HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Wednesday, October 09, 2019

 
How To Respond to Armed Threats: Man who brandished gun at driver with Warren sticker charged with felony terroristic threat 

By Spocko

MOORHEAD, Minn. — A 27-year-old West Fargo, N.D., man is in jail after threatening a woman with a handgun because he took issue with her political bumper sticker, according to the Moorhead Police Department.  (Driver with Trump bumper sticker waved gun at driver with Warren bumper sticker)

Because the brandishing of the gun is illegal, something could be done about this kind of intimidation. Tracking these kind of threats can be hard, especially without evidence. I'm glad it was reported and verified. I'm especially pleased that the perpetrator, Joseph Schumacher, is facing charges of felony terroristic threats. He was also charged with having a loaded handgun inside a vehicle without a permit, a misdemeanor.

Threats and intimidation by men with guns are often downplayed or ignored, especially in domestic violence situations. But individuals and groups can take steps to change laws.

Open carrying guns at political events is a terrorist threat

In some states it is legal for a person to show up open-carrying a gun at a political rally. If asked why they are carrying their guns they will quote the state law and the second half of the 2nd Amendment.  They won't acknowledge their true intent. They want to intimate people.

In Schumacher's case, the police were able to connect his previous actions to his brandishing his gun which met the conditions for the charge. As the case moves forward we will see if the charge will hold up in court. But the point I want to make is that this same linking of actions can lead to felony charges for people carrying guns at political events.

This is not the actual bumper sticker in question. 
Why is open carry legal? The NRA worked hard to change the laws in states to expand where guns can be carried and remove requirements for permits on who can carry. They built on the rural/urban divide in states with hunters to support open carry with their: "Ah shucks, we're just fixin to go huntin' lady, don't get hysterical!" anecdotes.  I heard them more than once in town halls across the country.
 "When I was in high school kids had shotguns in the racks of their pickup trucks from hunting before school. Why should I be arrested for just going down to Walmart to buy ammo for duck hunting?" 
But the men showing up at political events with an AR-15 aren't on their way to hunt ducks, and they know it.  Intimidation is the point.

The NRA wants to water-down the intimation factor of a physical presence of a person with a gun. Finally, following the Walmart mass shooting, some retail corporations somewhat addressed the bogus premise of open carry. (They SHOULD ban open carry and conceal carry in the store totally, but that's another post.)

Threatening and Gaslighting For Dummies. by Donald Trump. Forward by convicted felon, Michael Cohen 

Threatening and intimidating others is big in the Trump era. Like Trump, many avoid acknowledging what they are actually doing to escape consequences. It's a little game for them. We see it in the mob speak Trump and his cronies use.  But not everyone has 30 lawyers, his father's fortune, an entire media outlet and the US Attorney General to cover for them.  People can be busted for their threats.

Here are suggestions on how to deal with people making threats with guns. Three steps, short term, medium term and long term.

Guys Dressed Like Magnum P.I. Open Carry Guns to Stalk Moms

A few months ago two guys in Hawaiian shirts followed a group in Missouri on a Moms Demand Action protest march across town. The marchers took photos of the guys and asked what should they do.

Some gunners wear cameo, but these guys want to be seen intimidating the group
Some people said, "Call the police!"  Great! That is one solution. What then?

Be prepared for the response! In my experience the people doing open carry know the law extremely well. They know not to "brandish" a gun. They expect to encounter people questioning them, especially the police. They often alert the police in advance that they are going to do this. They will video tape their interactions so that they can show how they are the victims being harassed for doing something perfectly legal. When police show up they will explain their perfectly legal stalking of the group while carrying their weapons.  Given those possible actions, what else can people do?

1) Bust them in real time by knowing the law.  For example, it's often explicitly illegal to carry guns on school campuses or government court houses. Change the route of the walk, then have the police waiting for open carriers when they cross over the school or court campus line. (Be aware they follow all public pronouncements of events and infiltrate groups to obtain intel on actions and responses.)

2) Get photos of the people to identify them and the organization that they are part of  
Interestingly they will often offer up this info willingly. They believe their record is clear--but check them! Domestic violence cases aren't always recorded correctly. A long time organizer friend said to go up to the men carrying the guns and ask, "Can I help you?"  Let them talk. Ask them questions.  RECORD EVERYTHING THEY SAY AND DO.

Privacy for me but not for thee
The NRA got laws passed that protect the identity of people with concealed carry permits, I understand the need for this in certain cases. But the people who want to intimidate using open carry might call for privacy because they want to maintain their power to intimidate anonymously. They will say it's because they don't want the "bad guys" to know they are carrying.  In their world everyone is a potential bad guy. 

You will note that I didn't identity the exact location of these guys, beyond the state of Missouri. That's because when open carriers are identified for their armed threats, they go after the people and families they can find to attack and intimidate them online and in person.  I don't want to put anyone in the area at risk. (I've said before that National GVP groups should do this research and follow up on behalf of local groups.)

This is where we get back to Schumacher's threat and charge. Correlation of the open carriers with their group is important, since often other members in the group do NOT have clean records. They have been know to harass individuals online. These members often openly make threats on Facebook within the group's postings. These can show the intent of a person's actions.

Not all members of groups threatening people online are smart enough to hide their online posts.
When police work to determine if someone is a "true threat" they look to see if the person has a history of threats, have the means, motive and are in the same physical location.
Hawaiian shirt guys might know all the rules for open carry, and still make threats online that cross the line.

Correlation can build a case to move people into the "true" threats category for a criminal case.  If it doesn't rise to that level, it can build a case against the person and the group on their FB page. It can also lead to possible civil action in the future.

Threatening speech is not protected speech

Armed people want to control the narrative. They want to tell you it doesn't matter what you say, they will have the last word. That's not always the case.

There is also a qualitative difference when someone carrying a gun wants you to know they disagree with your political views.  The line an 'armed society is a polite society" really means, "Be polite to me, or I will shoot you."

The Guardian complied a list of recent cases of people who threatened political figures or others on behalf of Trump. Many have been convicted and are serving jail time. I'm glad their stories made the news because I want everyone to know that threatening speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment. You can do something when armed people threaten you over your political views.  

3) Change the laws in the community -- Long Term Solution 
I'm a big proponent of figuring out how to make change at small levels, learn from the process and then scale them up.

Recently my friends in Nebraska got a law passed in Lincoln that mandated secure storage in vehicles. (Link 1011) This is a big deal. I want to acknowledge how important this action is.
People get depressed when they don't see action on the national or state level. But as this case proves, change is possible.

The good news is that attitudes about the appropriateness of guns in public political debates are changing. The laws that reflect those attitudes can change too.