Quote of the day—Phil Tagami

They took a few steps forward and I racked the shotgun and they left. It’s sort of the universal ‘Don’t come any farther’ sign.

Phil Tagami
November 3, 2011
Oakland developer Phil Tagami keeps protesters at bay — with a shotgun
Background:

About eight men and women dressed in black, faces covered in bandannas and armed with hammers, sticks and poles had just barged down the doors of Oakland’s landmark Rotunda Building — with another dozen behind them — when they were turned back by a tenant with a shotgun and an attitude.

Tagami said he phoned the mayor’s office and began communicating with senior staff around 10:45 p.m. voicing his concerns. Yet police were nowhere in sight, he said.

At around 11 p.m., a group of protesters began forcing the glass front doors back and forth before they opened partially. Before they could move much further, Tagami lifted his shotgun. He insists he did not point the gun at anyone, just positioned it in front of him and cocked it.

After the group cleared out, Tagami continued checking in with the mayor’s office and at 12:14 a.m., the assistant city manager phoned to tell him the police were moving in.

[Via email from Rob.

Also worthy of note is that they did 100’s of thousands of dollars in damage to the exterior of the building.

Also applicable are the following observations:

I do have to give the police some benefit of the doubt. A single patrol car and officer could have easily been taken out by a mob of that size and nature. It probably calls for a large group of police or else sniper fire from a few blocks away. Approval for sniper fire isn’t going to be given by that mayor at this time and assembling and deploying the riot police is going to take some time. 90 minutes may not have been out of line.—Joe]

13 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Phil Tagami

  1. What? The defender wasn’t charged with armed assault? He wasn’t billed for the expense of police protection? Is the Left giving up or what?

  2. On the flip side, if the anarchists could have legally carried guns, don’t you think they would have? Who goes armed with a hammer, stick or pole when they can be armed with a gun? (This only applies in places like California where you can be legally armed in your home or business but it’s much harder to get a CCW to carry on the street.)

  3. Ubu,

    Something tells me that people who don’t bother to get protest permits or get permission before vandalizing buildings are not terribly particular about such niceties as whether or not it is “legal” to carry a gun.

  4. Joe,

    Seems to me there was a Cooper quote about the ability to shoot a masked individual on sight. Could you dig that up. I can’t put my fingers on it. Might apply to the OWS crowd!

  5. It’s here:

    I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as “ninja,” when in the view of the critic the traditional role of the ninja in Japan was to fight against oppression and tyranny. Let us note that almost no one ever resorts to force and violence unless he is convinced that his cause is right, but without going into that let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic.
    It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view.

    Jeff Cooper
    From Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries
    Vol. 2, No. 16
    20 December 1994

  6. I think we have a tentative answer to ‘what caliber for Occupy protesters?’
    A 12-Gauge appears to work.

    On a serious front: Ubu, there was one man present with a legal right to compel trespassers to leave his property.

    That legal right didn’t stop trespass.

    However, the legal right to stop trespass coupled with a legally-carried firearm did stop the trespass.

    If one of the trespassers (apparently members of Occupy, if membership can be had in an organization that doesn’t have a structure) had been armed, things might have gotten very messy.

    But I note that legality (or not) of the armament would not change the fact that things would get messy.

    And if I remember California law correctly, those people could have legally carried non-concealed guns (as long as they aren’t prohibited people, and the guns are unloaded).

  7. I believe it worked at least once during the race riot days of the late 60’s, ma deuce on top of a building overlooking the sight of the protest certainly keeps things more peaceful.

  8. Ubu, if your talking points are so quickly refuted and with such ease, and you run like a coward from them at the first sign or resistance, maybe its time to re-think your ideals.

  9. On you comment about police being overwhelmed… they’re armed with either a shotgun or a carbine (both sometimes) and we see the results of one determined armed individual. Whatever happened to the old adage One Riot, One Ranger? Oh, wait, you might have to have that mindset going in, eh?

  10. I think ubu needs to try a Tueller drill, a hammer at the ready is a combination blunt/edged weapon, even if it is a cheap imported framing hammer… btw, my wife used to keep my Estwing E3-16S Rip Hammer in the van with her… yeah, a SAHM with 3 children to watch out for, not some loon dressed in black. http://www.estwing.com/product.php?product_id=300

  11. Karrde, legally speaking one can be a member of a mob even if the mob formed without benefit of dues or a membership committee or bylaws or membership cards ;).

    I recall reading a discussion on the internet somewhere of the efficacy of racking the slide as a signifier of determination, and there were a variety of opinions, ranging from highly recommended, to, “no, that gives your location away”. If there is already a shell in the chamber, it throws it out on the ground, which is not where you want your extra ammo. Odd that the mere sight of an armed man who wished the rioters to leave was insufficient incentive to disperse, compared to the case of that youtube video of the man in the pareo who showed rioters the error of their ways by showing them a Mosin Nagant.

  12. “On the flip side, if the anarchists could have legally carried guns, don’t you think they would have?”

    Perhaps yes, but if so, how many of them would have been eager to shoot someone, and face charges of attempted and/or actual murder? Combine this with the fact that they are facing someone else who is armed, and who has the legal right to shoot them in self-defense…I don’t know, but are you willing to threaten someone with a gun, when participating in a riot, especially knowing that your own life would be put in jeopardy?

    I don’t think that rioters owning guns is going to change the equation all that much, myself.

    And all this is assuming that the members weren’t armed in the first place! Just because there’s a law against them carrying guns, doesn’t mean that no one was carrying.

Comments are closed.