Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright surprised many this week in calling a press conference to discuss an assault on a woman in one of the city parks. Wright used the opportunity to repeatedly call on all of the citizens to arm themselves and expressed frustration that someone with a weapon did not come along and take care of Walter Lance, 46, rather than have him dealt with by the justice system. Wright began his news conference by saying, “Our form of justice is not making it. . . . Carry a concealed weapon. That’ll fix it.”
Wright is clearly someone who is not burdened by concerns over the implications of his statements. He is sworn to uphold the “our form of justice” and seems oblivious to the message that he is sending: that it is better to dispatch felons on the streets than would them to enter the legal system.
Calling Lance an “animal,” Wright repeatedly returned to the purpose of his appearance at the press conference: for citizens to to arm themselves and take care of such matters themselves. After noting that Lance has a long record going back decades, Wright added “And I’m aggravated.”
Saying that “this animal deserves to be out in our society,” Wright said that he knows “liberals” will object to his form of “chain-gang form of justice” but “let me inform you, your form of justice isn’t working either.”
He said Lance should not have had the right or opportunity to “violate a good, upstanding woman.” Of course, he is not advocating any form of justice. He sounds like he is advocating mob justice. He insisted “It’s too bad someone with a concealed weapons permit didn’t walk by. That would fix it.” So the system would be “fixed” by people shooting felons and circumventing the legal system? No one can seriously debate Lance is a man who is a danger to society and should be put away. Moreover, no one would question the right of citizens to stop a crime in progress if they have the ability. However, some citizens are likely to hear something more from these comments: a license, if not an invitation, to dispatch criminals in they have the opportunity to do so.
Wright even used the press conference to do a type of infomercial. Holding up a fanny pack, he announced “They make this right here where you can conceal a small pistol in them. They got one called The Judge that shoots a .45 or a .410 shell. You ain’t got to be accurate; you just have to get close.”
“You ain’t got to be accurate”? Just fan this baby and hope for the best? Now that is a reasonable police announcement. Yet, Wright made sure his citizens knew that “gun control” in his view “Is when you can get your barrel back on the target quick. That’s gun control.” He then stopped and said “I think I better stop before I get sanctioned.” Wow, that took a while.
This is not the first time that a public official pandered to the mob. However, it is rare for a law enforcement official to to encourage citizens to take justice into their own hands and not worry about accuracy. He is also reaffirming the view of some citizens that the legal system is their enemy and serves the interests of criminals. It is not just a reckless position it is a dangerous one for a law enforcement officer. It is also likely to be popular. He knows that he is not likely to be sanctioned but rather lionized by a public eager to hear “tough talk.” The question is whether he will be called to account with the first bystander wounded by inaccurate “gun control” or a shooting that is less of an intervention than an execution.
Source: WYFF as first seen on Reddit.
Personally, I’m concerned about everybody’s rights. Call me crazy
As am I, but the law is that you lose a lot of your rights when you commit a crime,especially a violent one. You lose your right to life if you have a weapon and attempt to use it on an innocent person or peace officer. You also lose your right to be free from warrantless searches if the officer is in hot pursuit. If you assault a person you lose your right to be free from violence and security. The victim has a LOT more rights than the perp too. They have the right to be violent and use deadly force in their own defense of life and property.
It is absurd to state otherwise and to put the emphasis on denying a victim their rights in favor of the crook in the vain hope that the police will eventually catch the crook. The police cannot be everywhere and so it is up to US to take measures for our own defense, including deadly force.
For my part, if I am confronted by such a situation, I will order a crook to surrender before shooting. I am NOT required to do so by the law, but just out of concern to give the crook a chance to go to trial. If they refuse, then it is their choice to take a chance that they can outrun or dodge my bullets. It would be a foolish crook to do that since I am a good shot.
wgward, I wish you were wrong. I am aware there are a great number of unthinking people who cannot seem to grasp the basics of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments. Which is unfortunate for the actual sentient and civilized beings who inhabit this country.
“….This is not the first time that a public official pandered to the mob. However, it is rare for a law enforcement official to to encourage citizens to take justice into their own hands and not worry about accuracy. He is also reaffirming the view of some citizens that the legal system is their enemy and serves the interests of criminals.”
What if these words were written about the Oakland cops hammering the defenseless Occupy Oakland protestors the other day… In that case, public officials did not “pander to the mob,” the cops “took justice into their own hands” and did “not worry about accuracy (e.g., the projectile that hit the protestor in the head),” and they reaffirmed that the “legal system is their enemy and serves” the corporate interests of our society.
The Sheriff said out loud what a lot of us think in private.
snap!
Here’s an email I sent to Spartansburg Publlic Information Officer, Lt. Tony Ivey. I’ll update you if a reply is received:
Dear Lt. Ivey:
I was quite taken aback by Sheriff Wright’s recent comments about the pending case against Walter Lance. Various media reports have suggested the Sheriff said the following, “Our form of justice is not making it. . . . Carry a concealed weapon. That’ll fix it.” There was even a seeming call for mob action when the Sheriff mentioned, “It’s too bad someone with a concealed weapons permit didn’t walk by. That would fix it.” I have represented and continue to represent many in law enforcement and can assure you that this sentiment, if intended by the Sheriff, would be unwelcome and potentially dangerous to the thousands of good men and women involved in the dangerous work of enforcing our laws.
As a person like yourself and Sheriff Wright who has solemly sworn to uphold the United States Constitution and our present “form of justice” even at times when we don’t necessarily agree with it, I was wondering it the Sheriff had issued any clarification of his comments. I would appreciate any information you could share. I am
Mark M. Esposito, Esq.
Jeff,
“Maybe if the government was harsher on criminals, we would actually see a drop in criminal activity?”
Crime has been dropping since the early 90s.
Jeff’s Blog, you must never have visited a regional prison. I work in correctional settings a good part of the time, and have been in and around jails and prisons all over. I have yet to see one that looked like a resort, even if you squinted.
They are dismal dangerous places where looking at somebody the wrong way can get you shanked.
Amazing how many times this little scene comes in handy. Compare this sentiment from the 1960s to the blood thirsty vigilantism of our current short pants fascists of today. Maybe those were the good ol’ days:
I’ve seen this movie, and read the book.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036244/
Arthur,
“I assume ….that an armed citizen would NOT shoot while the crook and victims were in close proximity to each other.”
That’s a mighty big assumption.
“We make liberals look like fools if we worry more about the rights of the crooks than that of the victim. ”
Personally, I’m concerned about everybody’s rights. Call me crazy.
The Moar You’re An Asshole,
“Stop embarrassing yourself by displaying this level of stupidity in public.”
Stop telling people they are embarrassing themselves. Stop telling people what to do. Stop calling people trolls.
Just encourage dialog, so we can all learn.
I agree with MASkeptic in that the call does sound like it encourages reckless conduct. Hopefully those who do get licensed to carry will be educated as to the rules on use of deadly force in that state and will act in a more prudent manner in accordance with the law.
As for ignorance, it is hard to top Moar’s. I guess he forgot what happened in Houston with Joe Horn shooting and killing two illegals who had just burgalrized his neighbors home. The grand jury took no time at all to no bill since it was completely legal under our laws. In my posts on the subject, I also noted in my good Johnny Cochran imitation the rule, If the crook drops the loot, YOU cannot shoot. That is the law, try reading it for a change.
“With the prison system looking more and more like Sandals every year, it is almost no wonder the sheriff decided to say something like that…”
Spoken like somebody who has never seen the inside of a prison or jail.
Maybe if the government was harsher on criminals, we would actually see a drop in criminal activity? With the prison system looking more and more like Sandals every year, it is almost no wonder the sheriff decided to say something like that…
Arthur,
While I agree in general terms with your first point regarding concealed weapons I think that this “call to action” encourages reckless behavior and condones citizens interjecting themselves into volatile situations that the police should handle.
The Bologna family incident is part of a recent and shameful trend of the Government as a whole acting more to protect itself rather than its citizens. This is part and parcel of the Obama administrations continuation of Bush policies to increase the authority of the Administrative branch and to prevent anyone in government from being held accountable for their failures or crimes, lies, or crimes.
I will echo what MOAR said.
“If the crook took off running, I would indeed shoot to kill him. I believe that I would be justified in doing so. ”
Arthur Randolph Erb: Conduct such as that will get you a murder one conviction in every state of the Union. Stop embarrassing yourself by displaying this level of stupidity in public.
If the sheriff believes that the current justice system isn’t doing the job, he should resign immediately and become the vigilante he wants all the citizenry to be. Since he hasn’t, it would appear to the cynical observer that he’s grandstanding to cover up his department’s failures in this particular case.
The fact is that I would NOT be prosecuted in Texas. Under penal code Sect 9.42 I would be justified completely since the crook was fleeing with the woman’s purse and later her car. I did not look up that rule on attempted rape, but my guess is that no grand jury would indict me for shooting him.
The fact is that as Prof Turley pointed out that we DO have the right to intervene to prevent a crime like this. It IS too bad that some citizen who was armed did not happen to be passing by. We too often let our concern for due process get in the way of common sense.
I do not know all the particulars of the situation, so it is hard to say what would have been a good course of action. I assume the crook was armed with some weapon, and that an armed citizen would NOT shoot while the crook and victims were in close proximity to each other. If the crook took off running, I would indeed shoot to kill him. I believe that I would be justified in doing so. The ideal thing would be to command the crook to get on the ground and hold him until the cops got there. Unfortunately, guns are NOT magic wands that make people do as you say, so shooting may be the only alternative.
We make liberals look like fools if we worry more about the rights of the crooks than that of the victim. I am very much in favor of concealed weapons laws so that we can be as armed as the crooks. The police cannot be everywhere at all times.
As the Bologna family found out, the city has NO obligation to ensure the safety of its citizens. That was the family who lost their husband, and two sone when an illegal immigrant gangbanger who had been sheltered by the city cops killed them in a road rage incident. They sued the city for having let the killer stay in the US and sheltered him from ICE. The case was thrown out of court because it was ruled the city had NO responsibility to ensure safety for that family.
Irresponsibly dangerous to every law abiding citizen within his county.
If we can shoot American Citizens deemed Terrorists without a Trial….this is the next logical step…..right?