Burke: Snohomish dodged tragedy and lawsuits by hair trigger

By Tom Burke / Herald columnist

Now that the dust has settled and rationality can reassert itself, let’s take a dispassionate view of what happened in the city of Snohomish on the weekend of May 30 and 31.

Guns, beer, fear and rumor are a dangerous mix. Throw in some white-power extremists looking to stir the trouble-pot and a diverse group of people advocating for Black Lives Matter and protesting racism, chanting, “No Justice, No Peace,” and you’ve crafted the perfect recipe for disaster. (And lawsuits.)

I mean what could go wrong with folks enjoying, as described by a high-ranking police official, “a night of tailgating and celebratory festivities” while open-carrying AR-15s and other small arms?

What could go wrong with folks “protecting” the downtown business area from alleged terrorists, and among the “protectors” were a contingent of the “Three Percenters,” a far-right anti-government militia; the Proud Boys, an organization whose members engage in violence at events it attends (and which the Southern Poverty Law Center calls an “alt-right fight club”); and other identifiable right-wing extremists?

What could go wrong with a hundred-or-so heavily-armed folks, some waving Confederate flags and others with hate group symbols on their military-style web gear, completely untrained, totally unelected, totally unappointed, legally unaccountable, nakedly uninsured, obviously unorganized, and armed to the teeth with black rifles ready to dole out some sort of lethal, ad hoc “justice?”

What could go wrong?

Well, a young man could get beaten. And one was.

Town residents could have been terrified by more than 100 armed vigilantes And they were.

The threat of a terrorist invasion could have been a total hoax, perpetrated by right-wing groups hoping to sew discord. And most probably was, based on similar “threats” in other cities.

And, according to a prominent local attorney who’s been on both sides of self-defense cases, what the mayor and sheriff allowed in Snohomish was a potential slam-dunk, multi-million dollar lawsuit-loss-debacle for local government.

In Snohomish, over that weekend, nothing went too wrong, thank God. But it could have, massively.

Protecting property from antifa was the stated purpose of the posse. Washington state’s open-carry law was the justification for the blatant display of firepower. And because authorities allowed it was the reason the group hung around.

But that said, let’s consider something more terrifying: the right of the protesters — even the alleged antifas — to bear arms, open carry, drink beer and enjoy their version of “a night of tailgating and celebratory festivities” — just like the vigilantes. What would have happened if protesters had shown up, also armed to the teeth, as had the vigilantes? Does the term fire-fight come to mind and do pictures of blood in the streets flash before your eyes?

So let’s talk about liability, something the Snohomish City Council has on its radar among the plethora of items needing discussion.

Now if someone had been shot and filed a suit against local government for allowing people carrying AR-15s to “patrol” while drinking, that’s a for-sure loss for the city, the sheriff and the county, said the attorney; because authorities should have reasonably anticipated a bad ending to a mixture of booze, guns, demonstrators and raging rumor.

Further, while Washington law permits the use of force, even deadly force, to protect one’s life, property and the lives and property of others, its focus is protection against a threat or perceived threat of serious bodily injury or death. Importantly the law says one may not use more force than is necessary to defend one’s property. Plus the “defender” can’t be the initial aggressor. (And, the counsellor opined, standing in the street with drawn weapons would likely be determined an aggressive action by a jury.)

And shooting someone (dead) for throwing a brick or a chair through a window is hardly proportional, the attorney noted. (Actual break-in rioters nationwide were not shot dead by their local police, who actually understand the law and aren’t wanna-be mall ninjas. Looting is not a crime punishable by summary execution.)

I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

But I am vehemently opposed to anarchy, vigilantes and the crap so-called militias spew about sovereign citizens. Armed “militia,” randomly walking the streets of our cities, towns and villages, dressed for a combat patrol in Fallujah, and apparently ready to shoot, is something from an alt-right website. It isn’t the action of knowledgeable, responsible citizens, especially when police flooded the area with a lot of law enforcement.

The people with the guns were just random folk — albeit untrained, unelected, unappointed, legally unaccountable, uninsured and obviously unorganized — responding to the heat of the moment (and getting to dress up in all that gear and guns gathering dust in a closet or gun safe). I get that.

But had they seriously considered what would happen next if they shot someone (besides 10,000 lawyers descending on Snohomish to sue)?

The reality is that peoples’ lives were absolutely, 100 percent in the hands of the least responsible, least stable, drunkest, most trigger-happy person in the crowd. Every armed citizen was on their own, reporting to no authority, with no legal standing, and under no supervision to make a life and death decision or let off a 30-round magazine of a .223.

Everyone, especially responsible gun-owners, should be appalled by what happened in Snohomish. The vigilantes weren’t protecting the streets of Snohomish, they were putting themselves, the police, and the city in the cross-hairs of mayhem and financial destruction.

Tom Burke’s email address is t.burke.column@gmail.com.