Steven Hildreth Jr.'s Blog, page 2

Marvel’s The Punisher: Hit and Miss

Ever since the first MCU appearance of the character in the second season of Daredevil, it would be an understatement to say that the anticipation has been high for the debut of Marvel’s The Punisher. Its social media campaign (which is one of the best that I have ever seen) added to the anticipation. Part of that campaign was a live video that started three minutes prior to the series being posted on Netflix.

 

But how does the series stack against previous portrayals of the character?

[image error]From L to R: Dolph Lundgren in 1989’s The Punisher, Tom Jane in 2004’s The Punisher, Ray Stevenson in 2008’s Punisher: War Zone, and Jon Bernthal in the second season of Daredevil (2016). (Image credit: Screen Geek)

 

I finished the final episode yesterday evening. The short of it is that I felt the series got quite a bit right and quite a bit wrong.

The long of it can be broken to simple pros and cons.

PROS

Out the gate, the actors were phenomenal with the scripts that they were given. It is clear that every actor cast was dedicated to the best performance they could give. Jon Bernthal, in particular, has been cited repeatedly as saying he wanted to honor the military and law enforcement communities with his performance (an interesting article on the subject can be found here).

The show also ventured into reintegration issues that veterans face upon coming home from war. While it wasn’t perfect (more on that later), the character of Curtis Hoyle–a corpsman who lost his leg while serving alongside Frank Castle in Iraq–was a prime example of a functional veteran: while he had his demons, he pushed forward, obtained a decent civilian job upon separation, and leads the charge in veterans outreach in his community.

[image error]Jon Bernthal as Frank Castle in Marvel’s The Punisher

 

The first episode’s ending was particularly phenomenal, an example of what The Punisher is supposed to be. I won’t get too spoilery with it, but just know that there is a sledgehammer and a concrete mixer involved.

The violence that was present was appropriate for the character. Punisher is not very sanitary or kid-friendly with his dispatching of criminals. I would definitely say the violence in 2008’s Punisher: War Zone was definitely more in line with the comics than Marvel’s The Punisher, but there is definitely plenty of gore.

I particularly liked the initial contrast between Punisher and Micro. Punisher’s an old school, low-tech tradecraft kind of guy, whereas Micro’s a modern, high-tech guru. Watching their styles work against each other and then blend and complement was fun.

The gun control debate is touched on in the show, and unlike many Hollywood productions which serve as a platform for the Shannon Watts-types of the world to stump, it is a balanced debate. You have reasonable pro-gunners (the host of the radio show where the debate takes place), people in the middle (Karen Page, from Daredevil is a concealed carry permit holder who nonetheless strongly condemns firearm vigilante actions), unreasonable pro-gunners (the far-right veteran/Stolen Valor fraud and the domestic terrorist), and unreasonable anti-gunners (the anti-gun senator who hires private security). Bernthal said that all sides of the debate would be presented, and the writers did exactly that, without taking a side. I appreciated this approach, while others did not.

[image error]Deborah Ann Woll (L) as Karen Page and Jon Bernthal (R) as Frank Castle in Marvel’s The Punisher. (Image credit: Dark Horizons)

 

There were several nods to the comics that I appreciated. The Battle Van made an appearance. Castle’s false identity was “Pete Castiglione,” a nod to the fact that in the comics, Castle was born Francis Castiglione. The loan sharks in Episode 1 were the Gnuccis, who were a notorious crime family in the Garth Ennis series Welcome Back Frank. When Micro first sees Castle, the first words out of his mouth are indeed, “Welcome back, Frank.”

The action was crisp overall, though it was not perfect (as I will touch on in the Cons section). There were definitely on-screen kills that will please die-hard Punisher fans.

CONS

Marvel’s The Punisher suffers immensely from deviation from the source material. It is, hands down, the weakest characterization of The Punisher I have ever seen. Both the 2004 film and War Zone were much more on the mark than the series.

In the comics, the personality of Frank Castle died with the Castle family. Castle may be physically still present, but his body is inhabited by The Punisher, who is singularly dedicated to visiting lethal justice upon those who evade the law with impunity. He is literally a dead man walking. While he is prone to bouts of deadpan black humor, he is not an affable man.

The Punisher of the series very rarely resembles his comic counterpart. He’s laughing, joking, and generally being congenial, things that the comic book Punisher is not. Netflix’s take on the character is a radical departure from the comic, and it is for the worse.

Almost everything about the show is a generic military industrial complex conspiracy rather than something we would see in Garth Ennis’s work. In particular, with the exception of one scene, everything is generic and lacking Ennis’s plot eccentricity and flair.

The worst example of this is Rawlins, the CIA operative who ran the illegal operation to smuggle Afghan heroin into the United States. In the comics, Rawlins is very clearly an eccentric sociopath, who at one point shot down a Russian commercial airliner in a false-flag attack.

In the series, Rawlins is a Yalie who doesn’t show signs of being touched in the head until his final scene. He could have easily been replaced by “generic Yalie Agency dweeb” and the storyline would not have changed one iota. This is the most egregious example of wasting perfectly good character potential.

[image error]L: William Rawlins as portrayed in Garth Ennis’s PunisherMAX run. R: Paul Schulze as Rawlins in Marvel’s The Punisher. (Image credit: Screen Rant)

 

Another item that bothered me was that Castle shot at a US Army soldier while trying to escape the base. That is not something Castle would do. Granted, he aimed at body armor to try and make sure that the wound was non-lethal, but body armor is not a 100% guarantee and the Punisher would know that. Castle would have either intimidated the soldier out of his way or taken him out of commission non-lethally.

This also applies to Castle killing Carson Wolf. In one particular Ennis comic, The Slavers, Castle refuses to kill a dirty cop specifically because he is a cop and he knows his killing the cop will be twisted by his detractors. Yet, Castle has no problem brutally killing the ICE/HSI NYC Special Agent in Charge in the show. That Rawlins didn’t seize upon this and use it to turn the public against Castle in the series seems like a logical misstep.

There was also an instance of storyline discontinuity. Much of Daredevil was spent with Castle declaring a war on the criminal underworld, going so far as to destroy his family house and assemble an arsenal…only to chuck it all once he had killed off the Dogs of Hell, the Kitchen Irish, and a Mexican drug cartel. We already treaded Castle’s struggle and metamorphosis into The Punisher in Daredevil, only to backtrack and retread over that territory in The Punisher. Terrible storyline decision.

The storyline about Lewis Wilson, the disturbed Army veteran who slowly radicalizes to become a domestic terrorist, was extraneous and distracted from the main storyline. It was also an tired example of Hollywood’s take on PTSD, where the one suffering is a ticking time bomb. Granted, Wilson was contrasted with Curtis Hoyle, but at the same time, it is a cliché and overdone trope.

The series is about five episodes too long. If one removed the domestic terrorist storyline, it would probably bring the series length to the right amount. While touching on veterans issues is appreciated, it distracted from the overall feel of the series. When Castle finally crossed paths with Wilson, it almost seemed like a pigeon-holed moment.

[image error]Jon Bernthal (L) as Frank Castle and Ebon Moss-Bachrach (R) as David Lieberman in Marvel’s The Punisher. (Image credit: ComicBook.com)

 

Minor gripes include everyone noteworthy being an officer (hint: there are no lieutenants in Force Reconnaissance), Castle being an eight-year Marine that only made O-2, Castle constantly carrying bandito appendix style, and one particular scene where Castle has an M249 SAW with a 200 round drum, fires three bursts from it, then ditches it to grab an MP5 from one of the Anvil contractors.

CONCLUSION

Marvel’s The Punisher was entertaining to a degree, but it certainly failed to meet my expectations. It was clear that they borrowed from the comics (particularly the Ennis comics), but they clearly did not borrow the best parts. They definitely missed the mark on the character by far and large and they definitely had more episodes than plot, which led to the filler episodes dealing with the domestic terrorist.

It wasn’t the worst bit of television ever, but it is certainly the weakest entry in the MCU to date (even weaker than the critically panned Iron Fist).

Overall? I’d give Marvel’s The Punisher a 6.25/10.

Don’t feel the urge to binge watch all the episodes at once, but also don’t feel the need to avoid it entirely. It’s good TV. It just could have been much better.

(Featured image courtesy of Dread Central)

GUN REVIEW: Springfield X.D.S.

Before we launch into the review…in my SIG P320 review, I don’t know if it was my phone or if it was WordPress, but every instance of X.D. was changed into an emoticon. Thus, even though Springfield markets the pistol without abbreviation periods, I shall be using them for clarity purposes.

With that out of the way, the Springfield X.D. series of pistols tends to stir up debate amongst gun owners. Its proponents swear by them up and down, citing their reliability, ergonomics, and, in the full sized versions, its magazine capacity. I can’t find the advertisement, but when the X.D. dropped way back when in the early 2000s, I remember seeing an ad in either Soldier of Fortune or a gun magazine that bragged how it carried a then-near unparalleled 13 rounds of .45ACP.

On the other hand, many have criticized its grip safety as an unnecessary impediment to firing and potentially a factor that could cost someone in a time-is-life situation. They see nothing special about the X.D. that can’t be found in other striker-fired pistols. These are criticisms I often see from fellow Glock carriers.

I wanted to choose for myself, and I was doing research into striker-fired .45 handguns when I saw that an X.D.S. in .45ACP was available. I decided to give it a spin.

[image error]

Out the gate, I noticed that it was extremely ergonomic. It also had a fiber optic front sight, which helps with target acquisition. It’s extremely concealable, as well. I could have easily stuck it in my pocket without anyone noticing were it my own (which I would not recommend without a pocket holster).

I had no trouble with the trigger pull, either. It was smooth enough with a pronounced reset. For that matter, I had no problem with the grip safety, either. I did not have a single failure to fire due to not gripping the pistol hard enough. Then again, I have large hands, so your mileage may vary.

Speaking of my large hands, I love the magazine extension. One of my gripes with my Glock 26 is that I had to purchase aftermarket magazine extensions so my pinky finger isn’t hanging off the pistol. Some people aren’t bothered that that, but I am, and that I was able to wrap my hand around the entire pistol grip with the extension in place pleased me.

My problem with the X.D.S. 45 is that it is chambered in .45ACP.

Allow me to elaborate.

My first exposure to subcompact pistols came from my grandfather. I was in Florida, visiting my grandparents, when he decided to take us to the shooting range. His handgun of choice was a small Kahr handgun. I believe it was chambered in 9mm or .380. It had an extremely stiff trigger, and I noticed that it stung the palms of my hands after extended firing. I immediately learned that a handgun that size is rarely comfortable to fire.

With the X.D.S. 45, it’s a combination of it being a subcompact pistol, the caliber, and the extremely thin grip. That last quality, which grants it its ergonomic qualities, is also its largest drawback. After firing just fifty rounds, I had to shake my hands a bit to try and lose the stinging sensation.

[image error]

As you can see, at 21 feet (I’m not sure I personally would engage somebody beyond 21 feet with a subcompact pistol…some may disagree with this), all of my rounds are in the 8 ring or better, and my worst shot was just on the 8 side of the 8/7 border. All of my headshots were on target and fairly tightly grouped.

The X.D.S. 45 shoots well, without question. Even with my discomfort, I was able to perform adequately.

Having said that…it is very uncomfortable to shoot. While being uncomfortable is not an impediment to a trained shooter, it certainly does not hurt to have a pistol with which you’re comfortable.

I would like to give a full-sized X.D. a shot to see how it handles, and I’d also like to see if comfort is an issue with an X.D.S. 9.

As for the X.D.S.: if you can get past the stinging feeling when you fire it and you’re looking for a subcompact .45ACP, it performs.

Me? I don’t see myself rushing out to buy one anytime soon. I’ll probably just stick to my Glock 26 for my subcompact needs.

GUN REVIEW: Glock 21 Gen 3

I am no stranger to the Glock format. My first Glock was a Glock 17, which I bought after I sold my first pistol, a Taurus PT1911, to somebody with an interest in gunsmithing. After the Taurus’s safety fell out for the second time, I decided to heed a friend’s advice and give Glock a spin. It took some time, but I eventually reached a point where I clicked and I became one of the biggest Glock advocates in my circles.

I’ve personally owned a Glock 17 (full sized 9mm), a Glock 19 (compact 9mm), a Glock 22 (full sized .40cal S&W), and a Glock 26 (subcompact 9mm). These four are among Glock’s best sellers. I personally prefer the G19 above all. I got rid of my G22 because I did not like the snappiness of the .40cal S&W, and found I could get follow-on shots on target faster with my 9mm than I could with a .40.

While researching a character for a new series I’m planning, I decided I did not want them to carry a Glock 9mm, since that is Ben Williams’s preferred weapon. I am of the belief that one’s choice in a handgun is a personal statement. For Williams, he is all about functionality and pragmatism, which is what the Glock 19 represents.

This new character is a former Army Special Mission Unit operator. Finding out information about what the premier counter terrorism unit carries as their sidearm is hard, as, unlike a certain other SMU, the Army’s unit tends to take operational security seriously.

What I was able to find was that sometime during the 2000s, that unit got away from 1911s (which they carried since their inception in 1979) and moved towards Glock 22s. Apparently, the frames of the G22s eventually cracked, as they were not geared towards the high pressure of the .40S&W cartridge, so eventually they moved to Glocks in 9mm (17, 19, 34).

I wanted this new character to carry a .45. I wanted one of his character flaws to be giving credibility to the debunked notion of stopping power, mentioned here in an article by Massad Ayoob where he debunks it and several other myths about gunfighting. So, I thought perhaps he would look at the Glock 21, which runs on a Glock 20 frame (designed for a 10mm cartridge). My rationale is that he’s used to Glocks, doesn’t think 9mm is enough, doesn’t like the .40, and wants to run a .45.

I’ve done a bit of poking around the internet. Granted, what I’ve found is anecdotal evidence, but I’ve found that when it comes to reliability issues, absent a comprehensive torture test, anecdotal evidence will usually get the job done. If a gun is not to be trusted, reliability wise (such as the Hi-Point series of pistols), you will find a sufficient volume of anecdotal evidence to support it. Likewise, if you find a volume of anecdotal evidence saying that a gun is solid, then chances are it will be.

Of course, the only way to find out for one’s self is to get on the range and get some trigger time behind it, so I went to a range, rented a Glock 21 and 100 rounds of .45ACP, and hit the range.

[image error]Glock 21 in .45ACP.

As you can see, this G21 looks like it’s been around a bit. It’s a Generation 3 G21, so it’s more than likely got some age on it. What I found immediately is that, while the G21 frame did not handle the recoil of a .45 as well as a steel-framed pistol, its size was more than adequate for a trained shooter, particularly one who has experience running the Glock platform. It was definitely thicker and bulkier than a G17 or a G22, which might rule it out for concealed carry, even for somebody my size (6’0″ and 285 lbs at the time of writing).

Aside from that, it handled like a Glock that just liked to be a little louder than its predecessors. The reset is crisp. If you like Glock stock triggers, you won’t find any issue with a stock G21. If you don’t like Glock stock triggers, you’re going to hate it. It’s like Dr. Pepper in that sense.

[image error]

I shot the G21 at distances of 21, 30, and 45 feet. My groupings were a bit loose. I attribute that to one part not having shot in a month (in the original Instagram post, I said it had been a couple of months, but my memory was foggy and I forgot that I had shot the SIG-Sauer P320 in February) and one part not having shot .45ACP in years. Still, none of my shots were off the silhouette, and I managed to blow out half of the X ring with my shots.

The last few shots I fired were at 21 feet, all head shots. I usually throw a shot or two when firing repeated head shots, but I managed to drill all of them. I suffered no malfunctions throughout the one hundred rounds, which is hardly a torture test, but should be enough of an indicator for the average concealed carrier.

As for the anecdotal evidence that I’ve seen vis-a-vis the G21, I saw multiple stories of people having owned Gen 2 G21s for two decades without failure, and saw no complaints about the Gen 3s. Of course, if I saw a story that a SOF unit ran a G21 into the ground without issue, that would be the best testament, since they fire tens of thousands of rounds through their weapons per year, but I’ll have to settle for concealed carriers and LEOs who vouch for the weapon.

Personally speaking, I might pick up a G21 down the road just for fun and to stay current on the .45ACP. Fans of both Glocks and the .45ACP round will be pleased.

How To Ask For a Book Review

Last night, I had returned to work on my current incomplete novel, The Ronin Genesis, a direct sequel to my second novel, The Sovereigns. I wrote about a thousand words, and decided that this merited a somewhat celebratory post on my Instagram.

Well, this morning, I wake up to a notification on that photo. I caught what it said, but when I went to look at it, the comment was gone, a hint that the person who posted it had blocked me on the app. Fortunately, I have friends who were able to screencap it for posterity. I’ve redacted their name and profile picture, but their words remain unedited.

[image error]You mad, bro?

The person in question had sent me two books of poetry they had written. I told them I would get to it at some point and that I was happy for them. I tried reading them at work, but I could tell that I would have to read it from the comfort of my home, where I would have time to really take in what they were attempting to convey through their words. Couple that with the fact that I’ve always been a bit slow on the uptake when it comes to most poetry, and the books got set on the back burner, which apparently made this individual unhappy.

It inspired me to write this post. I know there are a few aspiring novelists in my social circles and on my fan page.

First off, I am notoriously slow to get back to request to read someone’s book.

I work a full forty hour work week every week, minimum. When I’m not working, I’m usually unwinding from that full time job.

If I’m not unwinding, I’m probably writing my own novel.

If I’m not writing my own novel, there’s a very strong likelihood I am reading a book for my own research. My genre is very research heavy and I am almost always researching.

If I’m not researching, there’s a good chance I’m either beta reading/editing a novel from one of my close friends, or reading their finished products as I have promised, after months of making them wait. This is fact to which my friends Nate Granzow, Stephen England, Pete Nealen, and Ian Graham can attest.

[image error]From left to right: Nate Granzow, Stephen England, Pete Nealen, and Ian Graham

Essentially, the disclaimer I tell people is that I cannot promise when I will get to their books, but I will get to them eventually, as I have the Quixotic notion that someday, I will read every book on my bookshelf.

I’ve always been a stubborn, contrarian type of person. So, if somebody whines to me about how I haven’t read their books (even when I told them it will be some time before I get to it), I’m far less inclined to ever read them.

In this case, in my pre-caffeinated state of post-slumber, my immediate reaction was to throw away the books this individual sent to me.

Fortunately, for this person, I have gotten better at denying those urges as I have grown older. If I do toss those books, it will be from a calm and rational place, not from the place that comes with trifling with me before I’ve had my morning coffee.

This post has more substance than my snide reaction to that individual. It’s a lesson to be learned.

When you send your books to a more renowned author than yourself, you should brace yourself for the possibility that they may never even respond to your query, much less read your work.

When I published the first iteration of my novel The First Bayonet, I reached out to former Army Special Mission Unit squadron commander and (at the time) newly minted author Brad Taylor in hopes that he would review my book.

I got lucky. He actually replied to my email, where he informed me that he was unfortunately busy with full-time work and his own writing (does that sound familiar?), but that he wished me the best of luck with my works.

I could have pitched a fit and been caught up in my feelings like [name redacted] above. Instead, I saw it for what it was: a genuinely kind gesture. That email solidified me as a major fan of Brad’s work, and that’s even before I finally started catching up on the Pike Logan series (still have a couple more books to go before I’m up to speed).

Cool story about that: my father, being the kind of guy  that he is, actually took my first book to a Brad Taylor signing and offered him a swap. Brad was not only kind enough to accept the book and take a photo with my father, he actually remembered who I was. If that’s not the definition of a stand-up guy, I don’t know what is.

Also: Brad still has not read my book (or if he has, he hasn’t reviewed it). Guess what? It happens. He’s a busy man. You don’t see me throwing a fit on social media or forsaking his work over it.

[image error]My father with Brad Taylor. Dad’s holding Brad’s book (which was an excellent read, by the way) and Brad’s holding the first edition of my book.

A less positive example was when I attended the Conservative Political Action Conference last year. I bought a book written by Glenn Beck, since my father is a major fan of Beck’s and I intended to send it to him (returning the favor when he sent me Brad’s book, autographed). I was at CPAC to promote my own work after my traffic stop, and I took an opportunity to slide my books to Glenn Beck’s assistant.

[image error]Glenn Beck at CPAC 2016.

No review from Glenn Beck. Chances are, the assistant probably threw them in the trash before they even reached Mr. Beck. Guess what? Still not caught up in my feelings, because I know how the game is played.

Same deal when I gave Sheriff David Clarke one of my books. No review. Probably didn’t read it. Again, it’s how the game is played.

[image error]Me with Sheriff David Clarke at CPAC 2016. He really is tall (I’m 6’0″) and that is my book in his hand.

One more example to really drive the lesson home.

I recently met New York Times Bestseller Mark Greaney in Phoenix when he was doing a presser for his newest book, Gunmetal Gray (also an excellent read). After the presser, we grabbed pizza and beer. We talked about traditional versus independent publishing, the struggle of being an author, and various other topics in a conversation that just flowed naturally.

[image error]Me with Mark Greaney

At the end of dinner, he offered to read my books if I sent them to him. He gave a very similar disclaimer to what I give people asking for reviews.

After that, the only mention I made of it was making sure the books had indeed arrived safely. This will probably be the last time I mention it to anyone because Mark is a busy man. Have you ever written a 150,000+ word novel in ninety days? Well, Mark has. That’s the kind of busy he is, and I accept that.

I’m not going to get caught in my feelings and ruin a friendship because he has not dropped everything to read my book. I never expected him to throw my works to the front of the queue. Just the fact he offered to read them eventually is good enough for me. That’s scoring a birdie, so far as I’m concerned.

And even if he doesn’t read them, I’m still going to keep reading Gray Man novels because they’re flat out fun to read.

The lesson to be learned here: you will attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. You are not entitled to anybody reading your work. If somebody does read your work, then excellent. If they do not, then suck it up, buttercup. Figure out the marketing side of independent publishing and charlie mike, or quit and find something else to fill your time.

Now that I’ve appeased my inner NCO with that summary, allow me to close this post with an appropriate meme.

[image error]

GUN REVIEW: SIG-Sauer P320

Ever since the Glock series of pistols edged forward as the premier weapon for the military, law enforcement, and concealed carry communities, gun reviewers have been searching for the “Glock killer,” the next striker-fired pistol that would eclipse the Glock and beat it at its own game.

Some speculated it would be the Springfield X.D. series. A few others thought it might be the Smith & Wesson M&P series. Recently, other gun manufacturers took a stab at it. The Walther PPQ and the Heckler & Koch VP9 have both received rave reviews and have been touted by people I personally know and respect to be excellent handguns.

That’s not to say their predecessors haven’t been quality works, either. I have a soft spot in my heart for the M&P series, and given my limited exposure to the X.D. series (I’ve only shot an X.D.S., which I will review in the weeks to come), I have no complaints about basic functionality and reliability. But, all of these seem to fall short of my favorite Glock 19, which I have told people in conversation is the gold standard of concealed carry pistols.

Then, SIG-Sauer stepped up to the plate with their P320, a revamped version of their P250 pistol. I was skeptical, given that I had heard mixed reviews on it, but when I heard that the US Army had adopted the pistol as their new service weapon (under the M17 nomenclature), I decided I would give it a try for myself.

I’ll never forsake my Glock 19, even if only for sentimental value.

Having said that, if there is a Glock killer out there, the SIG P320 is it.

[image error]SIG-Sauer P320 in 9mm Parabellum.

The first thing I noticed is the ergonomics of the pistol. Not since the 1911 have I held a pistol that just felt right in the hands. It’s designed with user comfort in mind, and at time I came close to forgetting it was in my hands while I fired it downrange. It melds perfectly with my hands.

The trigger is absolutely amazing. One of my complaints about other pistols, such as the SIG-Sauer P229 or the H&K P30 (both of which I have owned) is that their trigger resets left something to be desired. I could barely feel the P229’s reset and the P30’s reset was essentially non-existent. Many have complained about the Glock’s trigger, but I have found that it has a very pronounced reset, which allows for faster follow-on shots.

The P320’s reset is crisp and extremely pronounced, and the pull is extremely smooth. I had no problem with follow-on shots. I did shoot better with the Glock 19, but that can be chalked up to having carried one, on and off, for years. I have no doubt in my mind that if I owned a P320, I could reach the same level of proficiency in next to no time.

[image error]Fifty rounds at 21 and 30 feet.

The stock sights are tri-dot, which are definitely superior to the Glock’s stock sights, in my opinion. As you can see, my groupings with the P320 are not the best, but that’s to be somewhat expected with an unfamiliar pistol. Still, I was able to put most of my rounds in the 8 ring or better, and I missed none of my head shots.

I immediately fell in love with the P320 after shooting it. It’s definitely on my dream guns list for purchase down the road. I would definitely recommend it for everyday carry, particularly if you get the 4″ model, which is the one I shot.

Now, to talk a bit about the differences between the P320 and the M17.

[image error]M17 handguns. Photo courtesy of Popular Mechanics.

As you can see, the Army seems to have opted for a flat dark earth color scheme as opposed to a black finish. The other noticeable difference is that the M17 has an external safety, which is to be expected. Outside of SOF units and CID detachments, you will not find a single pistol in the US Army’s arsenal that does not have an external safety. Why? Privates do stupid things, as well as complacent leaders. The Army won’t take the risk and rather than improve their weapons safety training, they will attempt to “private-proof” the weapon as much as possible.

I’d love to get my hands on the M17 to see how it compares to the original P320.

To those still serving, a word of caution: shoot the civilian model before you judge whatever is issued out. My friend Nate Granzow pointed out that every civilian Beretta 92 he has shot has been extremely reliable, whereas there have been stories upon stories of issue Berettas being wrought with issues. He theorized there are two reasons for that:

-The Army tends to run pistols (and all their weapons in general) into the ground, well beyond their service life, before they cough up the money to replace them.

-The Army demands a high volume of weapons in a short period of time, which forces weapons makers to make mistakes during production of the military products that they would not make with civilian products, where they would be liable to lawsuits.

Still, I’m interested to see if SIG-Sauer can avoid the same pitfalls that Beretta suffered when they were tapped to produce the M9 back in the 1980s. I’m definitely looking forward to hearing service members’ opinions of the M17 when they start hitting line units.

Presidential Election 2016: An Analysis

At the time of this writing, there are eighteen days until the Presidential Election.

Things have gotten extremely heated, not only between the candidates of the two major parties, but at the grassroots level. I know I have personally lost friends along the way due to this election, as well as engaged in several vitriolic debates.

Allow me to say this out the gate: I’m not going to tell you who to vote for.

First, chances are that you’re set in your ways at this point, and nothing I say or do is going to convince you to vote for anyone other than the person you’ve decided to vote for.

Second, it becomes a major headache when a public figure endorses a candidate because then fans who endorse other candidates either rage quit or get into heated debates (or both).

What I will do instead is discuss the five candidates in the running who have received the most press coverage, discuss their platforms briefly, discuss ways that they could win the election (or if they have no chance, discuss why), and then tell you, objectively, what I think will happen on November 8th, as well as other factors to consider.

Without further ado, let’s get to it.

DONALD TRUMP: REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATE

[image error]

WEBSITE:  Donald J. Trump on the issues

[image error]

RUNNING MATE: Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana

OCCUPATION: Real-estate businessman, reality television personality

PLATFORM: American exceptionalism, stricter immigration laws, opposition to refugees, bias in the media, counter-terrorism, economic growth, substandard infrastructure

CONTROVERSIES: Trump has made several comments that have been construed by his opponents as bigoted in nature, both past and present, including a leaked tape opponents claim is him advocating sexual assault (for a broader list of those, click here); is accused of being “too friendly” with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and is currently facing law suits regarding his Trump University endeavor and being accused of raping a minor.

Trump’s supporters refute the above, and insist that his comments have been taken grossly out of context and that the lawsuits he faces are witch hunts designed to denigrate him in the eyes of the American voting populace.

ON THE BALLOT IN: All 50 states.

STRATEGY TO WIN: According to Real Clear Politics, a site which compiles various polls from many sources to generate a composite picture of how candidates are doing, at the time of writing, Trump trails his main opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, by about 92 electoral votes.

There are several swing states this election. Politico identifies Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin as swing states.

Provided that all other states currently leaning Trump go all in for him, and the states leaning Hillary stay with her, Trump must win Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio, either Indiana or Minnesota, secure wins in Arizona and Nevada, and take one of the remaining swing states (New Hampshire, Michigan, or Wisconsin) from Hillary. Failure to meet all the above criteria would result in a Hillary Clinton win.

This is before we factor in independent candidates (more on that later).

[image error]

HILLARY CLINTON: DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE

[image error]

WEBSITE: Hillary Clinton on the issues

[image error]

RUNNING MATE: Tim Kaine, United States Senator from Virginia

OCCUPATION: Lawyer, Senator, Secretary of State

PLATFORM: Women’s rights, LGBT rights, healthcare, environmental issues, education, tax increases

CONTROVERSIES: Setting aside allegations that she was complicit in covering up her husband’s alleged sexual misconduct, Hillary Clinton’s controversies run the gamut from taking furniture when she left the office of Secretary of State, to her defense of a child rapist when she practiced law, to her mismanaged response to the attacks on a temporary consulate and a secret CIA facility, both located in Benghazi, Libya, to her keeping classified information on a private e-mail server. Those can be found in detail here and here. In addition, hacker organization WikiLeaks acquired thousands of e-mails and have been leaking them throughout the campaign, detailing what her critics have called her ultimate corruption.

Clinton’s supporters allege that the right wing is taking everything out of proportion and that, were she a man, a Republican, or both, there would not be any outrage, spurring allegations of partisanship and misogyny.

ON THE BALLOT IN: All 50 states.

STRATEGY TO WIN: Hillary Clinton is at a distinct advantage going into the election, with the media focused on Donald Trump’s various controversies.

With the assumption that the states solidly for Hillary remain that way, all Hillary has to do is win one open swing state. To win any of those swing states, even a state with a small electoral count like Nevada, would push her over the 270 mark required to win the electoral college and the presidency.

There’s also been talk that Hillary could win Texas, which would guarantee her victory over Donald Trump. Even without her winning Texas, to take even a handful of the swing states would place her well over one hundred electoral votes ahead of Donald Trump.

[image error]

GARY JOHNSON: LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE

[image error]

WEBSITE:  Gary Johnson on the issues

[image error]

RUNNING MATE: William Weld, former Governor of Massachusetts

OCCUPATION: Businessman, author, former Governor of New Mexico

PLATFORM: Isolationist foreign policy, fiscal conservatism, decriminalization of marijuana and termination of the drug war, reduction of government size and scope

CONTROVERSIES: The biggest Johnson controversies have revolved around foreign policy. He famously asked, “What is Aleppo?” during an interview about ISIS, and when asked about foreign leaders he admired, , which his critics say proves that he lacks enough knowledge to be commander-in-chief. There is also Johnson’s support of Edward Snowden, which has drawn the ire of foreign policy conservatives.

Johnson’s supporters counter that most of those who criticize Johnson for not knowing where Aleppo is cannot place Aleppo on a map, and that Johnson was actually being coy and leaning towards the anarcho-capitalist roots of libertarianism by implying that no government leader is good. These people also tend to side in the “Snowden is a hero” camp rather than the “Snowden is a traitor” camp.

ON THE BALLOT IN: All 50 states.

STRATEGY TO WIN: There is zero way that Gary Johnson will win the Presidency outright. His only chance would be in a scenario where Trump would be poised to win and taken Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio, and either Indiana or Minnesota. If that were the case and he were to take a swing state (New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin), it would prevent both Trump and Hillary from reaching 270 electoral votes, at which point the 12th Amendment would be invoked and the House of Representatives would pick the President out of the three frontrunners.

However, it is very unlikely that the House of Representatives–controlled by Republicans–would pick a Libertarian. It is far more likely they would pick Trump in this scenario, as he would be in the same party as them and thus could use party pressure to keep him in line, something that would not work on a Libertarian President. In addition, there are ideological differences, especially in regards to foreign policy, which would make Johnson a less than palatable choice for Republican congressmen.

I mentioned in a Facebook post before that before the Libertarian Party can take the national stage, they need to develop a stronger local presence in state and city governments. Once that has been established, they can go for the federal legislature, and then they would be in position to realistically achieve the presidency.

So, bottom line here: Johnson has no realistic chance of winning.

[image error]

JILL STEIN: GREEN PARTY CANDIDATE

[image error]

WEBSITE: Jill Stein on the issues

[image error]

RUNNING MATE: Ajamu Baraka, soldier, human rights activist

OCCUPATION: Physician, activist, former gubernatorial candidate

PLATFORM: Environmental issues; poverty; education, healthcare, and jobs as positive rights; wealth redistribution; pacifism

CONTROVERSIES: The only controversy of which I am aware that Jill Stein was party to was when she vandalized construction equipment in North Dakota to protest the Dakota Access Pipeline. A warrant was issued for her arrest. Her detractors cite this as proof that she is unfit for duty as President.

In contrast, her supporters find her to be genuine and passionate, and cite the vandalism as proof that she is a genuine person who should be the next President.

ON THE BALLOT IN: According to her website, Stein is on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia, and can be written in the ballot in Indiana, North Carolina, and Georgia. She is not an option in Nevada, South Dakota, and Oklahoma.

STRATEGY TO WIN: Jill Stein? Win?

Jill Stein is considered too left wing even for most Democrats. There’s certainly no way she could win in the House of Representatives under a 12th Amendment vote.

That’s straight up impossible. Not even worth drawing up a map.

EVAN MCMULLIN: INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE

[image error]

WEBSITE: Evan McMullin on the issues

[image error]

RUNNING MATE: Mindy Finn, businesswoman, political consultant

OCCUPATION: CIA case officer, banker, House consultant

PLATFORM: Strong foreign policy without being belligerent, pro-2nd Amendment, reducing size and scope of government

CONTROVERSIES: Surprisingly, none. All that comes up when one Googles “Evan McMullin controversies” is that he either entered the race too late or he’s not “conservative” enough for some social conservatives.

ON THE BALLOT IN: 11 states (Idaho, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Virginia, and South Carolina), with write-in access in 23 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin)

STRATEGY TO WIN: On the surface, it may seem like McMullin has zero chance of winning. He has even smaller ballot access than Jill Stein.

However, look back to where Trump and Clinton are in a deadlock. Virginia is considered a swing state, and McMullin is on the ballot in that state. If it came down to the wire like that, if McMullin takes Virginia, he pulls enough votes from Hillary to prevent her from reaching 270 electoral votes, and Trump falls short, which sends it to the House.

What makes me think McMullin even has a chance of winning Virginia to merit discussing it? Well, as we speak, McMullin stands poised to take Utah’s electoral votes from both Clinton and Trump. That would make him the first independent candidate to win electoral votes in 48 years (the last one being George Wallace in 1968).

If McMullin focused his campaigning in swing states and traditional red states where Hillary threatens Trump (such as Arizona and Texas), he could help deadlock and send the election to the House. This is contingent on Hillary not winning Texas or Florida with current predictions, as if she wins either one of those, McMullin would then have to win additional states from Hillary in areas more likely to vote Democrat than constitutional conservative.

[image error]

Which brings me to my final point of how McMullin could win: if it’s sent to the House, McMullin is in ideological agreement with many members of the House. The choice would be between a Republican many detractors have claimed is not conservative at all and an independent whose platform is largely center-right and focused on the Constitution. Trump. With a growing list of Republicans who have publicly opposed Trump, there is a chance that the House Republicans will opt for McMullin over Trump.

Then again, that in itself is a 50/50 chance, not a guarantee. That remains to be seen, but is enough of a possibility to warrant discussion.

MY PREDICTION:

Trump’s numbers in the polls have steadily declined with each debate. Polls conservative, liberal, and neutral all have Clinton in the lead. Clinton’s WikiLeaks controversy have not seem to have done the damage to her that Trump’s remarks have done to him.

My prediction is that Clinton will take the key swing states that Trump would need to make it a neck-and-neck race, and will more than likely win with a 100+ electoral vote lead over Trump.

McMullin will take Utah, but unless he somehow takes dozens, if not close to hundreds, of electoral votes from Clinton (not a possibility in my estimation), it will not be enough to keep Clinton from securing victory.

Hillary Clinton will more than likely be the next President of the United States.

[image error]

Do not mistake my prediction for endorsement. Again, I am not going to tell you who to vote for. Again in bold print, I am not going to tell you who to vote for. This is not an endorsement.

I’m merely analyzing the feel in the polls and extrapolating that into a most likely outcome.

This method worked for me in 2012, when I predicted that several gaffes from Republican nominee Mitt Romney would cost him majorly in the general election, and incumbent President Barack Obama won with a comfortable margin of 332 to 206.

I’m predicting a similar margin for this election:

-Clinton: 326

-Trump: 206

-McMullin: 6

We shall revisit this on November 9th and see how accurate or inaccurate my predictions are.

All in all, I hope you found this informative and opened your eyes to the variety of candidates running for President in 2016.

All maps generated by the author via http://www.270towin.com.

Luke Cage: A Fresh, Action Packed Race Commentary

After watching Marvel’s Jessica Jones on Netflix, I was given my first real introduction to Luke Cage, a superhero with bulletproof skin and superhuman strength.

I immediately connected with him. The dude had swagger. He was pensive, thoughtful, and clearly had good taste in women (I’ve had a minor crush on Krysten Ritter since Breaking Bad).

 

Near the end of the series, he departed, mentioning that he was returning to Harlem. The conclusion of Jessica Jones showed a preview for Marvel’s Luke Cage, where he enters a boxing gym and has several thugs fire a litany of bullets his way, without a single one so much as scratching his skin. He sighs with annoyance and says, “I’m about sick of having to always buy new clothes.”

I looked forward to the release of Luke Cage, but it wasn’t at the forefront of my mind. To be honest, I was really excited that Netflix had decided to pick up a full order of The Punisher with Jon Bernthal at the acting helm (fresh off of his amazing run as Frank Castle on the second season of Daredevil). Still, I did have plans to watch Luke Cage at some point after its release.

Well, last week, I was in the middle of an NCIS binge (I have not been current on NCIS since about Season 4; I’ve watched as far as Season 9, but by that point, it was on Season 11) and I saw that Luke Cage had dropped, complete with interactive graphics at the Netflix main menu and Ol’ Dirty Bastard’s “Shimmy Shimmy Ya” playing in the background.

I made it about a day before my curiosity got the better of me and I just had to watch.

Let me just say…I am so glad that I did.

[image error]Mike Colter as Luke Cage. Image courtesy of Business Insider.

Luke Cage is not only, hands down, the best Marvel series that Netflix has produced, but it couldn’t have come at a more relevant time.

I’ll steer away from major spoilers in this commentary, but if you want to be completely spoiler free, you might want to save this until after you’ve watched the series. Let this be the last line the spoiler-free crowd reads: watch it. Now.

A brief summary of the show: Luke Cage centers around the title character, having relocated to Harlem from Hell’s Kitchen after the events of Jessica Jones. He works in a barber shop for a former gangster-turned-community figure named Pop, named so not because of his fatherly qualities but because he’s nice with his hands (snap, crackle, pop!). Pop calls Cage “Power Man” (a homage to his comic book roots) and encourages him to use his powers to help people, but Cage wants to stay low key, to “lay in the cut,” as he says.

A gangster named Cottonmouth, who came up with Pop, has two of his young associates  rip off the money from a gun deal. One of those who ripped off the drop is the son of a gangster with whom Pop came up on the streets. Pop shelters the young thief after Cottonmouth catches up with and kills his compatriots, and sends Cage to offer Cottonmouth a parley. Unfortunately, one of Cottonmouth’s compatriots decides to take matters into his own hands and, accompanied with a mysterious figure known only as Shades, shoots up Pop’s barber shop, killing Pop.

[image error]Mahershala Ali as Cornell “Cottonmouth” Stokes. Image courtesy of http://www.screenrant.com

Enraged at Cottonmouth and his gangster enterprise, Cage becomes a one-man wrecking crew, tearing through the Harlem underworld and uncovering all of its seediness, corruption (both in local government and in the police force), and delving into the past, both regarding his fallen wife, Reva, and how he came into his de facto invulnerability.

Right out the gate, Luke Cage is the kind of hero that not only the black community needs, but that America needs to see.

Luke Cage is unabashedly black. Anybody who would try to call him an Uncle Tom or an Oreo would quickly display how foolish and ignorant they are (more on that later). He takes pride in his heritage, of the accomplishments of his people.

At the same time, Cage clearly abhors gangster culture and the worship of ignorance that has been promoted as representative of the black community. He is well-spoken, a student of history, a quiet patriot, one who believes in dressing well and in the value of honest work. Cage demonstrates that you can be all of these things and still be a black man.

More specifically, Cage demonstrates that articulation, being well-read, caring for one’s appearance, and loving this nation are not “white” qualities. They are qualities that know no arbitrary racial boundaries.

On that basis, I immediately resonated with Cage (as well as his discussion of old school basketball…the New York Knicks of the early 1990s were indeed rough-and-tumble bruisers). But, then in episode #3, there was an exchange that immediately had me grabbing the controller to rewind it and rewatch it.

HOODLUM: What are you doing here, nigga? I’m not going to ask you again.

CAGE: Young man…I have had a long day. I’m tired…but I’m not tired enough to ever let nobody call me that word. You see a nigga standing in front of you, across the street from a building named after one of our greatest heroes?

HOODLUM: Yeah…a dead one.

CAGE: Do you even know who Crispus Attucks was? A free black man…the first man to die for what became America. He could have acted scared when those Brits raised their guns…blended in in the crowd…but he stepped up. He paid with his life, but he started something.

That’s what Pop did. Not me. I laid in the cut until he stepped up, and it cost him his life, too. I ain’t layin’ back NO MORE. You wanna shoot me? Do it. PULL THE TRIGGER, NIGGA. I AIN’T GOT ALL NIGHT.

This scene brings tears to my eyes every time I watch it.

My long-standing opinion on the word “nigger/nigga” has been this: I don’t mind when people use it to quote someone else, whether we’re talking a quote from a living person or from a media art.

I can laugh when I know people are using it jokingly (and in the military, you need to learn to laugh at everything, because nothing becomes off limits. It’s not a racist institution. That would imply it believes one race to be above another. It’s an institution in which the niceties of society are stripped away. Everybody is fair game).

But, I personally have never fully understood why black people would use that term with each other.

I get the logic: it’s reclaiming that word from the white supremacists that hammered and whipped it home into the enslaved repatriated Africans, and later the freed slaves who became second class citizens.

I don’t think those white supremacists got the message. In fact, I imagine they laugh and go, “Look at those dumb niggers, calling each other niggers,” whenever we use that word to reference each other, even if we drop the “er” and add an “a” to mimic a Southern dialect, consciously or otherwise.

I won’t go so far as to say the word should be banned. I’m a writer. I don’t believe in banning words. I believe that the word is a personal choice for black people.

I know me, personally, I don’t like using it to refer to other black people and I know too much of that word’s history to think it nothing when it’s used to refer to me.

In that aspect, I immediately felt kinship with Luke Cage. He’s a throwback. I consider myself something of a throwback. Throw in the fact that the show’s version of Luke Cage is both a veteran (Force Recon Marine) and a former LEO, and I found myself saying, “Luke Cage is the kind of man I’d like to be.”

What we have in Luke Cage is a series that shows that the black community is, in fact, not a hive collective mentality. There is individuality in the black community, people with varying perspectives, and despite certain perspectives’ attempts to define their perspective as the only one for “real” people with high melanin content and an ethnic lineage to repatriated slaves, the show does a magnificent job portraying all sides.

[image error]Simone Missick as Det. Misty Knight. Image courtesy of http://www.heavy.com

Another character I liked was Detective Mercedes “Misty” Knight of the NYPD. She is not a perfect character. She starts off as a competent and street-wise detective who has been investigating Cottonmouth, but after the death of a certain character, she is thrown into a tailspin where she abuses a suspect she is interrogating and is mandated to conduct a therapy session with a former cop-turned-shrink. There, we learn her motivation for being a law enforcement officer is that she witnessed police inaction in her impoverished, minority neighborhood, and wanted to be a cop so that her community would have somebody involved, somebody who cared, somebody who pursued justice, regardless of the victim.

In short, Misty Knight recognized a problem in law enforcement, and resolved to be part of the solution.

Did you hear that? Things got so silent, I just heard a pin drop.

Misty Knight didn’t go howling, “Black Lives Matter!” while spreading a false narrative. She didn’t go shouting, “I want those pigs in a blanket!” She didn’t block a busy roadway to make a protest. She didn’t loot, riot, or burn down her city to protest that she wanted change. She didn’t pick up a gun and start killing cops to commit domestic terrorism.

Misty Knight became the change that she wanted to see.

Just as Luke Cage became the change that he wanted to see. He didn’t go, “Well, this is somehow all white people’s fault!” or “It’s all the cops’ fault!” He put the blame where it belonged (with the criminal) and pursued a remedy. One that was questionable in legality (you know, the worst crime I see non-lethal superheroes committing is breaking and entering…the only comic book characters I see actively breaking laws are the ones that kill people, like Wolverine, Deadpool, or Punisher), but a positive remedy nonetheless.

Of course, this message threatens the hive mentality within the black community that struggles to snuff out any sort of opposing viewpoint or any sort of self-inflection.

With Luke Cage being a veteran and a former LEO, taking on criminals within his own community, having an aversion to the word “nigga,” believing in dressing respectably, and the fact that he slept with a white woman, I knew it was only a matter of time before somebody called Luke Cage an Uncle Tom.

[image error]Krysten Ritter as Jessica Jones and Mike Colter as Luke Cage in Marvel’s Jessica Jones. Image courtesy of okdario.com

The Ringer put out an article that criticized Luke Cage for being “conservative” and came just short of calling him an Uncle Tom for just about all of the above qualities and actions. It was put out the day that Luke Cage hit Netflix.

That didn’t take long at all.

The last I’ll say on this aspect of Luke Cage is that I hope that it gives people food for thought. I hope that others like me within the black community see it, relate to it, and are compelled to speak out in support of such values. Those aren’t “conservative” values. There are liberals and libertarians who believe in those values, too. Those values transcend race or political ideology.

There are a couple other points I want to touch on.

[image error]Alfre Woodard as Mariah Dillard. Image courtesy of abcnews.go.com

The actual quality of the show is phenomenal. Like I said, the best Netflix Marvel production to date. I especially liked Alfre Woodard as Mariah Dillard, the corrupt city councilwoman and Cottonmouth’s cousin. She did such a magnificent job slipping seamlessly into the role and portraying a character that you just love to hate, and yet, she is not evil for evil’s sake. Her character, like almost every other character on the show, is rich with complexity. I would go so far as to say that Woodard is easily the star of the show, acting-wise. She was an inspired casting choice.

There was one more point I wanted to touch on. This one is two-fold.

I had heard rumbles of Luke Cage being “too black.” (Uhm…what? It takes place in Harlem, a historical hub of black culture.) This show was meant to be one part comic book action, one part commentary on the black community. It’s meant to give those unaware of black culture a peek behind the curtain. This complaint shows that those particular people did not do the research.

Now, onto the other point: a white friend of mine posted that he found the second half of the season to be silly and over the top, and he did not like it much. The majority of those in agreement with him were white. That’s not to say anything detrimental about them; it’s just that I caught onto quicker because I’m aware of Luke Cage‘s roots and the style for which the showrunners were going for.

[image error]Pam Grier, the queen of the blaxploitation film. Image courtesy of menshealth.com

Luke Cage got his start as a comic book version of a blaxploitation film. For those who have never seen a blaxploitation film, think Shaft, Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song, or most things starring the beautiful Pam Grier back in the day. They were known for their race-driven plots that often focused on a downtrodden black man looking to overcome the white man holding him down. The music–largely soul and funk–is another characteristic of the genre.

Out the gate, the music is a clear homage to the blaxploitation genre. The villain in the second half of the series is definitely a homage to the blaxploitation genre. There were so many references to the genre that gave birth to Luke Cage throughout the series, with the second half of the season especially littered with them. I saw no problem with it, and in fact enjoyed the references, as they laid the groundwork for black actors and actresses to achieve the level of success and popularity that they enjoy today.

In short, it’s a cultural reference. If you’re expecting the stoic seriousness of Daredevil throughout, then yeah, it might be a little off-putting. For me, knowing the roots, I found it to be a wonderful homage.

Anywho, the bottom line is this: Luke Cage. If you have Netflix, watch it. If you don’t, then find a friend who does and go to their house, or pony up the $8-12 per month (depending on your plan) and start watching it now.

Featured image courtesy of http://www.comingsoon.net

No, That’s Not Open Carry. That’s Brandishing.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this article is purely an opinion analysis. This is not to be taken as legal advice. Consult a Bar-certified lawyer prior to making any decisions based upon the information cited in this article.

Another tired argument from Black (Criminal) Lives Matter is the assertion that a criminal waving a gun around is covered by “open carry” laws in those particular states.

I’ve seen this argument made in regards to Tamir Rice.

I’ve seen it made in relation to Alton Sterling.

I’ve seen it made in the defense of Keith Scott.

[image error]Image courtesy of The Gateway Pundit

I’m going to type this following sentence in all caps, with bold print, italics, and underline, so that there is no mistaking what I have to say on that topic.

WAVING A GUN AROUND IS NOT OPEN CARRY. IT IS **BRANDISHING.**

This is, hands down, bar none, the absolute stupidest argument I have heard in defense of BCLM.

Why is it stupid, you ask?

Why, I’m glad you asked.

Let’s break it down.

OPEN CARRY LAWS

For the purposes of this article, we shall pull up the relevant laws from Ohio (where Tamir Rice was shot and killed), Louisiana (where Alton Sterling was shot and killed), and North Carolina (where Keith Scott was shot and killed).

[image error]Image courtesy of http://www.theodysseyonline.com

 Ohio’s open carry laws derive from their state constitution, and are clarified in Ohio Revised Code 9.68:

(A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.

(B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.

It should be noted that, under 18 US Code, Part I, Chapter 44, Section 922:

(x)

(1)It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—

(A)

a handgun; or

(B)

ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

(2)It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—

(A)

a handgun; or

(B)

ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

You will see this material again.

[image error]Image courtesy of Wikimedia.

Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 14, Section 95.8 legalizes open carry by adults through making it illegal for minors and not explicitly prohibiting open carry:

§95.8.  Illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile

A.  It is unlawful for any person who has not attained the age of seventeen years knowingly to possess any handgun on his person.  Any person possessing any handgun in violation of this Section commits the offense of illegal possession of a handgun by a juvenile.

B.(1)  On a first conviction, the offender shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars and imprisoned for not less than ninety days and not more than six months.

(2)  On a second conviction, the offender shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars and imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than two years.

(3)  On a third or subsequent conviction, the offender shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars and imprisoned at hard labor for not more than five years.

(4)  A juvenile adjudicated delinquent under this Section, having been previously found guilty or adjudicated delinquent for any crime of violence as defined by R.S. 14:2(B), or attempt or conspiracy to commit any such offense, shall upon a first or subsequent conviction be fined not less than five hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars and shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor for not less than six months and not more than five years.  At least ninety days shall be served without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence.

C.  The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any person under the age of seventeen years who is:

(1)  Attending a hunter’s safety course or a firearms safety course.

(2)  Engaging in practice in the use of a firearm or target shooting at an established range.

(3)  Hunting or trapping pursuant to a valid license issued to him pursuant to the laws of this state.

(4)  Traveling to or from any activity described in Paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this Subsection while in possession of an unloaded gun.

(5)  On real property with the permission of his parent or legal guardian and with the permission of the owner or lessee of the property.

(6)  At such person’s residence and who, with the permission of such person’s parent or legal guardian, possesses a handgun.

(7)  Possessing a handgun with the written permission of such person’s parent or legal guardian; provided that such person carries on his person a copy of such written permission.

D.  For the purposes of this Section “handgun” means a firearm as defined in R.S. 14:37.2, provided however, that the barrel length shall not exceed twelve inches.

[image error]Image courtesy of The North Carolina Society.

North Carolina laws are a little confusing. They are honestly the first state I have encountered where it actually might be necessary to have a JD and pass the NC Bar to actually fully understand the laws.

The best that I can surmise, open carry is authorized by their version of the 2nd Amendment in the North Carolina State Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 30:

Sec. 30.  Militia and the right to bear arms.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.  Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

BRANDISHING LAWS

Now that we’ve managed to define what authorizes open carry in those three states, let’s find what constitutes brandishing in those states.

The common definition of brandishing is to have a firearm out of the holster in an unlawful fashion. Generally speaking, if you are in public, not at a shooting range, and your weapon clears the holster, you are brandishing. It is generally a lesser offense than to actually point the firearm at an individual or to discharge it unlawfully within city limits, but is still often grounds for revocation of a concealed carry permit and/or seizure of one’s firearms.

But, the definition (and terminology) varies from state to state. Brandishing is the layman’s term.

[image error]An example of brandishing a firearm. Image courtesy of http://www.bellenews.com

Let’s take a look at Ohio.

There are three laws I was able to find that would relate to brandishing a firearm, two that implies it and one that directly states it.

The implied one would fall under disorderly conduct, according to Ohio Revised Code 2917.11:

(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:

(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;

(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;

(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;

(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;

(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.

Look at the fifth item on that list. One that has a firearm in hand and is waving it around arguably is “creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons” and “presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property.”

The other one falls under menacing, which is Ohio Revised Code 2903.22:

(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family. In addition to any other basis for the other person’s belief that the offender will cause physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family, the other person’s belief may be based on words or conduct of the offender that are directed at or identify a corporation, association, or other organization that employs the other person or to which the other person belongs.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of menacing. Except as otherwise provided in this division, menacing is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If the victim of the offense is an officer or employee of a public children services agency or a private child placing agency and the offense relates to the officer’s or employee’s performance or anticipated performance of official responsibilities or duties, menacing is a misdemeanor of the first degree or, if the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offense of violence, the victim of that prior offense was an officer or employee of a public children services agency or private child placing agency, and that prior offense related to the officer’s or employee’s performance or anticipated performance of official responsibilities or duties, a felony of the fourth degree.

Note that the language is very similar: “knowing cause another to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the person or property of the other person.”

Having your gun in hand when not being directly faced with a threat would cause a reasonable person to believe that you are the threat.

Now, the specific law, Ohio Revised Code 2929.14:

(ii) A prison term of three years if the specification is of the type described in division (A) of section 2941.145 of the Revised Code that charges the offender with having a firearm on or about the offender’s person or under the offender’s control while committing the offense and displaying the firearm, brandishing the firearm, indicating that the offender possessed the firearm, or using it to facilitate the offense;

What this says is basically if you commit a crime and brandish a firearm during that crime, no matter what the original crime is, you will serve a mandatory minimum of three years.

Now, I discussed Ohio’s laws with my good friend Ross Elder. He is not a lawyer, so he admits his opinion is not to be taken as gospel.

Having said that, his opinion is that while one may be ticketed for just carrying the weapon at their side, it may or may not hold up in court. However, if you brandish in the presence of a peace officer and refuse to comply with directives, or you brandish in the commission of a crime, or point it at somebody, you will definitely be charged and the charges will more than likely stick.

He and I are in agreement that the smart thing to do, if you elect to open carry, is to wear it in a sturdy holster and keep it holstered unless you have to use it. Then again, he and I are also in agreement that it’s better to conceal carry than it is to open carry.

[image error]Another example of brandishing a firearm. Courtesy of The Truth About Guns.

Let’s look at Louisiana’s laws regarding the issue.

According to Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 40, Section 1382:

§1382.  Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun

A.  Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun is the intentional or criminally negligent carrying by any person, whether or not authorized or licensed to carry or possess a concealed handgun, under the following circumstances:

(1)  When it is foreseeable that the handgun may discharge, or when others are placed in reasonable apprehension that the handgun may discharge.

(2)  When the handgun is being carried, brandished, or displayed under circumstances that create a reasonable apprehension on the part of members of the public or a law enforcement official that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed.

B.  It shall be within the discretion of the law enforcement officer to issue a summons to a person accused of committing this offense in lieu of making a physical arrest. The seizure of the handgun pending resolution of the offense shall only be discretionary in the instance where the law enforcement officer issues a summons to the person accused. If the law enforcement officer makes a physical arrest of the person accused, the handgun and the person’s license to carry such handgun shall be seized.

C.  Whoever commits the offense of negligent carrying of a concealed handgun shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned without hard labor for not more than six months, or both.  The adjudicating judge may also order the forfeiture of the handgun and may suspend or revoke any permit or license authorizing the carrying of the handgun.

So, that’s pretty clean, cut, and dry.

Let’s explore the North Carolina laws, which aren’t as clean, cut, and dry as Louisiana’s laws.

Essentially, there are two bits of law in North Carolina General Statutes that would outlaw brandishing.

The first is Chapter 4, which establishes:

All such parts of the common law as were heretofore in force and use within this State, or so much of the common law as is not destructive of, or repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the freedom and independence of this State and the form of government therein established, and which has not been otherwise provided for in whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this State.

For those unaware with the term “common law,” it originates from England, the unwritten laws that were generally understood and accepted by society.

The second can be found in Chapter 14, Article 36A, Section 14-288.3:

The provisions of this Article are intended to supersede and extend the coverage of the common-law crimes of riot and inciting to riot. To the extent that such common-law offenses may embrace situations not covered under the provisions of this Article, however, criminal prosecutions may be brought for such crimes under the common law. All other provisions of the Article are intended to be supplementary and additional to the common law and other statutes of this State and, except as specifically indicated, shall not be construed to abrogate, abolish, or supplant other provisions of law. In particular, this Article shall not be deemed to abrogate, abolish, or supplant such common-law offenses as unlawful assembly, rout, conspiracy to commit riot or other criminal offenses, false imprisonment, and going about armed to the terror of the populace and other comparable public-nuisance offenses. (1969, c. 869, s. 1.)

The key here is “going about armed to the terror of the populace.” This is repeated in a pamphlet regarding North Carolina’s firearm laws, and has been successfully prosecuted on more than one occasion.

This is differentiated from pointing a gun at someone, which is its own statute.

BRANDISHING IS NOT OPEN CARRY

So, since we have broken down, in-depth, the laws regarding open carry and brandishing, let’s talk about why Black (Criminal) Lives Matter using this argument is incredibly ignorant.

[image error]Tamir Rice. Image courtesy of ABC News.

Tamir Rice was reported as waving a realistic firearm replica and pointing it at several people. Out the gate, that would be considered menacing and disorderly conduct.

[image error]Tamir Rice’s firearm replica. Image courtesy of Cleveland.com

When police arrived, he attempted to retrieve the firearm replica, concealed beneath his hoodie, and draw it on peace officers. The responding officers shot him before he could draw it and killed him. The shooting was ruled justified.

Many BCLM types have argued that Tamir Rice was exercising his right to open carry in Ohio.

This is a patently stupid argument.

First off, Tamir Rice, being twelve years old, had no open carry rights. Open carry rights in Ohio are in conjunction with federal laws, which prohibit juveniles from possessing a firearm on their own.

Secondly, even if Tamir Rice did have open carry rights, that would not be a defense as the moment he decided to point the firearm replica at passers-by and law enforcement, he was in violation of a myriad of laws, both those cited above as well as intimidation, retaliation, and resisting arrest, amongst others.

Tamir Rice made the extremely stupid decision to play with a firearm replica in public and to try and draw it on law enforcement. He paid the price.

This is not lawful open carry. You want someone to be mad at, ask why his parents let him run around in public without supervision with a realistic firearm replica. I know my parents would have beat me silly if I tried some nonsense like that and survived to tell the tale.

So, how about Alton Sterling?

[image error]Alton Sterling. Image courtesy of Heavy.com.

First off, Sterling was a felon with a violent criminal history. Out the gate, he was a prohibited possessor, both at the state and federal levels. So, he has zero 2nd Amendment rights period, much less a right to open carry.

His attempt to draw his firearm while resisting arrest constitutes aggravated assault on a peace officer and resisting an officer with force or violence.

So, no, again, not open carry.

Plus, Sterling’s pistol was concealed. So, I have no idea why anybody would try to bring up open carry in the Sterling case unless they were severely mentally deficient.

Sterling played the stupid game of trying to draw a gun on a peace officer and he won the stupid prize of being shot.

And for the grand finale, Keith Lamont Scott.

[image error]Keith Lamont Scott. Image courtesy of Business Insider.

Out the gate, Scott was spotted smoking marijuana, the possession of which is illegal in North Carolina, and thus his open carry rights went out the window when he was in commission of a crime.

Then the moment he drew the firearm from his ankle holster, he was in violation of North Carolina common law for being armed to the terror of the populace. His repeated refusal to drop the weapon when ordered made him in violation of resisting officers.

Bottom line: Not. Open. Carry.

Never mind the fact that Scott was carrying a stolen gun, which he wasn’t supposed to have, given his felonious background.

CONCLUSION

As it is blatantly clear, there is zero ground to attempt to defend the actions of criminals by saying, “But it was open carry!”

Not a single martyr of the Black (Criminal) Lives Matter movement has actually been legally open carrying when they were shot.

To make this argument is, in and of itself, an admission that the one making the argument is ignorant as to what they are discussing and are grasping for any excuse to paint law enforcement as racist and anybody black as automatically innocent, regardless of what they have done.

Of course, I suspect BCLM will be too busy planning their next roadblock protest or riot to actually read the facts contained in this article and digest them, but I’ve done my part in digging up the facts, organizing them, and presenting them.

We can lead the horses to water but we cannot make them drink.

[image error]Image courtesy of Civilians Against Cop Block.

Special thanks to Ross Elder, Allison B., Crystal P., and Jonathan S. for their invaluable contributions to the research of this article.

Featured image courtesy of The Truth About Guns.

 

No, Shooting a Violently Resisting Suspect is NOT a Violation of Due Process

I seriously cannot believe we have to have this discussion.

[image error]Image courtesy of startribune.com

 

One of the commonly repeated mantras by the Black (Criminal) Lives Matter movement is that shooting an actively and violently resisting criminal is a violation of due process.

First, let’s pull up the definition of due process, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

law : the official and proper way of doing things in a legal case : the rule that a legal case must be done in a way that protects the rights of all the people involved

Now, let’s look up the Constitutional definition of due process, according to the Cornell University Law School:

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law (“legality”) and provide fair procedures.

[image error]Image courtesy of teapartyorg.ning.com

So, we can establish now that due process means that law enforcement and prosecutors must follow Constitutionally established guidelines before they deprive somebody of their life, their freedom, or their property.

So, does killing an actively resisting violent suspect qualify as a violation of due process?

In a single word, NO.

Getting right to it: in Graham v. Connor (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that officers effecting the arrest of Dethorne Graham had not violated his 4th Amendment due process rights.

The key points of Graham:

Because “[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application,” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

The Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” inquiry is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.

The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

So, out the gate, we’ve effectively disproven the claim that to use lethal force on a suspect who poses a threat to officers or members of the general public is NOT a violation of due process. We have simultaneously proven that lethal force is an appropriate level of force for peace officers in certain circumstances, and that police officers have the right to defend themselves against violent suspects.

Chalk that one up to another asinine BCLM notion.

But, I’m not for an easy win. Let’s analyze another landmark decision, this one of Plakas v. Drinski (1993), decided by the US 7th District Court of Appeals, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division.

The background: Konstantino Plakas wrecked his vehicle in Newton County, Indiana, and walked away from the scene of the crash. A volunteer fireman found him walking along the road and convinced him to return to the scene of the crash to be evaluated medically. He complied and returned, at which point a responding LEO noticed the strong odor of alcohol on Mr. Plakas’s breath. This probable cause was enough for the LEO on-scene to detain Mr. Plakas for a breathalyzer back at the station.

[image error]Image courtesy of q13.fox.com

On the way back to the station, Mr. Plakas escaped from the deputy’s vehicle and ran down a road to his fiancée’s parents’ house. His fiancée’s father attempted to mediate between the police officers and Mr. Plakas. During this time, Mr. Plakas had repositioned his handcuffs from behind his back to in front of him. When one of the volunteer firemen and a police officer entered the house, Mr. Plakas became visibly agitated, grabbed a fireplace poker with a hook, and swung it at the officer, injuring his hand. He then chased the volunteer firefighter through the house and into a garage. Deputy Drinski and other LEOs entered the home and confronted Mr. Plakas, and his would-be future father-in-law attempted to calm Mr. Plakas down. Instead, Mr. Plakas fled with the fireplace poker into a  snowfield, with Deputy Drinski and other LEOs in pursuit.

Mr. Plakas ran to a part of the snowfield where thick brush was to his back. Deputy Drinski and other LEOs repeatedly implored Mr. Plakas to drop the weapon. Mr. Plakas repeatedly said that his life was not worth living and that he would either kill the officers or they would kill him. Eventually, Mr. Plakas rushed directly at Deputy Drinski, and in response, Drinski fired a single shot at center-mass that killed Mr. Plakas.

The Plakas estate argued that Deputy Drinski used excessive force. However, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled:

The undisputed facts in this case are that Plakas was armed with a two to three foot steel rod with a hook on the end of it. He had already assaulted one officer with this weapon. He evaded arrest, fled from the police, and claimed that he would not be taken alive. After speaking to Plakas for almost thirty minutes, Drinski and Perras were unable to calm Plakas or get him to surrender. He claimed that he would kill them both or that they would have to kill him. Finally, Plakas lunged at Drinski with the fireplace poker in front of him. As a matter of law, there can be no other conclusion but that Plakas threatened Drinski with a weapon intending to inflict serious physical harm. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11-12, 105 S.Ct. at 1701-02. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that a reasonable jury could only conclude that Drinski had probable cause to believe that Plakas posed a threat of serious physical harm to himself and/or to others. Ford, 855 F.2d at 1276. Thus, Drinski’s split-second decision to use deadly force to protect himself was objectively reasonable as a matter of law, and under these circumstances there can be no violation of the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments.

This Court rejects the arguments and intimations made by Plaintiff that Drinski was under a legal obligation to either let Plakas escape, or to effect his arrest by less provocative means. That Trooper Perras had with him a canister of teargas and that a canine unit could have been summoned within thirty minutes, are immaterial to the inquiry of whether the force used to seize Plakas was reasonable. Our jurisprudence does not require this Court to inquire what other means are available to effectuate this seizure. The relevant inquiry is only whether at the time deadly force is used, whether the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or others.

If that doesn’t spell it out clearly, I don’t know what will.

[image error]The use of force continuum. Learn it if you want to join the discussion. (Image courtesy of gunfighter1.typepad.com)

Given that Black (Criminal) Lives Matter engages in pathological fraudulence and cares nothing for researching case law or the use of force continuum, I doubt this will stop any of them from continuing to perpetuate the falsehood that utilizing lethal force on a suspect that poses a threat to law enforcement officers or those around them is somehow a violation of due process.

However, this will hopefully clearly and factually sway objective observers on the fence.

Featured image courtesy of YouTube.

Book Review: BENGHAZI: THE DEFINITIVE REPORT by Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb

The events of September 11th, 2012, suffered the effects of happening in an election year. The opposition party attempted to use it as political capital to cash in at the voting booth, and the ruling party did its best to sweep it underneath the rug. Media outlets have either aired narratives that have no factual basis or have lauded the current administration without asking the tough questions that their predecessors of lore would have. For a while, it seemed that the entire event had been swept under the rug, and four dead Americans were swept underneath with it.

What the administration didn't count on was the fact that two of the four dead belonged to a fraternity that has a very long memory. Glen Doherty and Ty Woods were both former Navy SEALs, and their deaths being hand-waved and misrepresented by the media and the politicians definitely caused disenfranchisement within the Special Operations Forces community. This is the driving factor between what drove Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb--both former SOF operators, authors in their own right, and editors of the former SOF-run website SOFREP--to engage in a piece of investigative journalism the likes of which has not been seen in mainstream media for some time.

Benghazi: The Definitive Report does what any good news story does: sets the stage with the four Ws and H, details the events with eyewitness reports, and then debunks myths from both major political factions. As it says within the book, the truth is often stranger than fiction, and this report is demonstrative of that. Operations being run outside of the chain of command, poking into a hornet's nest, and clear evidence of what Richard Marcinko would call "stove-piping," where the left hand doesn't talk to the right, are all major factors of what led to the tragic events of 9/11/2012. It opens the eyes of the American public to what really happened behind the scenes, and furthermore, offers a glimpse into our nation's foreign policy that the powers-that-be would rather keep from the populace.

As the book says, an informed populace is a crucial component of a democracy. It would behoove every American to pick up this eBook and give it a read. One could read it over their lunch break and walk away knowing more in that solitary hour-long period than what any media outlet, mainstream or alternative, has produced in the past five months. Simply put, this is a book nobody in Washington, D.C. wants you to read, which is all the more reason why everybody should read it.

You can purchase Benghazi: The Definitive Report for the Amazon Kindle here.