the gun under the jaw, then press up & toward the back of your throat.
G. Squeeze the trigger don’t jerk it or you might miss!
H. When you get to Hell as a Suicide. (Hey, it is a Mortal Sin in most religions!)  Don’t be a pussy because you belong here now for all eternity. So be a man and act like one!You idiot!
By the way, most of your friends and family are going to be really pissed off at you. Even if you do write the Suicide Note of all time.
Since most Folks hate Cowards & because most suicides are a cowardly acts of a very selfish & self centered jerk.
Grumpy – By the way this part is only a attempt at humor and in no way codons or encourages other to try & snuff them selves!
 

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! Cops Hard Nosed Folks Both Good & Bad

Getting Rid of the Trash!

The next time some whining liberal tells you that capital punishment doesn’t prevent murder, feel free to quote this article (once you have done kicking them in the balls, that is):

In March, two men were convicted in Newcastle Crown Court of the murder of a 29-year-old mother of two, Quyen Ngoc Nguyen. In a pre-meditated crime of unimaginable depravity, Stephen Unwin and William McFall robbed, raped and bludgeoned this 5ft-tall nail bar manager.
They dumped her — possibly still alive — in her own car, which they then set alight. They posed for ghoulish selfies at the scene.
Both men were already convicted killers, released as a result of parole board hearings.
McFall, now 51, had been freed after serving 13 years for battering to death with a hammer an 86-year-old woman whose home he had burgled.
Unwin, ten years younger, had been released after serving 14 years of a ‘life sentence’ for stabbing to death a 73-year-old retired pharmacist in the course of a burglary — on Christmas Day, 1998. Unwin had sought to cover up his tracks by setting fire to his victim’s bungalow.
There is no parole board on earth which can know if someone is truly remorseful (pictured: Nick Hardwick, former Parole Board chair) +6
There is no parole board on earth which can know if someone is truly remorseful (pictured: Nick Hardwick, former Parole Board chair)
He was released in 2012, because the parole board had believed his claim to feel ‘deep remorse’.

Yeah, he was remorseful, all right.  It bears no reminding that had these two bastards (and the others in the article) been executed, their subsequent victims would still be alive.  Prevention at its finest.
Frankly, I think that the parole boards who freed these animals should also face the needle / chair / gallows.  This was a basic precept of Hammurabic Law, and I for one regret its passing, in this respect at least.
Remember too that our Liberal Class want us to be more like Europe or Britain, and the modern-day “democratic socialists” have included the abolition of the prison system in their election manifesto.
Communistatis delenda est.
***From Splendid Isolation

Categories
All About Guns Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom

Firearms: The Great Equalizer

Written by Erich Pratt, Town Hall
 
Fifty-five years ago today, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial in our nation’s capital.
While Dr. King’s speech is well-known, what is not so widely recognized are his views on firearms.
People who visited Dr. King’s home described it as an arsenal. One journalist came to his house and later reported that while sitting down in an armchair, he almost landed right on a handgun.

Not only that, after Dr. King’s home was bombed, he applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama in 1956. But he was denied.
All of this just underscores the dangers of gun control. It turns our rights into privileges, allowing prejudiced officials to revoke the rights of decent people at will.
We see this in the Black Codes which either prevented or discouraged the ability of African-Americans to protect themselves with firearms.
This, of course, made them easy prey for the lynch mobs.
One African-American journalist, Ida Wells, documented many of the lynchings that took place in the 19th Century.
But she also noted that the only time blacks actually escaped the lynch mobs was when they “had a gun and used it in self-defense.”
Click here to see more GOA News articles like this one.
This is why the Second Amendment is so important. It not only safeguards our right to defend ourselves against thugs, it protects that right when the thugs are wearing badges.
The best-known example of this in American history is the colonists’ spirited defense against the British attempt to confiscate weapons and powder at Concord, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775.
But this was not the last time that armed civilians would use their weapons to protect themselves against corrupt officials.
In 1906, a white mob worked itself up into a frenzy and started a race riot in Georgia. Over a thousand men walked through the streets of Atlanta, indiscriminately beating black men and women, black teenagers, and black businessmen.
The scene was gruesome. The best estimates record that dozens of blacks were murdered. Hundreds were wounded.
The rioters spilled from one area of Atlanta into another, until they reached one neighborhood, known as “Darktown,” where African-Americans were armed and shot back. That’s where the riot was stopped in its tracks.
Armed blacks forced the mob to retreat and they prevented a second bloodbath.
All this happened on a Saturday night. The riots were paused because of the armed response, but then they resumed again on Monday.
Only this time, to make matters worse, state law enforcement officers went into south Atlanta and tried to disarm the blacks.
One of the preeminent historians who has covered the 1906 riots, John Dittmer, had this to say about what happened next:
[The lead officer] James Heard, was shot out of his saddle and died instantly. Three other officers … were wounded in the initial exchange before the outgunned troops fled, leaving Heard’s body behind. (John Dittmer, Black Georgia in the Progressive Era (1900-1920), p. 128).
Once again, the riot was abruptly stopped.
In his 1963 speech, Dr. King spoke of the Declaration of Independence as the great promissory note which guaranteed the unalienable rights of ALL people.
This right of self-protection is the freedom which protects all our other rights against official abuse. We’ve seen this in practice time and again.
Former Secretary of State to George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, tells the story of how her dad would take his shotgun — and with other armed African Americans in the neighborhood — would form nightly patrols to protect the town’s people from the KKK.
This was common during the difficult days of the civil rights movement. African Americans would use their firearms to protect themselves against the KKK when the Southern Democrat police departments were looking the other way.
So therein lies the rub — government agents don’t always act in the best interests of its citizens.
And that’s why there is a Second Amendment — a guarantee which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement.
Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Grumpy's hall of Shame

Know your Enemies ! (Now they have a right to their opinion, but I don't think that I am going to send them any of my hard earned cash real soon!)

Levi Strauss Forms Gun-Control Group with Bloomberg, Pushes Employees to Donate

Clothing company plans to spend millions advocating new gun-control laws

Levi Strauss CEO Chip Bergh / Getty Images

BY: 
Levi Strauss announced on Tuesday it would be creating a new gun-control group with billionaire Michael Bloomberg and donating millions of dollars to a collection of established gun-control groups.
The clothing company said it would be partnering with Everytown for Gun Safety and Michael Bloomberg to form Everytown Business Leaders for Gun Safety in a blogpost on their website.
It also said it would set up the Safer Tomorrow Fund, which Levi Strauss said would direct more than $1 million over the next four years to “fuel the work of nonprofits and youth activists who are working to end gun violence in America.”
The company went on to say it would begin doubling the amount it matches for employee donations to gun-control groups aligned with the fund and pushed employees to use their five hours a month in paid volunteer time at the gun-control groups.
Levi Strauss said while they had already requested customers not carry firearms in their store in 2016 and had supported gun-control initiatives in the past, they felt they needed to become more politically involved in the issue.
“We have a gun violence epidemic in America, and companies like ours—that operate in American communities—can no longer watch from the sidelines,” a Levi Strauss spokesperson told the Washington Free Beacon. “Although LS&Co. has taken some action to support gun-violence prevention over the last two decades, we believe there is a bigger role that business can play in affecting real change.
Through our newly established Safer Tomorrow Fund and involvement in the Everytown Business Leaders for Gun Safety coalition, we hope to catalyze others to join us and be part of stemming gun violence in this country.”
The company did not respond to questions about what specific gun-control laws it hopes to enact through its activism.
Levi Strauss announced the first grants from the Safer Tomorrow Fund would be going to three established groups that have advocated for myriad gun-control laws.
Everytown for Gun Safety, Live Free, and Giffords will be the first grant recipients under the company’s new plan. Those groups have supported expanding background checks to used-gun sales between private individuals, banning so-called assault weapons, and outlawing the possession of gun blueprints.
The company said the grant to Everytown would be used to support “a series of Youth Leadership Summits organized by volunteers from Students Demand Action.”
It said the grant to Live Free would go toward training “youth impacted by gun violence on successful gun-violence reduction strategies,” and the Levi Strauss Foundation would fund “a series of town halls in cities across the U.S. that are disproportionately impacted by gun violence.” The grant to Gifford’s will be used to “support business community engagement and education on the issue of gun-violence prevention.”
Chip Bergh, Levi Strauss president and CEO, justified the decision to become more deeply involved with the gun-control groups by saying it may be unpopular but he felt compelled to do it.
“We can’t take on every issue,” Bergh said in an op-ed. “But as business leaders with power in the public and political arenas, we simply cannot stand by silently when it comes to the issues that threaten the very fabric of the communities where we live and work. While taking a stand can be unpopular with some, doing nothing is no longer an option.”
Bergh went on to say he doesn’t “suggest we repeal the Second Amendment or to suggest that gun owners aren’t responsible,” but there are some weapons nobody should be allowed to own and that some people shouldn’t be allowed to own any weapons.
He did not elaborate on which guns he wants banned or which people should be banned from owning guns. Bergh did express support for “criminal background checks on all gun sales” as a “common-sense” step that “will save lives.”
Bergh then compared those who oppose the company’s gun-control stance to segregationists and those opposed to other moves the company has made.
“As a company, we have never been afraid to take an unpopular stand to support a greater good,” Bergh said. “We integrated our factories in the American South years before the Civil Rights Act was passed.
We offered benefits to same-sex partners in the 1990s, long before most companies did. We pulled our financial support for the Boy Scouts of America when it banned gay troop leaders.
While each one of these stands may have been controversial at the time, history proved the company right in the long run. And I’m convinced that while some will disagree with our stand to end gun violence, history will prove this position right too.”

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

maybe, maybe not but it is up to them to figure that one out!

Categories
All About Guns Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

From the NRA – In Wake of Jacksonville Shooting, “News” Outlet Recycles Article Calling for Firearm Confiscation

In Wake of Jacksonville Shooting, “News” Outlet Recycles Article Calling for Firearm Confiscation
It’s sometimes said that insanity can be defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
If that’s true, it doesn’t speak well of gun control advocates’ mental health, insofar as they repeat the same ritual after every high-profile firearm-related crime, with little or no lasting impact on public opinion or national policy.
Their standard procedure is: immediately misreport basic facts of the incident; unleash the indignation of anti gun politicians and celebrities on social media;
condemn the NRA and anyone else who offers thoughts and prayers while awaiting reliable information;
demand the same types of gun controls that failed to prevent the incident; insist that the gun debate has reached a turning point;
and abruptly stop talking about the incident when emotions cool and facts emerge that show how existing gun controls failed.
The defining tactic in this whole chain of events is to seize and define the narrative in the immediate aftermath of the event before anybody actually knows what happened.
The website Vox.com, however, took this tendency to new depths by using a double-murder/suicide that took place at a video game competition in Jacksonville, Florida, to re-run nearly word-for-word an article the outlet had published in May after a firearm-related crime in Sante Fe, Texas.
In both cases, the author used his limited propaganda window to express opinions that gun control advocates usually shun in the calm, cold light of reasoned debate.
“What America likely needs,” he wrote, “is something … like Australia’s mandatory buyback program — essentially, a gun confiscation scheme — paired with a serious ban on specific firearms (including, potentially, all semiautomatic weapons).”
Yet if it’s crazy for gun control advocates to expect different results from doing the same thing, it’s equally crazy for Second Amendment supporters to ignore what the opposition says when they believe they have the leeway to really speak their mind.
Simply put, when someone tells you he wants to take your guns, the only safe bet is to take him at his word.
This is the reality of the gun control agenda: its adherents see guns as the problem and the absence of guns as the solution. Everything they do is geared toward the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating civilian firearm ownership.
The only variable is the speed at which they’re willing to accomplish this objective. Sometimes they’re willing to do it by attrition, with an eye toward the gradual tapering off of new gun owners.
But the temptation to extol mass firearm confiscation is one many simply cannot resist when their outrage is in full bloom.
To be fair, the Vox author admitted that his plan is not viable in the short term and that “[p]art of the holdup is the Second Amendment.” He was quick to endorse whatever “milder” gun control the U.S. will tolerate in the meantime, while it works up the will “to take the action it really needs.”
But again, let’s not kid ourselves about what this “milder” gun control really accomplishes.
It’s certainly not public safety, a fact illustrated by the Jacksonville incident itself. According to media accounts, the alleged perpetrator bought the pistol he used in his crime in Maryland, which has one of the nation’s strictest gun control regimes.
He then reportedly used that pistol to commit a multiple-murder/suicide in a state known for a more lenient approach to gun control. The scene of the crime was also a gun-free zone.
And while the media is indulging in its usual obsession about what “should have” stopped him from buying gun, the alleged perpetrator cleared every “evidence-based polic[y]” the Vox author suggested might at least lead to “reduced injuries and deaths.”
This includes Maryland’s licensing and background check requirements, its expansive mental health disqualifiers for firearm ownership, and even its “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazine bans.
This was “state of the art” gun control in 2013. It was Maryland’s “solution” to “preventing” something like what happened the year before in Newtown, Connecticut.
And now that it has failed so publicly, the Maryland legislature is said to be considering – you guessed it – even more restrictive gun control.
Because, ultimately, the only thing that gun control accomplishes is conditioning the public to accept ever more gun control under the false premise that we’re somehow just a few laws short of overcoming the problem of human evil.
Come to think of it, that’s a pretty good definition of insanity, as well.

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! Grumpy's hall of Shame

David Hogg Threatens to ‘Destroy’ Smith & Wesson If It Doesn’t Donate $5M to Gun Control Research by S.H. BLANNELBERRY

David Hogg, the posterboy for the modern gun control movement. (Photo: Facebook)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
While participating in an anti-gun march in Massachusetts over the weekend, gun-control crusader David Hogg posted a hair-raising and head-turning ultimatum to Smith & Wesson.
Hogg told the popular firearms and ammunition manufacturer, headquartered in Springfield, via Twitter, that it had to fund “gun violence prevention research” to the tune of $5 million annually and cease making certain black rifles or else…
Hogg and his posse of moonbat millennials would “destroy” S&W.
“We will destroy you by using the two things you fear most,” wrote Hogg.  “Love and economics 🙂 see you soon.”

David Hogg

✔@davidhogg111

 · 

Dear, Smith and Wesson should you not choose to be morally responsible by

1. By funding gun violence prevention research with 5 million dollars annually.
&
2. Stop manufacturing guns that are illegal under the 2004 Massachusetts assault weapons ban

David Hogg

✔@davidhogg111

We will destroy you by using the two things you fear most.

Love and economics 🙂 see you soon.

Twitter Ads info and privacy

It didn’t take very long for folks on Twitter to point out the obvious flaw with Hogg’s plan.  For a boycott to be effective, the protesters must be active consumers of a company’s products.

David Hogg

✔@davidhogg111

 · 
Replying to @davidhogg111

We will destroy you by using the two things you fear most.

Love and economics 🙂 see you soon.

Amy Swearer@AmySwearer

You’re going to destroy Smith and Wesson by not buying their products, which you already don’t buy?

You really don’t know how economics or love work, do you?

Twitter Ads info and privacy

What a joke!  Hogg stands about as much of a chance of shutting down S&W as PETA does McDonald’s.

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic!

Just another hasty "We gotta do something / Feel good Politics (Poor Rhode Island Responsible Gun Owners!)

Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo with school commissioner Ken Wagner.  (Photo: Fox RI)

The ruling class in Rhode Island this week banned guns in public schools with the exception of law enforcement.
Gov. Gina Raimondo made the announcement Wednesday alongside school commissioner Ken Wagner.
“It isn’t hard: Guns don’t belong in schools. Even Mississippi bans non-law enforcement officials from carrying guns onto school grounds,” said Raimondo in a press release.
Quick fact check. Raimondo’s wrong.  Mississippi does allow individuals with enhanced concealed carry permits to bring firearms onto public school property.
“As we start a new school year, our students cannot wait a minute longer for the General Assembly to take action on the Safe Schools Act,” she continued. “The Rhode Island Department of Education has issued a binding directive to every school district that immediately bans firearms from our kids’ schools.”
In other words, instead of allowing government to function the way it’s supposed to, with lawmakers making the laws, Raimondo enacted an order by executive fiat.

Gina Raimondo

✔@GovRaimondo

Guns don’t belong in schools.

This directive comes in response to uncertainty among education leaders and members of the community, and a lack of consistent practice across district lines.

RIDeptEd@RIDeptEd

Effective immediately, until such time as the underlying laws are clarified, no one other than active law enforcement is allowed to carry a firearm on school grounds.

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Wagner backed up that play by suggesting there was some sort of confusion about the existing law.
“It’s our job to protect kids and their teachers,” said Wagner. “Inconsistencies among laws, regulations, and local policies and practices create confusion, producing the exact kind of unsafe environment the law is intended to prevent. As we start a new school year, this directive provides clarity, until such time that the underlying laws are reconciled.”
There was no confusion about the law. Concealed carriers were allowed to bring firearms into public schools. Plain and simple. Raimondo and Wagner just wanted to put a stop to that. The question is why? Because if it’s really about protecting kids and teachers then they have it all wrong. They should ban cops before they ban concealed carriers. Seriously.
Research shows that when compared to cops, concealed carriers commit fewer homicides, firearms violations, misdemeanor and felony offenses.  Concealed carries are more law-abiding than cops and are convicted at a lower rate. The question can be asked, then, who presents more of a threat to “the children”? The average cop or the average concealed carry?
Please, I’m not suggesting that law enforcement and armed student resource officers don’t belong in schools. Just pointing out that this assumption by government that all cops are White Knights has real limitations. When you break it down the truth is that Raimondo and Wagner aren’t against guns in schools, they’re just against armed citizens having guns in schools. And based on data and what we know about concealed-carry culture that position doesn’t hold water, especially if one accepts that armed resistance is the best way to foil a would-be killer.  What they need to recognize is that cops are not the only good guys with guns, they’re not the only ones willing and capable of confronting an armed attacker.
Suppose a young Rhode Island mother has a concealed carry permit because her crazy ex physically abused her and her son. When she goes to pick up her son from school, that crazy ex now knows that she is unarmed. She is vulnerable. What’s stopping him from attacking her in the parking lot?  The cop that’s way inside the building?  As they say, when seconds count…
Anyways, what’s not clear, at least at this point, is the penalty for those concealed carriers caught violating Raimondo’s order. I reached out to her office for clarification. We’ll see if she responds.

*

Categories
Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! Grumpy's hall of Shame

Get the feeling that some Folks did not like the Old Boy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops Gun Info for Rookies

Ask an Attorney: Prosecutor, Defense Attorney Discuss Controversial Florida Parking Lot Shooting by S.H. BLANNELBERRY

What follows any controversial deadly encounter caught on camera is a barrage of opinions from keyboard commandoes and wannabe legal experts claiming to know “the truth” about the circumstances surrounding the shooting, about whether the use of force was justified, about what will happen to the defendant, etc. etc. etc.
While it’s fine for average Joes to weigh in, it’s quite another when they attempt to pass off their opinions as real expertise.
In an attempt to elevate the level of discussion out here on the Interwebs, GunsAmerica reached out to two attorneys to get actual professional insight on that fatal shooting in a Florida parking lot last month that has everyone talking (see video above).
One is a defense attorney who specializes in all things 2A-related and who regularly handles firearms criminal defense cases; the other is a 2A-friendly prosecutor with tons of jury trial experience prosecuting murders and an Iraq war vet.
Both asked that we not disclose their identities because they’d rather not deal with butthurt Internet trolls messaging them at their offices.

The Q&A:

Question 1. To start, let’s forget Florida law and the specific details of the case for just a moment, and just ask a general question. Under what circumstances, if any, is one justified in using deadly force against an individual who just shoved him or her to the ground?
Seems to me that if there’s not a glaring disparity of force in play, like maybe a grown man violently shoving a fragile 90-year-old woman to the ground and seriously injuring her, then it’s hard to think of a situation when a shove warrants the use of lethal force. Your thoughts?
Defense Attorney: I agree. I think it’s really a stretch to think there’s ever a time that you could simply shoot someone for just pushing you to the ground. Usually, to justify using deadly force you need to have a reasonable belief that you are going to be seriously injured or killed.
Being pushed just doesn’t get you there. I’m not sure that a disparity of force would even get you there unless you reasonably believed the violence was going to continue and that this was your only chance to survive being killed.
If we want to get creative, we could argue that a push could be deadly if it was over a cliff, or into a speeding car, raging river, etc. Even that is different from the facts here because in those examples it’s not the push that will cause you the imminent harm, it’s the landing.
Prosecutor: Let me put it this way. Unless you are made of glass and your bones will shatter from the fall, you do NOT have the right to use deadly force from a mere shove to the ground. The jury is not going to buy that as a reasonable use of force in any state.
Question 2. Turning to the case, the available facts indicate that 47-year-old Michael Drejka shot and killed 28-year-old Markeis McGlockton in July after McGlockton shoved Drejka the ground. What prompted McGlockton to push Drejka was the fact that Drejka had confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend who had parked in a handicap space at a convenience store in Clearwater, Florida.
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri initially announced that he would not arrest Drejka because the shooting “is within the bookends of ‘stand your ground’ and within the bookends of force being justified.” He added, “I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call.”
We found out this week, however, that Pinellas County State Attorney Bernie McCabe is charging Drejka with “manslaughter.”
“I went through it all and made the legal decision that that is the charge that we could prove,” McCabe told NBC News.
There’s a lot to unpack here, but is it common for there to be such a disconnect between the way law enforcement analyzes a case and the way prosecutors analyze a case? I mean there’s a huge gap between “That shooting was lawful, so no arrest” and “Nope, that’s manslaughter,” right?
Defense Attorney: It’s actually pretty common for law enforcement to get this stuff wrong. This is complicated stuff. Remember that most of the time law enforcement aren’t lawyers, they didn’t go to law school or pass the bar. They get trained and taught by lawyers and, let’s face it, even lawyers get stuff wrong regularly.
Most people don’t know but there is a prosecutor on call in most counties all night long to answer legal questions for police officers.
In fact, if law enforcement didn’t ever make mistakes there’d be almost no need for defense attorneys. Also, the prosecutor, in this case, had time to review the video, read the police reports, study the law, and make a decision on what he feels he can prove to a jury.
The police had to decide on the scene what to do without the benefit of hindsight, and they chose not to arrest.
I’m sure the reason Drejka is being charged with manslaughter rather than murder is because there’s a defense to murder if provoked by a hit or a push called the “heat of passion” wherein you have an uncontrollable state of mind. It doesn’t usually get you off, but often will reduce a charge from murder to manslaughter.
Prosecutor: I’m finding it very hard not to criticize law enforcement on this. They should have been able to see the video immediately at the scene, and we depend on them to understand the basics.
It was patently the wrong call. “Within the bookends of stand your ground?” BZZZZ! Wrong! Stand your ground means that Drejka did not have to run away. It did not (and would not in Florida or any other state) relieve Drejka of the need to “reasonably believe[] that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself” before he shoots! Florida Code 776.012, 776.013.
That reasonable belief that deadly force is needed to save is written into every self-defense law in the nation, including Stand Your Ground states. Any presumption of innocence in this case was clearly rebutted by the video depiction of the crime. Yeah, the cops got it wrong. Embarrassing.
Question 3. Speaking of Stand Your Ground, which states in part, “A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony…” does it apply to this case?
Defense Attorney: I think that you’re looking at the wrong part of the statute. What you’re looking at are the requirements to use deadly force or to threaten someone with deadly force. We often call those the requirements for self-defense.
If you don’t meet those requirements and you use deadly force you could be charged with murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or aggravated battery. If you don’t meet those requirements and you threaten someone with deadly force you could be charged with aggravated assault, or brandishing.
Generally, “stand your ground” literally means that you don’t have a duty to retreat or run if you’re in a place that you are legally and lawfully allowed to be in. In plain English, you don’t need to run if you aren’t breaking any laws or if the conflict isn’t your fault.
It does not give you the right to use deadly force. The only the time a person can use deadly force is if that person, “reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony…”.
Imminent death would be death that is just about to happen, death on the verge of happening, death that is going to happen at any moment, etc.
Great bodily harm would be things like, loss of a limb or organ, brain damage, rape, etc.
The majority of states have Stand Your Ground laws. When you combine Stand Your Ground with the Self Defense laws it allows law-abiding citizens to protect themselves or others from people that would kill or seriously injure them and removes the requirement to run away from danger. It’s that simple.
Also, in this situation, I think you could make a case for McGlockton having the right to stand his ground and protect his girlfriend. The facts, as I understand them, are that Drejka was harassing McGlockton’s girlfriend for parking in a handicapped parking space.
Drejka is not law enforcement and has no right to be enforcing the law. There’s a possibility, depending on the level of harassment, that McGlockton was legally defending his girlfriend when he pushed Drejka.
Prosecutor: Agreed. Stand Your Ground laws meant that Drejka did not have to run away. But that doesn’t mean he could blow this guy away without any reasonable fear for his life. Leftists like to treat this case like Stand Your Ground actually allows the use of deadly force here. That is misinformation, and when misinformed conservatives agree with it, they are playing into liberal hands.
Question 4. It appears from the video that McGlockton made no further attempt to physically harm or attack Drejka. Yet, Drejka drew his gun and fired anyhow. Supposing that’s the gist of it and there’s nothing else to contradict that analysis, does that rise to the level of imminent death or great bodily harm?
Defense Attorney: I certainly think that Drejka made a huge mistake. I didn’t see any actions from McGlockton that made me think Drejka was in imminent danger of death or bodily harm. McGlockton had no weapon and his body language wasn’t aggressive after the push. It looks to me like he wanted Drejka to leave his girlfriend alone. I don’t know what was said but usually it takes more than words to create imminent danger.
I’m a huge believer in self-defense, stand your ground, and the Second Amendment. I would struggle with being Drejka’s defense attorney in this case because I think he took a life that he wasn’t justified in taking.
Prosecutor: This video just flat-out convicts Drejka. It’s just so hard to justify shooting someone as they walk away. It just makes it impossible to effectively argue that Drejka had a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm.
Question 5. Lastly, what advice would you give to concealed carriers who find themselves in a situation where they notice someone breaking the law, assuming it’s not a forcible felony?
Defense Attorney: Most of the time my advice is to call 911, be a good witness, take notes, pictures, or video and try not to get involved. If it’s a forcible felony (rape, kidnap, murder, etc.) or someone is in imminent danger of serious injury or death, then you have a harder decision to make. Proceed with caution, be skeptical, and avoid shooting your gun unless it’s absolutely necessary. If it is necessary, make sure you hit what you are aiming at. Afterward, don’t talk to the police or anyone else until you’ve consulted an attorney.
Prosecutor: For misdemeanors, don’t try to be the police – call them instead. If someone is being attacked, just remember that you have to reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm before you use deadly force. And remember you have to live with your decision long term.