Monday, January 30, 2023

Riding the Lightning

 Will Dabb, MD, at The American Handgunner (worth subscribing to).

------------------------------------

Folks occasionally ask what it’s like to be a rich and famous gun writer. Well, for starters, there are no rich gun writers. If somebody has found a way to make any serious money in this gig, I wish they would share it with me. As for fame, suffice to say it’s not the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders who breathlessly start their every Friday morning with Guncrank.

We gun writers are a lot like James Bond — just without the cool cars, chiseled physique, and striking good looks. I guess this means we’re actually nothing like James Bond, so never mind. There are, however, what you might call some seriously cool intangibles to the profession.

I’ve yet to meet a reader that didn’t end up a friend. No kidding, you guys are awesome. We all like the same stuff. Gun guys are the sort to whom you’d gladly loan your pickup truck. With a relationship like this it seems the least I can do is to play around with cool new gun stuff, tell you about it, and then inform the IRS it was actually work. At least that’s the way it is supposed to be. Then there was this cell phone case.

What’s Next?

This particular gadget was a prototype stun gun cell phone case. This sleek little rascal wasn’t much bigger than the ubiquitous Otter Box, and it protected the sensitive electronic device comparably well. However, this inspired rig also included a built-in zillion-volt stun gun.

The theory was sublime. What’s the one thing you never leave home without these days? You might forget your shirt, your shoes, your underwear, your spouse, or your offspring, but the typical American is never without their cell phone. Incorporating an effective non-lethal defense system into this ubiquitous omnipresent gadget seemed simply inspired. I had the article written before the case arrived. All that remained was to carry it about for a couple of weeks and then go back to massage the prose accordingly.

An Unfortunate Turn

I live way out in the sticks, so mine’s a half-hour commute. That’s a good thing. I get in the groove in the morning and decompress a bit at night. This way my bride doesn’t smother me in my sleep, and the dog doesn’t get kicked. Everybody wins.

On my drives I frequently listen to Max McLean read the Bible via an app on my phone. Max’s dulcet rendition of the gospels or Psalms will cure what ails you after a long day armpit deep in pestilence and tragedy. I was driving the old Jeep Cherokee my dad gave me when he grew weary of it. The price was certainly right, but that thing was loud. As a result, I had the edge of my phone pressed up against my right ear. As I recall Max was reading Paul’s letter to the Romans. That’s when my head exploded.

It felt like Superman had kung fu’d my brain. My vision went white, and I suddenly couldn’t feel anything below my nose. I knew my nose still worked, because I smelled burnt hair. I guess Jesus was occupied driving the Jeep, because I sure wasn’t doing that any longer.
The vehicle rolled to a gentle stop on the side of the road under Divine Guidance. I could no longer remember my name, gender, or species. The feed from my right ear sounded like Metallica playing live to an ocean of rabid banshees. The whole world was angled about 20 degrees to starboard. I realized later that was because I could no longer straighten my neck.

For a bit I seriously had no idea what happened. I briefly entertained the possibility God had chosen to smite me. Then I remembered Thor’s cell phone case.

So that’s what it feels like to mainline a million volts straight into your brainstem. I turned on the overhead light but couldn’t find my phone anywhere. I discovered it the following day deep underneath the passenger seat. No, I have no idea how it got there.

I retained control of my bowels throughout, something of which I am in retrospect proud. I didn’t wet my pants, either. I did, however, swallow my gum. At least I presume that’s what happened to it.

It took maybe five minutes to regain my wits sufficiently to drive. By the time I got home the world was only five degrees off plum. I thanked Jesus for not letting me die (yet again), repackaged the phone case and sent it back with a passionate remonstration to rethink the safety catch. Such is a typical day in the life of a rich and famous gun writer.

Ayoob Files: Going for a gun: The Jarrett Jones case

 Massad Ayoob at The American Handgunner.

Another insightful and informative analysis from MA.

If you would like to be able to separate gun truth from gun fiction, MA and The American Handgunner are a good source of the former.

-------------------------------------------

Situation: Snarling homicidal threats … A big man lunges for your gun and then appears to go for his own. You perform the indicated response … and end up tried for murder.

Lesson: Too few people, even in the criminal justice system, understand the concepts of disparity of force, disarming attempts and furtive movement shootings.

It is March 8, 2022, at about 10 p.m., and I’m starting this article on my laptop in a hotel in Aberdeen, SD, where a jury just came in with a verdict in the murder trial of Jarrett Jones.

Not Guilty on all counts. Total acquittal.

Sorry if that’s a spoiler, but this isn’t about drama or suspense. It’s about lessons. In this case, there were several.

Background

Jon Schumacher and Jarrett Jones had a history. Jarrett, 48, was a prosperous farmer and real estate developer. Jon, 28, owned an excavating business. Two years before, Jon had started dating Jarrett’s then 17-year-old daughter. She had fallen in love with the tall, handsome Jon, who could be charming when he wanted to be, and she enjoyed acting as stepmom to Jon’s three young sons. Jarrett was an indulgent dad despite instinctive disapproval of the relationship and wanted his daughter to be happy.

Jarrett referred work to Jon and often helped him with manpower and equipment. Even so, Jon wasn’t making a go of his excavation business. Word was Jon was a couple hundred thousand dollars in debt. There were stories of jobs unfinished and people Jon hired going unpaid. Much of that debt was owed to Jarrett, who couldn’t say no when his daughter asked him to stake the boyfriend she loved.

It wasn’t long before the daughter discovered another side of Jon. She told Jarrett Jon beat her and, on one occasion, raped her. Jarrett had a “come to Jesus” meeting with him. Jon was meek and contrite, wanting to keep the beautiful young girl and the money Jarrett sent his way. He promised to be better.

The promises didn’t last long.

(Un)Happy New Year

Jon drowned his troubles in alcohol. There were rumors of drugs as well. We all know how much booze gets consumed in America on New Year’s Eve; by New Year’s Day of 2020, an increasingly angry Jon Schumacher was still drinking. He had borrowed a truck from Jarrett and crashed it into a snowbank. He had a Bushmaster AR15, a Beretta 391 autoloading 12-gauge and a GLOCK 19 pistol in the vehicle with him.

He called Jarrett’s daughter to come and get him. She couldn’t; she was taking care of his three sons. Jon flew into a rage and threatened to kill her if she didn’t obey him.

He had finally gone too far. She told him their relationship was over.

He was arrested for drunk driving and driving on a suspended license. When the state trooper asked him about a blood test, Jon replied morosely he would take it if it would get him free sooner. His blood alcohol content was nearly twice the legal limit.

Jarrett and one of his employees drove to the scene to retrieve the truck. Jarrett found the guns, cleared them, and put them in his safe. With them was Jon Schumacher’s coat. The GLOCK 19 had been in the coat pocket.

Meanwhile, an angry Jon had called his long-suffering ex-wife, who agreed to pick him up at the police station. He asked to be driven to Jarrett’s place. On the way, he asked her if she would come back to him. She declined. In a very short time frame, he had now been rejected by both of the women he professed to love.

Escalation

By the time a steaming Jon Schumacher arrives at the Jones place, the clock has ticked past midnight and into the wee hours of January 2. A concerned Jarrett has armed himself: In his hip holster is a subcompact 9mm 1911, a Kimber Micro 9 in desert tan color, which came with a Crimson Trace laser sight.

In the 13 minutes that follow, Jon’s rage becomes increasingly homicidal: He demands to see his ex-girlfriend and is refused by her and her dad. Jon explodes with threats to kill her, Jarrett and others. When the ex-wife demands he leave with her and he refuses, she leaves alone.
Jarrett, at one point, is far enough away from Jon that he feels safe taking a moment to turn his back to him and yells to the others to stay back. The 300-lb. employee is between him and Jon, whose back is to the door he entered through. Then Jarrett turns back to face Jon.

The moment comes when Jon grabs Jarrett by the throat. Jarrett breaks free and draws the Kimber, hoping its deterrent effect will bring Jon to his senses.

Every mammalian instinct, every human instinct, tells him to intersperse himself between his threat and his children. The daughter Jon has traumatized, now 19, is some 20 feet behind him in the office. So is his younger daughter, 12.

Flashpoint

Jarrett brings his pistol up in a two-hand Isosceles stance and again orders Jon to leave. He has closed the distance in hopes of moving Jon back toward the door he has entered through.

But Jon doesn’t back up. Jarrett comes to a stop. A security camera shows the men are now about five feet apart, chest to chest.

Jarrett is acutely aware his dominant right hand, the one holding the gun, is presently crippled. He has recently undergone carpal tunnel surgery and his recovery was complicated by a severe infection that has left the hand hurting, significantly weakened and encased in a soft cast. He is 5’5″ tall; Jon, 6’4″, looms over him. Having trained under instructor Justin Hoffman two years before to earn his South Dakota Enhanced Concealed Carry Permit, Jarrett is acutely aware of how quickly Jon can close the gap and snatch the gun … and how poor his chances will be to keep possession of the Kimber if a gun grab occurs.

By now, Jon has threatened to murder both Jarrett and his daughter and stated he doesn’t care if he dies himself. He has at one point threatened to kill his own three little kids. Jarrett knows if Jon tries to disarm him and kill everyone, he won’t be able to stop him. He realizes if that happens, his only chance will be to shoot Jon in time. The safety is off, and Jarrett’s index finger is poised on the front of the Kimber’s trigger guard.

He is on high alert, watching for attack signals. And what he sees now horrifies him.

Jon’s face bears a look Jarrett has never seen before, an expression of absolute hate and explosive rage. The veins in his forehead are bulging, and his eyes seem to be bugging out of his head. He has been clenching and unclenching his hands; then Jon’s fingers tighten into fists.

And now, Jarrett sees Jon’s head and shoulders come forward, and there is only one last resort remaining.

First Shot

Jarrett Jones fires. The security camera catches the little tongue of flame that licks out from the muzzle, and in an instant, Jon Schumacher pitches to his left and into the camera’s view at last. He sprawls on the concrete floor of the workshop on his left side, perpendicular to Jarrett and facing him. For a moment, he lies still.

Jarrett lets go with his left hand, and his right hand brings the gun down. He watches Jon in unbelieving horror at what has just happened. It looks as if it’s over.

It isn’t.

Second, Final Shot

Several seconds have passed. Jarrett’s hands are down at his side now, the right hand still holding the Kimber, pointed at the floor.
Suddenly, Jon’s right hand flashes toward the right front pocket of his jeans.

Jarrett has known Jon for a long time and knows the man always carries one or more guns in various places — vest, boot, pocket. He knows how fast a person can draw and fire.

He raises the pistol one-handed, thinking there’s no time to resume a two-hand hold, and the beam of the Crimson Trace Laser plays on Jon’s neck as Jarrett fires a second time.

Jon stops moving. Now it really is over.

They call 9-1-1. The first responding officer arrives in approximately 18 minutes. Jon Schumacher is dead on the scene. Jarrett waives his Miranda rights and submits to an extensive recorded interview.

Approximately 12 hours later, as he is leaving the office of attorney Marshall Lovrien, Jarrett Jones is arrested and charged with murder in the first degree. A conviction is likely to bring life without parole, and the death penalty is not entirely off the table, either.

The Justice Machine

Jones went to trial in the court of Judge Richard Sommers on February 28, 2022. Twenty-six months had elapsed since the shooting. The original local prosecutor, called a state’s attorney in South Dakota, had departed, replaced by Ernest Thompson. The latter may have simply felt a need to continue the work and wishes of his predecessor. I was informed the grand jury that indicted Jones was not given a self-defense instruction and indeed was told self-defense was not an issue, even after one grand juror repeatedly asked about it.

To an untutored eye that didn’t know what to look for, it was easy to miss Jon’s right hand going toward the pocket, even though Jarrett had told police he knew Jon always carried one or more guns. Later, ace defense investigator Mitch Vilhauer found multiple people who claimed Jon had pulled a gun on them, usually a snub-nosed hammerless revolver, when angry. The defense couldn’t get that in because, being unknown to Jarrett at the time of the shooting, these incidents were not formative to his decision and action and therefore were inadmissible.

Jarrett had described Jon’s movement precipitating the first shot as a “lunge.” As I had occasion to testify, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a “lunge” as “a sudden forward thrust of the body,” which is precisely what Jarrett described. However, most perceive a lunge to involve large movements with arms outstretched. Jon, Jarrett said, had his fists clenched close to his body as if coiled to punch at the final moment he started to come forward.

Until he fell from the first shot, all the camera could see of Jon was the front of his left boot in the lower left corner of the frame; Jarrett dominated the viewer’s eye in his resolute Isosceles stance, gun extended and the muzzle flash. After Jon fell, anyone not watching his hands could easily miss the reach for the pocket.

That reach created a “furtive movement shooting,” a movement consistent with reaching for a weapon and not reasonably consistent with anything else within the totality of the circumstances. Many lawyers I’ve discussed it with don’t recall being told about furtive movements in law school and, similarly, pass their bar exams without having heard of disparity of force. The latter means a situation where the opponent, while ostensibly unarmed, possesses such great physical advantage over the defender that a bare-handed attack will likely cause death or great bodily harm. Factors include such disparity as Jon being 6’4″ and 28, and Jarrett, 5’5″ and 48, and the able-bodied Schumacher versus Jones and his crippled gun hand.

Moreover, while the eye of the untrained sees an “armed man shooting helpless unarmed man,” use of force professionals look at such a situation and see the exact truth: a man coming as if to punch you in the head and take your gun is a man going for a gun!

SA Thompson reached out for reinforcements from the South Dakota State Attorney General’s Office: first Kelly Marnette, and subsequently the highly experienced Brent Kempema. Early on, during an informal deposition, Ms. Marnette suggested Jones had nothing to fear because his employee, whom she described as a “300-lb. linebacker,” would protect him. I replied it would be foolish to count on protection by a third party from an attacker so close and noted that, in any case, the man did nothing but move away during the actual shooting.

These are things it takes a skilled defense team to get across to the jury, and Jones had that. Lead counsel Marshall Lovrien crafted the defense expertly and brought in as co-counsel the very able Bill Gerdes, who was said to have more experience with homicide trials than any other lawyer in the region.

Trial

With the State’s own witness, the forensic pathologist who did the autopsy, they established that while Jones appeared to be firing straight ahead, his Kimber was angled slightly upward. The 115-grain Winchester 9mm full metal jacket bullet entered the chest, pierced the heart, exited the back and kept going, punching a neat round hole through the steel door behind Schumacher at a height indicating an upward trajectory. The projectile was never recovered. However, the wound path went down through the body, front to back. Lovrien established with the doctor there was only one explanation for this: Schumacher’s upper body had to be angled distinctly forward when hit, consistent with aggressive forward movement. The doctor put a wooden dowel through a skeleton Lovrien had brought to court, vividly demonstrating for the jury.

This correlation between autopsy and video — hard scientific evidence — was irrefutable. It was a cornerstone of the defense.
Cross-examining the lead investigator, the defense established this was his first homicide case. He had never been explicitly trained in homicide investigation and he had never explored the elements of self-defense by Jones.

Self-defense is an affirmative defense, meaning, “The defendant did the act, but he was justified in doing it.” The defendant should usually take the witness stand in an affirmative defense because it’s no longer a “whodunnit,” it’s a “Why did he do it?” and only the defendant can truly answer that.

In this case, Jarrett had done something virtually every defense lawyer and I would advise against: He waived his Miranda rights and answered every question that night without counsel present. While some things sounded out of sequence, he got the basics right — and still in the grip of the emotion of his near-death experience, came through with sincerity and honesty. There was little he could add that would be worth the risk of being tricked by a crafty cross-examiner. Thus, he did not take the stand.

The jury heard from his daughter. There were tears in the jury box when they heard her smartphone recording of one of Jon’s vicious attacks upon her. The hired man, who first told police Jon lunged at Jarrett, changed his story and said there was no lunge. The State hung a lot of its case on that. Later, when I was on the stand, I was able to show the jury on the surveillance video that this man was looking off to the side at the moment of the shot and couldn’t have seen whether Jon had lunged or not.

Jarrett had taken South Dakota’s Enhanced Concealed Carry permit course from Justin Hoffman, who now works for Blackhawk. Logistics kept Justin from getting there in time to testify himself, but he provided his PowerPoint program delineating state law and a thorough, detailed affidavit. I was allowed to work from that and show Jarrett’s training had “checked every box” for what the state itself considered to constitute justifiable use of deadly force. This, in turn, gave Attorney Lovrien the nuclear-grade statement he made in his closing argument: Jones had literally done everything the law demanded for this homicide to be justified.

Before trial, I had done video demonstrations of how quickly Jarrett could have been disarmed and killed by a man in Jon’s position and how swiftly a man down on his side could draw a gun from his trouser pocket and shoot another man five feet away. It has been my experience some judges prefer video only, and some demand such demonstrations be done live in the courtroom. This trial was my first in 43 years as an expert witness where the judge would allow the jury to see neither demonstration. Nonetheless, having done them did allow me to testify that the disarm could be accomplished in two or three seconds, and the downed man’s draw to the shot from the pocket in under two.

In the disarm video, it took only six-tenths of a second to deflect the muzzle of the gun, another six-tenths to rip the small auto pistol out of my opponent’s hand, and a little over than one second more to re-grasp the pistol, point it at the center of his head, and pull the trigger. From the first movement to the “fatal shot,” the disarm had taken 2.23 seconds. Jarrett had been on the razor’s edge of losing his life. The pocket draw to fatal shot had taken 1.63 seconds, starting with the hand outside the pocket as Jon’s was in the video.

There was no gun in that pocket, but Jones could not have known that. He did know the man was known to carry guns in his pockets. Remember, Jarrett had removed a GLOCK from Jon’s coat pocket that night — and he believed Schumacher was going for one. Instead, what had been in his pocket was a front-opening switchblade, the double-edged Benchmade Infidel. It was still wrapped in the plastic evidence bag the troopers had put it in before they gave it back to him upon his release that night. When he cross-examined me, prosecutor Kempema made a big deal about it being in a bag and not readily accessible. I replied it was irrelevant because Jones believed the man was reaching for a gun. “You don’t have to be right; you have to be reasonable.”

From Gerdes’ powerful opening statement to Lovrien’s crushing close, the defense had brought the truth to 12 people who ultimately knew it when they saw it … and delivered justice.

Lessons

Juries have to be educated. If attorneys overlook concepts like disparity of force and other dynamics of violent encounters, what we now call “force science” thanks to the brilliant Dr. Bill Lewinsky, you can’t expect ordinary people in the jury pool to intuit them.

Document your training. It is a winning strategy to show the jury you did what you were trained to do, and what you did was, in fact, the right thing to do. South Dakota v. Jarrett Jones was a classic example.

Train with instructors who will stand up for you in court. Not all of them will, even in the police sector. Justin Hoffman did, and he had a big part in the defense’s victory.

Understand the cost of a trial. Jarrett Jones estimated he had spent at least $300,000 in legal fees and expenses when it was over. Consider joining a post-self-defense support group. For me, it’s the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. Full disclosure: I’m on their advisory board. You have many such organizations from which to choose. Read the name of this case: State v. Jarrett Jones. When the power of an entire state is against you, you don’t want to be fighting alone. A lawsuit by the family of the deceased is pending.

The decline and the self-precipitated death of a 28-year-old man were tragic, and hearts, including mine, go out to his parents and loved ones. At the same time, the pattern of Jon Schumacher’s escalation in his final hours indicates Jarrett Jones very likely saved more innocent lives than his own.

Wednesday, January 25, 2023

Armed boyfriend saves bar manager from violent attack

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Crime happens everywhere and at every time. It was after 2 am on a Thursday morning when a bartender/manager was closing George’s Tavern for the day. It was an ordinary day at the job in Samford, Florida. It was ordinary until the moment everything changed. Chelsea Putnam was only a few steps from the back door of the bar when she reached her car. Chelsea never saw her attacker as he hit her from behind. She saw him when he had her hands around her throat and was lifting her off the ground. Here is the rest of her story.

As a state, Florida is almost exactly average for its rate of violent crime. Crime is localized. The downtown section of Sanford, Florida has a violent crime rate that is twice the state’s average. On top of that, closing a bar night after night makes you a target. Some people want to rob the bar, rob the bar’s safe, or rob the people in the bar. Someone is always the last to leave.

The bar manager, Chelsea Putnam, knew she had a dangerous job. Her boyfriend knew it too. On Thursday morning, Chelsea called her boyfriend as she got ready to close the business. He was waiting in the parking lot before she set the alarms and locked the back door.

Neither of them knew that a stranger was hiding in a portable toilet that was sitting in the parking lot next to Chelsea’s car. The stranger had been waiting there for hours. The stranger jumped out of the toilet and attacked Chelsea as she reached for her keys. The attacker had her on the ground before her boyfriend could respond. The boyfriend got out of his vehicle and shot the attacker several times. The attacker ran. The boyfriend ran across the lot to check on Chelsea. The news stories are not clear about who called 911.

The bar manager and her boyfriend stayed at the scene. The attacker grabbed her by the throat and forced her to the ground. He beat her head against the ground several times. He tore open the front of her blouse. She was covered with mud and bruises from her legs to the back of her head.
She told reporters, “I have 3 kids at home. I thought I was going to die, and my 3 kids wouldn’t have a mother anymore.”

The attacker was not one of the regular patrons at this neighborhood bar. Again, the news reports are not clear if the employees recognized the attacker as a first-time customer or if the attacker was later identified by security video. Video showed that Chelsea dropped her keys and her purse next to her car when she was attacked. Video also showed that the attacker was wearing gloves.

Police found the attacker at the back of the parking lot. They declared the attacker dead at the scene. The police called it an attempted carjacking. Chelsea thinks it could have been more. The police interviewed neighbors to find out what they saw or heard.

The bar manager said she’ll be back at work. The armed boyfriend was not charged with a crime.

This story is one of many that go under-reported by the mainstream media because it shows a positive image of a law-abiding gun owner defending their life and their family. It is our responsibility at AmmoLand to report these stories to you. While we will continue to report these stories, groups like the Crime Prevention Research Center, led by Dr. John Lott, are fastidious in studying the use of firearms for self-defense. Stay up to date with all news on self-defense by following CPRC and Ammoland.

Saturday, January 14, 2023

The anti-gun crowd tries to explain away more guns less murder in Brazil

 John Lott at Real Clear Politics

------------------------------

Although one wouldn’t know it from the media coverage of gun control, the best social science has shown that law-abiding citizens frequently deter criminals. But when ideology trumps facts, policymakers are easily led astray. The latest example is occurring in Brazil, where massive increase in gun ownership in recent years has prompted gun control advocates to reinterpret the data in ways that conform to their political views.

In his first act in office last Sunday, newly installed President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva signed a decree freezing gun ownership and banning the sale of new ammunition. Lula also instituted other rules aimed at taking away the guns people acquired during the President Jair Bolsonaro administration.

When Bolsonaro became president on January 1, 2019, Brazil had one of the highest homicide rates of any developed country. The international news media derided Bolsonaro for “having seduced tens of millions of voters with simple – though radical – solutions to eradicating violence in one of the world’s deadliest countries.” Bolsonaro’s solution? “Give guns to good people. Let people have guns so that they have the chance to defend themselves.”

In 2019 and 2020, the worldwide news media and their selected experts warned that Bolsonaro had it dangerously wrong. The Wall Street Journal warned: “Violence experts say simply adding more guns to the mix … will only make the murder rate climb faster.” The UK’s Guardian worried that Bolsonaro’s “highly controversial relaxation of gun laws – a key pledge in his 2018 campaign – is fueling fears among experts and campaigners that such moves will add to already shocking levels of violence.”

The list of similar claims – appearing in outlets from National Public Radio and the New York Times to The Economist – is too long to recite.

Nonetheless, Bolsonaro’s reforms produced a 600% increase in gun ownership. Yet despite all the dire predictions, homicides in Brazilplummeted.

In 2018, the year before he became president, the murder rate stood at 27.8 per hundred thousand people – 5.5 times higher than the U.S. rate. But it fell in each consecutive year. By 2021, the third year of Bolsonaro’s presidency, it had dropped to 18.5 per hundred thousand – a 34% drop.

This is information the news media can’t get its head around. A new Washington Post article claims that criminologists believe the drop in homicides occurred despite Brazil’s increase in gun ownership, not because of it.

The Post cites a public health researcher who claims that “every 1% increase in firearm ownership is associated with a 0.6%increase in overall homicide rates.” If so, an over 600% increase in gun ownership should have resulted in a more than 360% increase in homicides, not a 34% drop.

The newspaper now claims that crime fell because of “a decade of investment in policing.” But these investments were already known in 2019 and 2020 when everyone was predicting disaster and changes in policing only affected some of Brazil’s 26 states, and the homicide rate fell in all but one of the states.

“Research consistently shows that when private gun ownership goes up, killings follow,” writes the Post. In fact, most research shows that allowing more concealed handgun permits reduces murder.

When surveyed about 33 gun control proposals, academic criminologists most strongly favored “reducing the government-imposed costs of acquiring guns.” That’s the policy measure that they thought would do the most to reduce murder rates.It was also the second most preferred strategy among academic economists. The economists’ most preferred approach was “relaxing federal restrictions to let companies determine if people can carry concealed handguns in workplace settings.”

But the Post doesn’t seem to have talked to criminologists or economists. It certainly hasn’t factored in the views of most police officers. When PoliceOne asked its 450,000 American law enforcement members about the effects of private gun ownership, 76% of officers answered that legally armed citizens are very or extremely important in reducing crime.

Every time across the world that all guns or all handguns are banned, murder rates rise.

The reality is that Brazil’s experiment in legal gun ownership is just the latest example of “more guns, less crime.” Violent crime fell as criminals became afraid of armed citizens. But don’t hold your breath for any news media outlets or gun control groups to admit they were wrong.

Monday, January 09, 2023

More unacceptable behavior by the Woke and Cancel crowd

 Jonathan Turley comments on more unacceptable behavior by the Woke and Cancel crowd.

People who exhibit or approve this kind of behavior are a danger to freedom.

-----------------------------------------

“Lovely One”: Justice Jackson Given Book Deal With a Notable Difference From Her Colleague Justice Barrett

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson just secured a major book deal from Random House. The book, entitled “Lovely One,” is aptly named given the sharp contrast to the reception to the book deal given to her colleague, Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett’s book, also with a Random House company, was opposed by publishers and editors including over 50 who publicly claimed to be working at Penguin Random House companies. She was deemed a persona non grata by editors who wanted to prevent readers from reading about her own personal views and history.

“Lovely One” will tell Jackson’s life’s story and she will receive an advance of $1 million. I am delighted by the news of the book. Jackson has a fascinating life story to tell.

It is the reception to the book that is most striking. As discussed earlier, various publishers and editors publicly called for Barrett to be barred from publication due to her jurisprudential views. It did not matter that these views are generally shared not only by over half of the Supreme Court and hundreds of judges but arguably half of the voters. After all, why burn books when you can effectively ban them?

The public letter entitled “We Dissent” made the usual absurd protestation that, just because we are seeking to ban books of those with opposing views, we still “care deeply about freedom of speech.” They simply justified their anti-free speech position by insisting that any harm “in the form of censorship” is less than “the form of assault on inalienable human rights” in opposing abortion or other constitutional rights. Yet, the letter is not simply dangerous. It is perfectly delusional. While calling for the book to be blocked, the editors and writers bizarrely insisted “we are not calling for censorship.”

Among the “literary figures” who signed the public petition were Penguin Random house editors and staff. This included over fifty individuals who listed their association with Penguin and Random House in publicly calling for the book banning. While we cannot confirm many of these signatories, they remain publicly posted and some claim senior positions at the company:

Listed in order on the petition:Michelle Lee, Assistant Editor/Penguin Young Readers

Ada Fung, Editor, Penguin Random House
Mary, Penguin Publishing Group
Isabella Biedenharn, Random House
Estelle Malmed, Senior Associate, Ebook Dev Ops, Penguin Random House
Abbe Wright, Penguin Random House
Bridget Sweet, Production Editor, Penguin Random House
Maija Baldauf, Penguin Publishing Group
Emily Schultz, Author with Penguin Random House
Emily Hoffman, Assistant Managing Editor/Penguin Random House
Megan Tripp, Senior Social Media Manager, Random House Group
Emilie Mills, Subsidiary Rights/Penguin Random House
Bridget [No Last Name listed], Penguin Random House
Ty Nowicki, Director Creative Ops / Random House
Emi Lotto, Production Manager, Penguin Random House
Claire Yee, Senior editor / Penguin Random House
James Akinaka, Digital Marketing Manager, Penguin Random House
Angela Sardella, Penguin Random House
Corina Diez, Marketing Associate/ Random House
Anna Scheithauer, Copyright Associate/Penguin Random House
Korra Saqqara (Christa Angelios), Copyright Associate, Penguin Random House
Ashleigh Heaton, Assistant Director of Marketing, Penguin Random House
Josh Luft, Sr. Manager/Penguin Random House
Heather Lewis, Copyrights Assoc. / Penguin Random House LLC
Gretchen Durning, Associate Editor / Penguin Random House
Kate Bennion, Penguin Random House
Lindsey Tulloch, Penguin Random House
Casey Nugent, Penguin Random House
Molly Humphrey, Penguin Random House
Alex Cruz-Jimenez, Marketing Associate, Penguin Random House
Sarah Blumenstock, Senior Editor/Penguin Random House
Carole DeSanti, ex-VP and Exec Ed, PenguinRandomHouse
Miranda Stinson, Penguin Random House (former employee, 2019-2021)
Yunyi Zhang, Managing Editorial Assistant/Penguin Publishing Group
Katelyn MacKenzie, Production Manager/Penguin Random House
Maya Smith, Penguin Random House
Sarah Turbin, Penguin Random House
Kayla Steinorth, Penguin Random House
Danielle K, Penguin Random House
Kristine Swartz, Senior Editor, Penguin Random House
Rob Holden, Penguin Random House
Hope Ellis, Managing editor, Penguin Random House
Dasia Payne, Managing Editorial, Penguin Random House
Charlotte Lesnick, Penguin Random House
Richard Wylde, Penguin Random House
Alison Wallach, Penguin Random House
Maggie Hinders, Penguin Random House
Becca Brummett, Associate Manager/Penguin Random House
Grant Griglak, Director / Penguin Random House
Irene Gould, Penguin Random House
Liz Lee, Managing Editor, Penguin Random House Canada

Again, the signatures of these petitions are not authenticated or confirmed. Indeed, some “literary figures” signed simply as “Barbara Hirsch, Avid reader” or only gave initials or first names (including two alleged employees identified only as “Mary” and “Bridget”).

Conservative, libertarian, or even contrarian writers often discuss how difficult it is to be published today due to the bias of editors and reviewers. This bias is often kept concealed and even denied in public. In this case, however, over 50 self-identified as Penguin Random House editors and staff members to expressly call for the banning of books by those who hold opposing views on issues like abortion.

For Barrett, the intolerance was nothing new. At her alma mater, Rhodes College alumni sought to strip references to Barrett from the college because they disagree with her views. Her college sorority was even forced to apologize for simply congratulating her for being one of a handful of women to be nominated to the high court.

No attack appears to be beyond the pale for media or the left. Barrett sat through days of such baseless attacks on her character and even had to face attacks referencing her children. Ibram X. Kendi, the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, claimed that her adoption of two Haitian children raised the image of a “white colonizer” and suggested that the children were little more than props for their mother.

That is the difference between being the “Lovely One” or the “Evil One” in the eyes of editors and writers. Rather than transcending their own bias and working for a diversity of opinions in publications, these editors and writers want less free expression on the pages of Penguin Random House and other publications. They are not alone. The petition contains editors from the largest academic and commercial publishers.

This letter was not simply another manifestation of viewpoint intolerance. It is a statement would seem to constitute virtual self-loathing from people who work in the literary world; writers and editors who cannot abide the publication of opposing views.

Saturday, January 07, 2023

Adam Schiff exposed for what he is – a danger to freedom

 Here is Jonathan Turley with some truth about Adam Schiff. I say "some" because I think that what JT discusses is just the tip of the iceberg.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

AS is the kind of person that should not be in a position of power - anywhere.

-------------------------------------

“We Don’t Do This”: Adam Schiff and the Underbelly of American Censorship

Below is my column in the Hill on the recent disclosure of efforts by Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) to pressure Twitter to censor critics, including a columnist. This effort occurred shortly after Schiff’s office objected to one of my columns accusing him of pressuring social media companies to censor those with opposing views. While publicly denying that he supports censorship, Schiff was secretly pressuring Twitter to censor an array of critics.

Here is the column:

“We don’t do this.” That response from Twitter to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is a singular indictment, coming at the height of Twitter’s censorship operations. Apparently, there were some things that even Twitter’s censors refused to do.

One of those things was silencing critics of Schiff and his House committee.

In the latest tranche of “Twitter Files,” journalist Matt Taibbi revealed that Twitter balked at Schiff’s demand that Twitter suspend an array of posters or label their content as “misinformation” and “reduce the visibility” of them. Among those who Schiff secretly tried to censor was New York Post columnist Paul Sperry.

Sperry drew Schiff’s ire by writing about a conversation allegedly overheard by one of his sources. Sperry’s article, which appeared in RealClearInvestigations, cited two sources as overhearing two White House staffers discussing how to remove newly-elected President Trump from office. The article raised the possibility of bias on the part of an alleged key player in launching the first Trump impeachment, CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella. The sources reportedly said that Ciaramella was in a conversation with Sean Misko, a holdover from the Obama administration who later joined Schiff’s staff. The conversation — in Sperry’s words — showed that “just days after [Trump] was sworn in they were already trying to get rid of him.”

Rather than simply refute the allegation, Schiff wanted Sperry and other critics silenced. His office reportedly laid out steps to cleanse Twitter of their criticism, including an instruction to “remove any and all content about Mr. Misko and other Committee staff from its service — to include quotes, retweets, and reactions to that content.”

The date of Schiff’s non-public letter in November 2020 is notable: Earlier that year, I wrote a column for The Hill criticizing Schiff for pushing for censorship of misinformation in a letter that he sent to social media companies. His office promptly objected to the very suggestion that Schiff supported censorship.

We now know Schiff was actively seeking to censor specific critics on social media. These likely were viewed as more than “requests” since Schiff was sending public letters threatening possible legislative action against these same companies. He wanted his critics silenced on social media. After all, criticizing his investigations or staff must, by definition, be misinformation — right?

His office seems to have indicated they knew Twitter was using shadowing-banning or other techniques to suppress certain disfavored writers. In the letter, his staff asked Twitter to “label and reduce the visibility of any content.”

Twitter, however, drew the line with Schiff; one of its employees simply wrote, “no, this isn’t feasible/we don’t do this.”

The “this” referred to in this case was raw political censorship. And even a company that maintained one of the largest censorship programs in history could not bring itself to do what Schiff was demanding — but the demand itself is telling.

Not only does it show how dishonest some politicians have been in denying censorship while secretly demanding it, it also shows the insatiable appetite created by censorship. The article in question, written by Sperry, is a good example. Sperry has denied ever supporting QAnon conspiracy theories, as Schiff’s office charged. Yet even if Sperry’s account about Schiff’s staffer was wildly untrue, that should make it easier to rebut publicly.

The move by Schiff to ban Sperry and others on Twitter — and to remove content — is highly ironic. Schiff has been criticized repeatedly for promoting “misinformation” and for relying on unidentified “sources” for his claims of Trump’s criminality. For example, Schiff pushed the false claim that the infamous Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation; he also was criticized for pushing false narratives of Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election.

Nevertheless, I would equally oppose any effort to ban Schiff from social media, although that is hardly likely given the demonstrated political bias of past censorship efforts.

As for Sperry, he was later permanently suspended by Twitter, which I also criticized.

Schiff is unlikely to be deterred by the release of these communications. He recently sent a letter to Facebook, warning it not to relax its censorship efforts. His letter, written with Reps. André Carson (D-Ind.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), reminded Facebook that some lawmakers are watching the company “as part of our ongoing oversight efforts” — and suggested they may be forced to exercise that oversight into any move by Facebook to “alter or rollback certain misinformation policies.”

Schiff’s actions embody the slippery slope of censorship. By labeling his critics as QAnon supporters or purveyors of “misinformation,” he sought to have allies in social media “disappear” critics like Sperry — yet he found that even those allies could not stomach his demands. Given Twitter’s censorship of even satirical sites, it was akin to being turned down by a Kanye West podcast as being too extreme.

With the disclosure of apparent FBI involvement in Twitter’s censorship program, the release of the Schiff files is another rare insight into how government officials attempted to enlist social media companies for censorship by surrogate or proxy. That is precisely why many in the media, political and business establishments have mobilized against Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter who has released these compromising files.

In a recent tweet, Schiff chastised Musk and demanded more answers from the Twitter CEO. While insisting that “I don’t support censorship,” Schiff asked Musk if he would “commit to providing the public with actual answers and data, not just tweets?” Well, Musk just did precisely that.

The “actual answer” is that Schiff has long sought to silence his critics, and Musk has exposed the underbelly of censorship — which is where we found Adam Schiff.

Sunday, January 01, 2023

Federal Trade Commission v. Precision Patient Outcomes, Inc. and Margrett Priest Lewis - .more Government abuse

 Here is a link to the New Civil Liberties Alliance's case summary and more.

Another example of why the Government cannot be trusted to do the right thing - or act legally.

The ACLU has been politicized for many years. The New Civil Liberties Alliance is a far better alternative - help support it.

Here is the Case Summary.

-------------------------------

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in its initial filing before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, has falsely accused Precision Patient Outcomes, Inc. (PPO) and CEO Margrett Lewis of unlawfully marketing and selling a dietary supplement called COVID Resist. The problem for FTC is PPO and Ms. Lewis never sold such a product—and FTC knows that. During six months or more of investigation, PPO provided FTC clear proof such sales never happened. So, there is simply no excuse for the agency to repeat this untrue claim, which undermines its entire groundless case. NCLA will vigorously defend our clients PPO and Ms. Lewis and expose FTC’s deceit here in the process.

Inspired by her personal experiences with health and wellness, Ms. Lewis became a tireless consumer and patient advocate. Drawing on a wide-cross section of information, she founded PPO, which develops precision medical solutions for wound care, scar management, and skin-renewing technologies. More recently, PPO began to develop and sell vitamin, mineral, and nutraceutical supplements. Prior to selling any supplements, PPO contacted FTC and asked it if there was any problem with the proposed product’s name and marketing. FTC would not say either way, so out of an abundance of caution and at great expense, PPO abandoned its trademarked name, removed and relabeled products, and changed its website and marketing. PPO never sold any “COVID Resist.”

Despite PPO’s drastic changes, the fact that it sold no product under the COVID Resist label, and that PPO ceased selling any product called “VIRUS Resist” before FTC filed suit, FTC has continued to pursue an enforcement action against the company—and against Ms. Lewis individually—under the newly enacted Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act. FTC seeks to monitor Ms. Lewis’s and PPO’s activities for the next 20 years and obtain substantial penalties for selling fewer than 250 bottles of a supplement containing ingredients thousands of physicians across the country recommend to support immune health. FTC lacks the statutory and constitutional authority to pursue these penalties or this action.

FTC unlawfully seized assets through disgorgement for 40 years until stopped by the Supreme Court in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC in 2021. Now, the Commission is trying to eliminate truthful statements citizens make about their products and implement ruinous fines on a small business owner who did no wrong—and one who, in fact, sought advance agency approval.