Author: Lee Weems

Campus Carry: What you need to know.

In the 2017 legislative session, the Georgia General Assembly passed House Bill 280 amending state law regarding the carrying of handguns on Georgia’s college campuses. The bill was signed by Governor Deal, and it goes into effect on July 1, 2017.

The purpose of this post is to share information about the bill. It is not to debate the merits of the bill, pro or con.

The first distinction that needs to be discussed is that this bill allows for Georgia Weapons Carry License (GWCL) holders to carry concealed handguns in certain places on campus. It is important to stress the word “concealed” as otherwise, the GWCL allows for open and/or concealed carry, and yes, the GWCL is required for open carry.

The bill did not amend 16-11-127.1 O.C.G.A. as it pertains to other weapons. So, if you are a GWCL holder, you will be able to carry a pistol on campus, but your pocket knife with a blade of more than two inches in length would still be illegal. Remember, this is government; it doesn’t have to make sense.

Below is an excerpt of 16-11-127.1 containing the definition of weapons that are prohibited on campus (prior to the change allowing for concealed handguns):

“Weapon” means and includes any pistol, revolver, or any weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind, or any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, any other knife having a blade of two or more inches, straight-edge razor, razor blade, spring stick, knuckles, whether made from metal, thermoplastic, wood, or other similar material, blackjack, any bat, club, or other bludgeon-type weapon, or any flailing instrument consisting of two or more rigid parts connected in such a manner as to allow them to swing freely, which may be known as a nun chahka, nun chuck, nunchaku, shuriken, or fighting chain, or any disc, of whatever configuration, having at least two points or pointed blades which is designed to be thrown or propelled and which may be known as a throwing star or oriental dart, or any weapon of like kind, and any stun gun or taser as defined in subsection (a) of Code Section 16-11-106. This paragraph excludes any of these instruments used for classroom work authorized by the teacher.

Again, everything on that list, except concealed handguns, will still be illegal to carry on college campuses.

As for concealed, here is your definition:

‘Concealed’ means carried in such a fashion that does not actively solicit the attention of others and is not prominently, openly, and intentionally displayed except for purposes of defense of self or others. Such term shall include, but not be limited to, carrying on one’s person while such handgun is substantially, but not necessarily completely, covered by an article of clothing which is worn by such person, carrying within a bag of a nondescript nature which is being carried about by such person, or carrying in any other fashion as to not be clearly discernible by the passive observation of others.

As for where you can carry:

Any weapons carry license holder when he or she is in any building or on real property owned by or leased to any public technical school, vocational school, college, or university, or other public institution of postsecondary education;

and where you can’t:

buildings or property used for athletic sporting events or student housing, including, but not limited to, fraternity and sorority houses;
any preschool or childcare space located within such buildings or real property
any room or space being used for classes related to a college and career academy or other specialized school as provided for under Code Section 20-4-37;
any room or space being used for classes in which high school students are enrolled through a dual enrollment program, including, but not limited to, classes related to the ‘Move on When Ready Act’ as provided for under Code Section 20-2-161.3;
faculty, staff, or administrative offices or rooms where disciplinary proceedings are conducted;

NOTE: In 2016, the General Assembly passed HB 792 which made made carrying “electro shock weapons” on campus legal for those over 18, but as of the writing of this article, they have not been removed from the prohibited weapons under 16-11-127.1 per the published code sections.

Class Review: FLETC Use of Force Instructor

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) has a program that allows state, local, tribal, and territorial officers to attend classes at FLETC along with federal agents/officers, and I was afforded the opportunity to attend the Use of Force Instructor Program.

FLETC UOFITP

The Students

Other state/local agencies represented in the class were the Alaska State Troopers, the New Orleans Police Department, and the Gwinnett County (GA) Sheriff’s Office. Federal agencies represented in the class included Immigration and Customs Enforcement, National Park Service, Diplomatic Security Service, Federal Protective Service, Federal Air Marshals, Treasury Department, Customs and Border Protection, Defense Intelligence Agency, Homeland Security, and the United States Coast Guard. Numerous FLETC staff instructors also attended as students.

Academics and Testing

The course was two-weeks in length and included numerous testing points along the way. At the end of the first week, students had to pass a written test covering the academic blocks presented in the first week. During week two, we had graded practical exercises, an individual oral review board with a panel consisting of an instructor and a lawyer, and each student made a 30-minute presentation on an assigned topic. A failure at any testing point resulted in dismissal from the program. Not everyone made it to graduation.

A note on the testing: this was not a “gimme class”. It was not taken for granted that a basic instructor training had prepared students to develop and deliver presentations. This had to be demonstrated in the class. The practical exercises were no joke. The oral review boards were the real test. While the written test measured recognition, the oral board required recall and the ability to explain the material. Some of the questions were simply knowledge checks, but there were others in which applying and explaining the course material was required. Students had to truly know, understand, and be able to explain the material.

The academic training included blocks on legal aspects of use of force, liability, human performance factors (Force Science Institute stuff), and procedures for training with non-lethal training ammunition (NLTA) and developing training programs. The first week also consisted of numerous laboratories in which students were exposed to drills and scenarios. During the second week, we ran drills and scenarios that were developed by the class.

Drills, Scenarios, and Practicals

The training methodology involved the initial use of drills. The student would be given specific instructions for a response such as the use of a baton or a firearm, etc. Sometimes the drill would include a transition from one implement to another. Each drill would be followed by a debrief in which the student articulated the actions of the role player as well as their own actions.

After the drills came scenarios in which students were given a pre-brief such as a type of call and other pertinent information and sent into the training area to handle it. Sometimes the role players would comply; sometimes they wouldn’t. The student was expected to respond in an objectively reasonable manner. As previously stated, each drill/scenario would be followed with a detailed debrief.

The purpose of the dictated response drills, particularly those involving transitions, were to “build the files” for responses to avoid the euphemistic “404 file not found”. The courts describe such incidents as tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. The facts of an incident often change during an incident, and when the facts change; the response changes. For instance, in one scenario, I was sent to arrest a person on a warrant for not paying child support. I found the suspect at his job site. It so happens he was a groundskeeper, and he didn’t want to go to jail; a point of view he emphasized with his shovel, but he reconsidered his opinion once I drew my pistol; however, at that point he decided to resort to fisticuffs. I countered his argument with a baton. Of course, a debrief followed.

The scenarios didn’t require a specific response. The response had to be objectively reasonable based upon the interpretations and procedures of the Supreme Court. The responses to such incidents are not cookie cutter responses. Where one officer my utilize a baton while another officer might utilize pepper spray in the same instance, what matters is that the response is objectively reasonable based upon the facts of the situation.

Our graded practical exam involved functioning as the instructor to include giving the pre-brief, observing the scenario, and then conducting the debrief. The “student” for the scenario was a FLETC staff instructor. This was followed by going through a scenario as a student to test our application of the material to the facts presented and our ability to articulate our actions.

Debriefings

Ample of use of the Student Centered Feedback Model was the method of debrief. This method, if used properly, is a very effective tool in both drawing out the details of the incident and breaking free from “cop speak”. For instance, there is a difference between “he took up a fighting stance” and actually describing a fighting stance so that it is clear exactly what the person did.

In Closing

To any agency heads that read this, I strongly recommend that you get people from your training units through this class and allow them to come back and implement what they learned. Also, don’t get a case of sticker shock when look at the costs. The published costs are a worst case scenario for if no on-center housing is available and the student has to stay at a contracted hotel, and there may be other ways to offset the costs fully or partially. Even at the full published amounts the training is worth it if you allow your personnel to implement the material across your entire organization. Don’t look at it as an expense; look at it as an investment, and I would put this class alongside the Force Science Institute program as far as the quality and usefulness of information, which reminds me, you need to get your training staff through that course as well.

Familiarity Breeds Contempt

I grew up primarily on what had been my grandfather’s dairy. My father harped on me when dealing with the livestock, “Familiarity breeds contempt”.

The meaning of that saying was just as soon as you started thinking one of the livestock wouldn’t hurt you, it would hurt you. It was more than just words. My grandfather was killed by one of his cows.

I ignored the rule at least twice. I wound up unconscious both times. The first words my father said to me on each occasion, “Familiarity breeds contempt.”

Today, I dealt with a guy whom we had arrested previously. He has an active protective order against him. In that encounter, he tried to bait me into an escalation. Later in the day, I responded to a call with the same subject. He entered a residence from which he is prohibited, and he busted out the windshield of a car on scene as well along with some other damage.

The subject fled to a nearby vacant house. It was there that I confronted him. He screamed at me to shoot him.

And then he shoved his hand into his jacket pocket.

I had a decision to make and only a split second in which to make it. I was pretty sure that he was just baiting me. I was pretty sure that he didn’t have a firearm in his pocket, but in a moment of tachypsychia I heard my father’s voice..

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Later when I talked about the incident with the Sheriff, he said, “If you hadn’t just dealt with him and knew his state of mind, or if it had been another deputy who confronted him in that house, he’d be dead right now.”

I had to make a split-second decision as to whether or not to press the trigger. Legally, I can articulate a justification for doing so, but if I had, I’d be the latest cop to be plastered all over the news as having killed an unarmed man. If he had been armed, and my “pretty sure” was wrong, I would have been in initiative deficit, and I might be all over the news tonight for a much different reason.

While I have been able to wrap this whole thing around a saying from my upbringing, this type of incident plays out repeatedly for peace officers all over the country. It really is that close of a call time and time again.

As another saying goes: It’s not the odds; it’s the stakes.

Class Review: Rangemaster Defensive Shotgun

“When people get shot with a shotgun, they tend to stay shot.” –Tom Givens

Tom Givens

For the second time this year I had the pleasure of participating in the Rangemaster Defensive Shotgun course. The first time was as a student. This time, due to the lovely and gracious Lynn Givens being occupied in whipping all of the male shooters in a Gunsite 250 Pistol class en route to an Expert rated certificate, I had the honor of being Tom’s assistant.

The class was held on the same picturesque range as the previous day’s Defensive Revolver Skills course.

Context

My favorite thing about Tom’s teaching style is that he puts everything into context. There is a reason for every drill, technique, etc, and it is thoroughly explained. In his shotgun class, everything is put in the context of a person using a shotgun for personal defense within their home or business. For instance, a business owner isn’t going to take the time in the middle of a hold-up to attach shell holders to their belt; the problem will have to be solved with the ammo in and on the gun. This is a much different context than the use of the shotgun in a military environment

As problems with operating a shotgun are typically shooter induced, the class is strong on robust manipulations and repeated drilling on the fundamentals of operating the weapon and loading techniques.

Yes, You Have to Aim

The pictures below show two separate targets shot with Federal Flite Control OO buckshot. As you can see, the patterns are tight enough that the shots clearly have to be aimed.

Flite Control: One round at three yards

Flite Control: Three rounds at 15 yards

Chris Baker of the Lucky Gunner Lounge was a student in the class. He wrote an article on choosing buckshot for the home defense shotgun and created the video embedded below. The video has good information on different loads, and they currently have a series underway focussing on shotguns.

Patterning & Set-up

Following all of the shooting drills, the class patterned their shotguns out to 15 yards with the buckshot loads they brought with them as well as with Flite Control. Tom also discussed his preferred set-up regarding sights, magazine extensions, etc. This too was in context as he discussed this topic with personal defense in the home/business in mind and not a peace officer on a manhunt.

Choices

For some reason the mention of a shotgun as a personal protection tool offends people who prefer a carbine or other option, and they feel honor bound to justify their choice. Usually, their reasoning is fueled by misconceptions or misunderstandings of the capabilities of the shotgun (that should set some such people off). The fact is that the versatility and the fight-ending effectiveness of a proper shotgun load can’t be denied. I personally have more confidence in a magazine tube full off Flite Control than I due a magazine of 9mm or .223 to solve an immediate close to intermediate range problem. If you choose otherwise, be happy in your choice. If ever I have to shoot someone; I want them to stay shot.

Class Review: Rangemaster Defensive Revolver Skills

“The situation doesn’t change because of what you brought with you.” –Tom Givens

Tom Givens during his Defensive Revolver Skills course

The setting was pristine: a cool, crisp fall morning on a private range nestled up to a mountain just outside of Franklin, TN. The road into the range was so steep and rough that those participants driving a car had to leave it at the top of a hill and be ferried to the range by someone in a truck. The narrow road wound through a thick stand of trees ultimately ending in a clearing containing a cabin, a barn, and appropriate facilities.

The clearing was cut by a stream, and a footbridge provided access to the range.

The berm was provided by nature, and the classroom consisted of folding tables and chairs.

Why a revolver class?

The class began with the instructor, Tom Givens, asking each student why they were in the class. My answer was that I believed the revolver would soon be a lost art, and I wanted to learn the skills of running the wheelgun before the primary sources of the information are gone. (When it comes to firearms knowledge, a source doesn’t get more primary than Tom Givens.)

I attended a regional police academy in 1999. The academy served 10 counties, and of all of the agencies sending cadets to that academy, only two were still issuing revolvers to their personnel and only then to those assigned to the respective jails. Those agencies have since made a complete transition to semi-automatic pistols.

My agency has two deputies that carry revolvers as their primary duty weapon. My sheriff is in his sixth term, and one of those two deputies “came with the office”, and the other one has been in the profession for close to three decades.

It should be noted that the standard qualification course for Georgia’s peace officers is a revolver neutral course meaning that it is designed to accommodate the limited ammunition capacity of a revolver.

The Sheriff’s Office runs numerous free citizen’s firearms safety classes per year, and revolvers are common in those courses; however, this is mainly due to their being inherited nightstand guns or because husbands, boyfriends, and gun shop employees are an unwitting anathema to ladies.

Tom Givens showing collection of revolver gear.

Warning: Upset Apple Carts Ahead

In the section above, I mentioned that the instructor wanted to know why we were in the class. As to why we should learn to run a revolver, his answer was simple: it was so that we could demonstrate why not to choose a revolver as a primary defensive firearm.

It is a very common misconception that revolvers are more reliable than a quality semi-automatic pistol. In truth, they are a much more complicated piece of machinery. When they do malfunction, it usually takes time and tools to fix them whereas an immediate action response (malfunction clearing technique) typically fixes the problem with a semi-automatic pistol, and this usually only takes a few seconds. Such problems with revolvers happen much more often than revolver aficionados will admit. We had three instances in which wheelguns in the class failed to the point that they had to be taken out of action, and this mirrored another recent class taught by the instructor.

According to Tom, the old saying “six for sure” referring to the reliability of wheelguns actually hearkens back to the days of mercury based primers when ammunition was so unreliable that misfires were expected, and with a revolver, the shooter simply pressed the trigger again to rotate to the next cylinder rather than clearing the malfunction. Mercury based primers haven’t been used since the World War II era, and this issue is now moot.

Tom Givens demonstrating what the gasses from the cylinder gap will do. He turned the target and held the revolver along side of it and fired a shot.

Ammunition Capacity

The quote at the beginning of this article holds true. The situation doesn’t change because of what you brought with you. Carrying a five or six shot revolver isn’t going to limit your problems to those that can be solved with such a tool. In over 40 years of teaching firearms and researching the subject matter, the instructor hasn’t found any documentation of anyone being able to successfully reload a revolver in a close range gunfight. He contrasted this with prolonged, barricaded gunmen situations.

The late Jim Cirillo, member of the NYPD Stake Out Squad, is famous for his answer when asked about his preferred revolver reload technique: grab another gun. This has come to be known as the “New York Reload”.

I tested this on one of the timed drills, and I was faster by several seconds in getting a second gun into action than I was in reloading the primary. Of note, the two revolvers combined have less capacity than a single Glock 19.

A fellow student accessing a revolver in an ankle holster.

Conclusion

Some of the students shot the entire class with a service sized revolver, but some used either a small revolver or alternated between the two. Attention was given to drawing from the pocket as well as an ankle holster. Staying true to the theme that “the situation doesn’t change because of what you brought with you”, the time limits on drills and courses of fire where not changed to accommodate those carrying in an ankle holster.

As usual, Tom was a gold mine of information. In my brief stint of shooting IDPA, I dabbled in the revolver division and even managed a match bump with my wheelgun, but I was always inconsistent on my reloads. One nugget from Tom resolved that issue (take the class 😉 ).

The class did just what I hoped it would do in that it provided exactly the experience that I was seeking.

Class Review: Rangemaster Advanced Instructor Course

“We want to shoot as fast as we can guarantee hits.” –Tom Givens

Broward County (FL) is home to one of the most modern indoor shooting facilities in existence. Unfortunately, it wasn’t available, and our class was held at an indoor range built in the 1940s. It made for a very interesting shooting experience. The class consisted of 12 students; all graduates of the Rangemaster Instructor Development Course (IDC).

Tom Givens

The class began with a review of some of the material from the IDC particularly that we need to reject the notion of an “average” gunfight in favor of the term “typical” in that training programs should be designed around the things that we see occurring regularly. Tom also stressed that shooting shouldn’t be a contest of a speed versus accuracy; it should be a blend of speed AND accuracy. As he says, “There is a finite amount of time in a gunfight. Misses won’t help you. Misses are wasted time.”

The first range work consisted of some dry presentations and then quickly moved into accuracy and trigger control drills. This was followed by some diagnostic drills, and then several runs on the Rangemaster Bullseye Course. Posted below is the target from my best run, a 295 out of 300, with my other two runs being a 284 and a 288. The 284 was my first run. I had a good group, but it was clustered high in 8-ring and the 9-ring. After that, I went with a “six o’clock hold aligning the top edge of my front sight near the bottom the black, and this put the shots where I wanted them.

295 on the Rangemaster Bullseye Course

We finished up the shooting on day one by shooting the Rangemaster Instructor Qualification Course followed by a run on the ATF qualification course. I really liked the ATF course. My first run, pictured below was a 96. The inner gray area as well as the white oval are scored at 2 points each. The outer gray area is worth one point. Anything outside of that is zero points. The high shots are from the 15 and 25 yard lines.

The rest of the day was in the classroom.

96 on the ATF course.

Day two started with another run on the Rangemaster Bullseye Course followed by a run on the FBI Bullseye Course.

My target from the FBI Bullseye Course.

After that, the pace of the shooting picked up quite a bit. We shot a drill called the 6-5-4 Drill that required the shooter to alternate between precise shots and shooting at speed. I really liked this drill and will be using it a good bit. The target had three different sized targets on it. Within a time limit, we had to put two shots on each target with only hits counting. Following that, we shot the Parrot Drill, which is similar to the 6-5-4. There were also several runs on the Casino Drill.

We did a classroom session on the evolution of low light techniques (and of flashlights) followed by a range session to practice them.

The final shooting portion of the class was another run on the ATF course. I managed to pull a 100 this time.

100 on the ATF Course

The “Top Gun” award was based upon the two runs on the ATF course. We had two shooters score perfect 100s on both runs, and they split the award.

The day wrapped up with some more classroom work covering target selection and design and scoring methods.

This was another great course from Tom Givens and was well worth the trip. I picked up several teaching points and techniques and will be incorporating them into upcoming training. I continue to be impressed with Tom’s teaching style and class organization, specifically, each of his teaching points is well thought out, researched, and explained. There is no extraneous material. Furthermore, he provides historical context on the development of techniques. He also explains why there are things that he doesn’t teach and gives the context for that as well. It is unfortunately rather common for instructors to merely parrot things they have heard elsewhere without understanding the whys and wherefores. Tom is a legit source that not only understands what he is teaching, he knows exactly why he is teaching it.

Training Cake

I first became aware of Patton Oswalt due to his portrayal of the character “Constable Bob Sweeney” on the show Justified. He is also a standup comic.

Before I go any further, I tell you now that he is an atheist, he cusses, and he discusses religion. Don’t click on the link below if your sensibilities can’t handle it. I also warn you that it is not safe for work.

Oswalt does a bit titled “Sky Cake” in which he discusses his theory on the origin of religion and religious wars. He jokes that one of his ancestors, a weakling, convinced a bigger and stronger guy not to go around pillaging and that the reward for good behavior would be that when he died he would go to a magic city in the clouds where he would be served “sky cake”. He goes on to say that this worked well until someone from another continent sailed across the ocean and mentioned the “sky cookies” that he had been promised as a reward for not pillaging. This of course led to a war between the “sky cake” people and “sky cookie” people.

I draw a parallel to this bit and the respective groups in the firearms training community. Students pick their favorite guru and only the techniques taught by their guru are correct and everyone else is wrong. If it stopped there it wouldn’t be so bad, but as Oswalt said “sky cake only tastes good if other people can’t have sky pie”. It’s fairly common in the training community, which is a very small community, for the members of one camp to try to tear down members of another camp.

At times, the criticisms are legitimate. There are “trainers” out there who put out a bad product or who otherwise engage in behavior that rightfully earns a flag. As my friend Tom Givens says, “I learned something in every class I ever attended. Sometimes it was how not to do things.” Unfortunately, there are plenty of instances in which the criticisms that readily rampage about the interweb are driven purely by personality rather than legitimate discussion and evaluation.

Recently, I had the opportunity to review a set of videos by a noted trainer. The trainer demonstrated his method for performing a particular task. His method is different than the technique taught by my chosen guru. The first thing that flashed in my mind is, “That’s wrong. That isn’t how ‘my guru’ teaches to do that.” I almost stopped the video, but then I laughed at myself and thought, “You want training cake, and he is serving training cookies.” I backed the video up and watched the segment again. There was one part of his method that caught my eye, and after a little bit of experimentation, I was able to refine what I was previously doing while not abandoning my technique. It made what I was already doing better.

It was like having training cake with training cookie crumbles on top.

If I had completely shut out everything he had to say because his method wasn’t my guy’s method, I would have missed what actually became to me the most valuable portion of the video.

Entering a Residence

At the time of this writing, a few days have passed since the Sentinel (OK) police chief and several deputies from the Sheriff’s Office went to a residence in response to a bomb threat at a local day care. It was believed that the threat originated from the residence in question. The chief and the deputies made entry into and began clearing the house. A resident of the house opened fire striking the chief four times. The chief survived due to the fact that he was wearing a ballistic vest. It should be noted that the entry was made in the very early morning hours.

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation has announced that charges are not being brought against the resident who fired the shots.

I have read several articles concerning this incident, and there is one glaring omission in each of them, and that is that no mention is made as to whether or not the peace officers involved had a valid search warrant to enter the residence.

There are four legal means in which to enter a residence. As outlined in the 2-3-4 Rule, they are: consent, a search warrant, hot pursuit, and exigent circumstances. It is pretty obvious that they didn’t have consent. They also didn’t chase anyone into the house; so, there goes the hot pursuit exception. That leaves only exigent circumstances or a search warrant as legal means of entry.

A simple explanation of exigent circumstance would be a situation in which immediate entry was required in a situation in which there was a immediate risk to life, such as an officer hearing calls for help or officers arriving to a call of domestic violence and hearing what appears to be a violent physical encounter taking place. In such instances, the circumstances would make it extremely unreasonable for the officers involved to obtain a warrant prior to entry. For instance, it would be completely unreasonable for peace officers to not enter the scene to stop a stabbing in progress. Another example would be to prevent evidence destruction. Readers are encouraged to seek out more information on exigent circumstances beyond this brief attempt at an explanation.

As to the incident at hand, I suppose one could make an argument for exigency; however, I would need much more information than is provided in the various articles. Does a reported bomb threat for a daycare that was not currently open an occupied constitute exigency? Was there some information that led the officers on scene to believe that they must enter immediately to save lives or prevent the destruction of evidence?

Again, the information provided in the articles is lacking, and second guessing officers on the scene when not having all of the information they had is not a practice in which I readily engage. After all, they may have had a warrant with such just not being mentioned in the articles. I simply saw this as an opportunity to discuss the legal requirements for entering a residence, and this article is by no means intended to imply wrong doing on the part of those involved.

X Because of Y Was Really Because of Z

I read an online rant by a guy claiming to have been arrested for “standing up at a football game.” I’m not familiar with the laws in every state, but I was fairly certain that no state, especially Alabama, had a law making it illegal to stand up at a football game. I contacted the arresting agency and requested a copy of the incident report.

The truth of the matter was that the guy bought a general admission ticket. During the game, he moved to the reserved seating area where he stood directly blocking the view of other fans. Those fans complained to the event staff upon which time it was discovered that he didn’t have a ticket for that area. He was asked to return to the general admission area, and he refused. He was subsequently arrested for Alabama’s version of what we in Georgia would call criminal trespass. The element of the crime was that he was in an area for which he didn’t have a ticket and refused to leave that area. It wasn’t for standing up at a football game.

The story above was to illustrate what is a frequent occurrence of the misreporting, intentional or otherwise, of a police-citizen encounter especially when there is a sensational outcome.

At the time that I write this, the news media is buzzing with a story about a man in New York City that died after a confrontation when police there attempted to arrest him supposedly for selling cigarettes on the street.

Some pundits and social media users are making such statements as “he was killed for selling cigarettes.”

Such is absolutely not the case. Force was not used by the police officers on scene until the man began to physically resist arrest. Therefore, force wasn’t used for selling cigarettes on the street, it was used due to a lawfully arrested person resisting arrest (obstruction under Georgia law). Had the man not physically resisted the arrest, the incident would not be a news item.

Nothing in the above should be construed as to supporting the existence and enforcement of such laws dealing with the street vending and taxation of cigarettes. Nothing in the above should be construed as advocating the use of any particular tactic. All I will say in regard to the tactics used is that if a person is able to say anything, especially repeatedly, then they have not been “choked out”. If you doubt this, go by your local mixed martial arts gym and request someone there put you in an actual choke hold and see if you are capable of speech.

I urge you to look past headlines and emotional appeal of a situation and drill down to the actual facts of a case.

Grand Jury Process in Georgia

Since grand juries have been such a hot topic of late, I considered researching and writing an article on the subject, but then I found a handbook published by the Hall County District Attorney’s Office on the topic. Click here to access a .pdf copy of the handbook.

+ Add your own event Eventbrite

That Weems Guy

Ramblings & Pontifications