Jackass of the Week Award - The City of Hot Springs, Arkansas

Bumbling Barney Fife wasn't allowed to put bullets in his gun when he patrolled the streets of Mayberry. It was a given that he was a hazard to public safety. This was a funny repeated theme in the tv series, with the Don Knotts character running around doing crazy slapstick.

But in real life, many police officers exhibit that they do not have the judgement to carry an loaded weapon in public. Now don't get me wrong. This is not a cop-bashing post. But it is a post to question where we draw the line. What should be done when an officer exhibits behavior that indicates he or she does not have the necessary judgement to wear a badge?

Incidents of excessive force occur everyday in the United States. And every once in a while, those incidents are captured on film for the world to see and judge. Just such a thing happened on June 21, the day now known as "Go Skateboarding Day." This day was created by skateboard advocates, and has been formally instituted by the U.S. Congress.

But in Hot Springs, Arkansas the day didn't go so well. A group of skaters was stopped by a local police officer, who put one of the young men to the ground and held him there by his throat. This image was captured on one of the skaters' cell phones, and two other kids quickly turned on their video cameras.

For those who haven't noticed, the video camera has been a ubiquitous tool in a skater's life since the devices were first available on the shelves of electronics stores. It's always good to have a record of yourself pulling an insane trick that you might not ever again duplicate, film your friends eating pavement as they try to outdo you, and maybe, just maybe, you might eventually get noticed and sponsored.

In this case, the students filmed a disgusting case of a local cop using bizarrely excessive force on this group of kids. The point of contention here seems to be that the officer was trying to stop, or even cite, the kids for skateboarding in a place that wasn't zoned for it. But it ended with police officer Joey Williams grabbing no fewer than three kids by their necks, some of them as young as 13.

The kids' videos were, of course, immediately posted to YouTube. It's not the Rodney King beating by any stretch, but take a look and judge for yourself if this should fall into either category of "excessive force" or "police brutality."

The first thing that struck me is the sheer size difference between this cop and the kids. The second, and the thing that has everyone up at arms, is his putting a 13-year old girl in a headlock, particularly when she looks like she weighs about 80 pounds. Officer Joey Williams has to be at least three times her weight.

AP articles say that the choke hold on the girl actually lifted her feet off the ground. That's obviously some really good police work in action. I also noticed that when Officer Joey Williams had the two kids in a headlock, there was another police officer standing next to him, who obviously didn't feel that the situation warranted his stepping in, as he stands to the side, looking like he doesn't want any part of this.

With nearly a million page views as of this writing, the YouTube video is getting a lot of air time. On the noticed and sponsored
Reason http://reason.com/blog/show/121095.html
blog, participants had some insightful comments from citizens across the United States and abroad. Some of my favorites:

"...you do blame the cop, for a wildly disproportionate response to the situation. He probably walked by three dozen violations of nitpicky city ordinances before he decided choking a 13-year-old was a good idea."

"So cops are allowed to choke minors who violate a city ordinance? No one in the video was "resisting arrest" -- that little girl surely wasn't. Just because someone may be violating a fucking ordinance doesn't give cops the right to rought them up. Also, isn't violation of a city ordinance usually punishable by fine, not arrest?"

"And nothing in the video indicates that the girl was under arrest when she decided to run....So he put a teenage girl in a headlock without cause.... I think that's over the line."

"I love the "resisting arrest" line thrown in there. As Americans is it not our right and duty to resist unlawful arrest?"

In response to the widespread attention that the video has gotten Mayor Mike Bush told the Associated Press that "Unfortunately, the video shows it pretty good....Bush called Williams "one of 100 best and finest we've got" in the city's police department."

Here's the only really funny part of this story, and one I haven't seen noted anywhere else. Consider Mayor Bush's statement, then read this statement taken verbatim from the Hot Springs website:

"The 99-officer Police Department provides basic police services in addition to various other special community programs such as Drug Awareness, Neighborhood Watch, Personal Safety, Housewatch, and Home/Business Security Analysis."

On the same website, there is a special section called the Mayor's Youth Council. Not surprisingly, no results were found for the search of "police choking."

Officer Joey Williams has been placed on administrative leave (which, if you ask me, is a euphemism for paid vacation) while higher powers investigate the incident. But what more can be said after watching the video? Why should this officer continue to have power, authority, and lethal weapons on the streets of America?

If the way this officer handled the situation is ultimately deemed appropriate, does that give me the right to make a citizen's arrest when someone mouths off? Because by Officer Jackboot McOverreact's standards, this would be disturbing the peace. Can I then throw that individual in a headlock, or push him to the ground and hold him by his neck in the name of persuing said citizen's arrest?

Of course, I'm a "civilian," which is police-speak for "the law applies to you and not me." I thought it would be interesting to see what other officers were saying about this incident, and when I came across some of their comments, my stomach turned.

It's unfortunate that these comments will likely reinforce many people's views that police are corrupt, uneducated, and abuse their powers ad infinitum. These comments are not meant to reflect the feelings or opinions of all police officers on the topic. But out of the hundreds of statements I read, I found exactly two officer comments that were flatly critical of Joey Williams:

"azcop2...Leaving a handcuffed suspect behind while you chase another one? Trying to take TWO kids into custody simultaneously (and looking like a fool in the process? Forget the punks, this cop is in serious need of officer safety re-trainig AND temper control."

"emore66...I dont know...Officer looked foolish...I think you have to pick your battles kids riding skateboards on sidewalk not sure it is worth it...I guess what town you work for dictates..."

Other officers did not give their whole-hearted support for Joey Williams, but their dissent fell largely into the "procedural" category:

"JP1...Even after watching a video that the kids "edited", my comment is that they deserved everything they got. Had this happened with one of my officers when I was Chief, I'd of had some serious talks with parents. (However, I would not have left a handcuffed kid on the sidewalk while I chased off another one. We would have found out who he was and got him later.)"

"lupd...looks like the punks needed more than what they got...that said there were some tactical errors on the officers part, but nothing that would be considered police brutality."

"cpd6a2...completely baited! Piece of crap kids need a major spanking. It was nothing but a big joke for them. Officer never should have left a handcuffed kid on the ground by himself to chase after another. Get help and then deal with the rest."

"DetSgt31...Write the kids' tickets for skateboarding, pull the parents in for raising such brats. The problem lies with the parents also, hold them directly responsible. Maybe a trip to the woodshed for Mom and Dad will get them thinking."

"orchevycop...Wow, skateboarding must be an arrestable offense there. Officer might be in the right, but he need some more training in verbal encounters."

Unfortunately, the vast majority of police officer comments read more like these. In considering the tone and intent of these comments, I think that cities and counties across the nation should begin to seriously consider regular and repeated psychological profiles of their officers.

I don't mean that in a humorous tone whatsoever. The reality is that if cops are thinking this way about their jobs and their concepts of what falls into that category is so incredibly broad-based and out of line, we really need some monitoring in place before we send these people out into the streets to utilize their so-called judgement, while heavily armed, in split-second scenarios.

Again, you may judge for yourself. (A sidenote: between the Mayor of Hot Springs and these officer comments, my overriding sense at this point is that it's a story fraught with poor grammar.)

"cross_rifles: Got to do what ya got to do!"

"OHDEP76...All they had to do was comply in an orderly manner and the situation would never have escalated. The officers may have been on the aggressive side, but within reasonable force for sure."

"88pdx...One easy word to learn: COMPLY!"

"pcpc601...hey turd, ya know what failure to comply is?!? if ya didn't, now you do..."

By far the worst comments, in my opinion, are the ones that advocate "ass kickings" to compensate for what they perceive as poor parenting:

"jcarnes718...I didn't see anything wrong on the Officers part. These teenagers think they can do whatever they want to whom ever. I think an ass whipping needs to be handed down to these punks."

"Bears:...When the parent fails the Police step in to do what is needed."

"Bodie: Nothin' Wrong Here...Nothing wrong here that I see. Kids gotta grow up and take an ass kickin' sometime if parents ain't doin' it it's up to the police. It's the parents tax dollars at work."

I have to say that I find these statements to be chilling. It's easy to chalk this kind of bravado up to officer banter, but the real concern is that these people really think that their job is not to protect and serve; not to keep the peace; not to enforce laws; they're saying that it is their job to kick someone's ass to catalyze certain behaviors.

In watching this video, it seems that Officer Joey Williams falls into this category. This outrageous abuse of power didn't stem from enforcing laws or getting dangerous thugs off the street. It was driven purely from Joey Williams' own ego. He didn't like that the kids questioned his authority and he was going to show them that he was da man.

Because this out of control police officer has not been fired, or heaven forbid, at least suspended without pay, the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas hereby wins the Jackass of the Week Award.

Jackass of the Week Award

With Casey Serin hogging so much of the "public jackass" spotlight, it's often difficult to find someone who deserves the award more than him.

But as I was traveling last week, I was knocked in the head by the story of Dean Hancock, whose sense of entitlement gives Casey Serin a hard run for his borrowed money.

Dean's son Josh Hancock was, until recently, a relief pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals. His five-year professional career ended at the age of 29, when Josh was killed in a drunk driving accident.

The details of Josh Hancock's death reveal that he did, literally, everything wrong. He was driving down a highway doing 68 in a 55 mph zone; blood-alcohol level twice the legal limit for Missouri; talking on a cell phone; not wearing a seatbelt; marijuana and a glass pipe were found in the car.

Unfortunately, he was driving down a stretch of road where a disabled motorist had called for a tow truck. Josh Hancock died when he slammed into the back of the tow truck, and investigators say there were no skid marks to indicate that he ever even hit the brakes to avoid the collision.

It's a sad and certainly untimely death. So why would his grieving father receive an Jackass of the Week Award?

Because Dean Hancock has taken the unthinkable step of initiating a lawsuit against every party involved in the accident caused by his son. He is suing the restaurant where his son ate and drank before the accident, the restaurant's manager; suing the tow-truck company and its driver; and even suing the driver of the Geo Metro that had the audacity to break down on the side of the road!

Restaurant manager Patricia Shannon Van Matre (who is the daughter of former Cardinal and restaurant owner Mike Shannon) has said in numerous publications that Hancock was offered a cab, but he told her that he was walking to the Westin hotel three blocks away.

Whether or not this is true, only these two will ever know for certain. But to place blame for a grown person's actions at the hands of a restaurant manager is beyond the pale. A 29-year old man knows when he's had too much to drink. And those who think that either his bartender or the restaurant manager should have intervened has never been in such a situation--particularly with a pampered sports personality who is surrounded by people who support his every whim.

It is interesting to note that, at the time of his death, Josh Hancock was driving a rented SUV. This is notable because the rental was a replacement for his personal SUV, which was being repaired from an accident that Hancock caused just three days prior, when he was clipped by a tractor-trailer at 5:30 a.m., tearing off his car's front bumper.

In that accident, Hancock was in Sauget, Illinois, just across the river from the city of St. Louis, Missouri. Sauget is adjacent to the crime capital of East St. Louis, Illinois and both towns share a reputation for their strip clubs, gambling and bars that serve until 5 a.m.

In other words, the only reason why a St. Louis, Missouri resident (particularly a white, affluent one) is leaving Sauget at 5:30 in the morning is because he's had a long night of hard drinking.

That particular morning, Josh Hancock almost killed himself when he nudged his SUV out into oncoming traffic to make a left-hand turn. His car was clipped by an oncoming tractor-trailer that was traveling at an estimated speed of 45-50 miles per hour.

While police were called to the scene, no citations were given. Was this because the officer gave the well-known baseball player preferential treatment? Because Sauget's only reliable income stream comes from bar and club-goers and police in that area tend to look the other way in these types of situations? Or because a trained police officer could not spot signs of inebriation in Josh Hancock, in which case, how could anyone expect a restaurant manager to do the same?

What is known is that Hancock was to pitch in a Cardinals game later that afternoon, but appeared to the stadium late and hungover. So if Dean Hancock is so interested in making the rest of the world responsible for his grown son's behavior, why not also sue the City of Sauget, its police force, and the officer who had the opportunity to intervene and take the baseball player's license, but failed to do so?

In that same vein of logic, why shouldn't the Cardinals and/or Major League Baseball sue Dean Hancock and his family for failing to intervene in this time-bomb's life? After all, they lost a pitcher in whom they have invested a lot of time, money, and training, only to lose him as the season starts.

The handwriting was on the wall, Dean. Your son came to the Cardinals after he was dropped by the Cincinnati Reds for violating a weight clause in his contract. Since this is a common side effect of heavy drinking, do you want to sue the Reds for perhaps acknowledging that your son was a drunk, but didn't want to bring public attention to the fact?

No, instead you're suing some guy from Collinsville who just so happened to have his car break down the night your son was so fucked up on booze and pot that he never even hit the brakes for a huge-ass flatbed tow truck. Hundreds of other, most likely sober, drivers managed to avoid the tow truck that night, but your son barreled into it like it wasn't even there.

And if that 26,000 pound truck hadn't been there, your son would have killed an innocent motorist as he sat in his disabled Geo Metro. But you want some sort of handout because, by some chance of science, your sperm met an egg and the product could throw a baseball, and now your family's trickle-down economics have come to a halt and you want folks with jobs and families and lives to pay you.

Dean Hancock's lawsuits represent the most odious sense of entitlement we've seen in the past couple of years. Not only should the defendants in this case refuse to capitulate to any settlement, this man should be ashamed to show his face in public.

Cat-astrophe

What a horrible week.

As you might have read in a comment post, last week was a jumble of twenty-hour work days in an attempt to finalize a huge contract that took me to three cities in as many days to meet with principals and shore up loose ends before the holiday weekend.

I was then assigned to touch base with a client in a fourth city, and arrived exhausted, prepared to do nothing more than enjoy some celebratory sleep and drinks over the holiday. But I arrived on Friday to discover that the central air in this property had gone kaput...unacceptable in this part of the country. So rather than dropping into a much-needed coma sleep, spent the day calling around for a repair person to come save me from the stifling heat.

That tackled, I regrouped and called some local friends to see if they wanted to meet up later in the day Saturday. That never happened, because as I was puttering around the house, I noticed the cat seemed out of sorts. At first, I thought it might be a combination of a bad attitude from my being gone for most of the week and his recent flight to rejoin me. But when I went to pet him, he actually growled (!!!) and hissed at me.

This was definitely a first. It was a stretch to think that the cat was pissed about the flight, because he typically defies all cat characteristics and actually is an awesome little travel buddy. When we take road trips, I belt his carrier into the passenger seat facing me and he hops right in and lays down. While I drive, I leave the carrier door open and he'll casually pop his head out every once in a while, check out the sights, then crawl back in and purr with pleasure.

I knew straight away that something was definitely fucked up this time, and stood frozen for a minute thinking about what to do. As I pondered, the cat managed to projectile vomit like a five-year old in a school play. Went to the fridge where we keep a list of local emergency numbers and rang the vet. The vet, of course, was closing in ten minutes and couldn't get my little monster in for a visit. But he did tell me that, based on the vomiting and other symptoms I described (I'll spare you the details) that kitty was definitely in distress and needed to be seen immediately.

Because of the timing, this meant a trip to the Emergency Vet. Now, if you're a pet owner, you're probably like me and live in fear of such a visit. Not necessarily because of the dire circumstances that will instigate such a trip--after all, thank God for the emergency vet--but because of the expense. Everything, and I mean everything, at the emergency vet costs two to three times as much as a trip to the regular vet.

Knowing this, I did a quick internet search on the possible causes of the cat's symptoms. They all pointed back to what I was told over the phone, and the damn cat needed to be seen straight away. Of course, every regular vet in a three-county region had shuttered their doors for the holiday weekend, off to drink margaritas on their porches and take their boats out for a weekend booze cruise.

So the cat was admitted for some emergency procedures. He's still being caged, poked and prodded as we speak. Again, if you're a pet owner, you know how ridiculously traumatizing this is for both pet and pet owner. Not to mention the fact that the emergency vet in this part of the world does not fuck around when it comes to payment. They would not begin treatment until they had a four-figure deposit in hand. Many, many people who came before me must have burned them hard, because as I was at the reception desk trying not to have a stroke over the deposit, another young woman was being refused treatment for her dog because she couldn't pay.

I returned to the house that evening after a very long day at the vet and couldn't get over how empty and quiet everything felt without el grande gato. I thought about going out, but decided I was shit company for anyone to be around, and realized that my checking account probably couldn't handle much more than the impending vet bill. As this reality caused a small series of panic attacks, I got a phone call from an inconsolable relative, absolutely crushed from a broken heart.

We've all been through this one...the heartbreak that happens sometime in your early twenties. It's gut-wrenching and life-changing. It's the heartbreak that strips away that last thin veil of innocence that we managed to still carry into early adulthood, and the moment it's gone, the world feel foreign and cold. We wonder how we'll ever pick up the pieces and move on, and more importantly how--or even if--we'll ever fall in love again.

It feels like a death, yet even when we're going through it, we know that it's just too disgustingly common to get the recognition it deserves. It's all too similar to a trip to the emergency vet--you may be reduced to tears and palpable dread, but no one else really gives a damn. "Oh, I'm sorry," is about the best that can be mustered. For those in the midst of a heartbreak that actually produces physical pain, it's a reality that seems impossible to reconcile.

So I've been alternating phone calls between emergency vet updates and a girl who I'm sure is currently unable to even muster the energy to brush her hair or teeth as she cries over the destruction of an unspoken future with someone she now loathes with every fiber of her being.

I don't know about you, but I truly feel like this particular holiday weekend can't be over fast enough.

"Fair" to Whom?

Liabilities and restrictions on property owners have been continually litigated in U.S. courts. Perhaps the most severe law that affects property owners is the so-called "Fair Housing" Act.

By definition, Fair Housing prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability)."

Last week, a friend in the midwest went to post a "for rent" ad in the local weekly. As he included the specifics of that property to the newspaper office, he included, "no pets," thinking of his expensive hardwood floors. The classifieds operator quickly corrected him, saying, "No pets except for service animals." Because, obviously, his town has decided that pet urine/feces/scratching is endemic to discriminating against the "differently abled."

Several years ago, I rented out one of our properties to a military family with two hyperactive toddlers. When they broke their lease due to an overseas transfer, I walked through the building to find the toddlers had taken a black permanent marker to no fewer than ten white walls and two wood doors.

When I deducted the re-paint (it takes three coats to cover Sharpie, BTW) and door replacement from their security deposit, I received over a dozen phone calls from a military lawyer at their overseas base, who was threatening to sue my family if his clients did not receive a full refund. Of course, I had to pay our attorney hundreds of dollars to tell me, "It's not worth it. Return the money." I was also inadvertently paying for their attorney, who, courtesy of the U.S. military system, was representing the couple on the tax dime.

Particularly offensive to me was that I couldn't get a handyman to come paint in time to rent the following month. So I spent three evenings after work doing the work myself, charging them only for the necessary materials. If I had hired someone, their deposit would not have covered the entire cost of the work.

Since then, I am loath to rent to families with children. They're hard on properties. Same with pets. But I can't come out and say that, and the whole process frustrates me so that I've offloaded that part of my obligation to a family member with more free time.

But with the numerous restrictions that property owners experience, why should we be hampered with this Fair Housing nonsense? After all, in jurisdictions around the country, property owners are held liable for gang and drug activity conducted on their premises; it is becoming increasingly common for communities to pass legislation that forbids property owners from renting to illegal immigrants.

Ironically, except for a handful of states and cities with sexual discrimination laws, it is still acceptable to print "no gays." Personally, I find this highly offensive.

While the government wants to induct us into some sort of citizen police patrol, there are no guidelines for this. How would I know if the charming "student" that I might rent to is actually planning to cook meth in the basement? How would I know if the seemingly normal young couple are gang members? If the lady with an accent is a legal citizen?

So, in reality, various governments are forcing me to discriminate against housing applicants. But I can't say that one house is "within walking distance to a prominent synagogue" because it somehow implies that I'm looking for a Jewish tenant.

Now, the left-wing nation of Kalifornia wants to expand Fair Housing to roommate and house-share situations. As of today, it is still legal for me to write an ad that says just about any damn thing if I'm looking to share my own space with another human.

Enter bureaucrats and lawsuits:

"The Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego are suing the popular website roommates.com for violating federal anti-discrimination law by allowing ads that express roommate preferences. The ads cited in the lawsuit—presumably the worst of the bunch—include one requesting “no drugs, kids, or animals” and one that specifies “no psychos or anyone on mental medication.” Another advertiser writes that he would “prefer a Christian male, no women allowed in home, living for Christ.'"

While a similar lawsuit against Craigslist was dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Chicago, this new suit is headed through the notoriously left-wing Ninth Circuit. So I'm guessing there's a 60-40 chance the plaintiffs will win.

Why??? WHY?!?!? I don't want to even consider sharing my home with a nineteen-year old ecstacy-popping nightclub DJ. Similarly, I don't want to rent any of our properties to crazed breeders with an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

And why should I?!?!? I'm liable for their behavior; I'm liable if they hurt themselves on the property; I'm liable for the damage and destruction they may cause. So why do the legislative and judicial branches continually hamstring property owners?

In short, rather than expanding Fair Housing, I'd prefer to see the courts strike down Fair Housing. Because this isn't a national issue. It's a homeowner issue. And, as the Ninth Circuit will decide, it's an issue of how we live our lives in peace and security behind closed doors.

The government can't have it both ways. They can't decide that those who hold legal liability, whether a homeowner or lease holder, cannot mitigate said liability.

Bizarre News

Imagine this....you are a mother of two sons. It's a weekday afternoon and you are home with the boys while your husband is a several houses down the road, working on a house he's rehabbing. Suddenly, you hear a commotion outside. Someone is calling your younger son's name, trying to get him to come out of the house.

The next thing you hear is something pelting your house. Your sense of panic starts to rise. Your oldest son grabs a baseball bat and goes to the front door to investigate. He opens it to find up what witnesses will later describe as "twelve to thirty" people on your front lawn, all looking to fight.

You grab one of your husband's hunting rifles to defend both your sons and your home. Neighbors will hear a melee, and several will call 911 to report a fight in progress. Your husband hears about a problem and comes running down the street.

He and other neighbors will report to police that he had to literally fight his way through his own front lawn to reach his family.

You and your boys are clearly outnumbered. Even at the lower end, twelve teenagers on your front lawn, on your property, who refuse to leave, who want to jump your son, pose a serious threat.

Your younger son also grabs one of your husband's hunting rifles. He joins you and his brother at the front of the house.

Shots are fired. At this point, no one is certain if they were warning shots, or if you were trying to kill a trespasser, before he killed you or one of your sons.

The police receive calls on their radios. The 'fight in progress' has been changed to 'shots fired.' They arrive to discover that two of the trespassing teenagers have been hit. A 15-year old has been injured. A 16-year old will die.

What comes next is a quick and bizarre application of the law. You and your younger son are arrested, booked, and held in police custody pending bond. Yours is set at $1 million.

Sound too strange to be true? This is exactly what happened in a St. Louis, Missouri suburb last night. And mother and son are still in police custody today.

Rather than being treated as crime victims, they are being held as the perpetrators of a crime. St. Louis County police seem far less concerned that their suburban home was literally stormed by a gang of teenagers seeking to do serious bodily harm to one or more of the residents. Even at the lowest estimate of twelve teens, they could have easily killed the boy they sought to fight.

Never mind that they were trespassing; that the older son with the baseball bat first told them to leave the property. No doubt the rifle-wielding mother and younger son did the same before things took a turn for the worse and shots were fired.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I opened my front door to find an unruly mob, of any age, I would panic. Mere seconds seem to have truly counted here. Perhaps mom had to make the decision to either take a few of the precious seconds to grab a rifle to defend her older son at the front door, or call the police for help.

Maybe she thought for a nanosecond about the response time such a call would take, and her maternal instinct kicked in and she chose to take the immediate action of aiding her sons. Maybe she made the wrong choice. But it seems that, in the heat of a literal battle, this is some serious Monday-morning quarterbacking.

Should she and her son be in jail this morning? Their home was literally under siege. And the trespassers refused to leave, instead escalating the situation. Initially, when no one in the home answered the taunts and threats coming from the front lawn, they began pelting the house with rocks.

What would the gang do next? Were they themselves armed? What lengths were they willing to take to get to this son? All of this had to be running through the mother's mind.

The entire situation is irrational. But few, certainly not the St. Louis County police, seem concerned about what the intent of the "twelve to thirty" young men on the front lawn last night.

Any reasonable human being would feel that his or her life was in danger. Certainly, a parent reads that situation with an even greater sense of urgency--the sharp pang of instinct that causes one to protect a child or children, at any cost.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has this account:

In an interview Monday evening, King [the father] told a reporter he had given police a surveillance video recording of the incident. He said he installed the camera at his home after past harassment.

Records show that St. Louis County police were called to the Kings' home 10 times over the past year, for a variety of problems, including a burglary, fights and destruction of property. Officers wrote reports in only two incidents; copies were unavailable Tuesday.

Michael King Sr. said his family has been targeted for years because he is an outspoken community activist who tries to combat crime. He said he legally owns the guns involved and used them for hunting.

Before writing this, I spent the morning researching the gun laws in Missouri. If you'd like to see for yourself, click here to download a pdf version. Really, it's a mere three pages. A quick read.

Neither of the so-called offenders violated the state's gun laws. Early news reports last night pointed out that discharging a weapon in St. Louis County is legal if one feels that one's life is in danger.

What reasonable person would not have felt his or her life was in danger in that scenario--outnumbered four-to-one, or ten-to-one, depending on the accounts. So where is the disconnect?

It is highly unlikely that this family will be able to raise the money to free the mother and son on bail. Not to mention financing the undoubtedly lengthy legal battle in front of them.

They will first need to hire a criminal defense attorney to address the charges filed by the Prosecuting Attorney in St. Louis County. No doubt the bottom-feeding families of the actual perpetrators in this case will file civil charges against the family as well.

If you are just as baffled and concerned by what you're reading, and want to make your thoughts known, share them with the Prosecuting Attorney. You can email the St. Louis Post-Dispatch at letters@post-dispatch.com