Absolutely true, it’s the “best worst choice”.
I’d prefer to take my chance dealing with the police, protective custody or indictment in this country.
Overseas it’s just get out of the country.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"No good answer" hypothetical road block
- Thread starter HiBC
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Absolutely true, it’s the “best worst choice”.
I’d prefer to take my chance dealing with the police, protective custody or indictment in this country.
Overseas it’s just get out of the country.
I have a paratrooper clone M1 Carbine.
I also have a "Multi" AR reciever NIB. Thinking about a 300 blackout pistol.
Someplace between 8 in and 10 in.
Realistically,for my purposes,I'm not 100% sure the 300 Blackout advantage justifies the investment.
I drive an old Toyota Pickup,so compact is good. I suppose,to a degree,the old solid axle 4wd Toyota has pretty good off road capability. I could drive around a lot.
I also have a "Multi" AR reciever NIB. Thinking about a 300 blackout pistol.
Someplace between 8 in and 10 in.
Realistically,for my purposes,I'm not 100% sure the 300 Blackout advantage justifies the investment.
I drive an old Toyota Pickup,so compact is good. I suppose,to a degree,the old solid axle 4wd Toyota has pretty good off road capability. I could drive around a lot.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Well, the vehicle I referred to was a 2006 4Runner, so the good news is the space between the console and seat holds a short AR well.
The .300 BLK is going to produce more energy from a 9” barrel than the M1 carbine does from a 16” barrel. And it will have less drop at longer distances as well. Like all of life, it is a trade off.
Is the juice worth the squeeze for you? Hard to say without more detail.
The .300 BLK is going to produce more energy from a 9” barrel than the M1 carbine does from a 16” barrel. And it will have less drop at longer distances as well. Like all of life, it is a trade off.
Is the juice worth the squeeze for you? Hard to say without more detail.
No good answer just about covers it.
Just because a problem can be easily stated doesn't mean there's a good solution.
The only answer is that if you let yourself get into that kind of a no-win situation, you do what you feel like you absolutely must do to do to survive with the understanding that if you end up shooting someone or driving over someone to get away, your life as you knew it is probably over.
The real lesson is that the only way to win is to not get into that kind of a situation in the first place.
Pay attention to what's going on. Look around--don't zone out and "wake up" in a riot. Use news resources. Use common sense. Once you're in the middle of things, getting out is tricky. Staying out of it is a lot easier. If you have to drive over a curb or drive on the median, or bump into something or knock something over to get away, do it. If you have to drive down a one way street or make an illegal u turn or back up for a couple of blocks, do it. Take advantage of your vehicle's capabilities as required. If you have to use up your car to stay out of a riot, it's a worthwhile trade.
Just because a problem can be easily stated doesn't mean there's a good solution.
The only answer is that if you let yourself get into that kind of a no-win situation, you do what you feel like you absolutely must do to do to survive with the understanding that if you end up shooting someone or driving over someone to get away, your life as you knew it is probably over.
The real lesson is that the only way to win is to not get into that kind of a situation in the first place.
Pay attention to what's going on. Look around--don't zone out and "wake up" in a riot. Use news resources. Use common sense. Once you're in the middle of things, getting out is tricky. Staying out of it is a lot easier. If you have to drive over a curb or drive on the median, or bump into something or knock something over to get away, do it. If you have to drive down a one way street or make an illegal u turn or back up for a couple of blocks, do it. Take advantage of your vehicle's capabilities as required. If you have to use up your car to stay out of a riot, it's a worthwhile trade.
All I know is here in CO it's legal to carry a loaded handgun in your vehicle to defend yourself.
Title 18: Colorado allows a person to carry a firearm in a vehicle if its use is for lawful protection of such person or another's person or property. [C.R.S. 18-12-105(2)] Colorado law also allows a person to possess a handgun in a dwelling, place of business, or automobile. However, when you carry the weapon into your home, business, hotel room, etc. it must be in plain view. Local jurisdictions may not enact laws that restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon. [C.R.S. 18-12-105.6] The Act permits the nationwide carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and retired law enforcement officers and amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213) to exempt qualified current and retired law enforcement officers from state and local laws prohibiting the carry of concealed firearms.
Title 33: In accordance with Colorado wildlife laws, including C.R.S. 33-6-125, you may carry a weapon in your vehicle. However it is unlawful for any person, except a person authorized by law or by the division, to possess or have under his control any firearm, other than a pistol or revolver, in or on any motor vehicle unless the chamber of such firearm is unloaded. A "muzzle-loader" shall be considered unloaded if it is not primed, and, for such purpose, "primed" means having a percussion cap on the nipple or flint in the striker and powder in the flash pan.
Title 18: Colorado allows a person to carry a firearm in a vehicle if its use is for lawful protection of such person or another's person or property. [C.R.S. 18-12-105(2)] Colorado law also allows a person to possess a handgun in a dwelling, place of business, or automobile. However, when you carry the weapon into your home, business, hotel room, etc. it must be in plain view. Local jurisdictions may not enact laws that restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon. [C.R.S. 18-12-105.6] The Act permits the nationwide carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and retired law enforcement officers and amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213) to exempt qualified current and retired law enforcement officers from state and local laws prohibiting the carry of concealed firearms.
Title 33: In accordance with Colorado wildlife laws, including C.R.S. 33-6-125, you may carry a weapon in your vehicle. However it is unlawful for any person, except a person authorized by law or by the division, to possess or have under his control any firearm, other than a pistol or revolver, in or on any motor vehicle unless the chamber of such firearm is unloaded. A "muzzle-loader" shall be considered unloaded if it is not primed, and, for such purpose, "primed" means having a percussion cap on the nipple or flint in the striker and powder in the flash pan.
Last edited:
It is rather telling that these type of events keep happening in places with rather strict self defense laws, isn't it?
In KY, the castle doctrine extends to my vehicle, so if someone tries to enter it with me inside, my justification is written into the state law.
Haven't seen any of this insanity happening in states with laws like that.
In KY, the castle doctrine extends to my vehicle, so if someone tries to enter it with me inside, my justification is written into the state law.
Haven't seen any of this insanity happening in states with laws like that.
"No good answer" hypothetical roqd block
The argument we generally make as gun owners is just because something is a law doesn’t mean criminals will follow it. But the logic here seems to be that the criminals will know that castle doctrine applies to cars in certain states and therefore not attack car drivers for fear of retribution? Even if a person didn’t have a gun they have a car, and a car versus a person is often not a winning scenario for the person (heck we just had a thread where a member suggested police should run over knife wielding assailants rather than shoot them). Not to mention if the goal is to potentially incapacitate or kill the driver that can likely be done before the driver has a chance to react (if done with some care).
Personally I’m not convinced that criminals are choosing which states to commit these crimes based on standing concealed carry legislation or similar. I think those laws are important because I believe the right to self defense is fundamental, but I am not convinced it significantly discourages crime. If we’re going to compare Kentucky to the Middle East, Mexico, or the large metropolitan centers in the US that have significant crime I think we need to be realistic that there are more differences than just castle doctrine.
This week I’ve read on this forum that police should run over knife wielders, it’s best to flee the scene of the crime after a shooting to avoid prosecution, and now in this thread the OP has suggested wiring up some electric defense grid to the exterior of his car ala James Bond in Tomorrow Never Dies. I think maybe we all need to take a breath. Yes these are concerning times and no I don’t think preparedness is bad, but from my perspective we have run away with ourselves a bit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is rather telling that these type of events keep happening in places with rather strict self defense laws, isn't it?
In KY, the castle doctrine extends to my vehicle, so if someone tries to enter it with me inside, my justification is written into the state law.
Haven't seen any of this insanity happening in states with laws like that.
The argument we generally make as gun owners is just because something is a law doesn’t mean criminals will follow it. But the logic here seems to be that the criminals will know that castle doctrine applies to cars in certain states and therefore not attack car drivers for fear of retribution? Even if a person didn’t have a gun they have a car, and a car versus a person is often not a winning scenario for the person (heck we just had a thread where a member suggested police should run over knife wielding assailants rather than shoot them). Not to mention if the goal is to potentially incapacitate or kill the driver that can likely be done before the driver has a chance to react (if done with some care).
Personally I’m not convinced that criminals are choosing which states to commit these crimes based on standing concealed carry legislation or similar. I think those laws are important because I believe the right to self defense is fundamental, but I am not convinced it significantly discourages crime. If we’re going to compare Kentucky to the Middle East, Mexico, or the large metropolitan centers in the US that have significant crime I think we need to be realistic that there are more differences than just castle doctrine.
This week I’ve read on this forum that police should run over knife wielders, it’s best to flee the scene of the crime after a shooting to avoid prosecution, and now in this thread the OP has suggested wiring up some electric defense grid to the exterior of his car ala James Bond in Tomorrow Never Dies. I think maybe we all need to take a breath. Yes these are concerning times and no I don’t think preparedness is bad, but from my perspective we have run away with ourselves a bit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Personally I’m not convinced that criminals are choosing which states to commit these crimes
The point you are missing is that these are not random criminals. These are organized 'protests'. These aren't 400 random people that all coincidentally decided that 4:00 on Friday would be a good time to show up at the intersection of 5th and main and block the street.
The rest of your point is valid though.
The point you are missing is that these are not random criminals. These are organized 'protests'. These aren't 400 random people that all coincidentally decided that 4:00 on Friday would be a good time to show up at the intersection of 5th and main and block the street.
The rest of your point is valid though.
Not all of those 400 people are criminals. There are actual protestors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"No good answer" hypothetical roqd block
Throughout history there have been protests in the streets, with or without permits. They aren’t generally treated as criminals until violence or property destruction occurs.
The first amendment is just as important as the second. If only permit approved protests were legal the government could just choose not to issue permits, effectively ending free speech. I don’t wish to live in Hong Kong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Throughout history there have been protests in the streets, with or without permits. They aren’t generally treated as criminals until violence or property destruction occurs.
The first amendment is just as important as the second. If only permit approved protests were legal the government could just choose not to issue permits, effectively ending free speech. I don’t wish to live in Hong Kong.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
until violence or property destruction occurs.
And that is exactly what this entire thread is talking about.
"No good answer" hypothetical roqd block
Not all of the people that show up to the protests are violent criminals. That is what I’ve been talking about for the last two posts. And I didn’t bring them up, you did in Post #29.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And that is exactly what this entire thread is talking about.
Not all of the people that show up to the protests are violent criminals. That is what I’ve been talking about for the last two posts. And I didn’t bring them up, you did in Post #29.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The people that break in your window and force you to make a decision on how to save yourself are self-evidently violent criminals.
Those are who I am talking about.
You seem to believe it is perfectly fine for people to block a public road with no permit. You are wrong, but you are free to believe whatever you want.
There are laws against that kind of activity.
Those are who I am talking about.
You seem to believe it is perfectly fine for people to block a public road with no permit. You are wrong, but you are free to believe whatever you want.
There are laws against that kind of activity.
"No good answer" hypothetical roqd block
Those are who we were taking about. You then brought up any people that were at a protest and in the road. My point is and continues to be not everyone at a protest is a violent criminal, or even a criminal if you are protesting in the correct manner (yes even without a permit).
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/
You are right that people cannot block traffic indefinitely without likely being charged and arrested (though police generally allow some leeway).
My point is that just because someone is blocking traffic doesn’t mean they’re part of an organized team to slash your tires, box you in, and then rob and potentially kill you (as the scenario from the OP describes). Your point that they’re not randomized criminals is true, but that doesn’t mean that all of those 400 people want to drag you from your car.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those are who we were taking about. You then brought up any people that were at a protest and in the road. My point is and continues to be not everyone at a protest is a violent criminal, or even a criminal if you are protesting in the correct manner (yes even without a permit).
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/
You are right that people cannot block traffic indefinitely without likely being charged and arrested (though police generally allow some leeway).
My point is that just because someone is blocking traffic doesn’t mean they’re part of an organized team to slash your tires, box you in, and then rob and potentially kill you (as the scenario from the OP describes). Your point that they’re not randomized criminals is true, but that doesn’t mean that all of those 400 people want to drag you from your car.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
but that doesn’t mean that all of those 400 people want to drag you from your car.
I haven't seen anything in here to suggest that people believe that. However, it would be extremely foolish not to recognize that there are people who are doing exactly what we are talking about in protests. We've seen it happen before. It will happen again.
The point of this entire thread is what to do if you find yourself in that situation.
"No good answer" hypothetical roqd block
To be honest with you that’s exactly how your post came across to me originally.
As for has it happened, sure. My point from the beginning is the chances of that happening are pretty low and I think on the whole people are letting their imaginations go wild.
As Sharkbite mentioned there was a thread not long ago that did have some good discussion on this as well that might be worth the OP checking out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I haven't seen anything in here to suggest that people believe that. However, it would be extremely foolish not to recognize that there are people who are doing exactly what we are talking about in protests. We've seen it happen before. It will happen again.
The point of this entire thread is what to do if you find yourself in that situation.
To be honest with you that’s exactly how your post came across to me originally.
As for has it happened, sure. My point from the beginning is the chances of that happening are pretty low and I think on the whole people are letting their imaginations go wild.
As Sharkbite mentioned there was a thread not long ago that did have some good discussion on this as well that might be worth the OP checking out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Aguila Blanca
Staff
If their protest includes standing in the street to impede traffic, it's still lawless behavior, even if only to the level of a "civil infraction" (like jaywalking) rather then a "crime (as spelled out in the state's criminal code.TunnelRat said:Not all of those 400 people are criminals. There are actual protestors.
There's a reason civil disobedience is called "civil DISobedience" -- it's because it involves disobeying laws.
Many other states also have laws that say anyone participating in a felony that results in a death can be charged with murder for that death. The usual example is an armed robbery in which someone is killed. In that case, any and all accomplices, whether or not they actually pulled the trigger, can be charged with and tried for felony murder. I wonder how that might extend to a situation in which someone's vehicle is attacked and the driver has to run over a "peaceful protester" to escape. If the "peaceful protester" is killed, could the other 50 or 100 or 500 "peaceful protesters" be charged with his/her murder?
"No good answer" hypothetical roqd block
Right I covered that in a follow on post. My point in what you quoted, which I elaborated on later, was that there is a difference between people standing in a street and a team of attackers slashing a car’s tires, smashing the windows, and dragging out the occupant to either rob or kill him. Can people be part of both? Sure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If their protest includes standing in the street to impede traffic, it's still lawless behavior, even if only to the level of a "civil infraction" (like jaywalking) rather then a "crime (as spelled out in the state's criminal code.
There's a reason civil disobedience is called "civil DISobedience" -- it's because it involves disobeying laws.
Right I covered that in a follow on post. My point in what you quoted, which I elaborated on later, was that there is a difference between people standing in a street and a team of attackers slashing a car’s tires, smashing the windows, and dragging out the occupant to either rob or kill him. Can people be part of both? Sure.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.