SYG Titusville Case

Stand Your Ground claim-----Titusville, Florida, Brevard County, September 3, 2012 

I first learned about this particular Stand Your Ground case on Twitter from Stacie Mc-Whitaker, cousin of victim Gary Hembree who was killed. (@StacieMcWhitake  AND @SygTriggers) also Gary's sister Christina Cipollone @Crissie79 and Gary's Mother Jeanie Huppert @Jeanie_Meother)

All information is linked to its source, or I state that I got information undocumented from Stacie.

Shooter William Woodward

VICTIMS Gary Lee Hembree, Roger Picior and Bruce Timothy Blake

If Woodward wins at the pretrial stand your ground hearing, there will be no trial for first-degree murder.  He will not be prosecuted and will be released from jail.   page 2 end of article



William Woodward ""snuck up on a Labor Day barbecue and opened fire at about 12:30 a.m. on Sept. 3, 2012. Police arrived and found VICTIMS Gary Lee Hembree, Roger Picior and Bruce Timothy Blake all had been shot. Hembree and Picior died of their injuries. Blake, who was hit 11 times, survived.  The motion filed by Woodward’s attorneys says in the hours prior to the shooting, all three men were yelling at Woodward and that this type of behavior had been ongoing for over a month."" link

Woodward's own security camera captured the shots. link

VIDEO of shots fired link

VIDEO of shots with News Commentary link

VIDEO News Story Woodward faces judge link

William Woodward is a veteran and is the 44-year-old brother of Titusville fire Chief Michael Woodward. link 

Stacie tells me his father is a retired Brevard County Sheriff, and his sister-in-law is the personal assistant to the chief of police.

Woodward had been the target of a variety of threats and “exercised his right under Florida law to defend himself and his family that night.” link

"We have a pattern of behavior of constant threats to Mr. Woodward and his family, some of them quite graphic, and including threats to sodomize and rape his 12-year-old daughter," said Woodward's lawyer, Greg Eisenmenger   link

Things escalated to gunfire just after midnight Monday -- Hembree's ex-wife says Woodward accused their daughter of stealing some items from his carport.  Police say they have responded to disputes between the suspect and victim several times, even offering a neutral site for discussion at the police department. The disputes even landed them in court, but no injuctions were given to either party. link

(OK so how exactly is an accusation of theft become Stand Your Ground?? Answer?? THE BUSH DOCTRINE!!!)

Stand Your Ground becomes Bush Doctrine (preemptive strike) 

It cited the "Bush Doctrine" to justify Woodward's response to the perceived threats, referring to George W. Bush's concept of waging pre-emptive war against potential threats before they metastasize into imminent threats.  “I think legally that term has sort of been evolving especially given changes of our government’s definition of ‘imminent,’” Robert Berry, one of the attorneys representing Woodward, told Florida Today. “It’s become more expansive than someone putting a gun right to your head. It’s things that could become, you know, an immediate threat.”   link

The stand your ground motion Woodward's attorneys filed in court says Woodward didn't have to wait for anyone to point a gun at him. In fact, the motion quotes United States policy in killing international terrorists, saying, in effect, if the U.S. can kill terrorists with drones, Woodward can shoot his plotting, threatening neighbors.
The motion will force a judge or jury to decide whether Woodward stood his ground.  link

The documents describe how investigators said Woodward went into full military mode while carrying out the attack.
According to documents, Woodward fired 31 rounds. WFTV learned there is surveillance video that shows Woodward crawling on his belly to the first neighbor's house. In the video, a victim can be heard calling Woodward a "plastic G.I. Joe" before he was shot.
Woodward told police after the shooting he considered himself on a "mission" and that he was in "a war zone," according to documents.  link

Man cites Bush Doctrine in Stand Your Ground Murder link

Victim who survived shooting (shot 11 times) OUTRAGED over Stand Your Ground claim link

shooter denied bond link

Case Information

Case Charges 

Court Case information

https://vweb1.brevardclerk.us/FACTS/d_caseno.cfm?CaseNumber=05-2012-CF-055504-AXXX-XX

Charges Filed

https://vweb1.brevardclerk.us/FACTS/d_charges.cfm?CaseNumber=#SearchCaseNo#

STAND YOUR GROUND HEARING----Attorney asks JURY not JUDGE to rule on SYG
Sept 25th Stand Your Ground Hearing in Woodward Case link here
Woodward's Attorney argued in court today that a jury should decide whether his client's charges should be dismissed under Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Judge Morgan Reinman said she would decide on or before November 20, but Woodward's attorney anticipated that her decision would be appealed either way.

Woodward’s attorneys had filed a motion saying he had been the target of a variety of threats and “exercised his right under Florida law to defend himself and his family that night.”

Friends and Family Protest Stand Your Ground Claim link here
Friends and family of Gary Hembree protested outside the Brevard County Courthouse, waving signs and calling for justice Wednesday.

The protests came before a hearing for William Woodward, who is seeking a "stand your ground" hearing.
"It's awful, it's awful... The family's not the same without Gary," Hembree's mother Dorothy Huppert said.

"It's beyond craziness now… I don't get it," Blake said.

Blake said he's angry Woodward's attorney is looking for a "stand your ground" hearing.

Woodward's attorney doesn't want a typical "stand your ground" hearing with the judge ruling. He wants a separate trial with jurors deciding if he should stand trial for the shootings.

Quote from Stacie Mc-Whitaker, cousin of victim Gary Hembree "How can you be standing your ground when you're crawling on your belly."

@SYGTriggers Stands for SYG T.R.I.G.G.E.R.S. (Threatens to Redefine Imminence, and GAIN Ground w/the Evolution of Rights and Safety)

Stacie says ""SYG triggers fear and anger. SYG triggers violence & retaliation""

Stacie also says that William Woodward claimed PTSD but fell off a ladder in Japan and never served outside the wire---he was a file clerk---I have found no supporting documentation at this time---I will update when I have more information.


Jonathon Turley Blog article about the case    http://jonathanturley.org/2013/09/07/good-for-goose-and-gander-or-just-foul-play-the-bush-doctrine-redux/




EXAMINING STAND YOUR GROUND LAW

Justifiable Homicide in Self Defense (Stand Your Ground ""no retreat"" NOT NECESSARY)
Wikipedia link

FLORIDA LAW link

782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.

History.—ss. 4, 5, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2378; ch. 4967, 1901; s. 1, ch. 4964, 1901; GS 3203; RGS 5033; CGL 7135; s. 66, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-24; s. 45, ch. 75-298; s. 1197, ch. 97-102.

782.03 Excusable homicide.—Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

http://progresstexas.org/blog/alecs-stand-your-ground-law-passed-texas-2007

Bill detail Florida State link


Justifiable Homicide Rises after Stand Your Ground law passes link

FLORIDA STAND YOUR GROUND DATABASE
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

MY OTHER Stand Your Ground Blog Post  link here


Law was meant to protect TOURISTS as well as residents of Florida says lawmaker link

FLORIDA STAND YOUR GROUND TEXT link  discussion

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

Section (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant

Longer Discussion on Stand Your Ground link here

States with Stand Your Ground law August 2013 article link

Attorney General Eric Holder on Stand Your Ground at NAACP 2013 link VIDEO here

Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to 

question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in 

our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always 

been a legal defense for using deadly force if – and the “if” is important – no safe retreat is 

available.

But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and 

age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if 

they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in 

public, such laws undermine public safety. The list of resulting tragedies is long and –

unfortunately – has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation – we 

must stand our ground – to ensure that our laws reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that 

contribute to more violence than they prevent.

The Problem with Stand Your Ground

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/stand-your-ground-laws-coincide-with-jump-in-justifiable-homicide-cases/2012/04/07/gIQAS2v51S_print.html

THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS

""IF I FEEL THREATENED BY A GUY KNOCKING AT MY DOOR AT 4AM ASKING TO HAVE HIS CIGARETTE LIT I CAN SHOOT HIM LEGALLY""

        Billy Kuch was a troubled kid. As an adolescent, he had bipolar disorder diagnosed and he’d been arrested a couple of times for driving under the influence. He drank too much, and he knew it.
        So when he was out at a party that August night on Golden Eagle Drive near the intersection of Gun Smoke Drive, he decided he was too blitzed to drive home. He left the party to lock his keys inside his car so he couldn’t get behind the wheel later that night.
         Kuch, then 23, stumbled back toward the party but forgot which beige stucco house was hosting the bash. He knocked on the wrong door, the one belonging to Gregory Stewart, a 32-year-old homeowner who did not appreciate having his wife and baby disturbed by a drunk kid after 4 in the morning. Kuch went away and texted his sister that he was totally confused about what was going on.
        Then Kuch found what he thought was the party house and tried the door. But he’d landed at Stewart’s place, again.
         This time, after Kuch turned the doorknob, Stewart told his wife to call 911. Then he grabbed his Smith & Wesson semiautomatic and went into his front yard.
         Stewart said he kept asking Kuch to leave, but Kuch, thinking the guys at the party were playing a joke on him, stayed.
         “Don’t make me shoot you,” warned the 6-foot-1 Stewart, according to police records. “I don’t want to shoot you.”
            Kuch, who stands 5-foot-9, raised his hands, asked for a light and lurched toward the homeowner. Stewart fired.

           Stewart broke down in tears when police arrived. “I could have given him a light,” he said. But he said he had felt threatened.
        Police asked Stewart why he hadn’t just waited inside until officers arrived.
        “I don’t know,” replied Stewart. His unwanted visitor, he said, was unarmed.
         “If I had a crazy drunk guy at my door,” said Jeanann Kuch, Billy’s mother, “I’d have locked my door and called 911.”

Kuch spent five weeks in a coma. He woke with no recollection of the incident.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/   

MIAMI (CBSMiami.com) – As some state lawmakers are calling for a re-thinking of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows people to defend themselves from danger without the need to first try to get away, an analysis of state data shows deaths due to self defense are up over 200 percent since the law took effect.

Until 2005, it was generally considered self defense if someone tried to get into your home or invade your property, so long as you could show deadly force was the last resort. In 2005, the “Stand your Ground” law removed the need to retreat before using force, even in public.

According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.

Florida Stand Your Ground Database
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/

2nd Amendment Quiz--my results

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/1104/How-much-do-you-know-about-the-Second-Amendment-A-quiz/Results 

 

How much do you know about the Second Amendment? A quiz.

Quiz results

Your score	Average reader score	Expert score
8 Correct 7 Wrong 53% You answered 8 of 15 questions correctly for a total score of 53%.	71%

·                                  

Do you know Chechnya? Take the quiz

·                                  

How much do you know about Myanmar? Take this quiz and find out.

·                                  

What do you know about GMOs? Take the quiz

·                                  

How much do you know about the Trayvon Martin case? Take our quiz!

·                                  

Think you know Turkey? Take our country quiz.

·                                  

Test your St. Louis Cardinals baseball IQ

·                                  

Can you manage your money? A personal finance quiz.

·                                  

Are you a weddings expert? Take the quiz.

·                                  

Test your Gangnam style?

·                                  

How much do you know about pop culture? Take our quiz to find out!

·                                  

'Star Trek': How well do you know the Trek universe?

·                                  

American moms: What makes a mom in the US? Take our quiz

Your results

Question	Your Response	Correct Answer	Score
Which right is protected by the Second Amendment?	Keep and bear arms	Keep and bear arms
Which is the correct text of the Second Amendment?	“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”	“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Constitutional scholars have long debated whether the Second Amendment protects the private possession of firearms or only the possession of firearms in the context of a well-regulated militia. The US Supreme Court examined the question in a 2008 case. What was the name of that landmark decision?		District of Columbia v. Heller
What issue was at stake in the 2008 Heller case?	All of the above.	All of the above.
What did the Supreme Court decide in the 2008 case?	Americans have a fundamental right to own and openly carry weaponry useful to a modern-day militia – except missiles, artillery, jet fighters, and tanks.	Residents of a federal enclave, like Washington, D.C., have a constitutional right to possess handguns and other commonly available firearms for personal protection in their homes.
Prior to 2008, the US Supreme Court last decided a case involving the Second Amendment in 1939. The case, US v. Miller, was a challenge to the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934. What did that federal law require?	Registration of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and other “gangster weapons” carried across state lines.	Registration of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and other “gangster weapons” carried across state lines.
What prompted Congress to pass the National Firearms Act of 1934?		The use of two Thompson submachine guns in Chicago’s 1929 St. Valentine’s Day massacre.
In the 1939 case, US v. Miller, two men were caught with an unlicensed sawed-off, double-barrel shotgun that they had transported from Oklahoma to Arkansas. They claimed the federal license requirement violated their Second Amendment rights. What did the court decide?	A shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches lacks any reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. Since the weapon would not be useful to a militia, it was beyond the protection of the Second Amendment.	A shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches lacks any reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. Since the weapon would not be useful to a militia, it was beyond the protection of the Second Amendment.
In 2010, the Supreme Court took up another landmark Second Amendment case, McDonald v. Chicago. What was the issue the high court decided?	Whether the court’s 2008 ruling establishing a constitutional right to possess handguns in Washington, D.C., would also apply to all state and local governments across the country.	Whether the court’s 2008 ruling establishing a constitutional right to possess handguns in Washington, D.C., would also apply to all state and local governments across the country.
Does the Second Amendment guarantee a personal right to own fully automatic military-issued combat rifles, heavy machine guns, and perhaps even shoulder-fired missiles?	No.	Probably not.
Does the Second Amendment guarantee a personal right to own semi-automatic rifles that resemble the fully-automatic military versions of the same firearm?	Yes.	Not clear at this point.
Following the 2008 Supreme Court ruling overturning the handgun ban, the District of Columbia City Council passed a new gun control measure, this one banning “assault weapons.” The Council defined “assault weapons” as semi-automatic rifles and pistols with certain military features. The new ban was challenged in federal court. A federal appeals court in October 2011 voted 2 to 1 to uphold the ban. What did the court say?		All of the above.
Gun rights advocates filed a new complaint in 2012 seeking to overturn the District of Columbia’s assault weapons ban. The lead plaintiff is Dick Heller, the same gun owner who successfully fought the District’s handgun ban. To challenge the assault weapons ban, Mr. Heller attempted to register a semi-automatic rifle he uses for target shooting, a Bushmaster XM-15-E2S. Which of the following individuals also used a Bushmaster XM-15-E2S?		All of the above.
In 1994, Congress passed a ban on certain semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. How was Jared Loughner, the admitted gunman in the 2011 shooting spree involving Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, able to purchase 30-round magazines for his pistol?	The 1994 federal assault weapons ban and restrictions on large capacity magazines expired in 2004 and have not been renewed by Congress.	The 1994 federal assault weapons ban and restrictions on large capacity magazines expired in 2004 and have not been renewed by Congress.
According to the National Rifle Association, how many privately-owned guns are currently in the United States?	More than 250 million.	More than 250 million.

Understanding The 2nd Amendment

THESE ARE NOT MY PERSONAL COMMENTS---

The 2^nd Amendment---From Corwin and Peltason's Understanding the Constitution (7^th Edition) pg 144

Pg 144 Militia and the Right to Bear Arms

“”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (this refers to “”state”” in the generic sense rather to states of the Union), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.””

There has been no definitive ruling on the matter, but the weight of opinion of most informed commentators is that the amendment was designed to prevent Congress from disarming the state militias, not to prevent it from regulating private ownership of firearms. In upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of sawed-off shotguns, the Court found no evidence that such weapons had any reasonable relationship “”to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”” The Second Amendment, it held, “”must be interpreted and applied”” with a view to maintaining a militia. “”The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia—civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.”” (note 124 from US v Miller 1939)

The Supreme Court has never listed this amendment as being one of those provisions of the Bill of Rights that limits the power of the state governments. As Justice Douglas wrote in an opinion dissenting on another point, “”A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that…gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment…There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.”” (note 125 from Adams V. Williams 1972)

FROM http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18637/18637-h/18637-h.htm#Page_811

AMENDMENT 2

BEARING ARMS

[Pg 813]

Amendment 2

""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.""

The protection afforded by this amendment prevents infringement by Congress of the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose, but does not apply to such infringement by private citizens. For this reason an indictment under the Enforcement Act of 1870,^[1] charging a conspiracy to prevent Negroes from bearing arms for lawful purposes was held defective.^[2] A State statute which forbids bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, does not abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms.^[3] In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, the Court refused to hold invalid a provision in the National Firearms Act^[4] against the transportation of unregistered shotguns in interstate commerce.^[5]

MILITIA ACT 1792  http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

MILITIA under control of President (as Commander in Chief) and Congress---NOT to fight government tyranny

 WEAPONS and laws of Militia

ANOTHER great piece on MILITIA, 2nd Amendment and what Founders had in mind

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy.html  

Piers Morgan wrong on 2nd Amendment

Time to correct Piers Morgan again---this time on the 2^nd Amendment

here is the first time Piers was wrong---on ""no guns in England""
http://libdem2.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-truth-about-guns-in-england-and-uk.html 

http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/12/piers-morgan-surprises-ben-ferguson-with-pro-gun-stance-i-completely-and-utterly-agree-with-you/?hpt=pm_t1

On his program Wednesday June 12, 2013 he showed the story of the grandmother who defended herself against an intruder with her gun---Piers said “”this is what the 2^nd amendment is for---for people to defend themselves””

No—it was NOT written for an individual right to own guns for self defense---OR as NRA and pro gun lobbies say “”to defend against govt tyranny”” either.

The 2^nd Amendment was SIMPLY creating a reserve army of Americans who would defend America and the states from external invasion and internal insurrections----essentially an internal police force or military, but without a standing army which the Founders feared because of their experiences with English rule and their history as Englishmen.

Constitution Article 1 Section 8 (Congress can create an army but only for 2 years at a time)

***To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

***To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article 2 Section 2

***The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Militia Act of 1792
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Militia Act and weapons---sorry no tanks allowed

Origin of the 2^nd Amendment and English history

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy.html

RFK Mindless Menace of Violence

Full Speech of RFK Mindless Menace of Violence---->> http://www.vsotd.com/Article.php?art_num=4651


CRUCIAL EXCERPTS FOR TODAY'S SOCIETY OF VIOLENCE AND HATRED OF THOSE WHO ARE DIFFERENT

It is not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one - no matter where he lives or what he does - can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on and on in this country of ours.
Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr's cause has ever been stilled by an assassin's bullet.
No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of reason.
Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily - whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence - whenever we tear at the fabric of the life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded.

It is not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one - no matter where he lives or what he does - can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on and on in this country of ours.
Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr's cause has ever been stilled by an assassin's bullet.
No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of reason.
Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily - whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence - whenever we tear at the fabric of the life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded.

When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies, to be met not with cooperation but with conquest; to be subjugated and mastered.

We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as aliens, men with whom we share a city, but not a community; men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in common effort. We learn to share only a common fear, only a common desire to retreat from each other, only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force.

My response to Emily Gets Her Gun

I saw today’s Washington Journal (Thursday, February 21, 2013)

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Washington-Journal-for-Thursday-February-21/10737438261/

and had some immediate glaring comments to make

I am not anti gun but am anti gun violence and mass murder

First thing---as you said---LOCK YOUR DOOR!!! Ok good ----also I recommend an alarm for your doors and windows----also security cameras are good as well---OK good

Next is DON’T FOLLOW CRIMINALS-----even if you are armed in a future event

Next thing is don’t assume they were drug users--but alright for now

ALSO VERY IMPORTANT-----THEY WALKED OUT OF YOUR HOME-----if you don’t keep your gun ON YOU at all times or locked when not in use it is more likely that it will be used AGAINST YOU if someone burglarizes your home

My house was broken into TWICE both times no one was home----once for a whole week and once for the whole day---if I had a gun at home and it wasn’t locked up where would it be now???

Guns stolen from homes--from Christian Science Monitor

Ok so you have a gun—great!!

Train yourself in using it
http://www.tacticalparadise.com/001/

---and keep it safe at home---

Also as a gun owner for protection I would love if you---and other gun owners who use it for protection---carry everywhere or just at home----

From http://projectchildsafe.org/sites/default/files/PCSBrochure_Adstar.pdf

Firearms Kept for Home Security

The decision to maintain a firearm in the home for self-protection is a serious, personal matter. Unlike passive safety devices, such as alarm systems, firearms used for home protection require significantly more involvement by the owner. Any added safety benefit that may be derived from a firearm depends in large measure on the owner's commitment to appropriate training and a clear understanding of safe handling and storage rules. Are your security concerns realistic and consistent with local crime rates? Do other adults in your household support the decision to maintain a gun in the house? If they will have access to the firearm, will they join you in a firearms training and safety program? What precautions will be practiced to safeguard children? Do risk factors such as drug and alcohol abuse exist within your household? In addition, issues such as individual temperament, reaction to emergency situations, and specific family circumstances should also enter in the decision.
If you must have quick access to a loaded firearm in your home, you need to take special safety measures. Keeping a gun to defend your family makes no sense if that same gun puts your family members or visitors to your home at risk. Many home firearms accidents occur when unauthorized individuals, often visitors, discover loaded firearms that were carelessly left out in the open.
If you choose to keep a firearm for home security, your objective should be to create a situation in which the firearm is readily available to you, yet inaccessible or inoperative to others. Special lockable cases that can be quickly opened only by authorized individuals are options to consider.
You must exercise full control and supervision over a loaded gun at all times. This means the gun must be unloaded and placed in secure storage whenever you leave the gun in your home or elsewhere. Secure ammunition separately.
Your most important responsibility is ensuring that unsupervised children cannot encounter loaded firearms. The precautions you take must be completely effective. Anything less invites tragedy and is a serious violation of your responsibility as a gun owner.