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.
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html
Looks like the Grand Jury in Joe Horn’s case accepted the ‘reasonable belief’ of a Texan.
Oh yes, Bob. I do. However, the law and the willingness of those yahoos in Texas to uphold it when guns and white guys are involved are separate issues. 😀
Good to see you. I was just thinking about emailing you.
Gene,
That’s all fine and well, but don’t you remember the case of Joe Horn?
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/01/joe-horn-cleared-by-texas-grand-jury/
Wright is entitled to his opinion, but he probably should not be wearing a badge. A professional law enforcement officer would know how to take someone like Lance off the street.
I do agree with Wright that people in South Carolina should carry a weapon for self-defense, because law enforcement officers in that state sure as hell
can’t protect you. They don’t understand the mechanics of law enforcement.
Arthur,
Please spare us more macho posturing. Also, you should really learn what a straw man argument is if you’re going to accuse other of the tactic when you yourself are the sole offender to this point. “I know you are but what am I” doesn’t work if you’re older than eight.
This: “It’s not carte blanc to shoot people and/or violate their rights.”
Is what this is not: “That doesn’t mean their rights are moot. It means that in the interests of immediate public safety lethal force was an appropriate and justifiable action and as such the user of lethal force should not be punished because of the circumstances.”
Contrast with: ““I doubt that too many folks think that this is a bad thing, unless as I said, you think the cops and all other law abiding citizens should be disarmed”
Wherein you try to make my argument for me and falsely.
The latter is a straw man argument, the former is specificity in terms and not attributed to you.
You may know your way around a cockpit, but my specialty is logic. legal reasoning and argumentation, tough guy. Your kind of overheated, macho posturing about how bad you are with gun and how everyone should take the law into their own hands simply because they have the right to bear arms leads to trouble. The best way to avoid trouble is not to be there when it starts.
Also, “I also know the limits of the law as I said when you lose the right to shoot if the crook drops the loot.”?
Is bullshit.
The Texas Castle Doctrine reads as follows:
“SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable ifthe actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.” [emphasis added]
It mentions nothing about using lethal force in the protection of private property and prohibits the use of the Castle Doctrine as an affirmative defense if the person shot was not breaking into your residence and/or an imminent danger to yourself and/or others, i.e. they were running away with the loot.
So you try out your “carrying the loot” theory in practice and see how well that works out for you. The law will have you in jail for manslaughter is what will happen. You’re not required to flee before defending yourself or others as you might be in other jurisdiction, but you can’t shoot someone simply because they stole your stuff and are running away with it either. Tough guy.
It’s not carte blanc to shoot people and/or violate their rights.
Too bad you don’t take your own advice as to straw arguments. I still have my hand by the way, and it is YOU who is trying to pose as the “tough’ guy. I even allowed that I would not shoot without a fair warning even though it is not required by law. The law also allows me in Texas to shoot a fleeing criminal in possession of stolen property, not just in protection of my or others life. This is NOT California where YOU have to leave if a burglar enters your home.
I also know the limits of the law as I said when you lose the right to shoot if the crook drops the loot. It is entirely moral in most people eyes to shoot somebody stealing your property. Now you may not like that, but most folks disagree which is why the law is written as it is. When you get the majority to agree with your view, then change the law and I will be happy to comply.
But please spare us your stupid outrage that somehow following the LAW violates a crooks rights.
Well put Gene. The straw man argument never wins when facts are brought to the table.
are you a “real badass?” More like a real smart ass
This is not the first time that a public official pandered to the mob. ~article
————————————————————————–
so I read this statement this morning and now I’m not sure who the mob is?
By Occupy Philadelphia;
“A conservative Texas judge stated it best on tv. The Occupy Movement, Tea Party and veterans are fighting for the same thing, but it will be our politicians, who have had a combined 2.04 billion increase in pay since 2008, that divide all of us.~Sean”
who you talking to pete?
ARE,
“If a cop or a citizen has to use justified lethal force to stop a crime or apprehend a crook, due process becomes moot if they die Thus their rights beome void.. We allow for this in law by the way.”
No kidding, genius. It’s called exigent circumstances. That doesn’t mean their rights are moot. It means that in the interests of immediate public safety lethal force was an appropriate and justifiable action and as such the user of lethal force should not be punished because of the circumstances. It’s not carte blanc to shoot people and/or violate their rights. It a recognition that you might have to kill some people to stop them from harming others.
“I doubt that too many folks think that this is a bad thing, unless as I said, you think the cops and all other law abiding citizens should be disarmed.”
Straw man argument. Arguing for substantive due process is not the equivalent of being against 2nd Amendment rights, but if you want me to make you look like a bigger macho fool than you already do, please pursue that line of argument, tough guy. When people try to put words in my mouth, they usually draw back a stump.
boy, there are some real badasses here today. if your first thought was “if i had a gun i’d have” do yourself a favor and never carry a gun.
because it gonna hurt like hell when a real bad person sticks it up your ass.
Somehow I feel the same way the sheriff feels. People that don’t feel that way?? I don’t know…maybe they just don’t know how to handle a firearm. If many carried concealed weapons, criminals would probably have a harder time mustering the courage to commit many of the crimes they do. Due process, do time, get out and do more crime. Hmm.
Arthur Randolph Erb-
“If the crook took off running, I would indeed shoot to kill him. I believe that I would be justified in doing so.”
It might be legal in some states, but I don’t think you’d be justified in a moral sense. In my opinion, those of us who carry legally should do so to protect ourselves and others from immediate threats to life, not to mete out justice or stop property crime.
“I am very much in favor of concealed weapons laws so that we can be as armed as the crooks.”
Fortunately, that is largely a done deal. Only one state still bans all concealed carry, and less than ten are not “shall issue” or no permit required states.
And that sheriff’s comment on the Judge handgun is another example of the myth that cops necessarily know anything about guns. The Judge is a gimmick that is terrible for concealed carry, and you most certainly have to aim it at any normal self defense range. I guess that given the rest of his speech it’s not a surprise.
No. It’s not. It’s the law. It’s called substantive due process
If a cop or a citizen has to use justified lethal force to stop a crime or apprehend a crook, due process becomes moot if they die Thus their rights beome void.. We allow for this in law by the way. I doubt that too many folks think that this is a bad thing, unless as I said, you think the cops and all other law abiding citizens should be disarmed. That will ensure that the crook survives if somehow he is captured, and then due process will take its course.
wgward:
“The Sheriff said out loud what a lot of us think in private.”
******************
I wouldn’t call it thinking.
All right mespo!!
‘No… you loose a lot of your rights when you’re convicted of committing a crime.”
“That is funny! ”
No. It’s not. It’s the law. It’s called substantive due process, a right that is being eroded every day by policies that allow indefinite detention without trial and the execution of citizens by executive order.
No… you loose a lot of your rights when you’re convicted of committing a crime.
That is funny! A cop is NOT going to wait until you are convicted before he shoots! If you think that they should wait, then we need to disarm the cops and let the crooks be the only ones who are armed. I don’t think most folks would agree with that idea.
“As am I, but the law is that you lose a lot of your rights when you commit a crime,especially a violent one. ”
No… you loose a lot of your rights when you’re convicted of committing a crime. It’s a pretty big distinction.