As a person
A Bel Air woman was shot dead during an argument on Wednesday, according to court documents.
According to charging documents, the incident happened on Churchill Road Wednesday in Bel Air, where Brian Delen, 47, was delivering food. The documents said Delen asked Meghan Lewis, 52: “Are you waiting for a food delivery, sir”
As per Delen’s account described in the documents, Lewis was offended and believed Delen had misgendered her, and yelled at him.
In other words this is yet more dishonest reporting. A man was shot dead, not a woman.
The filing says Delen drove away, and Lewis followed on foot; Delen stopped driving and the two ‘engaged in a physical altercation.”
Presumably the case will turn on that. Why did Delen stop driving? Why didn’t he just leave? He shot Lewis in the abdomen and Lewis died.
Members of the local LGBTQ community are describing Lewis as ‘uplifting,’ and a committed supporter of transgender people in Maryland.
“That’s just who she was as a person – she was always interested in uplifting our fellow community members,” said Lee Blinder, the executive director of Trans Maryland, a group which supports the trans community across the state. Blinder told WMAR Lewis went out of her way to help those within her community.
The community of men who usurp women.
Delen faces serious charges, including second-degree murder and first-degree assault.
Delen was released on recognizance, according to Maryland court records. His preliminary hearing is scheduled for January 25.
Why didn’t he just keep going?
Following a man that you feel insulted you in order to escalate to a physical altercation is THE most stereotypically male-pattern behaviour I can think of.
Yup, it’s kinda built-in, adults find ways to mitigate it, other decide well actually they’re women now and probably always have been.
Remember, 1 death is a genocide. Even if it may be self-defense (which I don’t mean to imply.)
Was in a grocery store years ago and there was one man unloading his cart and another man bringing his cart into the checkout line. The second man’s cart BARELY touched the first man’s cart, it was an accident, second guy did not tap the first guy’s cart on purpose. Well, they looked at each other and then they kept looking at each other and then really started glaring at each other and starting to square up aggressively. I expected to hear Marlin Perkins doing narration about how exciting it was that we got footage of these two magnificent animals about to fight in this amazing wild kingdom.
I said quite loudly that fighting was NOT allowed in this supermarket. That managed to break up the glaring and both guys went back to checking out groceries, but they still huffed and gave each other nasty looks. When first guy was leaving, the floor manager came over to ask if everything was OK with the second guy — she was trying to give first guy time to get clear of the parking lot to make sure the ruckus did not reignite out there.
Nature or nurture or some combination of both? This male-on-male 0 to 100mph in two seconds aggression event that ended up with one man dead seems to come from the same mold, doesn’t it? Too bad there was no chance for bystanders to try and distract either of these two men from their own violent impulses in this case.
[…] a comment by Southwest at As a […]
I see no reason, in light of the institutional dishonesty shown by the article (and perhaps the prosecutors) to frame this as male violence against women (and really even to mention that the deceased was male except through reference to the survivor’s “misgendering”) to believe that events unfolded at all in the way described. The author has every incentive to distort, conceal, or invent whatever facts they feel justified in sending the appropriate message.
Men stop driving and don’t “just leave” for all sorts of reasons short of wanting to put ourselves in mortal peril. In a time long ago and a land far away, I myself was once a passenger in a van full of men who stopped to listen to a belligerent drunk man in order to try and deescalate his belligerence, with me quite randomly sitting in between the main deescalator and the man in question.
In the event, better sense eventually prevailed upon the driver (n.b., not the deescalator, who was sat behind me) and our interlocutor wasn’t armed, but if things had gone a slightly-different way, I may have been thrust into a fight with a self-righteous drunk who for some reason saw me as an enemy worth spending the rest of his life in prison to protect his community from. And that because a peaceful man with a leadership role wished to calm another man down rather than simply driving away.
We do not and cannot know what actually happened in this case, but we do know that the reporter has every incentive to lie and present it in as negative a light for the survivor as possible. Perhaps Delen hadn’t managed to start the car before Lewis stood astride his path or damaged his vehicle in some way that would’ve been ruinously expensive to fix without a valid insurance claim; perhaps Delen simply had car trouble or an obstacle or red light which kept him from escaping; perhaps he wished to avoid a complaint by apologising once he saw how upset Lewis was, and was not intending to begin a physical altercation; perhaps indeed he was viscerally responding to a rhetorical threat from which he had a duty to retreat and, to the detriment of all parties, failed in that duty. Or perhaps some other sequence of events obtained which the reporter felt comfortable distilling into “The filing says Delen drove away, and Lewis followed on foot; Delen stopped driving…”
The truth of the matter will be tested in court. In any case, Delen has apparently been involved in the taking of a human life, which he will have to deal with for the rest of his. I hope he can find some measure of peace in the justice which is to come.
The fact that the shooter was released on his own recognizance suggests that perhaps he’s not entirely to blame here. (Apparently he also called 911, and surrendered to police when they arrived.)
https://www.wbal.com/judge-releases-bel-air-homicide-suspect-on-recognizance/
I note that the piece, heavily biassed as it is against the delivery driver, still fails to make any claim that the victim was unarmed. I would have thought that to be the most salient aspect of the incident, if that were case. Why would the victim have followed, on foot, a retreating vehicle – unless the victim had a firearm, and was threatening to use it? That would explain why the delivery driver stopped, and attempted to calm the victim down. It also explains why the police aren’t treating the delivery driver as dangerous.
tigger_the_wing #8
One of the deceased man’s friends claimed he had “taken in hundreds of trans kids” over the years to mentor them. I doubt the hundreds number but, well, maybe the trans person was already known to the police for some other reasons and that is why they are not going all out on the driver. If the deceased has a history of starting stuff, that may be a factor.
Southwest88 #9
I find the ‘hundreds’ claim to be ludicrously unlikely too; the fact that he was taking in kids at all is already worrying, but so-called ‘trans’ kids? Especially as we now know all about the online grooming and recruitment of vulnerable children into the cult? He sounds very suspicious to me. I’m sorry he died in the tussle; no-one deserves the death penalty for any reason. I expect more details will emerge later, and I expect to learn that the female impersonator was armed.