SC

Joe McCulloch: The Shyster Is Back!

DELUSIONAL DREAMING AN END TO VIOLENCE IN FIVE POINTS So here’s Columbia, S.C. ambulance chaser Joe McCulloch reaching out to business owners in the violence-prone Five Points region of South Carolina’s capital city – urging them to post signs on their businesses banning guns. You know signs like this ……

DELUSIONAL DREAMING AN END TO VIOLENCE IN FIVE POINTS

So here’s Columbia, S.C. ambulance chaser Joe McCulloch reaching out to business owners in the violence-prone Five Points region of South Carolina’s capital city – urging them to post signs on their businesses banning guns.

You know signs like this …

Really?

Given the gang infestation in this particular region of the city (where our founding editor used to work the barroom doors), we would humbly suggest such a sign might not be in the best interests of bar owners and patrons.

Unless they want to become a target …

In fact even McCulloch mentions in his letter that “some will say ‘bad people will ignore the signs’ which may be true.”

Um … may be true?

McCulloch’s letter then surmises that “maybe these potential troublemakers will go or leave their gun in the car trunk or go elsewhere.”

HA!

Take a look …

(Click to enlarge)

mcculloch

Unreal delusion …

We have no idea what planet McCulloch is residing on, but it sure as hell isn’t this one …

Also, it’s worth noting that McCulloch’s ultimate recourse for bar owners is … well, a gun.

“You as a business owner may still obviously have a gun on the premises yourself – as you feel necessary.”

What a hypocrite …

Related posts

SC

South Carolina Attorney General Addresses Title IX Changes

FITSNews
SC

It’s Getting Hot In South Carolina

Will Folks
SC

Lowcountry ‘Defense of Democracy’ Leader Ousted Over Assassination Comments

Dylan Nolan

63 comments

joe April 8, 2014 at 5:08 pm

Yes, I AM in my own world. It’s okay, they know me here.

Reply
Smirks April 8, 2014 at 5:10 pm

Right to carry in a restaurant or no, I would never go to Five Points outside of the early afternoon. Just because you can defend yourself doesn’t mean you should put yourself in a situation where you’re likely going to have to.

Businesses in Five Points, I don’t know what to tell you other that I’m sorry that local law enforcement and your government has failed you. The fact that some dumbass typed this letter is proof enough they’re wasting time when they could be actually solving the crime problem down there.

Reply
euwe max April 9, 2014 at 11:48 am

Let them kill each other, they’re animals anyway.

Reply
Mike at the Beach April 9, 2014 at 9:20 pm

How did I allow myself to get into debating some silly, arcane aspect of this thing with a guy who lets Rush Limbaugh live in his head rent free, while missing the actual, underlying point we should be discussing?! Thanks for slapping me in the face (figuratively) and getting me back on CPD’s lack of balls and ability to fix what is really a very basic and easily remedied problem…

Reply
Junior April 8, 2014 at 5:21 pm

Jean Toal sold Joe out in the last election when she gave Kirkman the election for the Republicans, thinking everybody would calm down and let Darryl Jackson,et al just carry on as they wanted. Jean and the Richland County Democratic regime were not happy that the press kept bringing it up over and over. Looks like they’ve told Lillian McBride to just give it to Joe this time and be done with it.

Reply
socrates April 8, 2014 at 5:26 pm

Joe belongs behind bars for his many criminal acts as Richland County Prosecutor.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia April 8, 2014 at 6:03 pm

Joe is a complete jackass. While a talented attorney who specializes in DUI cases, Joe has left many a client hanging out to dry because he booked so many more cases than he could realistically handle, and had to represent a client in one court venue, while leaving another client without representation in another courtroom venue. I wouldn’t have him represent the ants in my front yard.

Finlay has done a decent job since going to the SC Legislature. Here’s hoping Joe remains as a private citizen, a job he apparently still struggles to achieve adequacy with, based on his “letter” in this article.

Reply
easterndumbfuckastan April 8, 2014 at 6:24 pm

What’s up with your ants? Now they need a DUI lawyer and last week I thought they were about to be taxed for driveway repairs. I think you need to consider a better class of stinging bugs for your yard.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia April 8, 2014 at 6:36 pm

It hasn’t been a good year for the ants. They’ve been getting fucked over at every turn. Heck, a member of the Limehouse family was molesting the young male ones, just last week.

Reply
Chip "Pass the Dip" Limehouse April 8, 2014 at 7:51 pm

Your ants deserved what my brother gave them. They were dressing all sexy and stuff.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia April 8, 2014 at 8:50 pm

They said he was playing with their peanuts.

Guero April 9, 2014 at 11:16 am

That’s BS Joe never left someone without representation. Conflicts are governed by a court rule so you just made that up to defame him.

Reply
Mike at the Beach April 9, 2014 at 9:18 pm

My friend, if you really believe that you don’t practice much here in SC courts. Double booking clients and blowing off lower courts is a sport here in the Fifteenth…

Reply
Guero April 10, 2014 at 8:06 pm

Ignorance is bliss at the beach. The lower court MUST grant a continuance. Try again, Michael, when you get a clue

Reply
Mike at the Beach April 10, 2014 at 9:49 pm

Wrongo, Mr. Mason. That might be how it works in your world where the unicorns dance in fields with leprechauns and USC/CSOL spits out Law Review editors by the hundreds, but here in the Redneck Riviera, that only happens in the most serious of cases. The *vast* majority of the time the “conflict” is that the fair barrister has booked himself in several courts of a similar level (especially Summary and Municipal Courts) but separated by geography. Lacking the ability to time travel or clone themselves, the poorest client (or, I should say, the one with the lowest billable hours) gets the shaft. They are usually able to sob story their way into a continuance, but not always (I’ve helped a few through the years). A couple of our “billboard lawyers” are famous for it, and I’ve seen it with “me own two ayes,” as they say. I hope maybe you don’t know this because your circuit isn’t as fucked up. It would be nice to think that place existed somewhere in this state…

Guero April 11, 2014 at 11:54 am

Sorry, you lose again. Thanks for playing. Magistrate’s courts have been advised by Court Administration to use the date of the offense as the “tie-breaker”. If you’ve “helped” someone, it’s because the Magistrate ignores the law and it’s not Joe’s fault. When magistrates don’t follow the law, resident judges are more than ready to reverse these sorts of judicial hiccups.

Mike at the Beach April 11, 2014 at 12:05 pm

Your weird condescension notwithstanding, I will try (but only one last time) to explain my point to you. You are discussing the conflict resolution process pretty well. Unfortunately, that’s not what we’re talking about. If a shitty attorney leaves a client hanging without notifying the court or attempting to coordinate, the client sometimes gets the shaft. If magistrates and municipal judges really exert a great deal of effort to comply / coordinate on these issues where you are, good on you. It’s not like that here…

Guero April 11, 2014 at 6:36 pm

Busted. IF a shitty attorney leaves a client hanging is your latest attempt to weasel out of your position . I called out the original poster and he cut and ran.

Mike at the Beach April 11, 2014 at 6:58 pm

Holy shit dude…are you drinking? Here is what I said to set you off down this rabbit hole: “Double booking clients and blowing off lower courts is a sport here in the Fifteenth…”

That sounds to me like a pretty clear way of saying, oh, I don’t know, “a shitty attorney leaves a client hanging.” Of course they don’t do it (as much, anyway) in the higher courts, because Circuit Court judges think they’re God’s first-cousins, and they have enough staff to chase these jerkys around on crap like this. In the lower courts, not so much. This is really not complex. You’re not Queen Jean, by any chance, are you? If so, I didn’t mean to offend you by besmirching your management of our courts (but I don’t care if I did). No weaseling here, mi amigo. Read back through (if you’re really that worried about this thing) and you will see that I also made clear that I was talking about “courts of a similar level.” If it makes things OK with you, though, I am sorry to have fired you up so on this thing. A thousand pardons. Namaste!

Captain Morgan April 8, 2014 at 6:50 pm

That one word just about sums him up. Shyster!

Reply
Guero April 9, 2014 at 11:18 am

One word sums you up: Dumbass

Reply
Mullet Mike April 8, 2014 at 7:29 pm

Who’s the chick?

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia April 8, 2014 at 8:42 pm

She looks kind of flat.

Reply
easterndumbfuckastan April 8, 2014 at 10:40 pm

It’s a trap.

Reply
Misstate April 9, 2014 at 12:00 pm

screw with the candidate…not the candidate’s kids

Reply
Limbaughsaphatkhunt April 8, 2014 at 7:34 pm

Nuthin’ better than ripping a man to shreds for trying to make life more peaceful without the use of firearms by way of non-violent community buy in.

Way to go FITS.

Reply
historybuff April 8, 2014 at 9:32 pm

“community buy in”? Ha! There is only one segment of the community(hood) we need to worry about. Good thinking though, to make the “no guns allowed” sign a picture rather than the printed word. I heard the City has hired Sherlock Holmes to discover who is causing the violence in Five Points and the Vista.

Reply
Limbaughsaphatkhunt April 8, 2014 at 9:42 pm

I’m surprised you didn’t chuck in the word “thug” which as we all know is the new pc word white folk use for n*****r.

There is talk of working up a Facebook page for patrons who want to know which restaurants and bars in SC have a strictly no guns allowed policy as provided for in the law. I will never eat in a place that allows weapons. It’s ludicrous…then again…this is South Kackalackey.

Reply
historybuff April 8, 2014 at 11:38 pm

Do you have any info on how many of the recent “thug” shooters had CWPs? Good luck with your Facebook project.

Reply
Limbaughsaphatkhunt April 8, 2014 at 11:45 pm

I’ve got a couple. The popcorn theatre shooter, George Zimmerman and the “loud rap music” shooter.

CorruptionInColumbia April 9, 2014 at 5:03 am

The popcorn/theater incident was an ill-mannered jerk, who was attempting to bully an old man for telling management on him. That the old man’s bullet went through the bully’s wife’s hand, tends to indicate that she was trying to restrain her bully husband from committing violence against the old man when the bully was shot. It sounds like a justified shooting, thus far, but the case will have its day in court. Do we really know if the old man had a CWP or not? He was a retired LEO and may have been carrying under a Federal or State mechanism which allows retired LEO’s to carry, without a CWP.

George Z was acquitted of wrongdoing in the shooting of the little thug who was trying to bash his brains into the sidewalk. Also, Trayvon was found to be in possession of stolen items, taken in a nearby burglary, while a school, just days before the shooting. Apparently Zimmerman was correctly reading body language on little Trayvon as he was walking through and probably casing the neighborhood. No loss to the world, case closed.

The “loud rap shooter” was tried, convicted, and sentenced for his crimes. Perhaps it might behoove members of the younger generation to cultivate a more courteous attitude in life so they don’t wind up like the shooter’s victim(s) did. In any realm of human endeavor, there will be the occasional person who misuses authority or an item with bad results. This is true with drivers on the road, politicians, and even cops, a very few of which have committed murders, kidnappings, and armed robberies. This is no reason to scrap the program or system. Nothing is 100% safe and free of bad things.

Limbaughsaphatkhunt April 9, 2014 at 6:03 am

There you have it kids. CWP holders are the arbiters of what constitutes good and upstanding behavior. Apparently they have the right to kill you on the spot if you act contrary to their notions….hence my avoidance of restaurants and bars where they dwell.

CorruptionInColumbia April 9, 2014 at 8:23 am

Well, if you have difficulties in constraining yourself from engaging in bully or other violent behavior, you have probably chosen a wise path. Also, it will make for a far more peaceful dining experience for those of us who patronize places which don’t invite violent criminals by advertising that good citizens will in all likelihood, be disarmed in their establishment.

historybuff April 9, 2014 at 8:45 am

Also, the clientele will be better dressed.

RogueElephant April 9, 2014 at 8:15 am

tell it like it is. The libturds can go elsewhere.

Mike at the Beach April 9, 2014 at 9:10 pm

Horrible analogy if you’re trying to make the case against CWP safety. Out of US population of over 300 million people, you have to cherry pick a few high profile cases where wacknuts used questionable judgment. Get on the intergoogle and compare that number to the number of armed assaults on truly innocent victims each year and let us know what you find out.

Limbaughsaphatkhunt April 9, 2014 at 9:14 pm

So you’re happy with some “collateral damage” then? I suppose so. After all, it’s scared white folks gunning down kids listening to rap music.

RogueElephant April 9, 2014 at 8:13 am

I will never eat at a place that dose NOT allow CWPs. I’m too old to fight and too stubborn to run. Plus I value my family’s safety.

Reply
easterndumbfuckastan April 9, 2014 at 8:44 am

Here is the risk that business assume when they hang a no concealed weapons sign. The second amendment guarantees citizens the right to carry arms for the purpose of defending themselves. When a restaurant chooses to deny the patron the right to legally protect themselves within the parameters of the law, the restaurant then assumes responsibility for the protection and reasonable security of the patron. Rarely do altercations involving a firearm happen inside restaurants. FBI statistics show that roughly 85% of assaults on the innocent happen in the parking lot of restaurants and bars. Parking lots of these establishments are considered the private property of the establishment. Therefore, an attack that happens in a restaurant’s parking lot is just the same as happening inside the walls of the establishment.

A Parton of these establishments are justified in expecting the legal protection from the establishment against any harm that might befall the patron. If this does not happen and an assault happens on the premises, the victim has a viable civil suit against the establishment for not reasonably guaranteeing the safety of the patron.

This very case actually happened in NC back in 2006 at a convenience store where the owner asked a patron legally carrying a concealed firearm to leave the establishment, remove the firearm and then return. While the patron was complying, the establishment got robbed. The patron, not knowing the status of the robbery, returned to the store at which time the armed bungler fired twice, striking the patron in the stomach. The patron went to the hospital and after surgery and therapy returned to regular function. He sued the owner of the store for violation of his 2nd amendment right to protect himself, resulting in him being shot and almost killed. The court found in favor of the patron. The store went bankrupt due to the settlement of civil suit.

Reply
Anon April 9, 2014 at 9:06 am

The owner of private property has a right to restrict those who enter their property. The 2nd amendment protects a citizen’s rights against government intrusion. The business owner only has a duty to reasonably protect the safety of an invitee (customer), which does not include allowing them to carry a weapon. I’m a CWP holder myself, just setting the facts straight.

easterndumbfuckastan April 9, 2014 at 9:32 am

You are correct, however a jury in NC apparently agreed that asking the CWP holder to leave and returned unarmed was negligent in some manner. Just something for business owner to think about before posting Rob-Me / Murder-Me signs.

James April 9, 2014 at 10:38 am

If gun owners demand the right to be allowed to bring guns anywhere, those guns should be registered and the gun owner should be responsible for making sure it is secure. They should be held fully liable for any damage to an innocent person caused by that gun.

In other words if you fire your gun and hit an innocent person you should be responsible for the damage. If you lose your gun and someone picks it up an kills an innocent person you should be responsible for the damage. If someone takes your gun from you and kills an innocent person you should be responsible for the damage.

If business owners are required to allow guns in their establishment, we should require open carry. People should have a right to know who is bringing a weapon into their business, or approaching them with a weapon especially if it is a business that has a lot of cash or a business where there is a lot of conflict. Further parents should have the right to know if their children are in proximity to a gun.

While I have no problem with people owning guns or carrying guns. You will never convince me that if there are 20 guns in a room you are not more likely to be shot than if there is one gun in the room. Anyone who has gone through employee training at a cash business knows, that if someone is robbing you at gun point, your best bet is to give them what they are asking for. While that may not be what most of us want to do instinctively, statistics show that 90+% of the time the robber will take the money and leave. The odds of injury to a customer go way up if you resist with a gun or someone else does. Most business would not want a customer pulling out a gun and firing at the robber. Seems to me the odds say that is the negligent action and that is why the gun owner should be held liable and not the owner of the business.

CorruptionInColumbia April 9, 2014 at 9:51 am

As it should have been, EDF! Thank You for a very enlightening and informational story!

Bill April 9, 2014 at 11:37 am

I do not believe such a case exists, and if it does I think you are not fully presenting the facts. A quick internet search turned up no case as you described and there are a number of inconsistencies in your description of the facts and legal arguments. You cannot sue a private person for violating your constitutional rights unless they are a government official. If it was a negligence award it would have been covered by insurance. I think this is misinformation you picked up from a gun site or third party.
I can find no case where a property owner was successfully sued for not allowing someone to bring a gun onto their property, and such a finding would be inconsistent with the rights of property owners.

easterndumbfuckastan April 9, 2014 at 1:15 pm

The information was given to my by an investigator at a local sheriff’s department a few years ago. I sent an email asking for the case details. I’ll post them as soon as I get them.

Mike at the Beach April 9, 2014 at 9:07 pm

OK. You’ll know, then, that if one of the roving gangbangers prevalent in the Five Points area does for some odd reason decide to stroll on into your pacifist restaurant of choice (or, as statistical data shows would be much more likely- jacks you in the parking lot as you ingress or egress) he’ll be the only armed dude in the place. I hope for your sake your family’s not with you. Starting the FaceBook page is *fantastic* idea…for the gangbangers. They would much rather conduct their business without worrying about armed citizens.

Reply
Limbaughsaphatkhunt April 9, 2014 at 9:13 pm

Try to see the big picture here. It’s not about a single restaurant or bar. It’s about the larger society. Gun control (not gun bans) are in place in countries like the UK and Australia and New Zealand…and several other “socialist countries” and the per capita gun crime rate is lower than the US. It’s a fact.

The fewer guns on the streets period…the fewer gun deaths. That’s where I’m coming from. But Mr. Pettigru’s assertion lo those many years ago still rings true today for S.C.

Mike at the Beach April 9, 2014 at 10:16 pm

My contention is that you are the one in this conversation missing the “big picture.” Of course if we could remove all of the guns there would be fewer gun deaths, but that’s a logical fallacy (not to mention a practical impossibility). That’s akin to saying if we banned commercial air travel there would be fewer flight delays. You got me there. Besides, as I said earlier, statistically it’s not about guns, it’s about guns *and* culture. The countries most anti-gun types throw around as examples aren’t really great for their cause if you dig a little deeper than 30-second sound bites. The UK is a perfect example. They have a tiny fraction of the number of firearms in their country as does the US (we own 270 million non-military weapons; in the UK the number is just over 3 million), some of most stringent gun control anywhere, we’re almost 6 times more populous, and yet they don’t enjoy a homicide rate that’s 1.1% of ours. Of course, there are other relevant differences like geographic size, law enforcement methodologies, etc. that we just don’t have time to discuss here. I guess my point is that honest social scientists who know the data also know that it’s not as simple as banning guns or controlling the small subset of CWP types (who present an exceedingly low risk to public safety). It’s culture, law enforcement, corrections, mental health screening/access, *and* reasonable regulations to keep cuckoos from easy access to firearms. That’s a complicated pie, and I’m afraid that the FaceBook era has killed America’s ability to focus on complex answers. If it can’t fit in a tweet, you’ve lost them

Limbaughsaphatkhunt April 10, 2014 at 12:06 am

I’m not into emotive arguments without research to back them up. If you do some googling…you’ll find that those countries with serious gun control (meaning the ban of assault rifles, machine guns, semi-automatics and most handguns) are the ones with per capita fewer deaths than America.
I suppose the esoteric argument about so called “gun culture” is applicable also to those who feel the only way to be safe in a world gone mad (or at least nation gone mad) is to carry a loaded sidearm that nobody else knows about wherever you go all the time.

Mike at the Beach April 9, 2014 at 9:01 pm

Dude, this post makes you sound like a Kool-Aid drinker of a very high order. Of course we shouldn’t go back to the Dodge City days when everyone was pieced down, but Will is most decidedly not “ripping a man to shreds” for his peace loving ways here. He’s ripping on the clown on for his delusional (and patently illogical) belief that a person who would illegally carry a handgun for the purposes of committing illegal violent acts would somehow be dissuaded from entering a particular establishment because of a little sign on the door. there are solutions to the violence in the Five Points area, but signs on doors aren’t one of them.

Reply
Limbaughsaphatkhunt April 9, 2014 at 9:09 pm

I retort by asking you who are the real kool-aid drinkers here? The NRA has long ago abandoned common sense gun ownership and now acts as a shill for the arms industry by using fear tactics, misinformation, intimidation and uber $$ lobbying to ensure that we have access to AR15s and other high powered killing machines from womb to casket for every man, woman and child no matter the carnage that follows…lessen you’re a black person or latino.

Reply
Mike at the Beach April 9, 2014 at 9:38 pm

I hear you but you can’t bait me into defending the NRA dingbats, bro. Not what we were talking about, though. The letter is just silly, and ignores every shred of real, statistical data about the use of weapons in crime, who uses them, where they are used, and by whom. CWP holders are simply not the issue. We can pluck outliers from any dataset, but that doesn’t change the mean (mathematically, not behaviorally). It’s hard to even discuss CWP armed violence, because there are so few incidents that it’s hard to convey in a multiple-zero decimal number. As for assault rifles, persons using those weapons kill a few hundred people annually in the entire country, while deaths from other firearms (primarily handguns, of course) are 20-25 times that figure. Rifles are easy for demagogues to preach on because they are “ugly,” and are sometimes used in very high profile mass shootings. What most lay people don’t know is that firearm possession is much more closely linked to suicide risk than homicide risk, but that’s a topic for another day. Look at culture and guns, not just guns. There are other countries with similar problems, and the numbers are all over the charts. Facts bore people nowadays, and the modern attention span doesn’t really support much of a real discussion on most issues.

Reply
Jurisdoc April 9, 2014 at 7:05 am

Fits must have missed giving Kirkman his weekly blowjob. Had to make it up by printing some nonsensical trash hit piece on his opponent.

Reply
RogueElephant April 9, 2014 at 8:23 am

An ambulance chaser/ anti gun nut Dim running against a truly decent American. Finlay should win this going away. I guess he wants to emulate Sen. Hutto : write the DUI laws, then try DUI cases in the courts where he appoints the judges. Sweet deal. You guys should definitely keep Finlay.

Reply
Quail Lane Voter April 9, 2014 at 8:54 am

This may be the dumbest post I have ever read on this blog. He’s suggesting banning patrons from bringing guns into the bars of crime-riddled Five Points. Good for him. This suggestion may also give owners legal protection, say if a patron gets shot by someone in their bar. This is a reach, even by your standards.

(By the way, I am a friend of Kirkman’s, just kind of tired of seeing this sort of pettiness.)

Reply
snickering April 9, 2014 at 9:27 am

You will be singing his praises if you are busted with pot. Then he’ll be your savior.

Reply
Town Crier April 9, 2014 at 9:48 am

He needs a haircut.

Reply
Town Crier April 9, 2014 at 9:48 am

He needs a haircut.

Reply
craig321 April 9, 2014 at 11:03 am

“If you need to Blow, Just call Joe!!!!”

Reply
Gervais Street April 9, 2014 at 11:56 am

Joe is running to show he is still a good sport. South Carolina Democrats are trying to show they still have some good ole Joe’s in the party that are white. They are trying to show not all of the white folks left in the party are the controlling elite like Jean Toal and her kind. For Joe to win, Lillian McBride will have to do her part, but Joe is doing his part whatever the outcome as a favor to the Democratic Party elite.

Reply
Live by the gun ... April 9, 2014 at 12:47 pm

Of course Folks is right. You’re always safer when multiple people are firing their weapons.

Reply
scotty April 10, 2014 at 11:26 am

I believe the discussion is about a POS pimp lawyer running a campaign on fear of gun violence. The bad news started with the young man who was half beaten to death by a group of assholes. Now Joe is moving to up the fear and make you believe he is the answer and if you are dumb enough to vote for him he single handled will clean up the criminal element.

Reply
snickering April 14, 2014 at 2:09 pm

Give Joe a break. He is so busy committing Political Suicide, you’ll be attending his Wake before long. When you manage to make enemies out of both city and county residents at the same time it’s somewhat depressing. Also his wife isn’t making friends or influencing people (she’s Richland County Probate Judge)..

Reply

Leave a Comment