I rarely hit the CNN homepage, but this morning I did and followed a link about “vigilantes” thinking it was going to be another story of a reporter painting carry permit holders as vigilantes.
The story starts off pretty much the way I expected:
A group of University Of Washington students are being called vigilantes after they armed themselves with handguns and tried to set up patrols on University Avenue and other areas around campus where students have been attacked over the past year.
Ah, yes. Let’s call anyone who might want to protect themselves in a bad neighborhood vigilantes. Did I mention this was Seattle? You know, the one where the Mayor is trying to make an end-run around pre-emption? In that context, you might think the news station is trying to cover for the mayor. It happens here in Nashville all the time, I would expect Seattle to be no different.
The report continues by telling the stories of two young men, Stanley Luong and Luis Garcia, who were recent victims of assault and robbery in their neighborhood next to the University of Washington campus. They got fed up:
So both got a concealed license permit and bought handguns. Now they walk with pistols in their pockets…
Well, good for them! Glad they took the initiative to protect themselves. It’s probably rare that college kids in Seattle get carry permits, so congratulations guys.
…looking for the bad guys.
Way to editorialize there, fella. Getting your carry permit does not mean you’re out looking for bad guys.
Luong says, “I don’t know if it’s illegal to walk around and be bait. I’m kind of fishing for robbers.”
Umm…..excuse me? You’re doing what? Okay, reporters (and gunnies), pay attention. THIS? THIS is vigilantism. When you actively go out to find bad guys, UR DOIN IT WRONG.
These guys thought it was such a good idea, they created a Facebook group to get like-minded people together. Thankfully, the group was taken down, though the report doesn’t mention who did that.
“I was just kind of sick of it and I watched a lot of movies like taxi driver and vigilante movies and I decided, why not make a Facebook” says Luong.
Great. Just great, genius. Do you realize that you just reinforced the stereo types that we have been fighting for decades? Say goodbye to any chance of Campus Carry passing in Washington now.
I spent the entire legislative session last spring trying to convince people that permit holders are NOT vigilantes trying to re-enact the Death Wish movies. Thanks for torpedoing that effort for us. ‘Preciate cha.
Oh, and this isn’t just bad for carry permit holders in general. This is very specifically bad for YOU. Because you know what’s going to happen if you are mugged and you bust a cap? You’re going to jail, now, because a prosecutor doesn’t even have to make the argument that you went out looking to kill someone. They just have to play that interview and it is GAME OVER for the two of you. I forget the term, but basically if you consent to assault, you can’t claim self defense. You guys saying “hey, come try to rob us!” means you are consenting, because by your own words that’s what you want to happen.
Oh, and GET A DAMNED HOLSTER. Carrying in your waistband without a holster is a good way to shoot your pee pee off.
90 days… | what we pay them for | Pacific Northwest Action Alert |
You know me, Linoge, and know we tend to cross swords over the “making us look bad” thing, but we’re pretty much agreed on this one.
.
That’s not quite enough to make me change my mind
Good post.
Take a gander at the author, Kurt – so far as I know, you and he have not had it out… yet
.
Take a gander at the author, Kurt – so far as I know, you and he have not had it out… yet
.
.
I’ll have you know that most people find me very easy to get along with–it’s just crabby folks like you who don’t like me
Seriously, though–I saw that Students for Concealed Carry on Campus has a chapter at University of Washington (5th from the bottom). I’m hoping they’ll convince him to approach this a bit more wisely–they would seem the folks to do it.
“I forget the term, but basically if you consent to assault, you can’t claim self defense.”
I believe the term is “mutual combat.”
While I in no way condone what he’s doing, I have a problem with labeling it as ‘vigilantism’.
He specifically stated that he was ‘fishing’ for robbers…not ‘hunting them’.
The way I see it, hunting involves actively seeking your prey, whereas fishing involves dangling the bait to see if anything bites…..kinda like the cops do with hooker-stings and bait-cars. Hell, I’ve even heard of instances of cops dressing up like drunk bums in ‘bad parts of town’ to do the same thing this student is doing…bait a mugger into striking. I doubt those ‘bum/cop’ plants ‘consent’ to being assaulted.
If it’s a legal activity for the cops, why not for we little folk?
Again…not that I condone it (for either us OR the cops) but it seems a bit hypocritical to endorse (or at least IGNORE) one party doing it while wagging your finger at another.
I’m just sayin’…
If it’s a legal activity for the cops, why not for we little folk?
Definition of vigilante: One who takes the law into one’s own hands.
“If it’s a legal activity for the cops, why not for we little folk?”
Police have enumerated powers that other citizens do not, part of the whole enforcement of the law aspect of their duties.
Even if the stated intentions of those two is to effect arrest of criminals, the scope of what they as citizens are legally able to do is much narrower.
Hunting or fishing, these guys are still actively choosing to put themselves into contact with criminals. As such, they are inviting the conflict and subsequently lose the legal protection of discharging a firearm in self-defense. At least as far as I understand the laws of that state.
“Police have enumerated powers that other citizens do not, part of the whole enforcement of the law aspect of their duties.”
Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
Just because they’ve been creeping a police state into place doesn’t make it right. Under the rule of law, police have no more powers or duties than any other citizen, they just choose to carry them out with far more regularity than a non-LEO citizen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
1) The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3) Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4) The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5) Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6) Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
in review
Once again, we are going to look at the performance and statistics of this particular webpage over the last year. Just like the last time we did this, I am going to use Google Analytics data, with the repeated warning…