Where a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.
70,000 of “Hillary’s enemies” (Her words, not mine) can gather in a downtown area for 3 days, carrying firearms and not only there is no crime, but the regular crime in the area drops.
But let less than one thousand of her supporters get together for one night….
And I am the dangerous one.
I’ve been following the news and distortions of what has been happening in Charlotte. So far, I think the worst article I’ve read is from the Daily Mail: ‘He was allowed to drive away alive’: White motorist armed with a GUN is filmed driving slowly through crowd of protesters in Charlotte.
What unfolded in situation covered in this article is important considering all the other discussion about what to do if you find yourself in a car surrounded by violent protesters. The Daily Mail covered the account as described by the writer Heather Head.
White dude drives into crowd of peaceful protesters, draws gun, allowed to drive away alive. With my own eyes. #CharlotteProtest,’ she wrote alongside the shocking clip.
There are some details that watching the video (in the Daily Mail article) that this terrible assessment fails to cover. First and foremost, the protesters were not “peaceful” by any means. I am not a lawyer, but shouting “no justice, no peace” in the middle of a riot is prima facie evidence that they are not peaceful. The protesters had advanced on the man in his car and surrounded it. Some people were actually pounding on the car.
The Daily Mail admits to all this but doesn’t seem to acknowledge what it means: ‘No justice, no peace,’ the group are heard chanting before they spot the man’s weapon.
It is at that point the gun come out. INSTANTLY the situation changes. The once aggressive protesters back away from the car as one yells “he’s got a gun.” You can see phones come out and record the man in the car with the gun. The attitude of the protesters suddenly shifts to crybully victim. They were fine being the ones in power, being aggressive and threatening. The second they found out that their intended victim was willing to fight back, they decided it wasn’t fair.
The Daily Mail then proceeds to make some statements that are deliberately inflaming and a distortion of reality.
The man was reportedly allowed to drive away from the scene.
Allowed to drive away by who? The police? I didn’t see a single cop anywhere in that scene. I’m pretty sure most of them were busy else where controlling a riot. Should the police have detained the man? How about the rioters? They “allowed” him to drive away, but they had no authority to keep him from driving away in the first place. By blocking his leaving the scene, they were engaged in criminal activity.
Although open carry is legal in North Carolina, it is illegal to openly carry a gun at a protest. The law states: ‘You may not carry a weapon at a parade, funeral procession, picket line, or other demonstration, except for guns carried on a rack in a pickup truck. ‘You may not carry a weapon during civil disorder, riot, or other disturbance involving three or more people.’
That is true, not just in NC, but in most states. The idea being, you can’t take a gun to a riot. Makes sense. But this is irrelevant if the riot comes to you. I don’t know all the facts about what happened here, but from everything else I read about how many other people were trapped in cars surrounded by protesters; I am going to assume that this man was trying to get away from the protest and was not part of it. If that is the case, he didn’t go to the protest with a gun. He had a gun and the protest found him.
‘I wish no ill on anyone. I just want the truth out. I want people to recognize that racism exists, it’s real, and it has real consequences.’ [Heather Head]
So racism is the reason this man did what he did? Not wanting to become the Charlotte version of Reginald Denny wasn’t it? It is now racist to not want to be beat, perhaps to death, by rioting BLM activists? I severely doubt that “you are a racist for not letting a black man vent his anger from a history of systematic oppression by kicking in your skull” will fly as an argument for all but the most ardent progressives.
This happened the same night and not far from where the “white man in a car with a gun” incident occurred (original video is unavailable):
Some might argue that what the guy in the car did was brandishing, and therefore illegal. Given the circumstances, I think (again, I’m not a lawyer and I’m not giving advice) was the best possible outcome. The way I see it. The threat to the man was real. Had he followed Glenn Reynolds advice, people would have gotten hurt.
This way, the man got away without anybody being injured or killed, except maybe for some crybully butt-hurt. The presence of the gun deescalated the situation by making the rioters back off.
I think the only thing that the man did that was wrong was to stick the gun out the window. That increased the risk it could have been taken from him. I would have kept my window up in that situation. Then again, my windows aren’t tinted.
This was (again, I’m not a lawyer) a valid defensive gun use, even though no shots were fired. A potentially deadly situation was averted. But of course, the media can’t spin in like that.
Personally, I’d rather have to flash my piece from inside my truck than have to power wash rioter off of a winch bumper.
Professor Jacobson has asked me to address whether such an act would be lawful as a justified act of self-defense. I’m on a flight now using airplane WiFi, so I’ll make this quick. (Before I go on, however, I should point out that Professor Reynolds has added some important context to his pithy tweet, and these later comments can be found at the link above.)
In short, one would apply the usual five elements of a self-defense justification to evaluate such a use of force against others, just as in any other instance of self-defense. Those elements are, of course: innocence, imminence, proportionality, avoidance, and reasonableness.
Source: Analysis: Is it lawful self-defense to “run down” rioters surrounding your vehicle?
Don’t screw around and go read this post by Andrew Branca now.
Insomnia is a nice thing when you have events like the Charlotte riots of last night. I tuned in to the news, muted it and opened the scanner app on my phone to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police department. While not transmitting what the anti-riot units were doing, the scanner was giving detailed accounts of what was happening outside that area and in the rest of Charlotte. That turned to be interesting.
Lesson One: Regular critters decided to take advantage of the situation. Figuring the cops were too busy with the “peaceful” protest, your regular brand of criminal went out in force. I caught at least three call of Armed Robbery and several attempts to break in occupied residences and business alarms going off.
Lesson Two: Regular crime did not take a vacation. Domestic abuse call, strong-are robbery, theft, missing juveniles, argument between neighbors, fistfights, etc. all continued as if the major event was not happening. And cops had to be sent to each one to deal with them. It was a great example of asset management to listen to all ranks attending calls other than the riot.
Lesson Three: Charlotte Firecrackers. There were three calls that were interesting. The first one was an attempt to break in to a residence (two males IRRC) followed a couple of minutes later by a “shots fired” in or around the same location. The responding unit closed that one and mentioned that the “shots fired” were firecrackers. Other than “who the hell would be setting fireworks on a night like this?” I did not give it another thought. Later on, another call came in about a vehicle full of males screaming , threatening people and that shots were fired; again the responding unit closed the call with firecrackers. And there was a third case, almost at the same time as the second, but an attempted break-in to an occupied location with 3 shots fired called in by a neighbor…and the responding officer also closed it with firecrackers and his tone of voice was professional but there was a hint of mirth in it.
If I was a suspicious man, I’d guess that those events were solved with “firecrackers” by the local neighbors or home owners. Firecrackers delivered by items like this:
Because you damn well know, good Law-Abiding people would never use the real thing to scare the bad guys, right? 😀
A plea deal for a seven-year prison sentence this week resolved the case of a Palm Beach County felon who had faced two attempted murder charges but claimed he fired his gun in self-defense.
At one time, Brian Bragdon’s “stand your ground” claim had the attention of Florida’s Supreme Court.The high court in 2014 wound up not reviewing the case because lower courts then agreed gun-toting felons such as Bragdon, 27, have the same rights as law-abiding citizens to seek immunity from prosecution under the law.
Last year, Circuit Judge Dina Keever considered and then denied the defense’s request to dismiss the charges stemming from an Aug. 4, 2012 confrontation at an adult club near West Palm Beach.
Source: Plea deal gets felon 7 years for shooting outside adult club – Sun Sentinel
And that is how it works, folks. Just like a regular plea of Innocent, the defendant makes a plea and the judge decides if the evidence justifies granting it. It is not an automatic Get Out Of Jail card like the media likes to perpetuate as the case above clearly demonstrates. And he is White which allegedly was supposed to double the automatic “pardon” plus a weekend at a Disney World hotel.
In the words of the late Robin Williams: “Reality, what a concept!”
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police say that Keith Lamont Scott was holding a handgun — not a book — moments before he was shot and killed by an officer Tuesday afternoon.But one expert questions whether CMPD was justified in its initial interaction with Scott, even based on the police’s own version of events…
…According to a statement by CMPD Chief Kerr Putney, the officers “observed a subject, Mr. Keith Lamont Scott, inside a vehicle in the apartment complex. The subject exited the vehicle armed with a handgun. Officers observed the subject get back into the vehicle at which time they began to approach the subject.”
Putney’s statement continued: “Officers gave loud and clear verbal commands, corroborated by witnesses, for the subject to drop the weapon.”
Gregory Wallace, a law professor at Campbell University in Raleigh, said the city’s statement raises questions as to why police ordered Scott to drop his gun.
In North Carolina, the open-carry of a handgun is legal. Concealed carry is also legal, so long as you have a permit.
Source: Police said Keith Lamont Scott had a gun. Was that reason enough to order him to drop it?
I understand that maybe the general population and some most media folks may not know the meaning of the word brandish. But that does not mean that they are unaware of the concept.
If they see a man waving around with a gun in his hand, they will shriek and call the cops, why? Because intuitively they know that is somebody dangerous. But there is no damned excuse for a law professor not to know the difference between open carry and brandishing…unless he is teaching (maybe) because he sucked as a lawyer or he is just lying.
Now I am going to have to consider adding Law Professors to the list of people you should never ask gun advice.
