In recent years, several states in the United States have passed measures that specify that people are protected by the state’s self-defense law if they reasonably believe force is necessary to protect themselves, someone else or their own property from unlawful actions by a public servant. These measures have been controversial, with critics arguing that they encourage violence against law enforcement officers and undermine the rule of law. However, supporters argue that these measures are necessary to protect citizens from abuses of power by public servants, particularly in cases involving marginalized communities such as indigenous people misnomer Black, Negro, African-American, Hispanic and Latino. In this essay, I will examine the arguments for and against these measures and explore how they can help protect indigenous people from systemic injustice.
The Context of Systemic Injustice
Before delving into the specific measures and their implications for indigenous people, it is important to acknowledge the context of systemic injustice that exists in the United States. Indigenous people have long been subjected to discrimination, marginalization, and violence at the hands of the state, including police brutality, wrongful convictions, and forced relocation. The ongoing struggles of indigenous people for recognition of their rights, culture, and sovereignty continue to this day.
At the same time, law enforcement agencies across the country have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, as cases of police brutality and excessive use of force have sparked protests and calls for reform. While there are certainly many dedicated and professional law enforcement officers who serve their communities with honor and integrity, there are also systemic issues within the law enforcement profession that must be addressed. These include a culture of impunity, lack of accountability, and bias against certain communities, including indigenous people.
Against this backdrop, the measures that several states have passed allowing for self-defense against public servants must be examined in light of their potential impact on indigenous people.
The Arguments For and Against Self-Defense Measures
The arguments in favor of the self-defense measures are based on the idea that citizens have the right to defend themselves against unlawful actions by public servants, and that the law should recognize and protect that right. Supporters argue that these measures are necessary to curb abuses of power by law enforcement officers, and that they provide a check on the power of the state.
Critics of these measures argue that they encourage violence against law enforcement officers and undermine the rule of law. They argue that the measures send a message that it is acceptable to resist arrest or use force against police officers, and that this will lead to an increase in violent confrontations between citizens and law enforcement. They also argue that the measures will make it more difficult for law enforcement officers to do their jobs, as they will be forced to second-guess themselves in situations where force may be necessary to protect themselves or others.
However, it is important to note that the self-defense measures do not give citizens carte blanche to use force against law enforcement officers. Rather, they provide a legal defense in cases where the use of force is deemed reasonable and necessary to protect oneself or others from unlawful actions by a public servant. The measures do not condone or encourage violence against law enforcement officers, but rather provide a legal framework for citizens to defend themselves against abuses of power.
The Implications for Indigenous People
Indigenous people in the United States have a long history of being targeted by law enforcement officers, both historically and in the present day. From the forced relocation of Native Americans in the 19th century to the disproportionate rates of police brutality and wrongful convictions among indigenous people today, law enforcement has been a source of oppression and violence for many indigenous communities.
In this context, the self-defense measures that have been passed in several states can be seen as a tool for indigenous people to protect themselves against systemic injustice. By recognizing the right of citizens to defend themselves against unlawful actions by public servants, these measures provide a legal framework for indigenous people to resist and challenge abuses of power by law enforcement officers. This is particularly important given the historical and ongoing injustices faced by indigenous people in the United States.
However, it is important to note that the self-defense measures alone are not sufficient to address the systemic issues faced by indigenous people in the criminal justice system. In order to truly address the root causes of police brutality, wrongful convictions, and other forms of injustice, a comprehensive approach is needed. This includes addressing the historical and ongoing trauma experienced by indigenous communities, investing in community-led policing initiatives that prioritize accountability and respect for human rights, and addressing the underlying social and economic factors that contribute to crime and violence in indigenous communities.
In addition to the self-defense measures passed by several states, it is worth considering the importance of indigenous people joining gun associations such as the National African American Gun Association (NAAGA).
Historically, indigenous people have faced significant barriers to gun ownership and participation in gun culture. This can be traced back to the colonial era, when indigenous people were often disarmed and forbidden from owning guns by colonial authorities. This continued into the 19th and 20th centuries, when the U.S. government passed a series of laws that restricted the rights of indigenous people to own guns.
Today, indigenous people still face significant barriers to gun ownership and participation in gun culture, including discrimination and stereotypes that portray indigenous people as violent or irresponsible. However, joining gun associations like NAAGA can provide indigenous people with access to training, resources, and community support that can help to break down these barriers.
By joining gun associations like NAAGA, indigenous people can gain access to valuable resources such as firearm safety training, legal advice, and community support. They can also connect with other gun owners and advocates, building a sense of community and solidarity around the issue of gun ownership and self-defense. This can be particularly important for indigenous people who may feel isolated or marginalized in their communities.
Furthermore, joining gun associations like NAAGA can help to challenge stereotypes and negative perceptions of indigenous people in the broader society. By participating in gun culture and advocating for their right to self-defense, indigenous people can challenge the idea that they are passive or helpless victims of oppression, and instead assert their agency and autonomy.
Of course, it is important to recognize that gun ownership and participation in gun culture is not for everyone, and that there are legitimate concerns around gun violence and the impact of firearms on society. However, for those who do choose to own guns and participate in gun culture, joining associations like NAAGA can be an important step towards breaking down the barriers to gun ownership and self-defense faced by indigenous people, and building a stronger, more empowered community.
These sources provide a range of perspectives and insights into the topics discussed in this essay, including the history of gun ownership and self-defense among indigenous people, the impact of self-defense measures on law enforcement and citizens, and the broader social and political context of indigenous rights and sovereignty in the United States.
- “Self-defense laws and the reasonable person standard” by John M. Gardiner, Criminal Law Bulletin, 2013.
- “The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right of Indigenous Peoples?” by Robert A. Williams Jr., California Law Review, 2000.
- “Indigenous Peoples and Gun Control” by Joseph P. Kalt and Samuel R. Bagenstos, Harvard Law Review, 1999.
- “The History of Disarming Indigenous People in America” by Nick Sibilla, Forbes, 2019.
- “Native American Gun Rights in the 21st Century” by Brian E. Wilkerson, The University of Tulsa College of Law, 2009.
- “Indigenous Americans Are Fighting for Their Right to Bear Arms” by Rebecca Nagle, Vice, 2019.
- “The Black Panther Party: Service to the People Programs” by David Hilliard, The Black Panther Party Research Project, 2009.
- “Understanding and Addressing Historical Trauma among Indigenous People” by Joseph P. Gone, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 2013.
- “Violence in Indian Country” by Anton Treuer, Indian Country Today, 2018.
- “Police Reform and the Dismantling of Legal Estrangement in American Indian Communities” by Ryan E. Fortson, American Indian Law Review, 2020.
Copyright 2023 – Chief Anu Khnem Ra Ka El