Kyle Rittenhouse and his militia defense ignores that private paramilitaries are illegal

[SheltieLover]

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1239397

A militia operates under the authority of the president or a governor; if it doesn’t, it’s just an armed mob.

By Erik Schechter, former military journalist

The legal team for 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse has called him a member of the “militia” and a “minuteman,” referring to the patriot forces that fought the British at Lexington and Concord in 1775. This terminology, though archaic, is fairly common in gun circles, with more and more radicals acting as if the U.S. Constitution deputized them to form paramilitaries.

In the case of Rittenhouse, before he allegedly shot three protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with an AR-15-type rifle on the last Tuesday of August, he was reportedly patrolling the city streets with members of the radical Boogaloo Bois militia.

More at link.

[crickets]

1. Yeah, good luck with that.

[History lesson followed by:] In all, it was a nice idea. But, once again, the militia largely disappointed during the War of 1812 and, in the following decades, enthusiasm for a mandatory and universal force waned, with citizens showing up to militia muster with broomsticks and corn stalks instead of rifles. Only the Southern states really kept up with the militia — because they needed it to enforce slavery. [snip]

“The laws of all 50 states prohibit, in one way or another, private militias that are not answerable to civilian governmental authority,” said Mary McCord, the legal director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, at Georgetown University. [snip]

We need to step back from this militia nonsense. These private paramilitaries are illegal and should be treated as such by the authorities.

Good luck with local authorities who hand out water and tell armed militia cosplayers, "We appreciate you. We really do."

In all though, it's an extremely informative article; well worth following the link for the whole thing.

[SheltieLover]

2. I agree about rwnj authorities

But, if this aspect is challenged, someone might be forced to admit ties to these domestic terrorists. 🤞

[crickets]

3. Agreed. For starters, the FBI needs to be a little louder about the problem.

Too often law enforcement is sympathetic to the ideology behind the gangs pretending to be militias. It's as though if they weren't cops, they'd be in those gangs. Likely some of them are.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement - OCT 21, 2016

But even if there aren’t hard statistics, the problem of racial bias among police isn’t new. In fact, it’s been a concern of the FBI for at least a decade. Exactly 10 years ago this week, the FBI warned of the potential consequences — including bias — of white supremacist groups infiltrating local and state law enforcement, indicating it was a significant threat to national security.

In the 2006 bulletin, the FBI detailed the threat of white nationalists and skinheads infiltrating police in order to disrupt investigations against fellow members and recruit other supremacists. The bulletin was released during a period of scandal for many law enforcement agencies throughout the country, including a neo-Nazi gang formed by members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who harassed black and Latino communities. Similar investigations revealed officers and entire agencies with hate group ties in Illinois, Ohio and Texas. [snip]

Neither the FBI nor state and local law enforcement agencies have established systems for vetting personnel for potential supremacist links, he said. That task is left primarily to everyday citizens and nonprofit organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of few that tracks the growing number of hate groups in America. [snip]

“I cannot imagine that the FBI today could issue a report concerning any kind of threat without people being alarmed and wanting immediate action,” he said. “But in this case there seems to be almost an acceptance of it. The thought is ‘it’s just ideology and they have a right to believe this.'” [snip]

“There needs to more direct enforcement,” Jones said. “It’s one thing to issue a memo, and another to have continued action after it. There was a warning 10 years ago and nothing else since then.”

Fourteen years and counting since the warning - maybe it's time for a more proactive attitude. It's not enough to just point to the problem and take no steps to deal with it.

[SheltieLover]

4. Therein lies the problem!

And they give them guns and, basically, a license to kill.

[Crunchy Frog]

7. Those were not local authorities. They were police who are theoretically answerable to

local authorities.

The article is specifically referring to "civilian governmental authority".

That's local or national elected authority.

[LeftInTX]

5. I wish private paramilitaries were illegal

There are plenty of them and they have never been charged with any crime.
If it was true, a bunch of them would be locked up by now!!!

They may not be a "legal entity" and just a group of "rag tag" armed wannabes, that does not make them "illegal". Anyone can runaround with military insignia nowadays and they never get in trouble.

I believe nowadays, "militia" is defined as anyone who carries a gun. I believe it was the Heller decision.

[EX500rider]

6. Actually is was the Dick Act of 1903

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

The 1903 act repealed the Militia Acts of 1795 and designated the militia (per Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311) as two classes: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, comprising state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.

[The Magistrate]

8. He Is Right, Ma'am