Flash Mob

[Pug]

I bet once you shoot one or two of them, the rest will scatter like rats. Thanks for making me spray coffee all over my laptop.

History shows it does not work that way. You get a few seconds while they duck the first time, and you better take advantage.. after that the MOB moves, and if a few more fall, the rest will MOB along. So Shoot a few, and RUN……., round a corner, wait.. Shoot a few more AND RUN, repeat until your clear or out of ammo, then RUN

Reminds me of the last time I got caught in a zombie attack...used very the same tactic!

[Texas Dan Mosby]

How do you determine if the use of force is unlawful without considering the circumstances?

The circumstances are moot, due to the fact that a threat can occur in many different forms. Regardless of the form of the threat, or the instruments used by the threat, either the threat meets the intent/ability/immediacy criteria necessitating the use of force/deadly force, or it doesn't.

It's easy if you're the victim, but what if it's a 3rd party?

3rd party defense is not my focus, nor is it my job to defend them (anymore). However, IF, (and that's a big if) I were to ever interject myself on the behalf of a 3rd party, I would use the same criteria.

[Shinesintx]

haos » Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:53 pm
@XtremeDuty.45

Well maybe I wasn't clear, he does ask for when he legally can use deadly force. And I guess my simplified response would actually be a question. If one of these mobs isn't attacking you or robbing you, why would you WANT to use deadly force in the first place? I don't think you legally could, and I don't logically see why you would want to.

But what if the mob is beating the snot out of defenseless people like they did in Wisconsin ? What should our rersponse if any be ?

That has been debated many times on here and it has been quite a while since I have been on the forum but IIRC it is usually mixed opinions. My opinion would be to try and help the innocent party out if I felt that I could. HOWEVER, in order for me to use deadly force I would have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is innocent and didn't attack first.

Example: You are pulling into a gas station and upon exiting your vehicle you see some guy getting beat. You did not see anything else but a fight. Not what started it, nothing. So how do you know who is innocent? How do you know the guy doing the beating wasn't attacked and is now defending himself?

I understand that in the cases of these "Flash Mobs" that it would be pretty obvious who is the innocent party. But you have to consider the numbers. Are you going to do any good by intervening or will you just become another casualty? I am one that believes in helping others out when I can. However, in a case like this I might even have to say that the best thing a person could do is to call 911 and provide the best and most detailed descriptions that you can. Stay on the line with them and do one of two things after the mob leaves. Check the victim/s and depending if they are in need of first aid or not you should 1) render first aid or 2) try and see where the mob is going and give as much information to the authorities as you can (car descriptions, directions, etc).

Obviously this is my opinion and everyone has their own. Also, each situation is different. You cannot have a planned course of action and think that will work for everything. There are just too many variables in every scenario (location, bystanders, is your family with you or not, number of BGs, your physical ability etc.) You really cannot prepare for this. No one truly knows what they will do if something like this were to happen. The best we can do is practice with our carry guns and prepare ourselves mentally that there may be a day that we have to use it and pray that day never comes.

Glad you said it...so I did not have to type it out.

The bold statement is EXACTLY what I was thinking.

[suthdj]

haos » Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:53 pm
@XtremeDuty.45

Well maybe I wasn't clear, he does ask for when he legally can use deadly force. And I guess my simplified response would actually be a question. If one of these mobs isn't attacking you or robbing you, why would you WANT to use deadly force in the first place? I don't think you legally could, and I don't logically see why you would want to.

But what if the mob is beating the snot out of defenseless people like they did in Wisconsin ? What should our rersponse if any be ?

That has been debated many times on here and it has been quite a while since I have been on the forum but IIRC it is usually mixed opinions. My opinion would be to try and help the innocent party out if I felt that I could. HOWEVER, in order for me to use deadly force I would have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person is innocent and didn't attack first.

Example: You are pulling into a gas station and upon exiting your vehicle you see some guy getting beat. You did not see anything else but a fight. Not what started it, nothing. So how do you know who is innocent? How do you know the guy doing the beating wasn't attacked and is now defending himself?

I understand that in the cases of these "Flash Mobs" that it would be pretty obvious who is the innocent party. But you have to consider the numbers. Are you going to do any good by intervening or will you just become another casualty? I am one that believes in helping others out when I can. However, in a case like this I might even have to say that the best thing a person could do is to call 911 and provide the best and most detailed descriptions that you can. Stay on the line with them and do one of two things after the mob leaves. Check the victim/s and depending if they are in need of first aid or not you should 1) render first aid or 2) try and see where the mob is going and give as much information to the authorities as you can (car descriptions, directions, etc).

Obviously this is my opinion and everyone has their own. Also, each situation is different. You cannot have a planned course of action and think that will work for everything. There are just too many variables in every scenario (location, bystanders, is your family with you or not, number of BGs, your physical ability etc.) You really cannot prepare for this. No one truly knows what they will do if something like this were to happen. The best we can do is practice with our carry guns and prepare ourselves mentally that there may be a day that we have to use it and pray that day never comes.

Glad you said it...so I did not have to type it out.

The bold statement is EXACTLY what I was thinking.

For me if a person is getting beat it means he is not defending himself, hence not a threat. So weather he started it or not the beater is still in the wrong. If he is defending himseflf then it is a fight, worthy of watching.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

For me if a person is getting beat it means he is not defending himself, hence not a threat. So weather he started it or not the beater is still in the wrong. If he is defending himseflf then it is a fight, worthy of watching.

We are taught to stop when the threat stops, right? So, who is to say that they guy doing the beating didn't try to stop but the original attacker just kept coming? Kind of like an attacker that gets shot multiple times but keeps on coming. You shouldn't stop until the threat is stopped.

Also, I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard this but it is a good lesson. A guy was driving down the road and saw a car off to the side where a man was beating a woman. Most of us would want to stop and help as it is not right for a man to lay a hand on a woman much less beat a woman. I cannot remember if he intervened or not but it turns out that the man he saw beating the woman was at a gas station when the woman jumped into his car and took off...with his child in the back seat. So, he ran after the car and jumped into the passenger side and got the car to the side of the road and was beating the woman.

All he saw was a man beating a woman and automatically assumed that he was the BG. He was wrong. He saw part B of an incident and by missing part A he didn't have all the info and made a bad assumption.

So, just because someone is getting beaten or looks like a victim does not mean that they really are.

[E.Marquez]

I bet once you shoot one or two of them, the rest will scatter like rats. Thanks for making me spray coffee all over my laptop.

History shows it does not work that way. You get a few seconds while they duck the first time, and you better take advantage.. after that the MOB moves, and if a few more fall, the rest will MOB along. So Shoot a few, and RUN……., round a corner, wait.. Shoot a few more AND RUN, repeat until your clear or out of ammo, then RUN

Reminds me of the last time I got caught in a zombie attack...used very the same tactic!

The difference is, Ive used my tactics in real life

[Seabear]

Obviously the best solution would ber to escape if possible, however if that is not possible then some of the tactics listed above are good advise. When I read this question , the first thing that came to mind was that the mob was mobbing your business. With that in mind, the one thing that always comes to my mind as far as when is deadly force justified comes down to this highlighted BOLD portion of PC 9.42

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
62 TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.

The whole section applies, however it is my decision that my use of deadly force will have to meet (B)

[suthdj]

For me if a person is getting beat it means he is not defending himself, hence not a threat. So weather he started it or not the beater is still in the wrong. If he is defending himseflf then it is a fight, worthy of watching.

We are taught to stop when the threat stops, right? So, who is to say that they guy doing the beating didn't try to stop but the original attacker just kept coming? Kind of like an attacker that gets shot multiple times but keeps on coming. You shouldn't stop until the threat is stopped.

Also, I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard this but it is a good lesson. A guy was driving down the road and saw a car off to the side where a man was beating a woman. Most of us would want to stop and help as it is not right for a man to lay a hand on a woman much less beat a woman. I cannot remember if he intervened or not but it turns out that the man he saw beating the woman was at a gas station when the woman jumped into his car and took off...with his child in the back seat. So, he ran after the car and jumped into the passenger side and got the car to the side of the road and was beating the woman.

All he saw was a man beating a woman and automatically assumed that he was the BG. He was wrong. He saw part B of an incident and by missing part A he didn't have all the info and made a bad assumption.

So, just because someone is getting beaten or looks like a victim does not mean that they really are.

See the part in bold most importantly the underlined. I am not saying the person may not deserve a beating and a half, but that does not make you legally in the right.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

For me if a person is getting beat it means he is not defending himself, hence not a threat. So weather he started it or not the beater is still in the wrong. If he is defending himseflf then it is a fight, worthy of watching.

We are taught to stop when the threat stops, right? So, who is to say that they guy doing the beating didn't try to stop but the original attacker just kept coming? Kind of like an attacker that gets shot multiple times but keeps on coming. You shouldn't stop until the threat is stopped.

Also, I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard this but it is a good lesson. A guy was driving down the road and saw a car off to the side where a man was beating a woman. Most of us would want to stop and help as it is not right for a man to lay a hand on a woman much less beat a woman. I cannot remember if he intervened or not but it turns out that the man he saw beating the woman was at a gas station when the woman jumped into his car and took off...with his child in the back seat. So, he ran after the car and jumped into the passenger side and got the car to the side of the road and was beating the woman.

All he saw was a man beating a woman and automatically assumed that he was the BG. He was wrong. He saw part B of an incident and by missing part A he didn't have all the info and made a bad assumption.

So, just because someone is getting beaten or looks like a victim does not mean that they really are.

See the part in bold most importantly the underlined. I am not saying the person may not deserve a beating and a half, but that does not make you legally in the right.

See the part in bold most importantly the underlined. If the attacker keeps on attacking and you are in fear for you life you are legally in the right to continue to defend yourself. Some people do not carry guns and therefore rely on their hands to defend themselves.

What my original point was that just because we see an incident does not mean that we know the whole story.

[KingofChaos]

I've seen many a fight were one guy admits defeat, the winner turns to walk away and is hit in the back of the head. Personally, I only stop when the other person is unconscious or in so much pain that they can't get up and continue(broken limb). Don't want that treatment, don't attack me.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I've seen many a fight were one guy admits defeat, the winner turns to walk away and is hit in the back of the head. Personally, I only stop when the other person is unconscious or in so much pain that they can't get up and continue(broken limb). Don't want that treatment, don't attack me.

I am not advocating fighting or putting people in a hospital. There is a difference between beating someone and defending yourself. If someone attacks you and you must fight to defend yourself the so be it. However, once the attack stops so should the fight from your end. Only if the attacker is still attacking would you be in fear for your life and in turn legally able to continue to defend yourself. IMO to continue if you are not being attacked anymore or no longer in fear for your life would bring you up on criminal charges.

[suthdj]

For me if a person is getting beat it means he is not defending himself, hence not a threat. So weather he started it or not the beater is still in the wrong. If he is defending himseflf then it is a fight, worthy of watching.

We are taught to stop when the threat stops, right? So, who is to say that they guy doing the beating didn't try to stop but the original attacker just kept coming? Kind of like an attacker that gets shot multiple times but keeps on coming. You shouldn't stop until the threat is stopped.

Also, I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard this but it is a good lesson. A guy was driving down the road and saw a car off to the side where a man was beating a woman. Most of us would want to stop and help as it is not right for a man to lay a hand on a woman much less beat a woman. I cannot remember if he intervened or not but it turns out that the man he saw beating the woman was at a gas station when the woman jumped into his car and took off...with his child in the back seat. So, he ran after the car and jumped into the passenger side and got the car to the side of the road and was beating the woman.

All he saw was a man beating a woman and automatically assumed that he was the BG. He was wrong. He saw part B of an incident and by missing part A he didn't have all the info and made a bad assumption.

So, just because someone is getting beaten or looks like a victim does not mean that they really are.

See the part in bold most importantly the underlined. I am not saying the person may not deserve a beating and a half, but that does not make you legally in the right.

See the part in bold most importantly the underlined. If the attacker keeps on attacking and you are in fear for you life you are legally in the right to continue to defend yourself. Some people do not carry guns and therefore rely on their hands to defend themselves.

What my original point was that just because we see an incident does not mean that we know the whole story.

That is true. However the beating no matter how well deserved is still illegal.

[suthdj]

I've seen many a fight were one guy admits defeat, the winner turns to walk away and is hit in the back of the head. Personally, I only stop when the other person is unconscious or in so much pain that they can't get up and continue(broken limb). Don't want that treatment, don't attack me.

You never turn your back to the enemy.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

For me if a person is getting beat it means he is not defending himself, hence not a threat. So weather he started it or not the beater is still in the wrong. If he is defending himseflf then it is a fight, worthy of watching.

We are taught to stop when the threat stops, right? So, who is to say that they guy doing the beating didn't try to stop but the original attacker just kept coming? Kind of like an attacker that gets shot multiple times but keeps on coming. You shouldn't stop until the threat is stopped.

Also, I cannot for the life of me remember where I heard this but it is a good lesson. A guy was driving down the road and saw a car off to the side where a man was beating a woman. Most of us would want to stop and help as it is not right for a man to lay a hand on a woman much less beat a woman. I cannot remember if he intervened or not but it turns out that the man he saw beating the woman was at a gas station when the woman jumped into his car and took off...with his child in the back seat. So, he ran after the car and jumped into the passenger side and got the car to the side of the road and was beating the woman.

All he saw was a man beating a woman and automatically assumed that he was the BG. He was wrong. He saw part B of an incident and by missing part A he didn't have all the info and made a bad assumption.

So, just because someone is getting beaten or looks like a victim does not mean that they really are.

See the part in bold most importantly the underlined. I am not saying the person may not deserve a beating and a half, but that does not make you legally in the right.

See the part in bold most importantly the underlined. If the attacker keeps on attacking and you are in fear for you life you are legally in the right to continue to defend yourself. Some people do not carry guns and therefore rely on their hands to defend themselves.

What my original point was that just because we see an incident does not mean that we know the whole story.

That is true. However the beating no matter how well deserved is still illegal.

Not if it is in self defense. What you are saying is that if I were to be attacked I could legally push the guy off and pull my gun and shoot him but if I was not carrying I could not defend myself with my hands. That is completely untrue.

[KingofChaos]

I've seen many a fight were one guy admits defeat, the winner turns to walk away and is hit in the back of the head. Personally, I only stop when the other person is unconscious or in so much pain that they can't get up and continue(broken limb). Don't want that treatment, don't attack me.

I am not advocating fighting or putting people in a hospital. There is a difference between beating someone and defending yourself. If someone attacks you and you must fight to defend yourself the so be it. However, once the attack stops so should the fight from your end. Only if the attacker is still attacking would you be in fear for your life and in turn legally able to continue to defend yourself. IMO to continue if you are not being attacked anymore or no longer in fear for your life would bring you up on criminal charges.

Also directed at suthdj

I entirely understand the section in the penal code about being able to abandon conflicts, and if I sincerely thought the person was going to stop, so would I. But if I still have reason to believe that they're going to continue, then so would I. Also, I'm not really talking about a savage beating. Against an untrained opponent, incapacitation can occur rather quickly without too many blows getting thrown. Which is why given a choice against an untrained opponent, and no chance of his friends stomping on my head, I'd always rather grapple than stand and strike with them. They'll look prettier once it's over, and they can be unconscious rather quickly without any permanent effects. I'm not advocating maliciously hurting people, but I do think you should end violent encounters in the most efficient way possible. Which is also why in a potentially deadly encounter, I'd grab my pistol before the knife that's right next to it.