A very disturbing incident took place in Milwaukee earlier this week. It offers several important lessons for the rest of us. It also reinforces what I’ve been saying for weeks and months on this blog.
Initial reports of the incident were similar to this one.
A Milwaukee man has reportedly been arrested after pulling a gun on a mob of Black Lives Matter supporters who were surrounding his home for several hours.
. . .
Members of the mob claimed on social media that their actions were justified because he is a “racist” and has a confederate flag. The flag was not seen in the videos, but an American and Trump flag were hanging prominently on the front of his home.
. . .
In livestream footage of the incident, the mob is clearly seen stepping on to the man’s property.
. . .
After the mob was outside his home for more than two hours, police arrived. As they entered the man’s property, the rioters cheered for police and called for the man’s arrest, yelling about how he had a weapon.
When the man was taken outside, seemingly in cuffs, the crowd went wild.
. . .
The militant leftists were threatening the man saying that he was going to have big problems if he dared to step outside.
As they threatened him, shined lights into his home, and pranced all over his property, he pointed a shotgun out the window.
. . .
The person who called for the “protest” livestreamed the mob outside the man’s home for several hours.
It does not appear that any members of the mob have been arrested.
There’s more at the link, including video of the incident.
The person who organized the protest was described as:
“a felon with thousands of dollars in outstanding fines who attempted to burn down a police station in 2016 … So a convicted felon is doxing innocent Trump supporters on Facebook and raising funds on PayPal to do so. This same man has been arrested more than 10 times and has outstanding fines in excess of $3,700. He also is allowed to roam free on the Internet and in the streets while those he claims are racists because they support President Trump are taken to jail for brandishing a gun on their own property when an indicted firebomber and his posse riot outside his home.”
A later report provided more information, and indicated that the resident of the property may not have been as blameless as initially presumed.
A 56-year-old Milwaukee man is accused of pointing a gun at a crowd of protesters while he was drunk. A day earlier, police say the same man threatened to hurt his neighbor while wielding a chainsaw.
. . .
On Tuesday, Sept. 15, officers were called [the man’s residence] where a crowd had gathered to protest … Around 8:30 p.m., officers were notified by a witness that the 56-year-old man was inside by a window, and motioned with a long gun “as if he chambered a round,” and pointed the gun at the crowd.
The incident was captured on video.
Officers made contact with the 56-year-old man and observed he appeared to be intoxicated. He was arrested for endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon while under the influence of an intoxicant, disorderly conduct while armed and bail jumping.
Again, more at the link.
Obviously, the partisan reports about this incident make it unclear exactly what was going on. Nevertheless, these events provide and/or reinforce a number of very important lessons that should be strong warnings to all of us.
- As far as I know, even though they were on the man’s property without permission and disturbing the peace, none of the protesters were told to move on, much less arrested. Why not? One can only presume that local law enforcement has been instructed not to inflame the situation by arresting them. That’s cold comfort to homeowners who want to secure their property and protect their families. I wrote about that some time ago, and I strongly suggest that you re-read both of those articles. Don’t rely on the police to protect you, and don’t rely on the prosecuting authorities to be on your side. In some parts of the country, political correctness may have turned them into your enemies. In such places, effectively, you’re on your own.
- If the claims are correct that the homeowner was displaying a Confederate flag and/or a Trump flag outside his residence, then he was effectively making himself a target. When you’re in a highly-charged political environment, to identify yourself as strongly partisan is asking for trouble. Sure, you can stand on your First Amendment rights all you like – but hard-liners won’t care about your rights. They’re looking for a fight, and you’re providing them with an excuse for one. As I’ve advised before, be a “gray man“. Don’t set out to be a “tall poppy” when you’re in the midst of contested political territory, lest someone try to cut you down.
- Don’t draw or display a firearm unless you’re legally entitled to do so. Remember, in many jurisdictions, even displaying a firearm is regarded as the use of lethal force, whether or not you aim or fire it. Where I live, state law explicitly authorizes me to use lethal force to defend my property under certain conditions, over and above typical “stand-your-ground” laws: but in other states, that’s not always the case. Some even impose a “duty to retreat” rather than defend one’s home. Make sure you know what the law(s) in your area permit(s) you to do, and – unless the situation is so dangerous that you have no choice – don’t step outside those boundaries. If it is that dangerous, well, the old saying may apply: “Better to be judged by twelve [i.e. jurors] than carried by six [i.e. pallbearers].”
- There have been innumerable incidents of rioters and protesters daring police and civilians to shoot them. They know most of us will find it very difficult to kill another human being, because we’re fundamentally decent people at heart. They feel secure in pushing “good” people, because they’ve tested the limits before, and got away with it. Therefore, you need to understand before you touch a gun that if you carry it or pick it up in a defensive situation, you may have to use it. Have that clear in your mind up front, and follow through if necessary – otherwise they may take your gun away from you, and may even use it against you. In this incident, the homeowner tried to use a gun to threaten those invading his property, but it didn’t work. In fact, it made his situation worse.
- Don’t be under the influence of any substance that might impair your judgment, reactions or ability to defend yourself. Not only does that affect your situation as far as law enforcement is concerned, it can also come back to bite you even if you legitimately and legally defend yourself. If post-incident results show that you were under the influence of anything at all, even legally prescribed medications, you can expect shyster attorneys (and shyster prosecutors, in some jurisdictions) to try to use that against you. The homeowner in this incident has brought big trouble upon himself by being drunk. If he’d used his firearm while under the influence, it would almost certainly have been used as grounds to bring a very serious felony charge against him.
- Usually, your home is not your castle in terms of practical self-defense. If you’re trapped in your house, it’s far too easy for enemies to surround it, attempt entry through multiple doors and/or windows, and set fires all around it if they feel so inclined. If you have any inkling at all that such a situation might arise, get the hell out of there before it does! Take your family and your essential gear and go to a place where you’ll be safer. Yes, you may lose your home – but you and your loved ones will still be alive, and can rebuild. There’s a lot to be said for that!
- Be sure to review your insurance policy, and make sure you’re covered for damage or destruction caused by social or political unrest. Make sure the policy doesn’t contain any weasel clauses that might let your insurers wiggle out of it. Be aware that overtly political displays or actions in a highly charged environment might trigger such clauses – and it’ll cost you a fortune in lawyer’s fees to fight them. If your policy is overly restrictive, you might want to take out better coverage before it’s too late.
- I’ve advised on many occasions that it’s useful to form a team of like-minded individuals to protect yourselves and your homes. This incident illustrates that need perfectly. The home-owner was trapped inside, and couldn’t do much in the way of effective defense – but if he’d had friends in the area, who were prepared to work together, they could have approached the mob from the sides or rear, and provided very effective interdiction. If things go to hell in a hand-basket in this country, that may become a vitally important tactical consideration. Talk to your friends, work out what you can do to defend each other’s lives and homes, and practice it before you have to do it the hard way. A team can do a lot more, and be much more effective, than a single individual or family.
Finally, it might be a good idea to ensure that rioters, protestors and demonstrators are reminded of what might happen if they push things too far. I don’t think they have any idea what will happen to them if Mr. and Mrs. Average American decide they’ve had enough. I suspect it won’t be pretty.
Peter
There are so many signs that everything going on in the country is a series of planned operation to prepare the battlespace for Civil War 2.0, that it's hard to know where to start listing the signs. Something like this is training the cannon fodder to stand in front of the guy with the gun and get confident they don't get killed right away. So that they can be killed when need be.
Civil War 2.0 starts on election night at the latest. There is no such thing as a victory so big on election night that everyone parts on amicable terms.
Prosecutors have not been on the side of conservatives in self-defense shootings for a looong time, way before the George Zimmerman incident. Funny how the very people that elect the prosecutors are the ones that use them the most, even though that segment is usually smaller than the law-abiding segment of the population.
Often this is because prosecutors (and state attorneys, same thing, different names) get elected on non-November election dates. You know, the small ones like primaries and such where it is much easier to drum up 2-4% of the registered voters (by all the typical democratic party tricks of bought votes and buses and such) to push a poorly attended 'not important' vote.
And then there are the people, if it is on a general election ballot, who only vote for the big ticket items. It's how Florida got an anti-gun, anti-big farm, anti-hunting democratic-socialist(her words, not mine)Agricultural Commissioner who now oversees the Concealed permit process.
Elections, as we saw in 1992 and 2008, have consequences.
As to the gentleman in Milwaukee, even if he was not drunk and had no flags flying, the fact that the mob was against him was enough to get him arrested. It is officially now Mob-ruled, not rule-of-law. I hope the rest of Michigan is watching this and taking notes.
Considering that the leader of the mob is KNOWN to already having burned down a house (and he was IN the house), the home owner would have been in the right if he had SHOT into the mob.
Wisconsin law in that regards are yes to castle doctrine, immunity from prosecution and civil damages in the home (with exceptions), no need to retreat into the home or business (not applicable as he was in the house) and deadly force is not legal only to protect property (again, the mob has burned houses and he was in the house, so it can be easily argued that he was in fear of his live).
Beyond that the state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no threat to his live to even be able to get a guilty verdict.
Oh, and state law prohibits any city laws subverting these rights.
In other words, on his own ground, owning, displaying and even pointing a shotgun was completely legal and he has probably a very solid case against the police officers.
@MadMcAl: That presumes that your prosecutors are willing to apply the laws as written, and not make their own politically correct value judgements over who should be charged with what. Without an impartial District Attorney or prosecutor, the letter of the law matters little, as we've discussed repeatedly in recent months.
It’s terrifying by displaying a Trump sign in some areas you make yourself a target.
This comment has been removed by the author.
That presumes that your prosecutors are willing to apply the laws as written, and not make their own politically correct value judgements over who should be charged with what. Without an impartial District Attorney or prosecutor, the letter of the law matters little, as we've discussed repeatedly in recent months.
If the letter of the law matters little, then why bother with checking on the law before you unload on the trespassers?
Sure, you can stand on your First Amendment rights all you like – but hard-liners won't care about your rights. They're looking for a fight, and you're providing them with an excuse for one. As I've advised before, be a "gray man". Don't set out to be a "tall poppy" when you're in the midst of contested political territory, lest someone try to cut you down.
How far does this go? "Freedom isn't free" right? What kind of freedom do we have if we aren't willing to fight for it at home even as soldiers fight for it elsewhere? What need does the government have to impose tyranny if you're voluntarily putting the chains on?
Second, ever stopped to consider that this very attitude is how we got here in the first place? In practically every one of these instances I've seen there's almost always a long history of the instigators never getting pushback on their insanity? Maybe if more people had socked a liberal in the kisser when they went a little too far they might think twice about stepping on another man's property. Like the tale goes, "if you give a mouse a cookie…" – at some point, we HAVE to say no. We HAVE to say, that's enough. So when do we? Where do we draw the line? Or is it all surrender – better to be slaves than to risk a war?
Don't be under the influence of any substance that might impair your judgment, reactions or ability to defend yourself. Not only does that affect your situation as far as law enforcement is concerned, it can also come back to bite you even if you legitimately and legally defend yourself. If post-incident results show that you were under the influence of anything at all, even legally prescribed medications, you can expect shyster attorneys (and shyster prosecutors, in some jurisdictions) to try to use that against you. The homeowner in this incident has brought big trouble upon himself by being drunk.
So now we can't ever drink or take medicine while home because at any moment we might get invaded? Again, how many freedoms are we giving up now? (I mean I'm not a drinker anyway, but I'm annoyed that my fellow citizens are now being denied something they want to enjoy.)
If you have any inkling at all that such a situation might arise, get the hell out of there before it does! Take your family and your essential gear and go to a place where you'll be safer.
Again, the problem is – what happens when you run out of space?
Totally agree though on knowing your neighbors and working out a planned defense.
"After the first one, the rest are free" – Henry Bowman.
The Milwaukee event is indicative of how things will go. There appears to be, based on further reports, that there was justification – barely – for the arrest of the homeowner. I suspect the police made the considered judgement that, since they had some justification, removing the homeowner might alleviate conditions enervating the mob.
Police should understand, however, that their actions can be quite revealing as to which side they're on. If it is perceived that police are working for the mob, and by extension, the financiers, organizers and and drivers of the mobs, and not the embattled citizens, then when push comes to shove they will be treated exactly the same as the mobs to which they have demonstrated allegiance.
There will be no middle ground. Guaranteed.
Once it starts – and start it will, because the Left will have it no other way – it will not end until it's completely over; the depth of our ammunition lockers will be sorely tested. Prepare and plan, because this is not a weekend lark for frustrated college students; it is a fight to the death for the soul of the United States, a cage match in which only there will be only one survivor.
I sincerely wish it were not so, but as is often said, "hope" is not a strategy.
A gun is not a magic wand that you wave around and have good things happen.
Use it, or leave it alone.
Regarding your use of "shyster attorney", I'm reminded of my late friend Merrill Jenkins, author of "Money: The Greatest Hoax on Earth", and several conversations we had. Mostly one-sided, since he had a lot to teach me.
In any event, he pointed out as an aside that the expression "shyster lawyer" was redundant.
The man was inside his on home,for somebody to be able to see what he was doing in his home they had to be standing with their nose on the window.
This is a good example of why you never let the police inside without a warrant.
Without a signed statement–the police did not see the weapon–there was no probable cause to enter the home or to arrest the man.
I'm pondering creative home defense-in-depth. Any ideas, Peter, commenters? I'm wondering about innovative use of sprinkler systems, non-lethal personal means, e.g. paintball, airsoft, pellets? Backed up by more serious force, if they then attack? Small drones, dropping really smelly inducements to leave? Is this all nuts? Maybe just get a big dog?
@Nate Winchester:
"If the letter of the law matters little, then why bother with checking on the law before you unload on the trespassers?" – So that you don't go to jail.
"How far does this go?" – As far as it has to go to keep yourself and your family unharmed and out of jail. If you want to go out in a blaze of glory, help yourself – but I think your loved ones would prefer you to be safe, and free with them. If the time comes that's no longer possible, then by all means step up to the plate and take action: but that should be your last resort, not your first.
"Where do we draw the line? Or is it all surrender – better to be slaves than to risk a war?" – We draw the line when we come to the point that there's more to gain by resisting than by backing off. If resisting will probably get you arrested or killed, what are the alternatives? If those alternatives offer better options, FFS TAKE THEM!!! Do you want to be a martyr? If there are no better options, well, that solves the dilemma, doesn't it?
"So now we can't ever drink or take medicine while home because at any moment we might get invaded?" – No, but choose when and where you drink, and (as far as possible) when and where you take medicine. If you know Antifa and BLM are coming out to play in your city or your neighborhood, don't drink. If you take medication that may affect your ability to make rational judgements and/or defend yourself, then be somewhere else when you take it. If that's not possible, have others with you who can take up the slack until you're functional once more.
"what happens when you run out of space?" – At that point, I guess you have no options left: so you make options, the hard way if necessary. If you're painted into a corner by your enemies, you'll have to muss up their paintwork to get out of there. Just make sure you make that their problem rather than yours, as in: "No, I'm not stuck here with you. You're stuck here with me." From that point on, let them do the worrying!
@nono:
"Without a signed statement–the police did not see the weapon–there was no probable cause to enter the home or to arrest the man."
Yes, there was probable cause. Read the report again. "The incident was captured on video". In fact, there's "livestream footage of the incident". I have no doubt the police saw that, or had it shown to them by some of the protesters.
@Etaoin Shrdlu:
I don't think "minimalist" defenses are likely to work. You've seen video footage of the riots and protests. Those mounting them are equipped with "fireworks" (some converted to be explosive devices, or studded with nails and other items that will become shrapnel when the device goes off); lightbulb "bombs" filled with paint (the glass cuts your skin, and the paint gets into it and infects the wound); containers holding urine and feces to throw at you (ditto); impact devices (makeshift clubs, even using skateboards as clubs) and shields: lasers that will blind you (certainly temporarily, possibly permanently): and so on. Many of them are also carrying firearms.
Don't think that you, or you and a couple of friends, can meet such a crowd on even terms using the same weapons they are. That's doomed to failure. You have two options: get out of their way, or resist effectively. "Effectively" means in such a way, and using such implements, that their own weapons are rendered ineffective against you, and they cease their attacks and go away. You won't get there with a baseball bat or paintball gun.
By all means use effective non-lethal means of defense, such as pepper spray, etc. if you can: but be aware of their limitations. They may stop a few people, but you, or you and a couple of friends, can't launch enough of them to stop a crowd. That's why police riot squads are numbered in dozens or scores, and heavily protected against such weapons. You probably won't have either those numbers or that protection.
Learn from Al Capone's infamous dictum: "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."
Remember he was inside his home the whole time not in public view.
Think for a minute just the actions of cleaning a weapon can appear to be threatening, one more reason not to be a peeping tom.
Again do not let the police into your home without a warrant.
@Peter, answering his answer to me…I suppose I could always play classical music at them? Maybe Stravinski's Rite of Spring No, that made them riot at the opera house at its premier. Something utterly unlistenable … anything by Delibes! Got it! Anything by John Cage!! They will wish they had never been born.
The 1812 Overture.
With bells and claymore lawn gnomes.
As far as it has to go to keep yourself and your family unharmed and out of jail. If you want to go out in a blaze of glory, help yourself – but I think your loved ones would prefer you to be safe, and free with them. If the time comes that's no longer possible, then by all means step up to the plate and take action: but that should be your last resort, not your first.
But it's broken windows policing all over again. Nobody's taken action, so now things are spiraling out of control. Just like avoiding taking action when Hitler started running amok – how well did that work out for the allies in avoiding a war?
I'm not saying people have to be gunned down for walking on your lawn – but this situation has only reached this point because nobody has ever pushed back against these people.
At least some of your posts you've written about the skirmishes in Africa I would think you would grasp this idea that at some point retreat is just letting a problem get worse.
"Where do we draw the line? Or is it all surrender – better to be slaves than to risk a war?" – We draw the line when we come to the point that there's more to gain by resisting than by backing off. If resisting will probably get you arrested or killed, what are the alternatives? If those alternatives offer better options, FFS TAKE THEM!!! Do you want to be a martyr? If there are no better options, well, that solves the dilemma, doesn't it?
How do you even measure that? How do you compare "well I'll live – today" vs "if I take some out now, others will be ok tomorrow and these people will be dissuaded from starting a war."
I mean think about that paragraph applied to like… cops. Should they always be taking every action to avoid getting in trouble or killed? Care to check in Portland or Seattle on how that's working out? At what point do police actions cease to belong to the institution and have been relinquished back to the individuals? I'll grant you it's a debatable gray area, but it looks to me like we're getting damn close to it now – especially if the rule of law no longer applies.
But then I've never heard of fallen soldiers or cops described as martyrs.
No, but choose when and where you drink, and (as far as possible) when and where you take medicine. If you know Antifa and BLM are coming out to play in your city or your neighborhood, don't drink. If you take medication that may affect your ability to make rational judgements and/or defend yourself, then be somewhere else when you take it. If that's not possible, have others with you who can take up the slack until you're functional once more.
You honestly think the guy in this story was monitoring antifa's facebook for a notice of them coming to his property? Are you? One of antifa's admitted tactics is spontaneous swarming of locations.
You're problem is that you keep assuming a high grade of military intelligence for ordinary civilians – especially ones that may not be very tech-savy or have more pressing distractions.