DC Police Chief Responds to Adam Kokesh's Planned Armed March

[Petar]

I understand the argument. I just think your fear is clouding your perspective giving you a very cursory look at it and doesn't really take into account how the real world functions.

How so?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

How so?

You fear that you'll be more associated with Kokesh than you are. You fear that it's very likely things will get really violent. You fear that the media will be able to whip up the overwhelming majority of the population to hate you because of guilt by association. You fear the DHS will have no opposition to taking your guns or even rounding you up into an internment camp. You fear that one person can "destroy the entire liberty movement". Etc, etc, etc.

 

[Petar]

You fear that you'll be more associated with Kokesh than you are. You fear that it's likely things will get really nasty. You fear that the media will be able to whip up the overwhelming majority of the population to hate you because of it. You fear the DHS will have no opposition to rounding you up into an internment camp. You fear that one person can "destroy the entire liberty movement". Etc, etc, etc.

Maybe you just don't realize how it might seem to most people if a mini war between cops and patriots happens to erupt in DC.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Maybe you just don't realize how it might seem to most people if a mini war between cops and patriots happens to erupt in DC.

They're an independent group of individuals, they don't represent "patriots" like it's some sort of structured organization with members. This dichotomy is your own perspective of it.

Some people are going to see them as "gun nuts" not your idea of "patriots", but that doesn't mean the DHS is gonna start rounding up everyone who is pro-gun.

 

[Petar]

They're an independent group of individuals, they don't represent "patriots". This dichotomy is your own perspective of it.

Some people are going to see them as "gun nuts" not "patriots", but that doesn't mean the DHS is gonna round up everyone who is pro-gun.

In case violence erupts, then this small group will represent all patriots as far as most people will be concerned, and that is all that DHS will need in order to successfully execute their plans to disarm/round-up hard core constitutionalists.

 

[tod evans]

 

[noneedtoaggress]

In case violence erupts, then this small group will represent all patriots as far as most people will be concerned, and that is all that DHS will need in order to successfully execute their plans to disarm/round-up hard core constitutionalists.

Well I don't think you're going to prevent anything by explaining how you feel about it on RPF so it might be better to start prepping your bunker or getting some escape plans off the ground instead if you really feel this way.

 

[Professor8000]

Your argument fails at logic. You make a lot of unfounded assumptions that you then use to base the majority of, what I'm sure you thought was, your refutation.

Well I cannot say that I am really surprised that somebody working in law enforcement would make such a statement. I will take this as yet one more reason to avoid Texas, where it is that I presume you patrol alongside of other people who also possess your diluted mindset.

Here you assume that I work in public law enforcement, and you also commit the logical fallacies of composition and ad hominem.

Alright, so now you are switching it up? What is this that you are doing, come on, really now? First you argue that guns need to be maintained in a ready-to-fire state because that precious second or two oh-so counts, and now you are arguing about the effectiveness of negotiating with somebody that is out to kill or seriously injure you?

According to the FBI and National Crime Institute
• 55% of gunfights take place 0-5 feet.
• 20% of gunfights take place in 5-10 feet.
• 20% of gunfights take place in 10-21 feet.
• 95% of gunfights take place in 0-21 feet. (Source- FBI)
• The average man can cover 21 feet of ground in 1.5 seconds.
• The average man cannot draw a gun from concealment in under 2 seconds.
• The average gunfight is over in 3-5 seconds.
• 3 to 4 shots are usually fired.
• Most gunfights take place in low light conditions.
• On average, one shot in four strikes someone.

If you actually read what I wrote I was talking about how someone responds to the ESCALATION of force. Escalation of force is a technique widely used in conflict resolution that attempts to de-escalate a situation by escalating the situation beyond what the other person is willing to endure. That is the terminology used to describe what you were mentioning earlier when you were talking about brandishing a weapon can make someone back down. Nowhere did I say that negotiating with a violent person was a good idea.

At any rate, I would have to disagree. It is fairly predicable what the result will be when an officer uses less-lethal tools such as: OC-spray, Taser, police dog, banana gun, etc., on somebody. Unless they are tripping out, dusted, etc., they will begin to comply with the commands of the LEO’. Just the same, if an officer tells a person to stop doing something or else they are going to pepper-spray them as they are pointing their OC in their direction, will in most instants compel that person to stop; have a criminal hiding in an attack, making an announcement that you will sending up your police dog to painfully bite them is one of the fastest ways to get them to come down all on their own. Only the mentally ill or incredibly stupid will refuse to consider such threats of pain compliance—at least until such threats become a reality.

Again, this is describing escalation of force, not self defense. Less than lethal tools are not viable self defense weapons as tazers are not reliable, OC spray will often enrage an attacker instead of putting them out of the fight, this is why police never use those as self defense. Big difference between self defense and escalation of force.

Moreover, most incidents involving armed law enforcement personnel drawing their sidearm to apprehend a suspect (regardless of how cooperative or not they appear to be) are resolved without a single shot being fired. Being that just the mere show of that legal force, the realization of what might happen with a single trigger pull, is enough to snap a wrongdoer back into reality.

Big difference between attempting an arrest, and protecting yourself against an attacker.

I'll leave your feelings argument alone as I believe that you should look at the justifications for the civil protections of individual rights and what those rights are exactly, just so that you can make a better argument for me to spend my time refuting, that is, if I disagree with it.

 

[Petar]

I know you are but what am I.

 

[Petar]

Well I don't think you're going to prevent anything by explaining how you feel about it on RPF so it might be better to start prepping your bunker or getting some escape plans off the ground instead if you really feel this way.

I guess I find it cathartic or something.

 

[Professor8000]

People should pay attention to my previous post. That is how to argue without resorting to insults and copious amounts of logical fallacies.

 

[tod evans]

Question for Professor 8k

You've said you work in law enforcement, are there any plans that you're aware of to disarm the public?

 

[Weston White]

Alright, seems peachy keen to me, I fail, etc., etc., etc. I get it, really. I will only mention the following, being that these are your words (Professor8000) not mine:

“To say that the threat of lethal force can reliably do what negotiation will not is irresponsible and foolish.”

Otherwise, not really much of a point in getting all caught up in what is a circular debate.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Actually, it might be that Washington, D.C. is not exactly the best place to visit in a concerted effort to defy its own local laws, being that in the U.S. Constitution, its federal seat (the District of Columbia) was granted total powers of legislation—so they can pretty much get away with making whatever unconstitutional law their little heartless minds devise of, or at least have been granted great latitude to do so....

But keep in mind that is a very specific point, has more to due with the Castle Doctrine, and they had gotten away with such prohibitions for a long time.

SCOTUS has also held:

We ... hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 - Supreme Court 2010, and

[Due Process] ... is applicable in the District of Columbia....

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 US 497 - Supreme Court 1954

Does any modern judicial precedent suggest that Due Process incorporates less than the full Second Amendment?

 

[Weston White]

As a side-note concerning reference to the escalation of force (or Use of Force Continuum). It entails a uniform progression of force to be used in order to achieve reasonable compliance and cooperation from a potentially (or in progress) volatile situation or an otherwise threatening individual. It is very much relatable to the military’s own Rules of Engagement. It can be thought of as a series of incremental steps to be taken, like such:

1. Presence to alert, persuade or intimate
2. Vocalize to inform, command or negotiate
3. Soft—Physical force compliance or restraint
4. Hard—Physical force compliance or usage of less-lethal tools; e.g., blunt object, Taser, Mace or OC-spray, rubber bullets or beanbag rounds, backlighting, sound cannon (LRAD) or sonic weapon, etc. (and when applicable turning off electric, gas, water, etc.)
5. Degrees of lethal force e.g., taking a leg shot versus a kill shot

Basically, the more hostile or inflamed the escalation target becomes, the further you progress up the steps, moving to the next step only when the current step thoroughly proves itself to be ineffective or is otherwise inapplicable or unavailable; and then regressing back down the steps when compliance or cooperation is being achieved. Furthermore, mentally noting whenever positive results are being achieved along the course, i.e., which steps or actions being taken appear to work best for a given individual or require the least amount of exertion to acquire cooperation.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

As a side-note concerning reference to the escalation of force (or Use of Force Continuum). It entails a uniform progression of force to be used in order to achieve reasonable compliance and cooperation from a potentially (or in progress) volatile situation or an otherwise threatening individual. It is very much relatable to the military’s own Rules of Engagement. It can be thought of as a series of incremental steps to be taken, like such:

1. Presence to alert, persuade or intimate
2. Vocalize to inform, command or negotiate
3. Soft—Physical force compliance or restraint
4. Hard—Physical force compliance or usage of less-lethal tools; e.g., blunt object, Taser, Mace or OC-spray, rubber bullets or beanbag rounds, backlighting, sound cannon (LRAD) or sonic weapon, etc. (and when applicable turning off electric, gas, water, etc.)
5. Degrees of lethal force e.g., taking a leg shot versus a kill shot

Basically, the more hostile or inflamed the escalation target becomes, the further you progress up the steps, moving to the next step only when the current step thoroughly proves itself to be ineffective or is otherwise inapplicable or unavailable; and then regressing back down the steps when compliance or cooperation is being achieved. Furthermore, mentally noting whenever positive results are being achieved along the course, i.e., which steps or actions being taken appear to work best for a given individual or require the least amount of extortion to acquire cooperation.

I don't know about you, but I'm not an escalation target. Nor am I to be extorted to acquire cooperation.

 

[Professor8000]

Question for Professor 8k

You've said you work in law enforcement, are there any plans that you're aware of to disarm the public?

I work in private law enforcement. From what I can tell, they are just conditioning police and military to have a warfare like mentality and to follow orders without question. I work with a lot of people that have left the force because of the propensity for departments to move into a military style of operation.

 

[Professor8000]

Alright, seems peachy keen to me, I fail, etc., etc., etc. I get it, really. I will only mention the following, being that these are your words (Professor8000) not mine:

“To say that the threat of lethal force can reliably do what negotiation will not is irresponsible and foolish.”

Otherwise, not really much of a point in getting all caught up in what is a circular debate.

I still hold that in a self defense situation, relying on threats is foolish. Remember that reliability is subjective, and I have very high standards for reliability in self-defense situations. Outside of self defense, i.e. in the middle of conflict resolution, most of what you say applies, however I have only been focusing on the subject of self defense.

 

[Professor8000]

I don't know about you, but I'm not an escalation target. Nor am I to be extorted to acquire cooperation.

Escalation of force is a conflict resolution technique.

 

[pcosmar]

Escalation of force is a conflict resolution technique.

I suppose the resolution depends a lot on the conflict.

If someone wishes to cage or kill me,, the only resolution would be to make them incapable of doing so.
Permanently.