America’s streets are being patrolled by armed civilians, but could these gun-toting vigilantes really kill?
America’s streets are being patrolled by armed civilians, but could these gun-toting vigilantes really kill?
Andrew Dickens
Andrew Dickens
is an award-winning writer on culture, society, politics, health and
travel for major titles such as the Guardian, the Telegraph, the
Independent, the Daily Mail and Empire.
Whether it’s protests over lockdowns or warding off looters, the
US has rarely seen such overt displays of ballistic power from private
citizens. But, for all their garage military get-ups, could these people
really shoot to kill?
There have been so many
powerful images in the news lately, it’s hard for anything to stand out.
We’ve been emotionally waterboarded by a constant stream of protest,
violence and brutality, hope, hate and humour. Among the most memorable
pictures have been those of heavily-armed private citizens guarding
shops and neighbourhoods during Black Lives Matter protests, or
expressing their disapproval of anti-epidemic measures.
Most of these vigilantes – a term I’ll use here without prejudice – describe themselves as “concerned citizens.”
Many are equipped better than some national armies, with assault-style
rifles and body armour very much the fashion. It’s a sight that is
impressive, intimidating, comforting, worrying, antagonising or
repulsive, depending on your point of view.
But what happens when someone isn’t deterred?
A
protester in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was shot on March 15 as he tried
to bring down a statue of a Spanish conquistador. Police are
investigating whether the shooter, Steven Ray Baca, is connected to the
New Mexico Civil Guard, a well-known local militia.
However,
considering the number of protests, the number of guns on display, the
unrest and the heightened tensions, is one non-fatal shooting an
anomaly? Are these personal arsenals, in reality, nothing more than
posturing or intimidation – an empty threat? In short, are the people
carrying the guns capable of using them to kill another human being?
Training to kill
We’ve
all seen films where the previously passive character empties a Glock
9mm into the bad guy at a crucial moment. It’s almost always heroic,
redemptive even, and gives the impression that, in the right situation,
each and every one of us can pull the trigger. Yet studies have shown
that even in the most hostile of environments, people have been
reluctant to shoot to kill.
”There was a study done after a major American Civil war battle,”
says Colin Berry, former Special Forces sergeant, government
intelligence operative and author of The Deniable Agent: Undercover in Afghanistan. “They
found that most of the muskets of the dead had been loaded several
times over, meaning the individual had followed the drill, aimed but
never fired.
“Armies
around the world picked up on this and military training became all
about desensitising the act of killing. The enemy is routinely referred
to as ‘the target.’ This stems from training on a range with targets
that are human-shaped. This conditions front line troops into seeing a
target, not a human. It’s effective but far from foolproof.”
Indeed,
US Army historian SLA Marshall’s famous (albeit challenged) study of
World War II soldiers found that only 15-20 percent of combatants were
able to fire their weapons at the enemy – and many of these aimed high
or low. The conclusion Marshall came to was that most humans,
subconsciously at least, find the act of killing abhorrent, to the point
where some consider it worse than dying.
“In World War I they experienced a similar problem,” says Berry. “Trillions
of rounds were fired by soldiers who can hit a target on the range and
yet the death rate was still a small percentage of what was actually
fired. So how did we lose so many men? Artillery, indirect fire, death
by proxy, gas and machine-gun fire.
“In
World War II you had aircraft joining the ranks with mass bombings, but
still there was the problem of highly trained and motivated service
personnel not killing when aiming down the sights. Vietnam was the same
and bizarrely painted a better picture, with jungle being lopped down by
automatic fire many feet above the enemies’ heads.”
It
should be noted that most soldiers in these wars were conscripts or
volunteers. They weren’t professional soldiers who had chosen a career
that might involve having to shoot someone whose eyes they can see. That
said, many who do choose that career path will not understand the
reality of conflict and require training.
“In modern armies, we recognise these issues,” says Berry. “Killing isn’t for everyone. Even those who act like Rambo often fail in the heat of battle.”
According to Lt Col Pete Kilner, a retired US Army officer who studied
the experiences of soldiers in war, much of the training involved in
preparing soldiers for combat is centred around repetition and priming
them to react to situations in an effective manner.
“An old saying is, ‘Skill plus will equals kill,’” he says. “First,
the military trains soldiers to be able to use their weapons expertly.
This creates ‘muscle memory’ and gives soldiers great pride in their
ability to operate their weapon. Then, groups of soldiers are trained on
‘battle drills,‘ which are immediate group responses to a stimulus.
“In
the US Army, the most-trained battle drill is Battle Drill 1A: Squad
React to Contact. The squad, a group of eight to 10 soldiers who spend
countless hours together, practices responding as a group to making
contact with an enemy. Battle drills create ‘social muscle memory’ that
includes skills – how and where to move, and when to shoot – and also t
responsibility to do their duty for their squad.”
That’s
the skill element and the will is equally as important. Excuse the
crude analogy, but we all know how to jump off a cliff, but how many of
us would be willing to do it?
“The military trains soldiers to love their country and all the good value it stands for,” says Kilner. “It
develops strong bonds of loyalty among soldiers and within their units.
Most soldiers develop such a strong sense of patriotism, duty, and
loyalty that they are very willing to kill and to risk being killed.”
Even a sheep can kill
So,
what about those armed civilians? Unless they’re ex-military, few will
have gone through such specialised and intensive conditioning. This, you
would think, would greatly reduce their ability to fire on someone. And
yet, according to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that tracks
shootings, at least 15,292 people were fatally wounded by gunfire in the
US last year, excluding suicides.
This isn’t to link those
citizens on patrol with these statistics. While there have been notable
‘vigilante’ killings, such as the murder of unarmed jogger Ahmaud Arbery
in February, they are clearly not contributing to the majority of those
15,000 deaths. But a lot of civilians are managing to pull the trigger
and that’s because the ability to kill at close quarters is about more
than training, it’s also about who’s holding the gun.
“In UK special forces selection we have what is called the ‘aptitude test,’” says Berry. “It
covers a multitude of capabilities but one is the ability to aim at a
human and kill them. Just because you join the services doesn’t mean
you want to kill and we know it. That’s the military: full of sheep,
sheepdogs and wolves. Society is the same.
“Sheep
are normal healthy individuals who wouldn’t contemplate killing anyone
but are essential to society or a collective. Wolves are psychopathic
individuals who would kill anything and anyone and need to be isolated
or removed. Unfortunately, they’re good at hiding themselves. Sheepdogs
understand that to protect the sheep, they must control the numbers of
wolves. Thankfully the sheep in society outnumber the wolves and
sheepdogs.”
Considering
its popularity as an online slur, it will come as a great shock to many
people that they are, in all probability, sheep. However, this doesn’t
necessarily mean that we need to be psychopathic or professionally
programmed to kill. Indeed, that movie scenario of the previously placid
character firing a fatal shot at the villain rings true with basic
human psychology – if we have the right stimuli.
Nick Davies is a leading psychotherapist and hypnotherapist who deals with trauma, including PTSD in both civilians and soldiers who have killed. He says that certain situations will allow almost anyone to take a life.
“We have a survival instinct that's hardwired into our brain,” he says. “But
also we protect others, especially close members of our family because
the bigger the family unit, the safer we are, the more resources we can
get, etc. So in order to kill another human being, we need to feel our
own safety is threatened or the safety of, say, our kids.
“I
say this to the most peaceful mothers. If somebody was going to kill
your children, I guarantee you would find that killer instinct.”
Kilner agrees.
“It's easy, even natural, to use force to protect yourself or someone you love,” he says. “When
an Iraqi insurgent was shooting at me, I was shocked by my visceral
desire to kill him. Once we captured him, I no longer felt the desire to
kill him. When it's him or you who's going to die, you desperately want
it to be him.”
In the case of Steven Ray Baca, video footage
shows him being attacked with a skateboard by the protester he shot. No
matter who instigated the tussle - which is still unclear - Baca could
easily have believed his life to be in danger.
Fight or freeze?
Many
of these vigilantes, who range from Average Joe to militia, have been
seen in areas where looting and rioting have taken place. Others have
appeared because of online rumours that their patch of the USA will be
targeted by ‘Antifa’ (these rumours have nearly always been unfounded
but aren't surprising, given the fertile environment for
misinformation).
Here, they aren’t necessarily
defending themselves or their friends and family; they’re defending
property. Some of these properties are domestic or municipal, such as
homes, parks, squares or, in Baca's case, a statue; many are businesses,
both small and large.
It seems reasonable that
someone protecting their home or their own business – and therefore
their livelihood – is going to fight hard to save that property,
possibly to the point where they might use potentially lethal force. But
some vigilantes are lining roofs and car parks of entire shopping
malls, forming a quasi-military defence of Target and Walmart stores.
Surely taking a life to help shareholders is very different.
“It depends on what's happened in their past,” says Davies. “For
instance, if somebody had things taken from them as a child - if they
were very poor and people stole their possessions - that can follow them
through life. There's a learned behaviour that I need to protect my
possessions, my property, otherwise I feel vulnerable. Also, it can be
if you feel overtly threatened by somebody and they're a lot bigger,
stronger than you. You've got a weapon and you think this is my only way
out.”
Or they can be one of those wolves.
“When
you get characters like [Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer
who killed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes]
who use violence excessively, it's because of a massive sense of fear,
more than likely from previous trauma. They were bullied at school, went
through humiliation, beatings, maybe from their parents. Things like
that. They get such trauma that they develop this external character
which helps in terms of doing bad things. So a childhood of trauma can
provoke this wilder, irrational side that can be quite nasty and
malicious.”
So, we have different types of people, conditioning
and situations – the various blends of which leaves us with three
possible outcomes from these vigilante patrols, putting aside the option
of them going home. The first, and undoubtedly the most desirable, is
that the sight of people with rifles slung over their shoulders
dissuades anyone from attacking either them or whatever they’re trying
to protect.
This could also discourage peaceful
protesters or people who just want to buy a new toaster and don’t want
to become ‘collateral damage,’ but even this seems preferable to the
alternatives.
The second potential result is that
these mini arsenals don’t deter assailants and that those holding the
guns aren’t able to pull the trigger – at least not while pointing at a
human being. In addition to our innate reluctance to kill, Davies points
to another reason why this is likely.
“The freeze response,” he says. “Responses
to a threat include fight, flight, freeze and appease. But the
predominant one is freeze. This might keep you alive but the
consequences can be PTSD or trauma – nightmares about, ‘Why didn't I
protect myself? Why didn't I do something?’”
If
you’ve ever seen a frightened (real) sheep, freezing is one of their
natural responses. In this case, we have a heavily-armed sheep in danger
of losing a deadly weapon, possibly to a wolf who is capable of using
it. Or perhaps a frightened sheep firing wildly in a built-up,
heavily-populated urban area. Which leads us onto consequence number
three: someone shoots someone, possibly fatally. It leaves you scarred
What
happens then isn’t just about legal processes and arguments or the
tragedy of a life lost. It’s also about the effect on the person who
pulled the trigger. How does taking a life affect someone? If we go back
to the original comparison of a soldier in war, Kilner believes that
there are three situational variables that influence the psychological
after-effects.
“The first is the killer's psychological distance from the attacker they kill,” he says. “That
distance is partly geographic – it's more traumatic to kill someone at
close range, probably because they’re more obviously a fellow human
being. It's also social-psychological. How similar is that person to me?
It's easier to dehumanise an enemy who is ‘different’ in, for example,
appearance, religion, language.
“The
second factor is the killer's perception of the immediate threat that
the attacker poses. The greater the immediate threat, the lesser the
after-effects. Is he aiming at us? Is he even armed? Or is he simply
walking around at the moment? The third variable is the justness of the
killer's cause or mission. How confident is he that the war is just? In
the case of police officers, at least they know that their mission is
just, even if their behaviour isn't always right.”
If
a soldier who kills can help deal with their actions by framing them
within the context of war, or a police officer by believing in a larger
cause, it’s more complicated with civilians (Steven Ray Baca, by the
way, is the son of a former sheriff). Davies says that convicts he
treats, even those who have turned their lives around, still have
nightmares about what they've done in the past because with age,
usually, comes the ability to reflect and rationalise what we’ve done.
“If
you’re not trained for it, there's going to be anxiety or trauma, even
if it's in self-defence, because it's really difficult for most human
beings to harm another human being,” he says. “In a situation
where you've murdered somebody it's very likely that you're going to
suffer trauma and PTSD. We find that they’ll have recurring nightmares,
they lie awake at night thinking about the situation happening again. We
can treat it using therapies to remove memories, but talking therapies
like counseling and CBT won't touch it - it’s Olympic level.”
Coping with the consequences
We can ask someone who has killed how it affects them. Someone who has had
to kill. Berry, in his time serving in the military and as an
intelligence operative, has done just that. He believes that training or
no training, no normal person could remain unaffected, and has a method
for dealing with the consequences of his actions.
“In my personal experience the act was always by instinct, reacting to a direct threat or stopping a threat from being present,” he says. “The
reaction after the event will come in many ways: laughter, exhaustion
or tears. All are a by-product of increases in adrenaline levels. That
all deals with the immediate. Thereafter it’s the legacy. If you're a
‘normal’ person, regardless of training or background, you will rerun
the event a thousand times. This often manifests itself as PTSD. I don’t
believe anyone has immunity to this but it comes at differing levels.
Some can be treated, others result in suicide.
“I
always play events back to myself. The first question I ask myself is,
‘Did I need to kill?’ Normally a resounding yes, as it was a necessity
to save lives, mine or others. First tick. ‘Was there any way of
avoiding the situation?’ Normally no, as it was part of a pre-planned
mission or I was attacked. Second tick. My last sanity check is, ‘Did
they deserve to die?’ I try to answer this question rather than leaving
it to stew, looking at a couple of things: did I kill an enemy whose
sole intent at that time was to kill me, or was in the act of planning
to kill me, my comrades or civilians. If it’s a yes, then they had met
my criteria. But it’s not always that easy.”
The
answer to our question then: maybe. Not that definitive, I realise, but
the combination of personality type, human behaviour and situation
means that when we see those images of armed civilians lining the
streets, we don’t know which of them would be able to aim and shoot.
Under the right circumstances, it could be all of them; and the more
tense or hostile the environment, the more likely those circumstances
become.
The one thing we can say with absolute
certainty is, assuming they’re not a psychopathic ‘wolf,’ if they do
pull that trigger, their lives will never be the same again. Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The
statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
That’s
the skill element and the will is equally as important. Excuse the
crude analogy, but we all know how to jump off a cliff, but how many of
us would be willing to do it?
Fight or freeze?
If
a soldier who kills can help deal with their actions by framing them
within the context of war, or a police officer by believing in a larger
cause, it’s more complicated with civilians (Steven Ray Baca, by the
way, is the son of a former sheriff). Davies says that convicts he
treats, even those who have turned their lives around, still have
nightmares about what they've done in the past because with age,
usually, comes the ability to reflect and rationalise what we’ve done.
No comments:
Post a Comment