Posted on October 19, 2016
When I joined the Army back in 1994, I never expected it to be a long-term commitment. When I was first called by the recruiter I had long purple hair and was enjoying my now-extinct, minimum wage job at Blockbuster Music in San Antonio. My sister had given them my name after feeling bad for backing out of her decision to join. When the recruiter called me, I told him I wasn’t interested. He asked me what I was doing with my life and what my interests were.
Now, I was making great money as a DJ prior to moving back to Texas after I graduated from high school in Japan. In fact, I was making about $50 per hour DJing clubs oversees. When my dad moved to Jacksonville, Florida, I began DJing weddings and made even more money – upwards of $150 per hour. However, I hated having to deal with the Momzillas and Bridezillas. No amount of money was worth that. So, I moved back to my home state of Texas and found another job where I could be around the music I loved.
While the recruiter was talking to me, I realized I had no real direction in my life. But, I didn’t really see myself doing well under the strict, authoritarian requirements of military service. After some prodding, I agreed to take the ASVAB, but only on the condition they come to me with it. Apparently, he had to get special permission to do it that way. I ended up scoring really high on the general technical (GT), electronics (EL), surveillance and communications (SC) and skilled technical (ST) portions of the test, but I didn’t like any of the jobs that opened up to me but one – military police.
Posted on October 18, 2016
“Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” – Luke 22:42
These were the words of our Savior Jesus Christ that he prayed to Heavenly Father as he knelt on his knees and bled for the sins of all mankind. His mission on earth put him in the public spotlight whether he liked it or not, earning him both praise and scorn by the public and government officials. I don’t deign to pretend that I am ANYTHING close to Christ or that my experiences are even comparable, but there hasn’t been a day in the past few years where I haven’t said that same prayer over and over and over again. I never wanted to be in the public spotlight. I never asked to be a public figure.
Posted on October 13, 2016
This is probably the nastiest and most negative campaign season since John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were at each other’s throats in the 1800 election. The difference this year is that instead of two generally respectable people running against each other, there are two despicably horrible candidates. On one side, you have the Republican nominee who still isn’t a known quantity on conservative issues who is a vulgar and offensive individual. On the other hand, you have a corrupt, morally bankrupt politician who should be running a chain gang, not the country.
In the past, when I wasn’t happy with either choice I could look further down the ticket for another candidate worth voting for. However, even the Libertarians don’t provide a viable option this year. As of this writing, I’m completely skipping filling in a bubble for a presidential candidate. Because of this, I’ve been told that if Clinton wins it’s my fault. I reject this kind of thinking and I’ll explain why.
Updated on October 11, 2016
Unless you live under a rock, you’ve no doubt heard about all the incidents involving people dressed as clowns. It started as people just showing up on various security systems dressed up as clowns. It was creepy at first if you view it that way. I thought it was funny myself. However, after a couple of people wearing clown costumes allegedly attempted to lure some children, the country has lost its mind about clowns.
There have been several reports of clowns allegedly trying to lure kids to them in other states, and now there are concerns of creepy activity online in West Michigan.
Police in South Haven say there are no actual sightings, but there have been threats made to students on Facebook.
Posted on October 6, 2016
If you wanted a summary of how the Texas “criminal” justice system works, here’s a snapshot.
If you’re a uniformed police officer and badged bully, your assault charges get dropped, you get months of paid “administrative leave” sitting at home, and eventually forced to endure two weeks of unpaid “punishment.”
If you’re a citizen simply walking down the wrong side of the road, you have a gun stuck to your head, you’re illegally disarmed, thrown in jail, forced to endure TWO trials because they were adamant about teaching you a lesson, and finally keep changing the charges until they can convict you of that you weren’t even arrested for.
From the Temple Daily Telegram:
Temple Police Sgt. Thomas Menix received a 15-day suspension without pay effective Monday in connection with a Class C misdemeanor assault charge brought against him by the Port Aransas Police Department, Temple City Secretary Lacy Borgeson reported Tuesday.
Menix, a 27-year veteran of the Temple Police Department was arrested on April 16 while he was off duty. A Port Aransas Police Department incident report said Menix was intoxicated and bit a woman.
One of the responding officers to my false arrest and illegal disarming was SGT Thomas Menix (pictured above left). One of the statements he made during the assault and abuse of authority was, “we’re exempt from the law.” Turns out he was right. There is a separate standard between law enforcement and their citizenry subjects. So much for “equal protection under the law.”
You can watch the full video of my arrest here.
Posted on October 5, 2016
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Freedom’s Sentinel.
Staff Sgt. Adam S. Thomas, 31, of Tacoma Park, Maryland, died Oct. 4 in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan, from injuries caused by an improvised explosive device that exploded during dismounted operations. The incident is under investigation.
Thomas was assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Carson, Colorado.
Rest in peace brother.
Updated on October 5, 2016
When people hear that I support allowing felons to keep and bear arms in self defense, people are up in arms. “How can you support violent felons having the right to guns?” Then, when they find out I don’t support background checks either, they label me as an extremist or some other epithet. I am actually a very tough-on-crime guy. So, I hope you’ll hear me out. I think you’ll come to agree with my reasoning – if you believe in liberty.
Updated on October 5, 2016
It’s no secret that I’m not a Trump fan. In fact, this will be the first election in my memory where I refuse to check a box for president. I’m a #NeverHillary guy, but Trump may change my mind about him after his first term (yes, I think he will ultimately win the election). No candidate has my vote. It is earned, not expected, so don’t even bother me with that social brainwashing line that “not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary” nonsense. Not voting for Hillary is not voting for Hillary and not voting for Trump is not voting for Trump. To assume otherwise is to assume than any candidate automatically has my vote before they even run for office just because they have a certain letter behind their name come election time. I’m a small government guy and neither candidate in my mind represents small government. They simply represent big government right or big government left. I’ve also stayed quite objective, praising Trump when due and criticizing likewise.
That said, all this media hype about Trump’s remarks on PTSD are completely out in left field, baseless and dishonest. I think Trump was right in the totality of what he said and when taken in context. As someone who has fought his own demons associated with PTSD as well helped other troops afflicted, I understand what he meant and he was spot on.
Posted on October 4, 2016
Aristotle wrote in The Politics that those with the most virtue make the best rulers. He noted that since the purpose of government was to instill and encourage virtue in the citizenry, the rulers must obviously be quite virtuous. However, he also cautioned against such “exceptional virtue” existing in one person or small group of persons.
“If there is one person so outstanding by his excess of virtue – or a number of persons, though not enough to provide a full complement for the city – that the virtue of all the others and their political capacity is not commensurable…such persons can no longer be regarded as part of the city”
In fact, such a person “would reasonably be regarded as a god among human beings” he noted.
I couldn’t help but think about Aristotle’s “god among human beings” statement when reading this:
Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, House Judiciary Committee sources told Fox News on Monday.
Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the period after the email server became public — in turn preventing the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources said.
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee fired off a letter Monday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking why the DOJ and FBI agreed to the restrictive terms, including that the FBI would destroy the laptops after finishing the search.
Posted on October 3, 2016
The Veterans Administration is again proving to be a woefully incompetent agency that just can’t seem to realize that their entire purpose for existence is to take care of the people who put their lives on the line to fight this nation’s wars. It has just one job: take care of veterans.
It appears that the VA’s neglect of its benefactors now extends beyond the realm of the living.
Updated on October 3, 2016
A few days ago, frustration over my case again began to creep in. After all, I’m stuck in legal limbo until the 3rd Court of Appeals issues a ruling on my appeal. Self Defense Fund filed the appeal in March 2014, almost exactly a year after my false arrest and shortly after the second trial that resulted in a corrupt “conviction.” On February 23 of this year (seriously, 2.23), the court heard my appeal and just needed to release an opinion.
It is now October and we still haven’t heard anything. I wanted to know if this was normal or if something was going on. Meanwhile, I’m still “convicted” of a crime I didn’t commit, which is putting a lot of my life on hold. I have been wanting to start teaching LTC classes while I’m going to school, but under Texas law if I don’t qualify for a license to carry, I can’t teach the class either. Texas has an unconstitutional law that strips Texans “convicted” of minor, non-violent offenses of their right to keep and bear arms. It is illegal to carry a firearm outside the home or office (unless in a vehicle) without a license. So anyone that is “convicted” in a Texas court for any misdemeanor offense loses their rights for five years – just like a felon. The only other option is to get a nonresident permit from a reciprocal state to carry “legally.” Ironically, I got a letter from DPS about two weeks ago reminding me that my license to carry is set to expire in March and that I need to renew it! Texas has had my license suspended longer than I’ve been able to use it! Regardless, I’ll never get another Texas license until it pass constitutional carry, then I’ll only get it for convenience if they reduce the outrageous 2nd amendment tax.
Updated on October 3, 2016
I’ve decided to leave social media on October 1. It’s nothing but a “wretched hive of scum and villainy.” It brings out the worst in people, myself included. Besides, it’s much easier to discuss things more in depth here than in a Facebook or Twitter posting. So, I’ve decided to return back to the tried and true blog! I’ll be talking about military and national defense related things as well as government and constitutional issues. Basically, I’m getting back to the way it was before, but will probably have a heavier emphasis on gun rights and rights issues than before. I’m also going to use the freed up time to finish the book I’ve been writing for several years.
Updated on October 3, 2016
When I was arrested for the first time in my life three years ago, my eyes were opened. I had never been in trouble with the law in my life and possessed the highest security clearance available. I began seeing things I never paid attention to before. I used to have such faith in our legal system, from the code enforcer to the beat cop to the Supreme Court. Then I witnessed firsthand how the system is rigged. I witnessed firsthand the lying, underhanded, and scheming ways of the police forces. I witnessed the cover-ups and obfuscations of the police departments and government agencies. I witnessed the corruption of the courts and prosecutors. And as I opened my eyes wider, I realized it wasn’t just happening to me. The corruption, abuse, and oppression was everywhere! I realized I can no longer give ANY government official the benefit of the doubt and think they actually care about my well-being or rights. Not all government officials are like this, but too many are and that’s the problem. If they can treat me like a criminal because there are criminals among us, why should I treat them any differently since there are crooks and frauds among them?
The mayhem as a result of the shooting last night hits close to home for me since it happened in my home state and just a few hours from where I live. I want to share my thoughts on the incident. I realize that not everyone will agree with my assessment and only those with the capability of being objective and analytical, having an open mind, and can accept hard truths will understand what I’m trying to say, even if they disagree. My intent is to hopefully help in understanding why these things are happening and why I feel the way I do. Some of these are hard truths and many will refuse to accept them at face value in spite of the evidence. I freely admit that I have gone from an apologist to a cynic. I no longer have the ability to bestow the benefit of doubt towards any government officials when even blatant violations of law by the highest of officials in government is cast aside by the leading law enforcement branch in the country.
Updated on May 21, 2016
Turns out billions of dollars can’t buy you an agenda. In another stunning defeat for Bloombergian gun control, a federal court has once again slapped the District of Columbia with a ruling abolishing their stifling gun laws.
The case is called Matthew Grace and Pink Pistols v District of Columbia and Cathy Lanier. Lanier is the chief of police for the District. It involves a DC law in which citizens must show “good reason” to qualify for a permit to carry outside the home. In the landmark District of Columbia v Heller decision, the court recognized that “the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” After the Heller decision, the city wouldn’t back down. Instead of recognizing our constitutionally protected rights, the city created a confusing and nearly impossible standard to qualify for a license.
In D.C., all firearms must be registered. Actually, all “approved” firearms must be registered. D.C. has taken a chapter out of California’s oppressive gun laws in crafting their own and have created a list of handguns that are “eligible” to be registered. Here is just the FIRST page of seven and a half of that list:
In addition to needing a license to carry a firearm, citizens in our nation’s capital cannot even own ammunition without a permit to own/carry a firearm. “High capacity magazines” over 10 rounds are also illegal in the District. The law also required gun owners (or potential gun owners) to meet a “variety of age, criminal history, personal history, mental health and physical requirements” along with mandatory gun training, pass a safety program, and undergo an “in-person interview” with a law enforcement officer. But, don’t worry, all you law abiding criminals. If you have a gun without a license, you can “voluntarily and peaceably deliver [or] abandon” your guns at any police station and they won’t charge you with a crime. Instead, they’ll probably have a private auction in the precinct to the highest bidding police officer to keep. Or they’ll simply make the gun “disappear” into their personal collection. All these requirements only allow you to possess a gun in the home. No one within the constitutionally authorized “ten Miles square” of the District can legally carry a handgun or other “deadly weapon” outside of home unless that person is a government official who has more rights than you do. The problem is that the regulations created by an unelected police chief make it near impossible to even get a license to carry in your home. The Grace case changed that.
The District requires that applicants for a license to carry demonstrate a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property” or “any other proper reason for carrying a pistol.” Naturally, this “proper reason” would be adjudicated by the extremely anti-gun police chief Lanier. The court ruled that the “good reason” requirement “is unconstitutional, that [Grace & Pink Pistols] will suffer irreparable harm.”
Chief Lanier was mandated to create a policy to facilitate the new law put in place after the Heller decision. Part of that policy was to require applicants to show “good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol.” The reasoning for this was to force citizens to “at a minimum require a showing of a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks that demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life.” In other words, after you’ve been attacked, show us proof that you survived and we’ll think about it. That proof must be “allege, in writing, serious threats of death or serious bodily harm, any attacks on his or her person.” Only serious bodily harm. Anything less than serious was expected to be absorbed and shrugged off it seems.
Even that wasn’t enough. If they passed the subjective (to police) hurdle of proving that they had in fact been hospitalized or otherwise suffered “serious bodily harm” they then had to prove that “the threats are of a nature that the legal possession of a pistol is necessary as a reasonable precaution against the apprehended danger.” It is entirely possible that the police department would simply say, “well, yeah that sucks, but we think a baseball bat is good enough. Application denied.” It gets worse.
“The fact that a person resides in or is employed in a high crime area shall not by itself establish a good reason to fear injury to person or property for the issuance of a concealed carry license.”
Seriously. In 2015, D.C.’s murder rate jumped 54%!! What did Chief Lanier blame on the dramatic increase? Guns. You know, the guns that the average citizen wasn’t allowed to have in the streets.
“A greater percent of those arrested for homicide have prior convictions for felony violent crimes,” Chief Newsham told the paper. “And a lot of times more than one gun was represented at the crime scene. The means either there were two shooters and one victim, or those involved were shooting at each other.”
This is interesting since Chief Lanier had only approved about 50 licenses as of the end of 2015. 50!! And not a single one of them was involved in a single one of those crimes. Eighty percent of applicants were denied their basic right to self defense.
Anyhow, back to the “proper reason” requirement. Plaintiff Grace applied for a license to carry last August because his wife was robbed on a public street and there had been several robberies in his neighborhood. Several of those robberies were performed at gunpoint in his neighborhood. The police had not arrested anyone for those crimes and the perpetrators remained on the loose. However, because Grace had not demonstrated a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community,” his application was denied. Grace stated his “proper reason” was the 2nd Amendment. That should have been enough, but it wasn’t. It was the sole basis for his rejection.
The plaintiffs relied upon the 2nd Amendment to argue that the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t just apply at home. The defendants (DC and Lanier) had to prove it only applied in the home. To anyone with a 6th grade education, it’s obvious that the 2nd amendment doesn’t just apply to the home primarily due to the “bear arms” clause. The court agreed.
The Supreme Court has explained that “[a]t the time of the founding, as now, the ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.'” One does not typically think of “carrying” as an activity exclusively done within the home…Thus, reading the Second Amendment right to “bear” arms as applying only in the home is forced or awkward at best, and more likely is countertextual.”
As to the arguments by the defendants that one must present evidence that their lives are in jeopardy, the court probably laughed and shook its head while writing “the Supreme Court recognized that when ‘bear’ is used with ‘arms’…the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose – confrontation.”
Surely confrontations do not occur only in the home, and therefore “[t]o confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right to self-defense…Indeed, confrontation that might necessitate self-defense are less likely to occur in the home than on the streets of a city with many dangerous neighborhoods…Thus, the textual analysis, when viewed with a touch of common sense and logic, weighs heavily in favor of finding that the right to bear arms reaches beyond one’s doorstep. Finally, I would emphasize that a legitimate need to protect oneself can arise at the drop of a hat. Thus, the right to “carry weapons in case of confrontation necessarily includes a right to carry firearms to protect oneself against unanticipated and suddenly arising threats.
This is what the Bloomberg agenda will never get. When they say “you don’t need a gun to eat at the Olive Garden” or “to shop at Target,” what they’re really saying is that there is some kind of magic ball that will tell me when I do. What about walking to or from Target from my car? Or how about when I finish my soup, salad, and bread sticks and leave the Olive Garden? Am I supposed to know ahead of time that I will need my self-defense firearm? Thankfully, the court isn’t full of ignorant, agenda-driven zealots bent on making victims of as many people as possible. History simply refutes any argument that the Founders limited the right to keep and bear arms to being a “domiciliary right.” The court cited several examples of Colonial and Founding Era doctrines laws and directives that required citizens to carry arms publicly. In Rhode Island, “no man shall go two miles from the Towne unarmed, eyther with Gun or Sword; and that none shall come to any public Meeting without his weapon.” Thomas Jefferson himself made sure his firearm was a “constant companion on [his] walks,” as it is mine. My how our rights have fallen since then!
With all this evidence of historical context, the court had “little trouble concluding that under its original meaning the Second Amendment protects a right to carry arms for self-defense in public.” DC and Lanier contended that they can regulate the public carry of arms because DC is such a populous city with many symbolic landmarks, monuments, and buildings as well as “important” government officials. The court rightly questioned this supposed divide between the rights of urban and rural citizens. The court “reject[ed] these arguments wholesale.” The defendants tried arguing that “the law does not ‘destroy’ any particular person’s right to carry a gun for self-defense because any person could, at some point, face a threat that arises to the level necessary to be issued a license under District’s ‘good reason’ requirement.” The court called these argument “frivolous!” – explanation point and all.
The court also addressed the “more guns equals more crime” mantra frequently spouted to justify bans – or desired bans – on firearms.
But there can be no doubt that at least some of those citizens seek a carrying license for the legitimate purpose of protecting against an unexpected confrontation. The District’s policy thus bans some citizens from exercising their constitutional right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense, and no amount of proof of the negative effects of exercising a constitutional right can justify a ban. (emphasis mine)
This is a point I’ve been raising frequently in my debates with anti-gun zealots. I’ve decided to stop arguing “statistics” and “evidence” that point to crime, either in my argument’s favor or not. My simple response to such claims is that our rights aren’t dependent upon statistics, nor are they dependent upon those that choose to use guns for illegal purposes. The problem with these arguments is their tunnel-visioned approach to the issue. They point to instances of illegal use of guns to justify their bans or restrictions on them while ignoring that just about everything is prone to illegal use: cars, candlesticks, rope, alcohol, hammers, you name it. The court said it best: “They waste much ink on the irrelevant contention that plaintiffs cannot prove that ‘more guns equals less crime…'” and “the fact that a person can demonstrate a heightened need for self-defense says nothing about whether he or she is more or less likely to misuse a gun.”
Now, we get to my favorite part of the decision. In its defense of their overly oppressive licensing law, the city and police chief incredibly argue that “if no occasion arises where a handgun is needed for self-defense,” the denial of the Second Amendment right to bear arms “cannot cause harm.” In other words, if someone never finds themselves in a situation where they need a gun for self-defense, preventing them from having one doesn’t violate the Constitution. Yes, I was surprised this argument was made as well. However, not as surprised as the court. “What poppycock! Once again, defendants, sadly, miss the point,” said the court. I’ve waited my whole life for the word “poppycock” to be used in a 2nd amendment case! I can die happy now.
The right to self defense is present regardless of whether I ever need to defend myself. Such a silly argument would mean that we should disband our military because there is no specific military threat against our country that the citizenry and law enforcement can’t handle. It’s absurd on its face. The court agreed.
“The Second Amendment protects plaintiffs’ right to bear firearms for self-defense – a right that can infringed upon whether or not plaintiffs are ever actually called upon to use their weapons to defend themselves…The right to bear arms enables one to possess not only the means to defend oneself but also the self-confidence – and psychic comfort – that comes with knowing one could protect oneself if necessary.”
Yet again, the gun grabbers lose. Our rights are not conferred upon us by the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is not a second class right. Our right to self-defense is guaranteed by virtue of our very existence. Humans were not born with powerful paws, sharp teeth, antlers, quills, or other organic body parts for self defense. Throughout our existence, we have used tools to defend our lives, whether they be rocks, sticks, bows and arrows, swords, or, more recently, firearms.
While this case did address the right to bear arms outside the home and the unconstitutional burden of providing “good cause” to get a license, Grace and Pink Pistols refused to challenge the other registration requirements and hurdles that citizens must jump through to get one. The court did NOT rule on the constitutionality of needing a license or carrying in sensitive areas like “government buildings, schools, the National Mall, the area surrounding the White House, public transportation vehicles and stadiums.” I guess we’ll have to leave those challenges for another day.
Updated on May 19, 2016
Longtime readers of this blog know that I’ve been talking about gun rights for about 10 years here. The constitution is something I feel extremely passionate about. I am especially protective of the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments. It’s not that the others are less important, but more that I feel those are more under attack. I think these days gun rights are most endangered of those three. If I were to rank the most endangered of the three, it would be 2nd, 4th, then 1st. Right behind those – but not far – would be the 10th and 9th.
As I began my fight to repeal antiquated and reconstructionist Jim Crow gun law here in Texas, I’ve heard it all. Nothing has angered me more than those who think only cops and our military should be armed as if they are somehow better, safer people than the rest of us. They don’t realize that the entire reason the constitution protects our inalienable right to self defense is exactly because of those two entities. Our founding fathers were highly suspicious of a standing army, as they should be. However, in the 1700s, there weren’t police forces like we have now, which I would argue are the standing armies of our time.
Before I go further, I’m not anti-cop. I think it’s a great institution with a lot of people who truly want to make society better. There are also those that don their uniform because they crave the power, the respect, the authority, and the “rights” they think they have that others shouldn’t. There was a time not even three years ago where I would give cops the benefit of the doubt in every situation. When I’d see videos of people being beaten, handcuffed, or assaulted I was sure that those people did something to deserve it. That is, until it happened to me.
After I was assaulted and falsely arrested, my eyes were opened. I began paying more attention and noticed that these weren’t isolated cases of police misconduct. This is a systemic issue in America. In the same year I was arrested, the same department broke the collar bone of a 15-year old kid for spitting on the ground and tased a man for refusing to stop while he was trying to get to the hospital to see his dying brother even though at one point he jumped out of his truck and the told the chasing officer exactly what he was doing. Instead of escorting the guy to the hospital, he called in backup and when the guy got the emergency room, tased him for more than 9 seconds as he got out of his truck. His brother died while he sat in jail.
I don’t think it’s disrespectful or even anti-cop to highlight and criticize those bad cops for what they’ve done. I think that the unwillingness to do so is what enables them. Our courts enable them by virtually giving them limitless power to do whatever they want under the umbrella of “qualified immunity.” Our government bodies enable them by exempting them from the laws that us plebes must obey. And the citizens enable them by apologizing for their behavior and dismissing it as “a few bad apples.”
The main point I wanted to talk about in this post is a recent incident here in Texas wherein a University of Texas Police Officer shot himself in the leg.
University of Texas Police officer, Cory Morrison, was injured Tuesday morning when a weapon accidentally fired while in his holster. The bullet went into and out of his right leg according to UTPD Chief David Carter. The accident happened in the parking lot of UTPD headquarters at 7:30 a.m. when Carter said Morrison was talking to two colleagues. Morrison was standing outside a patrol car while talking to the two men inside when the gun went off.
See, if this happened to you or me, we’d be arrested for endangerment and have to prove in court and plea out to a prosecutor that it was “an accident” in spite of the fact that there is no such thing as an “accidental discharge.” Instead, police officers get paid administrative leave. They are called negligent discharges because a gun doesn’t shoot itself. If someone is safely handling their weapon it will NEVER “go off” or “accidentally fire,” especially one that is “in his holster.” There’s more to why I wanted to specifically mention this incident. I guarantee you that the officer was “playing” with this gun when it went off. I’ve witnessed many times where officers standing around have their hands on their guns unseating it a few inches and reseating it repeatedly. They play this “in and out” game nonchalantly perhaps not even realizing it. This is most likely what happened to the UTPD officer. There is no reason to so much as touch a gun unless you’re about to use it.
During the committee hearing on open and campus carry, the Austin police chief (where the University of Texas is located), the UT police chief, and the UT Medical police chief all testified against campus carry. They were concerned about “accidents” and “friendly fire” incidents. They were clear that they had officers on campus that could respond to incidents and were trained with firearms.
Now, here we have a situation where those officers who will respond to incidents and are “trained” with firearms are shooting themselves in parking lots on campus. What this proves is that law enforcement officers aren’t omnipotent. They are no better than you and me. They are people just like you and me are. They are not infallible. Police officers have shot themselves or others again and again and again and again and again and again and again and…you get the point.
I’m not so stupid as to think that there will never be a negligent discharge somewhere on a college campus as some point in the future. The odds that it will happen eventually are high. We’ve seen it on occasion with teachers allowed to carry guns (or not). In the future, however, the student or teacher won’t be given the benefit of the doubt. Upon the first incident occurring, there will be a steady drumbeat of “I told you so’s” and attempts to repeal laws allowing campus carry. This is in complete contradiction to what is occurring right now with this UT incident in which people are basically just shrugging their shoulders and “investigating” it. The officer may or may not be reprimanded or even fired. Regardless of what happens to him, you can bet that there aren’t calls to disarm law enforcement.
When Chief Acevedo testified, he remarked about how it took three minutes to arrive on the scene of an active shooter with an AK47. THREE MINUTES! The UT chief testified that they can respond to incidents at the school within five minutes. At Fort Hood, it took military police seven minutes to respond to the last active shooter and even longer for Nidal Hasan.
There is a double standard that needs to be addressed about incidents involving the use of guns (notice I didn’t say “incidents involving guns”). We must return to a time when Americans were free to defend themselves wherever they went. A holstered gun is not a threat to anyone, whether your a police officer or a 21 year old adult. Guns don’t fire themselves without interaction from its owner.