Protests at a LEO's home.

[Sanch]

These mobs do not happen in a vacuum. Over 100 people were protesting in that video, 90% of which were behaving lawfully. This was not an ongoing demonstration repeatedly harassing the officer, it was one daytime demonstration on the anniversary of his shooting.

Those breaking the law by detaining traffic or explicitly threatening neighbors should have been arrested to protect those being threatened/detained AND those protestors wishing to lawfully exercise their rights. If the number of unlawful actors is something law enforcement can legitimately no longer handle, only then should the entire gathering be deemed unlawful assembly.

Except that the 90% who weren’t breaking the law were preventing officers from arresting those who were.

It would be like if I went to a 2A rally and a bunch of white supremacists showed up. They are only 10% of the crows but are lighting crosses on fire on black peoples lawn. 90% of us are minding our own peaceful business on the sidewalk.

I would GTFO of that protest and let the cops arrest the criminals. If it’s only 10% and the 90% leave, then the cops will have an easy time arresting who is left.

The point I’m trying to make is when you assemble into a mob, you assume consequences for everyone else in that mob. If the mob turns criminal, it’s your responsibility to leave and let the police take out the criminals.

Suppose you want to argue you shouldn’t have that responsibility, well fine but guess what, everyone watching will assume the 100% of you are criminals. Personally when I see a BLM sticker on a car, I assume that person is a terrorist out to get me. Maybe al Quada is 90% peaceful too.

Anyone who intends to be peaceful and doesn’t leave once criminality begins is both contributing to the criminality and a f-ing fool because now you’re diminishing your cause since anyone in the fence now hates all of you.

[1slow]

Except that the 90% who weren’t breaking the law were preventing officers from arresting those who were.

It would be like if I went to a 2A rally and a bunch of white supremacists showed up. They are only 10% of the crows but are lighting crosses on fire on black peoples lawn. 90% of us are minding our own peaceful business on the sidewalk.

I would GTFO of that protest and let the cops arrest the criminals. If it’s only 10% and the 90% leave, then the cops will have an easy time arresting who is left.

The point I’m trying to make is when you assemble into a mob, you assume consequences for everyone else in that mob. If the mob turns criminal, it’s your responsibility to leave and let the police take out the criminals.

Suppose you want to argue you shouldn’t have that responsibility, well fine but guess what, everyone watching will assume the 100% of you are criminals. Personally when I see a BLM sticker on a car, I assume that person is a terrorist out to get me. Maybe al Quada is 90% peaceful too.

Anyone who intends to be peaceful and doesn’t leave once criminality begins is both contributing to the criminality and a f-ing fool because now you’re diminishing your cause since anyone in the fence now hates all of you.

THIS !!!!!!

[0ddl0t]

Refer to my distinction between 'in general' vs 'hypothetical' and note you didn't address any of the questions. Why?

I saw them as straw men. I'm speaking generally about lawful protesting in front of a private residence, not about various unlawful acts.

And as far as QI, I haven't revisited the thread lately but didn't you fail to address that it only protects the officer as an individual from civil liability and doesn't protect from criminal prosecution or protect the government entity? Personal civil liability is far from the only way we hold someone accountable.

Except when it is. According to the courts, you cannot sue the department or city for damages done during a public safety operation so police are free to tear apart cars & houses with no regard to the damage caused as long as they can point to some "public safety" aspect of the operation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...d-court-rules/

This "public safety" exemption of the takings clause is one of the ways California is currently defending its eviction moratorium (essentially commandeering private housing for the public good with zero compensation).

I think at this point it's reasonable to assume you aren't interested in a conversation.

Happy to converse on the points at hand, I find you highly intelligent and I've learned a great deal from our discussions.

Except that the 90% who weren’t breaking the law were preventing officers from arresting those who were.

It would be like if I went to a 2A rally and a bunch of white supremacists showed up. They are only 10% of the crows but are lighting crosses on fire on black peoples lawn. 90% of us are minding our own peaceful business on the sidewalk.

I would GTFO of that protest and let the cops arrest the criminals. If it’s only 10% and the 90% leave, then the cops will have an easy time arresting who is left.

That is the best course of action in the tiny view of one individual incident. Take the larger game theory view and you've opened yourself up to opposition members being able to easily hijack your movement and shut down your 1A rights. This is a tactic increasingly used by right wing Boogaloo Boys and left wing Antifa alike.

[WOLFIE]

Except that the 90% who weren’t breaking the law were preventing officers from arresting those who were.

It would be like if I went to a 2A rally and a bunch of white supremacists showed up. They are only 10% of the crows but are lighting crosses on fire on black peoples lawn. 90% of us are minding our own peaceful business on the sidewalk.

I would GTFO of that protest and let the cops arrest the criminals. If it’s only 10% and the 90% leave, then the cops will have an easy time arresting who is left.

The point I’m trying to make is when you assemble into a mob, you assume consequences for everyone else in that mob. If the mob turns criminal, it’s your responsibility to leave and let the police take out the criminals.

Suppose you want to argue you shouldn’t have that responsibility, well fine but guess what, everyone watching will assume the 100% of you are criminals. Personally when I see a BLM sticker on a car, I assume that person is a terrorist out to get me. Maybe al Quada is 90% peaceful too.

Anyone who intends to be peaceful and doesn’t leave once criminality begins is both contributing to the criminality and a f-ing fool because now you’re diminishing your cause since anyone in the fence now hates all of you.

This explains my thoughts on the matter pretty well. People tend to generalize. I am not going to trust protesters (not these protesters). If I am with my family and we hear there is a protest nearby, we are getting out of there.

[olstyn]

I do some of this activity, but honestly, I prefer the "concealed is concealed" approach.

Outside of this forum, and maybe specific family members who I can count on one hand, nobody has any clue I have a gun. Some long-standing RV friends were musing about "going to the range to try a gun, you know, for self-defense" a while ago. We eventually got to the range where I attempted to provide some input. They had absolutely no idea that every time they saw me, I had a gun on me, somewhere.

I operate the same way, except that most of my family is pretty strongly blue leaning and thus is firmly in the "they don't need to know" category. The only way you'll ever see me walking around with an open carried gun, slung, holstered, or otherwise, is if the world has completely gone to shit and it has therefore become necessary as a daily routine.

[Sanch]

That is the best course of action in the tiny view of one individual incident. Take the larger game theory view and you've opened yourself up to opposition members being able to easily hijack your movement and shut down your 1A rights. This is a tactic increasingly used by right wing Boogaloo Boys and left wing Antifa alike.

The reason the opposition may attempt to seed criminality in protests is because it works to discredit the protest. I agree with you on that part and that it can be hijacked. Since you mention game theory, let’s extend out your analysis:

We are in a peaceful protest and either insurgent forces pretending to be part of us enter the group or a small splinter portion of us who genuinely support the cause becomes criminal. In the moment we can’t determine which is occurring so we have to treat them the same.

The course of action is to step aside, have your leader talk to the police watch commander and say “hey dude, those 10 guys are starting shit, they’re doing criminal acts and don’t represent us. The 90% of us good guys will step aside and let you arrest them and we’ll continue our peaceful protest okay? Here’s video evidence for PC for the arrest and contact info of witnesses from our protest. Thanks for being here, we appreciate what you do”

If you do that. The cops can come in and arrest the insurgents and you can continue the peaceful protest. If they are paid insurgents then the cost of bail and keeping these arrestees quiet will become quiet expensive and even George Soros or Bill Gates can’t bank roll thst forever.

What alternatives exist? Self-police. Have your own people admonish the actions of the few violent looters/arsonists. In the moment of a BLM protest, if its violent, as they have been, I would argue the immediate problem of the violence outweighs the long-term problem of blacks getting killed by PD. Because this violence is happening right now, and the hypothetical violence against a hypothetical black victim hasn’t happened yet. The protest should immediately switch from BLM to Peace Matters and either self-police or step aside and let the real police do it.

What other alternatives exist? Whine on social media. Claim the small minority doesn’t represent the whole. This is the course of action currently being taken and quiet honestly I have far less sympathy for black lives right now than I had 6 months ago.

ESPECIALLY because every time I see a new name being changed and watch the body cam footage, I think, shit, the cops were in the right. The 19 year old armed robbery suspect turned to run and grabbed at his waist band which had a gun in it. Logically I know he probably wasn’t reaching for his waistband to turn and shoot at the cop, but because it was weighing down his gym shorts. But I can’t fault the cop for shooting given split second reaction time to process. And even with a full day to think about it, I still think he made a good shoot.

So now when I hear BLM, I just think that it was probably a black guy who had it coming. Because many of the names BLM is chanting turns out to be actual really bad people.

If right wing white supremacists wanted to hijack the BLM movement to make the outcome be less sympathy for blacks, then quite honestly, they couldn’t have orchestrated a better scenario then is currently playing out. Looting, violence, blocking traffic at gunpoint, arson. Meanwhile the rest of the protesters who are “peaceful” stand by pretending the violence isn’t happening and keep shouting black lives matter. My friend, a PSYOP designed to discredit the left couldn’t have be novelized more perfectly than this.

So I either think this whole thing is an orchestrated attempt to discredit the left wing, or the left wing are a bunch of complete morons who believe what’s happening will recruit people to their side.

Back to game theory. Sure, you can keep up your protest as-is, not let PD arrest the bad apples because it’s a slippery slope to silencing your cause. But the outcome here is that you would have been better off being silenced because now I support the cause less. And I feel pity for police officers and if they were arresting a black person, I would walk the other way and let them do their job, not chant and yell while recording with my cellphone.

Or you can self-police and/or facilitate PD to arrest the bad apples.

Which of those 3 outcomes has the best ending for you?

[Erick Gelhaus]

From EG

"A question for you - do you see a similar issue in re prosecutorial rulings on officer-involved shootings or citizen defensive uses of force where the prosecutor (at the county, state, or federal levels), rather than saying he/she is clearing the officer/citizen, now announces there was "insufficient evidence to pursue charges"?

Historically, from my perception, the tree just fell in the woods re both officers and citizens. The vast majority of the time, no announcement at all. The occasional, " no charges are expected v John Q Public but we would remind those not to take the law into their own hand because it can be dangerous etc."

It is a matter of public record that a KCPD Officer was recently charged by the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office (KC proper south of the Missouri River/eastward including the City of Independence) with involuntary manslaughter during an OIC. It is a matter of public record that the PD declined to prepare a probable cause statement such that the case had to be presented to a Grand Jury. I cannot comment on the specifics of the case as I know and have worked with multiple individuals from both the KCPD and the JCPO.

It is a matter of public record that a similar statement as you outlined above was recently issued by the ST. Louis County Prosecutor ( the area immediately surrounding the City of St. Louis) re the officer that was involved in the Michael Brown/Ferguson shooting.

@vcdgrips - thank you sir.

[GyroF-16]

The reason the opposition may attempt to seed criminality in protests is because it works to discredit the protest. I agree with you on that part and that it can be hijacked. Since you mention game theory, let’s extend out your analysis:

We are in a peaceful protest and either insurgent forces pretending to be part of us enter the group or a small splinter portion of us who genuinely support the cause becomes criminal. In the moment we can’t determine which is occurring so we have to treat them the same.

The course of action is to step aside, have your leader talk to the police watch commander and say “hey dude, those 10 guys are starting shit, they’re doing criminal acts and don’t represent us. The 90% of us good guys will step aside and let you arrest them and we’ll continue our peaceful protest okay? Here’s video evidence for PC for the arrest and contact info of witnesses from our protest. Thanks for being here, we appreciate what you do”

If you do that. The cops can come in and arrest the insurgents and you can continue the peaceful protest. If they are paid insurgents then the cost of bail and keeping these arrestees quiet will become quiet expensive and even George Soros or Bill Gates can’t bank roll thst forever.

What alternatives exist? Self-police. Have your own people admonish the actions of the few violent looters/arsonists. In the moment of a BLM protest, if its violent, as they have been, I would argue the immediate problem of the violence outweighs the long-term problem of blacks getting killed by PD. Because this violence is happening right now, and the hypothetical violence against a hypothetical black victim hasn’t happened yet. The protest should immediately switch from BLM to Peace Matters and either self-police or step aside and let the real police do it.

What other alternatives exist? Whine on social media. Claim the small minority doesn’t represent the whole. This is the course of action currently being taken and quiet honestly I have far less sympathy for black lives right now than I had 6 months ago.

ESPECIALLY because every time I see a new name being changed and watch the body cam footage, I think, shit, the cops were in the right. The 19 year old armed robbery suspect turned to run and grabbed at his waist band which had a gun in it. Logically I know he probably wasn’t reaching for his waistband to turn and shoot at the cop, but because it was weighing down his gym shorts. But I can’t fault the cop for shooting given split second reaction time to process. And even with a full day to think about it, I still think he made a good shoot.

So now when I hear BLM, I just think that it was probably a black guy who had it coming. Because many of the names BLM is chanting turns out to be actual really bad people.

If right wing white supremacists wanted to hijack the BLM movement to make the outcome be less sympathy for blacks, then quite honestly, they couldn’t have orchestrated a better scenario then is currently playing out. Looting, violence, blocking traffic at gunpoint, arson. Meanwhile the rest of the protesters who are “peaceful” stand by pretending the violence isn’t happening and keep shouting black lives matter. My friend, a PSYOP designed to discredit the left couldn’t have be novelized more perfectly than this.

So I either think this whole thing is an orchestrated attempt to discredit the left wing, or the left wing are a bunch of complete morons who believe what’s happening will recruit people to their side.

Back to game theory. Sure, you can keep up your protest as-is, not let PD arrest the bad apples because it’s a slippery slope to silencing your cause. But the outcome here is that you would have been better off being silenced because now I support the cause less. And I feel pity for police officers and if they were arresting a black person, I would walk the other way and let them do their job, not chant and yell while recording with my cellphone.

Or you can self-police and/or facilitate PD to arrest the bad apples.

Which of those 3 outcomes has the best ending for you?

Well said, good sir.

[Ichiban]

Better late than never.

CSPD provided the following when announcing part of the protest as a riot on Sept. 11, 2020:

"We understand and share in the frustration with delayed enforcement; however, the safety of our community is paramount. Please be assured, delayed arrests do not deter our efforts in holding people accountable for engaging in illegal and dangerous behavior.

The following are excerpts from Colorado law regarding riots:

18-9-101 Definitions

-Riot” means a public disturbance involving an assemblage of three or more persons which by tumultuous and violent conduct creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons or substantially obstructs the performance of any governmental function.

18-9-102 Inciting riot

A person commits inciting riot if he:

-Incites or urges a group of five or more persons to engage in a current or impending riot; or

-Gives commands, instructions, or signals to a group of five or more persons in furtherance of a riot.

-A person may be convicted under section 18-2-101, 18-2-201, or 18-2-301 of attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to incite a riot only if he engages in the prohibited conduct with respect to a current or impending riot.

-Inciting riot is a class 1 misdemeanor, but, if injury to a person or damage to property results therefrom, it is a class 5 felony.

18-9-104. Engaging in a riot

A person commits an offense if he or she engages in a riot. The offense is a class 4 felony if in the course of rioting the actor employs a deadly weapon, a destructive device, or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or if in the course of rioting the actor represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon; otherwise, it is a class 2 misdemeanor.

The provisions of section 18-9-102 (2) are applicable to attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy to commit an offense under this section.

Arrests

Following the riot, CSPD detectives were able to identify several rioters engaging in illegal activity. They also worked with the Fourth Judicial District Attorney’s Office to ensure that these cases and the information they obtained in their investigation were prosecutable.

Arrest warrants were obtained for the following individuals. Search warrants were also acquired for the residences in Denver and Fountain:

36-year-old Sherrie Smith of Fountain, Colorado Arrested in Fountain, Colorado Armed with rifle, pointed rifle at the occupied vehicle of a citizen Menacing – felony Possessing a Dangerous or Illegal Weapon - felony Engaging in a Riot – felony Additional misdemeanor offenses
33-year-old Lloyd Porche of Denver, Colorado Arrested in Denver, Colorado Armed with rifle, engaged in menacing behavior toward the occupied vehicle of a citizen Menacing - felony Engaging in a Riot – felony Additional misdemeanor offenses
20-year-old Charles Johnson of Colorado Springs, Colorado Arrested in Colorado Springs, Colorado Attempted to take cellular telephone from a citizen- value approximately $900 Attempted Robbery - felony Inciting a riot – felony Additional misdemeanor offenses
Federal partners assisted the Colorado Springs Police Department in this investigation.

As this is still an on-going investigation, the arrest warrants have been sealed at this time. Additionally, we do anticipate additional arrests in the near future."

[GyroF-16]

Better late than never.

Certainly better late than never...

But there were city police on scene, and menacing behavior with a long gun should be dealt with then and there. (And there were 3 people with ARs in front of the pickup truck, behaving in concert... was one “more innocent”, or do they just not know who he was?)

The deterrent value of a warrant issued 5 weeks after the fact is not nearly as significant as cuffs being applied on scene.

I can only hope that this is indicative of the local DA growing a spine, and will set a precedent for more immediate action in the future.