How gracious were the police when, last Friday outside the Oakwood Cemetery, just a few blocks away from the Governor’s Mansion and General Assembly, they approached nine protestors who were armed — to the teeth! — and carrying signs with slogans such as “Still Here, Still Healthy,” in clear violation of state law against carrying firearms at protests.
And so the officers from the Raleigh police and the Capitol police — always on the lookout to prevent citizens from getting arrested, so it would seem — warned these men of this statute when they arrived on the scene, and further explained that if they put away their signs, then they would not consider this action a protest.
They ditched the signs, kept the guns and then, around noon, marched the few blocks to the General Assembly in what RPD still considers not-a-protest, despite what the protestors themselves said.
“We were told we can’t use our First Amendment and our Second Amendment at the same time,” Stephen Wagner, a regular at the Reopen NC protests, told the News & Observer. “We’ll be back on Tuesday to do the First.”
But, it seems, everyone except the Raleigh police knew exactly what this was: a “call to arms,” according to an organizers’ Facebook page, a “boogaloo” — which is weird, fanboy slang for the next civil war, jargonized into bastardizations like “blue igloo” or “big luau.” In a sly wink to their cute, little code word, some of the protestors were wearing Hawaiian shirts.
Clever! And yet: Plausible deniability!
So, they marched around downtown Raleigh like rejects from Fortnite, with long guns and masks and camo — Not a protest! Not quite a demonstration, even! Just a bunch of white guys walking around with weaponry exposed and faces hidden. And look! No signs!
So, if not a protest, what exactly was this armed maneuver around the General Assembly? And what makes it so different from, say, the Moral Mondays protests of 2013, where more than 900 people were arrested? Was the outcome different because the the Rev. William Barber II and his cohort didn’t have guns?
We don’t have to look too far back to find the last time Raleigh police shot a citizen brandishing a gun: It was on March 11. His name is Javier Torres, a 26-year-old person of color, and a Raleigh officer shot him in the abdomen after seeing a gun in Torres’ hand.
So, while we’re talking about the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment, we would do well to remember the Fourteenth Amendment, which deals with equal treatment under the law.
Join the First Amendment Society, a membership that goes directly to funding TCB‘s newsroom.
We believe that reporting can save the world.
The TCB First Amendment Society recognizes the vital role of a free, unfettered press with a bundling of local experiences designed to build community, and unique engagements with our newsroom that will help you understand, and shape, local journalism’s critical role in uplifting the people in our cities.
All revenue goes directly into the newsroom as reporters’ salaries and freelance commissions.
You claim the Raleigh man was shot by the police for brandishing a gun. Did you see the body cam footage or are you just omitting facts?
A platoon of armed BLACK men at the state capitol would have brought the National Guard out. Armed WHITE men get a pass. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
Quick, point out how the police managed to avoid a public shootout by speaking to the protesters like adults and didn’t have to shoot or chase anyone because they responded like adults, did not run, and did not point their guns at the officers. Judging by the photo you’ve used, it looks as though they conversed face to face, no guns in hand even!
The bravery of these officers should be commended; talking to a pointy beard fellow with a weird earbud, USMC and rank insignia – it’s a wonder they didn’t retreat and nuke them from orbit.
The dude(Mr. Torres) pointed a gun at a cop(not nice to point guns at anyone!); a gun with the serial number scratched off…. sounds just like those other ne’erdowells! Come on – reread what you’ve written before you publish it, more than once or twice and in different tones/inflections, try to see it from almost any other perspective than the one you’ve chosen.
And where, exactly, does the Constitution fit in with all of this? Why are you selective and discriminatory concerning the Bill of Rights? It seems that you like what you like and are dismissive and antagonistic with the rest of everyone’s rights. Nice.
Am I getting this right? The author wants them arrested for legal activities? May I suggest he hide under his bed and clutch his pearls tightly.