Vigilantism or Protectors of Peace?

[BjornF16]

Ran across various news stories and blogs about these three gentlemen in Texas...what do you think?

http://conservativetribune.com/armed-texans-confront-ferguson-rioters/

Personally, I'm happy they were there.

Open carry of long guns is legal in Texas; yet open carry of sidearms (except black powder pistols) is prohibited. Open carry will be a big issue of the next Texas legislature.

(This group is part of the Open Carry movement in Texas that has come under criticism by NRA and other "2A Supporting" organizations.)

[montana]

I couldn't say what is best in your neck of the woods but open carry has always been legal in Montana. When people move here from out of state they get shocked by all the open carry and will write editorials to our news paper revealing their firearm phobias. Many of these people seem to adjust after a while after the avalanche of angry pro carry replies. There will always be stanch anti gunners but one wrong or "perceived wrong" action from an open carry advocate would be disastrous. Pro carry advocates need to understand that looking odd or militia like will not convince the ignorant fence sitters on this issue but could have a negative outcome. Perception is important and this is why I be-friend anti gunners to show the real side of the gun culture and it has worked very well. Having a friendly yet safe shooting experience has always changed the hearts and minds of all the anti gunners I have met. We are trying to undo a century of lies and propaganda driven by the media and power hungry slime bags. They need to tread carefully.

[biodsl]

What's Texas' law on use of deadly force to protect property? In Oregon, it's illegal.

[BjornF16]

What's Texas' law on use of deadly force to protect property? In Oregon, it's illegal.

Depends...at night, and your property = legal ("Night Criminal Mischief").

What these guys allegedly intended (i.e. protecting business property where they weren't the owner)...I don't think would have met that standard.

However, my original point was more along the lines of "an armed society is a polite society"...their presence MAY have had a calming effect (or maybe not).

[bwaites]

What's Texas' law on use of deadly force to protect property? In Oregon, it's illegal.

Therefore police and bank guards are not allowed to shoot robbers? They must wrestle them to the ground to subdue them? If I were to walk into the bank and begin a robbery, they would not be allowed to shoot me unless they had an imminent threat? What is the decididing factor for imminent threat, then? Only bodily harm?

[biodsl]

Therefore police and bank guards are not allowed to shoot robbers? They must wrestle them to the ground to subdue them? If I were to walk into the bank and begin a robbery, they would not be allowed to shoot me unless they had an imminent threat? What is the decididing factor for imminent threat, then? Only bodily harm?

When force is being used or threatened against people, force is justified to protect those people. Force is justified to protect property (think of the store loss prevention officer using grabbing a fleeing shoplifter), but it has to be appropriate. Deadly force may only be used to protect life. An armed robbery is no longer just a property crime. The threat to life makes it a person crime.

I'm not being critical here. I just think the gentlemen put themselves in tough position. A crook could throw a brick through a jewlery store window and grab a handful of diamonds right in front of me. Can I point the AR and demand he stop? Yes, I think you could. Can you fire if he just walks away? Not in Oregon. Can you fire if he charges you? Think Ferguson.

Back to Bjorn's story: did the presence of the AR's prevent crime? It's hard to imagine they didn't.

I should add that's I'm no Use of Force expert. It's complicated stuff sometimes and based on the totality of the circumstances. An actual riot changes those circumstances.

[biodsl]

Here's a related story about members of Oath Keepers in Ferguson, MO. http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/12/03...eave-ferguson/

Here's a quote from that story about justification for the use of lethal force in MO.:

“Well, in Missouri you’re allowed to use lethal force for three reasons; to prevent a murder, to prevent a sexual assault or a rape, or to prevent an arson – and a lot of people get confused about that last one, arson. It’s not about protecting the building with arson, it’s about protecting the people inside the building, and we just happen to have apartments… on the second floor with people sleeping inside.”

I admire what these men are doing. This is the true spirit of the Minute Man, not the National Guard who's allegiance is ultimately to the government and not his neighbor. These men are really putting themselves at risk, not just physically but legally. Knowledge of the law and an appropriate response to the chaotic behavior you could be confronted with in a riot is key to keeping yourself out of legal trouble. And even if you don't do anything wrong you might still be forced to defend yourself from a frivolous lawsuit or trumped up charge of wrong doing from a less than grateful government.

I got a kick out of this quote :

"When asked why Belmar told him to vacate, Andrews replied, “They claim that they had a St. Louis County ordinance that prevented anyone from securing a building or conducting a security operation without a St. Louis County license.”

We have a statue in Oregon that all security companies must be licensed and all security officers must be trained and licensed. Security duties are, of course, defined pretty broadly. You can not provide security except for your own property. It doesn't matter if someone is compensated or volunteers; its the activity that's regulated. So in theory what the Oath Keepers are doing in Missouri would be a violation of the law in Oregon. Insanity, no?