Tag Archives: Deadly force

This Really Shouldn’t Be A Surprise To Anyone

Posted on by

Yesterday The Epoch Times posted an article about some recent changes in arrangements for the Democrat National Convention.

The article reports:

At least 100 police agencies are pulling out of agreements to send personnel to next month’s Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Milwaukee, partly over concerns that officers will be unable to use tear gas to control crowds under a recent directive.

The law enforcement agencies in Wisconsin and across the country who are set to withdraw from the security agreements had previously said they will send officers to bolster security at the DNC, which will run from Aug. 17-20 at the Wisconsin Center in downtown Milwaukee.

The move follows an order from the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission last week, which directed Chief Alfonso Morales to revise the police department procedures—including prohibiting the use of tear gas and pepper spray. The order threatens Morales’s termination if he fails to comply “fully and promptly.”

The article notes:

Fond du Lac Police Chief William Lamb, who chairs the Wisconsin Police Executive Group, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he expects other Wisconsin police agencies to withdraw from the security agreements.

“We respect the Fire and Police Commission’s decision. But in this particular case, we strongly disagree with the actions they’ve taken,” Lamb said.

He said he was concerned that the safety of the public and police officers could be compromised.

“We believe in removing those tools, the use of chemical irritants or pepper spray, from the available resources that the law enforcement officers would have at their disposal if protests become non-peaceful would severely compromise the safety of the public and also the safety of the law enforcement officers who would be assigned to protect the DNC,” he added.

As I have stated before–protesting is legal–rioting is not. Watching the videos of the ‘protests’ that are happening in some of our major cities leaves little doubt that these ‘protests’ are riots. It is amazing to me that the police have used the self-restraint they have. The police have been attacked by bottles, bricks, firecrackers, and worse. What in the world is to be gained by taking away the non-violent weapons they have to defend themselves? Is this move going to result in the police finding it necessary to use deadly force? That would only make things worse. It’s time to remove those in power in the cities that are supporting rioters and attempting to limit the ability of the police to protect themselves and innocent citizens.

Losing Our Constitutional Rights

Posted on by

Fox News posted an article today about the Missouri couple seen defending their home from rioters on June 28th.. Although Missouri’s Castle Doctrine allows you to use deadly force to defend property, authorities acquired a warrant to search the McCloskey’s home and seized the rifle that Mark McCloskey was shown holding during the June 28 incident.

The article reports:

There was no immediate indication the McCloskeys were arrested or charged with a crime. The warrant applied only to a search for the guns, KSDK reported.

On Monday, the McCloskeys appeared on Fox News’ “Hannity” and disclosed that protesters had returned to their neighborhood July 3 – but the couple was alerted in advance and hired a private security company to protect their residence.

…In the June incident, Patricia McCloskey said, the couple was startled just before dinnertime when “300 to 500 people” entered the gated community where they live.

“[They said] that they were going to kill us,” Patricia McCloskey told Hannity on Monday night. “They were going to come in there. They were going to burn down the house. They were going to be living in our house after I was dead, and they were pointing to different rooms and said, ‘That’s going to be my bedroom and that’s going to be the living room and I’m going to be taking a shower in that room’.””

The article notes:

The couple’s attorney at the time, Albert Watkins, said in a statement that the couple did not arm themselves until after they began feeling threatened.

“My clients didn’t sit on their front stoop with guns. … No firearms were on them at the time that they, were, as property owners standing in front of their home,” Watkins said at the time. “It was not until they basically were in a position of seeing and observing violence, recklessness, lawbreaking, and knowing that the police were not going to be doing anything.”

Were they supposed to just sit there and be attacked? The police were not in sight. Until the police deal with people who are not protesting peacefully but looting and rioting, Americans need to be armed to defend themselves. There was absolutely no reason to take the rifle away. Since the house has been targeted more than once by rioters, how are the McCloskeys supposed to defend themselves? Thank God they were able to hire a security group to protect their home and themselves. The seizing of the rifle not only violates their Second Amendment rights, it puts them in danger. They are lawyers, and I would love to see them sue the person responsible for the search warrant and the seizing of the rifle.

The Voice Of Common Sense (Which Probably Will Not Be Heard)

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Wire posted an article about the investigation into the shooting of Rayshard Brooks.

The article reports:

“Atlanta PD detective (Al Hogan) assigned to the [Rayshard Brooks] investigation says he would have charged Brooks — not Rolfe — with 10 counts, including multiple felonies,” posted Philip Holloway, a legal analyst for WSB Radio (post below). Captioning a screenshot of Hogan’s letter, Holloway noted: “Usually law enforcement are witnesses for the state but this is from a defense filing.” 

This is a list of seven things that Detective Hogan would have charged Brooks with:

  1. DUI/DUI Less Safe, a violation of OCGA 40-6-391 
  2. Felony Obstruction, Two counts, a violation of OCGA 16-10-24
  3. Aggravated Assault against a Police Officer, Two Counts, a violation of OCGA 16-5-21
  4. Battery against a Police Officer, Two counts, a violation of OCGA 16-5-23.1
  5. Theft by Taking, a violation of OCGA 16-8-2
  6. Removal of Weapon from a Public Official, a violation of 16-10-33
  7. Robbery, a violation of OCGA 16-8-40.1

The article continues:

As reported by AJC, attorneys for the former officer, Noah Pines and Bill Thomas, have filed a motion seeking reasonable bond for their client. Pines and Thomas maintain in the motion that if Rolfe had reason to believe Brooks committed a crime involving the “infliction” or “threatened infliction” of “serious physical harm,” he was justified in using deadly force.

“In his struggle to evade arrest and revocation 0f his probation, Mr. Brooks concussed Officer Brosnan, stole his Taser, shot him with the Taser, fled with the Taser and then pointed and fired the Taser at Officer Rolfe,” the motion states.

When you attack a police officer, bad things happen to you. I don’t care what color you are. The fact that the police officer has been charged rather than the criminal in this case illustrates how off base mob rule can be. This is one of many examples of why America is a representative republic and not a democracy. A democracy results in mob rule. Mob rule would convict the police officer, despite the evidence. Hopefully, cooler heads will eventually prevail.

Smart Gun Laws And Dumb Criminals

Posted on by

On Thursday, the U. K. Daily Mail posted a story about an armed house invasion in Texas that did not go the way the robbers had planned. Three armed men broke into a home and attacked the man who lived there, pushing him into a closet. What they didn’t know is that they pushed him into the closet where he stores his gun. The man they locked in the closet shares the home with his parents. After waiting a while, he took his gun and went downstairs, assuming the robbers had gone. Unfortunately (for the robber), one of the criminals was still in the house. The robber was shot in the shoulder and the leg. There have been other recent robberies in the neighborhood. This incident might cause the robbers to think twice.

The article reports:

Craig Gaddis, who told the paper that he owns several handguns, said he and his neighbors are certain that the home invasions are related.

‘What happened today is exactly what guns are supposed to do – to protect your home and defend your life and your family,’ Gaddis said.

Police say the homeowner who shot the burglary suspect will not be face charges.

Texas has a self-defense law based on the ‘castle doctrine.’ The legislation has a ‘stand your ground’ clause, meaning the person using physical or deadly force against an attacker does not have a duty to retreat.

This story illustrates one of many reasons law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Children Are Throwing Tantrums Again

Posted on by

The Des Moines Register posted an article today about the Iowa House Democrats who have left the Capitol to protest two gun bills the Republicans are bringing up. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has accused the Republicans of not giving enough notice so that Democrats could amend the bills.

I’m not even going to go into the details of this–I just want to show you the two bills as reported in the article:

House Joint Resolution 2009: Iowa Right to Keep and Bear Arms State Constitutional Amendment

This resolution would begin a process to amend Iowa’s constitution to include a “right to keep and bear arms.” The proposed amendment echoes the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, saying “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

To pass, the resolution must be approved by both the House and the Senate in two consecutive general assemblies before voters would weigh in on the issue.  It means that the earliest a vote could occur would be 2013, should the legislature act this year and next.

House File 2215: Reasonable force/Stand your ground

The bill would rewrites the law on “reasonable force” so that a person may use force — including deadly force — against someone who they believe threatens to kill or cause serious injury, or who is committing a violent felony.  The bill specifically says that a person is presumed to be justified in using deadly force if the person reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to his or her life.

Iowa’s current law allows potential victims to use deadly force against a perceived threat only if an alternative course of action also entails “a risk to life or safety.”

The first bill does nothing except echo the Second Amendment. What is the problem? The second bill simply allows a person to defend himself. Again, what is the problem? What amendments are needed?

Somewhere along the line, we have lost the concept of having the right to defend ourselves and our property. I don’t think that violence is always the solution, but I do think we have lost the distinction between right and wrong in our victim mentality society. If someone murders someone, the murderer is often painted as a victim of some evil in society–poverty, bullying, disturbed childhood, etc. Parents are told not to spank their children and parental authority is undermined in our schools. If we are to survive as a society, we need to relearn the concept of good and evil and learn to deal with evil when it rears its ugly head!

Enhanced by Zemanta