Terror, Supreme Court Justices, and the Existential Threat

Image courtesy Dean Weingarten
 

The Supreme Court is the major bulwark against the destruction of the Second Amendment at the federal level. The independence of the Court is essential to protect the Second Amendment at the Court.

On The Russ Clark Show, a local radio show in Yuma Arizona,  an investment guru guest, known only as "Edward", made a prediction: The Supreme Court justices would not accept the Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit contesting the legality of the elections in four states. 

The show is local, but is regularly listened to by members of Congress (over the Internet). Congressmen and members of the Trump campaign have been regular guests.

Edward's argument was: Supreme Court Justices would not rule to enforce the Constitution, because they fear their homes would be burned. 

In plain language, he believed political terror had already supplanted the rule of law in the United States. Edward predicted two run-off elections in Georgia will result in two Democrats being elected.  

His argument: the machine in Georgia was successful in electing candidate Biden. Why wouldn't they duplicate the process for the two Senators?

Edward is not mentally challenged. He has a brilliant mind. 

He is said, by my sources, to be managing assets in the billions. He has wisely kept a low profile. His judgement has been excellent. It is how he has made his wealth, starting from middle class roots. 

I disagree with his analysis. 

If we are already in an era of political terror, where Supreme Court justices rule because they fear their houses being burned, his results do not follow.  It is non-sequiter. 

If we are already in a regime of political terror, safety is not obtained by placating the terrorists, those who would burn down your house, because you disagree with them. 

Placating terrorists has been shown, over and over, to be bad strategy.

The terrorists have marked 5 or 6 members of the Supreme Court as enemies of the people. 

Those justices are: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Barrett, and, less likely, Chief Justice John Roberts.

The first five of those justices have been subject to death threats for following the Constitution. They have been characterized by the Left as being evil people, on national television, by national leaders on the Left.

The groups who made those threats are the same groups who would credibly threaten to burn the justices' houses.

They are *not* going to be placated by candidate Biden taking power.

They will be emboldened.

The five justices named are not stupid. If they fear their houses being burned, they know the threat will not go away if they give the people making the threats more power. 

They know any assurance of safety, from the Left, is always conditional and subject to withdrawal at any time. 

When you acquiesce to extortion, you invite more extortion. When you acquiesce to physical threats, you invite greater physical threats. 

The physical power which now protects Supreme Court Justices, will be diminished if they empower the machine which threatens them. It seems unlikely, by feeding the crowd of political zombies, they will be the last eaten.

This is not conjecture. This often happens in similar historical situations. Once the Supreme Court is compromised by physical threats, the Supreme Court no longer has independence or power. 

Those making threats are ideological extremists, political zombies, convinced of the rightness of their cause, the evil of their opponents, and the justification of any means necessary.

It is what happened in the French revolution, in Bolshevik Russia, in Nazi Germany, in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Japan before WWII, many South American countries after breeches in the rule of law, and Mexico, as the rule of law is lost, and the rule of force commenced.

The difference is, at present, the Supreme Court can preserve and extend its power by enforcing the Constitution. It can make its independence and physical security greater, by supporting the organization which has supported that independence. 

The organization which has demonstrated support for the independence of the Court and support for the rule of law, is the current administration of Donald Trump. The Democrat party and the Left have been stalwart in their attempt to undercut the independence of the Supreme Court, to make it subservient to the political Left.

President Trump's administration has stood up to Antifa and BLM far more than a Joe Biden or Kamala Harris administration would desire or dare. 

It is not Republican mayors or governors who stood by and cheered on the destruction of Democrat cities. It was Democrats. 

The five justices most at risk have read Thomas Paine's famous speech. In it, he offers an existential choice: Fight or be slaves. 

His logic is famous: When will we be stronger? 

Not fighting (in this case, not upholding the Constitution) leads to diminishing strength in a Biden administration, likely with a packed court, with threats from Biden allies who he or Kamala Harris would be unwilling to oppose.

Fighting by upholding the Constitution allows the possibility of growing stronger.

There is the possibility of another appointment of an originalist justice by President Trump. 

There is a greater chance of reluctance by the Left to cancel the Constitution, when bad consequences (for the Left) result from a bold attempt to do so. (The present election scandal)

The greater threat is not justices lacking courage to stand up to a physical threat. 

It is normalcy bias in denying the existence of a threat at all.

It is the insistence by the Left/Media/Tech Oligarchs, that all is normal. If you do as we (the left) say, nothing will happen. If  you rock the boat, it will upset "normal" and rocking the boat (except in a way that advances the left) is bad.

Supreme Court justices receive death threats with some regularity. They are used to it. Under the rule of law, those threats are investigated, and sometimes, prosecuted.  

Under a regime which has shown no regard for the rule of law, only threats the administration disagrees with will be investigated.

Hillary was never prosecuted. Hillary was clearly guilty.

General Flynn was prosecuted. General Flynn was clearly innocent.

Under a Biden administration, with a neutered Supreme Court, the threat becomes multiplied a thousand-fold. 

 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

 

 

 

 

 

LA: Gunfight in Lacombe - 4 Home Invaders: 2 Killed, 2 Wounded, Child Wounded

The four year old daughter of the homeowner is expected to fully recover.

Police say four armed intruders entered the home at the end of Palmer Drive at around 10 a.m. and all four wound up being shot by the homeowner leaving two of them are dead.

The St. Tammany Coroner’s office has identified the deceased as 25-year-old Renard Causey Jr. and 21-year-old Justin Hill, of Hammond. The homeowner’s four-year-old daughter was also apparently struck in the crossfire.

A relative tells us that the homeowner may have been pistol-whipped before he fired at the intruders. Neighbors say they waited 24 hours to learn about the shooting.

More Here

TX: House Sitter in New Caney Shoots, Kills, Man who Attempted to Hammer Him

Investigators said the man heard a banging sound coming from the back of the house and when he went to see what was going on, he was confronted by an unknown suspect who was holding a hammer.

Deputies said the suspect charged at the man and that's when the man pulled out his gun and shot the suspect multiple times in the backyard of the home.

The man then called police, according to deputies.

The suspect died on scene. His identity has not been released, but deputies said he was in his 20s. 

More Here

Followup OH: No Charges for Grocery Store Employee who Shot, Killed, Armed Robber

No charges will be filed after a shooting during an attempted robbery at a grocery store in East Price Hill, Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said Wednesday.

The shooting took place around 5 p.m. on Nov. 19 at Mages Grocery Store when officers responded to a report of a robbery and shooting.

Police said a man attempted to rob the store. That's when a store employee then fired at the suspect and hit him.

The suspect was taken to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

More Here

SD: Judge Attempts to Bully Custer County Commission

Image from Custer County  SD website, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

A South Dakota 7th Circuit judge, Craig Pfeifle, has initiated a conflict with the Custer County Board. The Board created an ordinance to allow people to legally carry personal firearms in the County Courthouse, as allowed by law.  In effect, the ordinance removes the legal prohibition on people carrying firearms in the courthouse. There have not been any problems. 

The ordinance covers the courthouse, not the courtroom. Hearings in the courtroom only occur once a week. When they do, a deputy and metal detector are used to secure the courtroom. The Custer County Courthouse includes a museum type art display open to the public.

The Judge did not like the idea, so he proposes to refuse to serve at the Custer County Courthouse as long as the County Board allows people to carry in the Courthouse.  Judge Pfeifle has submitted his order to be reviewed by the Chief Justice of the South Dakota Supreme Court in January of 2021. 

The trials across the 7th District are already on hold due to COVID-19 restrictions. From rapidcityjournal.com:

The presiding judge of the 7th Judicial Circuit has written a proposed order saying judges won't appear in Custer County court and trials will take place in Rapid City after the Custer County Commission passed an ordinance allowing guns inside the courthouse. 

"Due to the action by the Custer County Commission in adopting ordinance 2020-18, which allows for firearms to be carried in the courthouse, the Custer County Courthouse is currently unsuitable and insufficient due to safety concerns," Judge Craig Pfeifle wrote in his proposed order.

The commission adopted the ordinance after meeting with Pfeifle and Judge Matt Brown who expressed their opposition and warnings from the Custer County state's attorney that allowing guns in the courthouse is a safety risk, legal liability and financial burden.

When I arrived in Yuma, Arizona, 30 years ago, there were no restrictions on carrying in the Yuma County Courthouse.  There may have been restrictions on carrying in court rooms at times, but I did not see them. 

I often legally carried in the courthouse as I had business to conduct there. The courthouse contained the clerk of courts, the tax assessor, and the county recorder. As with many courthouses, actual trials and hearings in courtrooms are a small amount of the business done inside.

After the double murder of law officers by rogue Yuma County Deputy Jack Hudson in 1995, a local Yuma judge used the trial to change all of that. He ordered that no one would be allowed in the Courthouse without being disarmed for the Hudson trial. The gun ban was never removed. When the new courthouse was built, it was designed to have electronic screening to ensure only those favored by the Judge would be allowed to be armed.  The prohibition for an entire courthouse is stretching Arizona law.

Several states do not have restrictions or have passed reform legislation to remove restrictions on the carry of guns in courthouses (as opposed to courtrooms), most of which were imposed during the Progressive era. The states include Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.

The conflict over allowing guns in courthouses (not courtrooms) is both a philosophical and a political conflict based on the separation of powers built into the structure of the United States. 

Judge Pfeifle's argument is the same as those who want a disarmed population: Guns are bad in the hands of ordinary people. It is summed up in Judge Pfeifle's statement from a previous article: 

“I don’t think you should expand any access to weapons in the courthouse,” Judge Pfeifle said. “I think when you bring them in with employees and others you will create bigger risks than it will solve.”

Second Amendment supporters argue the opposite: Guns are good in the hands of ordinary people. The argument is strictly about ordinary people, because police officers and judges are already able to carry guns in courthouses. People who have been shown to be dangerous to the public (violent felons) will continue to be banned.

Long experience shows the judge is wrong. The courthouse in Custer county has only had a sign or an ordinance preventing people from carrying there for the last several decades, and they have not had any significant problems. That is the case for the vast majority of courthouses in the United States.

The separation of powers conflict occurs because the judge is trying to social engineer outside his jurisdiction. 

He is threatening to go on strike. He will not do his job, until the management conforms to his demands. 

There are two proper responses to this extortion. 

1. Fire the judge through the next election process, for not doing his job.

2. Impeach the judge in the legislature for not doing his job. 

Both of those responses assume the judge actually follows through on his threat. It may not happen.

Judges that demand dictatorial control over entire courthouses instead of in the courtroom, even when the court is not in session, and they are not present, have overstepped their authority.  They have shown a personal predilection against the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It would be wise to remove them from their position of authority. 

 

 ©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

AR: Robber Killed when Third Victim was Armed, Shot Back

Dispatchers received that call just after 8 p.m. about an attempted robbery at the Jacksonville Stop and Shop. Two hours later, police said the suspect attempted to rob another victim outside her home.

Investigators said the suspect’s third robbery attempt turned fatal when the man’s intended victim shot the suspect in self-defense after the suspect shot at them.

The identity of the suspect is unknown at this time, but was described as a Black man, 19 to 24 years of age, wearing a black shirt, black jacket and red sweatpants with brown Ugg boots.

More Here

OK: Father Holds Intruder at Gunpoint, for Police

“I said, ‘Who are you?’ He stood and looked at me and I yelled, like bloody murder yelled,” Morton said.

Her husband heard her cries from the other room.

“So, I ran to the closet, grabbed a gun,” Tim Morton said. “I had him at gunpoint. He immediately dropped to the floor, laid down. Then he jumps back and walks toward me, screaming, ‘Shoot me! Shoot me!’”

More Here

IN: Homeowner Shoots Male Intruder

Indiana State Police were contacted and during the course of the investigation, it was determined there was a physical altercation between the homeowner and a male subject who gained entry into the home. The homeowner discharged his firearm striking the male, who then drove himself to the fire station.

Medical aid was provided by members of the fire department and area law enforcement. The male was eventually airlifted to an Indianapolis area hospital for treatment of a gunshot wound and is listed in critical condition, police said.

More Here

TX: Woman Shoots Man Attempting to Burglarize her Car

A woman parked at an apartment complex in the 10900 block of Gulf Freeway around 12:30 a.m. After she parked, the woman noticed a man trying to break into her car.  The woman went inside and grabbed a gun before going outside to confront the burglar.

During the confrontation, the woman shot him in the leg. The burglar was taken to the hospital and is expected to survive. He faces a burglary of a motor vehicle charge

More Here

MI: Home Invasion results in Gunfight, No one Hit

Police said in their report the home invasion and multiple 911 calls about shots fired at the Diamond Forest Apartments happened at about 11:30 p.m.

Three men apparently broke into one of the apartments at the Halsted Road complex between Nine Mile and M-5 and stole several firearms.

They were confronted by residents who then fired several shots at the fleeing suspects.

More Here

IL: Gunfight Chicago, Victim is Wounded, Armed Samaritan Kills Robbery Suspect

The 28-year-old victim of the attempted robbery told police the assailant approached him and announced a robbery about 4:30 a.m. in the 1200 block of West Fry Street just east of the Kennedy Expressway, police said in a news notification. The robber then shot the victim in the leg.

The victim managed to run away after being wounded but told police he heard multiple gunshots fired as he fled, police said. Police officers found the suspected gunman suffering from numerous gunshot wounds to the body. He was taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital where he was pronounced dead, authorities said.

More Here

FL: Man Shoots Pit Bull that Attacked his Dog

HERNANDO CO, FL –  A man was out walking his dog when his dog was attacked by a pit bull. When the pit bull would not let go of his dog the man shot the attacking dog. The pit bull was later euthanized at an emergency clinic. The victim, who is a concealed weapon permit holder, was not injured.  At this point no charges have been filed and an investigation is ongoing.

More Here

TX: Domestic Defense? 59-Year-Old Woman Shoots, Kills 59-Year-Old Intruder

Donald Lewis, 57, was found dead at a home in the 8700 block of Oak Hills Drive at about 6:21 p.m. Thursday, Temple Police Department spokeswoman Alejandra Arreguin said.

“Upon arrival, officers were advised that a male had broke into a house and assaulted a female inside the residence,” Arreguin said. “During the assault the 59-year-old female shot the intruder and then fled the residence to wait on officers to arrive.”

More Here

The Deep State, Media, Supreme Court, Second Amendment and 2020 Election

 

Donald Trump's election as President in November of 2016 has been the most effective part of the ongoing revolt of the electorate against the Left/Media/Deep State political machine flunkies, technocrats, liars and cheats. 

One of the great accomplishments of the four years of President Trump's first term, has been to rip the mask off the Media, the tech giants, the deep state, and the Left, to show how they all work together to control the population through the control of information.

They have ruled the United States, with minor interruptions, for at least 50 years.  Their control is greatest in the crowded urban centers, many of which have been under the dominion of corrupt Democrat machines for 100 years and more.

In the urban centers they have the most control over the "narrative", over what people hear and read and see. It is there they have the greatest ability to falsify elections and cheat to insure their election and re-election.  It is there they have the most control over who has a job, can run a business, or can be harassed with multiple violations of everything from parking to lawn mowing to standing, walking, driving, voting, working, building, and eating.

For the first time in 80 years, the Supreme Court has an originalist/textualist majority on the court. It should be a 6-3 majority, but Chief Justice John Roberts has been shown to lack courage and/or conviction.

The five justices who have shown courage and strong originalist tendencies are: 

Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and, Justice Barrett.  All of them have shown an inclination to treat the Second Amendment seriously. 

As the relatively bloodless revolt against the Left/Media/Corporatist/Deep State has progressed, the desperation of the totalitarian technocrats to control who was allowed on the Supreme Court intensified.

Many will remember the malignant mendacity employed by Senator Biden in his attempted high tech lynching of Justice Thomas during the confirmation process. I doubt Justice Thomas has forgotten. 

The fight over Justice Alito was not quite as virulent, because the Republicans had a significant majority in the Senate in 2006. Still, it was nasty. It foreshadowed future appointment fights. The bitter, fraudulent, and unjust opposition to Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett has been recent, obvious, and evil.

In those nomination battles, the Left/Media/Corporatist/Deep State demonstrated their prowess as unprincipled, unmitigated liars, whose only concern was to maintain power at all costs. They showed themselves to be "will to power" monsters.

They demonstrated they had no morals or ethics or principles. They demonstrated they despised the Constitution. They demonstrated they hate limits on government power.

Senator Schumer of New York, who could become the Senate Majority Leader, issued a direct threat to Supreme Court Justices Alito and Gorsuch on 4 March.  A previous, slightly more subtle threat, was made when the court faced a serious possibility of upholding the Second Amendment, in August of 2019. 

Numerous Democrats have threatened to pack the Supreme Court if they control the House, the Presidency, and the Senate in 2021, including not so subtle threats by Senator Schumer. 

Those threats directly menace the stability and power of the Supreme Court. 

Many historians argue President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) succeeded in "getting his way" by threatening the Supreme Court with packing the Court in 1937.

There were major differences in 1937. FDR made the threat after he was elected to his second term and was seated in the White House.

FDR had an enormous majority in the House and the Senate. In 1937 there were 74 Democrat Senators. There were 333 Democrat members of the House, 5 Farmer/Labor, and 7 Wisconsin Progressive, compared to 89 Republicans.  Roosevelt had nearly 80% of the House as allies.

Things are different in 2020. 

The court is not without power of its own. 

Former Vice President Biden is not President. 

The House and Senate are very close to being evenly split. The Democrats will hold a slight edge in the House, the Republicans will either be tied or hold a slight edge in the Senate, depending on the run off elections in Georgia.

Why would originalists and textualists on the Supreme Court use their power to place their sworn enemies, who have publicly shown complete disdain for truth, for the Constitution, and for the Supreme Court, in a position to destroy the Supreme Court as an institution? 

Why would they sanction the blatant cheating, lying, and manipulation of the Left?

They might do so if they were convinced their principles required them to do so. 

They might not, if they were shown a path to uphold the Constitution while keeping their sworn enemies from power. 

It is a primary purpose of separation of powers, for one branch of the government to check the power of the other branches by jealously guarding their own.

The Progressive/Leftist/Corporate/Deep state hate the separation of powers in the Constitution.  

Chief Justice John Roberts was confirmed 78-22, with minimal opposition, in 2005. Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomeyer  were all confirmed with comfortable margins of support by the Orwellian totalitarians.

For most of the previous 80 years, the Supreme Court has been dominated by ideological Progressives. 

Since November of 2016, four years ago, the naked partisanship, power-lust, disdain for the Constitution and the rule of law has been paraded before the nation as the  Left/Media/Corporatist/Deep State megalomaniacs have diligently worked to overturn the 2016 election.

It appears the 2020 presidential election will be presented before the Supreme Court, on direct Constitutional grounds. A major question is:

May state governments violate the Constitution to change election rules just before an election, without any vote by the state legislatures? 

The issue reached the Supreme Court in 2020, in regards to Pennsylvania. 

The Court was tied: 4-4 with Roberts voting with the Progressives, after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had died, before Amy Comey Barrett had been seated.

Chief Justice Roberts is said to have a deep, personal dislike of President Trump.

President Donald Trump presents an existential threat to the Left/Media/Corporatist/Deep State liars and cheats. They have pulled out all stops to get rid of him.

They have demonstrated their hatred for any justice on the Supreme Court who opposes their tyranny. 

The megalomaniacs (including the digital tech giants)  are using the big lie technique to attempt to push candidate Joe Biden over the top and into the White House. The tech giants have publicly shown their open disdain for fairness and freedom of speech, in the Senate.

Five of the Supreme Court justices have had the Orwellian techniques used on them, directly, not long ago. 

The progressive Left, with their Media and tech allies, worked hard to prevent the confirmation of those five Supreme Court Justices, with the propaganda power of the totalitarian left.

Those five justices owe the Orwellian megalomaniacs nothing.

President Trump has shown he can defeat the totalitarian megalomaniacs and free the nation from their tyranny. 

The Supreme Court justices would be foolish to avoid their Constitutional duty.

They would be foolish to place the Biden administration in power, for fear of what the Biden administration might do to them.

The Supreme Court justices were given power for a purpose, to uphold the Constitution. 

Without the Constitution, they have no legitimacy. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

Phoenix will Pay $3 Million to Settle Ryan Whitaker Police Shooting Lawsuit

Image from Youtube video, scaled and cropped,  arrow and text below arrow added by Dean Weingarten.

The Phoenix City Council has voted to pay $3 Million to settle the Ryan Whitaker police shooting lawsuit.

On 21 May, 2020, Phoenix police answered an ambivalent noise complaint which was mischaracterized as a domestic disturbance. It was about 10:53 p.m. The complainant was desperate to get some sleep. From the 9:11 call, in the 13 August AmmoLand article: 

Complainant:

Yeah, and its getting really loud and they been doing it for the last hour. I gotta get it to work tomorrow, and I can't get no sleep. 

These guys have been noisy constantly… Every time I come back, these guys are noisier than hell.  Always fighting. 

Dispatcher:

Okay does it sound like it's escalated to anything physical or still just sound verbal?

Complainant:

Oh. It could be physical, I..I could say yeah if that makes anybody hurry up on, get over here any faster.

Dispatcher:

Anything to indicate it might be physical?

Complainant:

I hear slamming of doors and… I don't know. Somebody could be gettin' thrown into a door for all I know. But I hear all kinds of banging.

The police go to the apartment. Officers take up positions on each side of the door, well separated. One officer knocks on the door, and announces “Phoenix police”, in a slightly elevated voice.

Ryan Whitaker answered the door, with a pistol held in his hand down at his side. He did so because of previous suspicious activity.  It is a prudent thing to do. It would have been more prudent to determine who was outside, before opening the door. The police had moved to the side of the door, which made them difficult to detect through the peephole.

He was unaware the knock was from police. The Phoenix City Councilman admitted Ryan did not do anything wrong or illegal. 

Ryan immediately complied with police instructions, crouching down and putting down the pistol. One of the police shot him in the back and killed him as he was complying.  It happened very quickly.

Here is the bodycam video  

Ryan's girlfriend immediately asked the officers: Why did you shoot him!

The Phoenix City Coucil voted to settle the lawsuit.  From azfamily.com:

The City of Phoenix city council unanimously passed a settlement connected to a deadly officer-involved shooting in Ahwatukee.

In a 9-0 vote on Wednesday afternoon, a $3,000,000 settlement was approved to go to the family of Ryan Whitaker.

Ryan might have lived if the police had immediately called for medical assistance, according to Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio. From Reason.com:

In voting to approve the $3 million settlement, Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio zeroed in on what came next: "We don't know if he would have lived or not," he said, according to the local Fox affiliate, "but the fact of the matter is it showed a strong callousness from those individuals that were there to not immediately call for [medical] help." The outfit describes DiCiccio as "usually vocal on his support of law enforcement."

Police apologists have claimed it is proper police policy to shoot any person who shows up at their door, armed, even before the victim has time to comply with commands.  The slightest indication the police made some attempt to announce themselves is considered sufficient to show the victim knew the police were there.

That is not the actual state of the law or of most police policy or training.

In the original story at AmmoLand, a retired firearms and tactics trainer told the author the City of Phoenix would be paying a lot of money, because the police officer fired too quickly.  From the article:

I did not tell him any conclusions I had. First, he watched the body camera video from the officer who did not shoot. His conclusion was the video was inconclusive, because we could not see Ryan's right hand after he stepped back.

Then he watched the video from the body camera of the officer who shot.

He said: “He shot too soon. The Phoenix PD is going to be paying out a lot of money. ”

The retired firearms and tactics trainer was prophetic. 

A commenter on the AmmoLand article claimed to be a retired police officer who completed a great deal of training and conducted "some training" from the Phoenix area. He claimed the police were completely justified, that the response was "textbook". From Gerry:

I spent over 30 years as a police officer, as if that’s anyone’s business. I’ve been to all the training. I conducted some of the training, for that matter, as an FTO. What these cops did was textbook.

If what the officers did "was textbook" in the Phoenix P.D., it points toward the origin of the problem. It is not "textbook" in most police departments around the country. 

The investigation continues. No charges have been filed against either police officer at this time.

Police have a difficult job. In a nation of 330 million people, mistakes are bound to occur. Large numbers of police interactions, about 50-100 million a year, mean extraordinary events are certain to occur, because of the nature of reality. 

If there were no unpredicted events, there could not be free will. We would all be automatons. Only God is free from mistakes.

No one is perfect. Trust in the police makes all the difference between a civilized society and a police state.

Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

 

 

 

PA: Security Supervisor Shoots, Kills Man who Attempted Robbery

A man was shot and killed in a botched robbery in a parking lot outside an East Germantown pharmacy Saturday, according to police.

Philadelphia Police say before 1 p.m., a 59-year-old man was outside the CVS on the 6300 block of Stenton Avenue when a 20-year-old man approached and tried to rob him of his items and car.

As the men struggled, the 59-year-old yelled for help. A security company supervisor came to his aid and pulled out a gun. The security supervisor fired multiple shots, hitting the 20-year-old three times.

More Here

MO: Gunfight in Boost Mobile Store, Employee Shoots Armed Robbery Suspect

MAPLEWOOD, Mo. (KMOV.com) -- An employee shot a man trying to rob a Maplewood business Wednesday evening. 

Officials with the Maplewood Police Department said a young man entered Boost Mobile store at 7222 Manchester Rd. after 6 p.m. with a gun and said he was going to rob the store. This is near Schlafly Bottleworks.

More Here

Houston Lawsuit Claims Gun Signage Requirements Violate First Amendment Rights

 Image courtesy Dean Weingarten

Evrerytownlaw, the Bloomberg financed anti-right to arms group, is involved in a convoluted lawsuit filed in Houston, Texas. 

Texas statutes prescribe signs to be posted on businesses if the presence of a person who is armed, in the business, is presumed to be trespassing. This is not unusual. The regulation of signs to give effective notice, especially in licensed businesses, is common.  Posting of business licenses, for example, is often required. 

The lawsuit contends this is a First Amendment issue. Their logic is, the owners might post a different sign which would serve the same purpose; but if they post a different sign to the same purpose, it would not meet the legal requirements of notice, therefore, it violates their First Amendment Rights.

Meeting a legal requirement is not a First Amendment guarantee. Here is the relevant statute. From Texas statutes at capitol.texas.gov:

(c) In this section:

(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).

(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:

(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

The First Amendment does not guarantee your speech will be legally sufficient for a particular purpose. It guarantees the government will not prevent you from making the speech.  Here is the First Amendment argument, from the lawsuit:

The First Amendment safeguards the right to express differing viewpoints. “[N]o official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). But Texas has ignored the First Amendment and enacted legislation that singles out a group with which it disagrees—those who prefer to keep guns off of their property—and selectively burdens their speech. Specifically, Texas property owners who espouse this viewpoint must post multiple large, text-heavy signs containing language specified by the State in order to exercise the longest established and most fundamental of their property rights: the right to exclude. If these property owners use other means of indicating that firearms are not welcome on the premises—even if entirely reasonable and understandable—they cannot avail themselves of Texas’s criminal trespass laws. By contrast, property owners who wish to exclude others for any other reason at all do not face these same burdens. This viewpoint-based discrimination was entirely intentional; the Texas state land commissioner who drafted these requirements admits that he “intentionally made the sign’s language cumbersome” to discourage businesses from prohibiting entry to customers carrying guns.1

The owners of businesses are not prevented from posting any and all kinds of signs banning the carry of firearms which they wish. They are told how to meet the legal requirements of written notice, and what the dimensions of legal signage will be. They are given other methods as well. They can hand out written notice, or they can give verbal notice. 

Trespass is seldom prosecuted in retail businesses, unless verbal notice is given in such a way as to be provable. Usually this means video proof or, more often, the management calls the police, who then observe the notice being given, or give the notice themselves. 

Texas law, with the described signage, makes it easier to prosecute concealed carriers who violate the law, because it specifically says the sign is acceptable written communication.

A common problem in trespass allegations, is proving that written communication was achieved. 

The First Amendment argument in the lawsuit is based on property rights. 

The lawsuit claims the right to exclude others is a primary property right. They are correct. But the right to exclude others does not extend to presuming they see or understand every little written notice, no matter how small or hidden, somewhere near the entrance of a retail establishment. 

To give an example: If a store places a sign, near the bottom of a front window, in 1/8th inch letters, stating "entering premises incurs a $100 surcharge", no court in the land will uphold the signage as a legal and binding contract. 

A retail store is an open invitation to enter, by its nature. In order to retract or restrict entry, it must show there was actual retraction of the implied invitation.

The Texas 30.06 and 30.07 statues provide an objective way to retract the invitation.

They do not restrict the First Amendment rights of store owners. They assist the store owners by legally describing several ways of communication which the courts will accept. 

By posting smaller signage, which is less clear, or in only one language, a trap could be created for those who are exercising their Second Amendment rights. 

A small ideogram is insufficient, as it means many things in different places. 

Common experience shows retail establishments do not actually wish to turn away customers. They may wish to have a legal "fall back" position in our litigious society. 

If someone is harmed in their store, they may wish to point to an ideogram in a lower corner of a window and claim the carrier of a legal weapon had no right to be there.  They ignore the potential of legal carriers to stop or deter crime.

Those opposed to an armed population have pushed the narrative that carrying arms creates more problems than it solves. There is no persuasive evidence of this. 

Legal carriers  are far more law abiding than the rest of the population.  More legal carriers are generally associated with a decrease in crime, although the correlation is not large.

Retail stores in Texas has been given clear ways in which to communicate to customers their desire to be defenseless victim zones. 

That is not a violation of the First Amendment. 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

 

IL: Convenience Store Employee Shoots, Wounds 2 Armed Robbery Suspects

An employee held at gunpoint during an armed robbery attempt in Round Lake Beach shot two suspects before they fled the scene in a waiting vehicle, prompting a search for the driver and a passenger who managed to escape from police, authorities said.

The shooting happened around 10:45 p.m. Monday in the 1000 block of Fairfield Road, according to the Round Lake Beach Police Department.

There, authorities say a man and a woman ordered employees of a business behind the counter and held them at gunpoint.

"At one point during the incident, one of the employees was able to access a firearm and shot several rounds at the suspects, striking both suspects," police said in a release.

The man and woman fled the store and got into a waiting vehicle, which then drove down a dead-end street. The driver and a front passenger ran away, leaving the injured pair behind, police said.

More Here

WA: Yakima Prosecutor Investigaing Shooting by Burglary Victims

Yakima County Prosecuting Attorney Joe Brusic is looking into the recent shooting of a fleeing burglary suspect.

The 24-year-old male suspect suffered a gunshot wound to the back of his head after allegedly burglarizing a warehouse early Tuesday morning in the 12000 block of Occidental Road in West Valley.

The suspect told Yakima County Sheriff’s deputies that property owners shot at him as he drove around them, with one round striking him in the back of his head and others striking the window and tires, according to a probable cause affidavit by deputies.

More Here