Homeowner shoots burglar

For the last few days, I have been totally captivated by 2 Facebook pages that were opened as a direct result of a homeowner lawfully defending himself in his own home.  Here are the basic facts of the case:

Approximately 0840 hours a homeowner is in his bathroom shaving.  He believes he is home alone when he hears noises upstairs.  He looks out a window to see if a family member had returned home and sees no cars.  He grabs his pistol and confronts a black male suspect coming down the stairs with his long guns and a bag of ammo in his hands.  He fires one shot and reportedly this projectile enters at an angle that is somewhat on the backside of the suspect's head.
The homeowner hears more noises and believes there are more intruders (which later is confirmed as one other person is in the house) so he flees from his home and runs to a neighbor's.  The homeowner calls 911 and relays the information.  Quite naturally, he is upset by the circumstances, but the 911 recording released by this police department clearly notes that the homeowner said that the burglar had his rifles and he shot him.

Here's what now plays out -  A high ranking official from this small police department, makes a recorded statement to the news media that outlines the above facts.  He further states that the homeowner will NOT be charged as he was lawfully defending his property from an intruder, as is written under the Castle Doctrine.
In this particular small county, they do NOT have a medical examiner, but just a coroner.  A coroner is an elected official and not a medical doctor.  The coroner pronounces the suspect dead of a gunshot wound.  No criminal matter. Case closed.  No autopsy necessary.  (As a note, if an autopsy was to be conducted, they would have to send the body some 40 miles away to the nearest medical examiner/pathologist and it would cost the county approximately $4000. 00.)  Why bother?  The case is clear cut and obvious.

On a side note, about 10 years ago, the Attorney General for SC, Charlie Condon, declared "open season" on home invaders.  Click on his name and you'll see the press release that stirred up quite a bit of controversy when it was first announced.

In the meantime, 2 other suspects were arrested and both gave statements/confessions of the circumstances and that they were the only 3 people involved.  (One was the getaway driver) These suspects are 18-21 years of age and - surprise - all have criminal records.
The coroner finds that the nearest immediate family member, his Father, is in the Kentucky state penitentiary.  Surprise again.  The father is notified by the coroner.


Nothing here but an open and shut case, right?  You would think, but it seems some liberal moronic relatives from New Jersey come down to find facts, help the family, make arrangements, etc.  An uncle of the deceased suspect starts a Facebook page titled Justice-for-Bobby-L-Gadsden.
You would not believe the unintelligible, moronic, ignorant arguments and comments that were posted on that page.  These people think the Castle Doctrine shouldn't pertain to poor little Bobby and that it's all race related.  Whenever someone clearly and reasonably tried to ask what "justice" they were seeking, the response was usually in the form of a written tirade that made no sense.  In a nutshell, they used every argument imaginable and grasped at straws in their attempt to blame the homeowner.  They did not dispute that their poor baby, Bobby was committing a crime, they just don't think he should have been shot in the back of the head.  They speculate that he was attempting to flee. More rumors, more speculation, more bullshit.  They were demanding an autopsy and were irate that they couldn't view his body.
2 answers were provided :
1.) The coroner really thought it in the family's best interest to release the body directly to the funeral home so that the family would not be exposed to the prettiness of what a bullet to the head can produce.
2.) The coroner can't do the autopsy but would make arrangements for the body to be sent to a medical pathologist of their choosing - but not at the expense of the county.
Apparently, those answers didn't go over well.

It quickly became a white vs. black thing, insults were constantly hurled because of the ghetto language, profanity and outright lies.  Threats were made not only on the page, but people who attempted to make some civilized sense, were receiving threatening messages in their private Facebook mailboxes.  At some point, the uncle came on and did a clean sweep of his page, deleting the comments of many people who's points made some sense and who produced facts to support the law.  These same people found themselves blocked from the page altogether.
The disgusting part is that the Facebook page has over 800 "likes" on it.  Unfortunately, you have to press like to make a comment on it.  As angry as I got at the idiotic ramblings I read on that page, I refused to "like" any part of it.
Rumors swirled that the victim of this crime received death threats and he and his family feared for their safety and have supposedly gone in to seclusion.  A police car is parked out in front of their house 24/7.

Because of all that hateful garbage spewing from the mouths and fingers of the Gadsden Facebook proponents, another page was started.  The administrator of  Truth-About-Bobby-Gadsden set some ground rules;  No racism, no excessively foul language, no threats.  The page was a means of support for the victim and his family, supporting every citizen's 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

The local news media seemed to have lost interest and the uncle posted a story on ireporter CNN which didn't garner much sympathy.  With all their huff and puff, no high profile blow hard has jumped on their bandwagon. The Justice page eluded to NAACP action, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton taking up the cause.
The suspect's family can't sue the homeowner, since he is protected from such action under law.  What lawyer in his right mind would want to take up a losing case?

In fact, in the last 12 hours, it has become ominously quiet, save for a few hangers on.
However, one talk radio blogspot has been shamelessly advertising on the Justice Facebook page about tonight's topic of Bobby Gadsden: Homicide or Justified?

I myself don't plan on listening, but if nothing interests you on TV tonight, and you want to see your blood pressure rise, tune in at 8 p.m.

Where did we go wrong?

My Home is my Castle

...and yes, I can defend it to the point of using deadly force. 


In my home state, they have made it evidently clear that they will not infringe upon our 2nd amendment right.  You have no duty to retreat in your home, place of business and your occupied vehicle.  To quote that particular passage of law, "lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2) the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime. A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.


So if you break in to my house, LOOK OUT!  Burglary is considered a violent crime and a felony - I can use deadly force and I am immune from prosecution, both criminally and civilly.  Same with carjacking and breaking in to my business, robbery, or any other violent crime.

You have to admit, this law is relatively rare with only a handful of states actually having some kind of Castle Doctrine law and defense of others rule.


Recently, there has been a spate of residential burglaries and even an auto break-in on private property.  Each time, the resident used deadly force during the commission of these crimes.  Each time the local prosecutors refused to press any criminal charges against the homeowner or property owner.  Some of the suspects who were shot didn't make it.  Families of those killed were up in arms and quite shocked at the law.  You know, "they were such good boys," "they were turning their life around," "they didn't mean no harm."  Blah, blah, blah. Bullshit!  They were doing what career scumbags do.


Statistics prove that states with these kind of laws on the books, have a lower violent crime rate.  Law abiding citizens who are allowed to arm themselves tend to discourage burglaries and home invasions.


Illinois and Washington DC are prime examples of why trying to outlaw guns altogether won't work.  The violent crime rate goes through the roof.  Besides, the average scumbag can always get an illegal gun and now you've just disarmed law abiding citizens who can literally put a dent in the crime rate.  


Additionally, the US Supreme Court upheld a citizen's fundamental right to arm themselves in their own home, allowing anyone who is not prohibited from owning a firearm, ie; a convicted felon, to defend themselves against an intruder or attacker. The Supreme Court added that local police agencies have no duty to protect every citizen.  Let's be real - it can't be done.  In a 5-4 decision, the judges emphatically stated that the state and local governments cannot interfere with that right. Yet still, these states continue to violate the constitutional rights of their residents until they can actually make some sort of legislation to regulate the ownership and possession of firearms.


One of my favorite episodes of Boston Legal shows William Shatner breaking the news to an armed robber. Remember, it's how well you aim the gun!

Anonymous

• Who is "Anonymous" and what's their motive?
• Is she/he/them some caped crusader(s) on a mission for the people?
• Is "Anonymous" a righteous do-gooder taking aim at those who are morally corrupt?
• Or, is "Anonymous" a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Until the identity of "Anonymous" is revealed, we may never truly know the motivation behind their actions.  But if he/she/them were in front of me, I'd have to give them credit for at least calling a moron a moron.  Mind you, I can't condone the use of threats or intimidation as a means to right a wrong, but it seems to me that they chose their targets well.

"Anonymous" had already established a name for themselves by hacking in to the computer system of a security firm and posting thousands of documents that described plans to attack WikiLeaks, Bank of America and the US Chamber of Commerce.  The news media has affectionately categorized "Anonymous" as 'hactivists.'

Now, "Anonymous" has set their sights on something far more repugnant.  A group of people who can only be described as a boil on the butt of humanity.  Yes, I'm speaking of those sorry ass excuse for human beings known as the Westboro Baptist Church.

Not long ago, "Anonymous" sent a message to the Westboro harbingers of hate advising them to "Stop Now or Else."  In a letter to Westboro's website, with the URL of godhatesfags.com, "Anonymous" warned them that if they continued their protests, that any "damage incurred will be irreversible" and "neither your institution or congregation will ever be able to recover."  Some of the excerpts from that communique' are;

We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS - the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People - have long heard you issue your venomous statements of hatred, and we have witnessed your flagrant and absurd displays of inimitable bigotry and intolerant fanaticism. We have always regarded you and your ilk as an assembly of graceless sociopaths and maniacal chauvinists & religious zealots, however benign, who act out for the sake of attention & in the name of religion. 

Being such aggressive proponents for the Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Information as we are, we have hitherto allowed you to continue preaching your benighted gospel of hatred and your theatrical exhibitions of, not only your fascist views, but your utter lack of Christ-like attributes. You have condemned the men and women who serve, fight, and perish in the armed forces of your nation; you have prayed for and celebrated the deaths of young children, who are without fault; you have stood outside the United States National Holocaust Museum, condemning the men, women, and children who, despite their innocence, were annihilated by a tyrannical embodiment of fascism and unsubstantiated repugnance. Rather than allowing the deceased some degree of peace and respect, you instead choose to torment, harass, and assault those who grieve. 

ANONYMOUS cannot abide this behavior any longer. The time for us to be idle spectators in your inhumane treatment of fellow Man has reached its apex, and we shall now be moved to action. Thus, we give you a warning: Cease & desist your protest campaign in the year 2011, return to your homes in Kansas, & close your public Web sites. Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS: We will target your public Websites, and the propaganda & detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated; the damage incurred will be irreversible, and neither your institution nor your congregation will ever be able to fully recover. It is in your best interest to comply now, while the option to do so is still being offered, because we will not relent until you cease the conduction & promotion of all your bigoted operations & doctrines. The warning has been given. What happens from here shall be determined by you.

When and if Judgment Day ever does come for the ilk of Westboro, it can't be soon enough in my opinion.

FOLLOW UP:


Westboro Baptist Church strikes back!  Their response.

"Puddle of pimple-faced nerds" just has me rolling.


And.....another update....


"Anonymous" now says they have more pressing matters to deal with at the moment and they don't recall this lengthy message to Westboro.


This BBC  article reports that the pastor of Westboro, Fred Phelps, has been barred from entering the UK.  I wonder why.

TSA - Thievin' Security Agents

I just can't get enough of the TSA bullshit!  It's like no government bureaucrat can seem to penetrate their proverbial wall of silence. People are looking for answers and demanding sweeping changes yet once again, Mr. Pistole manages to avoid the answers or just change the answers as the mood strikes.

The flying public is meanwhile left surrendering their Constitutional rights just so they can get from points A to B in a reasonable amount of time. There is still NO answer to the often asked question - "Is the radiation at acceptable levels?" A recent TSA press release says that answer will be forthcoming in the next couple of weeks. They're just being cautious to ensure that no "sensitive data" about the scanner is released along with the safety information the public is demanding.  In other words..........
well, you fill in the blank.

Now comes this little bit of news....

A TSA supervisor at Newark's Liberty Airport was recently arrested in an undercover operation for stealing cash from passengers, and taking bribes and kickbacks from his colleagues. In a one year period, he managed to pocket almost $30,000.

Michael Arato admitted in court that he regularly took money from passengers during security screenings and deliberately targeted foreigners who could speak little to no English. This investigation was initiated last fall when the Dept. of Homeland Security received an unusually high number of complaints from foreign travelers who were missing money after having boarded their overseas flights from Newark.

(I knew there was a reason I never liked Jersey -- besides that stupid show!)


I leave you with this thought....

More TSA Bureaucrap

Once again, the TSA is refusing to release safety information on the radiation concerns from their full body image scanners.  Freedom of Information Act requests were filed months ago and still, the bureaucrats refuse to budge.
Even the TSA Agents themselves have tried to get answers, including going through the CDC in Atlanta. They ran in to more bureaucracy there.

First the TSA says that their full body image scanners are incapable of storing or transmitting images of unsuspecting passengers.  Well, a Federal courthouse in FL showed the world that the US Marshall's office made it a habit of saving over 10,000 images and then the images started showing up on the internet for the world to see.  Then they say that they only use these pictures for training purposes.  Then they said that the "save" switch was turned off so that can't happen anymore.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

"They don't call it Rapiscan for nothin'!"



Prison Planet.com  has gathered all the facts in this eloquent article.

The Anchor Baby Theory

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."  


It's a pretty clear passage in the Constitution that defines who can be a citizen.  


Last month, Rep. Steven King of Iowa introduced legislation that would exclude US born children of undocumented immigrants.  


Astonishingly, 73% of babies born to illegals were born in the US, making them eligible for costly benefits that are ordinarily granted to US citizens.


While there's nothing new about changing this regulation, the method that King is using, government legislation, is far more easier than actually ratifying a Constitutional Amendment.  There is so much weight and legal precedent that upholds the "natural born" right, that there doesn't appear to be much hope in changing it.  Rep. King's intent appears to attempt to put he US in step with most of the world, in that merely being born in a country does not automatically grant citizenship.  In fact, most nations assign citizenship to that of at least one of their parents or will require illegal immigrants be long-time residents before their children can be born citizens.


"They come here to drop a child," Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-SC) said of immigrant mothers. "It's called drop and leave."

That being said....It's quite clear that the system is broken. What will curb the illegal immigration problem?  
Maybe Arizona has the right idea, but the wrong method.  Whatever path they choose will not be popular and will no doubt lead to costly legislation.