Paper: The Right to Armed Self-Defense in the Light of Law Enforcement Abdication

C

Casimer

New member
The paper linked below was recently published by David Berstein, law faculty at George Mason. He argues that the recent incidence of mob violence and failure of local governments to provide law enforcement demonstrate the validity and need for 2A interpretation to recognize the full breadth of those rights applied to persons in public and towards the fulfillment of more than purely defensive criteria.

The section starting at pg. 10 also has a good cataloging of the scenarios that have occurred across the country in which police were either ordered to stand down or had become unavailable due to incapacity or absence. That's followed by a section identifying many verified examples of armed individuals protecting their communities during this period. I haven't seen all of that info captured in one place before.


https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3703927
 
Constitutional Protection for the Individual to Supersede the Rule of Law

This paper has a carefully selected summary of incidents since of Civic violence as noted by Casimer. The title and preface seem to argue that there is a Constitutional Protection that extends from the Second Amendment protecting and ensuring the right of the individual to act with deadly force when the individual perceives that there is no action by the legal authorities to ensure domestic tranquility.

The Second Amendment case is not made. The individual acts at their own risk to assert their right to protect property and lives with deadly force. There really is no support by law for this point of view. It may well work in the mind but not in our nation.
 
Ultimate, the courts in each locality will decide.
Bottom line: If you’re forced to use deadly force, pray you’re in Amarillo Texas and not San Francisco.
 
>> second amendment case is not made

That's a good point - this isn't a paper addressing a 2A defense for this conduct. It's more a response to those in the legal community who argue for a very limited or prescribed interpretation of 2A rights, in light of the ongoing rioting.

The value to this forum IMO is that he's researched and documented the recent actions by local governments and police that have put the public at risk, and also examples of how the public has responded.

And I imagine that people here who track the evolution of 2A legal opinion will be interested in the paper itself.
 
2A is not an issue here.

The change (if any) in "legal defense" aspect of use of deadly force
(be it by rifle, pistol, shotgun, broadsword, war hammer, tomahawk,
battle axe, dagger, boy scout knife, and/or salad fork)... is the issue.
 
Have there been actual changes to state laws regarding justified self defense?

Or is it just changes in people's perception or expectations??
 
....people's perception....
Click to expand...
^^^^ THAT ^^^^
(unless someone cites recent evidence/court cases)

"Perception" is a dangerous base to stand upon after-the-fact.
... unless you're a politician.
 
I don't understand the point of this paper. It strikes me rather confusing.

The Right to Armed Self-Defense in the Light of Law Enforcement Abdication
Click to expand...

The right of armed self defense is well established in this country, what law enforcement is doing or not doing has no bearing on that.

whether on the grounds that one believes that it’s never worth using or even threatening to use deadly force to defend property,
Click to expand...

Again, this is very clear in law. In KY, you are NOT authorized to use deadly force to protect property. Again, what police are doing or not doing has no bearing on the law.
 
ghbucky said:
Again, what police are doing or not doing has no bearing on the law.
Click to expand...

That's true. PDs aren't legislatures.

I do see two consequences of knowing that depending on place and time, government may have a policy of non-policing. First and at a practical level, a strategy of holding up in a bedroom and calling 911 may be unreasonable if you know a 911 call is futile.

The argument that the modern defensive function has been displaced by policing, while not a legal police obligation, does animate public policy about private arms possession -- No one needs an AR14!. Documenting the politically engineered gaps in policing helps to inform that public policy discussion.
 
My self defense question in a situation where police were ordered to stand down or simply overwhelmed and unable to help . Should the self defense , stand your ground or what ever it may be called be loosened in some instances .

When I think of a riot , mob and or a large group of people coming down a/your street destroying property and physically assaulting people as they move forward towards you . I wonder what can I do to defend my self and family . What about disparity of force , and how does that play into a self defense situation where there is a mob of people moving towards you committing act of violence as a group . No not everyone in the group in doing so but at the same time it seems pretty random who is doing what at any given time . This means it's almost impossible to distinguish any one person that will do you harm but you are 100% sure if "they" get close enough to make contact with you you will most certainly be physically harmed by at least one person in that group if not just simply trampled to death .

At what point do you as the "protester"/rioter need to take responsibility to not be there if uncontrollable violence is happening by the "same" group/gang you are supporting in that moment . Shouldn't the crowd / protester / gang / rioters / mod be considered one entity rather then a group of individual people in respect to another citizen using self defense against said crowd .

I believe that's how the prosecutors and law enforcement are treating many of the "protester" at the capital building . I heard they are looking for anyone that entered the capital build and prosecute them . I'm sure there were hundreds of protesters there that day that entered through a door they had no idea was violently breached 20min before . To them it just looked like an open door they could go in just like everyone else was walking in at the time and they just want to go in and wave a sign . Yet they will be treated in court as if they violently entered the building .

That might have been a poor analogy but my general point is the same . Can a crowd ever be considered one entity and be treated as such when defending ones self ? I ask because in all my CCW classes and other self defense classes I've taken . The disparity of force is always brought up . It's usually in an example of 3 or 4 younger men moving towards one older person/women aggressively . At what greater number of aggressors does disparity of force no longer apply ? It just seems odd to me that 4 aggressors are considered more dangerous then 50 . Keeping in mind the cops where told to stand down or unable to help .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top