RE: OPINION LETTER RELATING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT
I. PURPOSE
The following opinion answers questions related to questions raised by the WASPC as to whether a municipal law enforcement agency exposes itself to additional liability by certifying retired law enforcement officers as having met Criminal Justice Training Commission standards for firearms qualification. The purpose of the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT OF 2004 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 926B and 926C) is to supplement active law enforcement personnel in order to deter crime and prevent terrorist activity. The federal law accomplishes this by anticipating that additional armed law enforcement personnel that have already been trained will be present within each jurisdiction as officers travel from one jurisdiction to another while on business, vacationing or for any other reason.
The Act authorizes retired officers and active police officers from outside of each jurisdiction to carry a concealed firearm within each and every jurisdiction of the United States; thus, increasing the likelihood that an armed officer will be present if deadly force is presented on the roads or in any other location where the traveling officer from outside a given jurisdiction may be. The retired officer must qualify annually per the standards that officers are required to meet for firearms proficiency within the agency from which he or she retired. For a retired officer to carry a weapon in all fifty states, the federal statute requires:
“… a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.”
Emphasis added.
The LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT OF 2004 is an aid to law enforcement and the public that costs the state or the federal government very little because the training has already been provided at the state level and each retired officer essentially becomes a volunteer who must pay the cost of maintaining his/her qualifications at the state and/or local level.
RCW 36.28A.090 reads in part:
Firearms certificates for qualified retired law enforcement officers.
(1) The purpose of this section is to establish a process for issuing firearms certificates to residents of Washington who are qualified retired law enforcement officers for the purpose of satisfying the certification requirements contained in the federal law enforcement officers safety act of 2004 (118 Stat. 865; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926B and 926C).
(2) The Washington association of sheriffs and police chiefs shall develop a firearms certificate form to be used by local law enforcement agencies when issuing firearms certificates to retired law enforcement officers under this section.
(3) A retired law enforcement officer who is a resident of Washington may apply for a firearms certificate with a local law enforcement agency. The local law enforcement agency may issue the firearms certificate to a retired law enforcement officer if the officer:
(a) Has been qualified or otherwise found to meet the standards established by the criminal justice training commission for firearms qualifications for active law enforcement officers in the state; and…
II. ISSUES
A. Does the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT OF 2004 (hereinafter the Act) provide an opportunity for citizens and law enforcement agencies across the United States to acquire additional security at little or no additional cost to state, local and federal governments in taxpayer funds and potential liability?
B. Does qualifying and certification of a retired officer incur more potential liability than qualifying active police officers?
C. Is there a reasonable basis not to implement the provisions of state and federal law outlined above based on potential liability or any other issues?III. ANALYSIS
A well known police organization has actively advocated that police agencies in Washington State not certify retired officers under RCW 36.28A.090 because of alleged liability issues. As a general rule licensing and permitting does not incur liability absent exceptional circumstances or a so-called “special relationship” with a person or group who is adversely impacted by improper certification at a level below that of the policy-making decision to develop such a process. Washington courts apply the “public duty doctrine” in order to determine whether a decision is at a policy-making level and therefore immune from liability claims.
Even at the “mechanical” level where a police firearms instructor determines whether official standards have been met, there needs to be a specific individual or group relying on the testing officials determination (as opposed to the public at-large in order to create a potential for liability. Since no such relationship exists when an officer or retired officer qualifies, the alleged potential for liability does not exist. Those advocating against certification of retired officers need to answer two questions:
1. Is the basis of the alleged potential for liability based on ageism?
2. Where is the evidence of any liability against local law enforcement agencies based on certification that an officer has qualified under state standards for firearms proficiency?
Most jurisdictions, including Washington State, already provide for retired officers to qualify and continue carrying within the state. This would be similar to issuing a concealed carry permit. Thus, the question can be formulated- Where again is the evidence of any agency incurring liability by issuing concealed carry permits or by any qualifying retired officers to carry a weapon within the State of Washington and why should carrying outside the state increase the potential for such alleged liability?
The answer to all of the questions raised above is that the potential for increased liability is virtually non-existent. The true rationale behind the position that some groups are taking is a political agenda that seeks to maintain the myth that armed private individuals cannot deter crime or protect themselves or the public; i.e., an anti-gun agenda.
Where there is no “special relationship” creating a duty to a class of people that have relied on a permit, potential liability does not exist. The courts in Washington look to the manner and extent of contact between the government official and the member of the public in order to decide whether such a special relationship exists. The courts also look to how explicit any assurance is made to the specific class of persons that may rely on a permit, license or certification. J& B DEV. CO. V. KING COUNTY, 100 WN.2D 299, 669 P.2D 468 (1983).
In J & B Development, the court held that a breach of a governmental duty owed only to the public as a whole cannot be the basis for a cause of action. See also RCW 4.96.010. Prior to J & B DEVELOPMENT, the Washington legislature had abolished most governmental immunity. In J & B Development, a building inspector was held to have a duty to the builder based on the special relationship created by issuance of a negligent building permit. The governmental entity breached a duty owed to the plaintiff as an individual rather than to the public at large.The Public Duty Doctrine provides an exception to the general rule in Washington. The general rule is that the state and its subdivisions can be sued on any basis for which a private citizen may be sued. See RCW 4.96.010. Despite the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in RCW 4.96.010, the Public Duty Doctrine requires that a claimant suing a governmental agency or municipality must establish the breach of a duty owed by a governmental entity specifically to an individual or group making a claim. See WASHINGTON STATE’S 45-YEAR EXPERIMENT IN GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY, by Michael Tardif & Rob McKenna. Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 29, Fall 2005.
The act of testing and issuing a certificate is in the nature of a “ministerial” or “operational” function. Nevertheless, the fact that the Washington State Legislature has provided that “…The qualification required under [subsection] (3)(a) of this section may be performed by the local law enforcement agency or by an individual or entity certified to provide firearms training” creates a discretionary, policy-making characteristic to an agency’s certification under state law. See RCW 36.28A.090. Thus, the discretion involved in creating a local certification process decision brings the decision under the immunity provided by the Public Duty Doctrine.
The fact that 18 USC 926(c) and the above referenced state law are promulgated for broad public safety purposes and not for the purpose of creating a duty to specific class eliminates liability for the decision. Therefore there is no valid argument that potential liability exists by certifying that retired officers have met the standards of the Criminal Justice training Commission. On the other hand, the benefit to the national public may be immense. The benefit to the people of Washington State accrues as armed police officers from other states travel in Washington; i.e., the benefit is derived from reciprocation as sister states implement the Act.It is a well recognized principle of tort law that a fundamental element of actionable negligence is the existence of a duty owed by the person charged with negligence to the one injured. E. McQuillin, SUPRA. To be actionable, the duty owed must focus on the one injured, not on the public at large. To sustain an action against an individual, it is necessary to determine whether one is under a duty to a claimant as opposed to the general public. Similarly, to sustain an action against a municipality it is necessary to decide whether a municipality is under a general duty to a nebulous public or whether that duty has focused on the claimant.
J & B Development, supra.
The rationale of the “public duty doctrine” has historically been (1) prevention of excessive governmental liability and (2) the need to avoid hindering the governing process. Nevertheless, in J & B Development, the court stated:“…the “public duty doctrine” has a third logical application in tort litigation. A duty to the public in general is usually considered a duty to no one in particular (I.E., the “public duty doctrine"). When considered in combination with the “special relationship” rule, however, it becomes a mechanism for focusing upon whether a duty is actually owed an individual claimant rather than the public at large. The “special relationship” rule is in fact the focusing tool. Assum(ing) a county voting registrar has a duty to refrain from registering nonresidents… it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an individual citizen to recover in tort against the County for the negligent violation of that duty.”
No liability is presented where the act, omission, or decision to certify involves a basic governmental policy, program, or objective. The act of a county or municipality exercising discretion explicitly provided by state law requires the exercise of a basic policy evaluation, judgment, and expertise on the part of the agency. Said discretion is essential to the realization of federal and Washington state policy; and is within the proper authority and duty of law enforcement agencies.
The act of an agent of a governmental entity shown to have been done in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or decided upon without considering the facts involved, may not be classified as a discretionary function and is not entitled to exemption from liability.
The fact that the state legislature has provided authority via RCW 36.28A.090 for local municipalities to implement federal law for the benefit of the public at-large raises an issue as to whether liability can exist where a certificate is issued in an arbitrary and capricious manner and foreseeable harm results. In the unlikely event that a court identifies a duty predicated on the requisite special relationship, any potential liability would be no greater than that which presently exists by certifying active police officers for duty.“The state of Washington, whether acting in its governmental or proprietary capacity, shall be liable for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or corporation.” See EVANGELICAL UNITED BRETHREN CHURCH V. STATE, 67 Wn.2d 246, 253, 407 P.2d 440 (1965) (it is necessary to determine where, in the governmental process orthodox tort liability stops and the act of governing begins).
According to EVANGELICAL CHURCH, at page 254:“Liability cannot be imposed when condemnation of the acts or omissions relied upon necessarily brings into question the propriety of governmental objectives or programs or the decision of one who, with the authority to do so, determined that the acts or omissions involved should occur or that the risk which eventuated should be encountered for the advancement of governmental objectives.”
EVANGELICAL CHURCH at page 255 states four preliminary questions that are relevant to determining whether an act was a discretionary governmental process:
(1)“Does the challenged act, omission, or decision necessarily involve a basic governmental policy, program, or objective?
(2) Is the questioned act, omission, or decision essential to the realization or accomplishment of that policy, program, or objective as opposed to one which would not change the course or direction of the policy, program, or objective?
(3) Does the act, omission, or decision require the exercise of basic policy evaluation, judgment, and expertise on the part of the governmental agency involved? (4) Does the governmental agency involved possess the requisite constitutional, statutory, or lawful authority and duty to do or make the challenged act, omission, or decision?”
IV. CONCLUSION
Therefore, in view of the federal and state mandates that confer discretionary governmental authority to implement certification, municipal law enforcement agencies are immune from liability. The arguments that are advanced related to potential liability are either disguised prejudice against retired officers (based on age) or are based on biases against private citizens being armed. After all, the rationale of the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ SAFETY ACT OF 2004 is that armed citizens can make a difference, a rationale that runs directly contrary to the “consensus” that citizens with weapons are more of a danger to themselves or others than to the bad guys.
To be entitled to immunity, the state must make a showing that such a policy decision, consciously balancing risks and advantages, took place. The author’s opinion herein can be particularly relied on by Washington State municipalities and law enforcement agencies due to the fact that the Legislature clearly made the decision to implement the certification process a local determination within the discretion of municipal governments.
It goes without saying that refusal to clearly look at the benefits set forth herein may frustrate an inexpensive public safety initiative with the potential for resulting loss of life. Such irresponsible public administration would raise the specter of real political liability in light of the potential for mass shootings and future terrorist acts that predictably may involve small arms.
See also a MESSAGE from Durango, Colorado’s Police Chaplain.
Permalink
Have you ever noticed how everybody claims to honor our veterans? Even the anti-war activists that despised President Bush proclaim that they “support the troops”. Such “support” is often expressed as concern about the levels of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome experienced by returning veterans.
Veterans often deal with high levels of stress due to a number of factors. The public’s perception, fostered by the New York Times, that veterans may harm themselves and others can contribute to stress. A spokesperson for a local mental health provider that works with the VA and veterans recently told me that veteran’s gun rights are nothing compared to the need to ensure that vets do not blow their brains out. Why should a veteran trust such professionals who regard Constitutional rights with such a cavalier attitude?
Returning veterans are justifiably upset. Legislation has already been proposed at the federal level to deprive those with PTSD of their gun rights based only upon the assessment of a doctor. At present, the only procedure for depriving an individual with mental health issues of the right to possess firearms is a finding of mental illness by a judge. There are many anti-gun zealots (many in government) that believe the road to hell is paved with such safeguards!
Veterans considering counseling for mental health issues are asking whether medical providers may be required to disclose mental health records to government bureaucrats at some point in time. Aren’t disgruntled veterans with guns the people that Homeland Security told us fit the profile for lone-wolf terrorists? The healthcare system, including the private sector, is on its way to a brave new world of uniform record-keeping that will interface electronically with the federal healthcare system.
Many doctors (especially within the public health sector) are already asking patients questions dealing with whether the patient has guns in the home, how guns are stored and whether trigger locks are utilized. Once the federal government gets involved with the allocation of medical resources, all kinds of safety issues suddenly become relevant because of the economic interest that the government has in allocating scarce hospital beds.
Although there are HIPAA laws that keep such records confidential, the federal government has passed many laws that are buried in thousands of pages of legislation already passed so quickly that even the sponsors of such laws have not had a chance to read them. I advise veterans and others not to seek counseling from mental health professionals where the federal government can gain access to any records- now or in the future.
Studies indicate that returning veterans experience stress at least partly due to reactions from family and friends that imagine a propensity for violence on the part of a veteran; i.e., the perceptions of others toward the vet. Ironically, our modern repugnance to any armed force is at least partly due to complacency bred by peace and freedom for which our warriors fought, killed and died. One antidote to PTSD is deep religious faith that recognizes and honors the values demonstrated by warriors on the battlefield.
Permalink
“A wise man attacks the city of the mighty
and pulls down the stronghold in which they trust.”
Proverbs 21:22
As the U.S. dollar gets ready to free-fall into oblivion, President Obama has presided over a radical remolding of the American economy during which the reality of the U.S. Government seizing corporations seems imminent. One of the reasons that the U.S. quarantined Castro’s Cuba after the Cuban Revolution was because Cuba nationalized assets belonging to U.S. citizens. Nevertheless, we may see the “takings” clause of the 5th Amendment shredded along with many of our other dearly purchased Constitutional rights.
Now we have seen men like Chas. Freeman, Jr. that shill for China and attack Israel nominated for important intelligence posts. Almost every cabinet level office that has been filled is staffed by henchmen of the gun-control lobby and we should keep our eyes on Van Jones, a former street agitator known for harassing the police in the San Francisco Bay Area. The group called ColorOfChange, formerly affiliated with Van Jones, has been busy calling for boycotts of Glen Beck because Beck referred to President Obama as a racist!
Jones himself stated that when he was jailed in San Francisco for participating in a protest against police brutality:
“I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist.”
In March, 2009, a number of concerned Americans, including the San Francisco Police Officer’s Association, began calling attention to the evidence implicating Obama cronies Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn in the 1970 murder of a San Francisco police officer. In light of what has transpired since inauguration day, it is worth taking another look at what some of us already knew about Obama during the “mainstream” campaign while the media turned a blind eye:
During the campaign, Obama resigned membership in his racist anti-American Chicagoland church (to which he belonged for over twenty years). Obama had previously called for unity and an end to the politics of division while including his anti-American pastor on his campaign committee.
There were efforts to distance himself from a long time friend, a Catholic priest for whom Obama had gone to bat in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois legislature. Sen. Obama won hundreds of thousands of taxpayer funding in order to fuel Father Pfleger’s ministry in Chicago. Father Pfleger accepted such largesse even while proclaiming that America is the worst sin in God’s eyes.
“In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers’ money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger’s work. Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association.”
Barack Obama had a long record of associating with anti-American radicals including William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn who were local activists in Hyde Park (the stronghold in Chicago’s South Side where the University of Chicago is located and one of the Midwest’s strongest left-wing bastions.
Dohrn and Ayers are better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement, according to Ben Smith at www.politico.com.
Obama was at Bill Ayers’ home when Alice Palmer stepped down from running for office and identified Obama as her successor in the race. The visit by Obama to their home — part of a campaign courtship — reflects more extensive interaction than has been previously reported, according to Smith.
Ayers and Dohrn were violent bombers and members of the violent SDS Weatherman faction that were wanted by the federal government for planning to kill members of the U.S. Armed Forces and other crimes.
“Politicians of an earlier generation had their own relationships with figures now far to their left. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for instance, interned at a radical San Francisco law firm while in law school.
Prof. Dohrn and Dr. Ayers disappeared in 1970, after a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse, and turned themselves into authorities in 1980. Ayers was never prosecuted for his involvement with the 25 bombings the Weather Underground claimed; charges were dropped because of improper FBI surveillance. Dohrn received a relatively light sentence for a terrorist when she refused to testify about what she knew.
Both have written and spoken at length about their pasts, and today he is an advocate for progressive education and a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago; she’s an associate professor of law at Northwestern University.
But — unlike some other fringe figures of the era — they’re also flatly unrepentant about the bombings they committed in the name of ending the war, defending them on the grounds that they killed no one, except, accidentally, their own members. But is it true to claim that the two only killed other radicals when the bombs (constructed to use against members of the U.S. Armed Forces) blew up by accident:
“The Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation authored a 1979 pamphlet on the WUO that reported, ‘On October 18, 1974, Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the WUO, testified before a US Senate Subcommittee that Bill Ayers, a WUO leader, had told him that Bernardine Dohrn, another WUO leader, had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco. Ayers told Grathwohl the bomb was placed on the window ledge and he described the bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it.’
Ayers was never convicted because of a legal technicality- the FBI surveilled and/or wiretapped Ayers illegally. However, Dohrn, who is married to Ayers, was jailed for less than a year for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating as to other Weather Underground members’ robbery of a Brinks truck, in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed.
“I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.”
Paradoxically, like many leftists that would justify violence in order to accomplish socialist political objectives, Sen. Obama has a soft spot in his heart for gun control. Even while he was telling rural voters during the campaign that he believed the Second Amendment protected individual rights, the Senator from Illinois reassured the liberal elite that he considered such rhetoric to be worthy of only derision and ridicule- window dressing for illiterate masses that cling to religion and guns.. See www.politico.com.
Sen. Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is not a mainstream church but one that is linked to “liberation theology“. Sen. Obama indicated that his former pastor, Rev. Wright, won Obama to “Christianity” and has been a mentor and spiritual guide to the Senator. The theology of the Reverend is a racist stew of Liberation Theology and black separatism. Liberation Theology is a radical Marxist-Leninist reinterpretation of the Bible that has taken root in many different denominations.
Sen. Obama’s pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr, not only has a militant past but travels with Louis Farrakhan, an Anti-Semite that believes whites, the U.S. and Zionist Jews are the axis of evil. Rev. Wright also has recently supported Hamas on his church webpages; Hamas is a recognized terrorist organization that has killed many innocent Israelis and Americans.
The United Church of Christ, Rev. Wright’s denomination, is being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service for a speech Obama delivered at a church conference in June in Hartford, Conn. The Wall Street Journal suggested that the South Side church may be violating its tax-exempt status by endorsing a candidate.
The New York Times presented a picture of Rev. Wright, a man that uses obscenities to get his points across, as vehemently opposed to America’s role in the world and Wright has made comments that seem to indicate we got what we had coming on September 11th.
The following excerpts from an article by By Ed Lasky show how Obama may pose a threat to Israeli and American security:
Senator Barack Obama has become the rarest of politicians: a man who has seemingly come out of nowhere to ascend to the top rank of Democratic Presidential candidates.
Obama’s spiritual mentor
Given the anti-Semitism that is sadly so often associated with other leaders and groups that have emphasized black separatism and empowerment (think Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton) perhaps some qualms might be warranted, particularly given some of the actions and statements of the Church’s minister.
Pastor Wright is a believer in “liberation theology,” which makes the liberation of the oppressed a paramount virtue. The language of liberation all too often veers off into anti-Jewish rants. For example, one of the founders of the movement, Gustavo Gutierrez, has stated that the infidelities of the Jewish people made the Old Covenant [between the Jews and God] invalid.” Pastor Wright is also a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in 1984 traveled with him to visit Col. Muammar al-Gadaffi, an archenemy of Israel’s and America and a firm supporter of terror groups.But what were his views before he ran for and was elected to the Presidency?
One other aspect of Obama’s support that was cause for some discomfort is the fact that he had the seal of approval from Jimmy Carter and billionaire George Soros-both influential and powerful people who take an unseemly glee in trying to undermine the American-Israel alliance. Soros has been funding powerful 527 groups, donating to candidates and others-such as Wes Clark-who are severe critics of Israel…
Furthermore, Obama stated that he supported a resumption of aid to the Palestinian government… the international community has laid down requirements for such aid to continue: not only must the Palestinians renounce terrorism, but they also must stop it…
Note: President Obama has now pledged millions of dollars in aid to Hamas, even though Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. Government.
Similarly, his use of the discredited term “cycle of violence” Obama displayed an approach that equates Palestinian terror attacks with Israeli defense actions. If Obama were true to his rhetoric of peace and the need to come together, why didn’t he speak out about Palestinian textbooks that teach children to hate and that celebrate martyrdom? (Even Hillary Clinton has done so).
No wonder Barack Obama was and is so popular among denizens of Hollywood…
The fact is that Barack Obama had a record on which he never had to run because the press was virtually silent as to serious questions raised by his record:
The Wall Street Journal provided the following in relation to how Obama came to hold office in Illinois:
In real life, it did not matter what Mr. Obama said on the stump or whether South Side voters were impressed. What mattered was that, beginning on Jan. 2, 1996, his campaigners began challenging thousands of petition signatures the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus would Mr. Obama win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast.
According to the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama’s petition challengers reported to him nightly on their progress as they disqualified his opponents’ signatures on various technical grounds – all legitimate from the perspective of law. One local newspaper, Chicago Weekend, reported that “[s]ome of the problems include printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing, a female voter got married after she registered to vote and signed her maiden name, registered voters signed the petitions but don’t live in the 13th district.”
One of the candidates would speculate that his signature-gatherers, working at a per-signature pay rate, may have cheated him by signing many of the petitions themselves, making them easy to disqualify.
In the end, Mr. Obama disqualified all four opponents – including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, and three minor candidates. Ms. Palmer, a former ally of Mr. Obama, had gathered 1,580 signatures, more than twice the 757 required to appear on the ballot. A minor, perennial candidate had gathered 1,899 signatures, suggesting the Obama team invested much time working even against him.
The act of throwing an incumbent off the ballot in such a fashion does not fit neatly into the narrative of a public-spirited reformer who seeks to make people less cynical about politics.
Commitment to old-style politics, exemplified by repeated endorsements of Chicago’s machine politicians, characterizes much of the President’s political career:
In the 2006 election, reformers from both parties attempted to end the corruption in Chicago’s Cook County government. They probably would have succeeded, too, had Mr. Obama taken their side. Liberals and conservatives came together and nearly ousted Cook County Board President John Stroger, the machine boss whom court papers credibly accuse of illegally using the county payroll to maintain his own standing army of political cronies, contributors and campaigners.
The since-deceased Stroger’s self-serving mismanagement of county government is still the subject of federal investigations and arbitration claims. Stroger was known for trying repeatedly to raise taxes to fund his political machine, even as basic government services were neglected in favor of high-paying county jobs for his political soldiers.
When liberals and conservatives worked together to clean up Cook County’s government, they were displaying precisely the postpartisan interest in the common good that Mr. Obama extols today. And Mr. Obama, by working against them, helped keep Chicago politics dirty. He refused to endorse the progressive reformer, Forrest Claypool, who came within seven points of defeating Stroger in the primary.
After the primary, when Stroger’s son Todd replaced him on the ballot under controversial circumstances, a good-government Republican named Tony Peraica attracted the same kind of bipartisan support from reformers in the November election. But Mr. Obama endorsed the young heir to the machine, calling him – to the absolute horror of Chicago liberals – a “good, progressive Democrat.”
Mayor Richard M. Daley – who would receive Mr. Obama’s endorsement in 2007 shortly after several of his top aides and appointees had received prison sentences for their corrupt operation of Chicago’s city government – was invested in the Stroger machine’s survival. So was every alderman and county commissioner who uses the county payroll to support political hangers-on. So was Mr. Obama’s friend and donor, Tony Rezko, who is now in federal prison awaiting sentencing after being convicted in June of 16 felony corruption charges. Rezko had served as John Stroger’s finance chairman and raised $150,000 for him (Stroger put Rezko’s wife on the county payroll).
See “Obama Played by Chicago Rules” by DAVID FREDDOSO; August 20, 2008; Page A19. Mr. Freddoso is the author of the just-published “The Case Against Barack Obama” (Regnery).
The other big Obama story that some segments of the media have done a fairly job at following:
Senator Barack Obama admitted that he had made repeated lapses of judgment in dealing with an indicted Chicago real estate developer, Antoin Rezko, and acknowledged that Mr. Rezko had raised more money for his political campaigns than he had previously disclosed.
The aspect of the Rezko story that has not been fully reported has to do with Obama’s possible Syrian ties to Rezko and at least one Rezko affiliate who contributed to Obama’s campaigns. The fact that Rezko and at least one of his associates were from Syria was not in and of itself sinister but we should have been informed about the possibility of a “Syrian connection” because there is a history of Democrats allowing themselves to be used by foreign powers in return for campaign contributions. According to Human Events:
PermalinkCompanion Security was headed by a former Chicago policeman with a troubled history, Daniel T. Frawley, in partnership with Mr. Rezko and in association with Daniel Mahru, the lawyer for the original contract and Mr. Rezko’s former business partner. In April 2006, Mr. Frawley entered negotiations with Governor Rod Blagojevich’s staff to lease a military facility in Illinois to be a training camp. In August 2006, Mr. Frawley started negotiations with Mr. Obama’s U.S. Senate staff to complete the contract.
The discussions with Mr. Obama’s staff continued over many months, including e-mails and conferences with an Obama staffer, Seamus Ahern. Questions raised by this contact go to the issue of whether or not Mr. Obama ever favored Mr. Rezko’s commercial ties. Mr. Obama has said often that he performed no favors for Mr. Rezko.
“Instruct the Israelites to bring you clear oil of beaten olives for lighting, to cause the lamp TO BURN ALWAYS. Aaron and his sons shall set them up in the Tent of Meeting, outside the curtain which is before the Ark of the Pact, to burn from evening to morning before the LORD. It shall be a due from the Israelites FOR ALL TIME, throughout the ages.”
[Exodus (Shemot) 27. 20 - 21 Tanakh, Torah]
The following account of the Maccabean battles is primarily from the “Battles of the Battle”, by Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon. The authors state that the purpose of the book is “to narrate the military history of the Bible in terms of modern military concepts and accepted terminology.” In the present essay we will suggest some examples as to how the Maccabean battles speak to principles of warfare over the centuries with special emphasis on the subject of how volunteer militia units stack up against professional armies.
There are issues of technology, intelligence and tactics but morale is also important. When a people suddenly confronts a foreign occupation force, what are the sources for building the quality of morale that it takes to face a determined and well-trained professional foe?
Herzog, who authored the chapters related to Maccabees, fought in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War as an officer in the battles for Latrun. He performed intelligence functions during World War II. From 1948 through 1962, Herzog was head of the IDF Military Intelligence Branch. He served as head of the Israeli Defense Forces again from 1959 to 1962 and retired with the rank of Major-General.
When the Revolt commenced in 167 BC, it had been four hundred years since any organized Jewish force had taken up arms. Bible readers will recall that when Israel became apostate by worshipping foreign “gods”, she was divided. The people of Yahweh were divided into two kingdoms- the Northern and Southern kingdoms- and then were separately taken into captivity. Cyrus, the Emperor of the Persians, a pluralistic society, sent the captive Israelites back to rebuild Jersusalem.
By the time of the Maccabean revolt, many centuries after Nehemia and Ezra had restored the Temple in Jerusalem, Alexander and his army had swept across Persia and Mesopotamia wielding Hellenistic culture.
The importance of Israel’s confrontation with Greek culture and philosophy in understanding the history of Israel cannot be overestimated. The Hellenistic mores, world view and policy objectives considerably outlasted Alexander’s lifetime.
Alexander divided his legendary empire among four generals. The Egyptian-based Ptolemies were rivals of the Seleucid Empire, based in Syria. Jerusalem and Judea were under the jurisdiction of the Ptolemies (a dynasty also descending from one of Alexander’s four successors). When Antiochus III wrested Palestine from the Ptolemies, he would have had a Jewish problem on his hands but followed a policy similar to the Romans who came later; i.e., a policy of allowing the Jews limited autonomy and religious tolerance.
Antiochus III reigned in a time when the power of Rome had not risen to the point where the Judeans constituted a threat to the Seleucids. When Antiochus IV came to power in 175 BC, Syria was faced with global threats to its trade routes running through Palestine; with the Ptolemies threatening in the south, and aggressive Romans, Parthians and Persians pressuring Syria’s other borders, Antiochus determined to enforce cultural uniformity.
The Seleucid authorities took over the priesthood and Hellenized the Temple worship in Jerusalem and a split occurred between Jews who compromised with the Greek culture and anti-Hellenist traditionalists, eschewing foreign culture and religion. The split became an open revolt at a time when the Syrian forces(Seleucid army troops) were retreating from a failed siege in Egypt (under impending threat of Roman intervention). The irate Antiochus Epiphanes ordered strong measures in Jerusalem. Syrian troops massacred the Jewish population there.
What followed came to be known by Jesus and present day Bible teachers as “the Abomination of Desolation”. The Temple of Solomon was relegated to the cult of Zeus and desecrated by sacrifices of swine. This set the stage for the appearance of an amazing breed of Jewish warriors that had not been seen since the ancient days of Israel’s Judges in before the advent of the Kingdom of Israel.
The Antiochus administration dispatched an officer named Apelles to the rural village of Modiin in order to suppress any Judaistic practices in the countryside. The means of ensuring that submission to Hellenistic culture was without reservation on the part of the Jewish underclass was to set up an altar and order Mattathias, the local Jewish priest, to sacrifice and eat the swine flesh. Mattathias refused.
When a more compliant fellow stepped forward, Mattathias went berserk with righteous indignation (like Samson or Jesus when he drove out the money-changers in order to cleanse the Temple from corruption, killing the traitor and Appelles. Mattathias and a handful of farmers took to the hills outside present-day Ramallah. The Judean terrain offered a mountain stronghold for the guerrilla force that was forming even as events propelled them onward.
The Maccabees organized a nationwide intelligence apparatus, refrained at first from aggressive operations and emphasized principles that went beyond mere cultural indoctrination. I imagine that there was school of sorts like Samuel’s School of the Prophets, wherein champions of the faith (see Hebrews 11 and the Books of Samuel) were studied along with Torah study (Five Books of the Law).
In Samuel’s time, the Philistines denied oppressed Israelites the fundamental right to sharpen their own farming implements; i.e., the Philistine instituted “gun-control” in the form of restrictions on edged weaponry. It is not easy to educate a people that have lived under oppression for so long that they have lost their identity as warriors and feel nothing but shame and conflict when law-givers like Moses or Samuel try to tell them, “This is who you are; your God destined you to be a warrior. Be strong and of good courage!”
In the beginning, the Maccabees may have been less than fifty able-bodied fighters out of a band of two hundred Jews that took to the Judean hills. Mattathias died in the first year of the revolt but designated Judas Maccabeus to lead Israel’s forces.
XML:
The Jewish farmers possessed weapons that were little more than slings and farming implements against a well-equipped, well-trained modern army by any standards- veteran Syrian soldiers reputed for ferocious cavalry charges, fierce infantry troops, chariots, elephants and well trained artillery engineers with machinery for launching large boulders- all the usual instruments and engines of classical warfare.
But the Seleucid training was geared towards conventional fighting. Sword, javelin, spear and arrow in the hands of large numbers of mercenaries soon gave way to a few committed fighters willing to hit their enemy, grab some weapons and then prepare to strike again. A few men operating with the advantage of surprise tied up many soldiers waiting to react defensively. The Jewish guerillas also had support from local populations and easily melted into the local landscape.
The rebels gradually assembled an arsenal of modern weapons- swords, bows, spears, maybe even some ballistas for throwing rocks and battering rams (if they weren’t too heavy to carry them into the hills after an attack). The Syrian troops were organized into tactical phalanx elements starting with the syntagma of 250 men, like a modern company. The conventional tactics are familiar to any student of shock troop warfare (evolved from the Grecian hoplite units) in which two armies press each other in a head on clash while skirmishers and cavalry protect the flanks.
The disadvantage of this kind of warfare against mountain fighters soon became apparent when Judas the Maccabee, Mattathias’ middle son, attacked Appolonius, who was advancing from Samaria to Jerusalem with 2,000 Syrian troops.
The Syrians entered a narrow passageway. Judas divided his fighters into four units that maneuvered Appolonius into a trap. Judas attacked two separate chiliarchiae of approximately 1,000 Syrian troops each from east and west. A chiliarchiae was being cut to ribbons in the defile while the other units kept pressing forward without knowing that they were about to be surprised from the rear. Appolonius, in the second chiliarchiae rode forward took to see what was occurring in front and took fire from both hillsides, thus, spilling out his life on that battlefield. These events left the entire Seleucid force in a state of utter destruction four miles north-east of Gophna. The Maccabees 600 fighters added more weapons to their considerable arsenal.
The Syrian General Seron was determined to avenge the Maccabean exploit that occurred at Nahal el-Haramiah. Gen. Seron stayed near the coast and turned inland near Jaffa past the present day airport of Lod. According to 1 Maccabees 3:16, the General used a secondary route to Jerusalem tht led through the same pass used by general Allenby when the British 90th Division advanced on Turkish held Jerusalem in 1917.
Any reader that reviews Biblical history along with the accounts of modern day warfare in Palestine, especially Israeli military history since 1948, cannot help but see many events that are proof that Yahweh still has his hand on Israel. One geographical location, such as General Seron’s route through Beth-Horon, can invite repeated conflicts over the centuries. The same route was chosen by Israeli forces in 1967 in order to take the Old City of Jerusalem.
The Battle of Beth- Horon comprised 4,000 troops (four chiliarchia) against 1,000 Jewish troops. Judas reminded his men that they were fighting for their homes, families and heritage- their heritage in Y-hw-h G-d (Hebrew mandates that the name of God (transliterated Jehovah in Anglo-Saxon texts) is unable to be pronounced; the exact pronunciation is consequently unknown. General Seron was the target of choice as he rode through the narrow passage at Beth-Horon. Seron made sure not to bunch his troops and thereby considerably diminished the possibility of another ambush.
As the Syrians worked their way up the hillsides toward Beth-Horon, perhaps a little more than a day’s march (fifteen miles by road from Jerusalem), Judas led the charge. He carried Appolonius’ sword and continued to do so from that time onward. Jewish militia men lay hidden on each side of the road to Jerusalem. They came out of the rocks with slings and bows and then closed in with swords chasing the surprised Syrians back toward the plains below.
Judah’s risky strategy of dividing his 1,000 men into four separate units destroyed the enemy’s plan to link up with the Syrian garrison in Jerusalem and to subdue the whole country from that command center.
Such lessons were similar to the experience of Americans later in history. Battlefields like New Orleans, where frontiersmen, pirates and Indians vanquished the most powerful army of the time, the veteran British regulars who had bested Napoleon in Europe and India. The Americans at the Battle of New Orleans had the long rifle, giving them a greater edge in technology, at least in terms of accurate firepower.
Back in the command centers of Antiochus, the news of Seron’s defeat caused the leaders to quickly change their plans by reassigning forces to use any and all means to search out and destroy the remnant of Judea and allot the land to aliens, a familiar experience for Israel and other conquered peoples dating back at least to the Assyrian occupation of the Northern Kingdom in 740 BC.
XML:
Thus, the stakes were high when three Syrian Generals bivouacked at Emmaus (present-day Imwas near Latrun). According to 1 Maccabee there were 40,000 Syrian infantry troops and 7,000 cavalry but 2 Maccabee estimates that the Syrian strength was higher. Judas was busy recruiting a force that mustered out at 6,000. He organized them as battalions (1,000 strong), companies (of 100 men), platoons of 50 and 10 man units. This is similar to the way modern armies are organized, according to Herzog. Judas somehow divided these units into four groups (1500 each), three of which were commanded by his three brothers.
Judas invoked the glorious heritage of Israel and the injunctions of the Law (Torah). As things shaped up, the two opposing camps were visible to each other.
The Syrian General Gorgias led his forces into the hills for a night attack (this was evidently a first for the conventionally minded shock-troops). The Israelis anticipated the night attack. When the Syrians launched their attack, the Maccabean camp was empty but Syrian scouts observed the Jewish rearguard in retreat and gave chase.
These actions say a great deal about the importance of intelligence, usually on the part of recon scouts who are trained to move under cover and report what they see with their eyes. We can deduce such a premise because of the fact that the Maccabean retreat was an elaborate deception intended to lure Gorgias into another defile. There Judas attacked the Syrian troops with units stationed in the defile during the night.
The Syrians anticipated Judas’ next move which was to attack the Seleucid-Syrian camp at dawn. The Seleucid forces were arrayed for battle, the element of surprise was lost. Judas attacked the western flank of the enemy phalanx, penetrated the phalanx and his men engaged the shock-troops in hand to hand combat. Another group of 1,500 Israelis attacked the remaining Syrians who were languishing complacently in the camp. Total confusion overtook the Syrians. The phalanx formation disintegrated early in the fighting, the troops guarding the baggage in the base camp were fleeing to the coast, as elephants, horses, camp followers, slave traders and soldiers screamed, stampeded and bled in the dust.
Gorgias turned to face the valley; the sight of the burning base camp panicked Gorgias’ forces and the Jewish troops went after them in hot pursuit. The recruiting got easier for Judas who now controlled the whole country with the exception of Jerusalem. The Jewish militia was now at 10,000 strong and, in addition to the great value of their other plunder, the amount of weaponry they seized put Judas’ Jewish militia volunteers in a strong position to lay siege to Jerusalem.
Lysias, a noteable within Antiochus Epiphanes’ own family, undertook to punish Judas’ audacity. The plan was to enter Jerusalem, avoid the mountains completely and operate from a secure fortress in Jerusalem called Acra. He traveled through Idumea (Biblical Edom), where the population was not friendly toward the Jews.
The Seleucid forces were at about 20,000 strong and, thus, outnumbered Judas’s men by about two to one. Again Judas picked the battle terrain, this time in an area that was carved up by wadis, the term for ravines and gully washes in that part of the world. And once again the Judean forces were divided into four groups but this time Judas had no illusions as to the possibility of splitting the enemy’s forces.
Judas’ guerilla forces disengorged from their hiding place in a ravine just as the Seleucids emerged from another defile. Jewish militia that Judas had held in reserve sealed the area along a half mile front as their brothers surprised their enemies from both sides. Imagine the dismay, humiliation and abject terror of that proud army and the carnage to which they were subjected! The Syrians lost approximately 5,000 men, mostly mercenaries of poor quality and Lysias performed a tactical retreat.
The Battle of Beth-Zur was a psychological and strategic victory for the rebels. Judas’ next objective was to rededicate the Temple. The Gentile people began a pogrom against the Jewish communities all over Syria. At the same time, Judas was entering Jerusalem, removing the offensive symbols of paganism from the temple and consecrating the restored Temple after rebuilding the altar. The Acra faced the Temple Mount.
The Maccabees contained the Syrian garrison within the walls of that mighty fortress as Judah evaluated the situation that was developing into a desperate holocaust for the Jewish communities outside of Jerusalem. Fortified Jewish towns were under siege and an expedition of Israeli special forces had to go to their rescue.
Now Judas’ ability to govern was on display, not only to the Seleucids but before Rome and all the world. Could Judas rescue his besieged brothers and sisters and still hold Jerusalem?
Dathema, sixty miles from present day Amman, Jordan, was the center of Jewish resistance. The enemy already had men scaling the walls of the fortified Jewish city. Judas successfully attacked the besieging forces from the rear, defeated a counter-attack and rescued his besieged countrymen in Trans-Jordan. He punished the hostile Idumeans (for helping the enemy)and burned the harbor and shipping at Jaffa in reprisal for the drowning of a Jewish community that had resided there.
The fortress of Acra now confronted Judas as his next big challenge. Judas’ forces possessed siege engines and in 162 BC they invested the citadel. This led to a protracted siege and Lysias returned with thirty war elephants and 30,000 troops, not including cavalry and chariot units. Judas’ militia had never faced elephants. War elephants bore turrets containing a driver and four fighters. The Maccabees were now fighting defensively and the psychological impact of the elephants cannot be overestimated.
Eleazer, Judas’ younger brother, made a daring foray to demonstrate that the elephants were vulnerable. He fought through the forces that protected the immense battle pachyderm platforms, gored an elephant’s underbelly and was crushed when the beast fell dead on top of him.
This battle of Beth-zechariah demonstrates the principle that civilian reserve militia cannot prevail in so-called set-piece operations against the inherent strength of trained regulars. The time and place need to be selected by the resistance leader with tactics that are appropriate to guerrilla warfare.
As a consequence of fighting the enemy on enemy terms, Jerusalem lay unprotected before Lysias. The besieged population of Jerusalem was low on food when Lysias was called away due to political conflicts within the royal family. Judah and Lysias negotiated terms guaranteeing religious freedom. Judas resolved, nevertheless, to fight on for total independence. The Seleucids themselves returned to slaughtering Jews, as soon as Lycias (regent over the Seleucid Empire) defeated Philip (Antiochus’ son). The guerrilla fighting was renewed in earnest.
Judas defeated the Seleucids at Nicanor (161 BC) and negotiated a treaty of alliance with Rome, thereby establishing Judea as an independent state recognized by Rome itself.
The new state of affairs set the Seleucid’s in opposition to Judean independence more firmly than ever before. The terms of the previous cease-fire granting religious freedom had lulled the Jews into a sense of false security. Therefore Judas was able to raise less than 3,000 “picked” militia members to fight 20,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry.
The Jewish volunteers melted away when the battle was joined, leaving Judas to fight on with 800 men against overwhelming forces arrayed against him. Judah raised the morale of his men and fought on valiantly, turning the tide several times before he finally fell in battle. The combination of bravery, moral force and outright inspirational leadership achieved victories that still have political and military ramifications to this day.
The events related by Herzog (merely summarized herein) and 1st and 2nd Macc, welded together the national character of the Jewish people like few other events in the history of that unique people. Had it not been for the Maccabean revolt, many of the events that characterize the New Testament Biblical narrative would be indecipherable.
In the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life there is reference to the Feast of Dedication which was celebrated in memorial to the restoration and consecration of the temple when the Maccabees entered Jerusalem. This is the holiday that we now call Chanukkah.
The following is an explanation of the spiritual significance of Chanukkah from a Messianic Jewish teacher:
The word “Chanukkah” in Hebrew literally means “dedication” in memory of the rededication of the Temple in 165 BC by Judas Maccabeus, after it had been polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes, the Syrian king. In 176 BC Antiochus tried to force the Jews to give up their faith and to adopt Greek customs. He persecuted the Jews who refused to do this.
Antiochus Epiphanes converted the Temple of the Lord to the worship of Zeus, and placed an image of Zeus the dominant Greek god (the abomination of desolation) in the Holy Place. He looted the Temple and ordered all Jews to bow down to the idols placed there. Then, he brought in a sow, and placed it on the Holy Altar in desecration of Almighty God’s Holiness. He brought waste and destruction - desecrated the vessels of the LORD in debauchery and drunkenness and put out the “Ner Tomid” ("Perpetual Light").
The Hasmoneans, the Maccabee family, led the Jews in a revolt. After several years of fighting, Judah and his men drove the Syrians out. On the 25th of Kislev (exactly 3 years after the defilement of the Sanctuary) in the year 165 BC they made their entrance into the Temple and rededicated it to the service of the Great God of Heaven.
In the Temple, the priests left a light burning in obedience to the command of the Holy One, but when they prepared to rekindle this light after the victory, they found that there was only enough oil to last one day.
This was a tragic discovery to the Jewish people for the Almighty’s command could not then be carried out. Search was made for the oil for this Lamp. The oil must be pure and prepared under the care of the high priest and sealed with his seal. No pure oil could be found nor could any be prepared before 8 days (7 days set apart to the Lord; the 8th day it became holy to the LORD). The small jug of oil bearing the seal of the high priest might suffice for only one day, but according to the Jewish people’s tradition the supernatural occurred, the oil lasted for the full eight days!
Thus, we see that military events put the hearts of a people on display before the world and before powers and principalities in heavenly places. Judas was a “hammer” (his name literally means “Hammer of God” in Hebrew- but correct me on this if I am wrong, Hebrew scholars), forging the will and the character of a nation. See also Charles Martel:
Effective intelligence networks along with flexibility of thought and the ability to shift tactics rapidly were important.
Taking the initiative decisively in order to decide the timing and terrain of the battle was just as important. Leadership was always an important element in the equation, of course. The leadership in Judas Maccabeus’ case conformed to Scriptural precedents for leadership toward which Judas steadfastly directed his followers. The account herein raises some important issues; further discussion should be forthcoming.
“A wise man scales the city of the mighty, and casts down the strength of the confidence thereof.” Proverbs 21:22
Permalink
We encourage reading all the Massad Ayoob articles. Go to the links herein and click on one of articles; there is a list of links to Ayoob’s articles about dealing with threatening situations at:
XML:
Ayoob is an eminent firearms author and lecturer trained in law and police work. Mr. Ayoob trains law enforcement, military and civilians in combat shooting skills and teaches at the Firearms Academy of Seattle (in Onalaska, Washington) every year.
If you think that small arms are not likely to be deployed as deadly instrumentalities of terror by jihadist or other terrorist teams read the following:
Armed Intrusions and Building Occupations
“Attackers using small arms are a growing threat. Even “routine” workplace shootings can prove disastrous for business continuity. A single disgruntled employee with no training, no accomplices, no support, and with little reconnaissance and preparation has been able in the past to penetrate a variety of workplaces, systematically murder workers, and wreak havoc on businesses.”
One such case occurred in a mall in Omaha and another earlier in the year in Salt Lake City, killing eight and five, respectively. Most of these tragedies occur in so- called “gun-free zones". Imagine what multiple coordinated, trained and well-equipped terrorist teams might be able to accomplish with detailed support and advance planning if they hit at the same time in several strategic locations.
“The prospect of a business office or campus takeover, a media spectacle hostage crisis, or instances of mass murder cannot be ruled out in the coming years.” (From Anticipating Terror Threats by Robert C. Chandler, Ph.D.)
XML:
The above-referenced Disaster Resource website is designed for business managers and disaster planning professionals. It contains many excellent articles for busibess management. The Chandler article makes an excellent point relating to how carefully the potential for attacks against business operations has been quantified by insurance actuaries since 911.
Those that are in denial about the potential for further attacks like the WTC attacks are already paying for potential damage in the cost of insurance premiums, directly or passed on via the price of goods and services. The economics of the insurance industry are far less susceptible to political manipulation than Fox News audiences, CNN viewers or, for that matter, MoveOn.Org enthusiasts.
Another good link is to the Firearms Academy of Seattle, Inc. which now offers a UTAH concealed firearm permit that is good in 27 states- and it only costs $85.00 to take the class which does not include the permit fee of $65.25.
http://www.firearmsacademy.com/utpermit.htm
FAS offers classes at almost every level of shooting from basic safety to advanced tactical and combat shooting with most types of firearms. Massad Ayoob is a regular lecturer at the Academy which includes legal professionals among its instructors. The law of armed defense is one of the primary components of the FAS course work.
I recently attended the Lethal Force Institute for four days and will discuss the details of the training at this site in the near future. Two days of classroom lecture pertaining to the legal elements of armed defense were followed by two days of hands-on firearms training with Ayoob and several other instructors providing excellent guidance.
We started in the classroom with detailed discussion as to when a reasonable person is justified in using deadly force. The equal force that is reasonable for a civilian is quite different than the necessary force deployed by a police officer. Carrying in public is a privilege so it is necessary for armed citizens to understand the legal and physical limitations presented in real life situations.
We are not forces of good battling forces of evil but men and women that are imperfect. It is important that as an armed citizen you are not provoking a disturbance in any way. The person that may end up confronting you in a parking lot or other public place has a family and wants to live as much as you do. The best way to confront an angry person is with calm well-measured words but if that other person is presenting deadly force and demonstrating to you that you are in jeopardy, you should not hesitate to stop that individual from taking the opportunity to separate you from your family and those that you love.
The circumstances that justify presenting deadly force are immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to innocent person(s). Any consent to enter into mutual combat negates innocence on your part and makes you part of the problem rather than part of the solution to the threat of criminal violence. Your words should be chosen carefully, for example, if another driver confronts you in a road rage incident.
If an unarmed attacker assaults you, lethal force is not justified without disparity of force. In other words, you cannot present your weapon if another man attcks with his bare hands- even if he is bigger than you! The bottom line is that you still have to know how to fight. If someone tries to take your weapon from its holster, the equation changes considerably.
There was recently a case in Sturgis, South Dakota where a Hell’s Angel (or several Hell’s Angel’s) had a police officer on the floor and may have been trying to take his weapon when he shot one of his attackers. The fact that the Seattle Police Officer (who was in Sturgis for some extra-curricular motorcycle activity) was on the floor where a boot can deliver a crushing blow, in and of itself put him in jeopardy of death or grave bodily harm.
When you add the fact that there were probably three attackers and they were allegedly attempting to remove his weapon, it is not hard to anticipate that he will probably not be charged with any crimes related to discharging his weapon. A Hell’s Angel went to the hospital and it remains to be seen whether there will be more to the story.
In the legal world every rule has its exceptions. The discussion herein is not intended to impart the details of when to use lethal force. Our only goal is to encourage taking a class because no amount of reading is going to prepare you to fight for your life on the street or in the legal aftermath of a firefight. One thing is certain, at some point you will have to articulate your decisions after the fact and your decisions and statements pertaining to why you decided as you did will have consequences that will determine a great deal about your future. Although most attorneys (including this one) will advise you to remain silent, it is important to identify yourself as the victim of an assault and make sure the officers know who the witnesses are and that you feared for your life. It may also be important to identify potential evidence (e.g., weapons and/or spent casings).
Officers understand the importance of not talking unnecessarily right after undergoing so much stress. Police officers are taught to wait until they can speak with their attorneys after a shooting incident and they will respect your decision to wait until your attorney can be present.
The criteria in determining whether to use lethal force is to look at the assailant’s ability to produce death or grave bodily harm based on what you know at the time that you are forced to make the decision. In other words, even if an attacker is coming at you with no weapon in his hands, you may have a medical condition or know of some previous history on the part of the assailant that puts you in reasonable fear that he will injure you to the point of producing death or grave bodily harm (e.g., he is known to you to be prone to weapons produced from concealment and he kills or maims his victims). On the other hand, if there is any way to avoid taking a life, take the option that spares a life even if that means letting an assailant or intruder in your home run away.
Women are usually considered to lack the upper body strength to defend against a male attacker and so use of deadly force may be justified for a female under circumstances where a smaller, weaker man would be expected to defend without use of a weapon.
Opportunity must also be present. A man with a baseball bat that is 100 yards away from you does not have the opportunity to hurt you no matter how much he verbally threatens to hurt you. On the other hand, an athletic individual with a knife or other contact weapon can run twenty feet and cut you before you can react.
We ran drills in the Lethal Force class and it only takes slightly over a second for a determined assailant to reach you. Unless you are exceptionally well-trained and have quick reflexes, your reaction time (ability to make the decision to draw and shoot) is probably over two seconds. You may hit center of body mass with one or more rounds and be killed by the momentum of a knife-wielding assailant’s body charging at you.
See Jihad.
Ability, opportunity and jeopardy are the criteria. Three men with sheath knives on their belts walking past you on the street have the ability and opportunity to produce death but the mere fact that they are approaching you on the sidewalk does not indicate jeopardy without more. On the other hand, if one of them takes out a knife and demands your wallet… well, it is just possible that you are in jeopardy!
Normally the police will apprehend burglars soon enough and you and I do not have the training to deal with holding an intruder for the police. The “experts” that claim that most burglars are not armed are wrong and when the perpetrators are in the penitentiary they have all day long to practice furtively producing weapons and disarming people like you and I that have some training but not enough.
If you think you are dealing with someone that is determined to come back and harm you and your family and feel that you have to hold them at gunpoint you should not appoach them and you should stay behind cover. Have someone else call, the police and provide your description to the 911 operator along with the fact that you are holding the intruder at gunpoint.
If at all possible, stay in a safe room in the event that a home invasion is occurring and call the police rather than exposing yourself to an intruder that has the tactical advantage (and maybe several friends to back him up). We cannot go beyond the information already provided herein because much of the training information could be used against honest people.
Remember that if you ever have to make such a decision, you are making a split-second decision that you will have to live with the rest of your life. If you hesitate or make the wrong decision, your life may end right at that critical place and time. If you panic and draw your gun where no jeopardy exists, the mere fact that three men on the street had the opportunity and ability to hurt you will not get you out of charges of displaying a weapon with the intent to intimidate or even more serious charges.
So spend the time and money to get trained now. You cannot gain the training you need to exercise your privilege to carry a weapon in public just from a website or a book. The fact that people like you and I are willing to learn from professionals is evidence that we take our responsibilities as armed citizens very seriously and that we are facing the risks honestly.
Please forward our site to friends. Family and friends serving overseas and at home in the armed forces need to know that we appreciate their role in keeping the rest of us safe. Please keep us informed.
In closing, we also need to let members of the armed forces know that we agree with their mission and appreciate their ongoing fight for our freedom. Without our police and armed forces, we could not debate the issues and say almost anything we damned-well please without getting our heads sawed off with a blunt scimitar. The people of Iraq and other countries are also starting to experience peace and freedom from terrorism due to the efforts of our fighting men and women.
Bear in mind that the watchman watches in vain unless God guards the city.
Permalink
Federal Way recently had an unfortunate incident where a law enforcement officer (LEO) shot at a man that was threatening the officer with a gun that looked like a real gun; shooting the subject would have been justified. But why did the officer shoot twice and miss?
Officers are trained not to shoot unless an opponent presents deadly force. An officer is trained to aim for center of body mass. The primary objective is to stop an opponent from inflicting death or grave bodily harm. If the LEO hesitates or misses, the risk is that the officer or bystanders will become victims. The fact that the Federal Way incident occurred at a strip mall raises the issue of bystanders being hit by the LEO’s shots. The officer missed his shots. This raises the issue of whether the officer would be alive had the subject been carrying a real gun.
LEOs justifiably hold Monday morning quarterbacks, including many lawyers, in disdain. Every time an LEO shoots at an assailant, no matter how justified, lawyers reconstruct every moment before, during and after the shooting. A few thoughts on training are in order, nevertheless.
LEO firearms training starts with the LEO’s desire to return alive to loved ones at the end of the shift! Although officers must meet basic proficiency standards, many of them have never fired a shot in self-defense. Many competent “civilians” can and do take the time to become trained and acquire gun handling skill that equals or exceeds the average LEO’s skill.
Consider the effect on motor skills as adrenaline starts pumping along with the heavy first trigger-pull that commonly causes LEOs to jerk the first shot with some semi-automatics under stress. Studies have proven that officers and civilians that participate in exercises simulating real-life scenarios have a much better chance of surviving a gun fight. Competitions that combine speed, movement, shooting from cover and multiple targets create the stress necessary to increase LEO and civilian survivability.
Studies show that mistaken shootings are more likely to happen in low light. Shooting an innocent subject as he presents his identification may be blamed on racism when lack of low-light training is to blame. How many departments have a house where officers can shoot at targets in a darkened environment? It is unlikely such opportunities are available unless the LEO pays for private training.
FWPD trains its LEOs beyond the minimal levels required by law enforcement; neverthless, a defensive handgun class like the one at the Firearms Academy of Seattle teaches civilians and LEOS how to survive without incurring legal liability and the experience will enhance your appreciation for LEOs protecting us on the street. Marty Hayes told me that it is not uncommon for LEOs to attend FAS as a unit at their own expense. Whether or not you are an LEO, you owe it to your family to remain alive. If you are a civilian with a CPL and exercise your right to bear arms, you are responsible to know the laws, be safe and be proficient.
Permalink
