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

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.

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

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?

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.

Are you reallly sure you want a gun in the house?

Gun deaths rising among white kids as more families own handguns

Hey, they aren't my kids.

But if you really care about your kids are you sure you want to risk it? Remember that dead is hard to cure if you are willing to chance it.

Still, feel free to collect your Darwin Awards! No, I can't be sympathetic since your kind has shown you don't care about other people's children.

Why should we give a fuck about yours?


Talk about counterproductive though.

Grasping at Straws (or the Pro-gun side really has a problem)

I was trying to find the study that demonstrated using a gun for self-defence is usually counterproductive. Instead of finding that data, I was bombarded with this "Secret CDC Study" that "confirms" The 2-3 Million annual DGU number. It doesn't which is why I am publishing it in full.

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

Odd that most of the people who want to use this fail to quote the title: Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

The reason I call this post what I do is that any person who says this somehow "confirms" the 2-3 million annual DGUs is either dishonest as fuck or illiterate.

This doesn't confirm anything other than gun violence research is not being properly carried out. The fact that the progun side is using this to back up their claims shows that they are really desperate to prove their claim.

Which this doesn't do.

Sorry, but the reason for the research ban was that the facts were against the "pro-gun" side. And it doesn't seem that is going to change looking at how they are using something like this to back up their claims.

The progunners would be better off letting the research happen and let if fall where it may

See also:

• How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?
• Gun deaths rising among white kids as more families own handguns

Murder or self-defence?

Person gets out of a car, or leaves their house, with a loaded gun. There was a stated intent to go after someone who looked "suspicious".

Is it self-defence or murder if the person who "looked suspicious" is killed?

To make it fun, let's use this statute!

Feel free to use this guide to help you come up with something vaguely intelligent should you wish to answer this: open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/4-2-criminal-intent/

BTW, this uses two situations where get away with murder laws were used.  Extra credit for guessing which two situations I am thinking of and their outcomes!

Gun Control Irony

It would be really ironic if instead of all the mass shootings the US has suffered (my condolences to the victims and their families), that the incident that caused people to realise the US needs gun control is an out of control suburban mother fighting over a notebook in a suburban Wal-Mart.

No, pulling a gun in this situation is not self-defence by any stretch of the imagination.  No one was fearing death or serious bodily injury which would justify even the threat of deadly force.

The woman pulling the gun is committing Felony Assault under Michigan law, Section 750.82.

The offense of Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW), is also known as Felonious Assault in Michigan. ADW is felony which is punishable by up to 4 years in prison. ADW is a crime which involves an assault with a deadly weapon (such as a gun or knife) or any other instrumentality which is fashioned or used as a weapon (car, club, bottle) which is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death. A criminal charge or conviction does not require actual physical contact or an injury. The offense is considered complete upon placing another in fear of an assault by a person who possesses a deadly weapon 

Michigan law requires that the defendant "must have honestly and reasonably believed that he or she was in danger of being killed, seriously injured or sexually assaulted" in order to use deadly force.  Additionally, the defendant "may only use as much force as he or she thinks is necessary at the time to protect himself or herself."

While a person may believe he or she had acted in self-defense, the police, prosecutor, judge and jury may disagree.


No shots need to be fired for her to be found guilty.

I'm not sure how the "pro-gun" crowd can defend this action.  I know responsible gun owners don't, but it's time they stepped up to the plate and admitted this shit happens too often with the relaxing of concealed carry law for it to be condoned.

It's time to give Presser v Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886) yet another plug.

One of the many failings of the Heller-McDonald bullshit is that those cases were not cases of first impression, but that post is coming in the future.

See also:

• What Does Brandishing Mean? And Why You Should Never Do It…
• Five Shootings in Seven Days on Tennessee Interstates