Guns and Protests

[BAM-BAM]

FWIW the woman was stupid.........................

Is it legal to open carry in that state? She did not draw or brandish the weapon.
She appears to touch the gun but did not appear to have a "draw grip"
Assuming this took place on "public property"
That said, putting on a yellow vest that says "Security" doesn't make you law enforcement or give you the right to assault an individual.

A real FUBAR situation IMHO

Police were right to remove her from Dodge!

 

[jaguargolf]

Like my mother used to say:

"If you go looking for trouble, you are sure to find it."

 

[jschmidt]

Retracted

 

[Grayfox]

I fully agree that as Americans we have the right to peacefully protest. However, bear in mind that the whole purpose of a protest is to stir things up. Even if it stays peaceful, the people there will be loud, rowdy and worked up. A touchy situation at best.
I seriously doubt that I will ever go to a protest. If I do, I sure as hell won't be armed. That's just stupid.

 

[65-2x2]

And if you can hit at 50 you darn sure can at 10-the reverse is NOT true..

I was at a training, where the instructor had us shoot a (paper) target at about one foot. I found it discombobulating.

 

[biku324]

I'm hard-core about this. Only police and state certified & bonded armed security (these last for nearby businesses and facilities) should be 'peacekeeping' around protests and demonstrations. Dealing with cranky crowds is no job for volunteers or amateurs.

 

[jschmidt]

Not even close to being a good comparison.

Seems pretty on-point to me.

 

[Law-dog]

It’s an imperfect system, that’s for sure. Hopefully the family of the victim does not go after them, but that is a big if.

It’s a sad state of affairs that we should have to worry about individual nut cases, shooting up anything, but that’s the world we live in.

You are very, very off base on this one. A guy went to a protest to participate or watch or just be in a place he legally had a place to be.

A group of people, an organized political activation group, planned and invited everyone to come and participate in this protest, trying to get as many people involved in their political message as possible.

Like any group setting up a massive protest the organizers of that large gathering have certain legal obligations that apply to any mass meeting. More so on this one because they plan to take over public property, occupy it, and keep the normal public out of that area for as long as they choose. That means they will take away common use of public streets, sidewalks and even alleyways will be controlled by this political action group.

This group decided to arm some of their staff as security, that is to have available shooters whose job was to kill any active shooters. We have no idea what private decisions they made as to use of force policy. When law enforcement or military is involved there is always a policy on shooting. We assume, because we do not know, that these designated shooters are law enforcement or military trained sniper types and will take action to stop an active shooter just like law enforcement would.

In the defense of public events, we call upon security forces to use less lethal force, rubber bullets, gas, whatever for control of otherwise violent people. Choices narrow when a gun is seen. As to open carry at a protest. The moment your gun prints or is seen, you are seen as an obvious threat and if I am scene commander, you become the number 1 threat on the field and my snipers will be waiting for any action by you to touch that gun. Much like here, the gun comes out the guy is shot.

This case is not about that. It is about the negligent killing of a person who just exercised his right to be there. The family of the dead will go after the person who killed an innocent man and the political group who organized this group.


As an attorney, I see this an ez case. The guys who killed the innocent man will be my best witnesses. They will testify that the political group did not have enough people on staff to prevent such an event, we know that because no security staff was close to the guy with the AR.

The organizers may not have had any obligation to provide snipers as security, but they did hire snipers as security and once you take on that role, you own it. Then your actions about controlling your snipers becomes your obligation. Then it gets goofy. I will be asking the 2 snipers, why they did not use frangible ammo. They will not have a good answer for that. I only need one guy on the jury to understand that concept, he will explain it to others on the jury.

In the world today, any time you kill somebody else without lawful reason, you should expect to pay for what you have done. A bullet getting away from your planned target is usually negligence. The dead guy and his family has lost his income for life, his kids have lost his support, they have lost his contribution to his college and so on. Courts decide who gets to repay him/his family for that lost income and lifestyle his family no longer has. A private outfit, a political action group hired this sniper. Liability will include that sniper and everybody in that political action group that set this into motion. It is a matter of fundamental fairness and equal justice. You cannot blame some guy for just going to a protest, he did not go there to get killed by private snipers. And that is how a jury will see it, pretty simple as lawsuits go.

 

[rwsmith]

I don't want anybody to know I'm armed and I believe that is the right attitude. Phil Spector carried a gun soley for the purpose of intimidating people, and I'll bet he never intended to actually USE it. But of course he did, ended one life and spent the rest of his in prison. A gun is NOT a persuasion device.

 

[Law-dog]

In Vietnam, US military jets accidentally dropped napalm on US troops...what should have been done about that? Execute the pilots?

This is not about friendly fire. This is about private snipers hired by a private political action group. The political action group and the sniper will certainly get a fair trial, that is our system. They killed a guy. An innocent guy, somebody is accountable, usually the shooter and the people that hired them and controlled their shooting decisions and including the weapons that were used, simple as that in America.

 

[Law-dog]

Your conclusion, my conclusion doesn't mean a thing. The conclusion in both a criminal and civil court by a jury who have been presented with viable opposing facts is what matters.

"He was a First Class boy scout with a interest in law enforcement as his only ambition, to help others."
"He rescued injured puppies and nurtured them back to health."
"He always helped old Mrs Smith with her groceries! "

How much will all those lawyers cost? This is reality in the system. How many times have you testified in court as an expert witness? An arresting officer, based on ____ years of experience? Questioned by a highly paid landshark lawyer? Then it gets judged by 12 honest jurors who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.

If I were the lawyer on that case, I would probably take that case on a contingency, probably 1/4 or 1/3, the only cost to the family would be expert witnesses but there would not be much cost to the family. If we happen to get punitive damages, from the political action group, that usually is 3 times the jury award. And these are likely. Because political action committees are not ran by professional people and do not have safeguards in place. they are about emotion and creating anxiety and moving people to action. So, they hire minimal security, in this case, a couple of snipers. And that is exactly how they will be presented to the jury.
The


The defense will always blame the mass shooter, but then of course, he did not shoot anyone. And that does not excuse a negligent killing. Just saying, don't shoot other people unless they are shooting at you.

 

[Neumann]

A 50 yard shot with a red dot sight is roughly equivalent to 10 yards with iron sights.

 

[Lt.Donn]

Here’s a perfect example of doing it wrong:


, Video of Karen at a No Kings Protest
Notice a few things. First, it’s extremely open. Second, she’s not carrying it for protection or self-defense- she’s counter-protesting, trying to disrupt the crowd. She’s surrounded, with multiple people in close. Third, the firearm here is her talisman- notice how she grabs for it when she evidently loses an argument or gets frustrated? Either way, her “obey me I’m armed!” Karen becomes a lethal threat to everyone around her, because she’s an idiot trying to introduce a firearm to an argument. Hence the swarm-and-drop, for which she’s lucky…what if she clears Kydex? If you’re carrying, do you draw on her when she draws to (presumably) light people up for disagreement?

Fourth, this is a classic example of carrying “at” someone- the pistol is a fashion statement intended as a threat and a declaration, not a serious tool. Retention, access and even possession are all horribly ignored here- if this were a rowdy crowd, it’s very easy to see her holster simply getting ripped away, gun and all.

Without stoking political tensions, this is exactly what those last few threads should have been more about. There is absolutely a legitimate reason to carry at a protest or in public, especially in a world where Karens and Keiths are taking their Magic Speaking Rock Sigs into protests to make themselves heard or just trying to crowd-surf their F-350s. But doing it with larger guns, visibly, etc very rapidly puts you on the side of **someone**…be it a self-appointed “guardian”, the cops, counter-protesters, etc. That’s usually a silly thing to do.

In this case, it immediately identifies Karen as a threat to pretty much everyone because she’s got gun-touchy hands, a visible weapon, agitation and strong Karen vibes. No bueno. When we see people bragging about carrying semi-concealed or openly, remember, attitude and your choices matter way more than ammo capacity, caliber or any hardware.

IMO, these are the perfect times for a concealed IWB 1911, revolver or similar that you can hide readily in a good, well-retained holster and more importantly avoid being swarmed or boxed in…and not touch unless absolutely necessary.

I agree there "is a legitimate reason to carry at a protest"...however IMHO it is better to Not attend at all...When I was instructing, frequent questions were; if I knew I was going to be in a gunfight, what equipment would I carry--- my answer was always.." if I knew in advance, I would not show up"...I know many folks choose to attend such events, and that is certainly their right...but as for me, I don't have a dog in the fight, so I choose to stay away ..but YMMV

 

[Rocketmedic40]

I'm hard-core about this. Only police and state certified & bonded armed security (these last for nearby businesses and facilities) should be 'peacekeeping' around protests and demonstrations. Dealing with cranky crowds is no job for volunteers or amateurs.

Conceptually I’d like to agree, but what do you do when the police are either apathetic, focused on the crowd as the threat (not protecting it) or even worse actively hostile to the protest?

Remember, just last week, we had a Republican sheriff in Florida literally threatening to execute protesters if the police perceived violence towards themselves. I don’t think we can count on law enforcement being there to protect and serve.

Also, it doesn’t appear these were snipers; it seems they were more like marshals (in the broadest sense of the term) armed with handguns, not rifles with optics and a prepared position for overwatch. They reportedly saw the shooter duck away in a suspicious manner and pull a rifle out, which of course is a massive threat. They then engaged him as he ran toward the protest, hit him and one civilian, and the shooter then tried to blend in before someone else put the pieces together.

Also worth noting that despite a heavy LE presence, LE was totally ignorant of the initial engagement. Proof no one can be everywhere.

 

[Lance Boyle]

Conceptually I’d like to agree, but what do you do when the police are either apathetic, focused on the crowd as the threat (not protecting it) or even worse actively hostile to the protest?

Remember, just last week, we had a Republican sheriff in Florida literally threatening to execute protesters if the police perceived violence towards themselves. I don’t think we can count on law enforcement being there to protect and serve.

Also, it doesn’t appear these were snipers; it seems they were more like marshals (in the broadest sense of the term) armed with handguns, not rifles with optics and a prepared position for overwatch. They reportedly saw the shooter duck away in a suspicious manner and pull a rifle out, which of course is a massive threat. They then engaged him as he ran toward the protest, hit him and one civilian, and the shooter then tried to blend in before someone else put the pieces together.

Also worth noting that despite a heavy LE presence, LE was totally ignorant of the initial engagement. Proof no one can be everywhere.

I am not ready to buy the story as fact yet. Antifa agitator types all around. Those are you witnesses. Is the alleged attempted mass shooter that or another larper security wannabe who sees these guys with guns carried so he decides to go assemble is rifle to decorate himself too. Did he really run at the crowd in a menacing way? or did he not like get confronted by the event security and decided to just non comply and boogie away thinking he’d de-escalate that way.

Without video one way or the other it’s subjective. Frankly I don’t trust the event people to be truthful witnesses. I saw one report that post shooting they did a quick huddle with other event staff. I would not be surprised that those are your witnesses. It’s what they do. Interesting that one of the security decides to go guns hot and the other does not see to do the same. Could be reasons like he didn’t apwant to hit an innocent in the line of fire or he did not see cause at that time.

I have no dog in this show, 25 plus years civilian LE and prior military police. I trust none of these types nor the media.

Was the kooky looking dude out for homicide, looking for a false flag event presuming he was going to get away? He was an anarchist from what I gather from his snippets of internet presence. He was one of them as far as ai was concerned.

Really the only guy I give an innocent pass to is the poor fellow that caught the lethal round.

 

[Shibadog]

Anyone that goes anywhere near one of these "protests" is looking for trouble and deserves any they get. Fools go where angels fear to tread, or something like that. I don't know the exact quote.

I think it’s “Fools rush in where wise men never go”

 

[Smoke]

Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread. Alexander Pope. "Essays On Criticism" 1709

 

[65-2x2]

I am not ready to buy the story as fact yet. Antifa agitator types all around. Those are you witnesses. Is the alleged attempted mass shooter that or another larper security wannabe who sees these guys with guns carried so he decides to go assemble is rifle to decorate himself too. Did he really run at the crowd in a menacing way? or did he not like get confronted by the event security and decided to just non comply and boogie away thinking he’d de-escalate that way.

Without video one way or the other it’s subjective. Frankly I don’t trust the event people to be truthful witnesses. I saw one report that post shooting they did a quick huddle with other event staff. I would not be surprised that those are your witnesses. It’s what they do. Interesting that one of the security decides to go guns hot and the other does not see to do the same. Could be reasons like he didn’t apwant to hit an innocent in the line of fire or he did not see cause at that time.

I have no dog in this show, 25 plus years civilian LE and prior military police. I trust none of these types nor the media.

Was the kooky looking dude out for homicide, looking for a false flag event presuming he was going to get away? He was an anarchist from what I gather from his snippets of internet presence. He was one of them as far as ai was concerned.

Really the only guy I give an innocent pass to is the poor fellow that caught the lethal round.

What exactly is an "Antifa type?"

 

[326MOD10]

It is my understanding the group that sponsored these protest did have "peacekeepers" in place but did not hire armed guards to be there.

It was reported that they asked everyone, staff and protesters, to not bring firearms.

But the person who fired at the rifle guy that resulted in the death of the innocent guy chose to do otherwise.

My guess is all of what really happened will wash out in the civil trial.

 

[Lance Boyle]

What exactly is an "Antifa type?"

Your anarchists, whether commie agitators or not. They want to burn it all down if it isn’t obvious.