Is this sanctioned by the 2nd A'ment?

[Pond James Pond]

Really, James, you don't see it?

I see the premise existing as something people ought to have the right to do.
And have the right to do, but only on paper. I don't and didn't disagree with anything written in your post. That wasn't the point I was making.

What I don't see (and what I meant in my post) is any practical situation where that would actually happen now.

Public opinion is such and media portrayal is such that there is no way that any action by individuals or groups against the authorities would ever pass scrutiny as defensible under the 2nd A.

It would be portrayed, and treated, as a terrorist act and dealt with accordingly.

If the group in the article ever did take the police on, no matter how justified their action, they would be annihilated... I mean, am I wrong? Would State or Federal government or the Press actually admit their actions were justified?
I don't see that happening.

The article linked in the OP is rife with errors, misinformation and fiction.

If there are errors, correct them. Tell us on here. Not saying you're wrong, just saying explain...

Other than one news article over a year ago, no one in Dallas has seen or heard from the Huey Newton Gun Club since it was first reported over a year ago.

Yet both links I posted are from this year.

they have serious credibility issues in the US. Not to mention very serious legal issues with employees

How? Have they been successfully sued for slander or libel?
Again, if this is the case, do tell.... I'd be interested to know.

I personally have found their stories to be corroborated more often than not through other news agencies that I check out.

 

[dogtown tom]

Pond, James Pond

Quote:
The article linked in the OP is rife with errors, misinformation and fiction.

If there are errors, correct them. Tell us on here. Not saying you're wrong, just saying explain...

1. The Huey Newton Gun Club was a photo op only.
2. They don't "patrol" anywhere. I have two friends that are DPD and have patrolled South Oak Cliff......neither had ever heard of the HPNGC.
3. it isn't news, but a political statement.
4. if you lived in Dallas you would be laughing at Al Jazeera.

Quote:
Other than one news article over a year ago, no one in Dallas has seen or heard from the Huey Newton Gun Club since it was first reported over a year ago.

Yet both links I posted are from this year

If I wrote an online article titled "Gravity Discovered!!!!" and dated today.............would it still be news?

If you'll read the Vice "article" (dated February 17th, 2015) note that the first sentence is "On a warm fall day in South Dallas...".
I've lived in the Dallas area for sixteen years, and February in Dallas is rarely warm, nor in the fall.

The article is simply a rehash of someone else's news story with a newer date.

Quote:
they have serious credibility issues in the US. Not to mention very serious legal issues with employees

How? Have they been successfully sued for slander or libel?
Again, if this is the case, do tell.... I'd be interested to know.

Google Al Jazera and you'll find this:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/al-jazeera-english-charlie-hebdo-coverage-leads-to-more-questions-about-its-credibility/
or this:
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2741/the_collapse_of_al_jazeera_s_credibility
or this:
https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/al-jazeera-losing-credibility-everywhere-accused-of-agenda-setting-and-bias-reporting-many-are-looking-elsewhere-for-the-truth/
That's three articles from the US, Syria and the UK. And there's more if you do a search.

In the US, Al Jazeera America is facing numerous lawsuits:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/11/media/al-jazeera-america-lawsuit/

http://www.npr.org/2015/05/07/404994259/al-jazeera-america-replaces-ceo-amid-lawsuit

 

[Pond James Pond]

If I wrote an online article titled "Gravity Discovered!!!!" and dated today.............would it still be news?

If you'll read the Vice "article" (dated February 17th, 2015) note that the first sentence is "On a warm fall day in South Dallas...".
I've lived in the Dallas area for sixteen years, and February in Dallas is rarely warm, nor in the fall.

The article is simply a rehash of someone else's news story with a newer date.

Now that I think of it, so what if the article came in the winter following autumn? Did these marches happen or didn't they? That is the important issue. When is neither here nor there, if we agree they are in the recent past.

The whole point of this thread was not to say yay or nay to what they are doing, but ask if the 2nd Amendment allowed for them to do it...

If this is an issue because it somehow casts Dallas in a bad light, rest assured I have no opinion on Dallas, good or bad. I'll reserve that for when I visit. It just happens to be the place where these people are.

On to Al Jazeera...

This story (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/al-jazeer...s-credibility/) features internal email quotes, the links to which are always broken so can only take the quote passages at face value. They ostensibly show journalists from within the organisation disagreeing about what the Hebdo publication had done: was it a wise thing to print the cartoons or not. Is it wrong for people to debate internally about a story? Can't see why, myself.

Meanwhile I've read through (quickly) a number of the actual press pieces about the Hebdo attacks your link refers to: all pretty matter of fact reporting.

On to this one: https://syrianfreepress.wordpress.co...for-the-truth/
Did you click on the link? That website is essentially a President Al Assad propaganda site. Big time! With contributions from none other than Russia Today news network!!
I question it's credibility to question the credibility of others!!

As for the courtcases, well innocent until proven guilty. They are not yet settled.
They are also both related to ex-employee grievances, not people who are suing for misrepresentation. Not saying it's not true, just saying that it could also be a case of disgruntled ex-employee....

Look.
Sure I read Al Jazeera English and I find their pieces and documentaries interesting, covering stories I don't get to see elsewhere, but I am not a rabid AJ fan. If these criticisms turn out to be true I shall be sad. Not because it is AJ, but because there will be yet another news outlet that I don't have confidence in. Finding objective news is hard work these days...

Al Jazeera just happened to be the news agency that reported on a situation that I found interesting from a 2nd Amendment perspective. I even debated not linking the article initially. You can see why....

 

[dyl]

"It would be portrayed, and treated, as a terrorist act and dealt with accordingly"

Maybe. No government that allows multiple parties or opinions is unified on everything. There are liberal and conservative judges. Senators pushing for gun rights and gun control all at the same time.

Many believe the majority of media tends to bend towards liberal views - in that case public perception after any justified event will not be favorable, or just not mentioned.

How you go down in history by the current administration should not have a bearing on whether you choose to do the "right thing". Unless you value that more. What folks decide is the "right thing to do" is up for debate.
How many pharmacy employees, pizza delivery drivers have defended themselves (and others) but lost their jobs afterwards? Not worth it?

In the case of defending against excessive use of force/police brutality - it's only controversial because most instances are less than clear. If specific police officers were going around punching people in the face at random while they mowed their lawns that would be one thing. But being handled roughly while you riot or when arrested for the 14th time allows for some ambiguity. I wasn't there so I can't tell if people were truly oppressed. If people are marching with firearms to prevent crime so there is less opportunity for police brutality, that would work. But if people are marching with firearms to discourage a police presence *period* I don't think that would be covered. And if people are implying that they will shoot an officer they suspect is using excessive force, I don't think that would hold up in court unless there is evidence and its much clearer than what we've seen so far as in basically stopping a murder.

 

[BobCat45]

Battle of Athens, TN 1946

James, this may be off topic and get me in hot water, but you may find http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm illuminating.

It was a while ago, shortly before I was born, and might not fly these days - but it was in the era of electric lights, radio, automobiles, airplanes, the A-bomb, and the M1 Garand - not such ancient times.

 

[dyl]

Hey James, I was in a rush when I read the thread, and have since edited my post. You're right, my apologies!

I read your article link too by the way. I don't think pro 2A folks be they citizens or administrators are going to be able to get behind the armed marches 100% because of the ambiguity of most police brutality cases, and a race issue mixed in there.

For some reason I feel like there is a new twist here but I can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[Pond James Pond]

James, this may be off topic and get me in hot water, but you may find http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm illuminating.

I had heard about that, but wouldn't have been able to name the event, so thanks the link.

This sort of makes my point.

This is history but not so removed from the modern day, but I can't for the life of me imagine something like this happening today and there not being a heavy armed response by the government and numerous legal proceedings to follow.

Doesn't mean they were wrong, nor right, I wasn't there. They must have felt the need to act that way, as the 2nd Amendment empowered them to, but I can't envisage a similar situation today that wouldn't end up feeling like a small nail under a big hammer...

 

[dyl]

This is worse/more confusing than phone tag. Okay I'll stop writing for now. Let's see how these marches pan out. May not come to much down the road for all we know.

 

[Tom Servo]

I cannot support vigilantism but if the police overlook this area of Dallas then maybe it will do some good.

That's the underlying problem: when does self-policing become vigilantism? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

To answer this question, we started to delegate policing authority to government bodies in 1789 (the tradition arguably began in London in 1737). Some of the reasons were the poor coordination, questionable training, or outright corruption in local or poorly regulated constables, particularly in the old west.

Modern police are subject to numerous forms of oversight, from their own organizations, from elected officials, and from the courts. This does help ensure that they don't go trampling on citizens' rights. Is the system perfect? Heck no. Does it work better than anything else we've tried? Yes.

Now, there are times and places the police can't be. To that end, the idea of a citizen's militia makes sense. The trick is to ensure they don't become something terrible.

On a side note, the credibility of Al Jazeera is not the subject of this thread.

 

[BarryLee]

The trick is to ensure they don't become something terrible.

The problem is that many so called militias aren’t so much about offering protection as they are about pushing some political agenda. We’ve seen it with white supremacist, anti-government types and anti-police groups. Often these groups actually want to push things just to the limit and hopefully illicit an overreaction from their supposed adversary.

 

[dogtown tom]

Pond, James Pond

Quote:
If I wrote an online article titled "Gravity Discovered!!!!" and dated today.............would it still be news?

If you'll read the Vice "article" (dated February 17th, 2015) note that the first sentence is "On a warm fall day in South Dallas...".
I've lived in the Dallas area for sixteen years, and February in Dallas is rarely warm, nor in the fall.

The article is simply a rehash of someone else's news story with a newer date.

Now that I think of it, so what if the article came in the winter following autumn? Did these marches happen or didn't they? That is the important issue. When is neither here nor there, if we agree they are in the recent past.

The first press coverage of the Huey P Newton Gun Club was a year ago by the Dallas Morning News. One article.....that's it.

Your Al Jazeera and Vice articles are nearly 100% rehash of the DMN reports. The timeline is important because since the original DMN article no one has seen hide nor hair of the HPNGC. The credibility of Al Jazeera is at question because of the three photographs in that article, only one is actually of HPNGC in Dallas.........the other two have nothing to do with Dallas or the HPNGC. Further, the article leads one to believe that the HPNGC is patrolling the streets of South Dallas....that is factually incorrect. At best, the HPNGC is a Facebook entity only.

The whole point of this thread was not to say yay or nay to what they are doing, but ask if the 2nd Amendment allowed for them to do it...

Both First and Second Amendment rights are involved.
Understand that there is a difference in assembly, marching and patrolling with firearms vs vigilante style law enforcement. The Huey P Newton Gun Club seems to exist purely for the sake of media publicity.

If this is an issue because it somehow casts Dallas in a bad light, rest assured I have no opinion on Dallas, good or bad. I'll reserve that for when I visit. It just happens to be the place where these people are.

If the HPNGC were to patrol with the intention of protecting their community from criminals, then South Dallas would be a heckuva lot safer than it is. Sadly, the HPNGC has no interest in its community, just media exposure.

 

[FITASC]

With the current attitude towards police, especially by some particular groups, coupled with manpower shortages, perhaps the police should allow this experiment to go forward without any interference to see what happens. It might be a total disaster or a complete success. Since of the crime in those neighborhoods seems to be themselves killing themselves, perhaps the decent folks can do a better job, get the witness help, etc.

Sure would put a dent in the police power issues about them becoming too powerful and acting like storm troopers.

Hopefully, there will be more news in the upcoming months about the results.

 

[44 AMP]

The whole point of this thread was not to say yay or nay to what they are doing, but ask if the 2nd Amendment allowed for them to do it...

Sorry for the confusion, James. To answer this directly, the 2nd Amendment allows them the right to be armed. It does not speak to what they do or do not do while armed.

Armed as individuals and armed as a militia, this is what the 2ndA says shall not be infringed. What the individual or the militia DO, lawful or unlawful, is their choice, and beyond the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

I'm trying to be clear, did it work?

 

[Pond James Pond]

(Both First and) Second Amendment rights are involved.

That is the sole aspect that I am interested in.

This is the first time, in the news, that I have ever read anything that even comes close to a militia being organised and doing anything other than AGM's. There may be plenty. There may be few, but this is the first time I have personally seen any reference to.

That is why it caught my eye.

I then read about the motivations behind the alleged action and it seemed even more in keeping with the 2nd Amendment. This was an actual case of the 2nd Amendment possibly being applied on a level beyond that of "man deters burglar".

That is why I found it interesting, particularly because I would have had difficulty ever imagining it would pass in the current world we live in where rights on paper don't always materialise in reality.

For those reasons, exactly when it happened was not crucial to me, especially if it was in the last 12mths. In my experience, just because something falls off the news desk radar, doesn't mean it is not happening anymore, just that it isn't news.

I'm trying to be clear, did it work?

Sure.
TBH, your post #5 was pretty much on the money regarding addressing the issue.

I just wanted to clarify my stance as it seemed you'd misunderstood my position re individual rights and responsibilities (perhaps due to my liberal use of pronouns). As I explained, on those points we agree.

What the individual or the militia DO, lawful or unlawful, is their choice, and beyond the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

I think this bit is particularly pertinent to the situation.

 

[FITASC]

when does self-policing become vigilantism?

When they also act as judge, jury, and executioner.

If all they do is apprehend criminals and turn everything over to the police/DA for trial, etc......IMO, they have done it right. There are neighborhood watch programs, citizen patrols, etc. all over the place. I hope it works; maybe when the good folks see how the problem kids are acting and destroying everything, they will be able to get a handle on things and turn their neighborhoods and their lives around for the better.

 

[44 AMP]

I'd like to point out that, as a concept, Vigilantism isn't automatically a bad thing. It is, like communism and direct democracy, one of those things that works as an idea but generally fails in the real world, because there are always people willing (and sometimes eager) to take things TOO FAR.

The biggest abuses (aside from those done by actually evil men abusing their authority) is when the group, or just enough members of it, decide that their job is not just to stop crime, but to also dispense justice.

The Roman Vigils patrolled with clubs (not swords, their version of less likely to be lethal), and beat down "suspect" thieves, rapists, murders, etc, hauling the survivors before the magistrate for "justice". The system was rife with abuse, so Vigilante came to be a bad word, eventually. ( dragging an un/semi conscious "criminal" back to the magistrate & jail is hard work. I suspect a high percentage of "criminals" simply disappeared into the Tiber.)

Vigilante/ism is today one of the favorite mis-used words in the media, thrown at nearly every defensive shooting outside the home, in the hopes the bad connotation will sitck. Sometimes, it does.

 

[Frank Ettin]

If all they do is apprehend criminals and turn everything over to the police/DA for trial, etc......IMO, they have done it right....

In your opinion, perhaps. But your opinion doesn't really count when it's a question of law.

A lot depends on what you mean by "apprehend." While the laws of most States afford a private citizen some measure of authority to arrest someone without a warrant for a crime classified as a felony or for a misdemeanor committed in his presence, such laws (by statute and court decision) can vary with respect to various things such as when and how much force may lawfully be used and the legal consequences of being mistaken.

Also an arrest by a private citizen can be fraught with potential evidentiary issues. Has evidence been properly identified and preserved? Has it been contaminated or legally tainted?

...There are neighborhood watch programs, citizen patrols, etc. all over the place....

Yes there are, and they can be very helpful. Their role is primarily to observe and report, and to, by their presence, deter certain misconduct.

 

[NJgunowner]

Frank has a good point there about the observe and report. That alone makes a pretty good deterrent. The best way to stop crime is being observant. Criminals don't like being watched and identified.

Maybe what they should have done was a neighborhood watch and they are armed only for self defense in the event the suspected criminal/s decide they don't like being observed while they commit whatever crime they're committing. Their first response should be calling the police and IF SAFE keeping track of the individuals from a safe distance. Preferably with other people. They shouldn't be detaining people however, let the police do their job. To many accidents can happen otherwise.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank has a good point there about the observe and report. That alone makes a pretty good deterrent.....

Something else to remember in connection with the OP's original question: the Second Amendment protects the right to keep an bears arms but doesn't protect the use of those arms.

When and how the threat or use of force is legally justifiable will be decided on the basis of other legal principles. If you use threats or force to restrain someone's movement and can't under applicable law justify your conduct as a lawful arrest, the Second Amendment won't protect you from liability for false arrest and/or kidnapping.