China: Dude fights off an excavator sent to demolish his building with fireworks.

Sound ON pic.twitter.com/mHV3PlV28c

— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) June 23, 2022

HT: Vanderleun.

No embed available. Click on image to go to video. Read the Coulter column first.

Last May 30th, bar owner and Marine Corps veteran Jacob Gardner, in the course of defending his father and his property, ran afoul of BLM protestors. Two protesters knocked him to the ground and began grappling with him. He fired two warning shots and they retreated, but another protester named James Scurlock put him in a chokehold from behind. Gardner shot Scurlock who then died. Scurlock had been engaged previously in vandalizing businesses and had an extensive criminal record.

An open-and-shut case of self defense, you’ll say. Right! Well, not in democrat-controlled cities like Omaha.

Scurlock’s family complained, a couple of sexually-deviant state senators demanded Gardner be indicted, and democrat district attorney Don Kleine obliged. Gardner was charged by a grand jury on September 15th with Manslaughter, attempted first-degree assault, making terroristic threats, and felony use of weapon. He faced a potential 95 years in prison. On September 20th, the day Gardner was scheduled to surrender to police, he killed himself.

Moral: Whites guilty of self defense in democrat political strongholds with large black populations are going to get the kind of justice that we have heard so much about occurring a century ago to blacks in the Deep South. The only answer I can see is just don’t live, work, or do business in such locations.

Read Ann Coulter on the Jake Gardner tragedy.

Posted on Facebook:

“Once a Marine, Always a Marine

Thoughtfully yours,
An armed Marine
Semper Fi!”

Nice story. It made me smile.

Of course, there is no truth in it. The photo is actually of James Blake Miller, who was famously photographed in Fallujah in Iraq in 2004.

Fuzzy, but Rittenhouse is identifiable.

The liberal Chicago Tribune strokes its chin, and pondering Kyle Rittenhouse’s chances in court, leans heavily in the direction of conviction.

Could prosecutors show that Rittenhouse, 17, of Antioch, committed an unlawful act that provoked attacks on him? If so, the law holds that he would have to show he exhausted his chances to flee or otherwise avoid being harmed before shooting, attorneys said. And whomever was the aggressor, Rittenhouse would have to show he reasonably believed he had to shoot to prevent his death or serious injury. …

Videos show that Rittenhouse was among numerous civilians armed with rifles who interjected themselves into the protests, property destruction and looting that followed Blake’s shooting. Kenosha County prosecutors have charged Rittenhouse with murder, first-degree reckless homicide and four other counts. …

Liberal commentators have argued that Rittenhouse needlessly killed two people after wading heavily armed into unrest over police violence against African Americans. New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote that, “Rittenhouse should not have been there, and we should agree — all of us — that the shooting should not have happened.”

It is interesting that liberals consider Rittenhouse agreeing to protect a friend’s business and property from looting and destruction amounts to “interjecting himself” and “[he] should not have been there,” while they seem to see no problem at all in persons rioting and committing arson being there. All the culpability for the “shooting [that] should not have happened” belongs to Kyle Rittenhouse, not to the rioters who attacked him.

Once again, we find that Leftism constitutes a systematic inversion of values and of reality.

RTWT

——————————

Wisconsin Right Now has an interesting report bearing on the issue of provocation.

The criminal complaint charging Kyle Rittenhouse with two counts of homicide leaves out a key point: Why Joseph Rosenbaum, a convicted sex offender, was chasing the 17-year-old in the first place.

Two eyewitnesses interviewed by Wisconsin Right Now say Rosenbaum was enraged because Rittenhouse, and others, were using fire extinguishers to put out an arson fire in a dumpster that Rosenbaum, and others, were trying to push toward police squad cars.

They also believe that Rosenbaum may have been determined to rob Rittenhouse because the teenager seemed like the “weak” member of the herd and had walked off by himself. They think this because they say Rosenbaum, 36, “intricately” tied his shirt around his face, they believed to conceal his identity. Whether that would have been the case is obviously an unknown, but it was their perception.

The two eyewitnesses, Justice and Dylan Putnam, were willing to put their names to it. Videos also back up pieces of what they told us. There’s video of Rittenhouse with the fire extinguisher, video of Rosenbaum pushing the burning dumpster, and, of course, video of Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse down and cornering him behind a car before Rittenhouse opened fire.

“Kyle took a fire extinguisher from someone,” said Justice Putnam, who added that she saw him trying to put out the arson fire in the dumpster. “That started the altercation.”

RTWT

Wouldn’t it be hilarious to listen to a prosecuting attorney trying to argue that Rittenhouse “provoked” his attackers by trying to put out an arson fire?

Commentator “Austrian” writes, at AR15.com forums:

By now the majority of you will have seen or heard of the pair of engagements in Kenosha, Wisconsin (hereinafter the “Engagements”) between one Kyle Rittenhouse and a number of other individuals, some recently departed, others now unfortunately unable to operate a keyboard with any efficiency, particularly when proper capitalization is required of their typewritten text. In the wake of these encounters it is quite something to see the degree of bad information, misinformation, and disinformation that has showered the socialinterwebsitetubes, particularly from a tactical and legal perspective.

On the tactical side, it is surprising that matters seem so distorted, since the Engagements must rank among the most comprehensively filmed deadly force CQB incidents in some years (and one of the only engagements in recent memory involving an AR system). In fact, despite the poor lighting conditions, the mobile nature of the camera operators (none, to my knowledge, trained combat photographers), and the chaos of small unit action that will be familiar to anyone who has been in the midst of it, it is possible to view the most cogent parts of the engagement in vivid detail, from multiple camera angles, and with stereo sound. On the legal side, well, many new expert commentators may lack a formal law degree, but they did stay at a Holiday Inn Express (7887 94th Ave, Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, 53158) and probably ordered several on-demand Better Call Saul episodes the night before the Engagements besides.

Given the sudden merger of two subjects of great interest to me, and a five hour phone call I had with an old acquaintance now an employee of the Federal Government of the United States based not far from Wisconsin, I could not but look into the Engagements more carefully. Having done so, I could not but type up my analysis. Having done so I could not but seek a forum for publication.

Rittenhouse prevailed in at least four physical encounters, at least one if not two of which involved contests for control of his weapon by larger, presumably stronger assailants. …

Legal Analysis:

Engagement 1:

Reasonable belief…

In the initial encounter with Short Bald Subject, Rittenhouse can be seen turning at least once to face the pursuing Short Bald Subject after Short Bald Subject hurled an object at Rittenhouse. In that quick turn it is possible that Rittenhouse brought his rifle barrel to bear. Short Bald Subject seems to hesitate, but continues to come on just as strong thereafter, charging Rittenhouse at full tilt. I would be at pains to articulate an argument that Rittenhouse did not reasonably believe that force was necessary to avoid a physical confrontation.

..that he faced imminent…

You don’t get a lot more imminent than an adult male charging you at full tilt, especially as close as Rittenhouse permitted Short Bald Subject to approach (1.0-1.5 meters from the look of it).

…danger of death or great bodily harm…

It is entirely reasonable, within the context of civil unrest, mob action, and a lack of any real police presence, to expect that a full on physical fight with a determined adversary will result in your great bodily harm. I would expect that Rittenhouse’s own exposure to police cadet programs and training would make this reasonable belief by him easy to establish based on what he may have learned in such programs, but anyone watching the news or even vaguely aware of the propensity for mob violence in cities facing unrest (and Kenosha in particular) would be reasonable in fearing great bodily harm or death if they are jumped in that context. Ironically, Rittenhouse’s own words in the prior video interview, that he was armed because he might have to go “into harm’s way” is a good piece of evidence vis-a-vis his state of mind at the time.

…and, that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent said harm.

Again, Short Bald Subject was not stopping for anything. Given the video evidence of Short Bald Subject’s disposition at the Ultimate station earlier, I suspect any third party will be able to safely infer that the prison-hardened Short Bald Subject did not intend to give Rittenhouse an over-the-knee spanking. …

Engagement 2:

Reasonable belief…

In the video of the chase immediately before Engagement 2 Rittenhouse can be clearly seen looking behind him, obviously registering the number of pursuers he faced. If he had any doubts about their intentions the blow delivered to the rear of his head by White Shirt (a Misdemeanor Battery in Wisconsin) should have made them clear. When Rittenhouse fell to the ground and turned to face his attackers he had a view of at least a dozen individuals approaching him, including the four primary assailants.

..that he faced imminent…

While Red Backpack is deterred by the sight of the barrel of the rifle coming to bear and therefore receives no fire, in each of the cases where Rittenhouse used deadly force (Light Pants, Huber, Grosskreutz) Rittenhouse fires when contact is either imminent or already initiated.

…danger of death or great bodily harm…

An attempted drop kick to the head (White Pants), a skateboard-wielding assailant fighting for control of Rittenhouse’s weapon (Huber), and a handgun carrying assailant that fakes surrender to try and gain tactical surprise (Grosskreutz).

Nearby an individual with a blunt instrument held upward. A group of pursuers who had chased Rittenhouse two or three blocks already shouting out things like “Get his ass!” and who swarmed on him when he fell.

…and, that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent said harm.

Rittenhouse’s attackers were undeterred by the presence of and then even the discharge of his weapon. Still two of them (Huber and Grosskreutz) attacked. …

Tactical conclusions:

Effective slings are essential elements of weapon retention in CQB and the correct setup is a huge equaliser even against melee encounters with larger adversaries. This is a lesson for me in particular. I have resisted sling systems in the past.

Don’t rely on firearm discharges or pointing to deter opponents determined to close distance with you.

Not that you needed reminding, but rifle stopping power is far superior to handgun stopping power. All three subjects Rittenhouse scored clear hits on were out of the fight immediately. One (Grosskreutz) melted down even though he had ample means to continue the fight. Grosskreutz is only alive today because of Rittenhouse’s amazing (perhaps even naive) restraint. I don’t know of any tactical instructor that wouldn’t counsel a follow-up shot to center mass on Grosskreutz immediately after the arm-strike.

If attacking an individual armed with a firearm do not flinch no matter what. If you commit to grappling with a rifle or pistol holder you have to see your attack through. Four larger, assailants, one armed with a blunt instrument (skateboard) and one with a handgun were unable to subdue a nearly prone Rittenhouse because they shied from the muzzle blast at key moments. Had Grosswreutz followed through with his initial charge after the fatal center mass hit on Huber, Rittenhouse would likely have been subdued.

RTWT

HT: Vanderleun.

In St. Louis, protesters knocked down a gate and invaded a private road in search of Mayor Lyda Kewson’s home. They wanted her resignation after she the released names and addresses of residents who suggested defunding the police department. The Mayor’s home was invaded and occupied, and presumably looted.

Meanwhile, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, two married local attorneys, succeeded in saving their own stately home nearby in the same historic district by standing outside with guns and standing off the mob. Liberals were outraged.

Biz Pac Review:

The radical left is evolving into the monster that can no longer be controlled, with the Democratic Party playing the role of Dr. Frankenstein.

At the same time, American citizens are gearing up for the challenge, as seen Sunday in St. Louis when an armed couple stood guard outside their historic home located on a private road, as Black Lives Matter protesters marched outside.

The dramatic scene was either inspirational or terrifying, depending on your views of private property and the God-given inherent right to defend yourself.

Organizers can be seen in the video moving the mob along, as the husband and wife hold a pistol and automatic rifle outside the upscale property.

With rioters burning and looting all across America these past weeks, destroying all that stands in its path, the couple cannot be blamed for wanting to protect the palace.

The words of an organizer of the protest, Ohun Ashe, as reported by KSDK, adds to that concern: “It’s meant to be disruptive. It’s meant to be disturbing.”

The home is reportedly on the National Historic Register, as Ian Miles Cheong, the managing editor of Human Events, tweeted.

Hundreds of protesters were marching to the home of Mayor Lyda Krewson, calling for the Democratic politician’s resignation for releasing the names and addresses of residents wanting to defund the police department, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. …

The couple seen above are neighbors of the mayor, and their home is on a private road, the newspaper reported.

As BLM protesters march down a public street, a faction can be seen breaking off to enter through a side gate to gain access to the property.

A sign posted outside the gate clearly reads: “Access Limited to Residents.”

The CBS affiliate KMOV noted in a photo description that protesters “broke down a gate in the neighborhood to march past their home.” …

At one point, the wife walked out onto the lawn and is seen pointing her handgun at protesters.

[T]he rage mob is offended that the property owners are willing to protect the mansion to the death, if necessary.

[T]he law in Missouri appears to be on their side.

RTWT

———————–
More at Todd Starnes

The British Daily Mail is anti-rich and anti-self defense.

There were several threats yesterday about ANTIFA moving its violent protests, the looting and burnings, out of the cities into the residential suburbs.

Brandon Morse warns that trying that, in America, would be a VERY BAD IDEA.

Rioting in a city is, for all intents and purposes, safe for the rioter. Even if you do have a confrontation with police, you’re more than likely going to get a few bumps and bruises. At worst, some blood might be drawn from superficial wounds. The worst that may befall you is if your fellow rioters turn on you for any reason. Then you’ll really face serious injury, though more than likely, you’re just going to riot, loot, destroy, and go home.

The rules change in the suburbs. You’re not robbing a private store and destroying public property anymore. Now you’re in home territory. The house is full of valuable possessions and luxuries, yes, but more than that, this location has family members in it. Wives, children, and even beloved pets.

You’re in a different playing field now. Here the stakes are a lot higher for the victims of rioters, and as such, the stakes will rise for you. You’re no longer just facing an arrest charge or a few bumps and bruises. You’re now playing with your life.

I want anyone in Antifa or rioting groups to know that it was estimated that there were 350 million guns in America…back in 2017. Also, that was the conservative estimate. The number is more likely double that, and with more being added to the count every day.

Events big and small cause gun sales to skyrocket. Former President Obama could just glance at a gun and it’d cause people to purchase one. Recently, gun sales shot up thanks to the pandemic due to the idea that supplies may run out and people would have to defend their homes, families, and possessions.

The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not the person on the other side of the door that you’re about to try to break down is one of those people who purchased a firearm. Every home you try to gain access to is a roll of the dice, and the odds don’t look good for you.

You may be able to get away with throwing rocks at windows, maybe even smash up a few vehicles on the street. You might bust up a few light posts and trash someone’s yard. That you’ll leave a mess and get away safely is probably true, provided you don’t run into an armed homeowner who doesn’t know the gun laws in his state well.

But rest assured, they’ll be watching your every move and the vast majority of people watching you will have a firearm in their hand, ready to use it. The moment you cross the threshold, your life is forfeit. You start trying to set someone’s home on fire, your life is forfeit. You begin attempting to bring harm to residents inside a home, your life is forfeit.

You’re far more likely to die in the suburbs than in the city in this situation. You may think moving the riots into neighborhoods is going to play out the same way. It’s not. You’re at a massive tactical disadvantage. The residents know these streets, the layout of their homes, and the defense capabilities of their residence and themselves.

You don’t. Each home will be different, each resident will have different approaches, and each home may have more than one or two gun wielders inside. The goal isn’t non-violent control of the situation now. It’s not about tear gas and high-pressure hoses now. Now it’s deadly force.

RTWT

SIG makes more than one model chambered in .45 ACP, but Lance is probably referring to the SIG 220.

Spectator jounalist Kapil Komireddi looked for advice on choosing a self-defense firearm. A retired FBI agent sent him to the horse’s mouth for the answer.

I consulted with a friend, a retired FBI special agent who teaches firearm safety. ‘What will you be using the gun for?’ he asked. ‘Self-defense,’ I replied. ‘Then the .45 Sig Sauer is the best,’ he advised. ‘But the problem with that gun is confidence. People are intimidated by its recoil, muzzle flash and noise. Shooting it often becomes spray and pray.’ He suggested I go meet a man called Lance Thomas for insight.

‘The .45 Sig Sauer is the best gun to have in a gunfight,’ Thomas concurred. I believed him. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, he faced off against 11 armed gunmen in four separate gunfights. Thomas shot six of them and killed five. He became known as ‘the urban gunfighter’ and appears in Paul Kirchner’s 2001 book The Deadliest Men: The World’s Deadliest Combatants Throughout the Ages, alongside Geronimo, Andrew Jackson and Wild Bill Hickok.

Thomas owned a watch store and back then jewelers in LA were plagued with armed robbery. ‘It was not if, but when, I was going to get robbed,’ he recalled. He arranged an assortment of pistols under the counter for the fateful day. He’d never been to a shooting range or fired any of them. Nor did he know if they would actually fire.

In the first attack, a gunman aimed at Thomas’s face. He responded as planned, pulling a gun from under the counter and shooting his attacker, who survived and went to prison. Later, two brothers came into his shop and threatened him at gunpoint. Thomas shot them both. My FBI friend visited him after those incidents and suggested Thomas get rid of most of his guns, adopt the .45 and practice using it. ‘You want a weapon that will absolutely incapacitate the person you’re defending yourself against,’ he advised.

I was surprised to find a kinship in Lance Thomas. But, like me, he wasn’t comfortable with guns. He wasn’t a hunter. In fact, he recalled his one experience shooting a bird with remorse. And he would much prefer to go after poachers than big game.

‘My self-defense started when I was alone and had a gun pointed at me,’ Thomas said. ‘It wasn’t an issue of robbing me or the watches. Those robbers were seeking to negotiate my life. My life is not negotiable.’

He told me I should have a gun I’m comfortable with and learn how to operate it. ‘Any man with any strength should go to a .45,’ he said — it has a large capacity, excellent sight radius, exceptional accuracy and reliability, and a high incapacitation factor.

I decided then and there that my favorite gun is the gun that will save my life.

RTWT

—————————–

NYM mentioned Lance Thomas back in 2011. link

Fits in the pocket just fine.

Larry Correia differs from most people talking about the Parkland High School shootings in that he actually knows something about guns.

Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.

Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away. After Colombine law enforcement changed their methods in dealing with active shooters. It used to be that you took up a perimeter and waited for overwhelming force before going in. Now usually as soon as you have two officers on scene you go in to confront the shooter (often one in rural areas or if help is going to take another minute, because there are a lot of very sound tactical reasons for using two, mostly because your success/survival rates jump dramatically when you put two guys through a door at once. The shooter’s brain takes a moment to decide between targets). The reason they go fast is because they know that every second counts. The longer the shooter has to operate, the more innocents die.

However, cops can’t be everywhere. There are at best only a couple hundred thousand on duty at any given time patrolling the entire country. Excellent response time is in the three-five minute range. We’ve seen what bad guys can do in three minutes, but sometimes it is far worse. They simply can’t teleport. So in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back.

So if we can’t have cops there, what can we do?

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response.

RTWT

HT: Gail Goodman.

Why you should carry a 1911.