Is a Hyper-Active Armed Citizenry Actually a Good Thing?

 

As we saw in 2020, the police and fire departments and National Guard often hang back, stand down, and otherwise refuse to deal with destructive rioters and “peaceful protesters.” Kyle Rittenhouse was only one counterforce, a citizen who (however imperfectly) sought to preserve property in the face of gratuitous destruction.

Nevertheless, when the government fails to do its most basic job – keeping the peace – is there not a silver lining? After all, this is only our Republic for as long as we can keep it, for as long as we maintain a desire for, and will to defend, our rights to life, liberty, and property.

Doesn’t government failure give Americans an opportunity to grow up, to be responsible for ourselves, our loved ones, and our communities? I recognize, of course, that this makes enemies not only of our rightful enemies, but sometimes also of our government, which instinctively craves a monopoly on the use of force. Nevertheless, I see an opportunity here: when Americans recognize the government is not the answer (whether in police or schools or housing, etc.), do we not have an enhanced opportunity to address problems ourselves?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 65 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Telling someone to “Calm Down” really is saying “You don’t have a right to your feelings.” Well, you don’t have a right to dictate my response to me. 

    No sweat — please consider it advice from a friend, not a diktat.

    IMHO, you’ve taken offense without justification.  You’ve accused iWe of being duplicitous, which is nowhere near the way I see it.  You then announced that you were abandoning the conversation, which has also not happened.

    I, like you, agreed (more or less) with the original title question — when the title changed, I simply edited my original response. and then provided some thoughts about the difference (and more) in a new comment.

    • #31
  2. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    By all means, hold leaders accountable for poor security, keep arms to defend yourself, but don’t go hunting criminals.

    Who is “hunting criminals”?  Are we talking about Rittenhouse, or something else?  If we are talking about something else, then let’s separate it from what you say you support — arming for defense (oh and actually doing that defense).

    • #32
  3. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):
    Kyle’s imperfection was his age. He should have understood – or someone should have explained to him – what he was about to do was a very adult thing.

    And he handled himself in a very adult way.  He showed better trigger discipline and restraint than has been shown in most publicized cop shootings of the last ten years.  He only fired upon those who were directly threatening him.  Even then, he wasn’t indiscriminately throwing bullets around.

     

    • #33
  4. D.A. Venters Inactive
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    BDB (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    By all means, hold leaders accountable for poor security, keep arms to defend yourself, but don’t go hunting criminals.

    Who is “hunting criminals”? Are we talking about Rittenhouse, or something else? If we are talking about something else, then let’s separate it from what you say you support — arming for defense (oh and actually doing that defense).

    I’m talking about the Arbery case in Georgia, which is distinct from the Rittenhouse case in that, unlike Rittenhouse, the defendants did go out to try to proactively capture someone they thought, according to them, might have just committed a burglary.  Of course, as it turned out they were wrong about that.   

    • #34
  5. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Kyle Rittenhouse had a right to defend himself, but did that stop the riots, in Kenosha or the rest of the country? Is it a viable solution to the problem of elected officials seeing the police as an army to enforce vague social virtue?

    Prosecutors that refuse to prosecute, stand down orders that if not obeyed results in the prosecution of police officers. The rules of engagement changed from night to night in Portland. The ACLU, and judges contributed to the stand down debacle with one ruling after another to limit the use of impact munitions, and chemical agents to disperse rioters.

    Have school administrators misused school resource police officers to enforce school handbook rules? They have, and that should stop.

    Police officers should not be used as revenue collectors for violation fines, nor should local courts be allowed to issue an arrest warrant for an unpaid violation fine.

    I’d rather have my elected official playing more golf and less time trying to solve my problems. 

    • #35
  6. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):
    Kyle’s imperfection was his age. He should have understood – or someone should have explained to him – what he was about to do was a very adult thing.

    And he handled himself in a very adult way. He showed better trigger discipline and restraint than has been shown in most publicized cop shootings of the last ten years. He only fired upon those who were directly threatening him. Even then, he wasn’t indiscriminately throwing bullets around.

     

    Yes, I believe this was a factor in his arrest and trial…Everyone look at him and saw a child that they could take advantage of… The DA, his own lawyers, the media… In that court room he was one of the most mature adults there – certainly more than the clowns prosecuting. Had the car lot owner for example – been in the same circumstances I doubt he would have been charged.

    • #36
  7. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    Kyle Rittenhouse had a right to defend himself, but did that stop the riots, in Kenosha or the rest of the country?

    Was it supposed to?

    • #37
  8. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    By all means, hold leaders accountable for poor security, keep arms to defend yourself, but don’t go hunting criminals.

    Who is “hunting criminals”? Are we talking about Rittenhouse, or something else? If we are talking about something else, then let’s separate it from what you say you support — arming for defense (oh and actually doing that defense).

    I’m talking about the Arbery case in Georgia, which is distinct from the Rittenhouse case in that, unlike Rittenhouse, the defendants did go out to try to proactively capture someone they thought, according to them, might have just committed a burglary. Of course, as it turned out they were wrong about that.

    Glad that you brought in the Arbery case.  Goes to show the importance of knowing the law when you pick up a weapon.

    Rittenhouse was in fear for his life; he had already been assaulted.  Arbery, at worst, had been ripping off property.

    In the eyes of the law, property rights will always be subordinated to the right to life…The guys in South Georgia screwed up.  

    • #38
  9. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    CACrabtree (View Comment):
    In the eyes of the law, property rights will always be subordinated to the right to life…The guys in South Georgia screwed up.

    I agree that the guys who hunted Arbery were out of bounds.

    But it is not determined yet whether, when they shot him, they indeed acted in self defense. The jury will rule soon enough.

     

    • #39
  10. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Sorry, but this is not the answer. 

    Even if the majority of people carry all the time, even if people ignore gun free zones, even when an active shooter has a life span measured in seconds, we still need government to enforce laws and investigate crimes. 

    What about theft?  Are going to allow lethal force to become the normal response to attempted theft?  

    What about fraud and other white collar crime? 

    Who determines when a self-defense shooting is justified?  Is it down to the first to draw?

    What about drunk driving or other types of reckless driving?

    The bottom line is that the whole point of a government is to defend against invaders and uphold the rule of law.  This has been the rule for over a millennium.  If a government does not do that, it needs to be replaced like a burned-out appliance.

    • #40
  11. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Vigilantism, to me, is distinctly different from private citizens stopping people from committing crimes right in front of their eyes.

    Vigilantism is closely tied to vengeance, though on behalf of others. Where someone is perceived to have escaped justice, the vigilante takes it on himself to hold the perceived criminal accountable.

    Dealing with someone who is in the act of committing a crime is not the same thing.

    We benefit from citizens being empowered to stop crime from happening to themselves, their property, and those in their immediate vicinity. We may even benefit from the average citizen being empowered to limited investigative powers, though I think this is debatable. We do not benefit from people going through our jury system, being found not guilty, and citizens seeking out those they are convinced are guilty, those who helped them get away, and the juries for mob justice.

    • #41
  12. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Sorry, but this is not the answer. 

    Even if the majority of people carry all the time, even if people ignore gun free zones, even when an active shooter has a life span measured in seconds, we still need government to enforce laws and investigate crimes. 

    I agree that it is not the answer.

    But an active citizenry is PART of the answer, and a useful part at this point in time. A refusal by police to do their jobs means that either citizens become more active, or they become victims.

    • #42
  13. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    iWe (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Sorry, but this is not the answer.

    Even if the majority of people carry all the time, even if people ignore gun free zones, even when an active shooter has a life span measured in seconds, we still need government to enforce laws and investigate crimes.

    I agree that it is not the answer.

    But an active citizenry is PART of the answer, and a useful part at this point in time. A refusal by police to do their jobs means that either citizens become more active, or they become victims.

    Zackly!

    • #43
  14. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    iWe (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):
    In the eyes of the law, property rights will always be subordinated to the right to life…The guys in South Georgia screwed up.

    I agree that the guys who hunted Arbery were out of bounds.

    But it is not determined yet whether, when they shot him, they indeed acted in self defense. The jury will rule soon enough.

    You can’t claim self-defense if you unlawfully detain someone.

    • #44
  15. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):
    In the eyes of the law, property rights will always be subordinated to the right to life…The guys in South Georgia screwed up.

    I agree that the guys who hunted Arbery were out of bounds.

    But it is not determined yet whether, when they shot him, they indeed acted in self defense. The jury will rule soon enough.

    You can’t claim self-defense if you unlawfully detain someone.

    I know. Let’s see what the jury says?

    • #45
  16. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    iWe (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Sorry, but this is not the answer.

    Even if the majority of people carry all the time, even if people ignore gun free zones, even when an active shooter has a life span measured in seconds, we still need government to enforce laws and investigate crimes.

    I agree that it is not the answer.

    But an active citizenry is PART of the answer, and a useful part at this point in time. A refusal by police to do their jobs means that either citizens become more active, or they become victims.

    True. But private justice and vigilantism are part of a series of approximations to the answer.  

    The numbers 1.3 and 1.5 are not the answer to the problem of the square root of 2, but if you’re using one of those methods of systematic approximation I learned back in upper elementary school, they might serve as first approximations on the way to getting the answer. 

    Some societies used to have systems of private justice, in which family members, especially young males, were socially obligated to take vengeance on those who wronged their family members. It was recognized by the participants that the system wasn’t perfect, and that among other problems, it tended to result in an ongoing cycle of vengeance for vengeance. So there usually were breakers by which the cycle could be broken, often in the form of “payment” to “cover the dead.”  And a 3rd party could even step in to do that. In the area now known as the United States, the U.S. government often played that role, as it usually wasn’t in the interest of the United States to have Native groups killing each other, either.  

    Of course, that wasn’t as good a system of justice as could be imagined at the time.  It was only an approximation, you could say. When the United States proposed that these people live under the rule of law, administered by the United States governments, it was a hard sell. It removed from young males the opportunity to demonstrate their worthiness as good citizens in their societies. But it had obvious advantages, too, when it worked. 

    When the United States didn’t do a good job of upholding its end of the deal,  sometimes Native societies reverted to earlier systems. Sometimes people who wanted to go back to the old system adopted a system of vigilantism.  But vigilantism had a way of going bad when it was used to settle private scores instead of securing justice for the larger social group.

    But would the United States ever have been sufficiently motivated to administer justice, even very imperfectly, under the rule of law if these other approximations to justice never were available as alternatives? I doubt it.  

    It was a lot more complicated than just reciting, “rule of law, rule of law, rule of law.” 

    This photo was taken on a bicycle ride east of Indianapolis, in Quaker country, in late September 2009. 

    Around 1824 there had been an incident in which a handful of settlers killed a party of Indians in a rather treacherous fashion. These settlers were apprehended and brought to trial. A local jury would have been unlikely to convict its fellow citizens, but it was recognized by the U.S. Indian agent, the governor of Indiana, and others, that if justice was not provided to the Indians, it could end in widespread violence.  So they stacked at least one of the juries with people who would be willing to vote to convict.  That included some Quakers, who ordinarily wouldn’t be willing to serve on juries, but who also were opposed to the violent killing of Indian neighbors.  I got curious about these Quakers and was wondering if anything remained to mark the farm of one a particular one of them.

    On my ride I stopped next to a soybean field that was being combined to talk to a guy (in the plaid coat) who was waiting to take a lunch out to his elderly father who was running the combine.  I mentioned the name I was looking for, and when he took the lunch out he asked his father about it. The surname (Bentley) was somewhat known to him as one that used to be in the area, but I think my query got garbled somewhat, and I didn’t learn anything particularly useful.  And I haven’t done a lot with the topic since then, either. 

    But this episode shows how the rule of law can get messy. 

    The murderers were convicted and hanged, but the teenage son of one of the participants was given a last minute reprieve on account of his age, with the governor milking all of the drama out of it that he could.  I had got curious about what that young man did with the rest of his life, after seeing his father hanged and getting a reprieve for himself, and eventually located his gravestone in a cemetery in the Delphi-Lafayette area, if memory serves. 

    Some time later a retired U.S. Navy captain found my blog post about it, and we corresponded by e-mail a few times. He had just learned that the young man was an ancestor of his, and he was somewhat distraught about it.  As I suppose all of us are when we come upon skeletons in the family closet.   Or in this case, skeletons in the closet of the U.S. system of rule of law.  

    Not exactly related to this topic, but it was later on the day when I took the combine photo that it started to sink in just how strong the Quaker influence still is in this part of Indiana.  Mrs R was going to pick me up at the end of our ride, but our cell phone communication was spotty, and this was before we had smartphones with Google Maps. On one of the times I could get through I told her I would be at the Friends (Quaker) church in Carthage.  When I found the place, out in the country, I waited there–for a long time.  And finally did some riding around the area to see if she had gotten stuck somewhere. When I got into the town of Carthage, I saw that there was another Friends church! I hadn’t expected that, because in most areas in Michigan where there are Friends churches, you don’t have to specify which one of multiple churches you mean. But Mrs R wasn’t there, either. She had got tired of waiting and was out driving around the area herself. We eventually established communication again and found each other, getting back home to Michigan a lot later than we had planned, thanks to that mixup.  And I learned that the two churches had once been one congregation, but had split up many years ago over some dispute. 

     

    • #46
  17. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    Kyle Rittenhouse had a right to defend himself, but did that stop the riots, in Kenosha or the rest of the country? Is it a viable solution to the problem of elected officials seeing the police as an army to enforce vague social virtue?

    Prosecutors that refuse to prosecute, stand down orders that if not obeyed results in the prosecution of police officers. The rules of engagement changed from night to night in Portland. The ACLU, and judges contributed to the stand down debacle with one ruling after another to limit the use of impact munitions, and chemical agents to disperse rioters.

    Have school administrators misused school resource police officers to enforce school handbook rules? They have, and that should stop.

    Police officers should not be used as revenue collectors for violation fines, nor should local courts be allowed to issue an arrest warrant for an unpaid violation fine.

    I’d rather have my elected official playing more golf and less time trying to solve my problems.

    I think it did stop the riots in Kenosha.  Did I get that wrong?

    • #47
  18. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    iWe (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):
    In the eyes of the law, property rights will always be subordinated to the right to life…The guys in South Georgia screwed up.

    I agree that the guys who hunted Arbery were out of bounds.

    But it is not determined yet whether, when they shot him, they indeed acted in self defense. The jury will rule soon enough.

    You really think they “hunted” Arbery?  Or were they trying to arrest him.  Are police looking for a bank robber hunting him?  I just want to be clear on the terminology.

    • #48
  19. D.A. Venters Inactive
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    Flicker (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):
    In the eyes of the law, property rights will always be subordinated to the right to life…The guys in South Georgia screwed up.

    I agree that the guys who hunted Arbery were out of bounds.

    But it is not determined yet whether, when they shot him, they indeed acted in self defense. The jury will rule soon enough.

    You really think they “hunted” Arbery? Or were they trying to arrest him. Are police looking for a bank robber hunting him? I just want to be clear on the terminology.

    I think I injected the term into the discussion. I meant hunting as in “searching for,” not as in “Trying to shoot from a tree stand” or something like that.  In this sense, they were acting as vigilantes and, again if the news reports were accurate, had no right to try to arrest him. It’s an example of how taking the law into your own hands can end up a disaster. 

    • #49
  20. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):
    In the eyes of the law, property rights will always be subordinated to the right to life…The guys in South Georgia screwed up.

    I agree that the guys who hunted Arbery were out of bounds.

    But it is not determined yet whether, when they shot him, they indeed acted in self defense. The jury will rule soon enough.

    You really think they “hunted” Arbery? Or were they trying to arrest him. Are police looking for a bank robber hunting him? I just want to be clear on the terminology.

    I think I injected the term into the discussion. I meant hunting as in “searching for,” not as in “Trying to shoot from a tree stand” or something like that. In this sense, they were acting as vigilantes and, again if the news reports were accurate, had no right to try to arrest him. It’s an example of how taking the law into your own hands can end up a disaster.

    Hunting is a bad choice of terms.  And don’t people have the right to make a citizen’s arrest?

    • #50
  21. D.A. Venters Inactive
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    Flicker (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):
    In the eyes of the law, property rights will always be subordinated to the right to life…The guys in South Georgia screwed up.

    I agree that the guys who hunted Arbery were out of bounds.

    But it is not determined yet whether, when they shot him, they indeed acted in self defense. The jury will rule soon enough.

    You really think they “hunted” Arbery? Or were they trying to arrest him. Are police looking for a bank robber hunting him? I just want to be clear on the terminology.

    I think I injected the term into the discussion. I meant hunting as in “searching for,” not as in “Trying to shoot from a tree stand” or something like that. In this sense, they were acting as vigilantes and, again if the news reports were accurate, had no right to try to arrest him. It’s an example of how taking the law into your own hands can end up a disaster.

    Hunting is a bad choice of terms. And don’t people have the right to make a citizen’s arrest?

    It’s not really a “right.” Under certain circumstances you can avoid liability for what would otherwise be a crime – capturing someone, holding them at gun point, restricting their movement, etc. Those circumstances are pretty limited, particularly when, as in this case, they didn’t directly witness any crime. (And no felony, or even serious misdemeanor, was committed at all by Arbery, as it turned out). 

    Another way to look at it is this: if you’re not a fleeing felon, you have no duty to submit to a non-police officer who is trying to capture you.  They’re the ones committing the crime at that point. 

    Again, a disclaimer: I didn’t watch the trial, so the media reports could have been misleading as to what happened here. My comments are based on the assumption that they’re reasonably accurate. 

    • #51
  22. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Been reading up on the Arbery thing — it had flown under my radar.  Not sure if it’s the same “jogger” case from a year or two ago.

    This thing is just awful.  On the one hand you have a violent, mentally ill thief who gets tracked down and held at bay.  On the other hand you got these morons who couldn’t manage with THREE PEOPLE to keep the guy at bay without feeling (or being) threatened.  So they blow him away.

    IMHO, at that point, Arbery had every right to feel that his life was in danger — outnumbered and outgunned  — he was unarmed.  Maybe he felt they were just going to kill him anyway, and Hell, maybe he was right.

    This whole thing just stinks.  I’m no expert, and I’ve only read a couple of references, but it sounds like these three jerks are going to jail for a long long time, and it sounds like the right answer.

    In previous comments, I was arguing based on a Kyle-flavored interpretation of the question originally asked.  — hence my quibble about the terminology.

    Regarding Arbery, as opposed to Kyle, this absolutely is “vigilantism” (or vigilante-ism” as I understand the intent of the quetions) and it does not fit into a defend or protect model at all.  This is plain and simple taking the law into one’s hands, featuring a pursuit, an imprisonment, and a struggle of some sort against an unarmed man, who was killed.  I don’t know if they intended to shoot him from the get go, but they were clearly unprepared to hold a fellow.  The best they could have intended was to hold him and call the cops.  If you’re going to do that armed, you do it at a distance.  But if you had to chase the guy to make contact and he fights you, he is the one defending himself.  Finally, with there being three of these guys, none should have felt that his life was in danger.  The only credible fear was that he might escape, and you don’t get to shoot for that even under circumstances more favorable to the legal defense.

    Sounds like at least one of these guys may already have a prison fraternity picked out.

    • #52
  23. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Flicker (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):
    In the eyes of the law, property rights will always be subordinated to the right to life…The guys in South Georgia screwed up.

    I agree that the guys who hunted Arbery were out of bounds.

    But it is not determined yet whether, when they shot him, they indeed acted in self defense. The jury will rule soon enough.

    You really think they “hunted” Arbery? Or were they trying to arrest him. Are police looking for a bank robber hunting him? I just want to be clear on the terminology.

    I think I injected the term into the discussion. I meant hunting as in “searching for,” not as in “Trying to shoot from a tree stand” or something like that. In this sense, they were acting as vigilantes and, again if the news reports were accurate, had no right to try to arrest him. It’s an example of how taking the law into your own hands can end up a disaster.

    Hunting is a bad choice of terms. And don’t people have the right to make a citizen’s arrest?

    A private citizen may make a citizen’s arrest if they witness a crime. A police officer may detain a person without witnessing the actual crime. A police officer needs to have probable cause and a reasonable belief that a crime was committed. A private citizen may not detain anyone for a violation. A police officer may detain someone for a violation.

    A crime is any offense that carries the penalty of imprisonment and/or a fine. A violation is an offense that involves a fine, and no imprisonment.

    In the Arbury case he entered a house under construction, he did not take anything. He left the house. The owner of the house, or the contractor may have lawful authority on the construction site, but Arbury left without vandalizing, or taking anything from the house.

    When he was confronted he was no longer in the house.

    Neighbors no matter how good they are have no lawful authority over property they do not own. A house under construction is not a residence, unless someone is actually living on the site.

    • #53
  24. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):
    I didn’t watch the trial, so the media reports could have been misleading as to what happened here.

    What???!!!???

    • #54
  25. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I think I injected the term into the discussion. I meant hunting as in “searching for,” not as in “Trying to shoot from a tree stand” or something like that. In this sense, they were acting as vigilantes and, again if the news reports were accurate, had no right to try to arrest him. It’s an example of how taking the law into your own hands can end up a disaster.

    Hunting is a bad choice of terms. And don’t people have the right to make a citizen’s arrest?

    It’s not really a “right.” Under certain circumstances you can avoid liability for what would otherwise be a crime – capturing someone, holding them at gun point, restricting their movement, etc. Those circumstances are pretty limited, particularly when, as in this case, they didn’t directly witness any crime. (And no felony, or even serious misdemeanor, was committed at all by Arbery, as it turned out).

    Another way to look at it is this: if you’re not a fleeing felon, you have no duty to submit to a non-police officer who is trying to capture you. They’re the ones committing the crime at that point.

    Again, a disclaimer: I didn’t watch the trial, so the media reports could have been misleading as to what happened here. My comments are based on the assumption that they’re reasonably accurate.

    I’m not talking about a written legal right devolved from thousands of refining legal decisions, I’m talking about a real-life, natural right, that no one can be forced to surrender.  When the police abdicate responsibility to maintain the law, the fundamental law to bring about justice does not cease to exist.

    This is what police administrations and state lawyers are playing with right now.

    • #55
  26. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):
    In the eyes of the law, property rights will always be subordinated to the right to life…The guys in South Georgia screwed up.

    I agree that the guys who hunted Arbery were out of bounds.

    But it is not determined yet whether, when they shot him, they indeed acted in self defense. The jury will rule soon enough.

    You really think they “hunted” Arbery? Or were they trying to arrest him. Are police looking for a bank robber hunting him? I just want to be clear on the terminology.

    I think I injected the term into the discussion. I meant hunting as in “searching for,” not as in “Trying to shoot from a tree stand” or something like that. In this sense, they were acting as vigilantes and, again if the news reports were accurate, had no right to try to arrest him. It’s an example of how taking the law into your own hands can end up a disaster.

    Hunting is a bad choice of terms. And don’t people have the right to make a citizen’s arrest?

    A private citizen may make a citizen’s arrest if they witness a crime. A police officer may detain a person without witnessing the actual crime. A police officer needs to have probable cause and a reasonable belief that a crime was committed. A private citizen may not detain anyone for a violation. A police officer may detain someone for a violation.

    A crime is any offense that carries the penalty of imprisonment and/or a fine. A violation is an offense that involves a fine, and no imprisonment.

    In the Arbury case he entered a house under construction, he did not take anything. He left the house. The owner of the house, or the contractor may have lawful authority on the construction site, but Arbury left without vandalizing, or taking anything from the house.

    When he was confronted he was no longer in the house.

    Neighbors no matter how good they are have no lawful authority over property they do not own. A house under construction is not a residence, unless someone is actually living on the site.

    Thanks.  I remember the Arbery case.  If I recall, his trespassing was witnessed on camera.  But I was speaking to the post’s encouragement of citizens taking back that which the police and justice have neglected.  It’s terrible to consider taking back authority into private hands, but bands of flash thieves and rioting is worse, I think.

    • #56
  27. D.A. Venters Inactive
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    Flicker (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I think I injected the term into the discussion. I meant hunting as in “searching for,” not as in “Trying to shoot from a tree stand” or something like that. In this sense, they were acting as vigilantes and, again if the news reports were accurate, had no right to try to arrest him. It’s an example of how taking the law into your own hands can end up a disaster.

    Hunting is a bad choice of terms. And don’t people have the right to make a citizen’s arrest?

    It’s not really a “right.” Under certain circumstances you can avoid liability for what would otherwise be a crime – capturing someone, holding them at gun point, restricting their movement, etc. Those circumstances are pretty limited, particularly when, as in this case, they didn’t directly witness any crime. (And no felony, or even serious misdemeanor, was committed at all by Arbery, as it turned out).

    Another way to look at it is this: if you’re not a fleeing felon, you have no duty to submit to a non-police officer who is trying to capture you. They’re the ones committing the crime at that point.

    Again, a disclaimer: I didn’t watch the trial, so the media reports could have been misleading as to what happened here. My comments are based on the assumption that they’re reasonably accurate.

    I’m not talking about a written legal right devolved from thousands of refining legal decisions, I’m talking about a real-life, natural right, that no one can be forced to surrender. When the police abdicate responsibility to maintain the law, the fundamental law to bring about justice does not cease to exist.

    This is what police administrations and state lawyers are playing with right now.

    I see what you’re saying.  I don’t disagree with that notion. The citizens arrest defense applies, of course, even if the police haven’t abdicated their responsibility to maintain the law.

    But I don’t think the guys who killed Arbery were justified under this broader conception of citizens arrest, either.  Maybe they had issues with their local police’s lack of initiative, but they didn’t exactly live in some kind of post apocalyptic free-for-all. If they suspected Arbery was a burglar (and keep in mind they were wrong about that), there are any number of things they could have done that didn’t involve chasing him down and capturing him like an animal, and the inevitable risk of violence that caused.  Have the property owner check his video camera, for one, to see if a crime had actually been committed, beyond minor trespass.

    • #57
  28. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    I’m not talking about a written legal right devolved from thousands of refining legal decisions, I’m talking about a real-life, natural right, that no one can be forced to surrender. When the police abdicate responsibility to maintain the law, the fundamental law to bring about justice does not cease to exist.

    This is what police administrations and state lawyers are playing with right now.

    I see what you’re saying. I don’t disagree with that notion. The citizens arrest defense applies, of course, even if the police haven’t abdicated their responsibility to maintain the law.

    But I don’t think the guys who killed Arbery were justified under this broader conception of citizens arrest, either. Maybe they had issues with their local police’s lack of initiative, but they didn’t exactly live in some kind of post apocalyptic free-for-all. If they suspected Arbery was a burglar (and keep in mind they were wrong about that), there are any number of things they could have done that didn’t involve chasing him down and capturing him like an animal, and the inevitable risk of violence that caused. Have the property owner check his video camera, for one, to see if a crime had actually been committed, beyond minor trespass.

    And I see what you’re saying.  I’m just not arguing the Arbery case.  I mean I’ve seen the footage, and it’s equivocal.  The citizens’ behavior was legally questionable (to a non-lawyer).  And Arbery had prior handgun arrest or whatever.  I don’t think that this had to be known by the citizens for them to be armed and cautious.  If I were Arbery, I don’t know what I would have done.  I probably wouldn’t have run in the first place.  Unless perhaps I knew that I’d entered the construction site and had been warned off before, or had stolen stuff from the site before, or some-such.  I certainly wouldn’t have turned back and tried to disarm the one with the shotgun.

    Pulling on the barrel and pointing it at your belly, seems to be a tactic doomed to failure.  I don’t know what’s right legally or morally in this case.

    • #58
  29. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    iWe (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I don t think so. It has not worked out in the past.

    Korean shopkeepers?

    More Americans carrying guns than ever before while the deaths per firearm rate keeps dropping?

    Home schooling?

    France

    Columbia

    Mob justice

    I am all for carry. I am not for police abdication and then relying on citizens.

    What is this a no guns allowed list?  Colombia (assuming you just misspelt the name) has eliminated legal guns.  When I lived there everyone I knew owned and carried guns.  Now they don’t.  Even criminals have difficulty buying guns and poor criminals have to borrow or rent them out to each other.  I think crime and violence is rising.   Moreover, I just learned the US just took the FARC off the terrorist list.   So someone lobbied the State Department for a reason and I doubt the result will be positive. 

     

     

    • #59
  30. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    I am not for police abdication and then relying on citizens.

    Policing with a trained police force is the best. But we control what we can control and we have very little control over whether our police abdicate or not. We do have control over preparing ourselves for when and if they do abdicate.

    I’ve been struggling with this since the Florida school shooting where the resource officer hid and the cops didn’t go in, leaving forcibly unarmed students and teachers at the mercy of a criminal delinquent.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.