A Geek With Guns

Chronicling the depravities of the State.

Archive for the ‘Self Defense’ tag

Labor Versus Capital

without comments

“Labor is superior to capital,” the gathered mob yelled as they raised their crude clubs above their head in anticipation of their seemingly inevitable victory over the poor bastard they had cornered.

Then their would-be prey pulled out a gun.

Written by Christopher Burg

April 5th, 2017 at 10:00 am

Posted in Economics

Tagged with ,

Everything is Stand Your Ground Law Now

without comments

If three armed individuals break into your home and you shoot them does that fall under stand your ground doctrine? According to our friends across the pound it does:

The intruders – who police say were armed with brass knuckles and a knife – were shot by a 23-year-old man in an act of “self-defence”, officers said.

The son may not face charges due to so-called stand your ground laws.

[…]

Two of the teenagers died inside the home and one ran outside before dying in the driveway.

I understand that learning what stand your ground doctrine means takes a whole 30 seconds of Google searching and that’s a lot of time when you’re trying to get your article in front of people who have the attention span of a goldfish. Still, it would benefit everybody if the facts being reported were accurate. In that sprit I will clarify the difference between castle doctrine, what the author was probably thinking of, and stand your ground.

Castle doctrine states that an individual has the right to defend themselves in their home without a duty to retreat. Stand your ground doctrine states that an individual has a right to defend themselves wherever they are, assuming they have a right to be there, without a duty to retreat. This case would fall more under castle doctrine than stand your ground.

But even in the absence of either law, assuming the facts currently being reported are accurate, this case looks like a pretty clear example of regular old self-defense. Three armed individuals wearing masks smashed a sliding glass window to gain entry into the home. That signals intentions that aren’t good for the homeowner.

You don’t find Girl Scouts smashing sliding glass windows to sell homeowners cookies. Even Jehovah Witnesses don’t go that far. So it’s fairly safe to assume that somebody breaking into your home doesn’t have good intentions.

Written by Christopher Burg

March 29th, 2017 at 11:00 am

You Gotta Pump Those Numbers Up

without comments

With Hillary running for president and Obama occupying the White House, last year was a good year for the firearm market. Gun sales were up, ammunition sales were up, and the number of issued carry permits were up. Even a socialist paradise like Minnesota saw a record number of issued carry permits:

Law enforcement issued more than 71,000 permits to Minnesotans allowing them to carry a firearm in public, a record one-year total and a sharp increase from 2015, state officials said Wednesday.

As of Wednesday, the total number of valid permits in Minnesota was 265,728, the highest total ever reported in the annual release from the Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Roughly one year ago, that total was 217,909.

Of course, those are rookie numbers and, unfortunately, I’m expecting that number to drop. Politicians who favor gun control are the best thing going for the firearm market. When people are told they won’t be able to buy something in the near future they rush out and buy it. Standard capacity magazines will fly off of the shelf when politicians start whispering about passing legislation restricting magazines to 10 rounds. AR-15s and AK-47s will fly off of the shelf when politicians start whispering about banning modern rifles. The best way to bolster the sale of something is to get a politician to threaten to ban it.

Written by Christopher Burg

March 2nd, 2017 at 10:00 am

Without Government Who Would Protect the People

without comments

When I discuss anarchism with statists they always have a litany of excuses to justify why they believe the violence of the State is necessary. Roads are a popular one but another popular excuse are the police. Statists always want to know who will provide protection in a stateless society. One characteristic of statists that always amuses me is their insistence that anarchists solve problems that their precious government haven’t managed to solve. So my usual response to the question of police is asking who provides protection now.

Let’s consider the security market. If the State’s police were doing an adequate job of providing protection one would expect that the security market would be pretty small. But the security market is booming. Homeowners have subscribed to security services such as alarm systems for decades now. Surveillance cameras have been around for decades as well. At first surveillance cameras were used in stores to deter and identify thieves but now the price of decent quality cameras is low enough that one can find them in homes. Other security products that are becoming popular are films that can be applied to windows to make breaking in by smashing through a windows very difficult. Door locks, padlocks, and other forms of access control have existed for ages. It’s not unusual for companies to hire private security guards. Some companies even hire armed security guards.

Even the personal defense market is booming. Self-defense classes are available in even modestly sized townships. The number of carry permits being issued has continued to increase because many people, such as myself, realize that the only effective form of self-defense is what you have on you. In addition to carry permits, handguns designed to be easy to carry have been selling very well because people realize that the State’s police will take minutes, if you’re lucky, to get to you.

The State hasn’t done an effective job of providing security, which is why the market has stepped in. In the absence of government the market will continue serving the exact same function it’s serving today.

Written by Christopher Burg

February 23rd, 2017 at 11:00 am

Social Media for Activists

with one comment

After eight years of unexplained absence, neoliberals who are critical of the State have returned. I’m not sure where they were hiding but I’m glad to see that they’re safe and sound. But a lot has change in eight years so I’m sure many of them are out of the loop when it comes to online security. For example, what if you’re a federal employee who was told by your employer to shut up and you wanted to criticize them for it but didn’t want to be fired from your parasitic job? This isn’t as easy as opening a Twitter account and blasting criticisms out 140 characters at a time. Your employer has massive surveillance powers that would allow it to discover who you are and fire you for disobedience. Fortunately, The Grugq has you covered.

The information in his post regarding Twitter is applicable to any activist who is utilizing social media and might raise the ire of the State. I think the most important piece of information in that article though is that you shouldn’t immediately jump in with the sharks:

These are a lot of complicated operational rules and guides you’ll have to follow strictly and with discipline. If you “learn on the job” your mistakes will be linked to the account that you’re trying to protect. It would be best that you go through the steps and practice these rules on a non sensitive account. Make sure you’re comfortable with them, that you know how to use the tools, that you understand what you’re supposed to do and why.

Some underground organisations have something they call “the first and last mistake,” which is when you break a security rule and it leads to discovery and exposure. You’re the resistance, you need to make sure you can use the tools of resistance without mistakes – so practice where it is safe, get the newbie mistakes out of the way, and then implement and operate safely where it matters.

If you’re planning to partake in activism you should do a few trail runs of creating and maintaining pseudonymous social media accounts. Maintaining the discipline necessary to avoid detection is no easy feat. It’s best to screw up when it doesn’t matter than to screw up when you could face real world consequences.

Written by Christopher Burg

January 31st, 2017 at 10:30 am

The Privacy Arms Race

with 4 comments

Big Brother is watching. Many people have been defeated by the constant improvements in government surveillance. Instead of fighting they lie themselves into complacency by claiming that they have nothing to hide. Don’t allow yourself to fall into that trap. Privacy is an arms race. As surveillance technology improves so do countermeasures:

The use of facial recognition software for commercial purposes is becoming more common, but, as Amazon scans faces in its physical shop and Facebook searches photos of users to add tags to, those concerned about their privacy are fighting back.

Berlin-based artist and technologist Adam Harvey aims to overwhelm and confuse these systems by presenting them with thousands of false hits so they can’t tell which faces are real.

The Hyperface project involves printing patterns on to clothing or textiles, which then appear to have eyes, mouths and other features that a computer can interpret as a face.

Camouflage is older than humans. In fact, much of what we know about camouflage comes from our observations of animals. As predators improved so did the camouflage of prey. To win against the predatory State we must constantly improve our defenses. Against surveillance one of the best defenses is camouflage.

I admire people like Adam Harvey because they’re on the front lines. Will their plans work? Only time will tell. But I’ll take somebody who is trying to fight the good fight and fails over somebody who has rolled over and surrendered to the State any day.

Written by Christopher Burg

January 5th, 2017 at 10:00 am

To Protect and Serve the Shit Out of You

with 2 comments

Cop apologists often say that the proper place to fight back against a bad officer is in a court. But what if the bad officer is threatening to put two bullets in the back of your skull? That’s a question the people of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota should be asking themselves right now:

In a three-paragraph statement issued Wednesday afternoon, Gannon said his department was alerted to the Facebook video capturing the Tuesday encounter between the officer and the suspect in the parking lot of Wal-Mart at 1200 Shingle Creek Crossing.

[…]

In the 61-second video, shot about 2:20 p.m. from behind a car in the lot, the officer approached a vehicle and ordered Foye-Finch to get down on the ground as he exited out a passenger-side door.

“Don’t move,” the officer told Foye-Finch, who appears to be facedown on the pavement.

“Don’t reach for anything!” the officer yelled, his gun still trained on the man, who appeared compliant during the entire time of the video being record. “You wanna get shot? Don’t reach for anything. Don’t move. I’ll put two in the back of your head if you move again, you understand me? Don’t move.”

According to Chief Tim Gannon the suspect had been evading law enforcers. This is probably the part cop apologists will latch onto but they’ll then ignore the part where Gannon said that “threatening language is never appropriate or acceptable.”

In the video the suspect seems to be lying facedown on the pavement. Even though he appears to be complying with the officer the officer doesn’t appear to be entirely satisfied and is threatening to perform a summary execution. My question is whether or not one should consider this a self-defense situation.

While the aggressor had a badge he was expressing a willingness to exceed his authority by murdering the suspect. The officer also had the means to go through with his threat. In this case the officer didn’t go through with the threat but there was no way for the suspect to know that he wouldn’t. I would argue that had the suspect defended himself he would have been well within his rights. I’m sure somebody will accuse me of simply hating cops but I believe I justified my conclusion in a way that would still show the situation to be self-defense if the aggressor wasn’t a cop. There’s little ground, regardless of who the aggressor was, to claim that the suspect didn’t have a reasonable belief that his life was in immediate danger.

If a law enforcer is beating you to death or threatening to kill you even if you complied with their commands, you may not live long enough to face them in court. That being the case, telling people that the proper place to deal with a bad officer is in a court is often not realistic advice.

Written by Christopher Burg

December 29th, 2016 at 11:00 am

‘Merica!

without comments

Here’s an easy thing you can do to make yourself safer: don’t go to malls around Christmas. When American shoppers come together near Christmas weird shit starts happening:

A series of apparently unconnected fights and disturbances broke out at malls across the country the day after Christmas, leaving shoppers desperate for an exit and authorities struggling to wrangle unruly crowds.

Several arrests and multiple injuries were reported — including an assault on an officer — and authorities and witnesses described panic-stricken scenes from Aurora, Colo. to East Garden City, N.Y.

Some of the videos are interesting to watch because they show shoppers trying to flee out of the main entrances, which results in too many people trying to cram through too little space. So here’s another thing you can do to make yourself safer: if you are in a mall when a brawl breaks out make a beeline for an emergency exit. Yes, it will probably set off an alarm but you’ll be out of the confined space with the psychopaths.

Written by Christopher Burg

December 28th, 2016 at 10:30 am

Be Safe Out There

with one comment

This weekend is forecast to be fucking brutal. First we’re supposed to be nailed by snow today and then Saturday and Sunday the temperatures are looking to be rather unpleasant. This kind of weather isn’t a joking matter. It kills people.

If you can avoid traveling do so. If you can’t make sure you don’t let your gas tank drop below half full. If you become stranded you can turn on the engine periodically to keep the inside temperature from dropping to lethal levels but only if you have gas in the tank (also, if you’re stuck in this situation, periodically get out and verify that the exhaust pipe is unobstructed by snow). Have a full winter survival kit in your vehicle that includes warm clothes (as in clothing appropriate for surviving this weather, not an old coat you had lying around that’s barely rated for 10 degrees, let alone -20 degrees), a heat reflective emergency blanket, a jump pack in case you need to jumpstart you vehicle, a small shovel and some kitty litter in case you need to get unstuck, and a winter rated sleeping bag in case you’re going to be stranded for a while.

This kind of weather is lethal, treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

Written by Christopher Burg

December 16th, 2016 at 10:00 am

A Retraining Order is Only a Step in a Multistep Plan

with one comment

Many people facing abuse will pull a restraining order against their abuser. Although my history of advising against interacting with the State may make some believe that I would advise against pursuing a restraining order the opposite is true. I highly recommend getting a restraining order against an abuser. When it comes to survival you should use every single tool available to you. A retraining order does offer several important legal protections, especially if you are in a situation where you have to defend yourself against your abuser. With that said, your survival strategy must include more than just a restraining order. A restraining order is literally a piece of paper and therefore can’t protect you if your abuser decides to violate it.

Stores like this are, unfortunately, all too common:

Lucas A. Jablonski, 25, of Anoka, was charged Monday in Anoka County District Court with second-degree murder in the death in mid-August of 34-year-old Becky L. Drewlo, whose parents have been her guardians since she turned 18 in November 2000.

Jablonski has been jailed since he was charged in early September with violating the terms of the restraining order, which was granted at the request of her mother in September 2014.

Earlier violations by Jablonski of the same restraining order — in October 2014 and January 2016 — led to convictions in both instances but no significant time in custody.

[…]

Jablonski had been living with Drewlo for several weeks leading up to her death, the complaint read, despite the restraining order being in force that “precluded [him] from having any contact with Ms. Drewlo and from being at her apartment.”

In the petition for the restraining order, Laura Drewlo noted that Jablonski had “taken advantage of Becky sexual[ly] many times. Becky lacks sufficient understanding [and] therefore doesn’t understand the consequences.” She said her daughter had considered Jablonski her boyfriend in the months leading up to the petition being filed.

She said her daughter was in a program that allowed her to live independently with professional assistance and keep a job.

This case is more complicated than many since the victim appears to have been suffering from a mental disability, which likely prevented her from being able to protect herself. My usual go to advice, taking measures to improve your ability to defend yourself, likely don’t apply here. But it does illustrate the limitations of a restraining order.

A restraining order is only effective if the person holding it reports infractions against the order and the police respond to the report. Even then punishments for violating restraining orders are often minor. In this case the suspect had violated the order multiple times but received no significant punishments. And if the violation turns into an attack the order has no ability to defend the victim.

Pulling a restraining order should be seen as a step in a multistep plan. A restraining order provides legal protections, which can be valuable in the aftermath of a self-defense case against an abuser. But they don’t offer any physical protection. Other steps in the plan should address this deficiency.

Written by Christopher Burg

November 23rd, 2016 at 11:00 am