“Ye Are My Witnesses”: Arkansas Man Arrested For Firing Shots At Jehovah’s Witnesses Who Approached Him On His Lawn

johnbaldwinJehovah’s Witnesses in Arkansas will soon be called to be witnesses of a different kind for John Baldwin, 35. Baldwin is charged with aggravated assault after firing 13 times at the Jehovah’s Witnesses who approached him in his front yard. After Baldwin told Laura Goforth, 47, and Rachel Boshears, 55, to get off his lawn, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were leaving when one of them heard Baldwin tell his wife “Get me my 9.” (A referenced to his Springfield XDM-9). While Isaiah 43:10 may proclaim “Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen,” these pious folk will soon be called by a more earthly authority to bear witness.

Baldwin only moved into the neighborhood a month ago. The victims were from Kingdom Hall Jehovah’s Witnesses Church in Bentonville. They noted that they have a no contact list but that Baldwin was not on it. He appears to find it easier to express such preferences more directly. They say that Baldwin told them to “Get your fucking ass off my property. I moved out here to get away from people like you.” He reportedly told police that the women did not immediately leave but instead were “Lolly Gaggin” around their car. So how Baldwin then concluded that the best way to stop the “Lolly Gaggin” was with a hail of 9 mm slugs.

The women could also sue for assault in torts. This would seem a pretty clear case of acting “to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact.” Then they might end up owning not just the lawn but his house as well.

He could now face jail time after being released on a $50,000 bond. It is not clear if Jehovah’s Witnesses are allowed to visit prisoners in Arkansas, but one can always hope.


127 thoughts on ““Ye Are My Witnesses”: Arkansas Man Arrested For Firing Shots At Jehovah’s Witnesses Who Approached Him On His Lawn”

  1. Oro
    It has never been a Christian commonwealth. After over two hundred years you may now stop panicking.

  2. Otter

    Fluorinated was a typo. No need to get your dental floss in a wad. Otter is short for Otteray just like Ben is short for Benjamin. You might wish to get over yourself and focus on important things? Or better yet, quit posting to me if you don’t like the results?

  3. Tootie,
    I believe we have gone over this before. Otter is an animal. Otteray is a Cherokee place name.

    And it is not “flourinated” water. It is fluoridated.

    Flourination is a method for treating and chemical-proofing polyethylene plastic, in which flourine atoms bond to the outer surface of the plastic.

  4. @1790 –
    “The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever. … Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.” John Leland, “A Chronicle of His Time in Virginia,” The Writings of the Later Elder John Leland, published in 1845.

    Who was John Leland?

  5. Actually, Tootie, that same 1st Amendment serves to protect others from your religion being imposed upon them as well.

    As for religious influence? If you have an ethical reason for a law (ethics are based on objective standards and logic and reasoning) that happens to coincide with a moral reason for a law (morals are subjective and need not be rational), then that’s just happy coincidence, but if your morality is religiously dogmatic and there is no ethical justification for it or an ethical justification against it – say you are imposing your morality on someone who may not share it or otherwise infringing upon their rights, you’re simply out of luck.

    Sorry, but that’s how that really works.

    Any law that doesn’t have a secular legislative purpose, has the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion or results in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion is a violation of the Establishment Clause. (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971))

  6. Oh, and that letter to the Baptists? It was to assure the protection of citizens from government churches, not the other way around. It was not to shield the state from the influences of all its citizens, religious or not.

    The unwise individual always twists that around.

  7. Will someone please tell that poor soul Gene that here are no religious tests to office and no major Christian group advocates them. I think he is hysterical.

    Poor fella. Too much fluorinated water?

  8. Gene
    Regarding the first amendment. It was to prevent government from forcing religious beliefs on me and even making me pay for state run religious institutions. I don’t believe that is the way you view it. I believe you think that laws cannot be enacted if they originate in religious precepts. The first amendment is not to prevent religious persons from having political rights, even ones expressed through law.

    For example, Christians believe that murderers and thieves should be punished. Oh my, that is what the law now recognizes! Shall we jettison these law because many of them were established by individuals actuated by their religious precepts? No? Well then there is no issue nor threat when Christians (or other faith groups) exercise their political rights based on their beliefs as long as the federal congress doesn’t establish a government church, force us to worship in it, and fund it.

    By no stretch of the imagination can one reasonably say the vast majority of Christians have this in mind. To the contrary, this is a far thing from their minds. It is likely hysteria, paranoia, ignorance, or bigotry by those who detest Christians who promote this fallacy.

    I believe there were two colonial states that would never have ratified the federal Constitution if their state established churches would be in peril. They were told that the federal compact would allow no such power.

    And that is why I’m sure the issue of establishment at the federal level is an issue about state run religion (and not about religious people influencing the laws of the land as you seem to suggest).

  9. Oops. And some James Madison . . .

    “In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle.” – The Federalist, No. 51.

  10. Tootie, The pip squeeks are now congregating. They do stalk me and howl @ the moon when I merely point it out. They may be sweet on me. NTAWWT.

  11. Did I mention Art. VI?

    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” [emphasis added]


    “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Danbury Baptists

    That this has never been a Christian nation but rather a secular state is not opinion.

    It’s a fact.

  12. Nick
    Hello and thank you for your comments. I hail originally from Michigan. It too has been plagued by heathens for a very long time. I understand there is a nice conservative trend afoot in the state. I moved away long ago.

    Bob Dylan sang that everyone will have to serve someone. In my opinion that someone is a god. The real one or the many frauds including self.

  13. Otter
    My apologies. I was thanking you for recognizing the differences between saying that one is a Christian and actually being one. I should have said it that way.

    It is a serious matter that Obama once gave the Muslim call to prayer. Only a Muslim may do that. It is possible he did it ignorantly (because he is a pretty stupid guy).

    But I never harped on that issue. Only after Obama’s stupid support of the Arab spring which has done more to harm the cause of freedom in the Middle East and has led to the slaughter of many ancient Christian communities have I revisited the issue of his possible Muslim faith.

    Nearly 2 million Syrian Christians are being terrorized in Syria or are on the run for their lives at this moment to other countries because of the jerk in the White House. That too is suspicious. Truly it is likely not Islam but the hatred of Christianity on the order of a Hitler, Mao or Stalin that motivates him.

  14. Some still subscribe to the old doctrine that the Earth revolves around them.

  15. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

    “Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it would read ‘A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion,” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Muslim, the Hindu and Infidel of every denomination.” -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography

  16. No one has ever denied you a voice here, Tootie.

    That we are not a Christian Nation is simply a legal and historical fact.

  17. Tootie, I love tough women! I’m not a churchgoer but I do have a strong faith in God. I believe in freedom of religion but do not abide freedom from religion. I live in Madison which is the Mecca of Secularism. Their Sabbath is Wednesday.

  18. Gene, it is irrelevant where my values come from–religious or not. I stand equal with you in the quest to see that my viewpoint is represented in the public square and ,when possible, in the laws of my local,state, and federal governments.

    To deny me a seat at the table is to discriminate against me and deny equal protection. It is also bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance.

    That it is or is not a Christian nation is an opinion. It is silly of you to act like we are discussing a scientific or mathematical fact.

Comments are closed.