Posted on 11/30/2014 4:24:44 AM PST by Plainsman
FERGUSON, Mo. — When Sam Andrews awoke on Tuesday morning, he found his wife watching a television interview with a woman whose bakery had been vandalized during the violent unrest here on Monday.
“She said, ‘You’ve got to go help her,’ ” Mr. Andrews said in an interview on Saturday morning.
And so Mr. Andrews, a former Defense Department contractor who is now a weapons engineer in the St. Louis area, set to work. Under the auspices of a national group called the Oath Keepers, Mr. Andrews accelerated plans to recruit and organize private security details for businesses in Ferguson, which are receiving the services for free. The volunteers, who are sometimes described as a citizen militia — but do not call themselves that — have taken up armed positions on rooftops here on recent nights.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
God Bless the Oath Keepers and other volunteers.
May He keep them safe.
OATH KEEPERS is not anti-government, they are anti-unconstitutional government.
Good people. It’s a shame people can’t depend on law enforcement to protect them and their businesses. Where is the National Guard that was supposedly deployed?
^^^ Valerie Rasputin hasn’t released themm yet. ^^^
...Standing checkpoints outside the affected neighborhoods with the police, no doubt.
Does the citizen have the right to defend their own property? Unquestionably.
Does the citizen have the right to accept unpaid help in defending their property?
That is the central issue at question.
1. National, state, and local politicians used/misused police and National Guard forces to aid and abet rioters, looters, and arsonists.
2. Police, Prosecutors, and lawyer groups want to defend jobs and monopoly of force by restricting the Oath Keepers.
3. The Oath Keepers position is based on Natural Law, Roman Law, American Law.
#3 must be the American position, lest the citizen ability to defend person and property be mortally wounded.
As usual, the collectivists are always ready to infringe upon the citizen. In this case, to use the implied protection of arsonists and looters as an excuse to limit the citizen’s resort to force to protect life and property when the lawful authorities can not so do.
Actually, in this case, the lawful authorities refused to stop the arsonists for political reasons.
Seems almost like a book I read, recently...
So the police won’t protect property and property owners from looting, vandalism and arson.
But the police will take action against those who protect property from said destruction.
Certainly evidence in favor of the “our orders are to allow it to burn” theory.
I don’t need no Effing “license” to provide security for free.
Funny, they’re paying for protection via taxes, and that’s not helped. What other course is left, short of throwing in the towel and surrendering to the communist looters?
I think the cops made them all leave yesterday.
Smile wait for flash.
The NG was guarding the “Command Post”. Heard that answer at the presser from the County Police Chief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.