By Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California — Many of you heard about the standoff that took place at Mark and Patricia McCloskey’s mansion in St. Louis. The couple claimed that the BLM group yelled obscenities and threats of harm and since many of the protesters were armed, they decided to arm themselves.
Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner for the city of St. Louis told CNN in a statement that she was alarmed by the events that have taken place in this quiet peaceful neighborhood. Gardner claimed, “We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation or threat of deadly force will not be tolerated,” she said in her statement. “Make no mistake: we will not tolerate the use of force against those exercising their First Amendment rights, and will use the full power of Missouri law to hold people accountable.”[1]
As it turned out, the police have executed a search warrant at the home of a St. Louis couple and confiscated their weapons. They were subsequently charged with felony misuse of weapons. President Trump and Missouri Gov. Mike Parson have condemned Gardner’s action.
Every issue always has two sides.
Mark McCloskey said: “I thought that within seconds we’d be overrun, they’d be in the house, they’d be setting fires, they’d be killing us and that would be the end of things” The couple maintains that they called police before waving guns at protesters, though the city’s police department has said they never received any calls from the home at that time.
On the other side, St Louis University law professor John Ammann argued, “You are not allowed to aim a gun unless there is a specific threat that someone is approaching or attempting to enter the home. Video footage showed that Mrs. McCloskey appeared to be pointing a gun indiscriminately, with her finger on the trigger, rather than at a specific threat.”
This would not be the first time; the BLM activists have proven to be a very intimidating force. Politicians, police, clergy, and many other groups and individuals are terrified of what might happen to them if they have the temerity to say, “All Lives Matter.”[2]
One of my favorite sociologists, Amitai Etzioni, a world-renowned scholar wrote a penetrating article, and here are some of the points that he makes.
- The issue is an old one; however, current events require that we revisit the question of whether it is justified to resort to violence to gain social change in democratic societies (however flawed they are). The Black Lives Matter movement deserves great credit for mainly peaceful demonstrations, and for working hard to limit looting and violence. However, the use of force by some demonstrators has received support from a significant segment of the public. A recent CNN poll found that one out of four (27 percent) Americans believe that violent protests are justified. This is a considerable increase from the 14 percent who felt this way in 2016. Almost half of the Democrats hold that violent protests are justified; the same is true of 23 percent of White respondents.[3]
What is striking here to me is that 27% see nothing wrong in a protest that is violent. Granted, the rest of the 73% may have a different point of view, but it does not take much for a situation to become so incendiary that it literally explodes. Etzioni went on to say how many college professors see violent revolutions as American as “apple pie.”
But Etzioni’s conclusion makes a counter-argument that this writer finds both logical and compelling.
- As I see it, revolutions are very rare, very hard to bring about, involve large bloodshed, and often are followed by new tyrannies. Moreover, there are prudent reasons to urge protestors not to resort to violence. According to Georgetown Professor Michael Kazin, “[N]on-leftists often see [the left] as a disruptive, lawless force. Violence tends to confirm that view.” Research shows that violent campaigns are less likely to succeed than nonviolent ones, and, conversely, those nonviolent movements have a higher success rate than violent ones.
- Three studies support this observation. University of Denver Professor Erica Chenoweth collected data on all major nonviolent and violent campaigns seeking the overthrow of a government or a territorial liberation since 1900. Her data shows that from the 1960s to 2006 the success rate of nonviolent movements was consistently higher than that of violent movements, and, within recent decades, the success rate of violent movements decreased steeply while the success rate of nonviolent movements greatly increased.
In light of the above, and given the penchant for violence that we have witnessed in virtually every large metropolitan city around the country, I have no doubt that the McCloskey couple did fear for their lives. Clearly, the BLM violated private property by breaking in and entering a quiet and peaceful neighborhood.
I think they acted well within their rights, given the seriousness of their situation.
A Rabbinical Analysis
With that being said, I would like to conclude with a rabbinical perspective that needs to be debated, discussed, and examined.
As I thought about this story, it reminded me about a well-known biblical passage that reads:
- “If a thief is caught in the act of housebreaking and beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt involved. But if after sunrise he is thus beaten, there is bloodguilt” (Exod. 22:1-2).
Note that the Scriptures differentiate between killing the culprit during the evening after a break-in vs. killing the culprit during the daytime. What is the distinction?
Commentaries point out that when a thief breaks in at nighttime, the homeowner does not have the luxury of time or light at his hands. His duty is to protect his family, his property, and himself. The fact the intruder used such an unconventional means of entering his house is proof that his intentions are ominous. Surely the culprit realized that most people will not stand idly by as their possessions are stolen. Fearful of whatever harm may befall his home, the owner is allowed to take whatever means to prevent the intruder – even murder.
However, if the breaking and entry occurred during the daytime, it is much easier to make a clear determination as to whether the intruder’s intentions are benign or dangerous. In addition, by calling out to his neighbors who are awake to assist him in preventing the crime from occurring.
In the McCloskey case, the protesters broke into the private neighborhood during the day time. Their break-in was video-taped; Brandishing their weapons may have been the only thing that prevented actual bloodshed from taking place. Given the endorsement of revolutionary violence we have seen from advocates of the BLM, I think most of us concerned with the preservation of our lives would not have acted any differently. As it turned out, the threat of their gun-violence may been the catalyst for the peaceful resolution of their problem.
Had the couple been physically attacked, then it seems logical they would be within their legal rights to defend themselves. This is based upon the law of the pursuer, which Jewish law argues may be evoked for self-defense. Still and all, killing in broad-daylight is unacceptable.
Breaking and entry occurred during the daytime makes it easier to make a clear determination as to whether the intruder’s intentions are benign or dangerous. In addition, by calling out to his neighbors who are awake to assist him in preventing the crime from occurring.[4] Unfortunately, the police did not respond in the case of the McCloskeys.
One of Maimonides’ older contemporaries, R. Abraham Ibn Daud added that the real reason why the Torah did not sanction killing the thief during broad daylight was because the thief purposely chose a time when he knew the homeowner would be away at work, nor he did not expect to be apprehended nor did the thief ever have the intention to kill the homeowner for that same reason.[5] Rashi based on the Mekhilta rendered the verse as “If the sun shone on him, there is liability for his blood.”
Other scholars think that even when the burglar breaks in at nightfall, sometimes it is obvious that the intruder poses no danger. Take the case of a father who breaks in to steal the property from his son, where it is known that a father has pity for his child and has not come with any intentions of taking a life— then it is considered immoral to kill such an intruder, and if he does – the homeowner may be culpable of murder. This insight reminds us that issues pertaining to self-defense and the use of force are not always so black and white or obvious Some scholars add that if the homeowner used excessive force and killed the intruder, the owner may even be guilty of murder! (Keter Torah and Maimonides.[6]
Eztioni is correct: “The Black Lives Matter Movement Must Solve Its Violence Problem.”
And the rest is commentary.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/01/us/st-louis-couple-protest-firearms-mob-trnd/index.html
[2] https://www.kmov.com/news/charges-filed-against-mark-and-patricia-mccloskey/article_0777100a-cac9-11ea-8b3f-bf5d993f150e.html
[3] https://nationalinterest.org/feature/black-lives-matter-movement-must-solve-its-violence-problem-163732
[4] This view has been championed by Philo, Rashbam; Ibn Ezra; and Saadia Gaon.
[5]Ibn Daud’s Gloss to Maimonides, MT, Hilkhot Genevah 9:10.
[6] MT, Hilkhot Genevah 9:10
*
Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista, California. He may be contacted via michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com
Thank you for the courage to speak on a divisive issue. Dialogue is important & valuable. None of us know all the facts. Proverbs 18:13 “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”
I don’t know the laws in St Louis. But in many places trespassing is against the law, and you have the right to defend your property against intruders if you feel threatened.
Believe the determination of a valid threat is based on the one feeling threatened, whether the threat seems credible or not to the perpetrator or spectator.
Thank you for the courage to speak on a divisive issue. Dialogue is important & valuable. None of us know all the facts. Proverbs 18:13 “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.”
I don’t know the laws in St Louis. But in many places trespassing is against the law, and you have the right to defend your property against intruders if you feel threatened.
Believe the determination of a valid threat is based on the one feeling threatened, NOT whether the threat seems credible or not to the perpetrator or spectator.
We need more Rabbis to speak out on these matters. These are American values, the right to protect one’s property, the right to protect one’s life. I think that anyone that has been following the BLM movement has seen the violence whether videos on social media or nightly news. I’m thankful for spiritual leaders who are speaking out against the violence and the hypocrisy. All lives do matter and I think it’s important if we’re going to overcome any kind of racial issues everyone should try to keep focused on that.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
While it is easy to be judgmental concerning how somebody else should act in what they perceive to be a dangerous situation, we must bear in mind that we never know how we would act until we have found ourselves in that person’s situation. I have spoken with many liberal friends who felt they would not have acted any differently if the situation involved them.
While some may or may not agree with this point of view, that is a matter of personal choice.
Given the attacks of the BLM followers in Fairfax, LA, and the desecration of five synagogues, Jews need to be very careful in supporting a movement that looks to Louis Farrakhan as one of its spiritual and moral inspirations. The BLM’s position against Israel is something we as a Jewish community can’t afford to ignore. Many of the demonstrations have not been peaceful. Good people feel frightened by the ascendency of the BLM; many have lost their jobs for saying, “All lives matter,” as if that were a heretical statement worthy of condemnation and violence.
Disagreement is fine.
And there are always two sides to every issue. Spirited discussions are important and people should not be intimidated with censorship or cancel-culture if they entertain a different point of view.
Best regards,
Rabbi Dr. Michael Samuel
Rabbi, with all respect, if you applied your rhetoric and desire to side with the McCloskeys to the protestors, you would see what I and others are talking about. To think there are two sides to how the McCloskeys behaved, when nobody else on their block did anything remotely like what they did, and considering how the McCloskeys were jerks to their own neighbors, is terribly wrong. To say “many” have lost their jobs for saying “All lives matter” is hyperbole, and the one main case was a Sacramento Kings broadcaster, who some in the organization had felt was racist before he made the comment in CAPS in a Tweet back to Sacramento Kings player DeMarcus Cousins. Also, your flourish about the conduct of “BLM followers” is a lot different than “BLM leaders,” which is where you were in your initial column. However, there is no showing the various things you mentioned were done in the name of BLM as a movement. Finally, I, at least, am not asking you to be “canceled” and would oppose those who would want to do that. I am, however, asking you to more deeply consider how you evaluate what is happening these days regarding black civil rights, and, as I said to your colleague, Rabbi Rosenberg, ask yourself where Rabbi Heschel would be standing today, based upon how Rabbi Heschel evaluated the plight of African-Americans in our nation during the entire 1960s, including when the Black Power movement had arisen in the late 1960s.
Ted, thanks for writing in. I am reluctant to censor the viewpoint of a rabbi in our community, who is well known as an author of scholarly books on such philosophers as Philo and Maimonides. Rather I prefer such interchange as you see in this comment section, with not only your comment but those of Mitchell Freedman and Bob Wohl as well. It is through such a forum as this, where Jews of opposing viewpoints can discuss the issues, hopefully without insulting each other, that we can try to achieve a consensus. I always worry that if a newspaper or cable outlet presents only one side of the discussion, while either ignoring or dismissing the other side, that no one’s mind will be changed, and that we will all remain in our separate philosophical silos, utterly divided as a Jewish people. Ted, I know you are very knowledgeable about the Jewish religion. Is it not true that Talmudic scholars treasure argument (again express with civility) because they feel there is no better way to learn than to have to defend their positions against an opponent? All the best — Donald H. Harrison, editor, San Diego Jewish World
Relax Ted, I don’t believe you personally attacked the rabbi, but differed with his opinion. No need to unring the bell. — Don Harrison
Rabbi, there is no “two sides” about the McCloskeys, and your attempt to stretch a truth is very disappointing. You wrote: “This would not be the first time; the BLM activists have proven to be a very intimidating force. Politicians, police, clergy, and many other groups and individuals are terrified of what might happen to them if they have the temerity to say, ‘All Lives Matter.'” You then cite, for those propositions, in footnote 2, a report on the arrest of the McCloskeys which says absolutely nothing about “All Lives Matter” and people being in fear, or that the BLM activists are an intimidating force. The article shows the McCloskeys claim the protestors had smashed down the gate to their gated community, but video from the actual time of the event shows people merely walking through the gate (though a portion of the gate was later knocked down by unknown people; meaning after the incident with the McCloskeys). There is no evidence showing BLM activists or the protestors were actually intimidating the McCloskeys or their home at the time the McCloskeys decided to take their actions. There was no evidence people in the protests had or brandished any guns, and it is clear, even to law enforcement, the McCloskeys were brandishing their weapons in a reckless manner. It was also well known the protestors were marching past the McCloskeys and other homes to the home of the mayor, who lives in that neighborhood, as the mayor had come under severe criticism for doxxing critics of her administration regarding criminal (in)justice.. No other neighbors did what the McCloskeys did, and we learned, after the incident was first publicized, how the McCloskey’s had terrible relationships with neighbors, and had sued at least one or two of them over disputes they have had.
You then go on to say how upset you are that 27% of people asked about violent protests said such protests could be justified, when most if not all of the “Black Lives Matter” movement’s loosely affiliated leadership is not saying violent protests are “justified.” In fact, BLM leadership often quotes Martin Luther King, Jr. saying the civil disobedience is designed, in part, to expose how white racists are prone to violence, and that riots are the voices of the unheard in the face of an unjust criminal justice system. To assume all of the 27% who say violence in protesting is “justified” are saying more than what Rev. Dr. King said in the 1960s is something you never even broach in your article.
Your state in your article you believe the McCloskeys were justified, when the sources for your conclusion prove nothing of the sort. Further, your article ends by saying “Black Lives Matter” has a violence problem it needs to fix, when you have provided no evidence for that proposition. What needs to be fixed are racist patterns in the criminal justice system, especially after all the decades which have passed since the 1960s civil rights protests, and the mass incarceration policies that have fallen disproportionately on the poor, the black, and Latino. I would say, Rabbi, you really need to re-think this one.
Oh brother! Rabbi Samuel, you do not have all the facts, but you allow your prejudices to assume what the protesters did or didn’t do–like no one has verified the vandalism of the gate by the protesters. In fact many said it was open and already broken and the goal was to get the protesting group thru a shortcut to the Mayor’s house. The protesters had no interest in the McCloskeys nor their house, but the McCloskeys “used their imagination” and fantasized their own disaster. But no one cared about them. It looks like another Zimmerman type “enforcement assumption” that led to Travon Martin murder. “Gee, I thought he was…..” You can’t wave guns at people, Rabbi, and justify it that “they made me afraid”. And if that lady’s trigger finger had slipped and her gun had gone off…
What would you have called it then? An accident?
I support my colleague RABBI SAMUEL. Black lives matter is an anti-Semitic group .
It isn’t surprising that Black Lives Matter is a communist organization—but the type of communism they subscribe to is. They are conservative communists attempting to fold the progressive movement back into traditional Marxism.
BLM has turned its back on intersectional theory, the modern conflict theory that birthed safe spaces, trigger warnings, and the Oppression Olympics. Instead, BLM is rebirthing the traditional class struggle, reframing it in terms of black and white.
Had HITLER’S NAZI GERMANY conquered America no JEWS would have been left alive. That means many of you would never have been born. What is it that liberal JEWS do not understand? HITLER is coming and you are sleeping dreaming about the anti-Semitic Black LIVES MATTER.
What I will compare is 1933 NAZI GERMANY and the inaction of our Jewish leadership and the response of many Jews. Just as then when the voices of the Rabbinate might have made a difference , today most prefer to be politically correct and support our enemies.
it is time for the silent majority to demand and act to stop black lives matter . My colleague is correct, the family in question was scared of being attacked, even murdered by a violent mob some disguising as peaceful protestwrs. Never again means never again. rabbi dr. bernhard rosenberg
Rabbi Rosenberg, you must do better than mere rhetoric and conclusionary statements. You provide no facts, but merely conclusions regarding BLM, and reveal an insensitivity as to why there is so much frustration in African-American communities regarding the criminal justice system. Your last paragraph about the McCloskey “family” (a couple) being “scared of being attacked, even murdered by a violent mob some disguising as peaceful protesters,” has already been shown to be incorrect. People were walking past their home on the way to the mayor’s home, who had doxxed critics of her handling of previous protests. There was no smashing or even bending of the community gate at the time the McCloskeys decided to grab and brandish their guns. There is no evidence of armed people, and in fact the opposite. Your cry of “Never again, never again” is an abuse of language for the non-Jewish McCloskeys, who did not even follow the basic rule of love thy neighbor as they filed lawsuits against their own neighbors, using their lawyers’ status to intimidate. What is most ironic in your rhetoric is your belief German Jews should have stood up in 1933 at the beginning to Hitler’s use of official power. I would ask you to think about how African-Americans feel today, living in a racist criminal justice system, standing up as militantly as you demanded Jews should have in 1933 before the fact of German anti-Semitism. Your reaction to BLM would likely have been the reaction of non-Jewish Germans had there been protests or anything as militant you seem to be demanding German Jews, a minority there to be sure, to undertake. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel would know what I am talking about. Late in his life, when anti-Semitism began to creep into black-power elements in the late 1960s, Heschel publicly stated Jews would be wrong to remove themselves from the black civil rights struggle. He said he knew, as a child in Poland, “what it means to live in a country where you are despised. Blacks have the same feelings here.” He also said, “If a few guttersnipes put a fire to a synagogue, we all feel alarmed, and rightly so. But when we are told that police serve as deadly patrons of deadly crimes, the community remains unconcerned.” Rabbi, with all respect, your (and Rabbi Samuel’s) siding with the McCloskeys is not where Rabbi Heschel would be standing. Source for Heschel quotes: Edward Kaplan, Abraham Joshua Heschel: Mind, Heart, Soul (Jewish Publication Society, 2019), page 337.
Rabbi Rosenberg, you must do better than mere rhetoric and conclusionary statements. You provide no facts, but merely conclusions regarding BLM, and reveal an insensitivity as to why there is so much frustration in African-American communities regarding the criminal justice system. Your last paragraph about the McCloskey “family” (a couple) being “scared of being attacked, even murdered by a violent mob some disguising as peaceful protestors,” has already been shown to be incorrect. People were walking past their home on the way to the mayor’s home, who had doxxed critics of her handling of previous protests. There was
no smashing or even bending of the community gate at the time the McCloskeys decided to grab and brandish their guns. There is no evidence of armed people, and in fact the opposite. Your cry of “Never again, never again” is an abuse of language for the non-Jewish McCloskeys, who did not even follow the basic rule of love thy neighbor as they filed lawsuits against their own neighbors, using their lawyers’ status to intimidate. What is most ironic in your rhetoric is your belief German Jews should have stood up in 1933 at the beginning to Hitler’s use of official power. I would ask you to think about how African-Americans feel today, living in a racist criminal justice system, standing up as militantly as you demanded Jews should have in 1933 before the fact of German anti-Semitism. Your reaction to BLM would likely have been the reaction of non-Jewish Germans had there been protests or anything as militant you seem to be demanding German Jews, a minority there to be sure, to undertake. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel would know what I am talking about. Late in his life, when anti-Semitism began to creep into black-power elements in the late 1960s, Heschel publicly stated Jews would be wrong to remove themselves from the black civil rights struggle. He said he knew, as a child in Poland, “what it means to live in a country where you are despised. Blacks have the same feelings here.” He also said, “If a few guttersnipes put a fire to a synagogue, we all feel alarmed, and rightly so. But when we are told that police serve as deadly patrons of deadly crimes, the community remains unconcerned.” Rabbi, with all respect, your (and Rabbi Samuel’s) siding with the McCloskeys is not where Rabbi Heschel would be standing. Source for Heschel quotes: Edward Kaplan, Abraham Joshua Heschel: Mind, Heart, Soul (Jewish Publication Society, 2019), page 337.
Writer supports rabbis who are outspoken and politically active
I entered the Rabbinate to make a change in the world. As a holocaust survivors’ kid I wanted to make ‘never again’ a reality. For more than 41 years as a Rabbi, I have been outspoken on radio, TV the press, Facebook , my published books and the pulpit. Do I recommend that young rabbis and seminary graduates do this? My answer is absolutely ‘no.’ This is a recipe for being fired, being attacked in the press and having few friends. People consider you a loose cannon.
However, some of us are born with the desire to make changes and feel that politics is essential in the Rabbinate. I did not agree with the rabbis who walked out on Trump, since I am Rabbi for Trump, however I respected them for having the guts and courage to do so. Some of the same rabbis may have or will attack me in the press and that is fine. Firing a rabbi who is excellent in the pulpit happens often for many reasons including a congregant or board who want him or her out for a political statement or action.
I pray for all of us rabbis who give our lives to our congregations and in the end get the shaft. I write this to give encouragement to rabbis who are outspoken and politically active. I am certain most will disagree with me and will state there should be separation between the pulpit and religion.
I am now retired and if I had to do it all over again, I would have tried to learn from my mistakes, however I would have remained outspoken. A special merit should go to all the rabbis’ wives and their families, and especially to those whose parents and spouses are outspoken.
Rabbi Dr. Bernhard Rosenberg