PDA

View Full Version : Stockton CA militia being formed


chris in va
April 12, 2009, 06:16 PM
Anybody see this yet?

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090407/A_NEWS/904070327

Concerned resident aims to form armed militia to patrol Stockton

By David Siders
Record Staff Writer
April 07, 2009 6:00 AM

STOCKTON - A retired truck driver and Vietnam War veteran said Monday that he is forming an armed militia - mostly men with rifles and armbands, four to a car - to patrol Stockton this summer, when at least 43 police officers are to be laid off.

Alan Pettet, 66, said he has recruited 18 men, most of whom are ex-military. He said the militia will train at a firing range and "activate" if the city lays off any officer, as it intends by July 1.

The likelihood of an armed militia materializing is uncertain - there are legal concerns, and posturing to influence City Hall is not uncommon - but for a neighborhood activist even to advance such a proposal was indicative of frustration about Stockton's awful budget forecast. The City Council is expected by July 1, the start of fiscal 2009-10, to order police layoffs and spending reductions citywide to balance a general fund budget that is otherwise expected to be $31million in deficit by June 2010.

Pettet, a midtown neighborhood activist who has a Desert Eagle pistol, said militiamen will detain suspected criminals and call police to arrest them. They will wear armbands and will patrol in a car marked by a magnetic sign, he said.

"It's going to be 'Stockton Armed Militia,'" Pettet said. "'SAM' for short."

Neither the Police Department nor the city administration was impressed.

"We are not at the point that we need to have armed militias patrolling Stockton," Vice Mayor Kathy Miller said.

Mayor Ann Johnston said, "Oh, no no no no, no no no. ... We don't want armed citizens out there who are not trained."

That it is illegal in most circumstances in California to carry a loaded firearm in one's car did not disturb Pettet.

"If you look under the Constitution, a militia can be formed," he said. "Watch and see. Who's going to stop us?"

Attorney and anti-blight activist Ron Stein, who is a friend of Pettet's and has been advising him, said the militia will conform to state law, perhaps by having members seek permits to carry concealed handguns.

"You've got to do what you've got to do," Stein said.

Pettet said the militia will bill the city $350 per hour for its services. City Attorney Ren Nosky said he knew of no legal basis requiring the city to pay such a bill.

Nosky had other reservations, too.

"I just don't know if that's in the best interest of these gentlemen, from a safety perspective," he said. "We have a concern about the level of training that these gentlemen have, if any, especially in light of the firearms that they say they're going to be carrying."

Police encourage people to report crimes and form Neighborhood Watch groups, said Officer Pete Smith, a department spokesman. To form a militia is "taking it to another level," he said.

"It's ill advised," he said.

Stockton's violent crime rate is among the highest in the state. (Emphasis mine) Stein and Pettet are critical of a budget proposal by City Manager Gordon Palmer that would require laying off at least 43 of the city's 403 police officers.

"We've got to protect ourselves," Stein said. "We are in the wild, wild West when you take people who are supposed to protect us off the street."

The telephone number Pettet is using for the militia is that of midtown's Safe Neighborhood Action Group, a group formed in the 1990s.

"You've reached the Safe Neighborhood Action Group," a recording at that number said. "Helping to protect Stockton citizens from their mayor and City Council."

Hirlau
April 12, 2009, 06:36 PM
GOOD !;)

tiberius10721
April 13, 2009, 04:38 PM
Hell ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!sign me up !!!!!!!!!!!!

Wildalaska
April 13, 2009, 04:57 PM
That it is illegal in most circumstances in California to carry a loaded firearm in one's car did not disturb Pettet.

"If you look under the Constitution, a militia can be formed," he said. "Watch and see. Who's going to stop us?"


I admire the courage of their convictions. I hope when they are convicted that they get locked up and the key gets thrown away, like we should lock up every other armed criminal.

Being white and calling yourself a militia does not make you less of a thug.

So tactically, when you are legally armed and some fat guy in BDUs with a gun approaches you in a hostile manner, what do you do?

WildwhatadisgracetogunownersAlaska ™

dm1333
April 13, 2009, 05:21 PM
Pettet said the militia will bill the city $350 per hour for its services. City Attorney Ren Nosky said he knew of no legal basis requiring the city to pay such a bill.


That is all that needs to be said.:barf:

Csspecs
April 13, 2009, 08:18 PM
Pettet said the militia will bill the city $350 per hour for its services. City Attorney Ren Nosky said he knew of no legal basis requiring the city to pay such a bill.



And here I had the feeling like it was for the good of people not to charge the city chunks of cash.

johnwilliamson062
April 13, 2009, 09:49 PM
they aren't expecting the city to pay. they are just bringing attention to the fact that they are "performing a service"

johnwilliamson062
April 13, 2009, 09:53 PM
so, is there any way for a non-resident to become an associate member? All I want is a bumper sticker...

teeroux
April 13, 2009, 10:03 PM
So tactically, when you are legally armed and some fat guy in BDUs with a gun approaches you in a hostile manner, what do you do?


Fat guy is gonna have a bad day he is not a police officer he is a civillian like me, he is not sactioned by any form goverment which means he doesn't have any offical duty to perform and I will have no duty to comply to someone just cause his wacko leader says so. He can leave me alone or be shot.

Also after having shot an armband wearin fool I would have to assume everyone else with an armband and is armed or just in large number is out to harm me to thus they will also be shot.

Tennessee Gentleman
April 13, 2009, 10:22 PM
My famous militia picture:




http://files.myopera.com/fammcdon/albums/54307/Drunks%20with%20Guns.png

Gbro
April 13, 2009, 10:53 PM
Tennessee Gentleman,
You the one with the BFR???:rolleyes:

warnerwh
April 13, 2009, 11:24 PM
Do you guys know these people? How do you know they're a bunch of idiots. I have friends in their sixties and I would be more than happy to have them patrol the streets if they wanted to. I'm sure they're much more competent than a considerable percentage on this board. The people are intelligent and competent people. It is lawful to perform a citizen's arrest. You don't have to be a cop.

I just want to know how you can criticize people you know nothing about. Maybe you should give up your CCW's or maybe everybody should because why should citizens be doing things that cops do if they're not trained. I've never trained to be a cop but know first hand how I deal with myself when my system goes into the fight or flight mode. I'm not convinced we know the whole story. I don't trust any journalist no matter what side they are on.

ChicagoTex
April 14, 2009, 12:24 AM
they aren't expecting the city to pay. they are just bringing attention to the fact that they are "performing a service"

A service they're not giving the city any choice in them performing. It's the same con as when magazine companies used to send you magazines in the mail unsolicited and then bill you for them.

These nuts are part of the problem, not the solution and should be treated like any other criminal organization/gang.

Being white and calling yourself a militia does not make you less of a thug.

Couldn't agree more.

RedneckFur
April 14, 2009, 12:40 AM
I admire the courage of their convictions. I hope when they are convicted that they get locked up and the key gets thrown away, like we should lock up every other armed criminal.


They're standing up for their rights, and trying to protect their comunity, and their families, in a city with a high crime rate thats about to have even less law inforcement. (whom we all know isnt even required by law to protect us.)
If they are armed criminals, they are some of the most noble armed criminals I've seen.

ChicagoTex
April 14, 2009, 12:45 AM
They're standing up for their rights
By breaking numerous laws...

and trying to protect their comunity
by forcing themselves as vigilantes upon their own neighborhoods without anyone's asking or consent... and then billing them for it.

If they are armed criminals, they are some of the most noble armed criminals I've seen.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I hope these boys like it hot.

teeroux
April 14, 2009, 02:20 AM
It is lawful to perform a citizen's arrest

Yes it is lawful for a person who witnesses a crime to make an arrest.

What this is here is a group of people unsanctioned and incommisioned by any form of government fullfilling the role of law enforcement.

I've never trained to be a cop

Yeah well these folks sure haven't either and I don't always trust the police to know every letter of the law much less let a group of joe blows policing the streets armed in the name of what they think is right.

Last I checked we elect who we want to be law enforcement and the folks we elect have say in who is law enforcement.

Neither seems to be the case here.

chris in va
April 14, 2009, 02:52 AM
You guys really crack me up.:D

Here's a question. As you know Stockton is a cesspool of crime compared to the national average. The CA .gov funds are in the red, and they're laying off over 10% of their police force.

So what would you have done, since you're against a citizen 'militia'? Curious.

What this is here is a group of people unsanctioned and incommisioned by any form of government

Militias aren't formed by government.

Definition of 'militia'...

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, (emphasis mine) or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service

teeroux
April 14, 2009, 03:34 AM
Oh well I guess it just depends on location.

Last folks got together and formed a private militia around these parts I recall called themselves the ku klux klan and we all know they sure thought they were doing the right thing too.:mad:

Militias aren't formed by government.

Some are next time you use wiki try to read the whole thing.

PoorSoulInJersey
April 14, 2009, 06:53 AM
"If you look under the Constitution, a militia can be formed," he said. "Watch and see. Who's going to stop us?"

I love when people hide behind "it's my right to do this, so I can do what I want!"

There is a fine line between citizens defending their homes (a good thing) and a bunch of vigilantes taking the law in their own hands (a bad thing).

These guys would have no legal authority to do anything. They can't pull someone over, they can't forcibly detain anyone (a citizen's arrest doesn't mean you can handcuff someone and lock them up somewhere or hold them at gunpoint), they can't claim self defense if they chase after someone. Heck, they can't even legally carry guns. Just going on patrol while armed could land them in jail.

What exactly is it that you expect them to do?

These people, who appear to have the best of intentions and only want to be safe in their homes, could very well find themselves in jail facing felony charges sooner than the people they are trying to protect themselves from. Once that happens, then the criminals really know which houses aren't protected, since it WILL make the news when some guy on patrol gets arrested. There's a big difference between being armed in your home, ready to defend it, and going looking for people.

There's a little bit of "game theory" to consider here. What will the BGs do in response? Will they start a little vigilante justice of their own against the militia members? Or will they just leave?

It almost sounds like the plot of a movie we'd end up making fun of. "A small town, frustrated with lack of police protection, takes the law into its own hands."

What would I do if it was my neighborhood? If my town was that bad, I'd move. The neighborhood won't be cleaned up by a few people going on patrol, especially with no law enforcement. I'm not going to get myself arrested, leaving my family REALLY undefended.

If they are armed criminals, they are some of the most noble armed criminals I've seen.

Therein lies the worst part about this situation. I totally agree with what they want to do: defend their homes, families, and neighborhoods.

It stinks that they are breaking the law as well, in a very visible way, and could probably end up in jail for it.

Bud Helms
April 14, 2009, 07:26 AM
An interesting division of opinions on this one. Militia-related discussions usually devolve quickly into senseless arguments.

As long as this remains civil, I think it might stay open, but it will have to be in the Law & Civil Rights forum.

Moving now.

hogdogs
April 14, 2009, 07:55 AM
They can't pull someone over, they can't forcibly detain anyone (a citizen's arrest doesn't mean you can handcuff someone and lock them up somewhere or hold them at gunpoint), they can't claim self defense if they chase after someone.
Just one of the great reasons I will remain in florida!!! It is fully legal to do all of the above if a "Violent Felony" was witnessed by the Florida legal citizen!
Heck, they can't even legally carry guns. Just going on patrol while armed could land them in jail.
And another of the many reasons I live in the "Gunshine" state!:cool:
The incredible "eyecandy" ranks right up there too!:D
Brent

orchidhunter
April 14, 2009, 08:35 AM
Many California militias operate in probable violation of a state law banning paramilitary organizations. orchidhunter

Tennessee Gentleman
April 14, 2009, 09:48 AM
Tennessee Gentleman, You the one with the BFR???

No, I took the picture.;)

Militias aren't formed by government.

Absolutely wrong. Any miltia in the US is by definition called and controlled by the government; state or federal. Absent that, the group in question is nothing more than an unauthorized paramilitary organization and probably illegal.

PoorSoulInJersey
April 14, 2009, 10:02 AM
Just one of the great reasons I will remain in florida!!! It is fully legal to do all of the above if a "Violent Felony" was witnessed by the Florida legal citizen!

That's part of my concern. Breaking into a car, trespassing on someone's lawn (looking in the window), or wandering down a street with your hood up are all things that the militia group might try to stop someone for, but they are not violent felonies.

You'd have to catch someone just after seeing them kill someone in order to arrest them.

BlueTrain
April 14, 2009, 10:03 AM
I wouldn't be surprised that most of the members of these militia groups are against the taxes that pay the police. In other words, they don't believe in government performing the functions that goverment exists for to begin with. Mind you, plenty of people, sometimes quite logically, are perfectly willing to eliminate lots of things that governments do. Schools? I don't have children; why should I pay taxes to support schools?

Eventually, with this line of reasoning, you will have private schools, private roads, and private security services. We have had all of those things at one time or another in one place or another.

Then there's military service. Everyone here probably loves the military and thinks, well, who knows what, but nobody thinks there ought to be a draft.

buzz_knox
April 14, 2009, 10:28 AM
Without getting into the validity of this militia, it's an interesting quandry when the gov't simultaneously refuses to provide services in an area and refuses to allow the people to perform the service for themselves.

Brian Pfleuger
April 14, 2009, 10:32 AM
Pettet, a midtown neighborhood activist who has a Desert Eagle pistol,...


Is owning a "Desert Eagle pistol" supposed to be a one-phrase commentary on the mans character or mental stability or something? How is that even relevant.

ChicagoTex
April 14, 2009, 10:34 AM
it's an interesting quandry when the gov't simultaneously refuses to provide services in an area and refuses to allow the people to perform the service for themselves.

First off, Stockton is not "refusing" to provide police services - they had to make budget cuts, like most municipalities in this trying economy.

As for what people can do, people can facilitate the remaining law enforcement by being vigilant and reporting crimes to the police. Of course that would require more than a dozen or so extreme "militia" forming nutjobs to actually give a flying crap what happens in their community...

I understand these folks are frustrated, but this really isn't the way.

I also can't get over the audacity of attempting to bill the city for their "services"...

ChicagoTex
April 14, 2009, 10:38 AM
Is owning a "Desert Eagle pistol" supposed to be a one-phrase commentary on the mans character or mental stability or something? How is that even relevant.

Desert Eagles are generally seen in media as garish, over-the-top, and "extreme". Countless films and videogames reinforce this.

It's a way for the media to invoke a subtle connotation. Basically, to the average reader it's a euphemism for "power-crazed nutjob".

To me, it just means the guy has really poor taste.

hogdogs
April 14, 2009, 10:43 AM
Ag assault, Mugging, purse snatching after a slap to the face are but a few in florida considered violent felonies, as are home invasion and car jacking...
Brent

grymster2007
April 14, 2009, 11:01 AM
Being white and calling yourself a militia does not make you less of a thug. Nor does being black, brown, yellow or red and calling yourself a militia make you less of a thug. When you think about it, there are plenty of thuggish "militias" already on the streets of Stockton... they call themselves gangs.

Now I agree that these guys are approaching this the wrong way, but I understand their frustration.

BTW: I'll bet the city maintains lots of useless services while cutting law enforcement... the thing they need most.

johnwilliamson062
April 14, 2009, 11:15 AM
What this is here is a group of people unsanctioned and incommisioned by any form of government fulfilling the role of law enforcement.
I do not believe they gave an explanation of exactly what they plan to do. I did not see claims of detention and chasing people. If they patrol their neighborhoods and report to the real police I can not see what they are doing being illegal or immoral. I also believe if they confront people it will be legal as long as they do not pursue and they do not initiate the threat of force.
Many of us have neighborhood watch programs that are simply not armed. Legally carrying a gun does not intrinsically change what you are otherwise doing to be illegal. Being an organized group of citizens does not limit your rights as citizens, at least as far as I know. If I want to go out in my car and patrol my neighborhood armed I can do it. If 3 others ple in my tiny civic and go with me it isn't illegal as long as we all have CCWs. I think most would agree this is how the law SHOULD read everywhere and I commend anyone OPENLY challenging ANY law. It is the ones trying to get around the law on the sly that bother me.

There are a lot of people on here making assumptions. I don't see anywhere in the article where the "militia" members

Where does it say the militia is limited to white people? How do you know there aren't already non-white members?


We don't want armed citizens out there...
Big surprise there.

I just don't know if that's in the best interest of these gentlemen, from a safety perspective
Nanny state?

Desert Eagles are generally seen in media as garish, over-the-top, and "extreme".
Only in media? I tend to agree with the media on this one, I just appreciate your right to own one. I met a guy who has a F1 car for fun, I thought that was pretty over the top too. Spent quite a bit on it, but if it is his thing he should go for it. That isn't even constitutionally protected and a much bigger "waste" of money.

warnerwh
April 14, 2009, 11:18 AM
If these guys are going to break any laws of course they shouldn't be there. Then again they may be just trying to make a point and getting publicity because they think the city should make cuts some where else due to the crime level in their city. It is far more effective than just complaining to the deaf ears of city government who will do what they want even if you vote against it.

Why are they out of money? Stupidity? As long as people spending our money are not held accountable this constant waste will continue.

ChicagoTex
April 14, 2009, 11:46 AM
BTW: I'll bet the city maintains lots of useless services while cutting law enforcement... the thing they need most.

Why are they out of money? Stupidity? As long as people spending our money are not held accountable this constant waste will continue.

I'm uncomfortable with the assumptive leap being taken that the city is blowing it's police budget on graft and waste. I have seen no evidence of this and feel this assumption is outside the scope of the discussion anyway.

chris in va
April 14, 2009, 11:49 AM
Absent that, the group in question is nothing more than an unauthorized paramilitary organization and probably illegal.


Illegal. You mean against laws put forth by the government?

The gentlemen in the picture, was that considered 'illegal'? Probably.

I have seen no evidence of this and feel this assumption is outside the scope of the discussion anyway.

Again, do you live there? Have first-hand experience living in the city?

I don't live there either. But I do know what my friend in Lodi tells me, and it really makes me fear for his well being.

ChicagoTex
April 14, 2009, 11:53 AM
Again, do you live there? Have first-hand experience living in the city?

I have not, which is EXACTLY why I refuse to entertain allegations of corrupt and/or irresponsible governmental management.

If I lived there and knew from experience everyone who ran the city was a crook, I might feel differently. Until I've seen evidence otherwise, however, I will assume they're more or less on the up and up.

Tennessee Gentleman
April 14, 2009, 12:01 PM
Illegal. You mean against laws put forth by the government?

Yes, many states have laws prohibiting armed paramilitary organizations. Not sure about CA.

onthejon55
April 14, 2009, 12:44 PM
I thinks its a great idea. They should be allowed to do anything (with in the confines of the law) that they feel necessary to protect their neighborhood. I highly doubt that these men are going to go out of their way to try and prevent crime. More than likely they will patrol the streets with a cell phone in hand and report crime. Personally, I would love to have neighbors that cared enough about my neighborhood that they were willing to patrol the streets making sure me or my property wasnt being victimized.

grymster2007
April 14, 2009, 01:11 PM
I'm uncomfortable with the assumptive leap being taken that the city is blowing it's police budget on graft and waste. I have seen no evidence of this and feel this assumption is outside the scope of the discussion anyway. The motivation for the militia's threat to begin operations is the city's threat to lay off law enforcement personnel when they're running one of the most dangerous cities in the country. How the city manages it's revenues is clearly germane to the discussion.

BTW, I looked at their budget and IMO, there is spending that's inappropriate, given the circumstances.

JuanCarlos
April 14, 2009, 03:22 PM
I thinks its a great idea. They should be allowed to do anything (with in the confines of the law) that they feel necessary to protect their neighborhood. I highly doubt that these men are going to go out of their way to try and prevent crime. More than likely they will patrol the streets with a cell phone in hand and report crime. Personally, I would love to have neighbors that cared enough about my neighborhood that they were willing to patrol the streets making sure me or my property wasnt being victimized.

Yep, the line between "concerned citizen looking to reduce crime" and "vigilante" is often whether or not they do so within the confines of the law. Assuming these guys get permits and use their weapons only within the confines of California law (which I'm guessing would largely turn them into a roving neighborhood watch who are armed only as an absolute last resort for self-defense) then super.

The article in the OP doesn't give me much hope that this is or will be the case, though.

And talking about billing the city? Probably the most asinine thing I've read all week.

orchidhunter
April 14, 2009, 03:32 PM
Here is a listing of the statutory sources for each state law.

States with Both Anti-Militia and Anti-Paramilitary Training Laws (7)

-Florida. FLA. STAT. ANN. ch. 870.06, 790.29.
-Georgia. GA. CODE ANN. ss 38-2-277, 16-11-150 to -152.
-Idaho. IDAHO CODE ss 46-802, 18-8101 to -8105.
-Illinois. ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 1805, para. 94-95.
-New York. N.Y. MIL. LAW s 240.
-North Carolina. N.C. GEN. STAT. ss 127A-151, 14-288.20.
-Rhode Island. R.I. GEN. LAWS ss 30-12-7, 11-55-1 to -3.


States with Anti-Militia Laws Only (17)

-Alabama. ALA. CODE s 31-2-125.
-Arizona. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. s 26-123.
-Iowa. IOWA CODE s 29A.31.
-Kansas. KAN. STAT. ANN. s 48-203.
-Kentucky. KY. REV. STAT. ANN. s 38.440.
-Maine. ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 37-B, s 342.2.
-Maryland. MD. CODE ANN. art. 65, s 35.
-Massachusetts. MASS. GEN. L. ch. 33, s 129-132.
-Minnesota. MINN. STAT. s 624.61.
-Mississippi. MISS. CODE ANN. $ 33-1-31.
-Nevada. NEV. REV. STAT. s 203-080.
-New Hampshire. N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. s 111:15.
-North Dakota. N.D. CENT. CODE s 37-01-21.
-Texas. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. s 431.010.
-Washington. WASH. REV. CODE s 38.40.120.
-West Virginia. W. VA. CODE s 15-1F-7.
-Wyoming. WYO. STAT. s 19-1-106.


States with Anti-Paramilitary Training Laws Only (17)

-Arkansas. ARK. CODE s 5-71-301 to -303.
-California. CAL. PENAL CODE s 11460.
-Colorado. COLO. REV. STAT. s 18-9-120.
-Connecticut. CONN. GEN. STAT. s 53-206b.
-Louisiana. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. s 117.1.
-Michigan. MICH. COMP. LAWS s 750.528a.
-Missouri. MO. REV. STAT. s 574.070.
-Montana. MONT. CODE ANN. s 45-8-109.
-Nebraska. NEB. REV. STAT. s 28-1480 to -1482.
-New Jersey. N.J. REV. STAT. s 2C:39-14.
-New Mexico. N.M. STAT. ANN. s 30-20A-1 to -4.
-Oklahoma. OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 21, s 1321.10.
-Oregon. OR. REV. STAT. s 166.660.
-Pennsylvania. 18 PA. CONS. STAT. s 5515.
-South Carolina. S.C. CODE ANN. s 16-8-10 to -30.
-Tennessee. TENN. CODE ANN. s 39-17-314.
-Virginia. VA. CODE ANN. s 18.2-433.1 to -433.3. orchidhunter

PoorSoulInJersey
April 14, 2009, 03:48 PM
Is owning a "Desert Eagle pistol" supposed to be a one-phrase commentary on the mans character or mental stability or something? How is that even relevant.

I read it as "This guy thinks one handgun is enough to get into tactical situations? Really?", but I'll bet that's not what the writer intended.