Where’s Black Lives Matter? Suspected shooter sought after four-year-old boy killed in Memphis

Share:

MEMPHIS, TN — Memphis police are asking for the publics help in locating the suspect who fatally shot a four-year-old boy while he was inside a vehicle over the weekend. 

According to reports, on Saturday night, April 3rd, the child was in a car with several adults, when a gunshot was fired, that inadvertently struck the little boy. 

Police stated that the boy was driven to Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. 

WKRN reported that detectives said they determined there was a dispute between the gunman, identified as Terrell Woods, and a man inside the vehicle. Woods fired, striking and killing the four-year-old child, according to investigators.

At this time, Woods has not been located by authorities. 

Police are urging anyone with information to contact Memphis Crime Stoppers at 901-528-CASH.

Unfortunately, Tennessee is not the only state to lose a four-year-old child recently. 

In Louisville, Kentucky, a four-year-old child is the latest victim to gun violence.

According to Louisville Metro Police Department spokesperson, Alicia Smiley, around midnight on Saturday, April 3rd, officers were called to the shooting in the 4000 block of Parthenia Avenue. 

When officers arrived, they found a four-year-old who had been shot. The child was pronounced dead the scene, Wave3 reported.

The child’s gender was not immediately available.

Anyone with information is asked to call the anonymous Crime Tip Hotline at 502-574-LMPD (5673).

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Tennessee gun bill advances: ‘Everyone needs to have a gun’ – ‘We are making Tennessee a safer place’

March 5, 2021

NASHVILLE, TN— Legislators in Tennessee have been trying to push a bill through that would allow residents of the state to carry a gun without a permit, and now it looks like it will be moving through both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly.

The Legislation is being spearheaded by Governor Bill Lee under the ‘Constitutional Carry’ title. Should it pass, it will allow residents of Tennessee, who are over the age of 21, open carry and conceal carry a gun without a permit, WKRN reported.

House Republican Majority Leader William Lamberth said:

“I can guarantee you we are making Tennessee a safer place tomorrow than it is today,” 

While Republicans are pushing to protect the Second Amendment that many Democrats seem to keep trying to take away, they are also pushing for harsher penalties for those who commit gun crimes, thus attempting to make citizens safer. 

Lamberth said:

“We are adding penalties and increasing the penalties dramatically for anyone that steals a gun, anyone that’s using a gun improperly, felons in possession of guns,”

Democrats disagree with the efforts of the Republicans however, and feel as though there are no safeguards in place to protect the residents of Tennessee. 

House Democratic caucus leader Vincent Dixie said:

“Democrats aren’t against guns; we’re not trying to take guns away from anyone. We just want to make sure that people that have guns…they have been trained on them and they know how to use them responsibly,” 

Republicans feel as though they are attempting to keep guns in the hands of honest individuals, and keep them away from criminals, while their Democratic opponents are attempting to use scare tactics. 

Lamberth said:

“We’re trying to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys and keep them in the hands of the good guys,” 

Some law enforcement leaders, including the Tennessee Sheriffs’ Association, are opposing the efforts, WKRN reported. Currently Tennessee law requires a class to be taken in order to receive a handgun carry permit.

There are strong feelings about this legislation on both sides of the fence. 

Nashville resident Brett Marker said:

“There should be some sort of regulation,” 

He went on to say:

“I’m not saying that you should just take guns away, but there should be some sort of oversight.”

Even tourists visiting Tennessee have weighed in on the legislation. 

Scott Larson, a Northern California tourist, said:

“I think it should be a nationwide policy, I don’t think the government should be allowed to control people’s right to defend themselves,” 

With the Republican supermajority, the bill, which will also allow members of the military between the ages of 18 and 20 to carry without permits, will likely pass and become law.

Dixie said:

“If the bill does pass I encourage my constituents to go get your gun — that’s what I encourage you to do — everyone needs to have a gun,” 

Nominee for Attorney General will help fast track the destruction of the Second Amendment (op-ed)

March 1, 2021

This article contains editorial content written by a current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

_

WASHINGTON, D.C. – According to reports, Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland believes that there are no Second Amendment-related issues when it comes to the fact that gun manufacturers might lose protection from frivolous lawsuits. 

Garland’s stance on this issue was revealed on February 22nd, when the AG nominee was being questioned by Republican Senator Mike Lee on his positions in relation to gun control. 

Among the line of questioning, Senator Lee had asked Garland whether he would support any efforts by President Joe Biden to ban the sales of certain categories of firearms, to which Garland answered: 

“Where there is room under the law for the president’s policies to be pursued, then I think the president is entitled to pursue them.”

Senator Lee then moved on to the topic of universal background checks for those looking to purchase firearms. Garland did say that he supported universal background checks to curtail prohibited possessors from obtaining firearms. 

But then came the question pertaining to the potential appealing of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, also known as the PLCAA. 

When Senator Lee asked Garland whether he’d support gun manufacturers being held liable for deaths or injuries caused by their firearms, Garland acknowledged that President Biden has pushed for that effort, while adding

“I have not thought myself deeply about this. I don’t think it raises a Second Amendment issue.”

So, the question is – would any sort of repeal of the PLCAA actually conflict with aspects outlined in the Second Amendment?

Well, it’s a little complex; as in, the answer isn’t exactly “yes” or “no”. 

The Second Amendment is pretty short and simple, which notes: 

“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 the PLCAA, which is a topic we’ve covered numerous times before here at Law Enforcement Today, is an act that shields gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits when their products are used unlawfully. 

But what the PLCAA doesn’t protect gun manufacturers and dealers from, are any damages that are the result of selling defective products, contractual breaches, criminal misconduct, or pretty much any civil or criminal act where culpability can be reasonably drawn back to a gun manufacturer or dealer. 

Now, the PLCAA isn’t that old – it was signed into law back in October of 2005, which illustrates that the upholding of the Second Amendment isn’t exactly reliant on the existence of PLCAA. 

Yet, when one examines why the PLCAA came to be, one could reasonably draw how repealing it could present eventual issues for the Second Amendment. 

In the late ’90s and early 2000s, gun manufacturers were getting hit with lawsuits left and right – and the basis of many of these lawsuits essentially followed the same formula: 

  • Someone was hurt or killed with a gun used illegally 
  • “X” manufacturer made the gun and/or “X” dealer sold it
  • “X” manufacturer and/or “X” dealer should know that guns can be used illegally and can hurt/kill people 
  • Since “X” manufacturer made it and/or “X” dealer sold it, they share the blame of (insert incident)

Obviously, before the PLCAA existed, it didn’t mean that gun manufacturers or dealers were losing all these lawsuits, however litigation costs money. 

And every time one of these lawsuits got brought up, it created a financial impact that – had the practice continued – could’ve seen firearm manufacturers and dealers shuttered from having to fund litigation costs. 

Basically, why would a person or entity need to crusade to outlaw guns, when they can simply bankrupt the companies that make them?

This is why the PLCAA came to fruition, which made it so those trying to sue the likes of gun manufacturers and dealers, couldn’t attempt to muster up the previously mentioned 4-step formula. 

Which is why the PLCAA possibly being repealed isn’t some hard “yes” or firm “no” on whether it, “raises a Second Amendment issue,” as Garland put it. 

If the PLCAA protections magically vanished tomorrow – obviously the Second Amendment wouldn’t magically disappear with it on the same day. 

But then again, Andy Dufresne didn’t escape the Shawshank prison after his first chipping at the prison cell wall with his rock hammer – and the repeal of the PLCAA could be the allegorical framework of that very first chip in the proverbial wall that is the Second Amendment. 

_

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First

 

 

Share:
Related Posts