a pointed firearm can be persuasive.
in granada hills, california, the los angeles county’s district attorney’s husband, mr. david lacey, was confronted at his home with early morning protestors. from the reports, before 6 am in the morning, they approached the residence and were on the property. mr. david lacey, the da’s husband, according to reports, after the doorbell was rang, opened the door and pointed a gun at them. he said, ”i will shoot you. get off of my porch.” associated press.
for public law enforcement officials, family safety is to be taken seriously as they are at risk of harm. criminals, their associates, and their family members may want vengeance. thus, exercising hyper-vigilance at a residence is reasonable and necessary.
in a travesty of justice, for the aforementioned event, mr. david lacey was prosecuted. the criminal case resolved with him being allowed to enter into a division program. the program allows that “if he performs 100 hours of community service and attends anger management and gun safety classes.” associated press
mr. david lacey is african american and the protestors on his property were there representing black lives matter.
in kenosha wisconsin, in the rittenhouse case, assistant district attorney thomas binger brandished a rifle and reportedly aimed it at jury members in an attempt to persuade them to find in favor of a guilty verdict. his aim was to seek justice for black lives matter protestors who were killed or shot when by the defendant who was allegedly was protecting private property. the defendant allegedly used his weapon in self-defense.
those shot and killed by the defendant in that matter were white.
mr. binger’s pointing of the weapon has drawn much outrage. there are opinions that it constituted a criminal act, there are those who opine that it was unbecoming courtroom conduct. there are those who believe that, in doing so, he undermined the us constitutional 6th amendment’s right to a trial by jury. placing a gun to a jury member’s head would certainly amount to coercion versus persuasion.
all things being equal, it would be apparent that action must be taken against mr. binger. mr. binger’s conduct must be condemned by his own district attorney’s offices. no prospective juror, in their right mind, would ever wish to be on a jury where mr. binger is prosecuting. they certainly would want to avoid the likelihood that they would have a gun pointed at them.
mr. binger’s conduct must be condemned by the wisconsin state bar. his action is worthy of some measured discipline.
mr. binger’s conduct must be investigated by the legal body responsible for conduct in the courtroom. either the state of wisconsin, the county, or the city criminally investigate a weapon’s charge against him.
if these measures are not taken, the happenings in these two cities tell a tale of a tiered justice system. one for those who support and condone the black lives matter movement in which coercion is permissible. the other for regular citizens who are to be treated second class citizens.
if you would like to read more blog posts, click here
if you find this post meaningful, please share
if you enjoyed this post, please “like.”