Michael B. Lancaster, 21, was arrested and charged with reckless homicide after he shot his roomate in the back. The fact he shot her is not in dispute, he killed her by shooting her from behind when she thought she could trust him.
http://fox8.com/2016/02/04/suspect-in-brooklyn-apartment-shooting-to-be-arraigned/
Attorney: Brooklyn apartment shooting suspect thought gun wasn’t loaded
What did Stephen McGowan, Lancaster’s defense attorney have to say?
“It’s a very unfortunate situation. It’s terrible what happened.” – True statements, however, the defense attorney casts blame for the incident aside by referring to it as “a very unfortunate situation”. Is cold blooded murder a “situation”?
“There was no fight going on.” – Although we might have believed the statement “There was no fight”, by adding the two words “going on”, we now know something was going on, something the defense attorney does not want to characterize as a “fight”. What was going on? An argument, a disagreement, a difference of opinion? Whatever was “going on” ended in the death of 18-year-old Olivia Stull.
“There was no illegal activity.” – Hmmm… typically murder is an illegal activity. Typically, discharging a firearm in a dwelling without cause is illegal. We also know from the previous statement something was going on and now the defense attorney wants us to know the something he denied in the previous statement was not “illegal”.
“It was my understanding they were about to paint a room together.” – The phrasing of this statement clues us in these two were not “about to paint a room together” because the defense attorney carefully adds the words “it is my understanding”, meaning there is no veracity to this statement whatsoever. However, by including the statement at all, we know the defense attorney wants us to believe the two were about to participate in a sane normal activity. In the expereience of most painters, starting work on a room rarely leads to death by gunshot.
“They were a close couple.” – This is a true statement. In fact, the two were so close, Lancaster put the barrel of the gun right up against her back as he pulled the trigger. Note carefully how the defense attorney describes two roomates as a “couple”. Were they a couple or were they roomates?
If you watch the video, note carefully how the language the liberal media uses describes the man who put a gun in a young girl’s back and shot her as a victim because he claims he didn’t know the gun was loaded.
What have we learned?
1. Defense attorneys lie openly in court by obscuring truth.
2. Defense attorneys attempt to manipulate others through their choice of language and by making sweeping unproven statements like “There was no illegal activity going on”.
3. The media is willing to cast judgments prior to all the facts being in or a court making a decision in a blatant attempt to sway the public to the media’s point of view. Note carefully how reporters make statements like Lansford did not know the gun was loaded. This is a distortion of the facts, which are Landford CLAIMS he did not know the gun was loaded. None of us, neither the media nor media consumers, can ever know what Lansford did or did not know. What we do know is a young girl is dead, Lansford placed a gun in her back and pulled the trigger, and a gun owner is responsible for his gun at all times and most especially when it is in their hands.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 