Odd Case

The antis are tossing around this story. I gotta say there is probably a LOT more to it.

Tavarious China Smith was not particularly lucky. A small-time drug dealer in Manatee County, Smith sold crack and marijuana not once, not twice, but three times to undercover cops.

But in one respect, Smith, 29, hit the jackpot.

On two occasions, more than two years apart, he committed homicides but was not charged thanks to provisions of Florida’s “stand your ground” law. Smith claimed self-defense in both cases and prosecutors agreed. He never faced a judge or jury for fatally shooting Nikita Williams, 18, in February 2008 in a drug-related incident or Breon Mitchell, Williams’ 23-year-old half-brother, in December 2010.

Smith’s only punishment stemmed from using a gun to kill Mitchell. Since he was by then a felon, convicted on drug charges, Smith wasn’t allowed to carry the Ruger .357 Magnum he used to shoot Mitchell outside a Palmetto nightclub in 2010. In January, a federal judge in Tampa sent Smith to prison after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

OK so first up, this again isn’t the anti-rights “Free Pass”, charges were filed, then dismissed. Still this isn’t a reason to repeal the law, as criminals plying their trade (which implied in these cases) are exempt from SYG.

I think like this Massachusetts case, its bad justice from bleeding heart prosecutors ignoring the law. Might I remind you of this famous case in Massachusetts.

But rather than attack a justice system that doesn’t follow the law, they attack the law….because gun control ALWAYS WORKS!

This entry was posted in Bad Justice, Guns, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Odd Case

  1. What’s there to know?

    Arthur Brown is the assistant state attorney in Manatee County who reviewed both of Smith’s homicides and declined to prosecute Smith in the Mitchell case. He said both were clear-cut cases of self-defense and that provisions of the “stand your ground” law only strengthened Smith’s claims.

    Clear cut.

    I guess that the Anti-gunners think that he should have stood by and allowed himself to be murdered. They think we should do that, so it’s not surprising that they think a drug dealer should as well. They want everyone dead.

    At least they are consistent.

  2. Alan says:

    Even criminals get to defend themselves.

  3. Archer says:

    If I read that right, he killed a woman and her half-brother in “drug-related incidents”?

    Were they raised on “Progressive family values”, or what?

  4. Old NFO says:

    Interesting link… but drug related and he got away with it??? WTF?

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Yeah, Alan is 100% correct, just because you have convictions doesn’t mean you have any less right to live than the next guy. Also the rights to self defense trump any laws restricting what tools we use to that end.

      That being said it appears the events sited happened in part of a criminal enterprise and act. That is SUPPOSED to nullify SYG.

  5. JDRush says:

    Wait, so he went to jail on an actual gun control violation? And they are bitching about that? Moving the goal posts must be fun.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Well yeah, because he’s a CRIMINAL. You see the antis only care about people going up the river on weapons charges if they upstanding citizens, preferably with a CCW permit of some sort.

  6. TS says:

    Hmm, this doesn’t seem to fit to well with the “Stand Your Ground is a racist law” narrative.

    The law as written clearly has a provision where it is null if the defendant was in the process of committing a crime. Prosecutors are never required to proceed with charges, but they sure can as written. What would they have the authors do, write a provision that say prosecutors have to pursue all self-defense cases? And what is their problem with a drug dealer defending their life? Do they think their life isn’t worth anything? Do they find it unlikely that someone would want to kill a drug dealer? How does that fit with their narrative of counting all 30,000 gun deaths as a reason for gun control, but also saying a good deal of them don’t deserve to protect themselves?

    I think this is a good way to rule on cases like this. Not guilty of murder, but guilty of gun possession, or dealing drugs, etc. Frankly I think SYG should not have the provision about not committing a crime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *