Meet the Vigilantes Who Patrol Trump Rallys

[Ahlevah]

We had to know the Chicago debacle would lead to a response, and this is it:

It was Friday night and Chris Cox was sitting at the No Name Saloon in Edgewater, Florida, planning a pro-Trump rally during Daytona Bike Week, when he looked up at the television in the bar. Protesters were clashing with Donald Trump’s supporters inside a packed Chicago arena, forcing the campaign to cancel the event and urge everyone to leave “in peace.”

“The TV comes on and there’s chaos and mayhem in Chicago and all we could do is shake our heads,” said Cox. “At that moment we couldn’t really see our role. We were in shock. But over the next couple days we heard cries from our other members. ‘Can you come to this rally? Can you come to that rally?’”

Cox decided that his 30,000-member group, “Bikers for Trump,” would no longer be just a support organization focused primarily on holding independent rallies for the Republican front-runner. It would transform into a volunteer security force, patrolling Trump’s events to identify protesters for paid security and police, forming barriers to protect Trump supporters, and playing backup to the cops as they removed unwanted attendees from the campaign’s rallies.

Within days, his bikers were working crowds at Trump events nationwide. And by last week, at a rally inside the Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex, Cox’s men were assuming functions typically reserved for paid security and police – patrolling the dirt floor of the arena, snatching and tearing protesters’ signs and following close behind law enforcement officials as they dragged protesters from the arena, ready to lend a hand.

Read more: Meet the Vigilantes Who Patrol Trump Rallies - POLITICO Magazine

This is hilarious. I have to say I haven't heard much of a peep out of MoveOn Political Action or the social justice warriors recently when it comes to making statements at Trump rallies, other than reading about them getting tossed to the curb. :lol:

 

[EMNofSeattle]

We had to know the Chicago debacle would lead to a response, and this is it:



This is hilarious. I have to say I haven't heard much of a peep out of MoveOn Political Action or the social justice warriors recently when it comes to making statements at Trump rallies, other than reading about them getting tossed to the curb. :lol:

Removing trespassers while they are in the act of trespassing and being disruptive is not vigilantism

 

[Ahlevah]

Removing trespassers while they are in the act of trespassing and being disruptive is not vigilantism

Good point.

 

[Mr Person]

Removing trespassers while they are in the act of trespassing and being disruptive is not vigilantism

Uhhhhh..... what?



In this context, it most certainly IS vigilantism if the individual doing the removing is not a police officer.




According to Merriam-Webster, a vigilante is a self-appointed doer of justice.

Vigilantism is the act of taking the law into one’s own hands and attempting to enact justice according to one’s own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security; action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher law than that enacted by society’s designated lawmaking institutions; private enforcement of legal norms in the absence of an established, reliable, and effective law enforcement body.


Crime Library: Vigilantism | Crime Museum

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Uhhhhh..... what?



In this context, it most certainly IS vigilantism if the individual doing the removing is not a police officer.




According to Merriam-Webster, a vigilante is a self-appointed doer of justice.

Vigilantism is the act of taking the law into one’s own hands and attempting to enact justice according to one’s own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security; action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher law than that enacted by society’s designated lawmaking institutions; private enforcement of legal norms in the absence of an established, reliable, and effective law enforcement body.


Crime Library: Vigilantism | Crime Museum

But no one uses the dictionary definition, when that word is used it is nearly always used to refer to executing justice outside of the judicial system, and is generally a negative connotation

Have those dictionary definitions, are actually good things. So when vigilantes begin to get a positive connotation by society I will accept that definition

Minus the first sentence, assisting lawn force meant and removing trespassers at the time they are trespassing is not taking the law into one's own hands based off of their personal judgment of right or wrong, it is enforcing the law as written in the statutes. Which if you ever actually pick up a law book, you would know was entirely legal for a private citizen to enforce the law

 

[Ahlevah]

In this context, it most certainly IS vigilantism if the individual doing the removing is not a police officer.

So if own a bar, hire a bouncer, and he tosses out tresspassers he's a vigilante? It's not like he's lynching the tresspasser or throwing him in jail. How did we evolve to that definition of the term? :doh

 

[Mr Person]

So if own a bar, hire a bouncer, and he tosses out tresspassers he's a vigilante? It's not like he's lynching the tresspasser or throwing him in jail. How did we evolve to that definition of the term? :doh

I have to shake my head and laugh when I see someone fire at me with snark, include a mocking emoticon, AND be 100% wrong.


When you own a bar YOU OWN THE PROPERTY. When YOU own the property, YOU can remove trespassers in some circumstances. Having a bouncer is one of those circumstances.

Similarly, Trump can hire security to remove trespassers or protestors.

But what I said remains 100% correct: individuals who are not working for the Trump campaign are acting as vigilantes if they take any actions themselves to remove anyone. That's where the words "In this context" come into play.

Uhhhhh..... what?

In this context, it most certainly IS vigilantism if the individual doing the removing is not a police officer.


According to Merriam-Webster, a vigilante is a self-appointed doer of justice.

Vigilantism is the act of taking the law into one’s own hands and attempting to enact justice according to one’s own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security; action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher law than that enacted by society’s designated lawmaking institutions; private enforcement of legal norms in the absence of an established, reliable, and effective law enforcement body.


Crime Library: Vigilantism | Crime Museum

 

[Mr Person]

But no one uses the dictionary definition, when that word is used it is nearly always used to refer to executing justice outside of the judicial system, and is generally a negative connotation

Have those dictionary definitions, are actually good things. So when vigilantes begin to get a positive connotation by society I will accept that definition

I'm wrong because you ignored the actual definition of the word in the English language? You cannot be serious.

If I use the word "petunia" to mean "steak", any resulting confusion is 100% on me. Words matter.

Minus the first sentence, assisting lawn force meant and removing trespassers at the time they are trespassing is not taking the law into one's own hands based off of their personal judgment of right or wrong, it is enforcing the law as written in the statutes. Which if you ever actually pick up a law book, you would know was entirely legal for a private citizen to enforce the law

Another person saying something that is stupid and wrong while being snarky.

Random citizens may not take it upon themselves to assist law enforcement by laying hands on strangers. If attendees of Trump rallies not working for Trump or law enforcement try to remove other citizens, those persons are acting as a vigilante.

But hey, if you're so confident that you're right, try showing up at a DUI checkpoint and "assisting law enforcement" by interrogating random citizens about whether they've been drinking....

:lamo

 

[Absentglare]

But no one uses the dictionary definition, when that word is used it is nearly always used to refer to executing justice outside of the judicial system, and is generally a negative connotation

Have those dictionary definitions, are actually good things. So when vigilantes begin to get a positive connotation by society I will accept that definition

Minus the first sentence, assisting lawn force meant and removing trespassers at the time they are trespassing is not taking the law into one's own hands based off of their personal judgment of right or wrong, it is enforcing the law as written in the statutes. Which if you ever actually pick up a law book, you would know was entirely legal for a private citizen to enforce the law

No, come on- removing someone who is trespassing on someone else's property is textbook vigilantism.

 

[Ahlevah]

When you own a bar YOU OWN THE PROPERTY.

You own the business. It doesn't mean you own the building the bar is situated in. Doesn't matter. A leasehold still permits the bar owner to eject trespassers.

But what I said remains 100% correct: individuals who are not working for the Trump campaign are acting as vigilantes if they take any actions themselves to remove anyone. That's where the words "In this context" come into play.

Did you read the article? These guys are apparently "Plan B" and act as a backup and reinforcement to law enforcement. They do this with the consent of Trump's chief of security. If Trump leases an arena he has the right to eject people. He also has the right to let others do it on his behalf, whether they're paid security or volunteers.

 

[Mr Person]

You own the business. It doesn't mean you own the building the bar is situated in. Doesn't matter. A leasehold still permits the bar owner to eject trespassers.

Actually, no. Sometimes you own the business and rent the property; sometimes you own the property. But yes, it doesn't matter. The point is what entitles you to remove a trespasser.

Did you read the article? These guys are apparently "Plan B" and act as a backup and reinforcement to law enforcement. They do this with the consent of Trump's chief of security. If Trump leases an arena he has the right to eject people. He also has the right to let others do it on his behalf, whether they're paid security or volunteers.

Did you pick up one of those law books you were telling me about?

A bouncer at a bar cannot give "consent" to random customers to eject other random customers.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No, come on- removing someone who is trespassing on someone else's property is textbook vigilantism.

Not if the owner/lessee approves

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Did you pick up one of those law books you were telling me about?

A bouncer at a bar cannot give "consent" to random customers to eject other random customers.

Yes he can. That customer would become an agent of the owner

 

[Absentglare]

Not if the owner/lessee approves

So Trump's approval of thugs acting as security guards grants legitimacy to their status as security guards ?

I must have missed the part where they became licensed to be security guards.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I'm wrong because you ignored the actual definition of the word in the English language? You cannot be serious.

If I use the word "petunia" to mean "steak", any resulting confusion is 100% on me. Words matter.








Another person saying something that is stupid and wrong while being snarky.

Random citizens may not take it upon themselves to assist law enforcement by laying hands on strangers. If attendees of Trump rallies not working for Trump or law enforcement try to remove other citizens, those persons are acting as a vigilante.

But hey, if you're so confident that you're right, try showing up at a DUI checkpoint and "assisting law enforcement" by interrogating random citizens about whether they've been drinking....

:lamo

Maybe you live in Mass, do you live in Mass?

You must because that's the only state where the law works remotely like you described.

In fact here in Wash, and most of the country, citizens have the same powers to arrest and use force as police, in fact in Wash Ciizens have broader authority.

If you assist a cop In affecting an arrest you've committed no crime. It happens all the time. Especially if officers are losing a fight it's common for bystanders to help restrain a suspect.

The police won't let you in a DUI checkpoint (a moot issue since DUI checkpoints are illegal in my state and every bordering state) because it will obstruct their operations. Different story. Also people have conducted private arrests for DUI before. I've seen it happen at a bar where patrons forcibly removed a drunk who was fumbling for his keys from his car. Don't remember them getting arrested.

The risk you run is you don't have qualified immunity and can face substantial civil suit if you screw it up

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So Trump's approval of thugs acting as security guards grants legitimacy to their status as security guards ?

I must have missed the part where they became licensed to be security guards.

That's going to depend on the state. In Washington a guard directly employed by the owner or lessee or a non compensated person acting as a guard is not required to be licensed. Only a company that contracts security guards for profit is required to be licensed and license their guards. I do not know how common this is outside Washigton, but it's an example that at least in one state it is not required

 

[Absentglare]

That's going to depend on the state. In Washington a guard directly employed by the owner or lessee or a non compensated person acting as a guard is not required to be licensed. Only a company that contracts security guards for profit is required to be licensed and license their guards. I do not know how common this is outside Washigton, but it's an example that at least in one state it is not required

I know but these guys aren't paid professionals, contractors, or hired security. That would be the appropriate means for a leasee/owner to acquire security.

From the article, emphasis mine : "While security experts warn that untrained vigilante groups could cause more harm than good, and even expose a candidate to charges of negligence in the case of violence, Trump’s campaign and paid consultants are doing little to discourage Bikers for Trump or other security volunteers."

These are vigilante groups. They are unpaid volunteers.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I know but these guys aren't paid professionals, contractors, or hired security. That would be the appropriate means for a leasee/owner to acquire security.

From the article, emphasis mine : "While security experts warn that untrained vigilante groups could cause more harm than good, and even expose a candidate to charges of negligence in the case of violence, Trump’s campaign and paid consultants are doing little to discourage Bikers for Trump or other security volunteers."

These are vigilante groups. They are unpaid volunteers.

They are volunteer groups. It is vigilantism in a conventional sense. Vigilantism is like what happened to McElroy. Or the *alleged* killers of Buford Pussers wife.

Again if the Trump campaign accepts their volunteer work then it is legal, and likely without license

And let's define "security expert" people who work in an industry selling services for profit. Of course they will never condone a potential lost contract. The security industry thrives on exploiting minimum wage workers who's only purpose is to watch bad things happen and call the police. Look up the beating in the seattle bus tunne some years ago

 

[Ahlevah]

Actually, no. Sometimes you own the business and rent the property; sometimes you own the property. But yes, it doesn't matter. The point is what entitles you to remove a trespasser.

A bar owner is normally entitled to boot people who are disruptive, under age, intoxicated, or whatever, whether he owns the building or not.

Did you pick up one of those law books you were telling me about?

Wrong guy. I never mentioned a law book.

A bouncer at a bar cannot give "consent" to random customers to eject other random customers.

The people we're talking about aren't random customers. They're bikers who are part of an organization that voluntarily provides security at Trump rallies. Hopefully, tbey're some big, burly bikers who would make the fragile snowflakes want to go back to their colleges and curl up in their safe spaces. With any luck they'd need psychotherapy until after the election.