AdvocacyCriminal BehaviorEventsFeaturedGearHeroInfo WarNews

Crowd Defense Policy Now!

In my first arti­cle for Reload1, I dis­cussed shields in con­tem­po­rary defense. Dis­cussing gear is not enough.  We need a pol­i­cy for crowd defense, and we need it now.  I am devel­op­ing that pol­i­cy here:

You’ve prob­a­bly already spent con­sid­er­able time, mon­ey, and effort devel­op­ing your skills for self and home defense. But now we’re see­ing these riots by the left.  You could arrive at the air­port and walk into a seri­ous prob­lem in which you are fac­ing dozens of peo­ple with no chance to arm your­self.  And if you’re alone in your abil­i­ty to defend your­self, you’re prob­a­bly not going to be able to do it effec­tive­ly.  What we need is a lot of peo­ple ready to defend each oth­er.

This is a very dif­fer­ent prob­lem. Nor­mal­ly we’re con­cerned about self or home defense.  Or, we might seek out a group for pro­tec­tion.  And nor­mal­ly that group will be real­ly tight with each oth­er.  But, now we need to be able to spon­ta­neous­ly dis­tin­guish friend from foe among a group of strangers in a split sec­ond for the pur­pose of defend­ing against a crowd.  It’s a strange, dan­ger­ous, and dif­fi­cult new prob­lem.

On top of that, it appears that the police in some areas aren’t pro­tect­ing peo­ple. Or, if you want to give them the ben­e­fit of the doubt, they’re poli­cies don’t address this new prob­lem either.  For instance, nor­mal­ly riots are pret­ty straight­for­ward.  Every­one on the street is rais­ing hell for some stu­pid rea­son, like a foot­ball game was won or lost, and the police show up and dis­perse every­one.  Now, we’ve got one side attack­ing the oth­er side.  One side is obey­ing the law when the oth­er side starts an attack.  To avoid­ing choos­ing a side, the police are resort­ing to their old and now use­less pol­i­cy of wait­ing for things to get so out of con­trol that they can come down on any­one who hap­pens to be in the area.  The fact that this helps the left­ists sup­press free speech isn’t seen as their prob­lem.  They remove them­selves to safe­ty, regroup, wait until some­thing resem­bling prob­a­ble cause exists, and then they come down on every­one.  We can devel­op our pol­i­cy much faster than the gov­ern­ment can, so we have to do that in order to say safe.

Peo­ple are start­ing to form their own pro­tec­tion groups, and I think that is just fine. But, if they aren’t care­ful, the police are nev­er going to change their riot pol­i­cy.  They can eas­i­ly stay insu­lat­ed until they believe the gen­er­al pub­lic has stopped car­ing about who is right and just wants vio­lence to stop.  At that time we can expect the police to come down on both sides using their old pol­i­cy.  Any uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly vague laws regard­ing the unde­fined “para­mil­i­tary” or over­broad weapons laws can be used to enable arbi­trary and capri­cious deci­sions by the police and pros­e­cu­tors.

If we want to pro­tect our­selves, we need this pol­i­cy. If we want to avoid get­ting silenced by the old police pol­i­cy, we need this pol­i­cy.  If we want the police to change their pol­i­cy, we need to be unit­ed in our pol­i­cy.

Crowd Defense, under the lead­er­ship of defense instruc­tor and attor­ney Matthew Nolan, will devel­op this pol­i­cy in coop­er­a­tion with trust­ed mil­i­tary and police who have a deep com­mit­ment to train­ing civil­ians. This is not “mar­tial arts.”  It is a strate­gic pol­i­cy for defense that is meant for speedy imple­men­ta­tion with lit­tle to no train­ing.  In the same way that “stop, drop, and roll” became a well-known pol­i­cy, Crowd Defense will also present a pol­i­cy that is as sim­ple as pos­si­ble.  It will, of course, be more com­plex than the well-known fire pro­to­col, but it will be as min­i­mal as pos­si­ble.

You can help by becom­ing a month­ly Patre­on donor here:  Or you can make a non-tax deductible con­tri­bu­tion here:

Infor­ma­tion, opin­ions, and com­mu­ni­ca­tions pro­vid­ed are for infor­ma­tion­al pur­pos­es only because the laws of your juris­dic­tion may dif­fer. They are based on gen­er­al legal prin­ci­ples and are not intend­ed for the pur­pose of pro­vid­ing spe­cif­ic legal advice or opin­ions. Under no cir­cum­stances does this con­sti­tute the estab­lish­ment of an attor­ney-client rela­tion­ship. Do not send con­fi­den­tial or sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion to me because your com­mu­ni­ca­tion will not be treat­ed as priv­i­leged or con­fi­den­tial. No com­mu­ni­ca­tions you send will pro­hib­it me, my law firm, or my oth­er busi­ness­es from rep­re­sent­ing dif­fer­ent clients in the same mat­ter. By send­ing infor­ma­tion, you con­sent to the sub­se­quent use of that infor­ma­tion. Do not send infor­ma­tion that could be sig­nif­i­cant­ly harm­ful if used against you.

Previous post

Bloomberg Backing Ballot Initiatives In Florida To Destroy Gun Rights

RAIN6 Stryk B Shipping Update
Next post

RAIN6 Shipping Announcement: Stryk B Is On The Way!

Matthew Nolan

Matthew Nolan

Matthew Nolan: Attorney, Product Designer, Business Consultant, and Manager of Crowd Defense.

No Comment

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.