I used “a brick thrown into your head.” as an example of a deadly threat, and it is.
ABILITY
OPPORTUNITY
INTENT
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.
An angry mob approaching and an individual runs up to the pile of bricks being used to build my neighbors retaining wall.
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.
Same as any use of force, with or without riots.
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.