Unrest in L'Île de France

OK, I'll start this out by pointing out something I like about European cities: the slums are in the suburbs! So, Centre City Paris is peaceful while the 'burbs are blowing up. Anyway,

I'm sure most Americans are missing this, but a 17 year old was shot in Nanterre, which is in the Hauts-de-Seine, or the Western Suburbs of Paris. It's actually Departement 92, not 93. Still, I'll put up this song.

Time to get serious here since it's relates to police shooting someone during a traffic stop, something which happens in the US. But one difference is that there might be a firearm present in the states--less of a possibility in France, but not totally unknown. On the other hand, cops shooting someone is a whole lot less common in France. I'm not totally sure how different the concept of "legitimate defence" is in France. Toss in the law was relaxed in 2017. It's also against the law to comply with a police officer.

This is the French law on the use of firearms by the "guardians of the peace": According to article L. 435-1 of the French Internal Security Code, police officers and gendarmes may only use firearms in five very distinct and clearly described situations:

• When their lives or physical integrity are threatened or when armed persons threaten their lives, their physical integrity or that of others.
• When, after two loud summonses, they cannot otherwise defend the premises they occupy or the persons entrusted to their care (a privilege reserved exclusively for the gendarmes prior to 2017).
• When, immediately after two loud summonses, they cannot compel persons to stop, other than by the use of weapons, if they are trying to escape from their custody or their investigations and if, in their flight, they are likely to cause injury to themselves or to others.
• When they are unable to immobilise, other than by the use of weapons, vehicles, boats or other means of transport, the drivers of which do not comply with the order to stop and the occupants of which are likely, in their flight, to cause injury to themselves or to others.
• For the sole purpose of preventing the recurrence, in the near future, of one or more murders or attempted murders that have just been committed, when they have real and objective reasons for considering that such a recurrence is likely in the light of the information available to them at the time they use their weapons.

In addition to the question of legitimate self-defence under one of the above criteria, there are also the issues of resisting arrest and fleeing from the police--which is criterion #3 above. Also, the police office in question was saying he feared for his companion's life, but that is under question based upon the video of the arrest.

The interesting bit is that the victim had been the subject of as many as five police checks since 2021 - what are known as refus d'obtempérer - refusals to co-operate. So, he sort of knew the drill, but decided to run anyway despite his reputation of being well liked and a good kid. I'm going to add that the 2005 riots were started when when two teenagers were electrocuted as they fled police after a game of football and ran into an electricity substation in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois.

 Yes, you can see the bullet in the magazine.

So, you don't need to have a cop kill you to start a riot--just do something stupid. That seems to be the case here as well since the cop had a gun drawn. I would add that the 2017 law made the cops a bit more trigger happy according to some people.

On the other hand, having been through a few police roadblocks in Ireland, you should take a hint if the cops are carrying weapons, especially obviously cocked machineguns where you can see the bullet, that trying to avoid the roadblock might be a bad idea. 

Even if you are white in a safe place like Ireland.

What if Gaige Grosskreutz had killed Kyle Rittenhouse?

Would all the people who are happy that the shooter in this incident managed to be acquitted? Would Grosskreutz have been acquitted had he shot Rittenhouse? Remember that BOTH Grosskreutz brought weapons into a bad situation and made the situation worse.

The question is do you believe that Gaige Grosskreutz should have been able to carry a concealed firearm?  Even more importantly: should he have been carrying in this situation in the first place?

 "Shall Issue" means that as long as there is no disqualfier in the system--the person must receive a permit. 

"May issue" allows the issuing authority latitude in whether or not to issue the permit. 

Now, Grosskreutz must be given a permit under "Shall Issue" since his felony arrest was expunged (technically, we shouldn't even be discussing that arrest since we can be sued). Unless his misdemeanours disqualify him, which quite a few do not in many jurisdictions.  In fact, he did have a permit to carry at one time.

Under "may issue" his arrests can be factored into the decision, even if they didn't ultimately end up as convictions.  

Let's toss in how would you feel had Grosskreutz managed to have killed Rittenhouse? Enforcing the laws on the books is harder than you understand since the laws on the books are intended to be unenforceable.  

BTW, the case which brought the "Florida loophole" to the attention of the Pennsylvania AG happened to be someone who was under indictment for several felonies in Pennsylvania. Not to mention, he managed to get a Montgomery County Permit to Carry during that period that he turned in. Alas, his record was expunged, so I can't say anymore in public.

The issue here is less Kyle Rittenhouse and more the fact that there were firearms at this "peaceful protest". I am pretty sure firearms were carried at other riots as well. The fact that guns in the hands of "private citizens" and riots are a recipe for disaster. Now, I'm going to quote from a previous post.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1760 (1886) addressed this issue:

The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject. It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.

What happened in Kenosha is a very good example of how the Second Amendment has been taken out of context. Yes, when the official forces are unable, or unwilling, to keep order, somebody has to step in. Likewise, I wouldn't convict someone for defending their home as was the case with the McCloskeys. On the other hand, Kyle Rittenhouse was walking around openly carrying a weapon: he could have been the victim of the REAL militia had they been on the scene. As is, he was an untrained civilian in a situation which was way beyond his abilities.

Rittenhouse's heart was in the right place, but his head was up his ass.

Unfortunately, he is a symbol of the "armed civilian" using a weapon for "self-defence". But Kenosha burned with or without Kyle Rittenhouse. And what if Grosskreutz had manged to kill Rittenhouse? That's a really important question to ask.

The reality is that people saw the police as either unwilling or unable to control what was happening in US cities, but the issue here isn't the Second Amendment: it's that the US is a failed state. It's the Soviet Union on life support.

BTW, unless your militia was created by act of congress: it is not a true constitutional miltia (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16). The Second Amendment does not create the militia, it only ensures its viability. But the fact that there is a large standing military establishment shows that the Second Amendment is a victim of desuetude and should be repealed.

Footnote:

[1] Some US Jurisdictions have laws similar to this one from Pennsylvania: 18 PA.C.S. 6107, Prohibited Conduct During an Emergency, “No person shall carry a firearm upon the public streets or upon any public property during an emergency proclaimed by a State or municipal governmental executive unless that person is: (1) Actively engaged in a defense of that person’s life or property from peril or threat. (2) Licensed to carry firearms under section 6109 (relating to licenses) or is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).” 

BTW, Before you go around saying that your militia is somehow acceptable, be sure to check out your state constitution for provisions like this from Pennsylvania's State Constitution:

     § 22.  Standing army; military subordinate to civil power.
        No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without
     the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all
     cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil
     power.

Also be aware that primary sources relating to the adoption of the Second Amendment also are replete with similar language to this.

See also:

• Mother Jones: Why the Law Turns a Blind Eye to Militias
• NPR: The Legality Of Private Militias 
• Militias are Unlawful in Colorado
  
• Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection

 

Assault Rifles won't be going away anytime soon.

This goes back to the joke about the World Famous French lover who was on a game show as a lifeline. The punch line is that he wouldn't have done anything the contestant suggested. The "gun violence" situations is really like that. With pretty much everyone knowing that the US needs to rein in the weapons.

Yet nobody is doing anything about it.

Come on! You are worried that assault weapons are going to be banned whether you are "pro" or "anti". The pro-AW crowd is hording the things knowing that there will be a huge rise in their price the next time they get banned. That is if the current ones aren't removed from circulation. But I doubt that will happen.

I think the ones in circulation will be "grandfathered" and remain in circulation.

Any gun buyback would cost a lot in the US because the situation was allowed to get out of control.

And the current situation of US politics has ensured that guns will be a problem.

This is worth a read since it gets into the problems this issue raises:
https://www.thetrace.org/2018/09/how-many-assault-weapons-in-the-us/

Reality versus gun rights

It's really fun watching people defend the rioters and looters in the current situation. I'm going to use Pennsylvania law, but there is Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55: Riot, Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses, which means that the destruction and looting caused by the rioters is illegal.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Trashing stores and stealing the contents is not a political act, but a criminal one.

Let's add in that not only is it a criminal act, but it is actual violence. As I said to one person being able to understand the rioters would also mean that you understand why people are protesting the Covid-19 lockdowns with guns. As they say, they may not agree with the method, but they understand the frustration.

Actually, I find the armed protesters less of a threat than I do an out of control mob who are actually engaged in violent acts. Arson is a major cause of loss of life and injury in commercial properties. Strangely, the people who somehow find that the rioting and looting are justified have an issue with people exercising their right to self-defence.

Rioting, looting, arson, and the other illegal acts mentioned in Title 18, the crimes code, and specifically Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55, are just that crimes and illegal. On the other hand someone does have the right to self-defence if they have a reasonable belief that are in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Which happens to be a very real threat if you are in the sights of rioters.

One person said, "couldn't you get out of their way, or leave town?" Is that a fair question if you get the lockdown order and AREN'T allowed to leave? Someone in that situation is pretty much stuck.

Which gets to the gun rights type's question: "shouldn't the person be allowed to defend themselves?" To which "Fuck, yeah!" seems to be the most sensible answer. And if the best weapon happens to be something semi-auto that can accept a large capacity magazine: then they should indeed be allowed to have such a weapon.

Which is why I titled this the way I did.

The person who somehow feels that the violence is "justified" or "understandable" should also be able to accept that people have a right to protect themselves. And the right which is lawful is the one of self-protection.

Not rioting.

Or as Donald Trump said: “when the looting starts, the shooting starts."

While I don't like Trump or the underlying events which led to the protests, the movement to violence has changed the game to a no win situation. And the people who are going to be the big losers are the ones the protests were supposed to help.

Likewise, I have made it clear that I don't support "gun rights" or believe it to be a real thing, but if people are going to condone violence, then they need to accept that the cycle of violence will continue.

And isn't ending the violence what the protests were trying to do?

 You can condemn the violence, yet still support the underlying cause. If anything, it makes far more sense to condemn the violence instead of allowing the cycle of violence to keep rolling on.

Crisis Actors and gun violence

Not sure why this one needs to be debunked, but it does.

Crisis Actors are people who are somehow hired to "fake" shooting incidents for those who are even more removed from reality than the people who push this theory.

Like any good lie, there is a bit of truth here. The first thing to understand is that the “crisis actor” conspiracy theory has a slender tie to reality. Crisis actors do exist, though there is nothing underhanded about them: they are simply performers hired to play disaster victims in emergency drills or wounded combatants in military exercises. They provide a degree of realism for people practising for real emergencies further down the line.

This term has been hijacked where the gun plague is concerned to somehow say these incidents "didn't happen".  Despite there being obvious victims and proof of the shootings having happened. That is what makes this bullshit so hard to fight.

I used to agree with Michael Moore that the crime scene photos would stop this shit from being mentioned. I even had an online argument with Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung's daughter about this. I used to believe that facts could be used to counter bullshit, yet this crisis actor shit still keeps coming up.

Now, I have to agree with the daughter: no amount of sanity can fight this insanity.

We can provide documentation, but that is all "faked" by an all powerful "deep state".  Hell, we could exhume the graves and show these people the bodies, yet the deniers would say that was somehow "faked".

There are a lot of problems with denying mass shootings and gun violence: one of which is that it re-traumatises the victims and their families.

The other one is the biggie: if the whole point of these false flags is to bring about gun confiscation, then why the fuck hasn't it happened?

The US has had mass shootings at least since Howard Unruh went crazy and killed 13 people in Camden, NJ. Probably even before that happened. There was the 1966 University of Texas mass shooting where you can still see the bullet holes. While there was a trend to "strengthen" gun laws in the 60s-70s, that has been weakened from the 80s on.

Instead of confiscating guns, the US is awash with guns in the hands of who knows since there is no registry. Short of the authorities going after the rabid people who post on the Internet (which happens to be a USDoD creation). I would even bet that a "deep state" capable of creating realistic "mass shootings" can probably even read your minds.

Problem number two with this theory is why don't people like Alex Jones meet fatal "accidents" perpetrated by a "deep state" which has these capabilities?  Or are these people just useful idiots?

Anyway, the signs are pretty obvious that the "crisis actor" thing is bullshit as is the likelihood of any "mass confiscation" of guns. To be honest, a mass confiscation would cost far more than an Aussie style gun buyback ever would.

Toss in an all powerful, deep state capable of doing such a convincing job in producing these "mass shootings" could probably also take your guns without anyone knowing about it.  For all we know, the mass confiscations are occurring right now and the "truth" is being silenced. So beware of the shadows in your bedroom at night: they are probably agents of the New World Order.

See also:

• Crisis actors, deep state, false flag: the rise of conspiracy theory code words 
• Florida Republican's aide fired for false suggestion shooting survivors are actors
• Memorial Issue of Eagle Eye, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school news magazine

Honor, Integrity and Gun-Enabled Violence

There is much to reflect upon whenever a tragedy happens.  What we should focus on is easing the pain to the extent any easing can be done.  We should try to provide some justice so that the tragedy can be avoided if that is even possible. We should for a way to bridge the divide that caused the hate to develop.

When I look at the reaction of various groups to the Orlando massacre, I see most people wanting to do nearly all of this.  A few, like Donald Trump, seek to use it for political advantage, some others seek to use it to make false claims about “gun free zones.”  A number of others, like the NRA, seek to get ahead of any outcry and so make some false claims, using misleading statistics, about crime and gun violence.

I won’t compound the rancor with more of the same.  I will simply say that the NRA and its supporters in Congress are wrong to ONLY offer up that they’ll modify the law to include people on the “No Fly” list as those who can’t buy firearms.  That misses the mark by a long way.  It’s not just access to firearms, it’s the type.

The high capacity magazine and semi-automatic “assault” rifle are really more to blame than any hole in the “No Fly” list.  The gun-show loophole is equally a part of the problem in allowing for straw purchases for reselling firearms to criminals.  The weapon type and magazine point should be what we are discussing, not the political theater of the “No Fly/No Buy” bill.  That bill is pablum and would never have stopped Omar Mateen.  It would never have stopped the shooter at Sandy Hook, or San Bernadino, or Aurora Colorado, or Virginia Tech or Gabby Gifford's shooter. 
That said, it’s not a bad thing to do, but it’s far short of enough, enough to offer the victims justice, their families solace, and the nation some meaningful improvement in safety.

Instead it’s time to admit assault weapons and high capacity magazines are not needed by civilians for home defense.  It’s past time to close the gun-show loophole nationally.  It’s time to require the national database to be universally implemented and enough time for it to be accessed prior to the completion of a sale.

These aren’t even hard measures.   

They will curtail gun sales; so the gun lobby and their mouthpiece, the NRA, will hate it.  But, in response to a tragedy, we have the obligation to the dead and their loved-ones to stop pointing fingers and do that which we’ve known for a long time needed doing. 

We have an obligation to the living, to keep them safe from further mass shootings. 

We have an obligation to our first responders to minimize the number of both mass shootings and the frequency of smaller 'every-day' shootings that put their life and limbs in harm's way.  Other countries do not have the frequency of violent death that is experienced by our law enforcement and first responders, who should be the ultimate 'good guys' of our society, deserving of our protection through regulation. Instead we put them in an on the street weapons race of firepower.

This isn’t knee-jerk legislation, it’s finally pushing aside political resistance we should never have let stop us in the first place.   Honor requires it, decency pleads for it, and the memory of the dead demands it.  Our choice is intelligent pragmatism that addresses facts and uses logic, or foolish ideology that ignores and denies a violent reality.

It's science, stupid!

The gun-obsessed insist on a faulty reasoning, that if you restrict guns, only criminals will have guns.  That is not true, in nations where guns are much more restricted than in the USA, there is lower rates of crimes with guns and lower rates of gun violence.  Gun restrictions keeps firearms OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS.

I have yet to see a solid, reasoned or valid peer review (one which is supported by other experts in an appropriate related field) which validates the claims of the gun obsessed.  The Journal of the American Medical Association is no lightweight organization/publication.

From ScienceNews.orgMagazine issue:

Vol. 189, No. 7, April 2, 2016, p. 5

Guns, drugs, cars. Sounds like a formula for an action movie, but the list may explain why American men don’t live as long as men in other high-income countries.

In the United States, average life expectancy among men is 76.4 years — about two years shorter than men who live in Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom and nine other countries. Deaths due to injuries are the reason for much of the gap, researchers report in the Feb. 9 JAMA.

An analysis of U.S. and World Health Organization data revealed that deaths from injuries due to firearms, drug poisonings and auto crashes account for 48 percent of the difference in men’s life expectancies. These causes of death are less of a problem for American women, the researchers found.

  

More Gun Violence, Another Shooting of Multiple Victims

As we are in the sentencing phase of the trial of the Movie Theater shooting 3 years ago this week, we have another shooting in a theater in Lafayette, Louisiana.  Louisiana is a notoriously lax gun law state.  The shooter fits the classic gun hugger profile -- old, white, flabby and crabby.  And dead.

It would be premature to address the latest senseless shooting as we continue to receive details.  So instead it is appropriate to play the Fiore animation from earlier this month, so prophetic, but for once not fun or funny.

Proving Pen's Point

Earlier this week, there was another mass shooting, no surprise - in lax gun law state Florida, haven of ammosexuals.

This quote from seems to sum up the problem with allowing weapons with large capacity magazines and which can fire a great deal of ammunition very quickly, for the purpose of wounding or killing large numbers of people.

From the Miami Herald:

...two men had pulled up in a dark SUV around 2:15 a.m. Tuesday as more than a dozen people were hanging out, talking and drinking. The men climbed out lugging high-powered automatic weapons, and took aim.

...When the shooting stopped, more than five dozen shell casings littered the parking lot, sidewalk and street. Two men were killed and seven people were wounded in one of the worst mass shootings in Miami in decades.

But sources say the two men, carrying an AK-47 and an AR-15, were firing at an intended target who might not have even been in the crowd. The shooters had not been arrested or identified by Tuesday night. Police were tagging beer bottles and other paraphernalia around the crime scene hoping to find DNA matches or other evidence that might help identify the shooters.

“The motive at this point is still unknown. We’re still investigating,” said Miami police spokeswoman Frederica Burden.

The scene was so chaotic that when reports circulated that three men had been arrested in connection with the shooting, police immediately said it wasn’t true. The reality: Three men were detained after tossing a Sponge Bob Square Pants bag that contained weapons.

As noted in supporting a ban on large capacity weapons and assault-style weapons in Washington D.C., back in 2011, from the New York Times, quoting the findings of the presiding court:

This ruling underscores a principle set forth in the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep handguns at home for self-defense. The Supreme Court said in that case that the right is “not unlimited” and doesn’t protect guns “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” And it specifically suggested that jurisdictions could ban the possession of the military’s M-16 rifle because it is “dangerous and unusual.”

The District’s firearms law defines “assault weapon” to include rifles like the AR-15, which the Supreme Court once called “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” The appeals court suggested that the only place where assault weapons, which are designed to spray bullets at a rapid rate, are necessary for self-defense is on a battlefield or the equivalent for police. Anywhere else their presence is an invitation to mayhem and puts police officers and all around at high risk.

It also concluded that “the evidence demonstrates a ban on assault weapons is likely to promote the Government’s interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.” The court reached the same conclusion about banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those magazines increase the dangers of semiautomatic guns: they result in more shots fired, people wounded and wounds per person. The appeals court’s ruling is careful and convincing on this heated topic.

To date the SCOTUS has not in any way disagreed with this ruling that :

1. Specifically sets limits the kind of weapon guaranteed under the 2A; and

2. Restricts that right to the home, not on the street or in/at/on any other public or private place;

Shootings like this underline why we need stricter gun control laws and enforcement, and fewer and different guns in our population.

They get it in the EU...

From Deutsche Welle

Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem has said the EU can "no longer watch on without acting" as 1,000 Europeans are killed in gun violence each year. She is proposing unified, stricter rules for the whole bloc.

A little comparison here, the EU Comprises 28 nations and has a 2012 population of 507,890,191 whereas the US has a population of 316,915,000. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, killers used guns to murder 11,000 people in 2010 in the U.S., the latest year for which statistics are available. Twenty-thousand others used guns to commit suicides that year, and another 73,000 people were rushed to hospital emergency rooms for gunshot wounds (Source VOA).

Using those numbers, the EU has a larger population, but 9% (0.090909)  of the gun violence, yet they admit there is a problem. Although officially, the US admits it has a problem as the VOA article I mentioned about is titled: Experts: Gun Violence Is Public Health Crisis in US.

The DW article goes on:

The EU's home affairs commissioner wrote that one problem with the open-border bloc was "the danger that criminals try to get hold of their guns in the countries with the most lax laws" on gun ownership.

Let's also put out this bit of info:

The annual Small Arms Survey report in 2007 sought to estimate gun ownership per capita around the world. According to these results, Germany had 30.3 registered firearms for every 100 inhabitants – putting it above average in European Union terms, but behind countries like Finland (45.3), Cyprus (36.4) and Sweden (31.6). The US topped the global list by a considerable margin, averaging just under one gun per person, according to the research institute based in Switzerland.

The rule changes which are reported to be under European Commission consideration include revising which guns are eligible for home ownership, tighter regulations for the sale and ownership of antique weapons and air rifles or air pistols, and a possible ban on selling weapons or ammunition on the Internet.

I know the usual excuse is to blame the Second Amendment, but any interpretation that goes against the public welfare goes against the spirit of the constitution (and you don't need to go too far into the document to see that).