Yet Again: DON’T Call 911, And DON’T “Help” the Police

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

“Little did he know what awaited him when he called 911 that day.”

That phrase would be a suitable obituary for many innocent people who have died at the hands of their supposed “protectors.” In this case, it was spoken in despair by defense attorney Marisa Bender as she addressed a jury in Bremerton, Washington. Bender represented 37-year-old Luke T. Groves, who was eventually convicted of “unlawful possession of a firearm” in a case that displays, in remarkable detail, the distilled malignancy of the “justice” system.

As a teenager twenty years ago, Groves was convicted of burglary after breaking into a school. As a felon he was subject to a lifetime prohibition on the exercise of his innate right to armed self-defense.

In November 2008, Groves made the tragic mistake of calling the police after someone broke into his home. During the phone call Groves compounded his error by informing the police that his wife Rebecca owned a rifle and a shotgun, which she had purchased before they got married in 2003.

As is usually (for practical purposes, we could round up to “always”) the case, the police were of no use in protecting Groves’ home. Once they had arrived, they requested to see his wife’s guns, and Groves — committing his third mistake — compliantly led them to the bedroom, where they were kept for self-defense.

The police were of no help in finding the criminal who violated Groves’ home, but they led him away from the scene in handcuffs.

Despite the fact that the guns belonged to his wife; despite the fact that he had never been notified that he was subject to a lifetime ban on personal gun ownership; despite the fact that he was a federally employed firefighter entrusted to use explosives as part of his job — Groves was found “guilty” of the charge and awaits sentencing on January 29.

Judge Sally Olsen refused to permit Groves to present critical evidence in his defense. The jury wasn’t allowed to know that he was authorized to use explosives as a federal employee, or that under state law at the time of his conviction no notice was given of a lifetime ban on firearms ownership.

Olsen seemed determined to tailor the trial to accommodate the case presented by Deputy Prosecutor Giovanna Mosca, who insisted that the only significant question was whether Groves had the guns in his “dominion or control.”

To his considerable credit, Groves turned down a plea bargain agreement that would have avoided jail time. Unfortunately, he apparently acted in the misplaced confidence that, first, the “system” would display an interest in justice, and second, that he would be permitted to present a defense before a jury composed of something other than collectivist drones.

Rebecca Groves now faces the prospect of becoming a temporary single mother to the couple’s 4-year-old daughter, Sophim. She is understandably puzzled as to how her husband can be convicted of a “crime” because of guns she bought before they were married. “I did not become a felon by marrying him,” she observes.

This underscores a critical point: Under what the people persecuting her family are pleased to call the “law,” she would have to be disarmed because of her husband’s teenage felony.

Here’s something else to consider: Had Groves made the mistake of enlisting in the military, Leviathan would have permitted him, while carrying out various lethal errands on its behalf, to keep and bear the firearms he wouldn’t be allowed to own as a private citizen.

3:03 pm on January 7, 2010