I actually agree with this woman from the NAACP. Wow.

This is where I agree with the NAACP. Yeah, you will rarely if ever hear me admitting that, since it almost never happens. But, just because the person shot to death by the police possessed a firearm does not mean that he is guilty nor was doing anything wrong. IF and that is a big IF, Keith Scott was peacefully carrying his firearm, then the police should not be firing upon him. IF Scott was in fact brandishing his weapon in a dangerous way and potentially being injurious to others in his handling of the weapon, then he should have been seen as a danger and handled with lethal force. I understand the police perspective. I worked with, for, and around them for years. I also understand the ground rules for being a responsible citizen and weapons carrier. If this was police abuse or misconduct, then it needs to be dealt with. It has NOTHING to do with race. If the man with a gun was white, Asian, or ______ (insert racial description here), then I would feel the same way. The narrative of whether Scott had a gun versus a book (that was hokum) is irrelevant since it was demonstrably proven that he was indeed armed. Now whether he was acting appropriately while carrying is one thing, and whether or not the police handled the situation correctly or not is another entirely. One faux pas by the NAACP leader in the video clip is that it would only matter if Scott had a permit for his weapon if he was carrying it concealed, and the police would not shoot you for carrying what they cannot see. You do get shot if you are carrying a weapon in such a manner as to pose a reasonable threat.  You have to watch the video clip in order to see with what I agree.

This is just wrong. Charged for protecting your property?

When your dog is being attacked by another dog, one should have the right to exercise lethal force to protect one's own property and friend. If I am walking my dog or I have my dog in my back yard and a vicious dog attacks either myself or my dog, I am going to use whatever force is necessary to protect my dog. If that means shooting the attacking dog, so be it. In protecting my own dog by shooting the attacker, there is no way under all fairness and common sense that I should be charged with animal cruelty. Allowing the attack on my dog would be animal cruelty, not defending my canine companion and property. This would be a JUSTIFIED use of a firearm in the judgment of any rational, fair minded individual.

The following news story was on WTSB's news page today. It is just wrong to charge this man with discharging a firearm in the city limits (which is a BS ordinance to begin with) and animal cruelty. This is NOT justice. It is just plain wrong.

Owner, Neighbor Charged Following Dog's Death
Two Selma neighbors are in trouble with authorities following the shooting death of a canine. It happened Monday night on Godwin Street. Selma Police reported William Lynn Godwin, 32, shot and killed his neighbor’s dog, reportedly while trying to defend his own animal. Godwin was charged with cruelty to animals and discharging a firearm within town limits. The dog’s owner, Kevin Campbell, was cited for violating a town ordinance of allowing his dog to run at large.