No products in the cart.


The Story of Michael Giles


Michael Giles found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. An Air Force veteran, with tours in Iraq and Kuwait, he is in prison for 25 years, for using a gun in defense of his life. Even the presiding Judge thinks the mandatory sentence is too harsh, given the facts of the case, and Michael’s previously clean record.

The paranoia in modern society concerning guns, and self-defense, has destroyed this young man’s life. It is time to put an end to the paranoia and the self-righteous attitudes of anti-gun, worshipers of government power. Lives are being destroyed by ridiculous laws and regulations, all for the purpose of making everyone dependent on Big Brother, instead of strong, self-sufficient members of the community.

I urge you to contact the Tallahassee authorities, as well as the Governor of Florida to right this travesty of justice.

Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor

This story comes from

On Feb. 6, 2010, active duty air force serviceman Michael Giles was invited to a Tallahassee nightclub by a few of his friends. Giles, a young father, was stationed in Tampa at the time, after spending the previous six years on tours of duty in places such as Iraq and Kuwait.

Michael accepted the invitation to hang out, thinking it would be a good time. Unfortunately, the night took a violent turn.

Two area fraternity chapters began arguing and fighting inside of the club, and the chaos soon turned into a brawl involving dozens of people that spilled into the club’s parking lot. Michael thought that, during the commotion, his friends may have all gathered at the rental car one of his buddies had used to drive everyone to the party that night. When he made it to the vehicle, but didn’t find his friends there, Michael retrieved his legally owned handgun from the glove box, and resumed his search for his friends. “I removed the handgun because the car was unlocked and [people] were walking between the cars,” Michael says. Despite the fact that he was not involved in the fight, while Michael was looking for his friends, he was attacked from behind and punched to the ground.

Fearing for his life, he fired two shots from his firearm in an attempt to defend himself. His attacker was struck in the leg, but not seriously injured.

The gunshots broke up the fight, and Michael says he went across the street from the club to get away from the people that harmed him. He was arrested shortly after the incident and charged in Florida state court. There was little dispute over the facts of the case—the prosecutor and defense attorneys agreed that Michael had been attacked. Even the testimony of Michael’s attacker supported that fact. However, prosecutors argued that he did not need to fire a gun to defend himself, and charged him with attempted murder.

“If I wouldn’t have had my firearm that night, I believe I would have been killed or [would be] permanently handicapped right now,” Michael says. “I was never one for trouble, which is the reason why I never had a criminal record before this offense.”

Ultimately, Michael was acquitted of the attempted murder charges, but a jury convicted him of aggravated battery—because a gun was involved, the offense carries a mandatory minimum sentence under Florida’s 10-20-Life law. Michael was sentenced to the 25-year minimum required by the law, despite his judge’s strong objections. During trial, and again at sentencing, Michael’s judge expressed concern over the sentence: “Frankly, I think the 25-year mandatory is overly harsh on the facts of this case, but that’s what the law requires I do….I have no legal authority to impose less than that.”

Read more here.


Shorty Dawkins



  1. This is SO wrong! An exemplary Black man, destroyed in the prime of his life & career by a criminal justice system that is more criminal than the criminals is supposedly deals!
    The people that did this to this man should pay a high price!
    Black man has a gun, legal, self defense,
    tough mandatory sentence?
    Oh Lord, when will the madness stop!

    1. QUIT ignoring the US Constitution, because it is STILL the supreme LAW of this land, and it does need to be implemented at every occasion if we want our nation to be free. Support and defend it, question why those who are under Oath are not supporting and defending it. Make a mockery and laugh when Obama, Holder, Bush’s, Clinton’s, etc; judges, law enforcement, etc do not do their duty as REQUIRED and see that the mockery of them, their stupitidy, and their actions is spread as far as one can spread it as it is another way to educate. And then question them often as to why not.

      THAT (US Constitution) is the contract that they are bound by in the strongest way any contract can bind. Except when the defenders and supporters of the US Constitution let those who are destroying it act like it is not there. Sooo

      STOP IT!

      “Oh Lord, when will the madness stop!”

      It will stop when we step up and do our constitutionally mandated duty.

      BTW, concerning this statement and the actions of the judge who is OATH sworn to support and defend the US Constitution, the SUPREME LAW of our land, and the state Constitution – he lied, or is way too ignorant to be allowed to continue as a judge. That judge is most definitely NOT using “Good Behaviour” in the courtroom as the US Constitution requires of ALL judges – state and federal.

      US Constitution, Article III, Section 1: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

      The US Constitution assigns what all judges, state and federal, must do to be allowed to stay in a judicial position, they are:
      — Required to take, and keep an Oath(s), or a combined Oath.
      — Required to “support and defend” the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it before the duties of the office they occupy.
      — Required to carry out the enumerated duties assigned to the judicial branch by the US Constitution in a constitutional manner.

      That is “Good Behaviour” for judges.

      That is correct, the US Constitution itself says what is Good Behavior for judges; not anyone serving within any branch of the government – state or federal, nor do we the people – as ourselves or as the Militia (*required to follow the laws as the “boss”, not the state or the federal gov). It is the US Constitution that determines “Good Behaviour”, and it is put into writing what is required of them.

      The US Constitution, Second Amendment comes before and above any state law. So that sentence is unlawful here in the USA and should be discarded for that reason.

      The judge, prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney who did not USE the Supreme law to DEFEND his client – as the client’s natural right to self defense is ABOVE and beyond, not under the authority of ANY who serve within our governments – state and federal.

      The judge, prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney, etc should be in a mandated 4 month Constitution class NOT run by progressives or communists/socialists/etc. Starting with the Preamble to the US Constitution, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, through the complete US Constitution before they are allowed to practice again in any position.

      Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 on the Oaths, and how the duties assigned to the judicial branch must be carried out: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and WHO ARE BOUND BY AN OATH TO DECIDE ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, the U.S. Constitution. Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice…”

      So there can be NO mandatory sentencing in that case because he has a PROTECTED FROM those that serve within our government natural right. It is “Null and Void”, as is the crime that he was charged with.

      The Preamble to the US Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

      This means that the people themselves are the last word on all of those who serve within the branches of our governments, though that “last word” must also be “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution.

      Congress of the United States
      begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
      THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that FURTHER declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
      RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

      Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

      John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475: “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

      Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 28: “The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.”

      Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is NOT in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

      The New Hampshire ratifiers called for a guarantee (the Second Amendment) that: Congress shall never disarm any Citizen…”.

      The Pennsylvania minority at its ratifying convention demanded a guarantee of a very broad right to arms, that: “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game.”

      Joel Barlow, Revolutionary War veteran, wrote “Advice to the Privileged Orders, in the Several States of Europe”, clergyman, theologian, popular poet, successful diplomat, and American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: “… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”

      “Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.” Judge Alex Kozinski

      St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court Judge, wrote of the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”
      (The Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases, in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era, yet this judge was not aware of this?)

      Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”.

      Andrews v. State explains, this “passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”

      Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions – even concealed weapons bans – are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”

      Nunn vs. State:’The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.

      Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon… If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.

      William Rawle, whose work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions, and was United States Attorney for Pennsylvania, describes the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms:
      “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

      John Norton Pomeroy: “The object of this clause [the right of the people to keep and bear arms] is to secure a well-armed militia…. But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “[A] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

      This was done under “color of law”, under pretend law, under the disguise of one serving within our government using authority not given to that position, or any position concerning our constitutionally protected natural rights, and enforced by the ignorant or deliberately domestic enemy of the US Constitution, the American people, and the USA.

    2. This is atrocious justice.How can someone defend themselves and be found guilty and locked up for 25 years?Release this young man and allow him to be the man he was molding himself to be ….He was courageous,he was respectful and now you take that away?I call cowardice on the side of the justice….I call foul …..Release Giles NOW!!!!

      1. Atrocius justice? he left and came back, that’s why he was found guilty, and it is same reason Tayvon Martin was a justified shooting in the same state. Tayvon left and came back to attack Zimmerman. If you leave to safety, stay there. Don’t bring a gun to a fist fight.

    3. The black man left the scene of trouble and then went back with a weapon and discharged it recklessly. If you carrry a weapon, you better know the damn laws of your state when you use it. He didn’t stand his ground that is nonsense, and also why he was found guilty. He came back. His story is total BS. If he stayed in a locked car and somebody broke in to get him, he could have legal shot them at that point in fear for his life. He went back to the fighting. Stupid is as stupid does. His skin color has nothing to do with his act of recklessness. He shot someone deal with it.

    1. No, the Militia of the several states is the answer the founders gave us. As is the Grand Jury, the Elections after our Militias do away with Election Fraud, as is the “Good Behaviour” clause for ALL judges – state and federal.

      So you see, the REAL answer within our nation IS the US Constitution and all state Constitutions being implemented, followed, defended, and supported. The people to be educated in being an American again.

  2. OK, here is the problem, he went to his car to get his gun (yes he had a CCW) and returned to the fray. That is where he violates the concept of Stand Your Ground! He retreated his ground, armed himself and returned. He had time to think, escape, stay in his car and call for help, drive away…… He screwed up by retrieving his weapon and RETURNING ARMED to a situation he knew was violent. It goes to premeditation. Cry foul. Cry racism. Cry until the cows come home. As a retired P.O. Whose wife is a paralegal for several criminal defense lawyers, I am familiar with both sides of the courtroom. I also had to jump through all the legal hoops to get my CA CCW and it is clearly written in the dos and do nots that as a CCW holder we will not be covered by the law if we knowingly enter a fray armed or any situation that is clearly a risk for violence, a demonstration, riot, fight….. It’s called the stand your ground law, not the get in a fight, run out to get your gun and return to the fight armed law.

Comments are closed.