We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
The only thing the police should have the right to do is make sure the property owner gave consent to the oathkeepers to be on their roof. That, and intervene if any of them shoot somebody who was not looting or damaging property. They were not unliscensed security contractors because they were not paid, no business, no liscense needed, so that was a bogus excuse to ban them. They were just private citizen volunteers helping to defend property from looters. If the police did what they should have done, adequately protect the shops from looters, which should have been their primary task, instead of "showing restraint", or confining their protection to police HQ, or staring down protestors, the oath keepers would not have been needed.
Government officials are by nature cowards and bullies, who will eagerly confront weak opponents and back down from those with resolve. This is why they are aggressive toward law abiding citizens and timid when up against riotous mobs and hard core felons willing to shoot back. It is no surprise that those in Missouri dared not go up against the arsonists and looters but did find time to admonish people trying to protect their lives and property on their own after realizing they had been abandoned by civil authorities, such as the governor who did not deploy the national guard. We can expect more such mob actions all over the country now that Obama's legions of activists sense the blood of cowardice in the waters. Citizens will therefore have two choices from now on: fight back themselves or submit to the left's savagery. If they choose to right back, they will first have to defeat the gutless and cowardly government officials standing in their way and that will mean showing resolve, not obeying illegal orders against self defense. Government bullies are by nature cowards and when up against people ready to resist them, will always back down.
My very first question is how do the police have time to harass the people protecting businesses when the rest of the city is burning down?
Simple: They don't react like peace officers to the presence of armed honest citizens, who have always been their natural allies. They react like union members seeing a bunch of scabs. WE have the monopoly on violence here, buddy. And don't you forget it.
Agreed, and my second question is where does it state that volunteers need a license even if it's required for normal hired security? I would love to see the link to the statute the police are using to threaten arrest. If they are not receiving compensation they are not hired security, the are volunteers... you know, neighbors helping neighbors, the way Americans should. And don't even try saying the store owners giving them coffee and sandwiches would constitute compensation.
If the volunteers moved from the storefront to a public sidewalk in front of the store, then what officer?
Apparently the mob has a constitutional right to...prey.
This is why the federal government - and all government, for that matter - do not need a monopoly on the use of force. The St Louis PD should have said it welcomed citizen militias helping them police their own neighborhoods.
Police unions will never permit the competition.
Just 60 years ago movie audiences were repelled by the cowardice and inaction of the town folk and friends in High Noon. Now it's not just acceptable but mandatory. What have we become?
isn't the gun control crowd always talking about the Second Amendment pertaining only to militias and not individuals ?? Should they not be celebrating on the front page and the evening news lead story these well regulated militias ?? NO ??
If you have a business or home in Ferguson — go, leave, take any insurance money you can get, and depart for better cities (or states) as fast as you can arrange the move.
I thought about this yesterday, after reading this article. I agree with everything you said about the right of the people to protect themselves and their communities.
What I DON'T agree with, and I think is quite indefensible, is the idea that positioning volunteers on rooftops with rifles is helping in any way. Think about the specter of a rooftop rifleman, and what exactly can he do to help? There are two times armed people on rooftops appear. One is from a coordinated effort by trained military or police officers in defense of peace or freedom. The other is from insane mass murderers. There is just no possibility a volunteer could responsibly defend a threat from a rooftop with any legitimacy, and could avoid scaring the s**t out of innocent people. What about the looter who doesn't see you, and goes for the goods, OK to shoot?
I think the best option is to defend the businesses from the ground in front of the store. Show your presence, put yourself in between the victims and the looters. Then you have a reason and legitimacy for defense, and you are less likely to have trouble. The story about black people defending a white store owner is the best one yet.
If this were a situation where attackers were actually invading with arms, it's a different story, pepper the rooftops with the armed citizenry.
Actually the korean shopkeepers in the Rodney King riots, with guns on their roofs, were quite effective. Despite being right next to a black riot area, they were some of the few stores that were not looted. As for a looter not knowing, give the rooftop gunmen a bullhorn, and insist they give a warning before shooting, although I suspect the potential looters spotted the armed people on the roof pretty quickly, and knew better than to loot that area. Your typical looter is a coward, they will not risk death/injury to loot. And the busineses with armed people there to protect them, like the gas station with the armed black employees outside, was not looted. As for forcing them to be on the street in front of the door, that just invites surprise attack by a gang.
"There is just no possibility a volunteer could responsibly defend a threat from a rooftop with any legitimacy...
Would you care to offer some facts, or even a coherent argument, to support that completely unsupported, demonstrably false (and grammatically incoherent) assertion?
"I think the best option..."
Based on what? Your years of experience as a security professional? Your extensive riot-control and MOUT training? Pulling it straight out of your nether regions without even stopping to wipe it off?
Someone on a rooftop is more prone to erroneously shooting someone, this isn't a war with clear-cut enemies that can only be dealt with by shooting. Do I have "facts" to back this up? Just common sense in my opinion. How is it demonstrably false?
Based on what? Just my opinion. This isn't a research paper, just civil debate.
I'm going to go out on a limb here:
1) You have never been in any danger (or even been seriously inconvenienced) in your entire sheltered suburban life.2) Neither the concepts of deterrence nor of self-discipline hold any meaningful value for you.3) Your 'common sense' isn't.
When facing a violent mob, if I had to chose between 1) standing on the ground between the mob and what they're trying to destroy or 2) being on a rooftop, I'd probably chose the rooftop. Hopefully I'll never have to make that decision.
I believe the shopkeepers of Koreatown disagree with you. They routed the mob during the "Los Angeles Rebellion" (aka, Rodney King Riot), and saved their shops when no one else would.
Someone else brought that up. It was a different situation.
Dunno why it got truncated. You said:
"What about the looter who doesn't see you, and goes for the goods, OK to shoot?"
Yup. That clear enough for you?
There are no "innocent people" in mobs.
"If this were a situation where attackers were actually invading with arms, it's a different story,..."
No, gasoline bombs, bricks, and baseball bats can do more damage than fire-arms.
Those are all arms. What is your point?
The point of a rooftop position is to get you better visibility so that you see more, are more effective in laying down fire when necessary, and are seen by more as a deterrent. There is exactly zero difference between when police/military do so in uniform and retired police/military do so as oath keepers. As we don't have any reports of oath keepers actually having to use their arms or of oath keeper defended property being firebombed or looted, you can mark those volunteer efforts as the best kind of defensive gun use, the kind that stops trouble before it starts by simply demonstrating an armed presence that changes the risk/reward calculations of looters and other lawbreakers.
Don't expect that to show up in any official statistical report on guns.
Your proposed usage pattern would leave the defenses invisible until they are imminently needed and people would inevitably have to fire those guns more often. You would have more injured and more dead the way you would deploy civilian force. I find setting up that sort of situation "quite indefensible" as you put it.
Probably the only intelligent response to my post, thanks.
I understand the tactical advantage of rooftop posts. This is not a war though, and the disadvantages of using a roof position (less visibility, less understanding of the situation on the ground, etc.) outweigh the advantages in my opinion. You do not have a coordinated attack or a coordinated defensive strategy for these folks. They are just up there, with guns, left to their own judgment.
I think we can both agree that riflemen on rooftops are not needed in times of peace, and would be viewed as a threat to the public. So at what point do you think it's OK?
And I do not think the defenses being invisible is either necessary, or even if you had your weapons concealed, would cause more casualties. See the referenced story from Mr. Cooke's article about the gas station defended by 4 black citizens. Zero casualties.
"This is not a war though"Oh yeah, tell that to the storeowners who had their stores looted and burned down by a criminal mob, with no cops there to defend their business they spent a lifetime building.
I am not in Ferguson. I bow to the tactical judgment of those there absent good reason to suspect that the judgment of these volunteers is faulty.
Chants in the street to kill people is probably a reliable sign that peacetime has ended. The rooftop creates physical distance. That might be valuable.
So the Korean shopkeepers defending their businesses from the roof during the LA riots were "insane mass murderers"? Tells me all I need to know about your judgement.
That was a different case, as I said, armed attackers were invading their area. The police had completely abandoned them.
I don't think the Ferguson riots are at that level, and I don't think it's the same when outside volunteers are positioned on rooftops vs. store owners and their friends.
No difference at all. Armed attackers were attempting to loot businesses in both cases, and no cops were present. Identical.
I guess we need to determine what level of riot caused damage is enough to justify armed defense of any sort. How about none as a starting point?
Armed defense is *always* justified, no rioting necessary. The manner in which you present the defense depends on the situation. You think rooftop rifleman without any riots or provocation is fine, just average every day defense? If not, at what point do you think it should be OK?
"absent riots or provocation"Are you serious, massive rioting, looting, and arson is not a provocation??? The commercial area of Ferguson was a war zone, that the police had abandoned, because the only area they bothered to protect was police headquarters.
"You think rooftop rifleman without any riots or provocation is fine, just average every day defense?"
Yes. Next question.
I'm the one asking you. Turning it back on me isn't an answer.
First of all, I carry every day, and I think having armed defense is ALWAYS allowable. Your question seemed to suggest there was some level at which armed defense would be unjustified. In this case, I'm talking about armed defense from rooftop riflemen.
I'm saying do we agree that having armed rooftops in times of complete peace is not something we should have? If not, then I think there's not much more to discuss. If so, then what level of threat do you consider to warrant such tactics.
I've already said you should reserve this for when there is no authorities controlling the situation, and those attacking you are armed and willing to kill. Or if the police have approved of your rooftop help.
"If so, then what level of threat do you consider to warrant such tactics."Once the first store was looted, armed citizen defense of the rest was fully justified. And guns on rooftops was the safest way to provide that defense. And since everybody new this riot was coming, advance preperation was entirely reasonable.
Ok everyone, all together now - Whatever.
So you intended that as a final argument? Interesting, how very leftist of you.
Nope. It's just grows too tedious watching you dancing on the head of split hairs in an endless game of last touch because you so enamored on seeing your name up in print. So ... whatever.
So, basically, you don't like armed people on rooftops because FEELS.You'll forgive me if I don't give a damn.
Sure, just bring your rifle up to the top of a building and people-watch. That's just A-OK in society, amirite?
First of all, your right to protest ends when you threaten my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (i.e. Property). I don't care what you are armed with: your fists and feet, a bat, a bottle. Ain't no such thing as a fair fight, sunshine. Second, the best way to deter violence and to be seen as able to hand out violence equal or greater than that threaten......Have a nice day.
It's not a case of fair vs. unfair. It's a case of removing your ability to make good judgments, and not inciting a panic. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about armed defense, and different situations call for different actions.
The large number of burned out buildings proves that the Ferguson riots have reached that level.
When the police are in the area but stand by and watch as your business is being looted and destroyed, you have effectively been "completely abandoned".