Ravenwood - 10/29/03 06:00 AM
Remember the Big Lake Pastor, Phillip Mielke, who was charged for shooting two armed thugs who were breaking into his church? Well, it would appear that justice has prevailed and Pastor Mielke has been acquitted on all charges. This has to be driving the GFW anti-self-defense crowed nuts. If this were England where defending yourself, your home, and your property is illegal, he would have served at least 5 years in prison just for raising a hand to an attacking goblin. Thankfully there are still some people in this country that recognize that security and self defense are basic human rights, no matter what the government says.
Naturally the family members of the perpetrators were upset. The mother of one of the men who was killed tried to paint her son as a victim.
"People are going to think it's OK to take the law into their own hands," she said.Prosecutors were also upset at the verdict. They recommend that people leave their protection in the hands of government officials who, incidentally, have no legal responsibility to protect you.Her son was wrong to break into the church, but so was the pastor wrong to go armed into the building.
Other people questioned the pastor's use of deadly force. Prosecutor Bob Collins noted Mielke could have shot a couple of kids as easily as Palmer and Jones. He never got a good look at the intruders before firing and then continued to fire at one man as he ran away.The only thing Collins is right about is that it could have been kids that were shot and killed. It could also have been kids that discovered Pastor Mielke walking the grounds of his own property and brutally murdered him had he been unarmed. I guess it never occurred to Collins that people under the age of 18 are just as capable of murder, battery, or rape.Collins said Mielke should have called troopers when he saw a car idling outside the church instead of grabbing a .44-caliber handgun and taking matters into his own hands.
What bugs me most is that Collins and the family of the perps are acting as apologists, and trying to play off these guys as victims. While a lot of energy was spent trying to prove that the burglars had no ill intent, the fact remained that they were breaking and entering someone else's property. It does not matter whether they were just looking for food, or giving communion. They still made a decision to break the law and for that, they paid the ultimate price. As my daddy always told me, "you pays your nickel, you takes your chance." They took their chance and lost.
(Hat tip to reader Tom, and Kevin for the link)
Category: Defending Your Life
Comments (9) top link me
As a gun-toting Citizens rights person I am kinda happy that the pastor did his duty and had taken out this threat to society. As a criminal justice major while looking at the law and how they were killed running away, I am a bit upset about it. To be frank, the pastor got off luckily enough but even out in the boonies were liberals are scarce he still could easily be doing murder #2. Also, shooting them in the back seems a bit wrong from a moral perspective.
Ah to hell with it, the juveniles deserve what they got and the defender got off. Case closed.
Posted by: Rhett at October 29, 2003 3:57 PMI respectfully disagree. If you are facing a threat on your property, you don't have time to assess whether or not they are coming or going. When survival is on the line I say why risk it.
Posted by: Ravenwood at October 29, 2003 8:22 PMThat is why I, and I suggest most anyone else, in any circumstance they think that they'll have to shoot in a dark environment to practice using and carrying a flashlight and lasersight on their firearm when they are clearing out a building/whatever. Not only for the legal implications of shooting people in the back or a family member, (as one person had once done,) but also for accuracy's sake. I've shot my .22 or .45 over 10 times at night and have a 100 percent hit ratio and 90 percent fatality rate on the first shot. (No, not persons, mostly things that think that domesticated chickens are their personal dessert.)
Posted by: Rhett at October 30, 2003 7:46 PM Believe me, the information about being shot in the back is the closest thing to false you'll evcr find. That is how it was stated in the first coroner's report, but if you will read the medical examiner's reports early in the trial they were both hit in the left back and it was left, left, left
back. Some reports that Philip and his attorney received actually stated left side. That is because they were rushing up the stairs in the dark while Philip was shouting Stop! Halt! No! (He was trying in the brief time he had to to think, of how to say stop if the burglars did not understand English. He also remembered later that day, and told his mother via telephone that he had shouted, "I have a gun," but because he had not remembered to tell police in the telephone report and first interview he was not able to add it in his later testimony.) So, the burglars were right in his face, then when they turned toward him, (he had taken a step back) his mind and instinct made the decision to shoot. But unknown to Philip, in the terrifying situation of the moment, they were turning toward him to get around the door which they had kicked in, was broken down and jammed open. That is why the bullets travelled 9 -10 inches through their backs to the other side, not from back to front. A great deal of trial time was spent proving the milliseconds it would take to make the decision, fire the shots, and at the same time, the men tur
(cont) the men turning. It was proved to be complety
logistical in the situation. As for Philip firing out the window; many, many, many rookie policemen have had the same reaction the first and sometimes even second time they shoot a human - they completely empty their weapon due to the truama. It is relatively common considering all their hours and months of training. Research it. ADN gave a very biased report on this case, reporting almost nothing except negative opinion for the the defense, and actually left the building before the defense gave their closing statements. If nothing else, it was rude and disrespectful, and showed what was apparent all along,
they had tried and judged Philip guilty from the beginning, and were using their position as the media to give 1/2 information, plus innaccurate statements to influence the public. I am wiser now about the media, particularly the ADN and most of the Anchorage
television stations. I live in another state, but every day would call persons who were in the courtroom and ask, "Why didn't they bring out such and such?" "Why didn't they say this?" "Oh, they did, it just wasn't reported," was the daily reply.
You would think that Philip's attorney didn't say three sentences the whole time but actually he is one of the most brilliant in the state. DA Collins, in his attempts to fluster and confuse Philip, flustered and confused himself to where he didn't know what he was doing and made a fool out of himself. Philip had only one story and that was the truth.
I am certain June Benedix wishes that were her case.
She actually gave up her children to foster care to go into hiding (or flee the country) because she was afraid that if she were to testify the truth might come out, and that would not be good for her. Philip may have injured Mr. Jones, but he did not kill him. He died 7 and 1/2 hours later. He could have been Life Flighted to Anchorage and be walking and talking today. The talking part is what Ms. Benedix did not want. Believe me, no one would rather die than have 2 -3 years in prison. "Friends" of hers in the area have said she told them them a completely different story than what she told police and apparently coached her children to say.
Sorry, one more thing. About calling the 911, the police, troopers, etc. Phillip had done that on at least one occasion before. He was in the church study, with the church doors locked and some inebriated men began pounding on the door and trying to open it. (I don't know why inebriated men seem to frequent the place, probably just want to make confession.) They left long before the troopers arrived 45 minutes later - they have to come from Palmer. On the morning of the shooting they arrived in 40 min. - speeding with lights and sirens. I am not saying Philip should have gone into the building, but he had investigated noises many times previously which had turned out to be nothing so he was probably expecting the same. As for the gun, after he decided it was reasonable and prudent to carry one, he obtained one, took the training, and as he said, compared it to a seatbelt, "Every time I get in the car I put on my seatbelt but I don't expect to be in an accident. When at night I go to investigate noises I put on my gun but I don't expect I'll have to use it."
The criminals left their gun in the basement because they heard Philip call to his wife, "Call the Troopers," and apparently thought they heard the State Troopers announcing themselves. Being caught in a burglary with a weapon is an automatic 7 years. They did have knives and brass knuckles on them, so were prepared to "defend themselves" if need be. They also had very lengthy criminal records, one from the age of 8 years old. Much was not admissible in court, because only a few resulted in convictions. No doubt they would have done anything to "get away."
Somewhere I read, "If he (Philip) had a sound monitor, why didn't he have a video camera and just send in the pictures?" Hello! These were highly experienced criminals. Big Lake had 479
burglaries last winter (approx. - give or take a few). (None since 4/24). I suspect they wore masks, gloves, etc. and prob. knew how to disable a camera. Don't think Philip ever thought he'd need a camera.
Can you tell I'm tired of reading lies and half truths and have been wanting to yell out the real story for a long time? I thought it it would come out in the trial coverage but that was only another major disappointment. Thanks for letting me ventilate here!
No problem. Thank you for commenting.
Posted by: Ravenwood at November 2, 2003 9:55 PMAfter reading this comment >>>>>>>(Prosecutors were also upset at the verdict. They recommend that people leave their protection in the hands of government officials who, incidentally, have no legal responsibility to protect you.)
Posted by: Tired of being screwed with at January 11, 2004 8:47 PMAfter reading this comment >>>>>>>(Prosecutors were also upset at the verdict. They recommend that people leave their protection in the hands of government officials who, incidentally, have no legal responsibility to protect you.)
I am a single mother living in Big Lake, Alaska. I have had people steal my fuel oil and attempt to break into MY house WHILE I was home.
I called that State Troopers and this is the response that I got from the dispatcher. "
ME: There is sombody prowling around my house and I have had problems with attempted breakins while I was home. Would you please send the troopers! They are out there right now and if you hurry you may be able to catch them!
Dispatcher: How do you know somebody is out there.
Me: I can hear the movement and it sounded like they were knocking something around on the flower box outside my window.
Dispatcher: Do you hear any voices?
Me: No
Dispatcher: Can you see anybody?
Me: No
Dispatcher: Then how do you know somebody is out there?
Me: Because I can hear their MOVEMENT and something hitting my window and flower box. It is dark. You can not SEE anything.
Dog barks in back ground
Dispatcher: Mamm if you can not see anybody and and you don't hear any voices we are too busy to send somebody out there.
The State Troopers called me the NEXT day.
I am supposed to lay down my guns and just trust these ass holes to protect me?!!
*$%#! YOU ALASKA STATE TROOPERS!
GIVE ME MY GUNS AND GET THE HELL OUT OF MY YARD AND AWAY FROM MY HOUSE BECAUSE I WILL BLOW YOU HEAD OFF IF YOU DON'T!
Posted by: Tired of being screwed with at January 11, 2004 8:49 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014