Alabama Municipal Judge Carlton Teel is packing more than legal principles under his robe. When a defendant Brian (Bryant) Keith Ford reacted badly to a sentence and started swinging his crutches at the judge, Teel whipped out a gun and then a deputy shot Ford in the side.
Accounts differ on how much danger the man posed — with some witnesses saying that he was not attacking the judge when he was shot. Others say he tried to grab the gun.
Ford was in the courtroom on a harassment charge from a neighbor who said Ford had cursed at her in December after accusing her of talking about him to police.
Teel reportedly fined him $800 — a rather modest sum when one considers he now faces serious criminal charges and remains in critical condition.
The most disturbing account was:
Sara Williams said she was sitting in the front row when the man, whom she knew, got agitated after the judge fined him $800. He waved one of his crutches in the air.
“The police were hollering for him to get down” when an officer opened fire, she said.
Williams said she yelled “Don’t shoot him no more!” right before the officer fired again.
If that is true, it is hard to see why potentially lethal force was used. However, others describe Ford as attacking the judge.
Do you believe judges should be allowed to pack heat in a courtroom?
Source: ABA Journal
Tony C:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…”
When the 2nd amendment was written, America had just won a war against a tyrannical state militia. While the crafters of the constitution knew state militias were necessary, they also knew they were dangerous to liberty and freedom, so the word “people” stands in contrast with the word “militia”.
“…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Had the crafters intended only state militia to have arms, they would have specified militia instead of people. But because this amendment was intended to prevent being controlled by tyrannical state militia, the people must preserve the ability to fight any organized, or regular militia that oversteps its bounds, making it a fundamental individual right for defending freedom and liberty.
The language used was an older, efficient and elegant form of English, not commonly used today, and requires considerable time to understand because we’re not used to it. Each amendment, was short, as opposed to our 2000 page laws of today. I hope this helps you understand the language, and I also hope you give it a chance and open your mind to many possibilities of the implications of that clarification.
!
“Guns and Robeses.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(snort)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
good one!, sprayed coffee all over my puter….
@savaship: even though a right to bear arms exists for all the people to guarantee their liberties are not infringed,
The second amendment reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The right is NOT for people to “guarantee their liberties are not infringed,” as you state, but to “ensure the security of a free State.”
Those are different things. Your formulation implies the purpose is to fight the government, the Constitution clearly implies the purpose is to defend the government.
Other famous historical figures have interpreted the Constitution as you do; but this Amendment went through at least ten revisions by the founders before a final formulation was settled upon, which means it was obviously very carefully phrased to say exactly what they meant, and it was NOT to provide individuals a means of resisting the government or “guaranteeing their liberties.” It was to allow the State to call up citizens in a militia to defend the State. All of which is a moot point now; states no longer need militia members to bring their own guns and ammo.
You are an extremist because you purposely misinterpret the Constitution to serve your own political ends. You claim it says something it does not say. That is lying, and only extremists resort to lies and subterfuge to serve their argument, because for extremists like you, winning is more important than if you have to cheat to win.
@Kay: I was not trying to claim punishment is ineffective. I agree that court systems permit claims to be made and wrongs righted without having to resort to violence.
So I am not sure if you are trying to argue with me, but I will note that some wrongs cannot be righted in court by the poor. They have no proof of being wronged or threatened or extorted, and even if they did, no money to pursue the “civilized” option of hiring a lawyer. So they resort to violence, arson and/or vandalism to exact “justice.”
Carlton Teel should get a group of musically inclined judges who like to pack heat together. They could start a singing group called Guns and Robeses.
Death penalty to the Judge and to the deputy for their crimes against the crutch-guy?
I’m OK with that. My question is whether lethal injection or firing squad would be more appropriate.
I must have hit it really close with the anti-liberty extremist remark to get you to so riled up to pull out the big ad hominem guns of “dumbass”. I could respond in kind,
What makes you an anti-liberty extremist, is that even though a right to bear arms exists for all the people to guarantee their liberties are not infringed, you still argue that only law enforcement has the “obligation” to carry arms. Stating they have an obligation is a false statement of defense towards our supposedly benevolent protectors. They have no obligation to carry, and I would encourage officers to stop openly carrying in states where it is illegal for everyone else to do so.
Whenever I speak of the ethical application of liberty, it is possible to get labeled an extremist. It is true, ethical values, and fair thinking has become an extreme viewpoint lately. The only thing I can do is recognize that some people think it’s extreme, and hopefully have useful dialogue that breaks down to where people sink to vulgarities because their ego got bruised.
In 2005, our national guard was sent in to disarm the people of New Orleans in a “state of emergency” stripping of people’s rights. One group refused to follow that order quoting that they would keep their oath to the constitution, and not follow any unconstitutional orders against the people. That group is currently listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an extremist group. The other police and guard units disarmed people, so when you say our military and police aren’t exploiting us at gunpoint, I feel there are a number of examples where they did, and are.
@savaship: An excerpt of an excerpt: A review of Hollon’s book:
In terms of violence, during the Civil War the Colt armory made many of these weapons, hundreds of thousands of young men were trained how to use them […] With such a large population trained and armed and now out of the military, it is little wonder, states Hollon, that murder rates surged after the Civil War in almost every major urban center and in rural areas incidents of violent crime also increased.
Emphasis mine. I think Hollon would disagree with your thesis; he obviously thought a large armed population obviously produced a surge in murder and violent crime.
The full review is here.
@savaship: But that’s really what you anti-freedom extremists want, until the system turns on you.
?? Perhaps you have me confused with another poster. Or maybe you are a dim bulb reactionary dumbass, I do not dismiss that possibility.
What makes me (me specifically, TonyC) an “anti-freedom extremist?”
And what makes you think anybody wants “above the law police officers” ?
I doubt you think that, if you do you are just a fool, captured by your own extremist thinking.
I see no reason that cops cannot act as servants of the people, just as professional bodyguards act as servants of their employers, and our own military does not act as a gang to exploit us citizens at gunpoint for their own enrichment.
The fact that we have a problem with cops and law enforcement is the result of corruption in politics, politicians and the tax system that funds them, it is not an inherent flaw in the very idea of having police or laws.
Tony C: The stats came from a research book called “Frontier Violence: Another look” by Eugene Hollon. A fact from the book:
“In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.”
In 2010 the homicide rate for Chicago, a grand experiment for gun control was 14 per 100,000. When criminals don’t have any fear of their victims, there will be more death. When you pass more gun control laws, a criminal by definition will ignore those laws.
Even if you ban guns completely, only desperate criminals, and completely unchecked police will still have them, except like China, our homicide rate will be reported to drop very low, because when above the law police officers kill you, it’s not a homicide. But that’s really what you anti-freedom extremists want, until the system turns on you.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams
I read about a study of mammals which found that all mammals will defend themselves with violence if that is the only option to resist death.
I thought that the idea of the courts is that most people won’t engage in violence if they think that they will be punished for doing so.
I thought that the idea of suing someone instead of killing them is that not only do you not have to worry about being prosecuted for murder but you get an intangible value from airing your facts before an impartial jury and that you have a fairly good chance of getting a judgment with an actual value. Of course a lot has changed in recent decades since the tort system has been disabled for ordinary people.
@Kay: Why can’t we substitute words for guns?
I believe in this sentence, “words” are a metaphor for reason, “guns” are a metaphor for getting one’s way by violence. People want their way whether it is reasonable or fair or equitable or not, Kay, and if we have to resort to violence we often will.
I say “we” because I am not so egotistical as to exclude myself, given sufficient provocation. I have been in a position, in my life, of considering violent preemptive action against criminals I knew to be lethally violent that were threatening my family. Forty years ago, I lived in a neighborhood where desperation and a failure of all reason led people to violent acts just to achieve continued survival.
Even now, the majority of the country has resorted to violence against foreigners out of fear for the safety of themselves and their loved ones.
We are all the same; evolutionary pyschology has pretty much engineered us to prioritize our personal interests above those of strangers, even above the lives of strangers. I’m not saying empathy doesn’t exist, what I am saying is that I believe everybody can experience some level of threat at which violence becomes preferable to non-violence.
I don’t have a solution for that or anything, it is just an observation. But I am seldom surprised if somebody chooses violence over utter defeat. Violence is usually not calculated; it is an emotional reaction to defeat, not a rational one.
I should have said, “I don’t have the stats but won’t believe this assertion without a citation.”
Tony
I agree with what you have written here.
A more narrow way to look at the issues has to do with the fact that the equity power of the court is supposed to be used to the least possible amount to accomplish the goal. The Court has the power to install barriers in the court room. If a defendant is on crutches and the court perceives a crutch as a possible weapon, then the judge could simply order the defendant to remain seated and ask the bailiff to store the crutches during the trial. It is well known that court is a stressful experience and litigants frequently become emotional.
Before the Internet, the courts could usually control attorney comments regarding judges. Now that has changed. I put a google search on “judicial misconduct” and get returns multiple times each day. It seems that the public expectation of fairness in a judicial proceeding is extremely low. Going back to this particular case in Alabama, it is reported that the neighbor requested arrest of the defendant sometime in the past. Potentially, the defendant could have sued the neighbor. Perhaps the reason that he didn’t is that he read that DOJ incarcerated me for suing a convicted drug dealer who was my former neighbor and was able to oppress me under color of law because he was the highest local elected official in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. The fact that the court tort experience is so unsatisfactory and so risky encourages the public to attempt to resolve their differences with guns.
It is really strange that we have a society with high literacy, one lawyer for every 300 people, and advanced document handling technology but we don’t have a functional tort system. Why can’t we substitute words for guns?
@savaship:
…and puts them in a different class of citizenship… a class with all their rights intact.
I see two problems with this statement. First, it is a false assertion; police do not have a ‘right’ to carry guns, they have an obligation to carry guns, which comes with an obligation to use those guns on behalf of protecting citizens from crime even at the risk of their own lives.
Although I have often said on this site I think we are living in a police state and our police are out of control, part of my assertion is that police are not in a different class of citizenship. It is not necessary, they should be held to the same laws as all of us.
When taxpayers fund greater security for the President, that is not to put the President in a different class. It is to afford the President approximately the same level of security against violent attack as a common citizen enjoys; recognizing the greater risk of violent attack that comes with the office. The same goes for protective custody, or the Witness Protection Program: Starting a new life is not a ‘right,’ some citizens get and some don’t, it is not a ‘reward,’ it is a fair response to protecting a citizen against retaliation for performing a civic service (testifying and putting themselves in lethal danger).
Savaship says: How does more gang violence combat gang violence?
First, I find claiming police are a gang is ridiculous. Gangs are out to make a profit, through drugs, extortion, or violence. They are an inherently profit driven enterprise from top to bottom.
Police are not. Even if a lot of cops are corrupt they are still under the table, and their superiors are not rewarding and promoting them for profitable crimes committed.
As for violence against violence: Do you think carrying guns makes people safer (or this judge safer)?
If so, you believe that combatting violence with violence works. Characterizing it as “gang” violence doesn’t change whether it is efficacious or not. I personally believe a credible threat of a high probability of violent retaliation does indeed reduce violent aggression.
However, another way of combatting violence is to make it ineffective. Armored cars are seldom taken by force (except in movies) because they are tanks, and both hard and risky to rob.
Savaship says: When this country tried the openly arm everyone technique… the homicide rate was 1 per 100,000…
I don’t have the stats and won’t believe that assertion without a citation; because I have read some history that suggested otherwise.
However it is a moot point anyway: The murder rate in China is even less than that, and nobody is armed. Of course, in China, law enforcement is brutal; just a dozen years ago or so, a young man was publicly executed (shot in the head) for the crime of stealing a bicycle. I gather you are trying to claim a correlation between arms possession and low murder rate which obviously does not exist. A low murder rate can be achieved in many ways (and I am not suggesting we adopt China’s method of oppression).
Thanks. Now I know I am not bright enough to understand what you wrote, so I don’t understand it, and I don’t understand that, either. My dementia is so very merciful.
Mr. Harris,
Let me rephrase that for your brain to comprehend. Nut job but in your case screwball, lights on, a brick short, a taco short, elevator does not go all the way to the top. Now do you understand, you’re not to bright. In your case the facts speak.
RE: James A. Crow, February 5, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Have you nut jobs ever thought he was exercising all of his constitutional rights that day.
##############################
Actually, James, that is very close to my first thought when I originally read the post.
Only, what constitutional rights?
Are any useful ones actually around?
For myself, I can’t find any.
Perhaps I simply overlooked the ones which now exist.
As I am clearly a “nut job,” what more can be expected of me.
2-56 by 3/16 nickel plated hex nuts
4-40 by 1/4 cadmium plated hex nuts
6-32 by 5/16 keps
I have quite a few nuts. So, I must be nuts to have many nuts. So, I am a nut job.
No problem with that.
Wow! Do I ever have a lot of company.
Misery loves company, only I am not miserable.
Tony C:
Making exceptions for law enforcement is dangerous, and puts them in a different class of citizenship… a class with all their rights intact. When police were started, it was in cities, to combat gang related activities… and they hired whatever gang seemed most legitimate. So Police started as a gang, and many still consider themselves to be members of “the largest street gang in America” go ahead… look for that on a T-shirt, it exists.
How does more gang violence combat gang violence? It doesn’t. Many police officers are good, noble people who have nothing but good intentions, and ethics. The few that don’t share those honest, noble traits become much more dangerous than a non police criminal. It is because they operate above the law, and people seem to be ok with it. When cops pull guns on cabbies because they don’t want to pay their bill, or beat waitresses in bars… those cops keep their jobs, and get very light sentences in court, if any at all.
Tony C… when this country tried the openly arm everyone technique… the homicide rate was 1 per 100,000… now that “we’re disarmed” it’s almost 6 times that… what works better?
Closed circuit security recording systems have been really really cheap for years. Most stores have them and you can set up four rooms for like $500. Store managers use them to watch their employees and come down when it gets busy. You’d think there would be a security tape that would show what actually happened.
There is a huge difference between a guy waving his crutch and somehow getting close to the judge who was probably at least 10 or 15 feet from him.
Another question is why the deputy shot the defendant in the stomach as opposed to shooting him in the foot or just tackling him since he was unarmed.
If you were there, Michelle, you might have been shot too by the deputy or the judge with everybody being really excited. Maybe the judge and deputy were high on cocaine or drunk or taking testosterone supplements or steroids.