A major issue that has emerged in Mayor Frank Melton’s determination to carry weapons anywhere he goes is whether or not he is endangering the lives of young people. He is arguing that he is under constant threat from drug dealers and gang members, and says that members of the Wood Street Players are out to kill him. Thus, he says, he needs to carry his guns to protect him and his entourage in the case of a shoot-out.
But here’s the question: If Melton is living under such constant threat, then where is the logic and morality even of allowing him such easy access to young people—in parks, churches (pictured in St. Andrew’s Cathedral), schools, playgrounds, in his own home, in other people’s homes, etc.? Who is watchdogging this situation? Who is protecting these children both from the people who are stalking Melton to kill him, according to him, as well as from the potential gun battles that he expects to happen no matter where he goes? How can he have it both ways?
Previous Comments
Bump. I’m really concerned about the angle of someone under such threat having such easy access to children. If he is under such threat, he should stay away from young people to protect them from his would-be assassins and assailants, right? I just don’t get this.
#122359 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Jun 22 2006
Once again, no one is trying to kill Frank. Lots of people want to whip his butt for poor job performance. If the quarterback on any football team fumbled the ball this badly, and as often, fans and teammates would be wishing harm upon him. Now imagine a quarterback who convinced the team of how well he plays without anyone ever seeing him play. He knows this is how he got the quarterback job. And he knows he deserves an asswhipping for his betrayal and devastating performances. Sorry to have to lay it down like this.
#122360 | Author: Ray Carter | Date: Jun 22 2006
OK, I don’t really think they are, either—however, his antics could really be p!ssing some folks off. HOWEVER, if his argument for carrying weapons is that he is under constant threat, then he should be willing to stay away from young people. That is, if he cares as much about them as he claims. He shouldn’t have it both ways.
#122361 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Jun 22 2006
That is, logically, through the words he himself uses, he says constantly that danger follows him around. If that is true, then he needs to stay away from playgrounds, parks, schools, churches and so on. It doesn’t make sense for him to purposefully lead grave danger into those places, and put other people at risk. He needs to be willing to make choices that help protect the public safety. And, it sounds like it might be too late anyway—if there are all these hits on him as he contends, then it is unconscionable of him to endanger young people in such ways. Perhaps more importantly, where the hell are the people who are supposed to be protecting the children in his house!?! What’s going on here?
#122362 | Author: DonnaLadd | Date: Jun 22 2006
I agree totally.
#122363 | Author: Ray Carter | Date: Jun 22 2006
From the CL: The mayor, who has two JPD detectives assigned to his personal security, said if a gun battle broke out, he would want to return fire and protect his entourage. “If they are willing to die for me, I’ve got to be willing to die for them,” he said. Huh? isn’t that supposed to work the other way. He obviously has no training by the way he walks around with the shotgun on raids. Hopefully its just a show and he never has shoot at anyone. I’m not a lawyer but i would the city would face stiff liability costs if he wrongfully shot someone. Donna are these kids under 17? If so wouldn’t DHS or some state agency have the responsibility to investigate why or how they come to live with Frank.
#122364 | Author: jd | Date: Jun 22 2006
jaydortch-if their parents are alright with it, and the children aren’t being abused, there really is no recourse for DHS. Parents would have to file a complaint or there would have to be an abuse charge lodge against him with Family and Children Services. They would then do an investigation. Cursory at best. Especially if there isn’t direct evidence suggesting that he is causing bodily harm to the kids.
#122365 | Author: Lori G | Date: Jun 22 2006
Thank Ali. It’s sad that someone would put there faith and children in Franks hands. I guess some people feel that they don’t have a choice and he’s the best father figure that their boys can get. Especially when he’s handing out credit cards and mercedes for them to use.
#122366 | Author: jd | Date: Jun 22 2006
Perhaps more importantly, where the hell are the people who are supposed to be protecting the children in his house!?! What’s going on here? -Ladd Good point Ladd. Has Melton perfected the security system at his own home? If so he needs to share this plan with the rest of us. Mayby he is sure that no crime will occur in his own backyard. It’s sad that he will not provide the rest of the city the same protection.
#122367 | Author: lance | Date: Jun 24 2006
“Bump. I’m really concerned about the angle of someone under such threat having such easy access to children. If he is under such threat, he should stay away from young people to protect them from his would-be assassins and assailants, right? I just don’t get this.” Posted by: ladd on Jun 22, 06 | 11:31 am This is an excellent point that needs to be pushed hard. If Melton’s life is in that much danger, why should he be out in public with so many potential victims(children)by his side? What are those kids, his human shields? Life must really be tough for the Melton apologist these days.
#122368 | Author: Cliff Cargill | Date: Jun 24 2006
