Two riot situations not yet addressed

[Ruark]

The past few months, we've seen some excellent articles from attorneys and legal defense networks about the legal ramifications of responding to being caught in a riot, e.g. having your car surrounded, blocked from moving, etc. Obviously, you can't run over somebody just because they're blocking the street, and obviously, you can use deadly force if somebody's trying to drag you out of your car.

But there are two VERY common situations that I have YET to see anybody addressing specifically, and I'd like to see somebody do so.

1. Your car is blocked by a crowd of protestors. Some of them start breaking your car windows, NOT acting as if they wanted to drag you out, but just smashing in your windows. Maybe it's the driver's window, which is inches from your head and may have different implications from smashing, say, a rear or side window. At what point does this clearly warrant a deadly force response? By "clearly" I mean "clearly to a jury," not your personal opinion.

For example, watch the first couple of minutes of this:



2. You're walking down a sidewalk and some Antifas step in front of you and deliberately block your way, maybe holding up a pole or stick as a barrier. Isn't this considered to be an illegal use of force, justifying using force in response, e.g. a club, pepper spray, hitting or kicking? Would you be justified, for example, in whipping out a telescoping baton and whacking him across the teeth? Not trying to be dramatic here, just contemplating where the legal lines are drawn. I would personally have a very hard time peacefully dealing with this one.

One ugly example is the elderly couple attempting to cross a street as they were leaving some event.



Of course, there are variables to consider. For example, if you shoot somebody from your car and you're surrounded by protestors with guns, you're a sitting duck. Same goes if somebody's blocking you on the sidewalk and you attack them and they're surrounded by 200 protestors with clubs. In a couple of seconds, you could be in a very bad situation.

In any case, I have yet to read or hear of either of these scenarios addressed. It's always about "somebody dragging you from your car," etc.

[cirus]

This crap is why I live in a small town. Actually I don't even live in town but in the country. I only go to town if I have to. I wouldn't do well in those situations.

[Jose_in_Dallas]

I really need to start carrying my Sabre Red more often.

[K.Mooneyham]

This crap is why I live in a small town. Actually I don't even live in town but in the country. I only go to town if I have to. I wouldn't do well in those situations.

I agree that those two situations are terrible gray areas that can leave someone in a quandary about how to initially respond...and that someone is most likely to encounter that sort of thing in a big city. So, I also agree that trouble of that nature makes me feel better about living in a rural county with only a small town nearby. We generally go to Wichita Falls only when we need to buy things we can't get here.

[snapcap45]

Avoiding conflict is the smartest move. Know your surroundings. Know your escape routes. Travel in a group, not alone. But when things get real and I find myself separated at that point I refuse to be a victim. Will lethal force be my first response, no. But I will escalate force depending on the threat. Most of these so called snowflake rioters will collapse into a sobbing mess with the correct application of verbal agility. If that doesn't work then pressure points and necessary physical force to stop the threat. If it escalates even more bust out the pepper spray / cs gas. If a rioter pulls a deadly weapon then and only then at that point I would shoot in self defense.

[Ruark]

2) Barring your way does not generally provide grounds for lethal force.

Nobody said it did. It's important here, and MANY fail to do this, to recognize the difference between "force" and "deadly force." If some are blocking me from walking down the sidewalk, am I justified in using FORCE against them?

[oljames3]

2) Barring your way does not generally provide grounds for lethal force.

Nobody said it did. It's important here, and MANY fail to do this, to recognize the difference between "force" and "deadly force." If some are blocking me from walking down the sidewalk, am I justified in using FORCE against them?

Whether or not your use of force is justified is a question only a judge or a jury can answer.

Texas Penal Code 9.31 reads, in part, "... a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... 20himself.

I doubt a judge or jury would find you reasonable for using force against anyone who is simply blocking your way.

[cirus]

2) Barring your way does not generally provide grounds for lethal force.

Nobody said it did. It's important here, and MANY fail to do this, to recognize the difference between "force" and "deadly force." If some are blocking me from walking down the sidewalk, am I justified in using FORCE against them?

Whether or not your use of force is justified is a question only a judge or a jury can answer.

Texas Penal Code 9.31 reads, in part, "... a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... 20himself.

I doubt a judge or jury would find you reasonable for using force against anyone who is simply blocking your way.

And thats the problem. Judges, courts, and lawyers. These thugs will never stop until our side starts sending them to the morgue. Anything we do now we'll be held accountable for but if it turns to war then we'll have our revenge. You can't fight evil with love and and kindness.

[C-dub]

I can understand the lack of justifiable use of force for someone only blocking, but when in my car or truck and someone breaks my window(s) how do I know they aren't planning on dragging me or a passenger out? We didn't discuss that first. I'll just drop them then push my way out with my vehicle. And that's if I'm even carrying at the time. I don't really travel much in areas where this is likely to occur, so there isn't much chance of me being caught in the middle of something like this either.

This is such a mess. If I were to come upon something like this on my motorcycle armed or unarmed with no protection like inside a cage I just don't know. Probably try and weave my way free as quickly as possible. If all else fails and I am armed and unable to escape maybe just get my back up against a barrier and see who wants to be shot first then let the chips fall where they will. That's if it starts off violent and I'm unable to pull off Andy's trick of appearing to be sympathetic to whatever their cause is to get them to move on so I can escape.

[parabelum]

“... when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.”

Breaking the window is a use of force. I can reasonably assume to be justified in using force, even deadly force to stop the imminent threat against me, and I would.

[crazy2medic]

When you find yourself surrounded by hostile people and they break a window, i'd make the assumtion that they intend to get at you, drag you out of your vehicle and beat you to death, otherwise they'd let you pass through and go about their business and let you go about yours! When they break a window or open a door they intend to get at you and that's when deadly force will be employed!

[cirus]

When you find yourself surrounded by hostile people and they break a window, i'd make the assumtion that they intend to get at you, drag you out of your vehicle and beat you to death, otherwise they'd let you pass through and go about their business and let you go about yours! When they break a window or open a door they intend to get at you and that's when deadly force will be employed!

[Tex1961]

When you find yourself surrounded by hostile people and they break a window, i'd make the assumtion that they intend to get at you, drag you out of your vehicle and beat you to death, otherwise they'd let you pass through and go about their business and let you go about yours! When they break a window or open a door they intend to get at you and that's when deadly force will be employed!

[wil]

The past few months, we've seen some excellent articles from attorneys and legal defense networks about the legal ramifications of responding to being caught in a riot, e.g. having your car surrounded, blocked from moving, etc. Obviously, you can't run over somebody just because they're blocking the street, and obviously, you can use deadly force if somebody's trying to drag you out of your car.

But there are two VERY common situations that I have YET to see anybody addressing specifically, and I'd like to see somebody do so.

1. Your car is blocked by a crowd of protestors. Some of them start breaking your car windows, NOT acting as if they wanted to drag you out, but just smashing in your windows. Maybe it's the driver's window, which is inches from your head and may have different implications from smashing, say, a rear or side window. At what point does this clearly warrant a deadly force response? By "clearly" I mean "clearly to a jury," not your personal opinion.

For example, watch the first couple of minutes of this:


2. You're walking down a sidewalk and some Antifas step in front of you and deliberately block your way, maybe holding up a pole or stick as a barrier. Isn't this considered to be an illegal use of force, justifying using force in response, e.g. a club, pepper spray, hitting or kicking? Would you be justified, for example, in whipping out a telescoping baton and whacking him across the teeth? Not trying to be dramatic here, just contemplating where the legal lines are drawn. I would personally have a very hard time peacefully dealing with this one.

One ugly example is the elderly couple attempting to cross a street as they were leaving some event.

Of course, there are variables to consider. For example, if you shoot somebody from your car and you're surrounded by protestors with guns, you're a sitting duck. Same goes if somebody's blocking you on the sidewalk and you attack them and they're surrounded by 200 protestors with clubs. In a couple of seconds, you could be in a very bad situation.

In any case, I have yet to read or hear of either of these scenarios addressed. It's always about "somebody dragging you from your car," etc.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... %20himself.


scenario 1. the legal argument I would act on, and make in court is based on subchapter C, part 9.31

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

Part A is what I would act on. Breaking a window constitutes an effort to enter the vehicle, lethal force is legal under that section of the law.

I am not an attorney however the question I'd raise in court is:

What was their intent? Can you prove they weren't attempting to enter the vehicle by breaking a window? It was a violent situation to begin with, why would I not perceive thier actions as intent to enter the vehicle by breaking a window and gains means to physically access myself? The totality of the circumstances would present to myself a given intent.


scenario 2.

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct;

I would cite this as reason for using lethal force, showing prior actions by antifa as grounds for doing so.

I have no duty to retreat if I'm lawfully where I am. Walking down the street lawfully and peacefully? then confronted and having my path blocked? Antifa blocking the sidewalk and deliberately preventing someone from passing through is illegal.
If I continue on through them, which is my lawful right to do so, it is likely they will resort to violence given prior actions they've demonstrated.

Sec. 9.31

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.


the third factor in this, disparity of numbers = disparity of force. A mob is a weapon by itself owing to the amount of force it has due to sheer weight of numbers. Antifa has me outnumbered and lethal force I would think is legal under section 9.22 parts 1 and 2.