Saturday FGS
UPDATE
Protestors, SF Supervisors Push DA Jenkins to Reverse Ruling On Walgreens Shooting
Jenkins announced on Monday that they would not be charging a security guard with a crime after they killed a robber last week
By Evan Symon
San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins continues to receive pressure from the SF Board of Supervisors and activists to reconsider her decision to not charge a Walgreens security guard over a shooting death of a criminal that occurred last week.On the evening of April 27th at the Walgreens at Market and Fourth streets in the city, 33-year-old security guard Michael Earl-Wayne Anthony confronted 24-year-old Chynna “Banko” Brown over trying to steal items from the store. According to surveillance camera footage reviewed by the DA’s office, Brown immediately became belligerent, using physical force, violence, and the threat of violence against Anthony. With his life now in mortal danger, Anthony shot Brown once with a pistol.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However, the determination that the shooting was self-defense upset many in the city. Groups such as the Young Woman’s Freedom Center (YWFC) took to the streets beginning on Monday, calling for justice for Brown, as well as for more low-income housing and other programs so that young people in the city wouldn’t turn to crime.
No Score
California Globe
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.
Ronald Reagan
Category: Feel Good Stories
Since the community has spoken they can go ahead and skip straight to the lynching. As the DA already stated the video shows the guard was clearly in fear of his life so it’s unlikely we will ever see it or even need to. All that matters is the voice of the people that know nothing about it have been heard.
Wallgreens shoul shut down their store and move out, and fuk the protesters and let them shop somewhere else if they even shop there.
How long is the American long rifle????
How long is a short circuit???
Therein lies the problem with today’s “justice” system. Politicians and “peaceful protestors” feel the need, ahem, have the duty to question the police, prosecutors, and judges/juries that should have the sole responsibility in determining how criminals and victims are treated (within their respective fields).
Police: by law, policy, and duty have the power to use discretion when determining whether or not to use the powers of arrest, escalation of force up to and including deadly force, and even such trivial things as issuing a traffic citation or a warning. Despite this, politicians and the anti-police movement push to demonize officers who make a split-second decision to save a life (often their own) or handcuff a felon. “He was a good boy, never did nothing, and was turning his life around when that evil pig spitefully avoided his gunfire and dared to tase him in response.”
Prosecutors: have the discretion to decide whether or not a potential crime was truly a crime based on preponderance of evidence. “Good shooting?” Depends on the circumstances. “Bad shooting?” Same same. At the end of the day, a good prosecutor wields immense power. Even a wrongful criminal charge resulting in acquittal could be devastating for the average person having to pay legal fees and have their name dragged through the mud.
Judges/juries: probably the last line of defense for the innocent, as well as the dictators of punishment for the guilty. Unfortunately, activists, media, and politicians have tainted the jury pool, while too many judges are politically motivated to appease the loud voices while silencing those seeking to defend who is often the victim, aka the defendant. We saw this with Daniel Perry’s case.
Once a DA has declined to prosecute a case, there should be no political pressure to change that decision, unless incompetence, negligence, or maliciousness can be proven.
The “protesters” don’t realize the irony of what they’re doing. They supposedly demand “justice”. But this justice is by DEMAND, and that demand is to be according to what they WANT, and not what the blindness of justice should guarantee.
Each single person in the crowd of “protesters” would want this kind of protection for themself.
None of them understands that JUSTICE in order to be proper, must be bound by the rule of Law, that it not be strictly bound by the Black Letter Law, and must be, interestingly enough, EQUITABLE.
If they are demanding that we allow the criminal, the mentally deranged, the simply violent to run over us without response they are revealing that they have no basic understanding of the concept of self defense, have no respect for the law, and have no love for their lives or the lives of others.
We sowed a generation of Winners Regardless of Participation. We have reaped a whirlwind of destruction.