I am not so convinced this has to do with raceâŠhis licensing was lapsed even if it were due to Covid restrictions. Uscca insurance itself states, they say in their fine print âthey do not cover those that are unlawfulâ which either he had no ccw or the legality behind his licensing not being updated. I have also seen many LEOs aggressively handle white men and women as well recently. Instead of pulling a racial card, I would have stuck with a self defense claim as priority. That is far more effective in the courts. I wish him well.
So they are treating this like being in a wreck with no insurance? You didnât have insurance so you shouldnât be on the road admission of guiltâŠ
That doesnât sound right.
Well, without a license, he is in reality an âunlicensedâ grower/dealer, no different than any other criminal doing the same thing, and he was so charged with that as well as several other crimes. You know, the more the merrier, âcharged with first-degree murder, second-degree murder, the unlawful cultivation of marijuana, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, possession of an offensive weapon while committing a felony.â He could have also been charged with possession of Marijuana while in possession of a firearm, also a felony, though that is a federal crime, but most states have copycat laws for that, too.
I want to be careful that weâre not equating all the charges, here. That happens too often in high-profile cases where firearms are involved. Frankly, it happens a lot to black men. Iâve seen it here. A black man is killed, and people start dredging up unrelated events from that manâs past, as if it has any relevance to his death.
In this instance, Mr. Bratcher may face charges because his license expired. That doesnât automatically mean that he committed murder. The article explains that a defendant may face 1st degree murder charges during the âunlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances or synthetic controlled substancesâ â âregardless of malice.â That doesnât mean that Mr. Bratcher canât plead self-defense. He was still occupying a building that he had a legal right to be in- either owned or rented (article doesnât say), and someone else was trying to gain illegal entry. Take the drugs out of the equation, and this looks like a self-defense case. Mr. Bratcher obviously thought so, since heâs the one who called the police.
I assume that a lot of Mr. Bratcherâs future depends on his legal team, both for the pressure they can mount on the prosecutor and the case they can make to a jury. And maybe the prosecutor has the law (as written) on his side. And maybe some of us here will shrug this off as the price one pays for getting into the drug business.
But as 2A supporters, I think itâs dangerous to rush to judgment when officials argue that some citizens have no right to self-defense.
Ok so he can plead as he wishes. Cannot take the weed out of the picture. No license. In a building used for selling the weed. This whole story is a problem. I do wish him luck for defending himself & whatâs his
Sad that race has to be emphasized in the report and the defendantâs wife also raised the race issue.
It unnecessarily distracts from evaluating the legality of Bratcherâs actions and situation as a business owner. Hope the jury looks only on the facts of the case.
Only other thing I find of concern, â prosecutors argued that her husband â the defendant â was a âthreat to the communityâ because of his Army combat training.â Whoa! If accurate, thatâs discrimination against those who serve/served.
Even without a murder charge, he is facing a very long prison term for the illegal drug crimes. The reason for the murder charges are two-fold, we have read of many prosecutors charging a victim with murder in clear cases of self-defense, solely because they want to punish firearm owners anyway they can. The other issue is that the laws as written make homicide during a felony a murder charge. When one is actively committing a felony, one cannot claim self-defense. Lastly, prosecutors donât care whatâs right, they only care about pushing their agenda and in the case of DAâs, getting re-elected.
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many problems with this story/situation.
His license expired sometime in 2019 (donât know when) and the shooting was in May 2020 so what was his business doing for that period of time??? Since he chose NOT to spend $100,000 making improvements to his facility, could he afford to continue paying rent and growing pot WITHOUT selling the product??? (was he illegally selling the pot in that time making him a drug dealer???)
shame, shame, shame of the state of Oklahoma for not having a process to finalize the inventory of any grower that does not renew the license.
As far as the actual shooting, the story isnât clear if the suspect was actually in the building or still outside.
If this guy and his lawyer want to use the âstand your groundâ law, then itâs a perfect example of a situation that someone was shot when they did not have to be. Regardless of whether or not he had a right to be where he was at the time, had he chosen to retreat, he would not be on trial for murder.
Forgot to add:
Shame on Yahoo ânewsâ for making this about race.
Yes. Exactly. And all of us here might have different opinions on marijuana use, but thatâs a distinct issue from whether his shots were fired in self-defense or 1st degree murder. Itâs a quirk in Oklahoma law, apparently, but generally speaking, doing one bad thing A doesnât mean that thing B is automatically wrong, as well.
We all know, for example, that someone can physically assault me, but if they stop and walk away I canât draw my firearm and shoot them. It would make me a murderer, because the threat is over. In other words, the crime they just committed doesnât mean they deserve to die. Similarly, the crime Mr. Bratcher may have committed with his marijuana business doesnât mean he has to stand there and allow someone to invade his establishment and (potentially) threaten his life.
There are a lot of details we donât have in this article. Perhaps Mr. Bratcher committed murder, I donât know. Iâm just wary of the 2A community shrugging off a self-defense case because we find potentially unrelated faults in the defendantâs character.
Can you legally drive without a valid license and auto insurance? Case closed - this reminds me of a line from Forrest Gump - buena suerte, senor.
NopeâŠ
Wow! I missed that partâŠI cannot believe how anti-military the US has becomeđł. But not really surprisedđ. It starts from the top down through leadership in our current volatile society.
Interesting case. I have been concerned about legalizing weed and gun use and the laws.
He seemed to be illegally growing weed and shot someone trying to break into his shop. Was he involved in illegal sales, could this have been a customer, or another weed grower with a dispute, or was it legitimate self defense⊠Is it legitimate self defense if what you are involved in is illegal?
Could a meth dealer legitimately defend himself with a gun if a user tried to steal meth?
WTF does race have to do with it? I think the news agency is going for clickbait headlines.
Well, actually you can drive without a license and registration.
Not meaning to nitpick, but if you are on your own property, you are not required to have either. On private property, like a parking lot, traffic laws do not apply. That does not mean that civil liability for a collision would not attach, but thatâs it.
In this case, I am unclear as to whether or not the person attempting to break in was âonlyâ attempting to break in, and had not yet breached the door, or made some direct threat.
If not, then stay on the other side of the door, and call the police for a trespasser.
So after reading the story for the third time and no mention that Hardwick had a weapon? Just asking. 
In some states
Most, if not all, state laws make it a felony murder charge to commit homicide during the commission of a felony, regardless of the prosecutorâs agenda. It becomes their choice to pursue the charges, though.
I do not fault his character. It is an issue with our laws, not his character. Yes, everyone should have the right to self-defense, but that is the nature of our firearm laws, which our Constitution succinctly states âshall not be infringedâ.
You can be beat to death without a weapon. We all know here that whether or not a perp has a âweaponâ is not the issue. As you stated the âfactsâ in the article are to few to make any sound judgment.
Not according to most state laws. If one is committing a felony crime, the law prohibits self-defense as a defense for the use of lethal force.