Police Warn Against 'Vigilante' Behavior

To quote that famous pundit, Bugs Bunny -- What a maroon!

OAKLAND, Calif. -- As investigators try to determine who was involved in the brazen attacks at two neighborhood stores and the arson of one of the shops, police and city officials on Tuesday urged other liquor merchants and store owners not to purchase firearms or engage in "vigilante" behavior.

In a statement, Oakland Police said it would be counterproductive for owners to arm themselves, but promised protection for merchants. And Oakland City Council member Desley Brooks discouraged merchants from arming themselves for protection, saying "It's the same type of behavior these (vandals) engage in.

"I wouldn't want people to expose themselves to harm," Brooks said.
Click to expand...
Emphasis added.

1st Paragraph - Semantically ok - it indicates two (2) actions the city gov't is concerned about. Logicially, it's a stupid statement however.

2nd Paragraph
The promised protection is likely to be "stepped up patrols" in the downtown area. There are far too many small liquor stores in Oakland for police to provide on-site security 12 or more hours a day.

Councilman Desley Brooks sounds like a typical California political weenie. First he says an armed merchant, protecting himself and his store is essentially engaging in some kind of illegal and threatening behavior by comparing it to the vandals.

Last paragraph:
When he says I wouldn't want people to expose themselves to harm in referring to arming themselves. He has proved that he is not capable of thinking through the most fundamental situations.

A merchant will already be exposed to harm if multiple people come into his store and begin smashing product and display cases with clubs or pipes. They are committing a violent act and are armed (clubs). One can argue that entry into the building with clubs shows intent to commit a crime; that destruction of the property is in fact "burglary" (not theft) and in CA entry of an occupied property to commit any crime (burglary) is a felony. Felons in your shop, armed with clubs -- seems like a prudent man would defend himself.
 
Everyone involved is kinda screwed, no one a winner. The store owner to make his profit sells booze. The booze is seen to cause problems for the community. The members of the community take a stand to stop the sale of booze (at least by those who are considered outsiders, MMM maybe they want to take the trade for themselves).

Who knows what is really going on here, it could be a racist thing or just an effort to steal the businesses so they can make the profits.

25
 
It seems like many states are wanting the same laws as in England, where no self defence is okay and that you, defending yourself, gets more time in the pooky than the actual criminal :barf: .

That's one thing that this old Southern boy just doesn't comprehend, the "roll over and don't do anything" attitude that you get from those in authority. Why is it that they give the criminals the benefit of the doubt (that they won't kill/harm you) but won't give you, the law abiding, the oppurtunity to save yourself from death or costly hospital bills.

I mean, it's your life, your livihood, your money that they are saying you shouldn't do anything about but they can't give you your life back, and they won't pay for the damage to your livihood, and they won't withdraw the money you lost from their accounts to make it right for you.

Just don't seem right (to use an old Southern phrase), just don't seem right at 'tall.

Wayne
 
Conditioning. You cant help yourself. If you could help yourself, you would not NEED the government in every orifice of your life.
 
Sorry to revive this old thread but I came across it on an unrelated search, and think it is relevant again due to the minute men project and other current events.

Main Entry: vig?i?lan?te
Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
: a member of a volunteer or member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate)

Why have we made this into a bad word? A person should be proud of vigilance and watching over others and themselves, particularly when the the "law" is given a chance and fails to do so. If one breaks the law in the process one is not a vigilante but a rival criminal. Unconstitutional laws aside of course.:cool:
 
Don't fight back - just take it

police and city officials on Tuesday urged other liquor merchants and store owners not to purchase firearms or engage in "vigilante" behavior.
Click to expand...
So there you go: In the minds of "police and city officials," buying guns = vigilante behavior. Tell me again about how this is not antigun?:barf:

The outlook of "police and city officials" is obvious: Don't fight back. Just take it. Let "the experts" handle it. They will get to you whenever they can.:barf: :barf:
 
Explicit California law expressly renders the official promise of protection empty and meaningless. See California Government Code Section 845:

845. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/vigilante

In the minds of the Bay Area officials (sorry, but SF and Oakland are pretty well blended to our minds out here), possession of a weapon equals intent to do wrong. While a thinking person sees the greatest harm in being that the robbers are using deadly force or the threat of deadly force to rob the storekeepers, the Oakland officials seem to believe that the real problem was the firearm first, the firearm second, and the firearm last.

And Oakland City Council member Desley Brooks discouraged merchants from arming themselves for protection, saying "It's the same type of behavior these (vandals) engage in."
Click to expand...
Hear that? If you prepare to protect yourself, you're as bad as the criminal who attacks you with deadly force to steal from you.

Consider the sorriness of a person who would threaten the murder or maiming of a storeclerk, simply to obtain the little cash or goods behind the counter of a shop. I've been poor-- sometimes desperately poor-- but I can't wrap my mind around actually being willing to inflict that kind of brutality upon another, simply to advance myself by a few dollars, even if I fiat the idea that I were an addict at the time. As for the arson and other attacks, I can't imagine what kind of hate would cause a person to want to risk the lives of the employees to deprive them and the shop-owner of their livelyhood.

Now consider that this city counselman is equating you with that "person," simply because you want to protect yourself and keep a firearm at your side. You're not saying that you want to shoot. You're not saying that you will necessarily draw the gun if you're robbed. You simply want the option to do something to protect yourself, in the case of a circumstance arising that has lately happened all to often in that area. But you're now just as sorry as the attacker, to this counselman. :rolleyes:

Cali-logic, indeed. :confused:

California looks like a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't wanna live there.
To those of y'all that do, please vote and try to fix it. :(
 
Update

Quote from the lawyer friend:
They have not entered into any type of a contractual relationship obligating them to protect the merchants, and I believe that sovereign immunity would still apply.
Click to expand...
 
punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate)
Click to expand...

When these people act as judge and jury and carry out punishment that is wrong.

If a guy uses a firearm to protect his property from being torched, which is the use deadly force in my state. I am excercising my basic right of self defense againt the use of deadly force. I am not a vigilante.

From what I have read the Minutemen are merely reporting illegal acts which is the duty of a citizen. Using Vigilante in this term is demogaugery which is meant to make people resort to emotion instead of the facts.

If the guy who owns a store is acting in accordance with the laws of the state in his use of self defense of himself, others and property he is excercising his right of self defense.... If this is what the police meant they are wrong for using the term vigilante.

I would become a vigilante if the arsonist put down the molotoff cocktail and raised his hands, then I shoot him in the head. I have deprived him of his rights. Then I would be a vigilante.
 
Last edited:
Eghad, the whole point I was making was that the term vigilante should not always mean a person who deprives another of their rights without cause.

Also- punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate)
 
I would become a vigilante if the arsonist put down the molotoff cocktail and raised his hands, then I shoot him in the head. I have deprived him of his rights. Then I would be a vigilante.
Click to expand...
Unless you got him before he put down the cocktail....
 
You say "vigilante" like its a bad thing

Well, what more could you expect from Kalifornia. The bay area? I am waiting for that earthquake.

I'll tell ya about a robbery I went through at a local store (not even Kalifornia). Guy working two days before me was shot while behind the cash register. I take his place. I get strongarmed. The bad guy was in the parking lot counting the loot. I could not believe my luck. I thought I would follow the traditional wisdom of letting the police handle things-you know, call the cops and he would be busted and that would be the end of it.

So I call and report it. The dispatcher asked if he was still in the store and I was like "no, but he is in the parking lot" "Oh, does he have a gun," she asks. I told her that one was not displayed. She says, "well in that case, we will have an officer take a report... someone should get back to you in 45 minutes to an hour...we are too busy to respond right now." I was like, WTF? So I waited and waited and waited and the cops never showed up at all on my shift.

Needless to say, I was never too interested in the "police protection" after that. I went n got me a shootin iron and kept it in my waistband. I vowed that the next person that tried to rob me was going to have a very bad day.

But anyone who lives in Kalifornia should know that they do not have the same rights as the citizens in the rest of the country cuz it is a leftist Mecca, and these fudgepackin hippies are special...ed.

Shooter429
 
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the police CAN give a promise of protection, and be sued if they fail to do so. The Witness Protection Programs, and the protection of Informants were cited as specific examples. The Federal Law in this case would trump Californis Law, as the promise of protection made by the City of Oakland could be construed as a violation of the owners civil liberties if they fail. This places it squarely in the hands of the Feds, and the Supremes ruling. :)
 
Talk is cheap, I believe when push came to shove.

Most would welcome the extra enforcement. The feeling of security is an illusion and if the police can make that illusion. You are not shot or killed and they can do their job, so much the better.

It more than likly is bigotry at work, and the vigilante thought is that if you get together and form a group you are in violation.
Shut up and do it, don't talk about it, be there when they come in and do what you need to do. Simple. Like I say. Talk is cheap.

Action speaks louder than words. But when you do what I am suggesting, you have made a move that will be very costly. Might be better to just let your insurance company pay and then move on.

Oakland is a hell hole.

HQ
 
If the guy who owns a store is acting in accordance with the laws of the sate in his use of self defense of himself, others and property he is excercising his right of self defense.... If this is what the police meant they are wrong for using the term vigilante.
Click to expand...
If a storeowner is in his store and a rampaging gang of thugs threatens or attempts to burn down the store with him in it, is he not in fact defending his life by shooting them before they can do so?:D
 
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the police CAN give a promise of protection, and be sued if they fail to do so. The Witness Protection Programs, and the protection of Informants were cited as specific examples. The Federal Law in this case would trump Californis Law, as the promise of protection made by the City of Oakland could be construed as a violation of the owners civil liberties if they fail. This places it squarely in the hands of the Feds, and the Supremes ruling.
Click to expand...

This would bring a great deal of comfort I'm sure, to the people who burn to death inside their businesses.:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top