From a reader, via American Thinker, this from Charlotte, N.C.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (WBTV) — It’s been a difficult week for parents Temia Hairston and Michael Grace Sr. Their son, Michael Grace Jr., was shot and killed during an attempted robbery early Sunday morning.
Police said Grace Jr. and two other people tried to rob a Pizza Hut in the 3200 block of Freedom Drive. During the incident, an employee fired his own handgun and killed Grace Jr.
Hairston said she learned of her son’s death on social media, and only got confirmation from police after contacting them first. The grieving mother said she has been left with dozens of questions about the situation that have thus far gone unanswered.
“If there was to be a death, it was not the place of the employee at Pizza Hut. That is the place of law enforcement,” said Hairston.
Hairston and Grace Sr. acknowledged that their son was breaking the law by robbing the business, and said they definitely don’t condone what he did.
“It was an act of desperation, but I do not believe that Michael would have hurt anyone,” said Hairston.
They said Grace Jr. had fallen on hard times and resorted to crime to provide for his own child. They also said their son used to work at the same Pizza Hut restaurant where the robbery happened. They maintain he never would have physically hurt anyone during the robbery.
WBTV contacted the local restaurant and the Pizza Hut corporation public relations line. Neither have confirmed that Grace Jr. worked as an employee at the Freedom Drive Pizza Hut. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department officials have not confirmed the information either.
The parents are angry that their son was shot and killed by an employee. They don’t believe the full story has been released to the public.
“Why in the hell did this guy have a gun?” questioned Hairston about the employee who shot her son.
Well, that’s right. Criminals do indeed have rights, guaranteed under the constitution. And Tennessee versus Garner says that police cannot discharge their weapons in order to stop a non-violent offense or to stop a fleeing suspect (as that would be an end-around of the right of due process), and only in the defense of their persons or other persons.
The problem, Ms. Hairston, is that we can only assume that your son had a gun and brandished it and used it to threaten others. In this case, the employee was entirely within his rights of self defense in shooting the armed assailant. Brandishing a weapon and making threats is called assault with a deadly weapon, whether the weapon is discharged or not.
You see, if there was to be a death that night, it could have been prevented by you son deciding on a wiser course of action, to wit, not assaulting someone with a deadly weapon. It isn’t the job of the police to perform or conduct executions. They’ve gotten too good at that already. Let’s not feed the monster, okay?