Your Rules of Engagement - Rioters threaten to move to suburbs
- Thread starter TXAZ
- Start date
44AMP said...
We are back to talking about the 3 corner stones of all self-defense. ABILITY, OPPORTUNITY and INTENT. Without all 3 of those established as present... no self-defense is legal.
A guy without a brick, lacks the ABILITY to throw a brick
A guy a block away cant throw a brick that far... no OPPORTUNITY to hit me
A guy building a Brick retaining wall in my neighbors yard... no INTENT
But thats not what we are talking about. The context matters. An angry mob approaching and an individual runs up to the pile of bricks being used to build my neighbors retaining wall. He is now 20yards from me and throws it at me. He has met all 3 criteria.
Maybe bis first one misses and he is reaching for another...does he pose a deadly threat? I think yes.
We can talk about preclusion and other options all day long. The question was about “ROE’s” and using force to defend yourself under the current civil unrest.
I used “a brick thrown into your head.” as an example of a deadly threat, and it is.
ABILITY
OPPORTUNITY
INTENT
Same as any use of force, with or without riots
We are back to talking about the 3 corner stones of all self-defense. ABILITY, OPPORTUNITY and INTENT. Without all 3 of those established as present... no self-defense is legal.
A guy without a brick, lacks the ABILITY to throw a brick
A guy a block away cant throw a brick that far... no OPPORTUNITY to hit me
A guy building a Brick retaining wall in my neighbors yard... no INTENT
But thats not what we are talking about. The context matters. An angry mob approaching and an individual runs up to the pile of bricks being used to build my neighbors retaining wall. He is now 20yards from me and throws it at me. He has met all 3 criteria.
Maybe bis first one misses and he is reaching for another...does he pose a deadly threat? I think yes.
We can talk about preclusion and other options all day long. The question was about “ROE’s” and using force to defend yourself under the current civil unrest.
I used “a brick thrown into your head.” as an example of a deadly threat, and it is.
ABILITY
OPPORTUNITY
INTENT
Same as any use of force, with or without riots
I've said several times that in the narrowly defined scenario you've created, deadly force would likely be justified. I don't think there's any practical benefit to you explaining again what I've already agreed with.
I apologize in advance for injecting some reality into this “scenario-izing”, but if a mob is approaching, you need to be leaving—or at least taking cover. There is no way you’re going to be able to hold your position against a mob of people who are willing to close with and throw bricks at a person with a gun.
Ok, that aside, now, as script writers, we’ve given this attacker a ready supply of bricks within easy throwing distance and we’ve also written the script so that the defender has made the decision to try to fend off an “angry mob” with small arms rather than take the logical approach that a person truly concerned about safety would take--to get away from the danger. Yes, under those circumstances, if you let yourself get into this situation, you can go ahead and play out the situation using deadly force and hope things go well for you.
This is what I meant when I said that : “It’s almost always possible to “game” a situation where deadly force will appear justified, but if the situation being set up is so oversimplified or contrived as to be meaningless, the resulting conclusion is equally meaningless. The focus needs to be on real-world situations. More often than not, as in this case, a less narrowly focused/gamed/artificially constrained situation reveals that not only are many options open, actually getting into the artificial situation in the first place is logically inconsistent with the overall stated goal of remaining safe.
I do agree that if you can’t, (or won’t and are in a no duty to retreat state) get away from a person who is throwing bricks at you from a distance close enough to be a deadly threat, and there’s no other reasonable way to stop them, then it is probably legal to respond with deadly force. Keep in mind that you don’t get to be the sole arbiter of the meaning of “reasonable” and if your definition doesn’t agree with the authorities’ or a jury’s, things may get very unpleasant for you.
What I don’t agree with is the premise that the scenario is particularly realistic, and I have a general problem with the whole—“Wait while I come up with this specific and unlikely situation that I can then use to demonstrate that it could be legal to shoot someone throwing bricks at me.”
Deadly force laws are about prevention, and they provide a safety net for citizens who have no other options to save their lives. It’s a mistake to get into the mode of “scenario-izing” to set up carefully engineered situations where shooting could be legal. Deadly force laws aren’t supposed to be a “recipe for legally shooting people”, they’re there as a last resort for when things go terribly wrong.
This is exactly the correct answer. Riots do not change the rules. Exactly the same laws apply as always and in exactly the same ways as always.
And, lest we fall into the trap of thinking that this is all nit-picking, here's a guy who thought his gun would keep him safe so he took it with him to confront protesters. He apparently got overwhelmed by the situation, pointed his gun at someone when he didn't have sufficient justification, and now he's been arrested and charged with aggravated assault/assault with a deadly weapon.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/upland-rifle-protesters-arrest/2374054/
If you are really worried about your safety, take yourself away from the danger if at all possible. Don't let things develop into a no-win situation. Don't wait around within throwing distance of piles of bricks during a riot because you think you can just shoot if someone starts picking them up to throw at you. It's much better to not be in that situation in the first place.
And, most of all, don't get into the mindset that deadly force laws are a checklist that you can run down and if all the right boxes are checked (A box? Check. O box? Check. I box? Check! Shoot!), you get to shoot someone. That's not what they are there for, and taking that kind of mindset can lead to all kinds of problems.
I would point out the Korean shop owners in the Olympic/Union area of Los Angeles during the “Rodney King” riots in 1992. They did EXACTLY that. Stood their ground and held off a mob that would have certainly looted and burned that neighborhood.
So, this is not some far fetched wild movie script. We’ve seen it live on the news.
Those who dont study history are doomed to repeat it....And im done with this one.
First, you set up this very specific scenario that justifies the outcome you wish to achieve, now you want to generalize it when I comment on it exactly as you set it up to be.
What I said was: "There is no way you’re going to be able to hold your position against a mob of people who are willing to close with and throw bricks at a person with a gun." That was exactly the scenario you devised.
The shopkeepers did something very roughly similar, but not 'exactly' that by any means. In fact it was very different.
Clearly that wasn't the situation with the shopkeepers or one of two things would have happened. They would have been overrun and killed, or they would have piled up bodies in front of their shops. In fact, neither of those things happened. As far as I know, not one of them was killed, and as far as has been reported, they never had to actually kill anyone to deter them.
For one thing, they were operating from rooftops where they were mostly out of range of thrown projectiles. Very wise move for persons concerned about their personal safety, and it also means they are less likely to get "pushed into a corner" and be forced to shoot someone. Second, they were there in force, not just one person trying to stand down an angry brick-throwing mob on his own.
That is true, as far as it goes--although remembering it accurately is important.
However, this saying (that I just created) is more relevant to the discussion: "Those who scenario-ize unrealistic situations in an attempt to gain a practical understanding of the use of deadly force will fail to achieve their goal."
Again, I'm not nitpicking--understanding this is important. I provided an example of a person who thought that a gun would solve his problems because he either hadn't thought things through, or because he hadn't thought things through properlly. He put himself into a situation unwisely, didn't follow a reasonable plan and ended up paying the price. And he wasn't even attacked--he got rattled and he screwed up without even being put into the same kind of chilling scenario you created. It's important to keep the big picture in mind--critically important.
Really thinking through a successful defense scenario against a mob using small arms (as opposed to just picking one or two, dramatically oversimplified situations) is a good exercise--but it does not encourage one to be optimistic about the outcome. Yes, we can look at history and see how some successfully solved the problem in the past, but it's important to consider all the circumstances that worked in their favor. For example, being on the rooftops was very smart--a critical factor. But having a number of defenders supporting each other was also important. With just one defender, for example, the building could have been set on fire while the defender was distracted. And the whole scenario was critically dependent on no one being willing (or able) to shoot them since they were, of necessity forced to be exposed to be an effective deterrent.
Is it possible for brick-throwing to justify deadly force response? Yes. But that's not really a useful practical conclusion as I've explained a number of times. It is far more useful and instructive to think about how a situation could evolve to such a debacle and what steps could be taken along the way to prevent having to kill someone--and to keep from being in deadly danger in the first place. Rather than choosing/devising a scenario of questionable probability where deadly force is justified, it would be far wiser to look at the big picture and think about how a situation is realistically likely to come about, and what pitfalls, both legal and life-threatening could be hiding along the way.
Double Naught Spy
New member
This is one of those nonsensical statements that is meant to convey the notion that ignorance means you will suffer the same troubles/problems/etc. as those who went before you, implying that if you have knowledge of the past, that you would never have the same troubles experienced in the past. That seems like it would make sense and having knowledge of prior things can help you to not repeat the bad ones, but certainly there are no assurances that you won't. Take cigarette smokers today in the US. The all have knowledge from the past that cigarette smoking can cause all sorts of problems for their health, even causing premature death, yet they still smoke. Having knowledge is one thing. How you act on it is a whole other issue.
The other aspect of the statement is equally true, which is why it is so nonsensical. Many great and wonderful things have happened in the past. So by not having knowledge of them, when I also be doomed to enjoy them like those before me? When the logic is applied equally, the answer is YES.
So, contrary to the statement, ignorance of the past does not necessarily lead to some sort of damnation.
I remember hearing this in the 60's and 70's. "The blacks are going to march on" this or that suburb. Usually an alternative for black was used.
I have lived in or near Cleveland, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, and Tampa, when riots occurred.
On one occasion the riots happened 5 blocks from my home. In each case, with one exception, I wouldn't have known there was something going on if I hadn't watched the news.
If you don't want to get involved in a riot, stay home.
I have lived in or near Cleveland, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, and Tampa, when riots occurred.
On one occasion the riots happened 5 blocks from my home. In each case, with one exception, I wouldn't have known there was something going on if I hadn't watched the news.
If you don't want to get involved in a riot, stay home.
Armorer 101
Inactive
You might want to look up your state statutes regards trespass.
Call your insurance agent and ask; Does my residence policy contain the exclusion; Riot and Riot Attending Strike?
If you own a business do not forget the business property policy, same question.
Be careful of what you say on a forum because any statement you make, can come back to bite you later, if you get into a litigious situation. Attorneys employ PIs in the Discovery part of a trial preparation, PIs employ programs to search the internet for your IDs and your posts.
Call your insurance agent and ask; Does my residence policy contain the exclusion; Riot and Riot Attending Strike?
If you own a business do not forget the business property policy, same question.
Be careful of what you say on a forum because any statement you make, can come back to bite you later, if you get into a litigious situation. Attorneys employ PIs in the Discovery part of a trial preparation, PIs employ programs to search the internet for your IDs and your posts.
OneFreeTexan
New member
Saw yesterday that some Antifa were going to go the the ‘burbs. Picked Placerville, CA, which happens to be the birth place of the Hell’s Angels.....the Angels decided to hold a rally the same day,,,,Antifa cancelled theirs..
I would love to see the Angels all across the country decide to take on the Antifa.
I would love to see the Angels all across the country decide to take on the Antifa.
Yes, they did such a bang up job at Altamont. You do realize ANTIFA isn't really an organization, right?
You bet they do! In my six figure lawsuit in federal court against the State of Arizona for violating my 1st Amendment rights they came up with posts I had made years before that even I had forgotten I made! And then the NSA provided them with even more digital data they (the NSA) had collected from me. That was only a year or so before the Snowden information releases when folks didn't realize the feds were collecting and storing that kind of information from US citizens!
Ignition Override
New member
The chance of the stent collapsing in my "widowmaker" heart artery (-would be fatal-), is probably many times greater than any chance of troublemakers driving, never mind walking through this residential suburb.
Keep things in perspective.
* Edited: Most groups achieve what they want by instilling fear.
If Antifa or an offshoot were to attack any homes and children or babies were to die, such a new public relations problem for them might be quite serious with videos of small body bags carried from a home or two.
They would then lose much of their support, a few of which 'allegedly' are reported to be "mole sympathizers" within the FBI etc.
Keep things in perspective.
* Edited: Most groups achieve what they want by instilling fear.
If Antifa or an offshoot were to attack any homes and children or babies were to die, such a new public relations problem for them might be quite serious with videos of small body bags carried from a home or two.
They would then lose much of their support, a few of which 'allegedly' are reported to be "mole sympathizers" within the FBI etc.
Last edited:
reynolds357
New member
Number 1 rule, Never post on the internet what you would do. You do it, it will be analyzed to death. Lord help you if you put a comma in the wrong place.
That's kind of the point, isn't it?
To my way of thinking, it's far better to find out the problems with a strategy by talking through it as opposed to just doing it and then finding all the pitfalls in real life when everything is on the line and an error can make the difference between life and death, or between freedom and prison.
I mean, experience is a great teacher, but it's also the hardest teacher there is.
To my way of thinking, it's far better to find out the problems with a strategy by talking through it as opposed to just doing it and then finding all the pitfalls in real life when everything is on the line and an error can make the difference between life and death, or between freedom and prison.
I mean, experience is a great teacher, but it's also the hardest teacher there is.
reynolds357
New member
I agree, but I trust attorneys for that information.
If you do use deadly force, LAWYER UP!!!!!!
I believe the actual quote goes along the lines of: "Mother Nature is a cruel teacher; she gives you the test first and the lesson after"
Anyway:
I live in Florida.......we have a statue removal in a nearby town Saturday with outside agitators expeced and a BLM rally planned for Father's Day in my town. My philosophy follows the Sheriff and is the same as looters during a hurricane........"You loot, we shoot" looters were/are subject to lethal force. Peaceful protest? No problem.....Outside folks throwing Molotovs and bricks, stuff will get real. I fly the Gadsden Flag outside my home,
For some, it represents the TEA Party; for others, like me, it goes back even further.
My county is the ONLY black majority county in Florida, so we have black Sheriff, Commissioners, town councils, etc...........so this will be interesting to see how this all plays out and how the agitators behave.
So, to sum up; my wife and I are armed and prepared; we hope it goes smoothly with no outside issues..............BUT if "stuff" starts where they threaten my family......