“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. Actually, I can be opposed to you categorically calling other people’s decisions about their healthcare murder just because you think it is because your religious dogma tells you it is, Tootie. Scientifically and factually, it’s only a potential human being until it can survive outside the womb. Until then, it’s just differentiated cell tissue that depends entirely upon the mother as host. That has been the way of things since the dawn of time. The law has a duty to the living, not some fairy tale that tells you life begins at conception. There is no secular purpose served in banning abortion. Some theoretical belief based in religious ideology does not create a vested interest at law for a potential life that trumps the very real rights of the already living, both to privacy and to make their own choices of conscience regarding their healthcare. Do I personally think using abortion simply as a form of birth control is moral? No. I don’t. I think it’s grossly irresponsible considering contraception technologies. But that’s my personal subjective judgement. Do I think women, who have to carry that child and once born have a duty to care for it, should be denied that choice in their healthcare or in their matters of conscience simply because I don’t approve personally? No. That would be unjustly depriving them of their rights as an objective ethical standard of law. By that same token, those rights are subject to reasonable restriction like all rights. And they are. I’m fully supportive of the ban on late term abortions. Why? Medical technology now permits a once infeasible life to survive outside the womb and it is not unreasonable to put a time frame on the decision. It is, however, unreasonable to disallow the decision.

    It is simply not mine, nor is it yours, to make.

    It’s the mother’s.

    And she ultimately lives with the consequences of her actions, good or bad. And if she believes in a Maker, then the right or wrong of that action is between her and her god of choice. We may (or may not) have reason to approve of that decision.

    Our approval is not required.

  2. Gene, everyone forces their morality on each other when we establish laws. It is ridiculous to believe otherwise. You don’t think robbers feel you are forcing your morality in them? You most certainly are.

    What offends bigots and intolerant folks is when their ways are disapproved of. Then they make others out to be evil for having forced something on them while the offended folks believe they smell like roses for forcing their morals on others.

    I don’t like having leftist morality forced on me but I don’t deny their right to attempt it for whatever reason, religious or not. As long as they don’t establish a state run religion based on their beliefs and force me to worship it there is no ham, no foul.

    Let ideas compete, religious or not.

  3. Anonymously Yours
    Oh, sorry, missed your first comment. Thank you for your kind words.

  4. Rafflaw: operative letters, “flaw”. In so much of your thinking. Sorry for focusing on your name (ask Otter about it).

    There is to be no federal prohibition on speech including religious speech. NO FREAKING EXCEPTIONS.

  5. Gene

    So you can be opposed to murder and see it reflected in legislation and I cannot have it reflected because I am Christian?

    That’s freaky thinking you got there Gene.

  6. Otter, no need to clear up anything with me as it appears that it is you who is confused. Since, if you don’t see your name (Otteray) in any of my posts, you should merely assume I’m not posting to you and don’t post to me.

    Honestly…I am rolling my eyes at this point. Even God the Father permits us to call him Daddy.

    But Otter is sooooo important…….lol

  7. Tootie,

    So you are saying that your views on abortion have changed.

    Because if they haven’t, you’re still invested in forcing your morality on others via force of law.

  8. Tootie,
    I am a bit late, but to suggest that Obama is a Muslim denigrates everything else you say. Religion should be kept out of politics and governing. The founders were right on that one.

  9. Tootie,

    Have you ever heard of the adoption theory…. I think it was about the 5th or 6th century…..

  10. Anon
    Well, I’ve implied many gods over the several posts. The only true God I know of is Christ.

  11. Gene wrote:

    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))

    (Sheesh what a goof. That is ALL I ever say.)

    Gene, why don’t you argue with me some more and tell me I’m wrong, then kindly provide the evidence that you and I actually agree with each other in the main (but you cannot seem to figure it out). It’s very funny.

    Thanks for making my point!


  12. Tootie,

    Always a distinct pleasure to see the spoon in the pot being served….. Nick has issues with being informed it’s not appropriate to attack folks personally…. But then again…. It’s fun to watch you…. In action…..

  13. Gene
    Where shall you find your precious ethics, indeed your objective standards, AND logic, AND reason if there is no God to assure you you have the ability to do so?

    You wish to stand, by faith, on the notion that you can with certainty apprehend for yourself what is real and what is just. Why should I believe you know what is objective? Who the heck are you to determine it? Some self-appointed god?

    It all appears to be an illusion. It looks like the sun does set each day. And then it looks like it rises. But, in fact, it does not.

    It does look like a ship at the edge of the horizon is as small as the fly on ones hand. But it is not. All of it is an illusion. But you might, like many civilizations before us claim scientific or legal certitude that these illusions are indeed facts.

    Two clocks in working order set at the same time and placed several thousand feet apart in altitude will begin to register different times because of gravity. Is that why the universe looks so old? Is it too an illusion?

    It was considered law to sacrifice a virgin to the gods in some cultures. Who are we to say there was no logic in it? Who are you? Maybe It made complete sense. I should think the Democrats agree with that sort of thing anyway-debauchery, the sexual revolution, abortion, and all.

    And that is where you stand if you do not believe in God: you have no logical or factual basis for trusting that logic can be ascertained unless someone assures you that it can. I have taken Gods word for it, you have taken your own.

    And I don’t believe IN you.

  14. lol@Bron

    Your timing on that was impeccable, even if you didn’t mean it the way it sounded.

Comments are closed.