This is out of San Francisco, one of the most anti-gun and pro-crime cities in the nation.
A security guard at Walgreens used excessive force up the wazoo in dealing with a shoplifter, shooting the man as he left the building, but the DA isn't going to charge him. Why do you think that is?
[Warning: Blurred video, but violent]
Let me remind you that an exemplary Marine veteran who is the son of a police officer is currently under arrest for restraining a violent homeless man on the NYC subway, despite the fact that other passengers helped him and applauded him for his efforts and video showing he gave the homeless man care to ensure he was okay before police arrived.
But this case out of San Francisco is way more in line with the Left says they are protesting against when it comes to excessive force (especially against black men), yet the radically woke DA isn't charging the security guard.
WHAT?
District Attorney Brooke Jenkins released the information amid public outcry over the April 27 death of Banko Brown, a 24-year-old who was not armed, outside a downtown Walgreens. Last week, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution urging her office and the police department to release more evidence. She cited self-defense in her decision not to charge the guard, Michael Earl-Wayne Anthony.
Reminder: A security guard is not a deputized police officer. He has the right to deter a trespasser or a shoplifter on behalf of his employer. This may include deadly force if he believes lives are in imminent danger. But he does not have the same right to lethal force that an officer of the law has.
According to the police interview tape, Anthony said Brown kept saying he would stab the guard. No weapon was found on Brown, however.
This does not mean Anthony had no legal right to draw a gun. If Anthony believed Brown had a knife and intended to use it (people unfamiliar with the lethality of blades have never seen a man's throat cut by a perp who covered 15 feet of ground in a second), then there is certainly an argument there to be made!
But I should note he didn't draw his gun initially. Instead, he tried in vain (poorly-trained as he was) to apprehend the shoplifter while oblivious people walked by. It was only after Brown got up and attempted to put distance between him and Anthony (a key detail!) that Anthony drew his gun.
In the video, and according to DA Brooke Jenkins, Anthony fired his gun when Brown took that last little step at him, apparently to spit at him. In this frame, you can see Brown stepping backwards after spitting, just milliseconds before Anthony shoots him.
Was this shoot justified? It's highly dubious my fellow Americans, but then again, I also think a few dead shoplifters will end the problem of shoplifting. Mess around and find out, as the kids like to say.
We can have a conversation about the use of excessive force here, but what puzzles me is this case isn't in Texas. This is the heart of deep-blue California, where they look to make examples out of citizens who defend themselves... yet they quickly determined this was a clean kill?
San Fran's DA won't charge homeless people for assault and drug use on the streets. A former fire commissioner was attacked by one homeless man with a crowbar, and the DA Jenkins was extremely slow to bring charges, even before evidence came out that the commissioner might have been using bear spray on the homeless to provoke them.
I also can't understand why the woke media isn't running with the headline: "Authorities Refuse Charges Against Security Guard Who Shot Unarmed Black Man"
You'd think this story would be running 24/7 to inflame protests around the nation!
After all, that's what the media is trying to do with Daniel Penny in New York.
So why not Michael Earl-Wayne Anthony? (The media is actually running puff pieces on Anthony to describe his hard upbringing and grief at Brown's death)
Sad as it is in our cultural madness, I think I can spot the reason for the leniency.
Can you?
