Shooting in a Kansas Church. Moms Demands Freaks Out.

But what happened?

Police confirmed that a man entered the House of Refuge Family Worship Center near Hillcrest and E. 109th Street Sunday morning and fired shots, striking a church greeter in the head, who then fell through a window in the sanctuary. Police said person was rushed to a hospital and is expected to survive. Police said the gunman, described as a black male, entered the church through a back door and then opened fire during a service.

Source: Gunman opens fire during Sunday service 

Damn! That is bad. If there was a law in the books prohibiting the carry of guns in church…

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 571
Weapons Offenses
Section 571.107.1
Permit does not authorize concealed firearms, where–penalty for violation.
(14) Any church or other place of religious worship without the consent of the minister or person or persons representing the religious organization that exercises control over the place of religious worship.

Wait, you mean there was a law ? But how did that happen then? A criminal did not obey the law?

Another Unarmed Self-Defense Expert.

On the second “Kata”, the term “lead enema” somehow comes to mind.

There trainers are as dangerous as criminals as they instill a false sense of security in their students which will get them killed.

The internet is filled with videos of “instructors” showing unarmed self-defense moves that are at best, cute martial arts choreography for a movie in El Rey Network. But sometimes you may find somebody with a realistic view on how to face danger unarmed.

I’d be doing the same thing.

Why so violent

I was doing a longer post on the Nation Gun Victims Action Council and went to their Facebook page.

I found this post.

The Nation Gun Victims Action Council is vehemently anti gun violence.   Seems that they are not so much anti other forms of violence.

They don’t mind cutting off heads of those they disagree with.

I guess when ISIS blows people up, runs over them with cars, or slits throats and chops off heads, that’s okay by the NGVAC.  As long as they don’t use guns they are happy to help.

South Carolina: No Stand Your Ground Law? 

A Cope man can’t use the defense that he was “standing his ground” during a fatal shooting incident at a public park, a judge says.Circuit Judge Ed Dickson issued an order on Friday stating that the state’s Protection of Persons and Property Act, sometimes called the “castle doctrine,” didn’t apply in the case…

…“Defendant’s interpretation of the act would elevate every public street, sidewalk and park to the special status of a person’s home, making each human being a castle unto himself. Such an interpretation would eviscerate the centuries-old and well-reasoned legal doctrine that a person must avoid using deadly force whenever possible, at least in the context of fights and ‘quarrels’” Dickson wrote.

Source: Judge: No standing ground | Local | thetandd.com

I am confused on this one. I thought SC did have Stand Your Ground already codified under S.C. Code Sections 16-11-410, et seq., the “Protection of Persons and Property Act,”

[a] person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1

But the judge did not stop there as he claims no SYG case has ever graced the South Carolina’s Courts or that the Legislature apparently did not say what Stand Your Ground says in the code mentioned above:

“This extreme shift in public policy is not authorized by the act, which states simply that its intent is to codify the common law castle doctrine and extend it to a person’s occupied vehicle and place of business. No case interpreting the act has held that it abrogates the duty to retreat in public places. Nor has any South Carolina case ever held that the castle doctrine’s application is unconnected to property or possessory interests,” he continued.

So, does South Carolina forces human life to go at a discount outside home?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I am gonna keep an eye on this case.