More Wrong Than Wright: Sheriff Calls For Citizens To Arm Themselves And Mete Out Their Own Justice

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.

85 thoughts on “More Wrong Than Wright: Sheriff Calls For Citizens To Arm Themselves And Mete Out Their Own Justice”

  1. I’m so glad a thing is more important to you than a life.

    It is NOT only a thing by the way. For some people it can be the difference between life and death if they steal something critical. It is also about preventing another person from becoming a victim since it is a rare crook who only does one crime. The person who attempted the rape and robbery of the woman who was just out walking her dog had a long history of such acts. Had he been at least shot while committing such a crime, he may have been detered from his course. It is obvious that the criminal justice system made NO impression on him. Maybe armed citizens will.

  2. Actually, the law is a complex subject and when Bob pointed out that Texas does indeed allow people to kill others in defense of property, I conceded the point.

    That I think it’s revolting is my right.

    That you have a problem with it is your problem.

  3. “My solution is to let properly trained law enforcement handle the criminals instead of some hotheaded jackass with a gun.

    Unfortunately, most crimes are NOT solved and the property is NOT recovered. So your solution is to let them get away while the victim can do nothing. Sorry but that has no appeal for most Americans too.”

    I’m so glad a thing is more important to you than a life.

    “I see that you have proved yourself to be ignorant,ill mannered, a braggart and libelous, and a hot head too.”

    I see that you’ve mistaken me for someone who cares what your personal opinion of me might be. And you’re the one getting mad here, Cap’n Colt. I too am allowed to have an opinion of you as a person (and every damn thing else in the world) and express it, although I haven’t. I have leveled no charges against you. If you think another person expressing their opinions constitutes libel, you’d be sorrily mistaken. If you don’t like my opinion that someone who thinks property is worth killing over is revolting? As revolting as someone who thinks stealing property is appropriate I might add? Too bad. Not everyone in the world is materialistic nor do they judge life to be less valuable than property even if that life belongs to a criminal.

    “I would be very much opposed to your having a gun. You are right that YOU should not have access to lethal weapons.”

    As for my 2nd Amendment rights? Too bad for you I already own guns. Guns that have never been fired at a person or in anger, nor would they ever be fired at a person except to save my own or another’s life. A TV simply isn’t worth killing for, but you are quite free to disagree.

    “It says a lot that you’re for it and I’m appalled by it.

    You are putting the blame for the shooting on the wrong person.”

    No, actually you are. The guy pulling the trigger is ALWAYS responsible for the life he takes ethically speaking. He will be legally too unless there are exigent circumstances.

    “It is up to we the people to make the laws and help enforce them.”

    Actually, no, it’s not up to us to enforce them directly. That’s what we have the judicial and executive functions for in government: to enforce and adjudicate the laws as created by the legislature.

    You should really stick to airplanes.

    1. Actually, no, it’s not up to us to enforce them directly.

      Dear me. What did we do before there were police depts? Did the crooks get a pass, or did we call out the Army?

  4. Capt. Erb, you are out of your element in arguing law with Gene, who is a graduate of a Tier I law school.

    That bit of knowledge is scary. It does not speak well for him or his law school.

    Is bullshit

    Then we get a long cite from a statute that does NOT apply and then finally

    Well, Arthur, it looks like your dreams of being able to take someone’s life because they took your TV could become a reality without you going to jail

    That is not great lawyering. Sort of like crashing an airplane and saying it was a good landing because we walked away from it. Not too civil either and it smacks of a snob who has learned little other than abuse. As Clint Eastwood said in Space Cowboys to the MIT grad who was one of the astronauts. He pointed out he was an MIT grad, and Eastwood told him to get his money back.

  5. This discussion is unraveling, just like our dysfunctional political system, our politicized judicial system (=especially the Supreme Court), our disparate economic system, etc., etc. We have all become intellectually corrupt, just like our institutions: fertile grounds for a revolution. Let hope that OWS succeeds.

  6. Hey Arthur,

    Before you start beating your chest, note well that the United States Military does not agree with your position.

  7. Compare the rules of engagement in Texas to the MP Rules of engagement in Iraq:

    “You may use force, up to and including deadly force against hostile actors in self-defense; in defense of your unit, or other U.S. forces; [and] to prevent the theft, damage or destruction of firearms, ammunition, explosives or property designated by your commander as vital to national security. Protect other property with less than deadly force.”

  8. My solution is to let properly trained law enforcement handle the criminals instead of some hotheaded jackass with a gun.

    Unfortunately, most crimes are NOT solved and the property is NOT recovered. So your solution is to let them get away while the victim can do nothing. Sorry but that has no appeal for most Americans too.

    I see that you have proved yourself to be ignorant,ill mannered, a braggart and libelous, and a hot head too. I would be very much opposed to your having a gun. You are right that YOU should not have access to lethal weapons.

    For those who think that this is a redneck thing, I have to tell you that the Texas law of concealed carry was originated by a liberal. black Democrat State Sen. Wilson. Initially I had my doubts about it, but I was wrong since it has so far worked out OK with some stupid execeptions. I DO favor strict liability for those who are licensed and misuse or mishandle their guns.

    There was a fool in our area who managed to shoot a woman in a restaurant when he forgot about his gun in his coat. He let the coat drop to the floor, it went off, and shot the woman. Of course, lots of cops have done similar things too, but the solution is NOT to disarm the cops. I read about a firearms instructor for the police who discharged her weapon in her apartment and the bullet went out into another one.

    It says a lot that you’re for it and I’m appalled by it.

    You are putting the blame for the shooting on the wrong person. It is the CROOKS who think that taking your property is worth risking their lives. THEY are the ones who make that decision. As in Horn’s case, he gave them the chance to surrender, and THEY decided that the property was worth their lives. They guessed he would not shoot and that he was of similar mind as you. They guessed wrong. There are many crimes which get you shot and killed by cops, citizens and guards even though the penalty for the crime is not death. That is their decision. They are the ones who think that your property is worth their lives. Try to escape from prison as you climb the walls, you will be killed even though the penalty is not death for that crime. Think that shooting escaping prisoners is justified? I do. It is up to we the people to make the laws and help enforce them. Too bad you do not agree.

  9. ARE and Gene. I have been reading the back and forth, and come to the conclusion that you both are talking past each other. Capt. Erb, you are out of your element in arguing law with Gene, who is a graduate of a Tier I law school. Just as he would be out of his element if trying to land a B-737. May I suggest ARE not practice law if Gene does not try to fly airplanes. Both of you are good guys who are not talking the same language.

  10. “I guess that Chicago cops and the legal system there thinks that Marines are the equivalent of Chicago police, so they saw no problem with the killing. Of course, you would defend the Marine too I suppose, yes?”

    Actually, no, I wouldn’t. That was a gross miscarriage of justice you described. The color of the Marine is irrelevant. He killed a man for misdemeanor trespassing. He should have been charged with manslaughter no matter his race.

  11. “As I said ealier, if you think that a crook should be allowed to get away with robbery, burglary, rape, etc with impunity, then we do have a big difference of opinion. Your solution is simply to let them get away and only have the cops try and catch the crooks. It is hard enough for them to do that in simple cases with more pressing business such as murders and the like.”

    Straw man two.

    My solution is to let properly trained law enforcement handle the criminals instead of some hotheaded jackass with a gun.

  12. Decency? Keep trying to rationalize away that you think personal property is an appropriate reason to shoot someone.

    It says a lot that you’re for it and I’m appalled by it.

  13. The only thing I failed in Arthur was momentarily thinking Texas was a civilized place with civilized laws.

    Well we are more civilized than Chicago where a black retired Marine Sgt shot and killed a white young man who let his dog take a crap on the guys lawn. The guy said what are you going to do shoot me? The Marine did just that and was no billed. Think what would happen if the races were reversed?

    I guess that Chicago cops and the legal system there thinks that Marines are the equivalent of Chicago police, so they saw no problem with the killing. Of course, you would defend the Marine too I suppose, yes?

  14. Well, Arthur, it looks like your dreams of being able to take someone’s life because they took your TV could become a reality without you going to jail.

    I have no dream of shooting any person, It is again YOUR supposition that is the case. I see you have no problem with libel either and have little or no decency. I DO have a responsibility to my country and community. In fact, I am a precinct judge for the coming election because NO Republican in that precinct cared enough to do the job. It is only an election on amendments to the Texas Constitution to fill some gaps in funding. So as a Democrat, I am taking up their slack.

    As I said ealier, if you think that a crook should be allowed to get away with robbery, burglary, rape, etc with impunity, then we do have a big difference of opinion. Your solution is simply to let them get away and only have the cops try and catch the crooks. It is hard enough for them to do that in simple cases with more pressing business such as murders and the like. The effect is to let the crooks know that they are safe as long as there is not a cop around. With our laws in Texas, the crooks now have no idea who is armed and who is not, thus increasing their problem of how to get away with their crimes. It is GOOD that they should have more fear. It might disuade them from committing crimes to begin with.

  15. The only thing I failed in Arthur was momentarily thinking Texas was a civilized place with civilized laws.

    I still bit off your hand for trying to put words in my mouth.

    I’ll do it again if you try again, Texas nitwit.

  16. All much too polite.

    A fucking redneck asshole who deserves a pretty miserable fate.

  17. Please spare us more macho posturing.

    Once again you fail logic since you are the one who postured saying my hand would be bitten off by you. All I have ever said is what I would do UNDER the law and note that I know how to use a gun well.

    You also failed to research Texas law that I cited and you are so far off that it is beyond belief since the Castle doctrine has NOTHING to do with the cases at hand. I have a hard time understanding why you spend so much time on that. Try going to penal code sect 9.42 which DOES cover this. Please spare us your so called expertise since you did not have the decency or even courtesy to read my posts before ranting on about your brillaince.

    I will let others judge for themselves how they should view my posts. I don’t have to brag, I simply state facts.

    The law will have you in jail for manslaughter is what will happen

    This is again beyond stupid since I cited the case of Joe Horn who DID shoot and kill two illegal immigrant burglars who were running away with the loot. He was no billed in short order since NO LAW was broken. He even went beyond what the law required by giving the crooks a chance to surrender. They refused and must have thought they were in California, and were shot and killed. Thanks for the cite though since it showed me that the crooks have no recourse in a civil suit. Good to know.

    The FACT is the we DO have the right to take the law in our own hands in too many cases to list. The use of the term has a perjorative conotation since it is applied to things such as the mother who shot and killed the child molester in court in CA. That is not taking the law into ones own hands since it is WAY outside of the law. It is a poor choice of words. By being armed and licensed we DO have the right to take action to enforce the law. It used to be the case before there were police in that the whole community was deemed to be competent to enforce the law. Since the cops cannot be everywhere at all times, it becomes our responsibility to help the police in enforcing the laws. Preferably the cops should do the heavy lifting in using firearms, but crooks are not so considerate as to wait until the cops are present before they commit their mayhem. Thus an armed citizen has to fill the gaps.

  18. Well, Arthur, it looks like your dreams of being able to take someone’s life because they took your TV could become a reality without you going to jail.

    Congratulations.

    You and Texas deserve each other.

  19. Gene,

    I had a relapse of pneumonia; turning the corner as of today (knock on wood).

    Will chat later via email–or respond to yours– whichever comes first.

Comments are closed.