Can one peacefully protest while armed?

Something that is annoying me is watching British commentators condemn ICE for shooting Alex Pretti.

My usual question to them is "what would be the reaction of British police if someone showed up at a protest with  a holstered handgun?"

And unlike a lot of people out there: this blog has been pretty consistent about carrying weapons to a protest as being a no-no. 

I'm sorry I can't say too much if Alex Pretti was going to show up with a firearm and get in the way of police. My experience is that is an incredibly bad idea from my long career of dealing with the police in various capacities.

But, as the quote from My Cousin Vinnie goes: "It's your ass not mine."

I know that some jurisdictions make it illegal to carry a weapon during a civil unrest (e.g., 18 Pa.C.S. 6107), which is why I said that I am surprised the real militia (national guard) didn't shoot Kyle Rittenhouse for walking about armed in Kenosha.

I had a manual on protesting from the 1960s which made it clear not to bring weapons to a protest, that I can't find. And there are states which prohibit this activity.

As does common sense.

To quote the Everytown page where I got the graphic:

White supremacists and anti-government extremists have sought to undermine our institutions with armed protests that too often escalate to violence. An 18-month study of 560 events where demonstrators, counter-demonstrators, or other individuals or groups were present and carried or brandished firearms found that at least 18% of these events occurred on the grounds of government facilities, with more than 100 reported at legislative buildings and vote-counting centers. The study also found that armed demonstrations are nearly six times as likely to turn violent or destructive compared to unarmed demonstrations. 

That comes from Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) and Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “Armed Assembly: Guns, Demonstrations, and Political Violence in America,” August 23, 2021.

The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law pretty much agrees with this:

The right to peacefully assemble is enshrined in the First Amendment and has driven political progress in the United States since its founding. While the overwhelming majority of recent protests in the U.S. have been peaceful and have not involved weapons, a growing number have included individuals with firearms—whether participating as protesters, counter-protesting, or claiming to provide security.

Armed individuals undermine protests’ core democratic nature: They intimidate and discourage people from exercising their rights to speech and assembly, and they have interfered with basic democratic processes like voting and lawmaking. Amidst unprecedented political polarization and heightened fears of political violence, the presence of firearms at protests today threatens to be a particularly combustible trend. 

I could quote extensively from that report on how stupid Pretti was for being armed and how counterproductive it was, but he learned that lesson at the cost of his life. It's worth reading. https://www.icnl.org/wp-content/uploads/Guns-at-Protests-Briefer-vf-02.2022.pdf

So, you may not like what I say about Alex Pretti getting shot, but someone needs to toss some cold water on the practise of carrying weapons, particularly firearms, to protests. Pretti was "too soon oldt and too late smart" when it comes to this. And, like Rittenhouse, his heart was in the right place, but his head was up his ass.

Unfortunately, Pretti DID get killed for his ignorance.

See also:

• Protests might be one place you can't carry guns. Slate Magazine

Smile, you're on camera: Facial recognition becomes widespread in London...

I tried to write a post about the differences in US and Europan Union privacy laws which somehow got trashed, but the gist of it is that the US doesn't have strong data protection laws. That means law enforcement is working with the crap data mining services provide.

On the other hand, digital ID these days is biometric and works well with facial recognition.

And immigration services worldwide are using biometrics for law enforcement. 

I would also add in that immigration is tightening up worldwide. So, it feels hypocritical that people outside the US are condemning ICE. Especially since the Schengen Area in Europe fines people 1,000€ a day for overstaying. There is also a possibility of being banned from the Schengen zone.

 

Fortunately, people in the US are too distracted with ICE to notice that they are handing the data miners information. That was an important part of the lost post, a reference to this article: How is ICE tracking people in Minnesota? An expert explains.

It might make more sense to demand strong data protection laws which allow people to control what is private information being sold. Especially since your private information is one of the things making money for big tech.

And helping ICE do its job.

Sheriff warns bystanders...

OK, I've made it clear that you're taking your chances if you bring a weapon of any kind to any form of protest. Something I said in another post on police violence (Defund the Police is Utopian, Misinformed, and Misguided):

OK, the "Gun Violence Prevention" types should be upset about the guns on the street, but they are getting way ahead of where they should be in this process: especially if they are serious about cutting back on how many people patrol the streets. Getting the guns off the streets should be priority number one for the people who are going to float this crazy concept. Not to mention they should be really careful about how they frame the issue in regard to people who carry guns. Guns are not the problem in Europe and most of the rest of the world that they are in the US. 

Acquiring guns illegally in the US is not much harder. About 57% of this year’s deadly force victims to date were allegedly armed with actual, toy or replica guns. American police are primed to expect guns. The specter of gun violence may make them prone to misidentifying or magnifying threats like cellphones and screwdrivers. It may make American policing more dangerous and combat-oriented. It also fosters police cultures that emphasize bravery and aggression.

While people might want to say that Alex Pretti wasn't armed, as that quote points out you're taking your chances having anything in your hands in an encounter with the police.  

But, I'm going to let this sheriff explain this to you and maybe you might not do something stupid which gets you killed.

 

As I said in the other post:

I witnessed the police beating someone resisting arrest. It was about 4-6 police officers on one small, skinny person.

Was it a bunch of white racist cops in the US?

Nope, it was someone who refused to leave a bar on Gandy Street in Exeter, England in 1991. The person who was being beaten was white, as were the police. The issue was that the person was resisting arrest.

Getting in the way of police doing their jobs is taking a serious risk: whether you agree with what they are doing or not.

More militarised police--The Carabinieri

As I said before, Europe has had militarised police for a long time. In this case, the Carabinieri, which has been around longer than the country it serves (remember Italy was only unified in the late 1860s). And don't let the fancy ceremonial uniforms deceive you, the Carabinieri are a very professional police force.

As this video points out, the Carabinieri are loyal to Italy, not a political system. Well, they did support the King as opposed to the fascists. This loyalty led to most Carabinieri joined the resistance!

And while I like GIGN (Groupe d'intervention de la Gendarmerie nationale), GIS (Gruppo Intervento Speciale) are pretty top too. In there with Borstar and Bortac. Sometimes the best special forces units go unnamed.

Quite frankly, I would like to have a militarised force like the Carabinieri around if they put country over politics.

Would the Conservatives who are praising Kyle Rittenhouse have supported the British who shot during the "Boston Massacre"?

 Fair question--especially given that the British were technically the people charged with preserving the peace at the time. Not to mention it seems that the British and colonists were closer than most people realise at that point in the move towards Independence. See this Boston Magazine article.

On the other hand, the use of deadly force was not a first option in self-defence at the time the founders were alive. That meant that the British soldiers would have had to have done all they could to de-escalate or remove themselves from the situation before deadly force would have remotely been acceptable. When I say that, I mean that deadly force would still be unlawful had there been lesser means to have stopped the threat.

I should add that some other nations require that the police and other security forces use the minimum force necessary to stop the threat. I talk about this in Defund the Police is Utopian, Misinformed, and Misguided.

Let's toss in there was a defence:

The statement issued by members of the Sons of Liberty, including Samuel Adams and John Hancock, painted the event as a malicious and unprovoked slaughter. They attest that the Massacre was retribution for a quarrel three nights prior between soldiers and colonists. Captain Preston, the British commander on duty on the night of March 5, was reported to have ordered his men to fire upon the colonists on King Street, "without the least warning."

William Taint, a Bostonian who witnessed but was not directly involved in the events of March, provided testimony during the trial of the British soldiers. He maintains that a group of colonists was gathered outside of the British Customs House when a formation of British soldiers took position outside of the building. Colonists were yelling, "Fire, fire, and be damned," and throwing snowballs at the British soldiers. Taint heard a musket discharge and then the word, "Fire" yelled by an unknown speaker, after which several more shots were fired.

Taint's account differs from that provided by Adams and Hancock in several respects. Firstly, Taint clearly states that the colonists were taunting and throwing snowballs at the soldiers, while Adams and Hancock portray the colonists peacefully going about their business. Taint also brings an element of uncertainty to the question of who yelled, "Fire." The former account clearly states that Captain Preston issued a direct order to fire, while the latter implies that it may just as well have been a colonist who shouted, "Fire."

Captain Preston's testimony during the trial offers a third source of information regarding March 5. He states that his men were protecting the Customs House from theft by the colonists when they were physically and verbally assaulted. While Taint saw only snowballs being hurled at the British, Preston reported that his men were also beaten with clubs. His soldiers responded by firing upon the colonists, later claiming that they heard the command to fire and assumed it came from Preston. Preston blames members of the mob for yelling, "Fire," and (unsurprisingly) denies issuing any such order.

The outcome was Captain Preston was found not guilty. The remaining soldiers claimed self-defense and were all found not guilty of murder. Two of them—Hugh Montgomery and Matthew Kilroy—were found guilty of manslaughter and were branded on the thumbs as first offenders per English law.

See also:

https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-massacre

Guns, CCTV, and the Surveillance State

ADT had an ad almost 30 years ago that compared a handgun to a burglar alarm. It pointed out that the alarm would call the cops while the gun was sitting in a drawer or safe. In other words, the alarm could protect your home when you weren't there.

I've had enough experiences over that period between my private life and my work in the criminal justice system to come to the conclusion that CCTV is much better at stopping, or at least deterring, crime than any firearm. Not to mention much safer: unless you are installing it yourself and you have no idea what you are doing.

Having a firearm is probably more of an advertisement to get robbed than having an alarm or CCTV since you have a valuable commodity (or commodities) to the criminal fraternity.

As the gun crowd likes to point out: criminals don't respect the law. And how else are they going to get their guns other than breaking the law?

CCTV images of 2011 UK Rioters

On the other hand, CCTV does indeed stop crime. Likewise, the footage can be stored remotely and shared. Mine is hi-def quality and stored for a month. Any clip I make is stored until I delete it. The best part is that I don't need to be at home for the camera to work since the product is stored on the internet. I can be anywhere there is internet access and flip through the footage. I can share the clip with the law enforcement using a link.

I would also add that my clips use facial recognition. Which is actually sophisticated enough that it can catch someone trying to obscure their face.

And, yes, I have shared my video with LE since my camera is registered with the local police.

While some people may believe that CCTV isn't that much of a deterrent, especially if used by the government, that isn't the case when individuals share the information between themselves and/or law enforcement. Also, the issue about "government intrusion" can be limited if the CCTV info comes from individuals instead of the government or business.

Anyway, CCTV is definitely a crime solver and deterrent where I actually live with quite a few high profile cases being solved using CCTV information. The reason I'm posting this is that my footage has helped apprehend a criminal even though I wasn't home at the time.

The real issue is whether the prosecution want to use CCTV information. Compare the UK's use of CCTV after the 2011 and that of in the US to catch the "peaceful protesters". With the exception of the person who set fire to the police car in Philly, most of the protesters have gotten away with it due to prosecutorial inaction.

The issue is that the surveillance economy is already here. We may as well make it work for the benefit of society.

See also:

• Case Study: CCTV and the London Riots
• London riots: Most wanted suspect CCTV images released
  

BIG BRUTHA IS WATCHING YOU!

OK, the utopians not only want  to rid society of guns, they also want to get rid of the police. Crime will be solved by social programs which ensure equality by providing housing, health care, social services, and lord knows what. Probably drugs will be legal and freely available so that the population is properly drugged up and docile.

Crime suddenly disappears making the police something which a utopian society no longer needs.

Not really. Even utopian ideologies such as anarchy believe in order, but the order comes from people knowing the rules and respecting them. Utopian societies don't exist, but they would be much more "authoritarian" in reality if they did. You don't need the cops because you know the rules and follow them. Otherwise, you do some public self-criticism about your failure to be a good citizen.

But that isn't really my point here since the distopian reality is already here: the surveillance state.

You don't need cops on the street, or even a highly visible force, since the people doing the policing are sitting in some room. They probably don't need to be too attentive either since facial recognition software can keep tracks on people.

The real solution to the police problem is the surveillance state.

And it's already here. To the point I've been tempted to write a post called "Why are you here? Really?" about how social media, which includes Google make their money on surveillance. Trump could have had a field day if he went into how big tech, especially social media, make their money.

And people gladly hand them the info.

But you don't need to have rooms full of monitors to have a surveillance state. All one needs to do is set up a clearing house for the information which is collected by individuals. That doorbell cam can help solve crimes.

I know mine has and I haven't been "home" most of the time.

The surveillance state's neighbourhood watch never sleeps. Even better you don't need to worry about it being brutal. People walk by the eyes of the state blissfully ignorant that they are under observation until the moment they act up.

People might get upset about facial recognition, but how do they feel about it after it helps apprehend the person engaging in sexual assaults in their neighbourhood?

Defunding the police will result in something much more sinister. Hell, it's already here!

A disclaimer: I believe in some of those social programs, but am under no illusion they will be the sole answer to crime.

Defund the Police is Utopian, Misinformed, and Misguided

I witnessed the police beating someone resisting arrest. It was about 4-6 police officers on one small, skinny person.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20190104-1

Was it a bunch of white racist cops in the US?

Nope, it was someone who refused to leave a bar on Gandy Street in Exeter, England in 1991. The person who was being beaten was white, as were the police. The issue was that the person was resisting arrest.

This is why I say "Defund the Police" is misinformed. It is based on pretty much upon ignorance since the police will use force on someone who is resisting arrest no matter where one happens to be in the world.

The Atlantic sort of gets the point as to a couple of issues which help explain why the US is "more violent" than Europe:

The morbid exceptionalism of American police violence cannot be explained by the amount of money the U.S. spends on police, or by the number of cops it employs. The U.S. spends less on police than the European Union does, as a share of GDP. Italy has more officers per capita than any state in the U.S., according to a comparison of FBI and Eurostat databases. Greece has more officers per person than Newark, New Jersey; Baltimore; and Chicago.

But none of those places shares our epidemic of police violence. American police kill about 1,000 people every year. Adjusted for population, that body count is five times higher than that in Sweden, 30 times higher than that in Germany, and 100 times higher than that in the United Kingdom.

Many differences between the U.S. and the European Union can partly explain these gaps, including our history of systemic racism and our porous social safety net. But without the mention of guns, no explanation for America’s record of police violence is complete.

OK, the "Gun Violence Prevention" types should be upset about the guns on the street, but they are getting way ahead of where they should be in this process: especially if they are serious about cutting back on how many people patrol the streets. Getting the guns off the streets should be priority number one for the people who are going to float this crazy concept. Not to mention they should be really careful about how they frame the issue in regard to people who carry guns.

Guns are not the problem in Europe and most of the rest of the world that they are in the US.

Acquiring guns illegally in the US is not much harder. About 57% of this year’s deadly force victims to date were allegedly armed with actual, toy or replica guns. American police are primed to expect guns. The specter of gun violence may make them prone to misidentifying or magnifying threats like cellphones and screwdrivers. It may make American policing more dangerous and combat-oriented. It also fosters police cultures that emphasize bravery and aggression.

But the biggest issue is the legal framework regarding the use of deadly force in self-defence in the US. Let's go beyond the enhanced castle doctrine/stand your ground laws to get to the amount of force police are allowed to use in the US and EU. 

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), was a US Supreme Court case regarding the use of deadly force by the police. Graham can be boiled down to:

Any use of force by law enforcement officers needs to take into account "severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

"The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."

"The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."

Bottom line is that it is constitutionally permissible for police to use deadly force when they “reasonably” perceive imminent and grave harm. There are 38 State laws regulating deadly force which are almost always as permissive as Supreme Court precedent allows. Sometimes those laws are even more permissive than the federal law  in the latitude they give officers to use deadly force.

Contrast that to the European Union where the European Convention on Human Rights allows police to use only the deadly force that is “absolutely necessary.” In contrast, police in the United States are permitted if they have a “reasonable belief” that their lives are in danger. Under these differing principles, a police shooting might be lawful in the United States and not according to European standards.

Add in that European Union countries set their own regulations within the commission’s framework. Similar to the US some countries have stricter rules than others in regard to the application of that framework. Again, we see a difference between the US and EU attitudes toward the use of deadly force by the police. In Finland, for example, a cop is expected if possible to seek a superior’s approval before using deadly force. In Spain, if possible the police officer must first fire a warning shot and shoot at a non-vital part of the body before they can shoot to kill. Those examples were not meant to advocate attempting to shoot a "non-vital part of the body".

Likewise, racism alone can’t explain why non-Latino white Americans are 26 times

more likely to die by police gunfire than Germans. And racism alone doesn’t explain why states like Montana, West Virginia and Wyoming, where both perpetrators and victims of deadly force are almost always white, exhibit relatively high rates of police lethality. I would add that the Guardian feature on people killed by the police showed that (1) more whites were killed, but (2) the population most effected by police violence was native americans (10.13 to blacks at 6.66)!

One other thing which is common in European, and other non-US forces, is that they are not locally controlled. One of the reforms in Belgian Policing after 2001 was that the forces were reformed into to different national branches. Most European Police departments are accountable to a national body.

The bottom line is that simply saying "defund the police" will be a failure until there are drastic changes in US society, which I don't see happening. Those are the enactment of effective gun regulations and a change in the standard for the application of deadly force in self-defence.

Two thing that the "gun violence prevention" crowd and "Black Lives Matter" would be well advised to spend their time addressing. Otherwise, they are acting against their stated interests.

See also:

• Understanding Graham v Connor
• Why American Cops Kill So Many Compared To European Cops
  
• The Counted: People Killed by the Police Counted by the Guardian
  

I get self-defence, especially when people talk about "defunding the police"

I did a couple of posts titled "Cringeworthy, But Understandable" about Patricia and Mark McCloskey, the couple who defended their home in a gated community against BLM trespassers with an AR-15. Almost two months later, Kyle Rittenhouse goes to Kenosha, WI in a completely misguided and illegal act to travel to a city that was suffering from "unrest" caused by "peaceful protests".

Straight off, what Rittenhouse did was not only illegal, but totally wrong.

On the other hand, I get why he would do it. 

What a lot of people who want to "defund the police" don't get is that one of the purposes of a government is to provide order. It isn't stated  in the US Constitution as openly as this is in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen Article 12 states:.

The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

The US Constitution talks about the common defence, suppressing insurrection, and "domestic violence". But the constitution makes it clear that the militia is supposed to be the body that is the one suppressing insurrection (Article I section 8, clause 15), but that body is the one authorised by congress (Article I section 8, clause 15 and Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 [1886]). The Second Amendment does not create the militia, it only ensures its existence. 

The issue is who is going to keep the order if the police or militia/national guard aren't doing that job? Or at least it looks as if they aren't able to do that job.

What makes me different from a lot of other people on the left is that I believe in the military and the police. They are necessary evils. But they are evils which, as was stated in the literature surrounding the Second Amendment and US Constitution's drafting need to be "in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power".

This is why a strong government should have a police force which is accountable, but probably not to the court of public opinion. 

I wonder if a lot of the cheering for the verdict in the Chauvin trial is like that from Greg Gutfeld:

The verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial is a great relief. I say that for cynical, sad, selfish reasons, because I knew that if it went the other way, my city would have been in flames. I know Chauvin is guilty, but I wonder if it's normal for a country to be so worried about unrest no matter what the outcome of a trial is. I know I was, because I've seen this before.

I wasn't sure about Greg Gutfeld, but I get him even if we are politically opposites. I could probably have a discussion with him without wanting to punch him out, but there would be a lot of shouting.

But, Greg says what's on his mind, and so do I, which is why I like him. I'm not going to wear kinte cloth, get on my knee, and virtue signal: I'm going to say what I think. 

Or know.

And the BLM thing has sold way more guns and is far more counterproductive than productive. (Hey Greg, move to Philly where you can own an AR-15).

Patrisse Khan Cullors goes and buys a few couple of million dollar houses in white neighbourhoods. She's a Groucho Marxist if she is one at all. But it shows how hypocritical the BLM crowd happens to be. She's destroying the people she claims to want to believe in.

Sadly, we've normalized the threat of violence as a method to exact justice. After an event occurs, mayhem is now like a weather pattern -- "74% chance of arson, 90% chance of assault. Better board up those windows." Worse, our acceptance of anarchy has made it a wonderful opportunity for looters to step in and decry racial injustice by stealing a rack of expensive jackets.

So when something like the Chauvin story comes along, it's not just about justice. It's about how we process information, how we process our anger, and truth. If justice is predicated on a sense that mayhem can and will occur if it doesn't go a certain way, then we're all screwed for good.

Yep. What happened wasn't good, but I don't think we will have a serious discussion of this issue.

Unless more Kyle Rittenhouses come out of the woodwork to fill the vacuum. Is that what people want?

Life taking a cue from Art

In this case Nancy Pelosi doing her version of the Q&A in the Black Church segment from the film Bulworth.

The clip from the film

The movie clip is actually closer to how the "Democratic" party uses identity politics to try and drum up votes. The irony is that the Creepy Joe-Horrible Harris ticket was a major fuck you to the people who they claim to support. Briahna Joy Gray to explain this.

Nothing like a nice show trial instead of actual political action and discussion.

More thoughts on the Derek Chauvin verdict

OK, the popular line is that "I support the police, but Derek Chauvin was a rogue cop."

I'm not sure if they watched the entire video of the arrest since George Floyd was actively resisting arrest. And there's an interesting take that none of the bystanders tried to step in to protect Floyd's life.

And there was Fetanyl and other drugs in Floyd's system. People ignore that this is a dangerous drug. The RAND think tank calls it the most dangerous drug in the US. Fetanyl is a highly lethal drug, which was one of the many things that the defence should have pointed out. Especially since the amount in Floyd's body was well into lethal levels from what I heard.

That's what "reasonable doubt" is about. Is there enough of a doubt that Chauvin's actions were the cause for Floyd's death? Maybe the defence didn't want to chance it, but perhaps pursuing that line of inquiry would have resulted in a different outcome.

On the other hand, the climate was such that the Judge commented that Chauvin might have a good chance of winning on appeal. That's the outcome I expect to see to this. Chauvin's conviction will be overturned on appeal and he will be quietly acquitted.

The real place where this should be tried is in the criminal justice system, not the court of public opinion. The fact that this was a political football surrounded by riots removed any objectivity from the matter. In fact, the politics surrounding this will make this a travesty if people want to see any sense of "order".

Police forces were already seeing officers leaving and having problems with recruitment. It's going to get harder and harder to find decent people who will want to do the job for the salary they get.

I'd rather have a Derek Chauvin doing his job than someone like a Kyle Rittenhouse stepping in because there is no police. The US may learn the lesson of the Murray Hill Riot the hard way.

The Verdict is in

 And it's bad.

I wonder if the people cheering that Derek Chauvin was found guilty will be happy if police forces start having problems with recruiting and retention. Will cops move on to forces that are more supportive, or just go to different jobs. What will be the future of policing?

They need to look to the North and Montreal to learn the lesson of the 1969 Police Strike, otherwise known as the Murray Hill Riot. 

I would also add that regulating firearms has taken a major strike since people will be even more prone to buying guns for protection. 

The gun control crowd should have had a serious think before they started supporting people who carry guns and threaten people over the police. I know the law and I know when one can use deadly force if threatened, but cops put their lives on the line on a regular basis. Case in point this video:

The issue is that the police put their lives on the line to protect people. Their motto is to protect and serve.

Yes, they should be put on trial if they use excessive force, but remember that there are people out there who would kill the police for doing their jobs.

So, temper your joy in the outcome of this verdict.

And for the "Gun Violence Prevention" types, you either want to get guns off the streets and out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, or realise that you are acting against your interests by supporting the gun carriers, such as Daunte Wright, Adam Toledo, Breonna Taylor, Alton Sterling, Tony McDade, Philando Castile, and other people who are alleged to have been in possession of firearms when stopped by the police.

You either want the guns off the street or need to shut the fuck up when people feel the need to own guns for personal defence.

I want the guns off the street and out of the hands of criminals.

The Ultimate Slam Dunk argument against reparations

I am not a fan of reparations. And I have had enough "black history" to know that the "four hundred years of slavery" is sheer bullshit. Let's start with 1619 as being the beginning date and end with "Juneteenth" in 1865, even though those slaves had been legally free since the Emancipation Declaration in 1863. That's 246 years.

And 155 years ago. And no one is that old.

The years after emancipation saw blacks move from the South in the Great Migration. Blacks had businesses and did well. And some blacks moved west. Some of them even joined the US military.

Which is where this is going to.

Ever hear of the Buffalo Soldiers?

Several African-American regiments were raised during the Civil War as part of the Union Army (including the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry and the many United States Colored Troops Regiments), the "Buffalo Soldiers" were established by Congress as the first peacetime all-black regiments in the regular U.S. Army. Buffalo Soldiers originally were members of the 10th Cavalry Regiment of the United States Army, formed on September 21, 1866, at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The Buffalo Soldiers were a fairly significant part of the post-Civil War US Army. Buffalo Soldiers comprised 12% of the U.S. Army infantry force and 20% of the cavalry force during the time of the Indian Wars f(1866 to 1891).

And one that engaged in the ethnic cleansing of the first nations during the "Indian Wars".

Now, if you are going to call me racist because of one cop in a place I have never been, then I have to tell you that you are guilty of the ethnic cleansing of the US Native American from their land. You also engaged in the Imperialist Spanish American War and Pancho Villa's rebellion.

If I am guilty, then you are guilty.

So, get in line because you ain't getting your payout until the Native Americans get their more than well deserved reparations. Native American women are disappearing while you are chanting "Black Lives Matter". Their sacred water is being polluted. Yet no one is bending a knee for the Native Americans.

Missouri has a "stand your ground law" (Or Cingeworthy, but understandable Part II)

In Missouri, you also have a right to protect yourself if you’re in imminent threat of deadly harm if you have a legal right to be in a location. Missouri allows you to defend yourself with the use of deadly force if you’re under imminent threat of deadly force, without a duty to retreat in public. Even more so if you are at your home.

Now, wouldn't a mob of defiant and destructive trespassers on their property count as a threat of  deadly harm given that Patricia and Mark McCloskey were at their home in a gated community and that gate had been destroyed?

Missouri's has a Castle Doctrine law and these guns were lawfully possessed.  The law states, in subsection 3,  that deadly force cannot be used unless “[s]uch force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual.” However, no lethal force was used here. It was threatened.

Last I checked: trespassing was a crime in most jurisdictions. That means the protesters are shit out of luck the moment they crossed the gate and violated the country code (sarcasm).

It sounds pretty cut and dried that the McCloskeys have a defence there. While Missouri's law may be an affirmative defence, the McCloskeys were in their home. They were also facing off a mob. I would add that a person who is deemed to be the aggressor in a confrontation that turns deadly is not eligible to raise a “stand your ground” defence.

I'm not a fan of these laws. I would also add that Black Lives Matter should have placed their efforts in trying to repeal these laws.

On the other hand, it would have been ironic had Stand Your Ground been used to protect someone who had shot defiant Black Lives Matter protesters. But that is lost on the people who are virtue signalling in these protests.

Cringworthy, but understandable

Article 12 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen states:.

The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

What that means in regard to any civilised and functional society is that the government has an obligation to provide public order through a force created for that purpose: e.g., the police. That is not a privilege, Lisa Bender, it is a right. It is also the obligation of ANY governmental body. The inability to provide for public order is one of the definitions of a failed state.

A friend's picture of her view of Dilworth Plaza.

People have been arming themselves in order to provide for the lack of public security currently given by the state. Not only are firearms being snapped up, but so are tear gas grenades! The people who don't understand this phenomenon are blissfully away from where the destruction happens: not across the street from it.

I am not surprised to see Patricia and Mark McCloskey defending their St. Louis home. Yes, it may be expensive (although a house like that would be infinitely more expensive on the coasts), but the cost isn't the issue. It is their home; whether it is a humble shack or a palatial mansion.

I would add that they may have appeared cringeworthy, but they were acting in defence of their home. There are less drastic methods of mob control: for example tear gas grenades are available in some jurisdictions. People have already begun to arm themselves in self-defence because of the lack of a public force to provide order, or that force is being overworked.

Violent protests are counterproductive if one wishes to see a change in how that force is used. While people may not come out and say they support the police, they know that force is a necessity for public order. I would also add that getting rid of the public force will mean that there will ultimately be a private substitute.

Patricia and Mark McCloskey were the first, but they are far from the last. People shouldn't be laughing since this is serious.

Armed gunman? Call in the social worker!

Seriously! What the fuck is with people? Do they think that some "community based solution will work in this type of situation?

The Police and Military are necessary whether people like it or not.