Protecting the community

[DeepSouth]

In the thread (I didn’t want to derail) on the Rittenhouse trial there seems to be a presumption by some that protecting one’s community is legal, it is possible the presumption could be its right no matter the legally. I just wonder if it’s true, legally.

It got me to thinking, last year during the riots the rumor started that “they” were going to the county seat of the county next to ours to remove a statue from the courthouse square.

Armed citizens gathered at said courthouse that weekend, I was told there were 30-50 of them at any given time. The bus that was supposedly coming either never came or decided to keep on rolling.
They also have a “pawn and gun” that was protected by about 10-12 other armed men, now this is a small town, probably 2000 in population.

I even know people from my county that went over there to “help” (they’d be some of them NRA nut cases that people don’t want to admit exist, different story, sorry) .

Most of these people weren’t necessarily looking for a fight but they were expecting and prepared for one. It seems like it would difficult to plead self defense if you did end up using force.

I know there are plenty of limits on protecting MY property, so it seems protecting others property, or one’s community, would really be getting into the weeds.


Disclaimer: I personally don’t go places if I expect violence to break out, just a general rule for self preservation, I’ll leave that to people braver than me, like peace officers and military folks. YMMV

 

[AlexanderA]

"Protecting the community" is the province of the properly-constituted authorities, such as the police or the National Guard. Presser v. Illinois (1886) held that there was no right to form an organized militia outside of state sanction.

Self defense extends to protecting oneself, one's family, and -- maybe -- some neighbors if they are under immediate threat. Anything beyond that, especially if undertaken collectively, sounds like the formation of an unauthorized militia. And vigilantism.

The whole idea of a "state" is that it's an entity that has a monopoly on force. No state is going to tolerate a rival armed group within its borders.

 

[browneu]

The whole protecting the community brings back memories of the roof Koreans in the Rodney King riots.

 

[Bazoo]

I think the protecting of communities is fine as long as no one gets killed. But, as soon as there is a confrontation that ends in gunfire, it is going to be viewed badly. Legally you're probably going to be in deep trouble if you contribute. Traveling yonder and standing guard with a mean look isn't against the law I don't think. But if you then get into a gunfight, your motives are going to be questioned.

Please direct me to threads pertaining to "(they’d be some of them NRA nut cases that people don’t want to admit exist, different story, sorry) "
I resemble that remark.

 

[The Glockodile]

"You know, the other problem is holding a member meeting without an exhibit hall. The people you are most likely to get in that member meeting without an exhibit hall are the nuts," says LaPierre.

"Made that point earlier. I agree," says Makris. "The fruitcakes are going to show up."

Says Hammer: "If you pull down the exhibit hall, that's not going to leave anything for the media except the members meeting, and you're going to have the wackos ... with all kinds of crazy resolutions, with all kinds of, of dressing like a bunch of hillbillies and idiots. And, and it's gonna, it's gonna be the worst thing you can imagine."

Maybe the “fruitcakes” they were referring to here?

Maybe, not really sure.

 

[lsudave]

"Protecting the community" is the province of the properly-constituted authorities, such as the police or the National Guard. Presser v. Illinois (1886) held that there was no right to form an organized militia outside of state sanction.

Self defense extends to protecting oneself, one's family, and -- maybe -- some neighbors if they are under immediate threat. Anything beyond that, especially if undertaken collectively, sounds like the formation of an unauthorized militia. And vigilantism.

The whole idea of a "state" is that it's an entity that has a monopoly on force. No state is going to tolerate a rival armed group within its borders.

The distressing thing is that the "state" appears to have abdicated it's responsibilities over the past couple years. They have allowed lawless mobs to riot and destroy without opposition. We've seen that go on in several cities, until finally we get the situation we got in Kenosha- a frustrated populace, doubting (rightfully) that the local police forces (and National Guard, if need be) will raise a pinky to defend their property and livelihood, choose to take it on themselves.

 

[Telum Pisces]

In today's society, you are expected to "protect" society in one way and not in another! It's all in how you perceive protecting what part of society.

You are expected to do this or that to protect your neighbor, but not another action. And who or what you protect depends on who's telling you to do the protecting. Is it the state, government, or other leader telling you to do this or that?

I for one look out for myself and my family. If I deem it necessary to protect something out there not closely held, it's going to be because I think it's worth it and the result will benefit my family.

 

[GEM]

The basis of pointing guns for SD, protecting property, the definitions of citizen's arrest and appropriate levels of force is being re-examined in legal journals given the new phenomena of open carry of AR level guns and the failure of government to stop disturbances quickly. If you like to get into the weeks, search for:

Ferzan, Kimberly Kessler, "Taking Aim at Pointing Guns? Start with Citizen’s Arrest, Not Stand Your
Ground:
A Reply to Joseph Blocher, Samuel W. Buell, Jacob D. Charles, and Darrell A.H. Miller, Pointing
Guns, 99 Texas L. Rev. 1173 (2021)" (2021). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 2704.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2704

Read the Ferzan and the Blocker articles.

Standard analyses have been that lethal force to protect property hasn't been looked at favorably. See:
Killing in Self-Defence (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice)
by Fiona Leverick | Feb 8, 2007

It's a deep dive and a technical law book but a good read. Exceptions have been when the property itself was crucial to maintain life (steal my cattle or medicine that is irreplaceable).

Is that changing will be the issue?

Another relevant read is:

Payback: The Case for Revenge
by Thane Rosenbaum | Apr 10, 2013

It discusses when a society fail to provide a justice society - which is competent and fair implementation of the social contract to provide safety and just criminal actions. The society becomes a tribal, local, revengeful and violent one. If our current governments fail to do this, we will fall into the failed societies we see around the world. Some of our cities seem to be going that way.

I know these are deep dives for the Internet, but that's what has to be considered vs. emotional responses.

 

[DeepSouth]

The basis of pointing guns for SD, protecting property, the definitions of citizen's arrest and appropriate levels of force is being re-examined in legal journals given the new phenomena of open carry of AR level guns and the failure of government to stop disturbances quickly. If you like to get into the weeks, search for:

Ferzan, Kimberly Kessler, "Taking Aim at Pointing Guns? Start with Citizen’s Arrest, Not Stand Your
Ground:
A Reply to Joseph Blocher, Samuel W. Buell, Jacob D. Charles, and Darrell A.H. Miller, Pointing
Guns, 99 Texas L. Rev. 1173 (2021)" (2021). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 2704.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2704

Read the Ferzan and the Blocker articles.

Standard analyses have been that lethal force to protect property hasn't been looked at favorably. See:
Killing in Self-Defence (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice)
by Fiona Leverick | Feb 8, 2007

It's a deep dive and a technical law book but a good read. Exceptions have been when the property itself was crucial to maintain life (steal my cattle or medicine that is irreplaceable).

Is that changing will be the issue?

Another relevant read is:

Payback: The Case for Revenge
by Thane Rosenbaum | Apr 10, 2013

It discusses when a society fail to provide a justice society - which is competent and fair implementation of the social contract to provide safety and just criminal actions. The society becomes a tribal, local, revengeful and violent one. If our current governments fail to do this, we will fall into the failed societies we see around the world. Some of our cities seem to be going that way.

I know these are deep dives for the Internet, but that's what has to be considered vs. emotional responses.

Thank You for that. Much of it will likely be over my head but I’ll take a look at minimum enough to get a good understanding of the arguments, and satisfy my curiosity.

 

[GEM]

No problem. I was just watching Meet the Press and the panel was discussing the trial. Usual OMG on guns, why was he there, etc. but one member ended it by saying the core problem was the failure to provide the rule of law. Todd agreed and that's my take away of the overall problem that led to various bad decisions. If we cannot say that the basic structures of our towns and cities will be protected, then our civilization fails.

 

[hso]

IMHO, Without being deputized by the local LE you'd be at great risk legally.

Deciding to go armed off of your property or property you have an ownership interest in (or at the request of the property owner at least when you show up and volunteer to help) to occupy property that doesn't belong to you is probably outside the law in most if not all states. Note that I caveat to include at the request of the property owner because there were a number of armed men that guarded businesses with the approval of the owner or operator throughout the years. Public property becomes challenging because the political or legal leadership would have to approve this explicitly to provide some legal cover. Generally not given outside of villages and small towns where the Mayor or Sheriff may request or accept help from residents.

 

[armydog]

The closest town to where I live has a population just under 13K. A decade ago there was a serial rapist targeting women randomly at home and store parking lots. The sheriff asked everyone who was qualified and able to get a gun, to get one and a carry permit. That was literally his advice and he said it on the news. They eventually got the guy and during that time burglaries dropped to near zero. So there is a way LE can ask the public for help. It just depends on where you live. In the absence of leadership, you need to come up with a reasonable plan. The problem with these liberal places is that they seem to encourage the violence and give them "space to destroy" like in Baltimore. I remember in Fredericksburg, VA, a lady calling police about protestors and they were literally jumping on the top of her car and the 911 dispatcher is telling her to call city hall and take up her frustrations with them. lol That is just nuts. In the town that I live near, if that happened, there would probably be hell to pay and it would be right then and there. Law and order is not entirely established by LE and the justice system. It's more a reflection of the people in the community. There is a reason why this anarchy is occurring in places run by liberals.

 

[old lady new shooter]

A different approach is to organize a community patrol working together with LE. The Jewish community in Los Angeles did this in response to the anti-semitic incidents that occurred during the summer of 2020. The patrol is licensed like any other security company, and is now up and running and keeping the community safe. They have US and IDF vets working the armed patrols and thanks to generous donations have cars, uniforms, everything they need. They also put on training for synagogue security teams etc. I know they already cover the oldest Jewish neighborhood, last I heard they were expanding to the other two main neighborhoods.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"The whole idea of a "state" is that it's an entity that has a monopoly on force."

The construct that Max Weber used was that a failed state has lost legal control over lawful use of force. That is more complicated than a state monopoly on force. Weber included lawful sef-defense, legally controlled private security, as well as state armed forces and police in his construct of state control of lawful use of force.

Weber was looking at the chaos in Germany following WWI hardly part of the American tradition, along with Hobbes.

 

[twarr1]

It’s concerning that one can be exonerated or tried for murder for the exact same actions depending on physical location. It follows that, according to the ‘State’, there is no objective justice. There isn’t even a coherent definition of justice on the nation level.
If you have the right to self defense in one state, but not another, then either; there is no inherent right to self defense or, the inherent right is being denied.

 

[Megawatt maker]

If it isn't legal, it should be and needs to be. Furthermore, it simply needs to happen. As our nation degrades, riots and looting will become more common. Its pretty clear at this point, those in government, especially in Dem occupied and controlled America, are unable and whats more, UNWILLING to use their resources to stand up to and stop the mob...then it becomes our duty as Americans.

This is just one of the reasons why we have the 2nd Amendment.

It may not be legal, but its right. We all know this, at least those of us who are not so gullible to listen to CNN and MSNBC and their like...

It's all up side down and backwards. Half the nation suffers both from group think and double think...just like Orwell defined. Its up to the sane, free thinking side to save the USA...if it can still be saved.

 

[Kleanbore]

If it isn't legal, it should be and needs to be.

What should be?

 

[Megawatt maker]

What should be?

The whole point of the thread. is it legal for average citizens to stand guard while armed.

Hence, my arguement

 

[daverich4]

Don’t know about anywhere else but in North Carolina it’s not legal to use Deadly Force to protect any property, whether it’s your’s or someone else’s.

https://www.uslawshield.com/justifi...rious bodily harm (like if you shoot someone).

 

[Bazoo]

In Kentucky you're legally allowed to use deadly force to protect a building that you own against arson. How difficult it would be to come out of a trial as a free man I'm not sure.

Standing armed guard is not illegal, but using deadly force unless deadly force or the threat of deadly force is used on you first generally is.

 

[Kleanbore]

The whole point of the thread. is it legal for average citizens to stand guard while armed

What might a person "standing guard" do, other than pose as a target?

 

[Jim Watson]

A decade ago there was a serial rapist targeting women randomly at home and store parking lots. The sheriff asked everyone who was qualified and able to get a gun, to get one and a carry permit. That was literally his advice and he said it on the news.

Even longer ago, that happened in Orlando. Reportedly pretty effective in deterring rape, robbery, and assault.

Before that, there was a spate of holdups of bus and taxi drivers in my home of Birmingham. The sheriff announced that many drivers, including my Dad, went armed and that robbing them was a hazardous undertaking. He further announced that if that warning was not enough, he was going to deputize and arm ALL the drivers. Robbery dropped off sharply.

In those days, guarding your business and livelihood was not thought unusual, or illegal.

 

[Megawatt maker]

What might a person "standing guard" do, other than pose as a target?

Prevent vandalism, arson and looting, with whatever force the situation may require.

You can call that a militia...or vigalanty group...I don't care. When those in charge (ie...almost everytime a Commie wannabe Democrat)refuse to deal with the situation, and as we have seen, even condone that kind of behavior, then doing what's right is called for...the law be damned.

 

[Kleanbore]

vent vandalism, arson and looting, with whatever force the situation may require.

"Whatever force"?

How would it be determined what is "required"?

People have enough trouble comprehending basic self defense law today---and it is comparatively simple.

I, for one, would never "stand guard" anywhere. Standing duck, as it were.

 

[AlexanderA]

The whole point of the thread. is it legal for average citizens to stand guard while armed.

I don't think the point of the thread is whether individuals could / should stand guard over their own property. I took the thread to be asking about whether they should / could band together collectively to stand guard over their community. That raises the issues of organization, concerted action, and authorized or unauthorized private militias.