Alaska Stand Your Ground

Alaska is a state that should be credited for advancing the “Stand Your Ground” laws throughout this nation. Laws which seem to bring dire consequences when those that utilize the self-defense legislation upon violating the intent, take advantage the protection granted under such legislation. “Stand Your Ground” laws have over the years found NRA backed support in efforts to increase self-defense “rights” when a gun is utilized for protection, allowing exceptions to a state's “Castle” laws - which seemed to work pretty well in the category of self-defense for many, many years. The “Castle” laws held some checks & balance with respect to what an individual had at his or her disposal to defend that “life” attribute of the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” trinity. The NRA is focused on protecting the 2^nd Amendment by “lobby” buying layers of legislation that will make it impossible to ever destroy the “right”. I take exception to increased legislation upon this amendment, as the Supreme Court has rested its case, the 2^nd Amendment is here too stay - so why bother with any further over-legislation for no apparent reason but “paranoia”? Yes, a man's home is his castle and the lawman allows individuals to defend that property from trespassers, especially if a trespass finds the owner in a compromised situation wherein his or her safety is at risk. In Alaska, even though it was not yet a bonafide law on the books, the “Stand Your Ground” became front and center when a Reverend Phillip Mielke was indicted by a grand jury for reckless homicide and manslaughter. Mielke was the pastor of the Big Lake Community Chapel, out in the “Valley”, also known as Palin territory. This killing spree, based on a “self-defense” defense when thrown at the courts, occurred in the early summer of 2003. According to the killer's own sworn account, Mielke was awakened in his home across the street and responded with a 44-Magnum in hand, towards the chapel area. There he was confronted, or scared by darkness, as two men commenced stealing food and nothing else. The “unarmed” food thieves fled through the chapel's front door when confronted, and both were killed by the Reverend. Autopsies found both men with bullet holes, “penetrating gunshot wounds of the back” according to the death certificates, indicative of shots fired on retreat. Police reports also indicate that the shots were fired from a window at the food thieves on the lam, the Magnum's magazine unloaded. The food thieves were found dead, one near the church the other many miles away. Mielke was indicted for manslaughter and reckless homicide by a grand jury. But when this case was heard in the state court by a jury, a defiant legal team on the defense against the “Grand Jury's” decision, Mielke's NRA backed legal team was successful in swaying the jury to a verdict of “innocent” based on the “self defense” doctrine. Even though it was beyond the “Castle” laws already in effect in Alaska, as the chapel was beyond the “castle” jurisdiction, the jury acquitted the Reverend Phillip Mielke on all counts. And the question that never found resolve and part of the “Grand Jury's” sentiment to indict Mielke, it was the fact of what may have happened if Mielke would have just called the police when he realized the intruders were in the chapel, as this was not the first time that the food thieves had visited the church at night to steal food. And with Mielke placing himself in harms way, the self-defense option was then compromised. It follows the “But for” reasoning used by the courts, so the initial verdict by the “Grand Jury” was righteous and “just”! Anyway, after the “No Guilty” verdict, a slap in the face for the “Grand Jury”, it was also a slap in the face for “Justice” and the Reverend Mielke was acquitted and set free. So even though there are rules and regulations that try to limit the wild west mentality, when before a jury, there comes a different outcome. When the lawmen make laws, there is a fine line to what is acceptable to what goes beyond, and today we find the “beyond” being taken advantage of. Be careful, as this kind of behavior could defeat the purpose. Even though the 2^nd Amendment allows one to have “rightful” ownership of arms, there is always the possibility that “bullets” will come under strict control, along with gun-powder and empty guns in hand clutter your mindset! So Alaska should be credited for advancing “guns out of control” legislation that finds this nation at the boiling point with respect to “rights”. Especially here in Alaska, as guns make friends and the 2^nd Amendment is alive and well and acting in that “beyond” category - just ask Sarah Palin about her friendship with Gabrielle Gifford. So when legislation is taken advantage of, like is the case today with Trayvon vs. Zimmerman, that same legislation can back-fire and the end result finds control - as is needed today with the “out-of-control” gun legislation. I used to be a supporter of the NRA, not anymore as it appears the “mission” at hand has been taken over by a paranoia leadership bent on a Tea-Party mentality. Yuck is my sentiment. In ending, for Trayvon; “King is gone but not forgotten.”