In the wake of the fatal shooting of Renée Nicole Good by a federal agent in Minneapolis, Paul Birdsong — national chairman of a contemporary organization calling itself the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense — has drawn widespread attention for his public reactions and rhetoric.
Birdsong’s group, a modern formation inspired by the historic Black Panther Party, has sought to blend community support programs with armed self-defense demonstrations. Members have been visible at protests and public events, sometimes openly carrying firearms where local laws allow.
In response to the Minneapolis incident, Birdsong and others spoke out against what they describe as systemic violence and the need for community protection. While Birdsong has repeatedly defended armed self-defense as part of the group’s mission and its legal right to bear arms, reports have noted that his language advocating forceful deterrence of state violence has been stark and confrontational. He argued that a visible presence of armed community members could serve as protection and a deterrent against what the group views as unchecked federal force.
Birdsong has accused federal agents of creating fearful conditions in marginalized neighborhoods and has urged his supporters to be prepared to defend their communities. His remarks have included rhetoric emphasizing the importance of being armed in the face of what he sees as threats from law enforcement or state power — a stance that has drawn both support and criticism.
Critics of Birdsong’s approach, including civil-rights commentators and some local activists, argue that adopting an armed posture at protests and public gatherings risks escalating tensions and may cross into language that could be interpreted as incitement rather than self-defense. Many advocates stress that non-violent protest traditions have historically been more effective in advancing civil-rights goals without increasing the likelihood of violent confrontation.
Supporters of Birdsong, however, say his focus on community self-defense reflects a broader frustration with systemic violence and a desire to protect vulnerable residents where they feel law enforcement has failed. They point to community programs the group runs — including food distributions and mutual aid — as examples of constructive engagement to address local needs.
These developments come amid a national backdrop of heightened debate over immigration enforcement, federal use of force, and the role of armed citizens in public demonstrations — a debate that continues to draw sharply divergent views across the political spectrum.
As discussions about public safety, protest tactics, and civil liberties persist, Birdsong’s statements and activities remain a focal point in how contemporary activist groups propose responding to perceived state violence.
