bearingarms--2020-05-09--Mexico's President Wants Answers On Operation Fast & Furious

Something tells me the Trump administration may be far more eager to help Mexico president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador get to the bottom of the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal than the Obama administration ever was .
The administration that implemented the program that sent thousands of guns across the border under the direction of the BATFE and the Justice Department headed by then-Attorney General Eric Holder never said much about how much information they gave Mexico about the fact that the American government was arming Mexican drug cartels .
Lopez Obrador said during a press conference on Friday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of who , if anyone , in the Mexican government was informed of the operation before it was revealed after the death of border patrol agent Brian Terry in December of 2010 by a member of a Mexican drug cartel using a firearm that the BATFE had allowed to enter into Mexico in the hands of a gunrunner .
Lopez Obrador on Friday said he will ask the U.S. government if it had alerted Mexican officials that agents were carrying out the undercover operation where U.S. agents lost track of guns they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the goal of tracking Mexico ’ s brutal drug gangs .
“ What seems serious to me is that a violation of our sovereignty was carried out , a secret operation , and that Mexicans were killed with these weapons , ” Lopez Obrador said during his morning press conference in Mexico City .
“ There is still time for the U.S. to apologize.
” Foreign Affairs Minister Marcelo Ebrard said he would send a letter to the U.S. on Friday asking for detailed information on the U.S. investigation over the operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It makes a great deal of sense for the Trump administration to offer full cooperation in helping Mexico get to the bottom of Operation Fast and Furious and what , if anything , any ATF , DOJ , or State Department employees ever mentioned to their counterparts in the Mexican government .
Trump might even want to apologize to the Mexican government on behalf of the U.S. government , while noting of course that the gunrunning scandal took place under the previous administration .
You know , the administration that featured Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emerged as a political issue in Mexico because Lopez Obrador has blamed past president Felipe Calderon for the recent rise in homicides in the country , alleging that Calderon ’ s strategy of trying to crack down on drug cartels with the Mexican military only exacerbated the violence in the country without destroying or really weakening the cartels themselves and accusing Calderon of knowingly allowing the Obama administration to allow guns to be trafficked into Mexico under Operation Fast and Furious .
Calderon said on Twitter on Thursday that the allegations were false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ secret operation ” that was only disclosed to the Mexican government after Terry ’ s death .
In the former president ’ s Twitter thread , Calderon also made it explicitly clear that no one in the Obama administration informed him of the operation .
Instead , Calderon alleges that the Obama administration spoke generally to the Mexican government about cracking down on cross-border arms trafficking , but didn ’ t elaborate on how they planned to do it .
No one in the Obama administration has adequately explained just how exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
The plan was supposedly to allow firearms to be trafficked into Mexico , where they would be tracked to high level members of the drug cartels .
Instead , thousands of firearms flowed into the country , often while ATF agents watched from afar .
No indictments were handed down until after Terry ’ s murder in 2010 , and then the indictments were against alleged traffickers , not high ranking cartel members .
Worse , the Obama administration originally denied that they had knowingly allowed guns to be walked into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months before then-Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that he had unintentionally described the program inaccurately in previous statements to Congress , while alleging that he and other top DOJ officials were completely in the dark about the gunwalking aspects of the operation .
Obama , Holder , and Joe Biden should be the ones apologizing to the Mexican president , not President Trump .
However , it makes sense from both a moral and political perspective for the current administration to do what they can to provide the answers that Lopez Obrador is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Trump administration would never engage in the kind of underhanded , deceptive , and illegal tactics used under Barack Obama that have fueled the cartel wars in Mexico for more than a decade now .

Something tells me the Trump administration may be far more eager to help Mexico president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador get to the bottom of the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal than the Obama administration ever was. The administration that implemented the program that sent thousands of guns across the border under the direction of the BATFE and the Justice Department headed by then-Attorney General Eric Holder never said much about how much information they gave Mexico about the fact that the American government was arming Mexican drug cartels.
Lopez Obrador said during a press conference on Friday that he wants to get to the bottom of who, if anyone, in the Mexican government was informed of the operation before it was revealed after the death of border patrol agent Brian Terry in December of 2010 by a member of a Mexican drug cartel using a firearm that the BATFE had allowed to enter into Mexico in the hands of a gunrunner.
Lopez Obrador on Friday said he will ask the U.S. government if it had alerted Mexican officials that agents were carrying out the undercover operation where U.S. agents lost track of guns they had allowed to enter the Latin American nation with the goal of tracking Mexico’s brutal drug gangs. “What seems serious to me is that a violation of our sovereignty was carried out, a secret operation, and that Mexicans were killed with these weapons,” Lopez Obrador said during his morning press conference in Mexico City. “There is still time for the U.S. to apologize.” Foreign Affairs Minister Marcelo Ebrard said he would send a letter to the U.S. on Friday asking for detailed information on the U.S. investigation over the operation, dubbed “Fast and Furious.”
It makes a great deal of sense for the Trump administration to offer full cooperation in helping Mexico get to the bottom of Operation Fast and Furious and what, if anything, any ATF, DOJ, or State Department employees ever mentioned to their counterparts in the Mexican government. Trump might even want to apologize to the Mexican government on behalf of the U.S. government, while noting of course that the gunrunning scandal took place under the previous administration. You know, the administration that featured Joe Biden as vice-president.
Fast and Furious has emerged as a political issue in Mexico because Lopez Obrador has blamed past president Felipe Calderon for the recent rise in homicides in the country, alleging that Calderon’s strategy of trying to crack down on drug cartels with the Mexican military only exacerbated the violence in the country without destroying or really weakening the cartels themselves and accusing Calderon of knowingly allowing the Obama administration to allow guns to be trafficked into Mexico under Operation Fast and Furious. Calderon said on Twitter on Thursday that the allegations were false, and called Fast and Furious a “secret operation” that was only disclosed to the Mexican government after Terry’s death.
Es falso que el gobierno de México haya tenido un acuerdo con el gobierno de EUA para introducir armas al país. Durante la Administración 2006-2012, el gobierno mexicano exigió firmemente al gobierno de EUA detener el tráfico de armas que llegaban a los criminales. Abro hilo… — Felipe Calderón (@FelipeCalderon) May 8, 2020
In the former president’s Twitter thread, Calderon also made it explicitly clear that no one in the Obama administration informed him of the operation. Instead, Calderon alleges that the Obama administration spoke generally to the Mexican government about cracking down on cross-border arms trafficking, but didn’t elaborate on how they planned to do it.
At no time was the content or specific implementation of said American judicial strategy an issue that was the subject of knowledge, discussion, and least of all agreement between Presidential offices.
No one in the Obama administration has adequately explained just how exactly Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to work. The plan was supposedly to allow firearms to be trafficked into Mexico, where they would be tracked to high level members of the drug cartels. Instead, thousands of firearms flowed into the country, often while ATF agents watched from afar. No indictments were handed down until after Terry’s murder in 2010, and then the indictments were against alleged traffickers, not high ranking cartel members.
Worse, the Obama administration originally denied that they had knowingly allowed guns to be walked into Mexico, and maintained that position for months before then-Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that he had unintentionally described the program inaccurately in previous statements to Congress, while alleging that he and other top DOJ officials were completely in the dark about the gunwalking aspects of the operation.
Obama, Holder, and Joe Biden should be the ones apologizing to the Mexican president, not President Trump. However, it makes sense from both a moral and political perspective for the current administration to do what they can to provide the answers that Lopez Obrador is asking for, while making it clear that the Trump administration would never engage in the kind of underhanded, deceptive, and illegal tactics used under Barack Obama that have fueled the cartel wars in Mexico for more than a decade now.


bearingarms--2020-05-09--Michigan AG Says Capitol Gun Ban Can Take Place Without Legislation

After armed protestors poured into the state capitol building in Lansing , Michigan last week , several lawmakers responded by saying they wanted to see guns banned from the capitol complex .
Now the state ’ s Attorney General has weighed in , telling lawmakers that the state ’ s Capitol Commission has the authority to enact a ban , without the need for the Legislature to approve any changes .
[ Attorney General Dana ] Nessel ’ s letter comes as Democratic lawmakers are questioning the policy of allowing firearms in government buildings after they felt intimidated by armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Another protest is scheduled to take place May next Thursday at the Capitol .
Michigan is one of about a dozen states that allowed the public to generally carry firearms , either concealed or openly , inside capitol buildings , according to a 2013 report from the Michigan Information & Research Service ( MIRS News ) .
But Nessel said the mixture of loaded firearms , body armor and controversial debate is an “ absurdly dangerous combination that would cause the heart of any security expert to skip a beat.
” After a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority , Nessel concluded the commission could ban firearms to “ ensure the safety of the visiting public ” as well as lawmakers .
“ …the commission is not constrained from enacting procedures limiting firearms at facilities under its control , ” wrote the attorney general , who is a Democrat .
“ This is especially true where those procedures fulfill its mandate to ‘ operate and manage the Michigan state capitol historic site ’ in a fashion that ensures the safety of those civil servants who access the Capitol.
” If Nessel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate are a dangerous combination , then presumably she ’ d extend her belief that guns can be banned from the state capitol to include a ban on guns in the public square .
Or maybe she ’ d rather legislators pass a law banning political speech while carrying a firearm .
Regardless of the AG ’ s opinion , the vice chairmain of the capitol commission says other attorneys have told them that the Legislature would have to change the firearms policy through a bill .
But the Capitol Commission has received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found the panel can ’ t change the policy without legislative action , said Truscott , a commission member and former spokesman for Republican former Gov .
John Engler .
“ Right now , it ’ s just an informal letter , the way we view it , ” Truscott said about Nessel ’ s letter .
“ We do have information to the contrary as well.
” Michigan ’ s policy dates back to the 1930s , Truscott has said .
Democrats and some Republicans have called for changes to the policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including State Rep. Sarah Anthony , who earlier this week was escorted to the capitol building by several armed citizens after she talked about feeling unsafe during the re-open protests .
Anthony told reporters earlier this week that she didn ’ t request the armed escort , but wouldn ’ t turn it down either .
I ’ ve said before that I don ’ t believe the intent of the armed protestors was intimidation , but I ’ m also not exactly clear why the open carry of long guns was so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers and the governor to begin to re-open the state ’ s businesses and relax some of the social distancing measures put in place by Gov .
Whitmer .
I may not think the intent was to intimidate lawmakers , but I ’ m willing to admit I could also be wrong .
I also still believe that banning firearms from the capitol would be the wrong step to take , and an escalation on the part of government officials at a time when de-escalating tensions and open communications are what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like they were being listened to , they might not feel the need to shout as loud .

After armed protestors poured into the state capitol building in Lansing, Michigan last week, several lawmakers responded by saying they wanted to see guns banned from the capitol complex. Now the state’s Attorney General has weighed in, telling lawmakers that the state’s Capitol Commission has the authority to enact a ban, without the need for the Legislature to approve any changes.
[Attorney General Dana] Nessel’s letter comes as Democratic lawmakers are questioning the policy of allowing firearms in government buildings after they felt intimidated by armed protesters April 30 at the Capitol. Another protest is scheduled to take place May next Thursday at the Capitol. Michigan is one of about a dozen states that allowed the public to generally carry firearms, either concealed or openly, inside capitol buildings, according to a 2013 report from the Michigan Information & Research Service (MIRS News). But Nessel said the mixture of loaded firearms, body armor and controversial debate is an “absurdly dangerous combination that would cause the heart of any security expert to skip a beat.” After a review of the commission’s legal authority, Nessel concluded the commission could ban firearms to “ensure the safety of the visiting public” as well as lawmakers. “…the commission is not constrained from enacting procedures limiting firearms at facilities under its control,” wrote the attorney general, who is a Democrat. “This is especially true where those procedures fulfill its mandate to ‘operate and manage the Michigan state capitol historic site’ in a fashion that ensures the safety of those civil servants who access the Capitol.”
If Nessel truly believes that loaded firearms and controversial debate are a dangerous combination, then presumably she’d extend her belief that guns can be banned from the state capitol to include a ban on guns in the public square. Or maybe she’d rather legislators pass a law banning political speech while carrying a firearm.
Regardless of the AG’s opinion, the vice chairmain of the capitol commission says other attorneys have told them that the Legislature would have to change the firearms policy through a bill.
But the Capitol Commission has received informal legal advice from other lawyers who found the panel can’t change the policy without legislative action, said Truscott, a commission member and former spokesman for Republican former Gov. John Engler. “Right now, it’s just an informal letter, the way we view it,” Truscott said about Nessel’s letter. “We do have information to the contrary as well.” Michigan’s policy dates back to the 1930s, Truscott has said.
Democrats and some Republicans have called for changes to the policy after last week’s protests, including State Rep. Sarah Anthony, who earlier this week was escorted to the capitol building by several armed citizens after she talked about feeling unsafe during the re-open protests.
“Prohibiting firearms within the Michigan State Capitol does not infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms,” said Rep. Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing. “We must safeguard Michiganders’ constitutionally protected rights to speak, assemble and petition the government and protect legislators, staff and the general public from armed intimidation.”
Anthony told reporters earlier this week that she didn’t request the armed escort, but wouldn’t turn it down either.
I’ve said before that I don’t believe the intent of the armed protestors was intimidation, but I’m also not exactly clear why the open carry of long guns was so widespread during a protest meant to persuade lawmakers and the governor to begin to re-open the state’s businesses and relax some of the social distancing measures put in place by Gov. Whitmer. I may not think the intent was to intimidate lawmakers, but I’m willing to admit I could also be wrong.
I also still believe that banning firearms from the capitol would be the wrong step to take, and an escalation on the part of government officials at a time when de-escalating tensions and open communications are what’s really needed. If the People felt like they were being listened to, they might not feel the need to shout as loud.


bearingarms--2020-05-10--On Coronavirus And Guns, Michael Hiltzik Needs A Reality Check

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltik thinks he ’ s found the real reason that states are starting to re-open their economies after months of shutdowns because of COVID-19 .
According to the anti-gun scribe , it ’ s apathy , not necessity , that ’ s causing states to re-open and keep essential businesses going during the shutdown , and we all should have seen it coming based on the fact that we haven ’ t banned tens of millions of commonly owned firearms after mass murders like the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary back in 2012 .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event in a Connecticut elementary school on Dec. 14 , 2012 , that if America would tolerate the slaughter by gunfire of 20 children aged 6 and 7 , it would tolerate anything .
Nothing proves the truth of that observation more than our response to the coronavirus pandemic .
At this moment of maximum peril , we ’ re tolerating the turning of workers in meatpacking plants and grocery stores , seniors in nursing homes and heedless churchgoers into sacrificial offerings to the gods of “ freedom ” and “ choice.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peril , ” Americans still need to eat .
Elderly Americans in nursing homes still need care .
And if Hiltzik is so concerned about Americans going to church in the name of “ freedom , ” why isn ’ t he calling for reporters to stay at home ?
Surely there ’ s no need for television reporters to get into the field to report on local stories at such a dangerous time .
Hiltzik is sure that the reason why some Americans are calling for a re-opening of the economy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we still don ’ t see the coronavirus as a real threat .
Like gun violence , Hiltzik claims , COVID-19 is something that Americans believe happens to someone else .
Not even low-wage native-born Americans think they have much in common with immigrant workers in meat plants .
As we ’ ve reported , in the century since Upton Sinclair exposed the medieval conditions in Chicago meatpacking plants in “ The Jungle , ” not much has changed for workers , because the government ’ s focus always has been the safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the workers .
At 1.5 million , the population living in nursing homes comes to less than one half of one percent of Americans ; though that may be roughly equivalent to the number of families with relatives in homes , for some of them at least , residential nursing care is one way to get on with their lives while the elders finish theirs .
As for mass shootings , it ’ s true that when they occur in truly random circumstances , such as at a big music festival in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hair salon , the average American may stop for a moment and think : I could have been there .
That could have been me .
But the feeling soon passes , in part because these outbreaks have become so common that they have lost their ability to shock .
I can ’ t help but get the feeling that halfway through his column Hiltzik realized how dumb his argument was , but gamely pressed on regardless .
Americans just don ’ t care about other Americans , except when they do .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes because they want to get on with their lives , yet we ’ ve all seen stories of brokenhearted family members who can ’ t even wave to grandma from the window of her nursing home because of stay-at-home orders .
He first claims it ’ s apathy that ’ s stopping gun bans from being enacted , before suddenly deciding it ’ s forgetfulness instead .
How can Hiltzik be so sure that most of the push to re-open businesses is coming from people who aren ’ t feeling the impacts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal experience , the people that I ’ ve spoken to who are the most eager to see businesses re-open are the small business owners who ’ ve been shut down for the past two months .
One of my best friends is a restaurant owner in Farmville , Virginia , and he ’ s chomping at the bit to re-open , because if his business can ’ t open its doors to customers soon , they ’ ll never be able to do so .
Even my friend , however , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He doesn ’ t want any of his regulars to get sick , nor does he want to inadvertently pass on the coronavirus to his in-laws , one of whom isn ’ t in the best of health .
Hiltzik ’ s caricature of those pushing governments to ease shutdown restrictions utterly ignores the nuanced positions that most of them actually take : governments should take steps to re-open the economy while we as citizens should take steps to try to keep ourselves , and each other , safe .
In Hiltzik ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downside to staying locked down indefinitely .
He never mentions the fact that the government has pumped nearly $ 3-trillion into the economy since mid-March , and we just saw the highest unemployment figures since the Great Depression .
He doesn ’ t talk about the increase in calls to mental health crisis lines , or the concerns from mental health professionals that we ’ re likely to see more substance abuse and suicide attempts because of the economic pain and the job losses for tens of millions of Americans .
Michael Hiltzik @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with no shades of gray , and anyone who wants to see businesses re-open or modern sporting rifles protected by the Second Amendment are villains or dupes .
It must be comforting for Hiltzik to think the world is that simple , but he ’ s lying to himself and his readers .
The truth is that what Hiltzik is asking for is just as unreasonable as the folks who are begging for governments to flip a switch and return us to immediate normalcy .
Like the Greek hero Odysseus , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Charybdis ; a highly contagious virus that could kill millions of Americans if it overwhelms our healthcare system , and a lockdown of our nation ’ s economy that could kill millions of Americans if it destroys jobs , food supplies , and even forces doctors and nurses onto the unemployment rolls along with their friends and neighbors .
If Hiltzik were Odysseus , caught between the six-headed sea monster and a roiling whirlpool that would break his ship in two , what would he do ?
He ’ d complain about Odysseus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s what .
Odysseus tried in vain to steer his ship safely between the two deadly monsters , but when forced to choose , he sacrificed a few of his men to the sea monster instead of having his ship dragged down into the wine-dark sea by the whirlpool and losing everyone .
We have no option at the moment that stops the virus dead in its tracks .
Even while stay-at-home orders have been in places and hundreds of thousands of businesses deemed “ non-essential ” have closed , coronavirus cases increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have if the lockdowns hadn ’ t been issued .
We also have no option that returns us to immediate economic prosperity , as Americans are still afraid to take part in everyday activities like eating at a restaurant or going to a movie .
Lives will be lost to the coronavirus .
Jobs will be lost to our fears of the coronavirus .
We can ’ t stop either .
The real goal is to minimize both as much as possible .
This is not an easy fact to digest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a monster for accepting that this is our reality .
It doesn ’ t mean you don ’ t care about human lives if you understand we need to thread the needle between re-opening the economy and flooding hospitals with new coronavirus patients in order to minimize the scope and duration of the pain and suffering that we ’ re dealing with at the moment .
You don ’ t have to like the world as it is , but you do need to live there and not a fantasyland of your own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just as out of touch when it comes to his idea that we can simply ban our way to safety .
Governors across the country are starting to understand that they put almost any restriction they like in place , but getting Americans to comply with it is another story completely .
Gov .
Mike DeWine in Ohio recently rescinded an order requiring residents to wear masks because he realized it went too far .

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltik thinks he’s found the real reason that states are starting to re-open their economies after months of shutdowns because of COVID-19. According to the anti-gun scribe, it’s apathy, not necessity, that’s causing states to re-open and keep essential businesses going during the shutdown, and we all should have seen it coming based on the fact that we haven’t banned tens of millions of commonly owned firearms after mass murders like the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary back in 2012.
It was widely observed, following a certain event in a Connecticut elementary school on Dec. 14, 2012, that if America would tolerate the slaughter by gunfire of 20 children aged 6 and 7, it would tolerate anything. Nothing proves the truth of that observation more than our response to the coronavirus pandemic. At this moment of maximum peril, we’re tolerating the turning of workers in meatpacking plants and grocery stores, seniors in nursing homes and heedless churchgoers into sacrificial offerings to the gods of “freedom” and “choice.”
Even at this “moment of maximum peril,” Americans still need to eat. Elderly Americans in nursing homes still need care. And if Hiltzik is so concerned about Americans going to church in the name of “freedom,” why isn’t he calling for reporters to stay at home? Surely there’s no need for television reporters to get into the field to report on local stories at such a dangerous time.
Hiltzik is sure that the reason why some Americans are calling for a re-opening of the economy and a lifting of stay-at-home orders is because we still don’t see the coronavirus as a real threat. Like gun violence, Hiltzik claims, COVID-19 is something that Americans believe happens to someone else.
Not even low-wage native-born Americans think they have much in common with immigrant workers in meat plants. As we’ve reported, in the century since Upton Sinclair exposed the medieval conditions in Chicago meatpacking plants in “The Jungle,” not much has changed for workers, because the government’s focus always has been the safety of the product, not the safety of the workers. At 1.5 million, the population living in nursing homes comes to less than one half of one percent of Americans; though that may be roughly equivalent to the number of families with relatives in homes, for some of them at least, residential nursing care is one way to get on with their lives while the elders finish theirs. As for mass shootings, it’s true that when they occur in truly random circumstances, such as at a big music festival in Las Vegas or inside an office or hair salon, the average American may stop for a moment and think: I could have been there. That could have been me. But the feeling soon passes, in part because these outbreaks have become so common that they have lost their ability to shock.
I can’t help but get the feeling that halfway through his column Hiltzik realized how dumb his argument was, but gamely pressed on regardless. Americans just don’t care about other Americans, except when they do. Hiltzik says Americans put grandmas in nursing homes because they want to get on with their lives, yet we’ve all seen stories of brokenhearted family members who can’t even wave to grandma from the window of her nursing home because of stay-at-home orders. He first claims it’s apathy that’s stopping gun bans from being enacted, before suddenly deciding it’s forgetfulness instead.
The idea that America should reopen its economy because the economic damage of the lockdown is worse than the consequences of more infections comes largely from people who aren’t suffering much from the lockdown and can afford to insulate themselves from inspection. That’s evident from their cavalier assertions that people will die one way or the other, so lockdown versus reopening is a “false choice.”
How can Hiltzik be so sure that most of the push to re-open businesses is coming from people who aren’t feeling the impacts of the lockdown? From my own personal experience, the people that I’ve spoken to who are the most eager to see businesses re-open are the small business owners who’ve been shut down for the past two months. One of my best friends is a restaurant owner in Farmville, Virginia, and he’s chomping at the bit to re-open, because if his business can’t open its doors to customers soon, they’ll never be able to do so.
Even my friend, however, is concerned about what re-opening will mean. He doesn’t want any of his regulars to get sick, nor does he want to inadvertently pass on the coronavirus to his in-laws, one of whom isn’t in the best of health. Hiltzik’s caricature of those pushing governments to ease shutdown restrictions utterly ignores the nuanced positions that most of them actually take: governments should take steps to re-open the economy while we as citizens should take steps to try to keep ourselves, and each other, safe.
Who decides what’s “reasonable”? Not front-line workers — they’re just taking the risks. The decision and the choice is taken out of their hands by governors who have ordered their workplaces reopened, thereby depriving workers of unemployment benefits if they act on fears for their health and lives by staying home.
In Hiltzik’s world, there’s no downside to staying locked down indefinitely. He never mentions the fact that the government has pumped nearly $3-trillion into the economy since mid-March, and we just saw the highest unemployment figures since the Great Depression. He doesn’t talk about the increase in calls to mental health crisis lines, or the concerns from mental health professionals that we’re likely to see more substance abuse and suicide attempts because of the economic pain and the job losses for tens of millions of Americans. Michael Hiltzik’s world is black and white, with no shades of gray, and anyone who wants to see businesses re-open or modern sporting rifles protected by the Second Amendment are villains or dupes.
It must be comforting for Hiltzik to think the world is that simple, but he’s lying to himself and his readers. The truth is that what Hiltzik is asking for is just as unreasonable as the folks who are begging for governments to flip a switch and return us to immediate normalcy. Like the Greek hero Odysseus, we are caught between our own Scylla and Charybdis; a highly contagious virus that could kill millions of Americans if it overwhelms our healthcare system, and a lockdown of our nation’s economy that could kill millions of Americans if it destroys jobs, food supplies, and even forces doctors and nurses onto the unemployment rolls along with their friends and neighbors.
If Hiltzik were Odysseus, caught between the six-headed sea monster and a roiling whirlpool that would break his ship in two, what would he do? He’d complain about Odysseus’s ultimate choice, that’s what. Odysseus tried in vain to steer his ship safely between the two deadly monsters, but when forced to choose, he sacrificed a few of his men to the sea monster instead of having his ship dragged down into the wine-dark sea by the whirlpool and losing everyone.
We have no option at the moment that stops the virus dead in its tracks. Even while stay-at-home orders have been in places and hundreds of thousands of businesses deemed “non-essential” have closed, coronavirus cases increased, though not as quickly as they would have if the lockdowns hadn’t been issued. We also have no option that returns us to immediate economic prosperity, as Americans are still afraid to take part in everyday activities like eating at a restaurant or going to a movie. Lives will be lost to the coronavirus. Jobs will be lost to our fears of the coronavirus. We can’t stop either. The real goal is to minimize both as much as possible.
This is not an easy fact to digest, but it doesn’t make you a monster for accepting that this is our reality. It doesn’t mean you don’t care about human lives if you understand we need to thread the needle between re-opening the economy and flooding hospitals with new coronavirus patients in order to minimize the scope and duration of the pain and suffering that we’re dealing with at the moment. You don’t have to like the world as it is, but you do need to live there and not a fantasyland of your own creation as Hiltzik has done.
Hiltzik’s just as out of touch when it comes to his idea that we can simply ban our way to safety. Governors across the country are starting to understand that they put almost any restriction they like in place, but getting Americans to comply with it is another story completely. Gov. Mike DeWine in Ohio recently rescinded an order requiring residents to wear masks because he realized it went too far.
“It became clear to me that that was just a bridge too far. People were not going to accept the government telling them what to do,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”


bearingarms--2020-05-10--The Long-Term Failures Of Violence Prevention Programs

As a Second Amendment supporter , I tend to believe that the answers to solving the issue of violence in our inner cities aren ’ t gun control .
Obviously , I ’ m biased to a significant degree , but my bias is based on observation .
After all , look at the 10 safest states and the 10 most dangerous states .
You have gun-controlled states in both lists and you have gun-friendly states in both lists as well .
That suggests the issue is a bit more complicated than something that can be solved with a simplistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it also seems that popular gun violence reduction programs aren ’ t producing the long-term results proponents hope for .
In 2018 , Portland started to rethink how it addresses gun violence .
The police bureau sent representatives to Oakland , California , to observe Ceasefire , that city ’ s gun violence prevention program .
Oakland ’ s program , which targets social services at people most likely to commit violence , is credited with dramatically reducing Bay Area gun violence .
“ That is something that we ’ re using as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar to that here in Portland , ” Shearer said in an interview with Guns & America .
Cities across the country — from Baltimore to South Bend , Indiana and Stockton , California — have adopted similar models .
And while these programs often have an impact in the year or two after launch , long-term reductions in gun violence can be fleeting .
Ceasefire is based on the idea that even in cities with high homicide rates , the number of people committing acts of violence is actually very low .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence includes people who are in their 20s to early 30s who has significant criminal justice histories , seven or more arrests , who are part of some sort of crew or clique or gang , ” said David Muhammad , executive director of the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform , a nonprofit that helps cities implement gun violence reduction programs like Oakland ’ s .
Typically , Muhammad says , people who commit gun violence have been victims of gun violence themselves , or someone close to them has been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group directly by providing social services or an alternative to violence , the theory goes , and you can have a major impact on gun violence .
At least in the short term .
“ Ceasefire is about immediately reducing gun violence , ” Muhammad said .
“ And the type of community transformation that is desperately needed is a very long-term prospect.
” Now , this approach actually makes a fair bit of sense .
You target people who are most likely to end up committing violent crimes and offer them alternatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea is to stop violence at its source .
It should work , right ?
Well , it has and it hasn ’ t .
Maybe .
The problem is that it ’ s hard to see any long-term results from these programs .
It doesn ’ t help that some communities stop funding the program once violence decreases , thus allowing it to flourish once again .
To me , that suggests the solution isn ’ t really a solution , but a band-aid .
It ’ s not really getting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s simply hiding the problem like a toupe .
In some cases , though , it doesn ’ t even do that .
Elsewhere in the country , in city after city , declines in the near term evaporated over time .
In 2014 , the first-year South Bend had a program in place , homicides dropped from 78 to 66 .
The next year , that number ticked back up to 85 , down to 81 in 2016 and in 2017 was over 100 .
Detroit , where city leaders have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started rolling out its program to police precincts in 2015 .
That year it had 295 homicides .
Since then homicides have bounced up to 302 , down to 261 , and back up to 272 , according to FBI data .
Meanwhile , the city ’ s population shrank by 1 % , according to U.S. Census Bureau data .
Those aren ’ t the other places , either .
Stockton , CA has been heralded as a success after the program did wonders there .
Then they cut off funding and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the average number of homicides is pretty much right were it was to begin with .
So what gives ?
Clearly , there are a lot of theories , some of which are going to be dismissed by many typical Bearing Arms readers outright .
I know I rolled my eyes when I read this : “ The whole approach is , ‘ This is a problem person , ’ ” said Aaron Roussell , an associate professor of sociology at Portland State University .
“ Not ‘ We have systematically and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deal with issues of race and classism that actually keep these places marginalized.
’ ” But Roussell said the focus on data can distract from deeper societal issues that cause violence in the first place .
“ It ’ s a weird idea that you just want less crime in poor neighborhoods , ” he said .
“ They don ’ t want to change anything else about the world , but you want to just bring that down .
Because it ’ s basically a series of crimes that made those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t ever deal with that.
” Roussell attributes many of those dips noted before as potentially being cyclical variations rather than evidence they worked .
Like I said , it ’ s hard not to eye-roll at this kind of thing , but Roussell may actually be onto something .
These high-violence neighborhoods are typically places that most folks otherwise don ’ t care about .
They wouldn ’ t care about them now if folks there would just behave .
No one really does seem to care about changing anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want the crime to go away .
And yet , what do we do ?
Programs like Ceasefire seek to address these neighborhoods and the individuals most likely to become violent criminals which should , by extension the neighborhoods in question .
Yet it ’ s not working .
Roussell would seem to say that racism and classism are to blame , but I find that a simplistic answer yet again for a complex problem .
Or , more specifically , adding a couple of complex issues as the cause for another complex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know .
What I do know is that we need to figure it out because people are being killed and that ’ s being used to justify infringing on the civil liberties of others .
That shouldn ’ t be tolerated by anyone , regardless of what neighborhoods they live in .

As a Second Amendment supporter, I tend to believe that the answers to solving the issue of violence in our inner cities aren’t gun control. Obviously, I’m biased to a significant degree, but my bias is based on observation. After all, look at the 10 safest states and the 10 most dangerous states. You have gun-controlled states in both lists and you have gun-friendly states in both lists as well.
That suggests the issue is a bit more complicated than something that can be solved with a simplistic answer like gun control.
However, it also seems that popular gun violence reduction programs aren’t producing the long-term results proponents hope for.
In 2018, Portland started to rethink how it addresses gun violence. The police bureau sent representatives to Oakland, California, to observe Ceasefire, that city’s gun violence prevention program. Oakland’s program, which targets social services at people most likely to commit violence, is credited with dramatically reducing Bay Area gun violence. “That is something that we’re using as a foundation to try to build something similar to that here in Portland,” Shearer said in an interview with Guns & America. Cities across the country — from Baltimore to South Bend, Indiana and Stockton, California — have adopted similar models. And while these programs often have an impact in the year or two after launch, long-term reductions in gun violence can be fleeting. Ceasefire is based on the idea that even in cities with high homicide rates, the number of people committing acts of violence is actually very low. “About 70% of all gun violence includes people who are in their 20s to early 30s who has significant criminal justice histories, seven or more arrests, who are part of some sort of crew or clique or gang,” said David Muhammad, executive director of the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, a nonprofit that helps cities implement gun violence reduction programs like Oakland’s. Typically, Muhammad says, people who commit gun violence have been victims of gun violence themselves, or someone close to them has been a recent victim. Intervene with this small group directly by providing social services or an alternative to violence, the theory goes, and you can have a major impact on gun violence. At least in the short term. “Ceasefire is about immediately reducing gun violence,” Muhammad said. “And the type of community transformation that is desperately needed is a very long-term prospect.”
Now, this approach actually makes a fair bit of sense. You target people who are most likely to end up committing violent crimes and offer them alternatives to the kind of lifestyle. The idea is to stop violence at its source.
It should work, right?
Well, it has and it hasn’t. Maybe.
The problem is that it’s hard to see any long-term results from these programs. It doesn’t help that some communities stop funding the program once violence decreases, thus allowing it to flourish once again.
To me, that suggests the solution isn’t really a solution, but a band-aid. It’s not really getting to the root of the problem, it’s simply hiding the problem like a toupe.
In some cases, though, it doesn’t even do that.
Elsewhere in the country, in city after city, declines in the near term evaporated over time. In 2014, the first-year South Bend had a program in place, homicides dropped from 78 to 66. The next year, that number ticked back up to 85, down to 81 in 2016 and in 2017 was over 100. Detroit, where city leaders have credited Ceasefire with reducing violent crime, started rolling out its program to police precincts in 2015. That year it had 295 homicides. Since then homicides have bounced up to 302, down to 261, and back up to 272, according to FBI data. Meanwhile, the city’s population shrank by 1%, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.
Those aren’t the other places, either. Stockton, CA has been heralded as a success after the program did wonders there. Then they cut off funding and the number of murders returned. Now, the average number of homicides is pretty much right were it was to begin with.
So what gives?
Clearly, there are a lot of theories, some of which are going to be dismissed by many typical Bearing Arms readers outright. I know I rolled my eyes when I read this:
“The whole approach is, ‘This is a problem person,’” said Aaron Roussell, an associate professor of sociology at Portland State University. “Not ‘We have systematically and intentionally underfunded these communities and we refuse to deal with issues of race and classism that actually keep these places marginalized.’” … But Roussell said the focus on data can distract from deeper societal issues that cause violence in the first place. “It’s a weird idea that you just want less crime in poor neighborhoods,” he said. “They don’t want to change anything else about the world, but you want to just bring that down. Because it’s basically a series of crimes that made those neighborhoods poor to begin with and we don’t ever deal with that.”
Roussell attributes many of those dips noted before as potentially being cyclical variations rather than evidence they worked.
Like I said, it’s hard not to eye-roll at this kind of thing, but Roussell may actually be onto something. These high-violence neighborhoods are typically places that most folks otherwise don’t care about. They wouldn’t care about them now if folks there would just behave. No one really does seem to care about changing anything else about those neighborhoods. They just want the crime to go away.
And yet, what do we do?
Programs like Ceasefire seek to address these neighborhoods and the individuals most likely to become violent criminals which should, by extension the neighborhoods in question. Yet it’s not working.
Roussell would seem to say that racism and classism are to blame, but I find that a simplistic answer yet again for a complex problem. Or, more specifically, adding a couple of complex issues as the cause for another complex issue is simplistic.
So what’s the answer?
I honestly don’t know. What I do know is that we need to figure it out because people are being killed and that’s being used to justify infringing on the civil liberties of others. That shouldn’t be tolerated by anyone, regardless of what neighborhoods they live in.


bearingarms--2020-05-10--Canadian Community's Uptick In Crime May Be Due To COVID-19

Kamloops , British Columbia isn ’ t the kind of name people here in the United States think of when they think of a surge in crime because of the COVID-19 pandemic .
In fact , I don ’ t think people here in the U.S. think of Kamloops all that often , at least not unless there ’ s a discussion of cities with funny names or something .
However , as COVID-19 has swept the land , Kamloops is seeing an increase in crime , and it ’ s being attributed to the shutdown triggered by the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the court system are causing more issues on the street .
Director of community protective services Byron McCorkell points out that because of COVID-19 , matters before the courts are being put off and jails are trying to reduce the number of inmates , not add any .
He was asked by council how the city can mitigate concerns .
“ We ’ ve got all our RCMP working hard , our bylaw staff are out .
We have new outreach staff walking the streets through funding that we ’ ve secured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve got a committee working on the West Vic side , working and talking with the businesses .
We ’ ve got good neighbor agreements with the housing agreements.
” According to the Kamloops RCMP , there were 73 business break and enters between mid-March and the end of April .
That ’ s compared to 33 in the same six-week period of 2019 , which is a 130-per-cent increase .
“ The suppressed economic activity is part of it , ” mayor Ken Christian says .
“ But I think the inaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is another part .
And I know the chief judge of the BC Provincial Court raised that issue with the Attorney General [ Dave Eby ] some weeks ago .
And I think if we can stumble through having a council meeting and now we ’ re learning how to do a public hearing electronically , there ’ s got to be a quicker reaction from the court system.
” Basically , people figure they won ’ t go to jail if they ’ re caught , so they act like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For all practical purposes , it doesn ’ t .
Not if there ’ s no real enforcement , there isn ’ t .
Sure , some people will still decline to act illegally because they understand that if you ’ re caught , you ’ ll still get punished .
It ’ ll just be much later .
They ’ re able to think of long-term consequences .
However , many others simply don ’ t or won ’ t .
As a result , you ’ re seeing a city like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal activity they shouldn ’ t really have to deal with .
It ’ s also potentially why we ’ ve seen more property crimes here in the United States as well .
Plenty of departments made it clear they weren ’ t going to respond like they had been , which emboldens criminals who simply don ’ t feel like there ’ s any risk to them anymore .
To a point , they ’ re probably right .
Then again , is it any wonder that so many people have flocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously didn ’ t have a gun ?
I mean , if criminals are emboldened over this , how long until they start getting emboldened to carry out violent crimes ?

Kamloops, British Columbia isn’t the kind of name people here in the United States think of when they think of a surge in crime because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, I don’t think people here in the U.S. think of Kamloops all that often, at least not unless there’s a discussion of cities with funny names or something.
However, as COVID-19 has swept the land, Kamloops is seeing an increase in crime, and it’s being attributed to the shutdown triggered by the virus.
Kamloops city staff indicate that backups in the court system are causing more issues on the street. Director of community protective services Byron McCorkell points out that because of COVID-19, matters before the courts are being put off and jails are trying to reduce the number of inmates, not add any. He was asked by council how the city can mitigate concerns. “We’ve got all our RCMP working hard, our bylaw staff are out. We have new outreach staff walking the streets through funding that we’ve secured through our housing program. We’ve got a committee working on the West Vic side, working and talking with the businesses. We’ve got good neighbor agreements with the housing agreements.” According to the Kamloops RCMP, there were 73 business break and enters between mid-March and the end of April. That’s compared to 33 in the same six-week period of 2019, which is a 130-per-cent increase. “The suppressed economic activity is part of it,” mayor Ken Christian says. “But I think the inaction of the provincial court, in particular, is another part. And I know the chief judge of the BC Provincial Court raised that issue with the Attorney General [Dave Eby] some weeks ago. And I think if we can stumble through having a council meeting and now we’re learning how to do a public hearing electronically, there’s got to be a quicker reaction from the court system.”
Basically, people figure they won’t go to jail if they’re caught, so they act like the law doesn’t even exist. For all practical purposes, it doesn’t. Not if there’s no real enforcement, there isn’t.
Sure, some people will still decline to act illegally because they understand that if you’re caught, you’ll still get punished. It’ll just be much later. They’re able to think of long-term consequences.
However, many others simply don’t or won’t.
As a result, you’re seeing a city like Kamloops “enjoy” an increase in criminal activity they shouldn’t really have to deal with. It’s also potentially why we’ve seen more property crimes here in the United States as well. Plenty of departments made it clear they weren’t going to respond like they had been, which emboldens criminals who simply don’t feel like there’s any risk to them anymore.
To a point, they’re probably right.
Then again, is it any wonder that so many people have flocked to gun stores? Especially people who previously didn’t have a gun? I mean, if criminals are emboldened over this, how long until they start getting emboldened to carry out violent crimes?


bearingarms--2020-05-11--Armed Citizen Stops Brutal Beating Of Elderly Neighbor

When people carry guns , most say it ’ s to protect themselves and their families .
That ’ s certainly the driving motivator for most folks , to be sure .
The thing is , a lot of people also carry so they can protect others if it becomes necessary .
I ’ m not talking about people think they ’ re police officers or are trying to be heroes .
I ’ m talking about the kind of people who just can ’ t let someone die or get seriously hurt without acting .
Maybe they walked away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point in the past and have had to live with that since .
Maybe they realize that even if they call the police , it ’ ll be too late before the police get there .
Who knows ?
What matters is that these good people are willing to step up and protect others .
Right now , there ’ s an elderly man able to recover from a brutal attack because of one such individual .
Neighbors were forced to intervene in an attack and shoot a man who was brutally beating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metal pipe around 7 p.m. Wednesday .
Those neighbors , a father and his son , said they didn ’ t know the 86 year old , they just knew they had to help .
That ’ s when the neighbors heard Lee ’ s wife scream for help and came running .
“ Grabbed his gun , came down , tried to intervene and stop the fight , ” said Gravley .
Those neighbors say the attacker turned on them .
He punched one in the jaw and tried to take the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s when they fired two shots , hitting the attacker .
That ’ s a good , clean shoot no matter how you judge it .
And really , that ’ s what you get from armed citizens .
Those that want to be cowboys and pretend they ’ re cops do exist , sure , but every group gets its fuggheads .
They ’ re in the distinct minority .
What most of us want to do is intervene if necessary .
For me , it ’ s so I never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not acting .
I don ’ t want to have to wonder if I could have made a difference “ if only ” or something like that .
For others , there are other reasons .
Yet at the end of the day , the result is the same .
Good people are safer because other good people have guns .
Note that the criminal had a pipe .
He could have killed the victim and the citizens who intervened .
If he had , would we hear about the need for pipe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can only protect themselves and one another from violent criminals if they have the best tools for the job .
Oh , the odd good guy might get lucky with a pipe of his own , but probably not .
I ’ ve long said that violent criminals will be violent with anything they can get their hands on while good guys can be trusted with a rocket launcher and they won ’ t harm a living soul except in self-defense .
This was a bad person with a pipe who was intent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old man .
How is gun control going to stop him ?

When people carry guns, most say it’s to protect themselves and their families. That’s certainly the driving motivator for most folks, to be sure. The thing is, a lot of people also carry so they can protect others if it becomes necessary.
I’m not talking about people think they’re police officers or are trying to be heroes. I’m talking about the kind of people who just can’t let someone die or get seriously hurt without acting. Maybe they walked away without doing more to help at some point in the past and have had to live with that since. Maybe they realize that even if they call the police, it’ll be too late before the police get there. Who knows?
What matters is that these good people are willing to step up and protect others. Right now, there’s an elderly man able to recover from a brutal attack because of one such individual.
Neighbors were forced to intervene in an attack and shoot a man who was brutally beating an 86-year-old Bartow County man with a metal pipe around 7 p.m. Wednesday. Those neighbors, a father and his son, said they didn’t know the 86 year old, they just knew they had to help. … That’s when the neighbors heard Lee’s wife scream for help and came running. “Grabbed his gun, came down, tried to intervene and stop the fight,” said Gravley. Those neighbors say the attacker turned on them. He punched one in the jaw and tried to take the gun away from the other. That’s when they fired two shots, hitting the attacker.
That’s a good, clean shoot no matter how you judge it.
And really, that’s what you get from armed citizens. Those that want to be cowboys and pretend they’re cops do exist, sure, but every group gets its fuggheads. They’re in the distinct minority. What most of us want to do is intervene if necessary. For me, it’s so I never have to live with the guilt of not acting. I don’t want to have to wonder if I could have made a difference “if only” or something like that.
For others, there are other reasons.
Yet at the end of the day, the result is the same. Good people are safer because other good people have guns.
Note that the criminal had a pipe. He could have killed the victim and the citizens who intervened. If he had, would we hear about the need for pipe control? Probably not.
Good people can only protect themselves and one another from violent criminals if they have the best tools for the job. Oh, the odd good guy might get lucky with a pipe of his own, but probably not.
I’ve long said that violent criminals will be violent with anything they can get their hands on while good guys can be trusted with a rocket launcher and they won’t harm a living soul except in self-defense. This was a bad person with a pipe who was intent on brutally beating and probably murdering an old man.
How is gun control going to stop him?


bearingarms--2020-05-11--Are Men With Swords Going After Cops A New Pandemic Trend?

There ’ s an old saying about how you never bring a knife to a gunfight .
Swords are often looked at as something different than knives and for valid reasons .
Just because they ’ re sharp bits of metal , it doesn ’ t make them all that similar in how you wield one , much less carry it .
That said , you really shouldn ’ t bring a sword to a gunfight either .
Of course , that doesn ’ t mean people won ’ t do it .
One would imagine that the kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer with a sword is probably someone with profound mental health issues , which may be true .
It also means we may see more of that kind of thing .
After all , we ’ ve had a couple of cases very recently , as a matter of fact .
First , there was an incident in Pamona , California .
The Pomona Police Department on Thursday , May 7 , released a video from a uniform-worn camera that shows a police officer shooting to death a man who was wielding a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracked down Pacheco after Pacheco ’ s 41-year-old brother had reported being cut in the head by the sword .
The video shows Pacheco hiding behind bushes as Jensen pulls up in his patrol car .
Pacheco emerges and Jensen orders him to stop and show his hands .
Instead , Pacheco pulls a 26-inch sword from his waistband , holding the weapon with both hands chest-high , and walks toward Jensen , ignoring the officer ’ s repeated commands to stop .
Jensen then fires as he is backpedaling , and Pacheco @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” — police code for an officer-involved shooting — and requests paramedics .
Here ’ s a video with the 9-1-1 call and video of the shooting .
Some folks might find this disturbing , so viewer beware .
Now , this is an interesting enough case all on its own .
In fact , I ’ d have probably written about this one as it was .
The thing is , all I had was the video .
I wanted a news story to look for any details that might not show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for what I thought would be a fairly unique story , I stumbled on a similar incident that took place in Las Vegas just a few days later .
Less than a minute before shooting a man holding a samurai sword with documented “ mental health issues , ” a Las Vegas police officer told him , “ I ’ m trying to understand ; I want to talk to you , I want to get you some help.
” But 40-year-old Justin Charland walked down the stairs at an east valley apartment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he walked toward the officer and his partner , screaming “ run.
” The Metropolitan Police Department said Charland “ lunged ” at the officers before 27-year-old Vincent Segura shot him three times at about 11:15 a.m. Tuesday at the Sandhill Apartments , 3000 S. Sandhill Road .
Assistant Sheriff Brett Zimmerman said in a video statement released Friday that police had previously “ provided services related to mental health issues ” to Charland , although it was unclear when Charland had his last contact with police .
So , in at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s clear that the deceased had a history of mental illness .
That may well be the case in the other as well , though that information isn ’ t available right now .
I will say that I found it odd that we have two different people try to attack police officers with a sword .
While it may just be a coincidence , it could also be people cracking under the strain of being locked down .
Look , I actually study sword fighting for fun .
In particular , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not an expert or anything , but I ’ ve been at it about a year now .
In that time , I ’ ve learned one thing that I feel qualified to impart to you all .
As a general rule , do not try to take on someone with a gun if you have a sword .
Especially if they have the ability to radio other people with guns .
Just because swordsmen do fancy stuff on TV and in the movies , don ’ t count on you being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of steel you ordered online .
With that said , it ’ ll be interesting to see if there are more cases of people trying to attack police officers with swords or not .

There’s an old saying about how you never bring a knife to a gunfight. Swords are often looked at as something different than knives and for valid reasons. Just because they’re sharp bits of metal, it doesn’t make them all that similar in how you wield one, much less carry it.
That said, you really shouldn’t bring a sword to a gunfight either.
Of course, that doesn’t mean people won’t do it. One would imagine that the kind of person who would take on a police officer with a sword is probably someone with profound mental health issues, which may be true. It also means we may see more of that kind of thing.
After all, we’ve had a couple of cases very recently, as a matter of fact.
First, there was an incident in Pamona, California.
The Pomona Police Department on Thursday, May 7, released a video from a uniform-worn camera that shows a police officer shooting to death a man who was wielding a sword. Police Cpl. Chad Jensen tracked down Pacheco after Pacheco’s 41-year-old brother had reported being cut in the head by the sword. The video shows Pacheco hiding behind bushes as Jensen pulls up in his patrol car. Pacheco emerges and Jensen orders him to stop and show his hands. Instead, Pacheco pulls a 26-inch sword from his waistband, holding the weapon with both hands chest-high, and walks toward Jensen, ignoring the officer’s repeated commands to stop. Jensen then fires as he is backpedaling, and Pacheco falls. Jensen radios in “998” — police code for an officer-involved shooting — and requests paramedics.
Here’s a video with the 9-1-1 call and video of the shooting. Some folks might find this disturbing, so viewer beware.
Now, this is an interesting enough case all on its own. In fact, I’d have probably written about this one as it was. The thing is, all I had was the video. I wanted a news story to look for any details that might not show up in the video.
While looking for what I thought would be a fairly unique story, I stumbled on a similar incident that took place in Las Vegas just a few days later.
Less than a minute before shooting a man holding a samurai sword with documented “mental health issues,” a Las Vegas police officer told him, “I’m trying to understand; I want to talk to you, I want to get you some help.” But 40-year-old Justin Charland walked down the stairs at an east valley apartment complex, still holding the sword as he walked toward the officer and his partner, screaming “run.” The Metropolitan Police Department said Charland “lunged” at the officers before 27-year-old Vincent Segura shot him three times at about 11:15 a.m. Tuesday at the Sandhill Apartments, 3000 S. Sandhill Road. Assistant Sheriff Brett Zimmerman said in a video statement released Friday that police had previously “provided services related to mental health issues” to Charland, although it was unclear when Charland had his last contact with police.
So, in at least one of these incidents, it’s clear that the deceased had a history of mental illness. That may well be the case in the other as well, though that information isn’t available right now.
I will say that I found it odd that we have two different people try to attack police officers with a sword. While it may just be a coincidence, it could also be people cracking under the strain of being locked down.
Look, I actually study sword fighting for fun. In particular, I study 15th Century longsword. I’m not an expert or anything, but I’ve been at it about a year now. In that time, I’ve learned one thing that I feel qualified to impart to you all. As a general rule, do not try to take on someone with a gun if you have a sword. Especially if they have the ability to radio other people with guns. Just because swordsmen do fancy stuff on TV and in the movies, don’t count on you being able to deflect bullets with the bit of steel you ordered online.
Just don’t.
With that said, it’ll be interesting to see if there are more cases of people trying to attack police officers with swords or not.


bearingarms--2020-05-11--Connecticut 2A Group Sues Governor Over COVID-19 Order

The Connecticut Citizens Defense League has launched a lawsuit against Gov .
Ned Lamont ’ s executive order suspending fingerprinting services for gun licenses and ammunition permits in the state over coronavirus concerns .
The federal lawsuit , filed on Monday , alleges that the governor is violating the Second Amendment rights of state residents with the open-ended suspension of the fingerprinting services , which are required before anyone can legally purchase a firearm in the state .
But Attorney General William Tong rejected those claims and said Monday that Lamont ’ s executive orders “ have been very clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our state constitution and state laws grant the Governor broad authority to protect Connecticut residents and families in a public health emergency , ” Tong said in an email .
A spokesman for Gov .
Lamont declined to comment on the lawsuit .
In a statement issued Monday , CCDL officials charged that law enforcement agencies across the state are refusing to process firearms applications “ even while fingerprinting and application processing continues for other programs.
” “ While the CCDL understands these are times of unprecedented challenges , many Connecticut residents are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they feel the exercise of those rights is most needed , ” Holly Sullivan , the group ’ s president , said in a statement issued Monday .
Lamont may have “ broad authority ” to act in an emergency , but that doesn ’ t give him the unlimited power to deny the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right .
The Connecticut Citizens Defense League argues that with the suspension of fingerprinting for firearms licenses and ammunition certificates , that ’ s exactly what the governor has done .
At this point , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resident of the state to become a legal gun owner , because the state isn ’ t just putting up a maze of red tape for prospective gun owners to navigate .
Instead , the state is putting up barriers that are impossible to legally get around .
The lawsuit notes that while fingerprinting services for prospective gun owners have been suspended , you can still obtain a set of your fingerprints if you ’ re applying to be a long term care provider .
Why suspend fingerprinting for those who want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms , but not for those who want to get a job ?
In addition to the governor , the CCDL ’ s litigation also names the police chiefs in several Connecticut localities for refusing to accept fingerprints from several applicants that were already on file .
Joseph Coll , who ’ s one of the named plaintiffs in the case , has already been fingerprinted for his job as a teacher , yet the Vernon Police Department refused to use those fingerprints to process Coll ’ s pistol permit application .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to use existing fingerprint records to facilitate the application process and instead simply told applicants that the application process has been indefinitely suspended .
The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is asking a federal judge for an injunction blocking Gov .
Lamont ’ s order and forcing the state and local law enforcement agencies to resume fingerprinting gun and ammo license applicants .
I have no idea how the judge will ultimately rule , but the fact is that the governor ’ s order has been in effect for nearly two months , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country have reporting that the majority of their recent customers have been first-time gun buyers .
It ’ s reasonable to conclude that there are large numbers of Connecticut residents who wish to become gun owners but can ’ t , purely because the governor ’ s executive order prevents law enforcement from processing their applications .
In my opinion , we ’ re way past simple regulation of a right , and squarely in infringement territory .

The Connecticut Citizens Defense League has launched a lawsuit against Gov. Ned Lamont’s executive order suspending fingerprinting services for gun licenses and ammunition permits in the state over coronavirus concerns. The federal lawsuit, filed on Monday, alleges that the governor is violating the Second Amendment rights of state residents with the open-ended suspension of the fingerprinting services, which are required before anyone can legally purchase a firearm in the state.
But Attorney General William Tong rejected those claims and said Monday that Lamont’s executive orders “have been very clearly constitutional and fully legally justified.” “Our state constitution and state laws grant the Governor broad authority to protect Connecticut residents and families in a public health emergency,” Tong said in an email. A spokesman for Gov. Lamont declined to comment on the lawsuit. In a statement issued Monday, CCDL officials charged that law enforcement agencies across the state are refusing to process firearms applications “even while fingerprinting and application processing continues for other programs.” “While the CCDL understands these are times of unprecedented challenges, many Connecticut residents are being denied their constitutional rights just when they feel the exercise of those rights is most needed,” Holly Sullivan, the group’s president, said in a statement issued Monday.
Lamont may have “broad authority” to act in an emergency, but that doesn’t give him the unlimited power to deny the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right. The Connecticut Citizens Defense League argues that with the suspension of fingerprinting for firearms licenses and ammunition certificates, that’s exactly what the governor has done. At this point, it’s virtually impossible for any resident of the state to become a legal gun owner, because the state isn’t just putting up a maze of red tape for prospective gun owners to navigate. Instead, the state is putting up barriers that are impossible to legally get around.
The lawsuit notes that while fingerprinting services for prospective gun owners have been suspended, you can still obtain a set of your fingerprints if you’re applying to be a long term care provider. Why suspend fingerprinting for those who want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, but not for those who want to get a job?
In addition to the governor, the CCDL’s litigation also names the police chiefs in several Connecticut localities for refusing to accept fingerprints from several applicants that were already on file. Joseph Coll, who’s one of the named plaintiffs in the case, has already been fingerprinted for his job as a teacher, yet the Vernon Police Department refused to use those fingerprints to process Coll’s pistol permit application. The CCDL highlights several other jurisdictions that also failed to use existing fingerprint records to facilitate the application process and instead simply told applicants that the application process has been indefinitely suspended.
The Connecticut Citizens Defense League is asking a federal judge for an injunction blocking Gov. Lamont’s order and forcing the state and local law enforcement agencies to resume fingerprinting gun and ammo license applicants. I have no idea how the judge will ultimately rule, but the fact is that the governor’s order has been in effect for nearly two months, and during that time gun store owners across the country have reporting that the majority of their recent customers have been first-time gun buyers. It’s reasonable to conclude that there are large numbers of Connecticut residents who wish to become gun owners but can’t, purely because the governor’s executive order prevents law enforcement from processing their applications. In my opinion, we’re way past simple regulation of a right, and squarely in infringement territory.


bearingarms--2020-05-11--Pursuing Suspects Not A Smart Idea For Armed Citizens

The arrest of Gregory and Travis McMichaels in the death of Ahmaud Arbery has sparked an online debate between armies of armchair attorneys ( including myself ) over whether or not the McMichaels were acting lawfully when shot and killed Arbery after pursuing him through a neighborhood in Brunswick , Georgia on February 23rd .
Tensions and emotions are running high , with Arbery ’ s father proclaiming that his son was the victim of a lynching , while others claim that videos showing Arbery inside an unfinished home in the neighborhood prove that the McDaniels were right to try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was shot in self-defense when he went for a shotgun held by Travis McMichaels .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms Cam & Co. we try to separate out rhetoric and reality , as well as going over some of the basics when it comes to legally acting in self-defense .
Generally speaking , you ’ re legally entitled to act in self-defense when you believe that your life or the life of another is in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm .
If a suspected car thief is fleeing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you don ’ t have the right to run them over to prevent escape , as is alleged to have happened late last month in south Florida .
The homeowner had just been burglarized the night before .
Someone broke into his car and stole several items , including the vehicle ’ s keys and a gun .
After Friday night ’ s car break-in , the suspect apparently returned to the house on Southwest 228th Terrace at 5 a.m. the next day .
Police say the homeowner , Ellis Georges , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to break into his car again through his doorbell camera .
The burglary suspect , 35-year-old Michael Rullo , then hopped on his scooter and drove off .
Police say Georges chased after him in his car .
The pursuit ended less than a mile away on Southwest 232nd Street , which dead-ends where concrete barriers border the back of a Walgreens drug store .
Miami-Dade police say Georges , 45 , plowed his car into Rullo ’ s scooter , causing him to slam into the barriers .
Rullo died on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One of the wheels of his scooter rested by his feet .
The force of the crash appeared to have knocked one of his shoes off .
In this case , Ellis Georges is being charged with second degree murder .
Georges had the right to pursue Rullo , but he didn ’ t have the right to run into him with his car , even if he was attempting to prevent Rullo from escaping and had no intention of harming him .
Even Georges witnessing Rullo attempt to burgle his car @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he should have called police , reported Rullo ’ s description , and attempted to maintain visual contact with the suspect instead of trying to stop him from fleeing .
Even members of law enforcement can run afoul of the law if they try to detain someone without cause , as a now-former sheriff ’ s deputy in North Carolina learned after trying to force his way into a home while looking to question an individual about a 15-year old girl who ’ d been reported missing .
A New Hanover deputy has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his role in what has been described as an armed “ vigilante group ” that attempted to force its way into the home of a Laney High student , Dameon Shepard .
The group came to his house looking for a Topsail High student who was somehow linked to a 15-year-old girl , reported missing around the same time of their arrival Sunday night .
One man was armed and wearing a New Hanover County Sheriff ’ s uniform , who District Attorney Ben David said was related to the missing girl .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jordan Kita ( an employee at the New Hanover County detention facility ) , has been charged with forcible trespass , breaking and entering , and a willful failure to discharge his duties as an officer of the law .
David said he directed the Pender County Sheriff ’ s Office to file the criminal charges after a case review earlier Friday with approximately 10 prosecutors in his office .
Kita was fired due to the third charge of a willful failure to discharge his duties as a law enforcement officer .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ violation , David said that Kita “ willfully and corruptly [ violated ] an oath of office ” and “ committed offenses of misdemeanor breaking and entering and forcible trespass while armed and in uniform in a county that he was not duly sworn in , and in furtherance of personal , not law enforcement , purposes.
” In both of these cases , the arrested parties may have believed that they were simply trying to stop criminal activity , but they went beyond what the law allows and are now facing charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they too were simply trying to stop Arbery , who they believed was responsible for burglaries in their neighborhood .
Unfortunately for everyone involved , the McMichaels went beyond what the law allows and are now facing aggravated assault and murder charges .
Much of the debate online has now turned to the character of the suspects , as well as the victim .
Arbery was no angel , argue critics of the decision to arrest and charge the father and son who killed him .
He was caught on video surveillance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ built in the neighborhood , and Gregory McMichaels originally told police that he and his son began pursuing Arbery because they believed that he was responsible for several break-ins .
Arbery also was charged with bringing a gun to a high school basketball game when he was 19 , and was arrested for shoplifting in 2018 .
Meanwhile , critics of the McMichaels have accused the pair of racism , claiming that they targeted the black man because of the color of his skin , hunting him through the Brunswick neighborhood before shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When it comes to the legal issues , however , none of that matters .
Arbery could have been an Eagle Scout or a convicted felon .
The McMichaels could have been the head of the local NAACP or the local KKK .
None of those things change the facts about what happened on a sunny Sunday afternoon in February , and for the grand jury that will soon hear this case , the facts are all that matters .
According to the statement given to police by Gregory McMichaels , he decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him running down the street .
He yelled for his son to join him , the pair armed themselves , and hopped in Travis McMichaels ’ truck .
In the report , McMichael says he and his son attempt to cut Arbery off at an intersection in the neighborhood where he is running , but they were “ unsuccessful , ” so they try to “ intercept him ” on another street .
Eventually , they yell at him to stop , yelling that they “ wanted to talk ” to him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Arbery can be seen jogging up a road with the McMichaels stopped ahead apparently waiting for him , each of them armed .
In the report , McMichael says his son Travis hopped out of the truck with his shotgun when Arbery wouldn ’ t stop as they asked .
Then McMichael alleges that Arbery “ violently ” attacked Travis .
However , in the video Arbery is seen swerving out of their way to avoid them , as he runs in a yard around their truck , but Travis follows him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his shotgun and a fight over the gun ensues .
According to Georgia statutes on citizen ’ s arrests , McMichaels had no cause to try to stop Arbery and hold him for police .
McMichaels may have suspected Arbery had been prowling around the neighborhood , but he didn ’ t catch him in the act of doing anything other than running down the street .
There was no cause for the McMichaels to try to arrest or even detain Arbery , especially when they could have simply called 911 and followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some of the armchair attorneys I ’ ve encountered online claim that Arbery was attempting to escape , and a citizen ’ s arrest would have been justified , but read the statute closely .
No offense was committed in McMichaels presence or his immediate knowledge .
He may have had his suspicions about Arbery , but he had no evidence that afternoon that Arbery had committed a felony offense .
What about the shooting itself ?
Even if the McMichaels had no basis to make a citizen ’ s arrest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-defense when he shot Arbery ?
After all , there was a struggle for McMichaels ’ shotgun .
If Travis McMichaels was in fear for his life , didn ’ t he have the right to shoot ?
In a word , no .
Gregory and Travis McMichaels were the aggressors here , and police have charged them not only with murder for the death of Ahmaud Arbery , but with aggravated assault for their actions leading up to the shooting .
You can ’ t act in self-defense in the midst of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example : a guy with a gun walks into a convenience store and points it at the clerk .
The clerk , in fear for their life , tries to wrestle the gun away from the armed man .
The armed man , now fearing that clerk will shoot him if they get ahold of the gun , shoots and kills the clerk instead .
That ’ s not self-defense , at least not on the part of the guy with the gun .
Instead it was the clerk who had a reasonable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The same holds true in the Arbery case .
The McMichaels weren ’ t in fear of their lives because of Arbery .
If they were , they wouldn ’ t have pursued him through the neighborhood , attempting on multiple occasions to “ intercept him ” so they could ask him a few questions .
It was Arbery who had cause to be concerned for his safety , because he was being pursued through a neighborhood by armed men who eventually cut him off and confronted him .
Gregory McMichaels originally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ pulled up beside ” Arbery and shouted at him to stop , but the video shot by William Roddie Bryan shows that the pair had actually pulled in front of Arbery and were waiting for him .
McMichaels claims that his son Travis exited the truck after Arbery ran up alongside the vehicle , but the video shows that Travis McMichaels was already outside of the vehicle , shotgun in hand , as Arbery approached .
In fact , Travis McMichaels is standing in the left lane of the road with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed father in the bed , is blocking the right lane .
Arbery clearly tries to avoid McMichaels by running around the right side of the truck , but McMichaels approaches the front of the truck and faces Arbery at the same time Arbery is running by it .
Arbery then veers towards Travis McMichaels as a shot is fired .
The pair then wrestle for the gun and Arbery is shot twice more before he turns to run and falls to the street .
The McMichaels were within the law to follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detain him they crossed over from law-abiding to law-breaking .
Even when Arbery attempted to grab McMichaels ’ shotgun , McMichaels was by that time the aggressor in the eyes of the law , and Arbery was the victim .
Arbery ’ s previous run-ins with the law are irrelevant to this case , as is whether or not the McMichaels are racists .
What happened on the night of February 22nd is immaterial .
What happened on the afternoon of February 23rd is not .
The facts in this case are pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bureau of Investigation found probable cause to arrest Gregory and Travis McMichaels within two days of opening up their investigation .
Ignore the shouting from online influencers and those more interested in advancing a narrative ( on both sides ) , stick to the facts , and it ’ s clear that the death of Ahmaud Arbery wasn ’ t self-defense , and would never have happened if the McMichaels had simply called police and reported Arbery ’ s location to them .

The arrest of Gregory and Travis McMichaels in the death of Ahmaud Arbery has sparked an online debate between armies of armchair attorneys (including myself) over whether or not the McMichaels were acting lawfully when shot and killed Arbery after pursuing him through a neighborhood in Brunswick, Georgia on February 23rd. Tensions and emotions are running high, with Arbery’s father proclaiming that his son was the victim of a lynching, while others claim that videos showing Arbery inside an unfinished home in the neighborhood prove that the McDaniels were right to try to detain him, and that Arbery was shot in self-defense when he went for a shotgun held by Travis McMichaels.
On today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co. we try to separate out rhetoric and reality, as well as going over some of the basics when it comes to legally acting in self-defense.
Generally speaking, you’re legally entitled to act in self-defense when you believe that your life or the life of another is in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. If a suspected car thief is fleeing the scene of a crime, for instance, you don’t have the right to run them over to prevent escape, as is alleged to have happened late last month in south Florida.
The homeowner had just been burglarized the night before. Someone broke into his car and stole several items, including the vehicle’s keys and a gun. After Friday night’s car break-in, the suspect apparently returned to the house on Southwest 228th Terrace at 5 a.m. the next day. Police say the homeowner, Ellis Georges, came outside after seeing the burglar trying to break into his car again through his doorbell camera. The burglary suspect, 35-year-old Michael Rullo, then hopped on his scooter and drove off. Police say Georges chased after him in his car. The pursuit ended less than a mile away on Southwest 232nd Street, which dead-ends where concrete barriers border the back of a Walgreens drug store. Miami-Dade police say Georges, 45, plowed his car into Rullo’s scooter, causing him to slam into the barriers. Rullo died on the ground in between two of the barriers. One of the wheels of his scooter rested by his feet. The force of the crash appeared to have knocked one of his shoes off.
In this case, Ellis Georges is being charged with second degree murder. Georges had the right to pursue Rullo, but he didn’t have the right to run into him with his car, even if he was attempting to prevent Rullo from escaping and had no intention of harming him. Even Georges witnessing Rullo attempt to burgle his car doesn’t change the fact that he should have called police, reported Rullo’s description, and attempted to maintain visual contact with the suspect instead of trying to stop him from fleeing.
Even members of law enforcement can run afoul of the law if they try to detain someone without cause, as a now-former sheriff’s deputy in North Carolina learned after trying to force his way into a home while looking to question an individual about a 15-year old girl who’d been reported missing.
A New Hanover deputy has been fired and faces criminal charges for his role in what has been described as an armed “vigilante group” that attempted to force its way into the home of a Laney High student, Dameon Shepard. The group came to his house looking for a Topsail High student who was somehow linked to a 15-year-old girl, reported missing around the same time of their arrival Sunday night. One man was armed and wearing a New Hanover County Sheriff’s uniform, who District Attorney Ben David said was related to the missing girl. District Attorney Ben David announced that deputy, Jordan Kita (an employee at the New Hanover County detention facility), has been charged with forcible trespass, breaking and entering, and a willful failure to discharge his duties as an officer of the law. David said he directed the Pender County Sheriff’s Office to file the criminal charges after a case review earlier Friday with approximately 10 prosecutors in his office. Kita was fired due to the third charge of a willful failure to discharge his duties as a law enforcement officer. Reading from the state statute regarding this violation, David said that Kita “willfully and corruptly [violated] an oath of office” and “committed offenses of misdemeanor breaking and entering and forcible trespass while armed and in uniform in a county that he was not duly sworn in, and in furtherance of personal, not law enforcement, purposes.”
In both of these cases, the arrested parties may have believed that they were simply trying to stop criminal activity, but they went beyond what the law allows and are now facing charges. According to Gregory and Travis McMichaels, they too were simply trying to stop Arbery, who they believed was responsible for burglaries in their neighborhood. Unfortunately for everyone involved, the McMichaels went beyond what the law allows and are now facing aggravated assault and murder charges.
Much of the debate online has now turned to the character of the suspects, as well as the victim. Arbery was no angel, argue critics of the decision to arrest and charge the father and son who killed him. He was caught on video surveillance in an unfinished home that was being built in the neighborhood, and Gregory McMichaels originally told police that he and his son began pursuing Arbery because they believed that he was responsible for several break-ins. Arbery also was charged with bringing a gun to a high school basketball game when he was 19, and was arrested for shoplifting in 2018.
Meanwhile, critics of the McMichaels have accused the pair of racism, claiming that they targeted the black man because of the color of his skin, hunting him through the Brunswick neighborhood before shooting and killing him in cold blood.
When it comes to the legal issues, however, none of that matters. Arbery could have been an Eagle Scout or a convicted felon. The McMichaels could have been the head of the local NAACP or the local KKK. None of those things change the facts about what happened on a sunny Sunday afternoon in February, and for the grand jury that will soon hear this case, the facts are all that matters.
According to the statement given to police by Gregory McMichaels, he decided to chase after Arbery when he spotted him running down the street. He yelled for his son to join him, the pair armed themselves, and hopped in Travis McMichaels’ truck.
In the report, McMichael says he and his son attempt to cut Arbery off at an intersection in the neighborhood where he is running, but they were “unsuccessful,” so they try to “intercept him” on another street. Eventually, they yell at him to stop, yelling that they “wanted to talk” to him. In this video that was leaked Tuesday, Arbery can be seen jogging up a road with the McMichaels stopped ahead apparently waiting for him, each of them armed. In the report, McMichael says his son Travis hopped out of the truck with his shotgun when Arbery wouldn’t stop as they asked. Then McMichael alleges that Arbery “violently” attacked Travis. However, in the video Arbery is seen swerving out of their way to avoid them, as he runs in a yard around their truck, but Travis follows him to the front of the truck with his shotgun and a fight over the gun ensues.
According to Georgia statutes on citizen’s arrests, McMichaels had no cause to try to stop Arbery and hold him for police.
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
McMichaels may have suspected Arbery had been prowling around the neighborhood, but he didn’t catch him in the act of doing anything other than running down the street. There was no cause for the McMichaels to try to arrest or even detain Arbery, especially when they could have simply called 911 and followed Arbery at a distance until officers arrived. Some of the armchair attorneys I’ve encountered online claim that Arbery was attempting to escape, and a citizen’s arrest would have been justified, but read the statute closely. No offense was committed in McMichaels presence or his immediate knowledge. He may have had his suspicions about Arbery, but he had no evidence that afternoon that Arbery had committed a felony offense.
What about the shooting itself? Even if the McMichaels had no basis to make a citizen’s arrest, wasn’t Travis McMichaels acting in self-defense when he shot Arbery? After all, there was a struggle for McMichaels’ shotgun. If Travis McMichaels was in fear for his life, didn’t he have the right to shoot?
In a word, no. Gregory and Travis McMichaels were the aggressors here, and police have charged them not only with murder for the death of Ahmaud Arbery, but with aggravated assault for their actions leading up to the shooting. You can’t act in self-defense in the midst of committing a violent crime.
Consider this example: a guy with a gun walks into a convenience store and points it at the clerk. The clerk, in fear for their life, tries to wrestle the gun away from the armed man. The armed man, now fearing that clerk will shoot him if they get ahold of the gun, shoots and kills the clerk instead. That’s not self-defense, at least not on the part of the guy with the gun. Instead it was the clerk who had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger.
The same holds true in the Arbery case. The McMichaels weren’t in fear of their lives because of Arbery. If they were, they wouldn’t have pursued him through the neighborhood, attempting on multiple occasions to “intercept him” so they could ask him a few questions. It was Arbery who had cause to be concerned for his safety, because he was being pursued through a neighborhood by armed men who eventually cut him off and confronted him. Gregory McMichaels originally told police that he and his son “pulled up beside” Arbery and shouted at him to stop, but the video shot by William Roddie Bryan shows that the pair had actually pulled in front of Arbery and were waiting for him.
McMichaels claims that his son Travis exited the truck after Arbery ran up alongside the vehicle, but the video shows that Travis McMichaels was already outside of the vehicle, shotgun in hand, as Arbery approached. In fact, Travis McMichaels is standing in the left lane of the road with his shotgun and his truck, with his armed father in the bed, is blocking the right lane. Arbery clearly tries to avoid McMichaels by running around the right side of the truck, but McMichaels approaches the front of the truck and faces Arbery at the same time Arbery is running by it. Arbery then veers towards Travis McMichaels as a shot is fired. The pair then wrestle for the gun and Arbery is shot twice more before he turns to run and falls to the street.
The McMichaels were within the law to follow Arbery, but once they tried to detain him they crossed over from law-abiding to law-breaking. Even when Arbery attempted to grab McMichaels’ shotgun, McMichaels was by that time the aggressor in the eyes of the law, and Arbery was the victim.
Arbery’s previous run-ins with the law are irrelevant to this case, as is whether or not the McMichaels are racists. What happened on the night of February 22nd is immaterial. What happened on the afternoon of February 23rd is not. The facts in this case are pretty clear, which is why the Georgia Bureau of Investigation found probable cause to arrest Gregory and Travis McMichaels within two days of opening up their investigation. Ignore the shouting from online influencers and those more interested in advancing a narrative (on both sides), stick to the facts, and it’s clear that the death of Ahmaud Arbery wasn’t self-defense, and would never have happened if the McMichaels had simply called police and reported Arbery’s location to them.