Mediaboss Marketing

WEST PALM BEACH

A Stand Your Ground defense has freed a suburban West Palm Beach man charged with shooting and wounding his brother-in-law during an argument two years ago.

Judge John S. Kastrenakes on Monday dismissed a charge of attempted first-degree murder against Harlan Tuitt, 35, ruling in favor of a defense motion to dismiss the case under the states Stand Your Ground law.

Tuitt had been accused in the February 2015 shooting of his brother-in-law during an argument at Tuitts home on Bosque Lane, south of Gun Club Road and west of Haverhill Road.

We think the judge made a proper and wise decision, defense attorney Eric Schwartzreich said. Today justice was done.

Defense attorneys argued that Tuitt was defending himself after being threatened in his home. The Stand Your Ground law authorizes people to meet force with deadly force in their homes, cars or any place they feel their lives in are in danger without a duty to try to retreat.

Had Tuitt gone to trial and been convicted, he could have faced 25 years to life in prison.

On the night of Feb. 19, 2015, Tuitt called 911 to tell authorities he had shot his brother-in-law four times. He told investigators his brother-in-law showed up to his home uninvited. The men drank alcohol as Tuitt celebrated a promotion a work.

According to defense attorneys, Tuitt began discussing a business he was planning to start and offered his brother-in-law a job working at minimum wage The offer angered Tuitts brother-in-law, who began making threats, attorneys said in a motion filed in court.

Tuitt told investigators he was forced to defend himself when his brother-in-law came at him aggressively. The bullets struck the brother-in-law in the torso, buttocks, arm and legs. Investigators spoke to the shooting victim the following day at St. Marys Medical Center.

The man said he had been invited to celebrate Tuitts promotion. He said Tuitt became upset when he mentioned Tuitts actions at a Super Bowl party. The man said he believed Tuitt was intoxicated and was trying to kill him.

Tuitts wife told investigators she was in the kitchen when she heard screaming and yelling prior to the shooting. She could not recall what was said. She told investigators the moment was a blur, and she was non-committal with details about the shooting, police said in their report.

See original here:
BREAKING: 'Stand Your Ground' defense frees man who shot brother-in-law - Palm Beach Post

Donald W. Bohlken Letter to the Editor 11:15 a.m. CT April 11, 2017

Another View(Photo: File photo)

In their responses to my defense of HF517, a reform measure which preserves the Second Amendment rights of law abiding people, Roger Kuhle and Michael May fabricate arguments I never made and distort the ones I did. Despite Mr. Kuhles assertion to the contrary, I have never advocated for an unrestricted or unregulated right to gun ownership or use. Like the NRA, I would like to see stronger enforcement of federal laws prohibiting gun ownership by felons and the use of firearms in violent crimes and drug offenses.

I never tried to sell the idea that that the police need the stand your ground law to avoid liability for mistakenly shooting someone using a toy gun in a robbery. I argued that the bill was needed to ensure that civilians, and not just police officers, should be able to avoid liability if they use deadly force as the result of a reasonable, but mistaken, belief that such force was required. This principle should be codified in law and not be merely the result of prosecutorial discretion.

Kuhle is mistaken in his belief that pro-gun legislation results in increased gun sales. It is the threat of oppressive, anti-gun legislation that drives gun sales. That is why, during the Clinton and Obama administrations, gun stores often displayed posters of Clinton or Obama with the caption Worlds Greatest Gun Salesman.

Michael May apparently believes that, prior to HF517, the people of Iowa had no right to defend themselves in public places. For decades, the law has allowed people to use Reasonable force [which] is that force and no more which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to ones life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist a like force or threat. Iowa Code section 704.1. The law also allowed one to defend others and to resist forcible felonies. Iowa Code sections 704.3 and .7. HF517s continued allowance of self-defense in public places does not deputize anyone. The most significant difference between current law and stand your ground is that innocent victims of crime in public places will no longer be subject to the dangerous requirement to delay self-defense while they make an evaluation of whether or not a safe alternative to force is available. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.

It is amazing that May opposes the proposition that people should be required to base their acts of self-defense on a reasonable belief that they are in danger. This is simply a clarification of the reasonable force standard and an extension of the reasonable person standard, where the law requires people to act in a reasonable manner in a variety of situations. The law makes it clear that if a claim of self-defense or defense of others is made on a basis that is unreasonable, then that claim will not shield anyone from liability.

Mays problem, however, is that he is unalterably opposed to self-defense in public places. His callous disregard for the right of self-defense is evident when he characterizes defensive shooters as undisciplined, untrained, and unidentified active shooters. A Texas State University study makes clear that active shooters are one or more persons murdering or attempting to murder multiple people in an area (or areas) occupied by multiple unrelated individuals. Thus, Mr. May equates defensive shooters with murderers. He also claims that stand your ground violates right to life principles. He thereby equates the life of an innocent unborn child with that of a violent criminal. Incredibly, he believes that an armed civilians role should be limited to see something, say something without daring to defend themselves or others, even if failure to do so costs innocent lives.

May asks How would police arriving at a shooting at the Warren County Fair, an Indianola movie theater, or or Friday night football game tell the difference between an active shooter and a Stand Your Ground shooter?

What Mr. May doesnt know is that, in 49 percent of active shooter events, the event is over before the police arrive. In 19 percent of active shooter events, the shooter is subdued or shot by other people at the scene before the police arrive. Apparently, the defenders would not agree with Mays position that self-defense is wrong.

With respect to mass shootings, the average number of people shot when the shooter is stopped by police is 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians is 2.5. The reason for the discrepancy is because the police were not there when the shooting started.

Can May name a single active shooter event where the police were so confused that the police mistakenly shot a defender? In the Pearl, Miss., high school shooting, the Appalachian Law School shooting and the Edinboro, Pa., school dance shooting, the defenders used their guns to stop the mass shooters without firing a shot. In the Winnemuca, Nev., bar shooting and the Colorado Springs, Colo., church shooting, the civilians shot the mass shooters. In none of these cases did the police shoot the defenders.

Ask any police officer which he would prefer: to arrive at a scene where a mass shooters victims have been limited to two or three because an armed defender stopped the shooter, even if there is confusion at the scene; or to arrive at a scene where 13 have been shot and the shootings are ongoing, but the mass killer can be easily identified because he is the only person standing and the only one with a gun?

Because guns are successfully used for self-defense approximately 3 million times a year in America, the police are used to scenarios where it may not be clear whether a defensive gun use, which most often involves pointing a gun or using it to detain an offender and not an actual shooting, is justified or not. They direct anyone holding a gun to lay it down and detain everyone involved until the matter can be sorted out.

The nonsense that law-abiding citizens defending themselves or others would hinder police is contradicted by the massive support by police for liberal concealed carry policies as demonstrated by the PoliceOne survey of 15,000 police officers cited in my previous letter. Police officers such as Sheriff Clarke of Milwaukee County, Wis., and police chief Craig of Detroit, Mich., have expressed support for armed citizen intervention against crime. In Florida, after the Trayon Martin incident, a task force, which included police officials, conducted an investigation into whether their stand your ground law should be retained. Their conclusion: [A]ll persons who are conducting themselves in a lawful manner have a fundamental right to stand their ground and defend themselves from attack with proportionate force in every place they have a lawful right to be. Iowans deserve no less.

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2ooxhZ4

More here:
Viewpoint: Stand your ground - DesMoinesRegister.com

Neil Gorsuch, newly sworn in as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, is taking his seat at a busy time for the court. Beginning this week, the Court will meet in conference to decide what cases it will hear in the near future, and the future of the right to keep and bear arms could depend on the outcome.

In the Peruta case, which is one of the cases up for consideration this week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals originally concluded in a 2-1 decision that San Diego County is violating the constitutional rights of residents by not recognizing self-defense as a valid reason to acquire a concealed-carry license. The judges found that the denial of a concealed-carry license, coupled with Californias ban on the open carrying of firearms, amounts to an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. However, that decision was overturned by a broader panel of judges on the 9th Circuit. In the en banc decision, the 9th Circuit held that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public. What about the open carry ban? The en banc review claimed that the question was beyond the scope of the lawsuit and would require additional litigation before the constitutionality of an open carry ban could be addressed.To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.

If the Supreme Court doesnt agree to hear Peruta, then the en banc decision will remain in force throughout the western states that comprise the 9th Circuit. A new challenge to the states open carry ban has been filed, but it will be years before it gets to the Supreme Court for an appeal. In the meantime, millions of Americans will have their Second Amendment rights curtailed by a court that refuses to examine the real question: Do we have a right to bear arms for self-defense outside of the home?

Increasing the chances that the Supreme Court might hear Peruta is the fact that there is a significant split among the courts of appeals on the issue of bearing arms for self-defense outside of the home. In Moore v. Madigan, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded: A Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan decided not to appeal the 7th Circuits decision to the Supreme Court, and instead the state moved to adopt a shall-issue concealed-carry law (Its interesting to note that Illinois didnt adopt a law similar to Californias, even though anti-gun sentiment runs strong in the state legislature). If the Supreme Court had the chance to consider this case back in 2013, perhaps the Peruta case would be superfluous. Its not. Its the best chance the Supreme Court will have in years to put to rest the idea that the right to keep and bear arms exists only inside the home. Lets hope with the addition of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court that there are four justices ready to vote to hear the case.

Cam Edwards is the host of Cam & Co., which airs live 2-5 p.m. EST on NRATV and midnight EST on SiriusXM Patriot 125.He lives with his family on a small farm near Farmville, Va. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @camedwards.

Read this article:
Will The Supreme Court Hear A Second Amendment Case This Year? - America's 1st Freedom (press release) (blog)

The City by the Bayon behalf of Californiasues mom and pop firearms accessories companies across the country.Dylan Saunders, owner of one such shop,7.62 Precision, is fighting back.

By Dave Gahary

San Francisco officials recently made news for vowing to protect undocumented (read: illegal) immigrants by refusing to order local law enforcement to assist in enforcing federal immigration law and sued the Trump administration over its order to cut off federal funds to sanctuary cities. Now they have a new target in theirsights: the Second Amendment.

Dennis J. Herrera, first elected city attorney of San Francisco in 2001, is the most well-known champion of same-sex marriage in the Golden State. Today, he wants to make a name for himself by capitalizing onthe many alleged massacres that have been frothily reported by the fake news media.

A week after his attack on the presidents plan to rein in the rampant illegal immigration, Herrera filed suit on Feb. 9 against five named and 50 unnamed companies selling magazine repair kits to California residents, who have had their Second Amendment rights severely limited by gun control-crazy politicians.

Magazine repair or rebuild kits are new magazines that have been opened, disassembled, and packaged for shipping and are used to repair existing magazines, create limited-capacity magazines, or otherwiseassembled and used in accordance with local laws and restrictions.

On the first page of the 34-page complaint, the lawsuit evokes several so-called massacres that have ostensibly occurred in this country over the past decade.

American Free Press sat down with the owner of one of the five named companies, Alaska-based 7.62 Precision, to discuss the lawsuit.

Dylan Saunders, who grew up in Alaska mostly in bush villages without electricity or running water and spent some time in the U.S. Army as a cavalry scout and later as a sniper in an infantry unit, livesin Wasilla, Alaska, where former Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor for six years.

I was injured in Iraq and came back trying to figure out how to support my family, Dylan told AFP. So I started doing what I knew, and that was working with firearms as a way to try to pay the bills.

Listen to AFPs interview with Dylan Saunders by clicking the image below:

He added, Several weeks ago I was very surprised to get a knock at my door at about 10:30 in the evening and receive a summons stating that I was being sued.

Saundersexplained how he got tangled up in this lawsuit.

California some years ago passed a law that prohibited most people in California from purchasing what they call a large capacity magazine, which would be anything larger than 10 rounds, Saunders explained. In the language of that law, they clearly allowed for magazine repair kits to be sold to residents of California, in order to keep grandfathered magazines working. Magazines are consumable items in firearms. They wear out, and theyre usually one of the first components to wear out. So, in order to keep a firearm running you need to be able to repair your magazines since they couldnt replace them.

When California banned magazine repair kits a few years ago, Saunders stopped selling them.

However, Herreras legal staff had simply accessed an old web page from Saunderss website, where ordering the kits is impossible. Once publishedon the World Wide Web,all pages remain accessible, even pages and websites that no longer exist.

Had they simply called me and asked if they could order one from me or even called me and told me that it was the attorney for the city of San Francisco, Saunders said, I wouldve been willing to prove to him that I was not selling these kits and had not intended for that page to be visible. But instead of getting that, they simply sued.

Saunders suspects there is another agenda at play here.

Its pretty obvious that their intent is not to keep people from selling magazine kits in the state of California. Their intention is to attack firearms companies and try to put them out of business, Saunders said. Thats why theyre using lawsuits rather than criminal charges. In the case of criminal charges, they would have to prove that a crime had been committed, while they can bring a lawsuit and hope to bankrupt a company without actually having to win the lawsuit, without having to provide proof. A lot of companies would just fold as a result.

Instead of folding, Saunders fought back, by tapping into what is called crowdfunding, by which a project (in this case, legal fees) is funded by raising money collectively from a large number of people across the world.

These guys were going to get a default judgment if I couldnt retain a law firm, so what I did was I established a GoFundMe campaign, Saunders explained. I was blown away that people from all over the United States jumped in. I think it was less than a week wed raised $10,000, which was our goal.

Saunders has retained a top-notch law firm thanks to the donations, and is still overwhelmed by the support.

We had people donating hundreds of dollars, he said. I was expecting that people would donate $15, $20, $25, and maybe some people would go big and donate $50, but I was just blown away by the support, both monetary and by people sending messages and saying, Were pulling for you in this. It really says something about our country and about shooters across the country.

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, prevailed in a suit broughtby the New York Stock Exchange in an attempt to silence him.

See the original post here:
San Francisco Tries End-Run Around Second Amendment ... - American Free Press

The congregation talked immigration reform and ways they can do their part(courtesy:NBC).

Bowling Green, Ohio (WNWO)--In light of changing immigration reform rules one church is starting the discussion and spearheading efforts to help.

After Sunday's service, the Maumee Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Bowling Green sat and listened to Labor Leader Baldemar Velasquez speak on the difficulties immigrants in Northwest Ohio including : deportation, wage intimidation, along with ICE (Immigration and customs Enforcement) and border patrol .

He stressed the importance of immigrants knowing their rights, specifically focusing on their rights to due process and an attorney with looming deportation.

He also mentioned for families to have a family preparedness plan, urging the community to "adopt"' a family and help " keep proper documents gathered and put in one place" in case something were to happen.

Velasquez is the president of F.L.O.C. ( farm labor organizing committee supporting other unions)and also works with the nonprofit CMWJ,( Campaign for Migrant workers Justice, which does education and job training for illegal immigrants).

"We want to know how to help" said Congregation President Steve Israel, explaining why it was so important for the congregation to hear Velasquez speak.

Read more:
Church hears from Illegal Immigration Leader | WNWO - WNWO NBC 24