Chief Acevedo’s gun remarks draw ire from conservative bloggers | www.statesman.com

“And that’s why it’s important for us as Americans to know our neighbors, know our families — tell somebody,” he said. “If you know somebody that is acting with a lot of hatred towards any particular group — especially if it’s somebody you know is a gun enthusiast or is armed with these type of firearms and they’re showing any kind of propensity for hatred — it doesn’t mean we’re going to take them to jail, but we might want to vet these people.”

via Chief Acevedo’s gun remarks draw ire from conservative bloggers | www.statesman.com.

I wanted to be sure I got the whole quote so no one would say I was taking this man’s words out of context. On one hand, if you know someone is actively planning an unlawful action, by all means, say something. It could be argued, that’s what the chief meant. I don’t think any of us would disagree with the idea of speaking up when you know someone is planning a mass shooting or other attack on innocent people.

But it’s the second part of Chief Art Acevedo’s statement is deeply troubling. We all want to prevent lawless violence. But Acevedo wants to “vet” anyone showing “any kind of propensity for hatred.” Somehow, I just don’t think he’s serious. Otherwise, he needs to start with the President of the United States, work his way down through the entire country. And to be fair, before he shoved his foot in his mouth with that statement, the chief did say, “To ensure that we protect the 2nd Amendment by keeping firearms in the hands where they belong; law abiding Americans of sound mind, and not in the the hands of people that want to do us harm…” But I honestly think this was just a vain attempt to avoid having his entire statement dismissed as typical anti-gun, political drivel even if that’s exactly what much of it was.

This fact is, the criminal to which the chief was referring, as the chief admits, a prohibited person. A felon. A convicted bank robber. Someone who, under current law, is barred from buying or possessing a firearm. Something tells me, the weapons used in that robbery weren’t legally purchased and likely weren’t even “straw” purchased. A background check would mean nothing in a transaction between two criminals and the fact is, people who intend to do harm will always find a way. The only response people like Chief Acevedo seem to have for these situations is finding ways to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

-GM

More and more evidence is supporting Darren Wilson in Ferguson

A forensic pathologist from San Francisco, Dr. Judy Melinek, says based on a bullet wound to Brown’s arm, Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson in the standard surrender position – with hands up and palms out – when he was shot, and Brown was falling forward or lunging when he was hit by the fatal shot to the top of his head.

via New Information Released on Michael Brown Case « CBS St. Louis.

 

The last week or so has seen new evidence and reports released that support Officer Darren Wilson’s side of the Brown shooting. While there have been some witness claiming that Brown had his hands up and was surrendering to Wilson, the evidence released in the last week refute that claim.

Initially, the New York Times published a report indicating that Brown was in fact shot initially during a struggle inside Wilson’s patrol vehicle. Brown supporters explained that away by claiming that Wilson pulled Brown into the patrol car with him. And the few who didn’t dispute that fact went on to point out that the initial report does not explain why Wilson fired at Brown again outside the vehicle.

As of yet, not one report or autopsy indicates Brown was running away when shot as initially claimed. That has since become, he was surrendering. The latest report now contradicts the claim of Brown surrendering. At the very least, it indicates his hands and arms were NOT in a position typically associated with surrender (hands above the shoulders, palms out) when the fatal round struck the top of Brown’s head.  According to the St. Louis affiliate station, “A forensic pathologist from San Francisco, Dr. Judy Melinek, says based on a bullet wound to Brown’s arm, Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson in the standard surrender position – with hands up and palms out – when he was shot, and Brown was falling forward or lunging when he was hit by the fatal shot to the top of his head.”

Of course, none of this changes anything for most Brown supporters. To them, until they see Darren Wilson stand trial for murder, there is no justice. Worse, some won’t be satisfied without a guilty verdict regardless of the facts.

-GM

It’s not a joke. A “gun free” BBQ joint in Durham, N.C. really was robbed at gun point.

“We’re offering $2,000 for the arrest and conviction of these guys,” Hatem said. “We take this very seriously. We want to make sure our guests and our staff are taken care of.”

via Restaurant employees assaulted during armed robbery | abc11.com.

 

I kept thinking this HAD to be a joke.  But, it seems a Durham, North Carolina barbeque restaurant was indeed robbed in spite of a sign on their front door stating no weapons were allowed. More specifically, “no concealed fireams” are allowed. You can see the full story here…http://abc11.com/news/restaurant-employees-assaulted-during-armed-robbery/66643/

It seems the suspects decided to enter through the back door and never saw that sign. No one was seriously injured but, at least one employee did go to the hospital and has since been released.  The irony of the fact his gun free zone did nothing to protect and may even have led to him being targeted his patrons or employee’s seems to be completely lost on the owner.

More info on theater shooting

Sheriff’s Detective Allen Proctor wrote that Reeves spoke to Oulson during the movie previews, then got up and informed management.

When Reeves returned to his seat “additional words were exchanged” and Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, the report said.

After officers read him his rights, Reeves told the detective that Oulson struck him in the face with an unknown object, and that’s when he removed a .380 caliber gun from his pants pocket. The report said Reeves fired the gun and struck Oulson once in the chest and that he “was in fear of being attacked.”

Judge Lynn Tepper said she found the evidence significant enough to warrant the no bond order.

via Details emerge on retired officer involved in theater shooting.

Our man on the beat, Jason, says he’s hearing from a reliable source that “the old man went and got the manager of the theater after the initial confrontation. Manager and old man confront texter, texter throws popcorn bucket in old mans face and becomes aggressive. Old man draws, and the gun is grabbed, possibly by the wife, possibly by the victim. Struggle over gun and gun goes bang…”

I agree with Jason’s assessment on Facebook that it seems odd that a 20+ year police veteran would shoot someone for simply throwing popcorn or “an unknown object” at him. It would seem there has to be more to the story. If there really was a struggle over the gun, that’s would go a long way toward filling in some holes. However, there’s a whole question of whether or not a gun should have been introduced into this discussion in the first place. That’s not an argument against carrying a gun. However, it is a question of whether or not producing said gun as a threat was justified.

Older retiree facing a younger, stronger, man is an argument that there is a disparity of force but, that isn’t necessarily justification for producing a firearm. Verbal threats alone are not justification for the threat of deadly force (i.e. drawing a firearm).  If you escalated things without justification and that turned into a fight over the gun, it may foul any claim of self-defense. This is a case to watch as their are obvious implications for all of us who choose to go armed.

-GM

Texting, hazardous to your health in more ways that one…

WESLEY CHAPEL (FOX 13) –

A moviegoer lost his life inside a Pasco County theater Monday afternoon after a dispute over texting with a retired police officer.

According to the sheriff’s office, the dispute happened before the 1:20 showing of ‘Lone Survivor’ had even gotten underway at the Cobb CineBistro at Grove 16 complex on Wesley Grove Blvd.

Investigators say two couples had gotten into an argument over noise.

“The victim was on his cell phone; he was texting. We believe he was making some kind of noise. This noise led to an altercation between the suspect and the victim,” Sheriff Chris Nocco explained.

via Man killed after dispute over texting in theater – FOX 13 News.

The fact this happened in Florida will again lead to liberal media bringing the “Stand Your Ground” law into the discussion even though it really has nothing to do with this incident. The shooter in this case is someone who should know/understand use of force better than most. If he can’t articulate a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of bodily harm to himself or someone else, a jury will decide his fate. For the time being, 71-year-old, Curtis Reeves, a retired Tampa police officer, has been arrested and charged with second-degree murder. Unfortunately, no matter what happens, the lives of those involved will never be the same and a child has lost her father.

-GM

FOX 13 News