Monday, August 31, 2020

Video/Analysis of Defensive Shootings by Rifleman in Kenosha RIots

The video shows a timeline of the shootings during the Kenosha riots on 25 August, 2020.  In the video there are two shooting sequences. Both appear to be cases of self defense. 

Link to video

The video identifies the rifleman as Kyle Rittenhouse.  I will refer to the man who is running with the rifle as the rifleman, as the identification has not be verified at this time.

The first shooting happens as the rifleman is running away from pursuers, in the lot of an auto dealer.  You can see him running and people pursuing. One is getting close enough to throw something at him. About five seconds later, you hear shots being fired. Another few seconds, you hear "he shot him". 

The man who shot was running for his life, retreating, when he apparently turns and shoots his closest pursuer.  It looks to be self defense. 

In the law of self defense, there is a long standing concept of disparity of force. Facing multiple attackers who can knock you down and stomp you to death has long been recognized as a disparity of force situation, where use of a weapon is necessary to preserve your life and/or bodily integrity. 

The recent video out of Portland, where the victim did not have a weapon, and did not resist, but was nearly killed by his pursuers, shows how dangerous mob pursuit is. You have a legal right to defend yourself with deadly force against this sort of deadly attack.

After the shots, where the pursuer goes down, the rifleman circles through the cars and comes back to the attacker he just shot.

He gets out his phone to call. According to the video, he is calling 911. 

More pursuers comes up, threatening the rifleman, so he takes off with more mob members chasing him again. 

A few seconds later, he trips in the street. One of the mob yells "get his ass!" At least five people can be seen pursuing him. Some of the mob is deterred because of his rifle. 

One mob member runs up to jump and stomp him. The rifleman appears to block him with the rifle butt. The attacker goes down, then hobbles off. At the same time a man with a skateboard is running up and strikes at the rifleman on the ground. The rifleman shoots him, probably in the body.  


A third man is running up at the rifleman, but hesitates, at the shot, and stops.

The rifleman points the rifle at him, but does not shoot. This appears to be the man who has a pistol. He attacks the rifleman again, and is appears to be shot in the arm. The attacker who had the skateboard is down in the street. 


Clearest video of defensive shooting from

The videos illustrate how effective a man with a rifle can be in defending himself against mob attack, even with the extreme restraint shown in this example. 

First, he does not shoot, but attempts to run away. He does not shoot into the crowd, or shoot indiscriminately.  He shoots the one attacker who is the closest threat. 

Then he calls 911, according to the narration. 

Then he is threatened again. He runs/retreats again. He falls and is threatened, but does not shoot the pursuers who stop and back off. He is then assaulted by multiple men with weapons (skateboards/pistol). 


He defends himself again, only shooting two of the three who close with him. The other pursuers have had enough, and he is able to walk away, with gunshots in the background.  He turns to walk backward, to guard against further pursuit. 

It is classic self defense. 

Finally,  a short while later, in another video, he reaches safety and is shown surrendering to police. 


All of the people shot could easily have avoided being shot, simply by not pursuing the retreating rifleman. 

With the shots in the background, it is impossible to know how many shots the rifleman who was being pursued, fired.  

This classic example shows how useful a semi-automatic rifle is in self defense against a mob. 

We cannot know everything from the video shown. More details will probably surface. The Antifa/BLM supporters have  already been on twitter claiming the rifleman was a white supremicist. 

On twitter, many were saying the attack in the street was justified, because he had "just shot someone in the head". The twitter users never mention he shot someone in the head while fleeing the mob for his life. 

The responses seem to be pre-programed into the agitators. Whenever someone defends themselves, the agitators call them white supremacists, and claim they were the aggressors. 

Digital recording devices are repeatedly revealing the lies.

 Update: Kyle Rittenhouse, 17 has been charged with first degree intentional homicide. He is a resident of Antioch, Illinois, 12 miles from the shooting scene.

It appears the police ignored him as he attempted to surrender to them in the video, after reaching the safety of their location. 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch






KY: Homeowner Shoots, Kills Intruder after Midnight

The caller reported a burglar entered through a front window when the caller shot the perpetrator.

Officers, along with the Boyd County Coroner pronounced the perpetrator dead at the scene after officers multiple attempts to save the alleged burglar.

More Here

Sunday, August 30, 2020

TX: Victim may Have Shot Burglary Suspect to Recover Property

Police said they believe at least one of the owners tracked down the alleged burglar and confronted him. An argument began over what was believed to be stolen property — which officials described as iPads and other electronics — and escalated to gunfire, police said. Amid the shooting investigation, blood could be seen on the sidewalk.
The owners were briefly detained for questioning, police said, but charges against the shooter are pending the results of a Harris County grand jury.

More Here

FL: Homeowner Shoots, Kills, man who Broke in, Acted Violently

A homeowner fatally shot a home intruder after the suspect’s “bizarre” crime spree Friday morning in Lakeland, Polk County Grady Judd said.

More Here

Saturday, August 29, 2020

Followup PA: Gunfight in Parking lot, Shooting of Juan Rivera was Justified

“The registered owner of the vehicle was in the rear passenger compartment doing work on the vehicle’s stereo system. Rivera and his accomplice pointed their guns at the vehicle owner and demanded his property. Rivera then got out of the vehicle and went into the vehicle owner’s apartment where Rivera pointed a gun at the occupants.

“Simultaneously, Rivera’s accomplice struck the owner in the head and pulled him out of the vehicle. A struggle ensued between the owner and the accomplice. During the struggle, the accomplice dropped his gun and the weapon was picked up by the vehicle owner. The accomplice fled the area on foot.

“Rivera exited the vehicle owner’s apartment and confronted the owner. Both the owner and Rivera began to run around the parking lot and behind other parked vehicles and both discharged their firearms. Rivera was struck but fled the scene. The vehicle owner was not struck by a bullet.”

More Here

CO: Pitbull Attacks Couple walking dogs; Taser Fails, Handgun works to Stop Attack

Neighbors said the Pitbull attacked two people walking by the home with their two dogs. They tried to get the dog to stop attacking- even tried tazing the dog- but nothing was working. They ultimately had to shoot the dog.

The Pitbull died on the scene- but owner Chris says he does not blame the neighbor for his actions and he would have done the same thing.

It still isn’t clear if the owner of the animal or if the neighbor who shot the dog will face any charges.

More Here

Friday, August 28, 2020

No, I Absolutely DO NOT STIPULATE That Kyle Rittenhouse Shouldn’t Have Been In Kenosha by Herscel Smith

Herschel Smith wrote the article that is excerpted here.  I agree with him. The article deserves to be widely distributed. 

It has become all the rage.  That is, to partially defend Kyle’s actions as probable self defense, but then to raise the following stipulations.  First up, Leon Wolf writing at The Blaze.

Kyle Rittenhouse should not have been patrolling the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin, Tuesday night. Whatever failures might have existed on the part of state and local government (and there appear to have been many), the idea of a 17-year-old with a loaded rifle being dropped into that powder keg can only happen when some horribly bad judgment has occurred.

We’ll get to that in a minute.  Next up, Steven Hayward writing at Powerline.

Let’s stipulate starting out that Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois, who has been arrested and charged with murder for shooting two people during the Kenosha riots two nights ago, should not have been present at the scene with a semi-auto rifle. That’s no place for a 17-year-old, even if he is a regular at the gun range. And resorting to vigilantism is a sure path to a breakdown in the rule of law and perhaps even open civil war.

Steven is massively naive.  He raises two points – his age, and the resort to “vigilantism.”  Let’s hold in abatement the issue of age for a moment.  As for vigilantism, surely he isn’t thinking clearly or perhaps hasn’t admitted the truth to himself.

We’ve discussed this many times before, but the police are committed to their salary and benefits.  They are under absolutely no legal obligation to defend life or property, or provide protection or safety for anyone.  We know this from Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Warren v. D.C.  They could wait until a murder has been fully and completely committed, while watching and eating doughnuts, and as long as they effect the arrest after the fact, most of them will have fully followed their department protocol.

The police are under the full control of the politicians, and the politicians are mostly Marxists.  Thus, holding the police back redounds to the destruction of property, unsafe environment for residents, and even the loss of family wealth when entire businesses have been burned to the ground.  Many families are not in a position to take a loss like that, regardless of the money Steven makes.


More Here

WI: Armed Militia protect Property in Kenosha

A small militia of heavily armed civilians protected a gas station from being torched in Kenosha, Wisconsin, following the police shooting of Jacob Blake — imploring rioters not to “f–k up” their own neighborhood

“I’m on your side!” shouted one of three men carrying high-powered rifles and wearing helmets and protective clothing, with one in full military camouflage, according to video shot by Daily Caller reporter Shelby Talcott.

More Here

Wednesday, August 26, 2020

More Medical Propaganda disquised as a "study" about Firearms and Risk

Meme from, cropped and scaled by Dean Weingarten

The American Journal of Medicine recently published a paper about deaths associated with firearms. The paper misleads in the first sentence of the abstract. The lie is in the unstated, false assumption. It is a subtle but important shift in causation.

The first sentence in the abstract is: 

News media and policy makers frequently discuss deaths from firearms, drug overdoses, and motor vehicle accidents.

The shift in causation is done when the author inserts the word from before firearms and associates firearms with drug overdoses and motor vehicle accidents. The correct word would be with.

The correct usage would differ for each statistic. A corrected sentence would read thus: 

News media and policy makers frequently discuss deaths committed with firearms, from drug overdoses, and from motor vehicle accidents. 

Firearms are objects. Drug overdoses and motor vehicle accidents are actions. The author repeats the error by listing firearms as a "cause of death".

The Center for Disease Control  (CDC) does not list "Firearms" as a cause of death. They list homicide, suicide, and unintentional Injury. 

Inserting the word "from" defines firearms as the cause. It comes with the assumption: if there were no firearms, none of the deaths listed would have occurred. 

That is a false assumption. 

The rate of total suicides is little affected by a reduction of firearms; similarly, a reduction of firearms has little, if any, effect on homicides.

There may be an effect on fatal accidents. The numbers are so small, it is difficult to know if reducing the number of firearms would reduce the total rate of accidental deaths. It might, or it might not. 

The rate of accidental deaths with firearms has been reduced a remarkable 94% in the last 85 years, which is why the current number is so small. We do not have a good number for how many privately owned firearms there were 85 years ago. The first reasonable estimate is from 1945. 91 of the 94% reduction in the rate of fatal firearm accidents has occurred since 1945.  

The reduction has occurred while the per capita number of firearms has risen from .35 in 1945 to 1.37 in 2019. In 75 years, the number of firearms per person in the United States has increased 390%.  There is little correlation with the number of guns and the number of fatal gun accidents.

By the end of 2020, there will be four times as many privately owned guns per person in the United States as there was in 1945. The homicide rate is lower today than it was in 1945. 

In 1945 the homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000. In 1933 it was 9.7. In 1957, it was 4.0. In  1974, it was  9.8. In  1980, it was 10.2. In 1984, it was 7.9. In 1993, it was 9.8. By 2013, it was back down to 4.5. 

The homicide rate has gone through wild swings, as the per capita number of firearms has steadily increased. 

There is no correlation between the number of guns and the homicide rate.

An absolutist might claim if there were no guns, there would be no gun accidents. No rational person believes the number of firearms in society can be reduced to zero. Even with the draconian gun controls put in place in Australia in 1997, the number of private guns is now more than it was before the controls were put in place. To reduce guns to zero, you have to eliminate the potential of making them. Making guns at home is getting easier every year.

There were 444 million private firearms in the United States at the end of 2019. The population was 328.2 million

In the results section of the abstract, the error is repeated. This is not a surprise. The error is the heart of the paper. Without the error, the reason for the article evaporates. From the results: 

The lifetime risk of death from firearms, drug overdoses, and motor vehicle accidents was 0.93% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92%-0.94%), 1.52% (95% CI, 1.51%-1.53%), and 0.92% (95% CI, 0.91%-0.93%), respectively.

To check the numbers in the paper, I performed much simpler mathematics. 

I took the number of deaths associated with firearms from the CDC in 2018 (39,740) x the life expectancy from the closest year, 2017 (78.54). That yielded the deaths over the time span of the average life expectancy, or 3,119,590. As a percentage of the population, that is .95%, very close to what the study says. But the study only counted people below the age of 85. When you correct for that (in 2016, the percent over 85 was 1.9%), 1.019 x .93 is .95%, so close as to be no difference. 

This simple check shows the mathematics of the study are credible. 

It is the conclusions of the study which are suspect. From the abstract: 

CONCLUSIONS:The lifetime risk of death from firearms, drug overdoses, and motor vehicle accidents is substantial and varies greatly across demographic subgroups and states

The false assumption about causality is in the conclusion, as expected. There are two component messages which are implied. 

One, the reduction of firearms in society reduces the risk of death. That is false. 

Two, the idea that promoting the narrative that firearms cause death is desirable, for reasons of policy.

The two assumptions make the paper into a political statement, instead of a scientific one. 

These assumptions only make sense if the author assumes firearms have no positive uses or contributions to society.  A hundred million Americans show they believe firearms have positive uses. They do so by owing firearms instead of selling them, giving them away, or destroying them.

In 2020, millions of Americans are buying firearms. It appears a new record will be set, with over 21 million firearms sold in 2020. 

It is the heart of Progressive doctrine that the elite know better than the population, what is best for members of the public.  Restricting guns from those who value them, is a core progressive belief.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

The false assumptions which are not stated.

False assumption: No firearms, no deaths.

False causality: Firearms cause these deaths. 

False, assumed prescription: Reduce firearms, reduce deaths.

Poor methodology: Only look at risks, ignore benefits.

Percent of population 85 or older: 1.8% in 2010, 1.9% in 2016

 If corrected, the number for lifetime risk becomes 95%  (.93 x 1.019)



ABSTRACTBACKGROUND:News media and policy makers frequently discuss deaths from firearms, drug overdoses, and motor vehicle accidents. However, this information is generally presented as absolute numbers or annual rates. Cumulative lifetime risk may be an additional useful metric for understanding the impact of these causes of death.

METHODS:Data on all-cause firearm, drug overdose, and motor vehicle accident deaths were obtained from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the year 2018. Age-specific death rates were used to estimate the cumulative risk of firearm, drug overdose, and motor vehicle accident deaths from birth to age 85 after accounting for other causes of death.

RESULTS:The lifetime risk of death from firearms, drug overdoses, and motor vehicle accidents was 0.93%(95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92%-0.94%), 1.52% (95% CI, 1.51%-1.53%), and 0.92% (95% CI,0.91%-0.93%), respectively. Black males had a 2.61% (95% CI, 2.55%-2.66%) lifetime risk of firearm death, indicating that 1 out of 38 black males will die from firearms if current death rates persist. Residents of West Virginia had a 3.54% lifetime risk of drug overdose death, equivalent to 1 out of every 28 residents dying from overdoses.

CONCLUSIONS:The lifetime risk of death from firearms, drug overdoses, and motor vehicle accidents is substantial and varies greatly across demographic subgroups and states

OR: Woman Hunting Bear Saves Couple from Kidnappers

EUGENE, Ore. – A local woman used her bear rifle to save a kidnapping victim from possibly being murdered on Sunday, keeping one of the armed assailants at bay.

In an interview with KEZI 9 News, the woman said she spotted the man, who was badly beaten, on Highway 126 near Walton as she was on her way to go bear hunting. After calling 911 the victim told her he and his girlfriend had been kidnapped, and the kidnapper was driving his car, which was parked nearby.

“He is going to kill me, and he's probably going to kill you since you are here,” the man told her.

The woman, whose identity we are not revealing, said she told the man to find a place to hide. When she saw another man walking down the highway with a handgun, she got her hunting rifle out and waited for troopers to arrive.

More Here

Texas: Intruder Shot and Killed in Dallas Apartment

The incident happened sometime before 1:15 a.m. on the 8300 block of Park Lane.

Police allege Darwin Chavarria had tried to get into another person's apartment at the Villas Del Solamar complex without their consent. That person tried to stop Chavarria from getting inside, but wasn't able to do so. Then they shot him.

More Here

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

Video of NYPD Shooting of Unarmed White Man - 5 Officers and Hero Clerk

Link to Video at LEO site

 On 4 June, 2020, two female police officers, officer Suarez and her partner, officer Brown enter a deli in Manhattan. Just behind them comes 55 year old Peyman Bahadoran, walking his dog and holding a drink bottle in his right hand. Officer Suarez holds the door to allow the dog, on leash, in the store. 

Peyman gets into a verbal dispute with officer Brown. Peyman draws a large knife which was in a sheath on his right leg, and starts waving it around.

At this point, either officer was legally justified in shooting Peyman, but neither does. Suarez draws her radio and exits the store, calling backup. Brown ineffectively fires a Taser at Peyman, missing, as she flees behind the counter. 

Peyman starts interacting with the deli clerk, who is the hero in this story. Peyman waves his knife. The clerk picks up his own knife, and waves it back. Peyman demands cigarettes, eerily similar to George Floyd.

The clerk, in a brilliant move, extends the pack of cigarettes toward Peyman. Peyman instinctively puts the knife down on the counter, preparatory to taking the cigarettes. The clerk snags the knife with his left hand, while withdrawing the cigarettes with his right.

Peyman is left unarmed.

The clerk gives the knife to officer Brown.

Peyman starts holding his arms up for all to see he is unarmed. Suarez re-enters the doorway. She appears to be able to clearly see Peyman no longer has a knife in his right hand, and a water bottle in his left hand.


15 seconds after being disarmed by the store clerk, Peyman storms out of the store, slipping alongside officer Suarez. Officer Suarez has her gun, but does not shoot, even as Peyman angrily pushes her back out of the deli. 

Suarez continues pointing her pistol at Peyman as the angry confrontation continues. Peyman has opportunities to snatch the pistol, but does not attempt to do so. 

Then backup arrives.

Peyman is confronting Suarez, and touches the sheath on his leg, but his right hand remains empty. 

Peyman turns toward the backup, and attempts to shove supervisor Machado. Slight contact was made as Machado backs up. Machado had his pistol pointed at Peyman, but points it downward, presumably as he sees Payman's outstretched, empty right hand. In doing so, he  removes his pistol from Peyman's reach.

Peyman turns toward supervisor Machado again. 

Officer Rozanski has drawn his gun, out in the street, and is ready to shoot, as is officer Suarez. Two shots are fired, close together. It is 8 seconds after Peyman and Suarez exited the deli.

It is not clear who shot first. Officer Murphy has drawn a weapon, but has not pointed it at Peyman.  Supervisor Machado had drawn a weapon, but it is not pointed at Peyman, either. Officer Brown has remained in the Deli. 

Officer Rozanski, Peyman, and officer Suarez are all on one geometrical line of fire. 

Here are the positions of the players, a fractional second before the shots were fired.


Officer Suarez (on right) and Officer Rozanski (Top left) are said to have shot Bahadoran with one shot each.  Supervisor Machado, (center left) and officer Murphy (center further left) had drawn weapons.

Here is the view from officer Suarez' body camera, a fraction of a second after the shots are fired.


15 seconds after being disarmed, out the door. 8 seconds after being out the door, Peyman is shot. 

As an aside, I doubt Suarez was taught the thumb across thumb two handed hold. It is a good way to have your left thumb sliced by the pistol slide. 

Was this a justified shoot, or as some police say, a "good" shoot? 

A retired police officer (a firearms and tactics trainer for most of his career) and I both reviewed the video.

The police have a difficult job.  It is easy to second guess them in difficult situations. However...

Both the retired officer and I came to the same conclusions. We both would probably have shot Peyman, and have been justified, but... not at the time he was shot. 

When he was shot, it was no longer a justified shooting.

When Peyman drew the knife and waved it about, and leisurely followed officer Brown, it would have been a justified shoot by either officer, or even the hero clerk or the bystander near the door.

After the hero sandwich maker and deli clerk disarmed Peyman, the shooting became less justified.

Officer Suarez may have been justified in shooting Peyman as he approached her, if she claimed he intended to disarm her; but he did not and she did not. 

Peyman's aggressive pushing at supervisor Machado, was not sufficient, especially now that five officers were present and Peyman did not have any weapons in his hands. 

In addition, the rigorous policies of the NYPD seem to disqualify it. Officers are not allowed to discharge a firearm when it will unnecessarily endanger innocents. From

Discharge a firearm when, in the professional judgment of a reasonable member of the service, doing so will unnecessarily endanger innocent persons

Both officers who fired were directly in each other's line of fire.

Peyman is now suing the NYPD and NYC for an unjustified shoot.

Use of force situations change rapidly. Police officers are trained to understand that reality. I was trained about it 40 years ago!

Peyman had/has mental problems. He says he is bipolar.  I suspect he will collect quite a bit of money. 

The retired officer/firearms trainer said the police should not have had their pistols out, once Peyman no longer had the knife.   He said, if he had shot people at the level of aggression Peyman showed outside the deli, he would have shot hundreds of people during his career (he did not shoot any).

Having drawn pistols in the situation restricted the officers' options. They were probably acting on the information officer Suarez had given earlier, about Peyman having a large knife.  

There are probably over 50 million police-public interactions in a year. By the odds, a few of them are bound to go badly.

The five officers had numerous non-lethal options to take an unarmed man into custody. Everything simply lined up wrong for Peyman, and he was shot. Most of it was his own fault.

Heather McDonald has shown more unarmed white men are shot by police than unarmed black men. Peyman is one of those.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

KS: Home Invasion Suspect with Bleeding Chest Wound found on Hwy 59

LABETTE COUNTY, Kan. – Deputies find a possible home invasion suspect shot and laying on a highway in southeast Kansas.

Today around 6:15 a.m., the Labette County 911 dispatch got a call about a person laying on the highway at Hwy 59 and 17000 Rd. When deputies got there, they found a 33-year-old man bleeding from the chest.

More Here

MO: Armed Woman Drives off Armed Robber from New Carrie's Corner Market

ST. LOUIS — An armed robber fled a north St. Louis convenience store Wednesday night after one of his victims pulled out her own gun and started shooting.

The robbery happened at around 11:35 a.m. at New Carrie's Corner Market at 4500 Athlone Avenue in the O'Fallon neighborhood. A man entered the store, pointed a gun at two victims and demanded money from the cash register, the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department said.

More Here

Monday, August 24, 2020

TX; Man Shoots Intruder Found in Fort Worth Home

An intruder found inside a home was shot and critically wounded Thursday morning, police said. 

No other injuries were reported in the shooting. 

Fort Worth police responded to a shooting call just before 10:30 a.m. in the 3300 block of NW 30th St.

More Here

DE: Dog Escapes, Attacks Dogs on Lease, is Shot

“Officers from Delaware State Police determined the dog was at-large and was shot in self-defense by a local resident who was walking their own dog[s] on a leash when the dog at-large attacked them,” Department of Health and Social Services spokesperson Jennifer Brestel wrote in an email. The department is the parent agency of animal services.

More Here

WA: Homeowner Fires Shotgun at Burglar's Getaway Vehicle

The resident stated he woke up and yelled at the two suspects in his hallway. One of the individuals replied with an expletive before they both ran from the home.

The homeowner attempted to disable the vehicle with a shot to the rear tire with his shotgun as the burglars were driving away. The resident described the vehicle as an early 2000’s dark green Ford extended cab truck.

More Here

Sunday, August 23, 2020

WI: Sawyer County Resolution to Support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

This National Guard Unit is Located in Hayward, Wisconsin, the county seat of Sawyer County.

On Thursday, 16 July, 2020, the Wisconsin Sawyer County Board adopted a resolution supporting the United States Second Amendment and the Wisconsin Constitution's Section 25, which protects the right to keep and bear arms.

The resolution stops short of the Sanctuary County movement, but it gives affirmative notice of the County's support for Constitutional rights.

Full disclosure: I grew up in Sawyer County, Wisconsin, and have numerous close family members who still live there.

Rural Wisconsin has a strong gun culture. I was not surprised to learn the resolution had passed.

A tip of the hat is deserved by Sawyer County Record staff reporter Frank Zufall. The article he wrote is the epitome of good reporting. It has the dates, places, people involved, what they said, who was for and against, and voting records. Here is an example, from the article:
Tish Keahna, a lawyer who lives in Hayward, said she was asked by a county employee signing up those who wanted to make public comments, whether she was “for or against the Second Amendment,” a question, she said, that was “disingenuous” and framed the discussion as a “political issue” on the Second Amendment and not the county’s resolution.

She also questioned why the county was devoting time to this issue when there were more pressing maters, and she added it was outside of the duty of law enforcement officers to interpret constitutional law because under it is the domain of the courts.
Frank Zufall's article is so well done, as an example of objective reporting, it is difficult to determine whether he is on either side of the issue.

To place the resolution in context, consider the "framing" that Tish Keahna attempted to do, as reported.

First, she attempts so declare discussions of the Second Amendment as a political issue, as invalid.

Second, she claims the resolution is not worthy of the County Board's time.

What would be more  worthy of the Board's time than protecting the Constitutional rights of the residents of Sawyer County?

Third, she claims that law enforcement officers have no duty to interpret Constitutional law.

Why, then do law enforcement officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and not to simply obey the dictates of the Courts?  Taking an oath to uphold the Constitution implies a duty to interpret the Constitution, to study it, and to understand how it is to be upheld. In the United States, merely "following orders" is not a sufficient defense.

In the article by Frank Zufall Thomas Vitcenda made the statement:
“I don’t believe this resolution is necessary because the right to keep and bear arms is already well established in the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions,”
 As an observer of the Wisconsin political scene about the right to arms, the record shows Vitcenda's belief to be misguided.

Wisconsin added the clear wording of Section 25 to the Wisconsin Constitution in 1998. 
Text of Section 25:

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.[1]

The far left Wisconsin Supreme Court took considerable pains to gut the amendment and render it nearly toothless. Since then, Wisconsin has replaced several of the far-left justices. At least one prosecutor was careful not to allow a test case to the Supreme Court, which would likely have reversed the previous ruling.

The right to keep and bear arms has been under serious attack in Wisconsin for decades. Current Democrat Governor Evers has shown a desire to infringe on the right by statute.  He has supported "red flag laws" and requirements for state approval of private sales (universal background checks).

Second Amendment supporters have learned their freedoms require constant vigilance to maintain. 

The sanctuary county movement, and resolutions like the one supported by the Sawyer County board, are needed to prevent erosion of the rights regained in the last two decades.

Without the Internet and independent sources such as AmmoLand, Second Amendment supporters would not hear of resolutions such as that passed by Sawyer County.  The Sanctuary County movement would have fizzled out, because stories about it would have been spiked by the old, dominant, progressive media.

Those days are gone. The old dominant media now pushes for censorship and government funding of the media. Their political agenda has been noticed by most Americans.

Will we restore a Constitutional Republic, or form a Socialist and Racial people's Republic, similar to Cuba or Venezuela?

We are in the process of finding out.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

OH: Armed Homeowner Shoots, Kills 1 of 3 Intruders

During the burglary the homeowner shot Joshua Oatneal. The other two men took him to the hospital and left. They were spotted a short time later in the city, and both are charged with two counts of murder and two counts of aggravated burglary.

More Here

Saturday, August 22, 2020

Vehicle - "Protest" Encounters: Politics, Legal Jeopardy, Defense



In the seeming never-ending riots portrayed as "peaceful protests" by the Progressive left, including most of the Media, there are an increasing number of drivers/passengers involved in vehicle encounters with agitators/protestors. 

 There are numerous responses on Internet forums about how to handle a situation where a person or persons in a vehicle encounter, often unexpectedly, agitators/protestors who are aggressively blocking a public right of way. 

Many of these responses are very dangerous.  It seems to be  precisely what is desired by the Progressive left, such as Antifa and BLM, their organizers, handlers, and political theorists.

This article explains some of the dynamics observed from the reporting of these events, and a framework of how to respond with the least risk to the driver/passenger(s) involved. 

The design of many of these events is to deliberately block public right-of-ways, to inconvenience large numbers of the public, and to show the public the participants can break the law with impunity.  

Part of the design is to trap drivers/passengers and provoke a violent response to further the Antifa/BLM agenda.

In nearly all of these events, the local government, which may include the local prosecutor, mayor, and or city council, are complicit, sympathetic, or compromised on the side of those organizing the event and the violence.

Those who create these events, or to be charitable, hi-jack them and take advantage of them, want confrontation, violence, destruction, and death. They want to frame the confrontation, violence, destruction, and death as being caused by "racists and or white supremacists", which is newspeak for enemies of the party, with "the party" being the Progressive far-left as exemplified by the furthest left thinkers, planners and organizers.

Their definition of an enemy of the party is anyone who is not actively submitting to them, and doing what they order, to further their goals. Do not be deceived.  The vast majority of people in the country are considered "the enemy". 

When a vehicle approaches a highway, street, interstate, road or intersection blocked by "protestors" or agitators, the common tactic, instead of opening a way for the vehicle to traverse the right of way, is to block the vehicle, surround it, beat or pound on it with hands or whatever is available, to throw water bottles, or other objects at the vehicle, to place a bicycle or scooter on its side in front of the vehicle, to swarm or surround the vehicle to prevent a safe retreat, and to demand a window be rolled down, or door opened.  The purpose is to intimidate and frighten, to stop the vehicle, to induce fear, to elicit a panic response. 

The template for these events, from the view of the agitator organizes, is Charlottesville, where a young, mentally troubled NAZI sympathizer drove into a crowd of protestors/agitators who blocked the right of way, injuring many and killing one.

The protest was legal, but a key barricade had been removed, which is how Fields happened onto the situation with the protestors in the street, blocking his passage. There is evidence he was lost, but driving into the crowd appears to have been intentional.  Fields was convicted and will likely be in prison for life.

There were protestors/agitators from both the Nationalist Left (neo-NAZI/white supremicists) and the Internationalist Left (Antifa/BLM) at Charllottesville. Both sides of the Leftist coin were violent. The local government trended to the left, and has been blamed for not keeping the peace.

The two sides of the left see each other as enemies. A great many people at the protest were not with either of the extremist factions. Fields claimed self-defense. He later plead guilty, with his lawyers describing the attack as an "impulsive, angry and aggressive decision." His ability to back up to escape, his Internet and other communications showing a strong attraction to Hitler and white supremicists, aided in his conviction.

The killing of a woman demonstrator (Heather Heyer, 32) by Fields at Charlottesville  was an enormous propaganda victory for the Internationalist Left.  It is being used to this day to smear President Trump and any opposition to the Progressive left.

Much of the organization of current "protests" seems designed to induce/promote a Charlottesville event, or at minimum, be portrayed as a Charlottesville event. Antifa is well organized, equipped and lead, according to this evaluation.

Drivers who approach protesters/agitators at these events have been stopped, threatened with guns, dragged from their vehicles, been shot at, shot, wounded, and killed. Protesters have been hit and injured and killed. Drivers of vehicles are always, it appears, characterized as racist, who are deliberately targeting protesters.  But since Charlottesville, it has been exceedingly difficult to find an actual NAZI/ white supremacist.

At the Portland Chaz/Chop location, two teenage black boys approached the border in a stolen jeep Cherokee. They were fired on by event "security". One was killed, the other severely wounded.

The initial description of the shooting at the event was that racists who had attacked people at the event had been fired on in defense.  

A driver who accidentally struck two protesters who were blocking a freeway at night, near Seattle, killing one and severely injuring another, was described as a racist white supremicist in early reporting.  The driver turned out to be a black immigrant from Africa.  Both incidents occurred where the "protests" were sanctioned by local authorites.

In Austin, Texas, when an Army Sgt wandered into a protest accidentally, and shot a protester who approached him, masked, with an AK-47 clone, in self defense, protester sympathizes initially claimed he was a threat, that protesters did not mob his vehicle and strike it with their hands, and that people where running from the vehicle when the shooting occurred. None of those claims were true. The protest/street blockage was unofficially sanctioned by the local government.

Sgt. Daniel Perry tells his side of events at the link. He was was moonlighting for a ride sharing company when he found himself in the tragic situation. 

Those mostly mythical racist/NAZI/white supremicists keep refusing to show up. That does not stop Antifa/BLM from working hard at creating them in the media. When protestors stop vehicles and beat innocent occupants, or  shoot at vehicle occupants to enforce their will; or  shoot drivers, the events are attempted to be portrayed as racists attacking "peaceful protestors".

When two agitators illegally blocking a busy intersection in Indianapolis were caught on video pulling guns on the driver of a truck, who took pains to avoid them, they claimed they were acting in self defense.  BLM claims people who hit agitators who are blocking streets are “white racists”.

“It’s always a double standard,” the group said. “White racist are killing and hitting protesters and then get mad when (we) defend ourselves.”

In Portland, agitators severely beat a man who attempted to help a pedestrian under attack. The attackers claimed he had tried to run them over.

If you happen to get caught up in one of these situations, expect to be provoked. Expect your car to be beat upon. Expect agitatiors to signal you to roll down your window, to surround you, to throw bicycles and motor scooters or other objects in front of you.  If they can get you to drive through them, striking one or more of them, they win! Do not assume the people in the street are illegally blocking the street. Barricades can be moved. Local authorities may have given "unofficial" sanction. If that proves to be the case, you are at significantly greater legal risk.

On numerous Internet forums, anonymous posters show bravado by saying they would drive over people who block them; they would shoot them; they would back away, and then shoot them. This is extremely unwise. If those posters ever get into a real situation, their Internet comments will be found, and will be used against them, to show pre-meditation, and white supremicist sympathies. They will be more than half-way to a felony conviction.

What should be done if you find yourself approaching a right of way blocked by numerous people? 

Avoid the situation if possible. Do not approach any closer than necessary to turn left or right, or turn around. If you must go against a one-way street to avoid the crowd, do so.  You, and the nation, are best served by you and your vehicle leaving the area.

If you are trapped by vehicles behind you, or swarmed by agitators/protestors surrounding your vehicle, do not keep moving, unless there is a clear way to exit the situation. 

Do not leave your vehicle. Do not open a window, allowing access to your vehicle to aggressors. Do not get out of the vehicle to clear a blockage, unless you can do so without interacting with the people blocking the right of way.

Keep the vehicle locked, running, and ready to leave when you have the chance. Do not show a defensive weapon at this point.  

Remember, many of these people have been programed to consider you an evil racist who is a deadly threat. 

They have been programed to elicit a violent reaction. 

Do not give it too them.

At what point is a violent, self-defense option justified? People have been dragged from their cars, beaten, shot at, wounded, and killed. Cars have been firebombed. The threat of severe injury or death can be real.

You must be able to convince a jury that as a reasonable person, you faced imminent severe injury or death.  Here are some threat points to consider:

1. Forcing entry to your vehicle. If one of your windows, windshield, or back window is broken, a line has been crossed. Most jurors would consider a driver to be in imminent danger at that point.  An opening of the vehicle door by an outsider would serve the same purpose. At that point, you face potential car-jacking.

2. Pointing firearms at you, particularly with orders to open a window or door, or otherwise leave the security of your vehicle. 

3. Rocking your vehicle by the crowd. This indicates an attempt to overturn it.

4. Approaching the vehicle with a firebomb or attempting to force open access to the gas tank. Both should be considered a deadly threat. An open gas tank is like having a bomb strapped to your vehicle.

Not every threat is as clear. There are grey areas that can seem incredibly frightening at the time, but may not seem so to a jury. Consider damage to your vehicle, such as dents to the hood or side panels, which do not facilitate entry. A jury may not consider them a deadly threat.

Immobilization of your vehicle is a step closer to a deadly threat. Once immobilized, you are much closer to being at the mercy of the mob.  This is one of the reasons protesters/agitators swarm vehicles. It serves the double purpose of intimidation and enhancing the possibility of a protester/martyr being injured.

Blinding you by covering the windshield  and windows with paint, paper, fabric, other means, falls in this intermediate category. It always depends on the totality of the circumstances. Blinding you by covering windows is a significant threat. It may be seen as a ruse to get you to open a window or door.

Most vehicles can take a lot of damage and still be driveable. Most vehicles can run for miles on flat tires. Better to sustain thousands of dollars of vehicular damage, than to be injured, killed, or undergo a trial in a hostile political climate, for hit and run or worse. Windshield wipers can remove some paint. Side windows can be rolled down for some visibility.  If the back window is clear, You can back up. Your rear view camera may still work.

As with most self defense situations, the preferable options are to avoid when possible; evaluate the threat; only react violently when justified. 

If you must act violently, act decisively. Don't stop until you are no longer under threat. Then contact the authorities, particularly 911. Hopefully, you have been able to record the threat. The protestor/agitators will have recorded you, you can be certain of that.

As Attorney General Barr has noted, we are under attack in a form of urban guerilla warfare.  Interview with AG Barr:

“The way the guerrilla…hides out among the people as a fish in the ocean…what they do is they are essentially shielding themselves or shrouding themselves in First Amendment activity,” he explained. “They go into the demonstrations, which are exercising First Amendment activity, and they insinuate themselves in there to shield themselves. That's where they swim. And what they do is they hijack these demonstrations and they and they provoke violence.”

Do not give the enemies of the Republic ammunition. Avoid becoming a physical or legal casualty.

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch








Charlottsville most successful of these operations

I not only don’t want to intentionally run anyone over BUT, on the other hand, I also don’t want my windows broken or dragged from my vehicle, so if I get in a situation like that, chances are pretty good I will give them the ‘wish’ they seem to be after.

This is the key and needs to be repeated:

Do not roll down your window(s) or open your door.

Once a window is smashed, peaceful demonstration over, responding force, maybe justifiable deadly force, is justified.

This is also why the "protestors" have been coached to bang on vehicles. It is to get the reaction the organizers want.

The "protestors" in Austin banged on the vehicle. It was one of the considerations in the driver's use of deadly force.

Immediately afterward, defenders of the "protestors" claimed there was no banging on the vehicle, that no one was approaching the vehicle because they were all scared they were going to be run over.

That was all disproven by video.

It shows their canned response.

TX: Armed Woman Drives off Armed Burglar

BELL COUNTY, Texas — A Bell County woman armed with a gun confronted a burglar who broke into her home in the 3800 block of Stillhouse Dr. Monday night, according to the Bell County Sheriff's Department.

The woman was upstairs and heard what sounded like someone kicking down the front door, the sheriff's department said. She went down stairs with a handgun and confronted the burglar, who the sheriff's department said was also armed.

More Here

Friday, August 21, 2020

Ninth Circuit, 3 Judge Panel: Magazines Protected by Second Amendment


On 4 April, 2019, the Honorable Roger T. Benitez issued a stay on his finding  the ban on magazines over 10 rounds was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.  The stay was issued pending an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.  On 14 August, 2020, the three judge panel issued their opinion.

The three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Benitez confirming the magazine ban as unconstitutional. 

It was a split decision, with Judge Lee, appointed by President Trump, and Judge Callahan, appointed by President Bush, agreeing the ban on magazines is unconstitutional; and Judge Lynn, appointed by President Clinton, dissenting.

  Here is the link to the opinion by the three judge panel.

The opinion and dissent follow what has become the typical split in the courts on the power of the Constitution. One side claims words mean things, and limits on government power, placed in the Constitution, must be honored. 

The other side has dominated for 70 years. It has the essential Progressive view of the Constitution. In that view, the Constitution is infinitely malleable; the meaning of words can be changed as the current court deems necessary to adapt the Constitution to the meaning judges (or more properly, Progressives) wish it to mean at any time.  If it is to the advantage of Progressives to uphold the First Amendment; it will be upheld. If it is to the advantage of Progressives to ignore or dismiss the Second Amendment; it will be ignored or dismissed.

The essence of the opinion is expressed in these two  paragraphs, taken from the text:  

As for prong one of our analysis, the record shows that LCMs are not subject to the exceptions announced in Heller. Magazines are protected arms, and larger capacity magazines are not unusual. LCMs have never been subject to longstanding prohibitions. And a historic analysis fails to persuade that LCMs otherwise fall outside constitutional protections. We hold that California Penal Code section 32310 burdens protected conduct and proceed to the second prong of the analysis.

 Stated another way, and reinforced in this paragraph:

 Put another way, a “substantial burden” on the Second Amendment is viewed not through a policy prism but through the lens of a fundamental and enumerated constitutional right. We would be looking through the wrong end of a sight-glass if we asked whether the government permits the people to retain some of the core fundamental and enumerated right. Instead, Heller counsels us to look at whether the government regulation restricts the core fundamental right from the outset. In other words, we look to what a restriction takes away rather than what it leaves behind. Here, California’s law takes away a substantial swath of the core constitutional right of self-defense because it bans possession of half of all magazines in America today, even though they are common in guns used for self-defense. In short, a law that takes away a substantial portion of arms commonly used by citizens for self-defense imposes a substantial burden on the Second Amendment.

Lawyers (judges) are expert wordsmiths or they do not rise in their professions. When the Constitution confounds their purposes they can find a convoluted way to justify confounding the Constitution. Thus we have the complicated, absurd construct in the Ninth Circuit to find ways to effectively dismiss and neuter the Second Amendment.

Judge Lynn attempts to use the construct in her dissent. Essentially, the dissent consists of these claims:

  • Large capacity magazines are not arms
  • The Second Amendment applies to magazines, but they are not central to the "core" of the Second Amendment
  • The purposes of the government are more important;
  • Therefore, intermediate scrutiny applies in this case;
  • Intermediate scrutiny has, essentially, whatever meaning we assign to it;
  • Therefore the Second Amendment does not apply to magazines that have over 10 rounds. 
  • Because, other circuits have already approved of this method to circumvent the Second Amendment.

It is not a particularly strong argument. 

A great many people are wondering if the stay, put in place by Judge Benitez, will now be lifted, allowing a flood of the highly desired magazines into California, as happened last March and April, when as many as a million magazines were purchased by California citizens and residents. 

It is likely the stay was put in place to protect those who had purchased magazines which were now completely legal to own, but which might be made illegal if the appeal reversed Judge Benitez' decision. 

It appears the stay will remain in place as long as an appeals process is ongoing. From the stay put in place by Judge Benitez:

 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in part pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code §32310(a) and (b)is hereby stayed,effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.

The Judgment is stayed in part pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment.  

Final resolution has not yet occurred. AG Becerra can ask for the Ninth to hear the case en banc. A singular judge on the Ninth can  ask for the Ninth to hear the case en banc. Then the Ninth would vote whether to hear the case or not. 

After the en banc decisions, then AG Becerra can appeal to the Supreme Court; or Duncan can appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court can agree to grant certiorari or not. If they agree to hear the case, then the appeal process would continue until the Supreme Court issues an opinion. 

The en banc decision could take years by itself. A Supreme Court decision could take more years. 

Or, alternately, an en banc decision could be eliminated and the appeal directed to the Supreme Court very quickly.

AG Becerra has not yet made a decision. 

Virtually all Second Amendment cases that uphold the Amendment as having significant power, have been referred to en banc panels on the Ninth Circuit. 

President Trump has changed the face of the Ninth Circuit. It is no longer as reliably Progressive as it once was. The odds are about 40% that an en banc panel would uphold the three judge panel and the effective power of the Second Amendment.

Is AG Becerra feeling lucky?

There is the issue of timing, and the health of Ruth Bader Ginsberg (RBG). Will the elderly, frail and ill Supreme Court Justice be on the Supreme Court two or three or four years from now, if the case is appealed to the Supreme Court after an en banc hearing? 

Might it be better, from a Progressive view, to push the case to the Supreme Court while RBG is still on the court? 

What about the unreliable Chief Justice, John Roberts? Neither side knows which way he might rule on a Second Amendment case. The Court has shied away from them for more than a decade.

In all of this, the Presidential election looms large. 

If President Trump had not been elected, the Second Amendment would already be a dead issue from rulings by a far left Supreme Court dominated by two far left justices appointed by Hillary Clinton, replacing Justices Scalia and Kennedy. 

Judge Lee would not be on the Ninth Circuit, which would still be reliably far left. 

In 2020, we are facing yet another decision about whether we will continue to restore the rule of the Constitution and the rule of law; or will we devolve into the totalitarianism of the left, who have vowed to change the rules so that no one like President Trump will ever be able to be elected again.  

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


AL: Gunfight, Garden City Homeowner Wounds Home Invasion Suspect

According to the CCSO, residents of a Garden City home woke in the early morning hours of Monday, Aug. 17 to find four suspects breaking in.

Upon seeing the homeowner, who was armed, the suspects exited the home with the homeowner in pursuit.

One suspect, who has not been identified, was shot during an exchange of gunfire and is now being treated in a regional hospital. Charges are pending on the suspect.

More Here

Thursday, August 20, 2020

Democrats, Banks And Guns (Daily Caller, Larry Keene)

Larry Keene shows the way the Democrats are getting the Banks to do their dirty work. 


Any other year, taking money from an industry that’s conducting barred activity would be called corruption. Not election years, though, and not when it comes to banks and guns.

Congressional Democrats are holding a fundraiser Aug. 24 for Democratic nominee Joe Biden headlined, “Virtual Conversation on the Future of Antitrust,” according to Politico. The event will be hosted by U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and U.S. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and is being feted as “a chance to talk about technology and antitrust with Sen. Klobuchar,” in the invitation.

More Here

Wednesday, August 19, 2020

IL: Gunfight, CCW holder Wounded, Shoots and Wounds Assailant

A 24-year-old FOID and concealed carry cardholder was shot and returned fire and shot a man Sunday in Belmont Cragin on the Northwest Side.

About 2:05 p.m. the 24-year-old was inside a vehicle parked on the street in the 5400 block of West Wrightwood Avenue, when a man walked up to his vehicle, pulled out a gun and fired shots striking him in the right shoulder, Chicago police said.

More Here

Tuesday, August 18, 2020

UT: Gunfight at Salt Lake City Club, Gustav Denecamp Shot by Club Employee

Olsen said the man fired a weapon and then was shot once by an employee who had his own gun. Denecamp went outside where responding officers attempted lifesaving measures, Olsen said, but he died at the scene.

No one else was injured, Olsen said.

Olsen said detectives are investigating the situation, but police do not yet know why the man began shooting.

More Here

Indianpolis Agitators pull Pistols to intimidate Truck Driver as part of Blocking Street

Image from video , cropped, scaled, arrows and lettering added by Dean Weingarten

At about 1:45 p.m. on Thursday, 6 August, at the intersection of Meridian Street and I-65, a group of agitators associated with Black Lives Matters were illegally blocking Meridian Street. A blue GM Sierra pick-up approaches.  There is plenty of room for the agitators to be off of the street. There are not many of them, somewhat less than a hundred by estimation.
Instead of getting out of the lane to allow people to freely travel on the public right of way, they are spread out to block the street.
Two agitators deliberately block the blue Sierra, pulling guns to reinforce their  blockage. In the video, it is clear there is plenty of room for the truck to pass, if the agitators simply move. 

Link to video

Obstruction of Traffic in Indiana is a crime.

Sec. 13 . (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who, with the intent to obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic, obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic commits obstruction of traffic, a Class B misdemeanor.

When the truck attempts to avoid the illegal blockage, the agitators run to get in front of the truck, to block it.  It is almost as if they want the truck to hit someone. 

The traffic blockers attempt to justify their blockage with the claim the truck attempted to hit them. 

No evidence of such an attempt is seen in the video. The truck driver appears to take significant action to avoid hitting the agitators.

One agitator, self identified only as "Icon" says he pulled his gun and jumped in front of the truck to protect a young girl. No such girl can be seen in front of the truck, although a girl appears later in the video, behind the truck.  From Indianapolis Recorder 

While members of the group tried to redirect traffic, a driver in a blue truck revved the engine, sending protesters scrambling to the sidewalk. One protester, who only identified himself as “Icon,” pulled a gun on the driver. 

"I was scared he was going to kill me,” he said. “I stepped in front of a little girl when he revved his engine, but, yes, I absolutely drew a gun to defend myself.”

The Recorder does not mention the other agitator with his gun, or the fact the agitators were illegally blocking the street. 

Several protestors who have blocked public right of ways have been struck by vehicles across the nation. This is not hard to understand. When hundreds of people deliberately block traffic by standing and walking in the street, often assaulting drivers and vehicles who are legally going about their business, some people are going to be hit.

Some protests in the streets are legal. In those case, drivers are at a high level of risk from both protestors and the law.

Run in front of a moving vehicle, or stand in a dark highway in dark clothing, at night, or aggressively surround a stopped vehicle and repeatedly strike it; you stand a good chance of being hit by a surprised and/or frightened driver.

It is almost as if a common format is taught to the agitators. Block legal rights of way. Get in front of vehicles. Stop them. Pound on them.  Consider them evil.  In a many cases, these actions are illegal, but are condoned by far left prosecutors or city governments, such as happened in Austin, Texas.

Drivers should maintain their cool, and refuse to be intimidated. Avoid the situation if possible. If you can, back up and leave the area, as the driver in the blue Sierra did.

If a vehicle is blocked to prevent its movement, and the driver believes themselves to be threatened, jurors may believe the driver acted prudently when they use the power of the vehicle to leave the situation. If the driver drove past legal barricades, they have a serious risk of being convicted of criminal acts.

Blocking a public right of way without the proper authorization is not a peaceful protest. It is a criminal act. 

Attorney General Barr has said agitators are using the protests to commit low level urban warfare against the United States. Interview with AG Barr

"Its a new form of urban guerilla warfare."
"The way the guerrilla...hides out among the people as a fish in the ocean...what they do is they are essentially shielding themselves or shrouding themselves in First Amendment activity," he explained. 
"They go into the demonstrations, which are exercising First Amendment activity, and they insinuate themselves in there to shield themselves. That's where they swim. And what they do is they hijack these demonstrations and they and they provoke violence."

BLM is extremely well funded. They can afford to obtain the best secure communications equipment. At last count, they have raised over 133 million dollars since 2016. How the money is spent is not clear. Agitators arrested at protests have their legal fees paid by outside organizations. 

Antifa is a well funded and organized international organization dedicated to destroying the United States government, to institute international communism.  It is not  clear how much interaction there is between BLM and Antifa.
In Indianapolis on 6 August, it appears the blockage of streets was completely illegal.

 Special event permit requirements, in Indianapolis require 30 days advance notice for the permit, and two weeks notice to neighbors. They have to use state approved barricades:

  • If you are closing a street, you must use state approved barricades. If in the downtown area, an Indiana Law Enforcement Certified Officer must man the barricades.
  • Submit the Street Closure Request Form to reserve state-approved barricades to block off the street. Barricades will not be delivered. Please return the barricades in a timely manner as other events may be waiting for them.
The Indianapolis Department of Business and Neighborhood services issues permits for special events in Indianapolis. Brandi Pahl, Chief Communications Officer, responded to an email, and stated the Department of Business and Neighborhood Services did not issue a permit for the August 6 protest march.
According to the indystar, BLM claims people who hit agitators who are blocking streets are "white racists".
"It’s always a double standard," the group said. "White racist are killing and hitting protesters and then get mad when (we) defend ourselves."

The radical left has defined anyone who refuses to bow down to their demands as racists. In the case where a protestor was killed in an incident near Seattle, it was at night, the protestors had permission to block the freeway, but there were no barricades to warn the driver, who, it appears from the video, attempted to avoid hitting the protestors. The driver took an off ramp onto the freeway.  The driver is a black immigrant.  

The people orchestrating these protests seem to be looking to create incidents where the people blocking traffic can claim victim status.
If the protests are legal, the protestors may have legal rights to be in the streets. Most of these events are occurring where the local government is in sympathy with the agitators. Some are legal, many are not. Be aware of barricades which have been erected to direct traffic elsewhere.

The ability to travel freely, in reasonable safety, is a signal mark of civilization. The blocking of public right of ways without legal consequence, is evidence of a breakdown of the civil order, of anarchy and mob rule. 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

Monday, August 17, 2020

FL: Armed Store Employee Shoots two Smash and Grab Robbers at Pembroke Lakes Mall

PEMBROKE PINES, Fla. – Two men who were trying to rob a jewelry store were shot by a store employee Friday afternoon at the Pembroke Lakes Mall, police say.

According to Pembroke Pines police, the two men went into Elite Fine Jewelry at 2:14 p.m., and one smashed glass display cases while the other began grabbing items.

More Here

PA: Homeowner Shoots, Wounds Teen in Attempted Home Invasion

The teen told police that he was shot in the wrist and buttocks while walking down the street. Police found no evidence of a shooting where the teen claimed to have been shot. He was transported to a nearby hospital and his condition is unknown.

Through an investigation, police say the teenager and another man attempted to kick in the door of a 31-year-old man's house. The homeowner opened fire on the suspects, striking the 17-year-old.

More Here

Video of Ryan Whitaker Shooting by Police, for having a Gun, In Phoenix, AZ

Image from Youtube video,scaled and cropped,  arrow and text below arrow added by Dean Weingarten.

May 21, 2020, at about 10:53 p.m, in Phoenix's Ahwatukee Foothills neighborhood. 

Officers are responding to a noise complaint thinly disguised as a domestic violence incident. The complainant is desperate to get to sleep, because he has to get up to go to work. He tells the dispatcher at 10:18 it is a domestic altercation. The exact time of the second call is not given, but the caller says it is a half hour after the first call. 

In the second call, the caller makes clear this is a noise complaint.  He is asked if this is a male and a female in a verbal. From what police have released of the call (includes  graphic video of the shooting) :


Yeah, and its getting really loud and they been doing it for the last hour. I gotta get it to work tomorrow, and I can't get no sleep. 

These guys have been noisy constantly... Every time I come back, these guys are noisier than hell.  Always fighting. 


Okay does it sound like it's escalated to anything physical or still just sound verbal?


Oh. It could be physical, I..I could say yeah if that makes anybody hurry up on, get over here any faster.

anything to indicate it might be physical?

I hear slamming of doors and... I don't know. Somebody could be gettin' thrown into a door for all I know. But I hear all kinds of banging.

Link to 911 call and Youtube video of shooting

The police go to the apartment. Officers take up positions on each side of the door, well separated. One officer knocks on the door, and announces "Phoenix police", in a slightly elevated voice. 

About 12 seconds later, the door is opened. Ryan Whitaker, a white male, 40 years old, answers the door. He is holding a semiautomatic pistol in his right hand, down at his side. He moves the pistol behind his back, so as not to alarm the person outside.  He takes one step outside the door.

His girlfriend has since said they did not know it was the police at the door.

What Ryan does not know, is the officer behind him can see he is holding a pistol, when he moves it behind his back. The officer in front has blinded Ryan with his tactical light. It seems to be standard practice. In spite of, or perhaps because of this, Ryan seems to immediately figures out this is the police. Ryan says "Hey! Hey!  as he takes a step back and drops into a submissive position on the threshold of his apartment. 

It appears the officer behind him has already made the decision to shoot. Ryan has his left hand outstretched in submission. He may already have placed the pistol on the floor, as he drops down.  

The officer behind him fires three shots.  The time stamp on the video as the first shot is fired is 5:52:39Z (Greenwich Mean time) or 10:52:39 p.m. in Phoenix.  As Ryan raises his right hand to his chest, the pistol is not in it.  Two of the three shots have entered Ryans back.


 Image from police body camera video, cropped, scaled and text added by Dean Weingarten

Within four seconds, the older officer who knocked, has his pistol drawn and pointed at Ryan.

His girlfriend comes out, after being assured she would not be shot. She immediately wails: Why did you shoot him? 

An officer says: "He pulled a pistol on us. "

She says: It is dark, and he is answering the door.

She says they were playing a loud video game.

Ryan is on the floor. Other police arrive. No one attempts to stop the bleeding or render any aid. It is 12 minutes before any medical attention is given to Ryan. 

Ryan Whitaker is doing nothing illegal or immoral. This is Phoenix, Arizona, where the Second Amendment is more respected than in most of the United States. This is not New York City, where police had a reputation of shooting anyone they saw who had a gun, because they assumed, if they had a gun, it was illegitimate. 

Holding a gun in your hand, at your side, is not "pulling a gun on us".  

Has the officer who shot been trained to shoot every time they see someone with a gun in their hand? 

The case illustrates the time lag between when a decision to shoot is made, and the actual shots. It is likely the decision to shoot was made by the officer at about the same time Ryan starts to drop down.  By the time the actual shots are fired, Ryan has dropped down, extended his left hand in submission, and very likely placed the pistol on the floor.

Was this a form of swatting? Swatting is when false information is given to illicit a police response on innocent people.  It is not clear the complainant knew their complaint was false. It seems they were desperate to get some sleep, and were willing to find a way to satisfy the dispatcher in order to justify the emergency response. Anyone who has had loud neighbors can sympathize with their desire for resolution. 

It looks as though an irritated neighbor, a dispatcher who may have been a bit leading in their questions, and poor judgement on the part of a police officer came together to cost an innocent man his life.

Police have a difficult job. There are probably fifty to a hundred million police interactions with the public each year. A few of them are bound to become disasters. In my opinion, the Ryan Whitaker shooting is a much clearer disaster than the George Floyd arrest. 

While Ryan did not do anything illegal, are their lessons to be learned from his shooting and death?

Opening your door, at night, to an unknown visitor, is a known risk. People know this. It is why people answering the door commonly have firearms in hand.  A retired Phoenix Assistant Phoenix Police chief, Andy Anderson, says this, as reported by

Anderson said that breaking down the scenario frame-by-frame isn't what the officers had at the moment. 

"We may see some things that the officer did not see or perceive at the time because of that delay between action and reaction," Anderson said. 

When Whitaker came to the door with the gun in his hand, the officers are put into a split-second, life or death scenario, Anderson said. 

Being confronted by police officers, unexpectedly, after dark, put Ryan  Whitaker into a split-second, life or death scenario, it appears.

Guns are common, and access to them a cherished right in Arizona. People having guns in their hand when answering an unknown visitor, late at night, is common. Virtually anywhere the Second Amendment is respected, police should expect innocent homeowners to be armed when they answer the door.

Being at close proximity with the unknown visitor places you at risk, whether you are armed or not. It is hard to secure the door if you must open it to see who is outside.

Ryan's girlfriend says he looked out the peep-hole and did not see anyone there. That put him on a higher level of alert.  There were only 12 seconds between the knock and Ryan opening the door. The officer's tactical positioning may have placed them out of the range of the peep hole.

A better system is to have a surveillance camera. If he wanted to see who was outside, he had to open the door. There wasn't a security door, to place a barrier between the person inside and the person outside. Any of those things might have prevented the deadly interaction with police which followed Ryan's opening of the door. Even a chain on the door, and looking through the crack, when the door is opened, might have prevented this tragedy. Stepping outside his door made Ryan more vulnerable.

If Ryan had know the police were outside his apartment, he, very likely, would have acted differently.  A mere verbal "Phoenix Police" is not enough, even if it were louder. A camera, officer visible in the peep-hole or security door would have allowed a more complete evaluation. At minimum, an officer should be visible through a peep hole. Does Phoenix police training suggest they hide from view like criminals?   We will likely find out.

The edited Body camera footage was released on 15 July. We can see why the police were reluctant to release the footage.  This strategy by the police has been shown to be a losing strategy. The lack of transparency by the police leads people to believe the police are hiding something.

Body cameras, ubiquitous cell phone video, security cameras are all moving us into an age where there will be little privacy in urban areas. Police, in particular, will have all of their actions recorded and scrutinized. 

Ryan Whitaker paid a high price in what appears to be a police over-reaction. Video does not tell everything, but there seems to be little else in this situation. If Ryan had a record of violence, it would have emerged by now. There is no indication Ryan was a threat to the police.

The service records of the police are not yet public. There is an ongoing lawsuit. The officer who shot Ryan has been with the Phoenix PD for three years. He is said to be 30+ years old. We will see if he was trained in a state which does not respect the Second Amendment, such as California or New Jersey.

These situations, as shocking as they are, as tragic as they are, are rare and infrequent. 

At about this time last year, the Phoenix PD had shot 10 people and killed 8 in 2019. As explained in this article in the Phoenix New Times a year ago, the Phoenix PD has an unusually high level of police involved shootings and deaths.

Shootings of citizens who answer a door, by criminals, and home invasions by criminals, are far more common that the shooting of a legitimately armed citizen at the door, by police. Phoenix is a large, urban department. Large, urban departments have more crime and more incidents. Even so, the level of police shootings in Phoenix is considerably higher than average. 

The world is not a perfect place. 

Overall, the United States police are professional, competent, and careful. 

I discussed this incident with a retired police officer who has been involved in hundreds of incidents where a person who was not the police, was armed.  He was a firearms and tactics trainer for much of his career.

I did not tell him any conclusions I had. First, he watched the body camera video from the officer who did not shoot. His conclusion was that the video was inconclusive, because we could not see Ryan's right hand after he stepped back. 

Then he watched the video from the body camera of the officer who shot. 

He said: "He shot too soon. The Phoenix PD is going to be paying out a lot of money. "

The job of a policeman is getting more difficult, and less rewarding.

The more the police lose the trust of the population, the harder their job becomes.  We need to stop that downward spiral. It can and has been done. The far left has demonized the police all out of proportion.  The United States has made great progress in the last 50 years. 

Defunding the police is not the answer. More transparancy and accountability, is. We are moving in that direction. 

©2020 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch