2011 – Page 72 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Crossing the Street

In an e-mail conversation with the reader who sent me the Fox video:

Anyway anyway, I am torn between tactical wisdom, crossing the street, and emboldening the knuckleheads by doing so.Â I mean, sure, you and I and other SD minded folks can do it, but if everyone does we’ve just ceded the ground.Â I fear it could start edging into “enough good men doing nothing” territory.

I don’t generally view crossing the street as emboldening the group. In my mind, making myself an easy target would accomplish that to a greater degree. My main purpose for avoidance is to a) not run the risk of getting beaten or surprise attacked, and b) not to get myself into a situation where the only way I can get out of it is to shoot a group of kids. I don’t have any loftier social goals than my own well being. Taking care to avoid also forces the group to reveal its cards earlier, and thus helps take away the element of surprise. If the group pursues you, you know it’s trouble, and can can step up avoidance, or prepare to defend yourself.

If I were the principal of that school, I would take fairly drastic action, including collective punishment of the entire school until the weasels are ratted out. There are students in that school who know who did this, but who won’t talk. It is a grave shame that modern political correctness, where no one is responsible for their own actions, would preclude any mention to the students of the approximately 30,000 people in Philadelphia, with another 60,000 or so people in suburbs, who are licensed to carry a firearms in the City, and make sure they think long and hard about the consequences of picking random people off the street and beating them up.

Situational Awareness

If you’re going to go to the City of Philadelphia, you have to pay careful attention to your surroundings.

Caught On Tape: Philadelphia Teen Mob Attack: MyFoxPHILLY.com

You would do well to steer clear of groups of young males, even if they look relatively benign on approach. I would no longer worry about seeming racist for crossing the street. That’s the sad reality of the City now. For your own safety, you must assume the group’s intentions are poor, and alter your route. If the group follows you, be prepared to defend yourself quickly and violently.

This is not a dangerous neighborhood. These kinds of attacks are happening all over the city in nice areas, and it’s not going to stop until the city either ruthlessly prosecutes the perpetrators, or someone start shooting these hoodlums in self-defense. I don’t give good odds on the former.

UPDATE: Just realized the Fox video is embeddable.

Does Gun Control Save Lives in Riots?

The Boston Globe’s Ben Jacobs ponders:

Compared to similar outbreaks of unrest in the United States, like the 1992 riots in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict, there has been relatively little loss of life. In LA, 53 people died; in the UK, four were dead as of Wednesday afternoon. This likely can be attributed to one major difference between the US and the UK, which is the low level of gun ownership in Britain (35 of the LA victims were killed by gunshot wounds).

How many of those 35 people killed by gunshot wounds in the LA riots deserved it? One of the biggest philosophical differences between us, and people who are repulsed by firearms, is that we accept that some people’s criminal behavior makes it completely justifiable to shoot them. As long as the people killed in a riot were killed because they were flouting law and order, I have no problem with it. Saving lives should not be the measure the civility of dealing with a riot; how quickly law and order is restored and maintained is the measure of civility.

ANJRPC Hires Executive Director

There’s been a lot of buzz around gun circles about the decision of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistols Clubs to hire Scott Bach as a full time Executive Director. Bitter and I know Scott pretty well, and he’s been ANJRPC’s full time executive director for a number of years without being paid anything. At some point, even if you plan well, you need to make a living, and for Scott that would have meant going back to spend more time on his law practice.

New Jersey is not going to make any significant gains legislatively for the foreseeable future. The State Assembly and Senate are too hostile to gun rights, and Chris Christie definitely doesn’t want to take a position on the issue by having to sign or veto legislation. New Jersey’s biggest potential gain is through the Courts, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. It is very important for ANJRPC to keep a competent attorney at their helm, and their Board’s decision to hire Scott is a recognition of that fact. While the pay Scott is receiving is less than he would make practicing law, as far as I’m concerned, any amount is well worth it for a gun rights group involved in Second Amendment lawsuits to not become leaderless, and lose a strong legal mind at this critical time.

Hiding Research on Lead Ammunition

Apparently taxpayers in California paid for a bunch of studies on lead ammunition in California, but the state is refusing to release those studies to the public. What are they afraid of? If the studies support the case for banning lead ammunition, it should be pretty conclusive. Right? Right!?!?

PSH in California

Reason Magazine looks at the debate about Open Carry in California:

The best part of the interview is State Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, who’s sponsoring the bill to ban open carry. “You don’t need a license to carry an unloaded handgun in public, and that’s a loophole!” To him freedom = Â loophole. You can also tell that his main objection to guns is completely aesthetic, given his characterization of carry is taking California back to the past, and not wanting guns in “Main Street California”

Hat Tip to Instapundit

More Interviews

Today is a busy week for interviews as well. Yesterday was phone interview number two for an outfit in New York. It was a monstrously difficult technical interview. We’ll see how I did, but I feel like I got way too tripped up and twisted around. I was too nervous, which makes me fall apart at detailed thinking by rote knowledge. Today is another in-person with a new outfit I was considering consulting work for a few weeks ago. Their problem was easily diagnosed over the phone, but I guess they liked what they heard and decided to bring me in for an interview. This job would be a massive pay cut, given what they told me their budget was. It’s five minutes from home, and would be a cake job. But I’m not all that interested in cake jobs, and while I’m willing to accept a cut in pay, going back to what I made in my mid 20s is not my idea of career development.

One thing that’s frustrating me with all the hope and change is how slow companies move along the interview continuum. Back in the day you could submit your resume Monday, have a phone interview by Wednesday, an in-person by Friday, and except an offer the following week. Companies had to act quickly with tech people because if they didn’t, some other company might snatch them up.

Useful Legal Trivia for Today’s Time

It’s worth noting, given rioting and flash mobs, that under Pennsylvania law:

(1)Â Â The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent such other person from committing suicide, inflicting serious bodily injury upon himself, committing or consummating the commission of a crime involving or threatening bodily injury, damage to or loss of property or a breach of the peace, except that:

(i)Â Â Any limitations imposed by the other provisions of this chapter on the justifiable use of force in self-protection, for the protection of others, the protection of property, the effectuation of an arrest or the prevention of an escape from custody shall apply notwithstanding the criminality of the conduct against which such force is used.

(ii)Â Â The use of deadly force is not in any event justifiable under this subsection unless:

(A)Â Â the actor believes that there is a substantial risk that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless the commission or the consummation of the crime is prevented and that the use of such force presents no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; or

(B)Â Â the actor believes that the use of such force is necessary to suppress a riot or mutiny after the rioters or mutineers have been ordered to disperse and warned, in any particular manner that the law may require, that such force will be used if they do not obey.

(2)Â Â The justification afforded by this subsection extends to the use of confinement as preventive force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

Emphasis is mine. I’ve always taken this section to mean that it’s lawful to use deadly force to disperse rioters, provided the law is followed in this case. I don’t know what “any particular manner the law may require” might mean, and it would not surprise me if no one else knows either. Would this mean putting up a sign in front of your store, during a riot, warning that looters will be shot would suffice as legal warning under this statute? This section is in a part of Pennsylvania law outline the use of force in law enforcement, but this particular section does not limit itself to peace officers.

Generally speaking, I wouldn’t suggest treating any mob or riot situation like a free fire zone; escape is the best strategy if possible. But if not, this statute may provide you with more legal protection in the event you have to shoot your way out of a violent mob, and the government decides they don’t like you trying to survive without their good help. It’s good, at least, to know it’s there.

What Works

Of all the times that we’ve talked to politicians, the stories we’ve heard most often about why they end up voting in our favor almost always revolve around a constituent who came up to them in person and made it clear that they vote based on a candidate’s Second Amendment record. It’s simple and shockingly effective for such an easy conversation.

So it comes as no surprise that NRA is now encouraging Iowa voters to get out to the Ames straw poll and ask the candidates about their views on the Second Amendment. The effort includes a radio spot and print ad, so hopefully more than a few voters will follow their advice. Trust me, it works.

What’s Selling in the UK

Kevin has a rundown. Personally, if all I have available to face down an angry mob is a bludgeon, I’m going to be awfully interested in plan B.