It’s Wednesday, July 25th, 2018…but before we begin, unless there are facts concerning this case which remain unrevealed, we’re in full agreement with David French’s headline at NRO:

This Shooting Should Sicken America’s Armed Citizens

If a person shoves you, you can shove back. You don’t have the right to kill him.

“In a world awash with disturbing videos and images, some stand out. Over the weekend, I saw a video that’s bothered me ever since. It’s grainy, and it’s not graphic, but it’s still sickening. It’s the short video of a man shooting another man in the chest. I’m not going to embed it in the article, but if you want to see it, you can watch it on this Good Morning America report. (Though we’ve inserted a portion of the video above, it’s well worth your while to view the GMA report, as it offers facts which are key to establishing the shooter’s frame of mind.)

In a nutshell, here’s what happened. A young woman, her boyfriend (Markeis McGlockton), and their young son pulled into a handicapped parking spot at a convenience store. While the car idled, McGlockton went inside to get snacks. While inside, a 47-year-old man named Michael Drejka (who reportedly has an odd history of initiating confrontations over parking spaces) approached the car and started an argument with McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs.

McGlockton walked outside, saw Drejka and Jacobs arguing and pushed Drejka to the ground. While McGlockton stood a few feet away, Drejka pulled a gun and shot McGlockton in the chest. McGlockton staggered away, into the convenience store, where he died in front of his son.

Incredibly, the Pinellas County sheriff, Bob Gualtieri, is refusing to charge Drejka, citing Florida’s stand-your-ground” law. At a news conference, Gualtieri said, “The law in the state of Florida today is that people have a right to stand their ground and have a right to defend themselves when they believe that they are in harm.” This is an inexcusably bad misstatement of the law. Drejka should be charged, and law-abiding Florida gun owners should demand accountability.

First, let’s deal with the applicable statute. The stand-your-ground law most assuredly does not grant citizens the right to use deadly force whenever they believe they are “in harm” (whatever that means)…

…Note that the statutes contemplates two very different circumstances, one where a person is authorized to use “force, except deadly force” and the other where “deadly force” is authorized. So, no, not every punch, kick, push, shove, or fear of “harm” grants a person the right to pull his gun and shoot. It just grants him the right to punch or push back. That’s it. It would be utterly absurd if every physical altercation immediately granted the victim a license to kill. That’s not the law.

Deadly force is authorized only in the most extreme circumstances, when a person “reasonably believes” that it’s “necessary” to prevent “imminent death or great bodily harm” or to prevent the “imminent commission of a forcible felony.” This is not a subjective test. In other words, the question isn’t whether Drejka believed he was in imminent danger of death, but rather whether his belief was reasonable.

He was shoved to the ground after angrily confronting a man’s girlfriend. If that circumstance grants Drejka the right to kill, then the first paragraph of the stand-your-ground law is meaningless. Any person could respond to physical contact with deadly force.

Compounding the injustice is Drejka’s own absurd conduct. An armed citizen should not be mall-copping his way through life, initiating confrontations. And that’s especially true if you’re a grown man interacting with a young woman. There are many, many men who (quite reasonably, I might add) will react physically if they see a strange man confronting their wife or girlfriend.

When you’re an armed citizen, you’re a protector, not an enforcer. If you want to be an enforcer, go to police academy and put on the uniform…

…America’s armed citizens should be the most vigilant about enforcing not just the law but also the norms and values of gun ownership. And, on that score, the concealed-carry community is remarkably successful. The available evidence indicates that it’s more law-abiding even than the police. As a person who has long carried a gun, I know that these statistics are no accident. The concealed-carry community preaches and practices responsibility and prudence. It also seeks justice, and justice demands that Michael Drejka face a jury of his peers. Any other decision discredits stand-your-ground laws and cheapens human life. A shove should not be punishable by death.“

Call us a conspiracy nut, but Sheriff Gualtieri’s reasoning is so absurd, we’re more than willing to entertain the possibility he’s part of a cabal looking to use this incident to force state lawmakers to overturn Florida’s stand-your-ground statute.  Sure, he’s nominally a Republican; but so was…

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, since we’re on the subject of a complete misreading of the law, courtesy of Townhall.com, Bruce Bialosky explains how, as regards the FBI‘s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding…

You Don’t Have That Right

“We have seen the theater of Peter Strzok defiantly defending his actions while working for the FBI during the 2016 election cycle and in the aftermath with the investigations.  Once again, a “right” was established that the FBI does not have and one that harms our country by the continuing false affirmation.

The right asserted as supposedly told to him by an FBI attorney is that he could not comment on an ongoing investigation.  This is one of the two rights the FBI throws around when they do not want to comment on the work that Congress is reviewing as part of its oversight authority.  The other right the FBI likes to conjure up is that select testimony cannot be provided because of national security concerns.  Congress should decide whether any of these items are relevant to those two areas, not the Bureau.

…Neither of these rights exist.  They never have.  Congress oversees this bureau and has the actual right to demand documents and answers to questions regarding the activities of the FBI.  It is Congress that makes the decision whether to release information on an ongoing investigation or whether the materials are an issue of national security.  The FBI can certainly advise them of any concerns, but Congress has the ultimate decision.

…If the bureau was successful in asserting this right then all the executive branch departments, agencies and bureaus — that have been multiplying like rabid rabbits — would be able to state they are unable to answer congressional inquiries for their own homegrown rationale.  For example, the Department of Health and Human Services could proclaim that they did not have to answer congressional inquiries because of national health concerns and releasing the information would cause a national health hysteria.  Or the EPA could advance that releasing information would advance a national environmental panic.

The principal matter here is the ever-expanding secrecy of our federal government.  Our elected officials and worse, our public employees, think we are children and they cannot tell us anything.  Too many secrets are kept from us and for too long.  That is why our government is still withholding information about the Kennedy Assassination now 55 years later.  We can handle the truth so start telling us.  Actually, by withholding information you create more dissension as the press, as currently constituted, spends far too much time wildly speculating as opposed to reporting information.   The release of information would tamp that down.

Of course, Congress is partially at fault for creating and perpetuating the problem.  They can hold the offenders in contempt.  In fact, when Strzok refused to answer some questions, Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) stated he was going to do so to Strzok.  We have to see if he will follow through with the threat.  Congress did hold Eric Holder in contempt in 2012. He was held to be civilly and criminally liable for not turning over documents regarding the investigation of Fast and Furious, the gun-running scheme of the Obama administration. The problem is that Congress does not follow up with enforcing their powers.

If Congress actually sent U.S. marshals and arrested Strzok he might change his tune.  If they also arrested the attorney invoking the supposed right along with Strzok maybe they would start singing.  There is an actual law that provides for a penalty of up to a year in prison if convicted of being held in contempt of Congress. If you act like a paper tiger, then people will not fear or respect you.

Congress does not have a significant level of respect in the country and has not for awhile.  The reasons are many, varied and have evolved, but one that continues is that they are perceived as an overpaid, pampered group of wimps unwilling to make tough decisions.

Issuing a warrant for the arrest of Strzok to uphold their right to obtain information as an oversight body responsible under our Constitution to protect the interest of American citizens as our duly-elected representatives would be a nice beginning.  Grow a backbone.“

It’s like Wilford Brimley said in Absence of Malice…

Though we won’t hold our breath waiting for the Republican-dominated Congress to grow a set and actually do something about it!!!

Next up, courtesy of AEI, Marc Thiessen correctly suggests…

Trump can shut down his Russia critics with one bold move

“If President Trump wants to shut down the critics of his performance this week in Helsinki and strengthen U.S. national security, he can do so with one bold move: Announce he is moving out most U.S. forces currently stationed in Germany and sending them to Poland.

The Polish government recently presented Trump with a formal proposal to move U.S. troops from Stuttgart, Germany, to a new permanent U.S. military base in Poland. Trump should take up Warsaw on this offer.

Moving U.S. troops to Poland would be a bold, historic decision on par with Trump’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Not only would it better position American forces, it also would completely flummox Trump’s critics in the U.S. foreign policy establishment. After spending the past week accusing him of being Putin’s puppet, they would look foolish if they turned around and criticized him for antagonizing Russia. And after attacking him for undermining NATO, they could hardly complain that he is taking unprecedented action to shore up the alliance’s Eastern flank.

Such a move would reinforce the tough line the president took on defense spending at last week’s NATO summit, by punishing a deadbeat ally that does not meet its NATO commitments and rewarding a steadfast ally that does…”

But that, like the concept of Trump releasing all the emails and documents relating to Hillary’s emails and/or the FBI’s concoction of the Carter Page inquiry, for some reason doesn’t resonate with The Donald.

And in the Environmental Moment, courtesy of Jeff Foutch and What’s Up With That, David Middleton reports how, at least according to…

Jeffrey Sachs: “Trump is taking US down the path to tyranny”… Because Paris Climate Agreement

“…The United States was born in a revolt against the tyranny of King George III. The Constitution was designed to prevent tyranny through a system of checks and balances, but in President Trump’s America, those safeguards are failing.

Donald Trump holds the grandiose belief that only he should rule America. Unchecked by cowed or complicit Republicans in Congress, Trump invokes executive authority to alter policies and practices long established by law and treaty.

Trump used executive authority without Congressional mandate to…to announce the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement despite treaty-bound US obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.“

Except, as anyone but an educated idiot knows, The Obamao bound the United States to the Paris Accords…

…by executive authority!  Thus Trump has every right, as the current Chief Executive, to unbind us.  Clearly, Barry, like Jim Comey, never really contemplated the possibility Hillary wouldn’t be coronated until it was…

…too late. 

Finally, on The Lighter Side:

Magoo