Posted on 04/07/2009 9:26:42 AM PDT by jerri
STOCKTON - A retired truck driver and Vietnam War veteran said Monday that he is forming an armed militia - mostly men with rifles and armbands, four to a car - to patrol Stockton this summer, when at least 43 police officers are to be laid off.
(Excerpt) Read more at recordnet.com ...
A lot of people around my County always have a gun in close proximity. We would be dead if we had to call 911 and wait and wait and wait. There isn’t much crime in my part of the country for some reason or the other. ;0)
This will likely follow the usual route of vigilantism. It can end at any point of its development, if government performs its duty and stops the criminal element.
1) It begins as a non-violent movement to demand that government do its job and protect the citizenry from criminals. Either the government is not protecting the citizenry, or else it is in league with the criminals, and sometimes kept in power by a corrupt ballot.
2) Immediately, the government sees the vigilantes as a greater threat than the criminals, and attempts to stop their formation. Failing this, they try to take down the vigilante leaders while identifying its members.
3) At some point, the vigilantes have to go underground. But even then, they remain non-violent. Only at this point do they start ignoring the government and issuing warnings directly to the criminals.
4) The government or the criminals retaliate and attack or kill some of the vigilantes or their supporters. This is the point where the vigilantes begin to take the law into their own hands. The government is encouraged to leave, because if they remain at this point, they are treated the same way as the criminals.
5) Either a superior government intervenes to restore order, or with a mob event, the criminals and their supporters are driven out of town, and if they resist, killed. Executing known criminals is not the original intent of the vigilantes, and only happens when all other means fail, so it is improper to pretend that vigilantism by itself is bad.
If implimented, this can only end in tears.
Buy some tissues.
I like this guy's attitude.
If these guys took a few moments to ponder the civil and criminal liability of what they are considering they would not do it. They will either end up in jail or broke probably both.
This in CA? Good to see men are still men.
Hahaha
What a great movie.
I like this guy's attitude.
I'll second that
“Bermuda shorts and pith helmets.” Believe it or not, I was issued Bermuda shorts and a pith helmet at Basic Training at Lackland AFB in April 1960. We also got bush jackets and knee socks. In Class As, we looked like a British unit in Oman.
That a bad thing? They know what the right thing to do is, and aren’t afraid to do it.
Yeah, it's not like they're Vietnam veterans or anything. Oh, wait...
Armed Citizens patrolling their neighborhoods utilizing their pesky constitutional rights, its as legitimate as it gets!
Our country was built on SELF-Sufficiency, as the years moved on we as communities HIRED Law Enforcement Officers, Sheriffs, Marshals, etc. to enforce OUR laws. But when you boil it down to the basics you are responsible for your own safety and security.
in reality, whenever a 'Citizen' walks the street, he should be 'on patrol'...
> with all due respect diehard, as an ‘armed yahoo’ that is particularly protective of my family and neighbors, as well as endowed with God-given rights to defence... in not only His Law, but in man’s law in this country, please refrain from insulting my intelligence or abilities, irregardless of any politcopimp mayors ‘blessing’...
You will no doubt be aware of the Common Law concept of “posse comitatus” then — not to be confused with the “Posse Comitatus Law” that you Yanks have that prohibits your Army from being used against your citizens with the US, but rather the Magna Carta principle you inherited from British jurisprudence.
How do you propose this to work without the “politicopimp Mayor” giving it his blessing? He would be the logical legal body to raise such a posse.
Plain fact is, without this Common Law provision, armed yahoos have no business patrolling your streets and risk being arrested for doing so.
enjoy yer chains...
> Armed Citizens patrolling their neighborhoods utilizing their pesky constitutional rights, its as legitimate as it gets!
I doubt that your constitution sanctions non-deputized vigilance committees cruising the streets at night armed, taking the law into their own hands. And I suspect there would be a stack of case law several feet thick reinforcing that.
I also suspect this group hasn’t given alot of thought to their potential civil liabilities if they do this. They may have some form of protection against criminal liability when doing Citizen’s Arrests (usually you do, but within some pretty tight parameters) but almost always the civil liability remains. That could get expensive if they get it wrong.
> sorry pal, when subjects [slaves] become Citizens, we no longer were required to ask for permission to defend ourselves and our neighbors...
Tough talk. It will be interesting to see you explain your legal rationale to the judge. Even Citizens have to observe the law.
> enjoy yer chains...
Enjoy your cell.
you my FRiend are the one in a cell, just hasnt sunk in yet I guess...
youre pretty conservative until the topic get around to our 2A, then you seem to get yer panties in a bunch about freedom...
it must suck to hafta patrol unarmed, never knowing if youre gonna meet a real hardcore bg and be screwed by the queen...
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.