Flash Mob

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I am not even going to reply to that as clearly you have not been paying attention at all.

Ok,So by your logic if a person shoots at you then turns and runs away it is ok to shoot him in the back, after all he may turn around and shoot again,right. I think it is who you who has failed to pay attention as from the very begining I have stated once he stops being a threat you can no longer defend yourself as he is no longer attacking. NOT A THREAT

Are you serious? You obviously have not actually read what I have written for you. I will post it one more time. PLEASE READ the big bold red letters. They are hard to miss. If you do this you will clearly see where I say IF THE ATTACKER KEEPS ATTACKING. Again, please actually read the words in big bold red lettering.

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.

[Heartland Patriot]

If its a flash mob just with the intent of looting a store, get clear and stay out of the way. If it's a mob determinedly beating people its still not your responsiblity to do anything to stop it. If the mob is taking an interest in you I would back to a wall and pull a weapon with the firm intention to fire if attacked. I would worry later about brandishing. whether I had to fire or not at this point I would be in fear of life or serious harm.
I try to avoid crowds or events which might get out of control.
Situation awarness. Avoidance is your best defense.

While I agree with extricating yourself (and family/friends) from the situation and letting the professionals handle the situation, I have to point out one thing. THERE IS NOTHING IN TEXAS PENAL CODE ABOUT BRANDISHING...that is something from some other state that does not exist here. And I don't want anyone getting the idea that we should have something like that kind of nonsense. Thanks.

[Jimineer]

Interesting topic I am just reading about for the first time. Guess I live under a rock but have only heard about the flash mob thing recently. Are flash mobs a big deal in Texas?

Anyway, to help answer the question about what one would / could legally do in such a situation, what do you think a single police officer would do?

1. Call for backup
2. Try to save a person being beat up (probably only to be beaten him or herself???)
3. Fire some warning shots.
4. Shoot to kill?


Any LEOs on here that could answer from their perspective.

I guess this is another scenario I had not thought about, but sounds like one perhaps more likely that other BG scenarios.
Thoughts / comments appreciated.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Interesting topic I am just reading about for the first time. Guess I live under a rock but have only heard about the flash mob thing recently. Are flash mobs a big deal in Texas?

Anyway, to help answer the question about what one would / could legally do in such a situation, what do you think a single police officer would do?

1. Call for backup
2. Try to save a person being beat up (probably only to be beaten him or herself???)
3. Fire some warning shots.
4. Shoot to kill?


Any LEOs on here that could answer from their perspective.

I guess this is another scenario I had not thought about, but sounds like one perhaps more likely that other BG scenarios.
Thoughts / comments appreciated.

1) I am not trying to be negative but who are you going to call for "backup"? If you have time to do that you should be calling 911 instead.

2) I completely understand helping others out and will do so as much as I can. However, I go back to what I said earlier in the thread...

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).

3) It is illegal to fire a "warning shot". The only time you can legally discharge your weapon in a self-defense situation is if you are legally allowed to use deadly force.

4) We NEVER shoot to kill. NEVER. We shoot to stop the threat.

[johnson0317]

By "backup", I am assuming he means 911.

As with any given scenario, each is unique. We can dissect actually events until the cows come home, and probably learn something helpful from each one, but we are going to have to do our best if it happens to us. We will have to pray we make the right decisions at that time. In the meantime, I think our dissection of real events helps us to think through what we would do in a given situation. It helps to program our minds.

RJ

[Jimineer]

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.

The numbered items were intended to guess what a LEO might do.

If a LEO were approached by the mob, don't you think he or she would pull their weapon and get the job done? Then would an average citizen not be legal in doing same? STOPPING the threat.

<edited>
and further, if more of us good guys were CHL, then maybe more of us could respond to such a crowd

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.

The numbered items were intended to guess what a LEO might do.

If a LEO were approached by the mob, don't you think he or she would pull their weapon and get the job done? Then would an average citizen not be legal in doing same? STOPPING the threat.

<edited>
and further, if more of us good guys were CHL, then maybe more of us could respond to such a crowd

I see what you were saying now. I still do not think that they would fire a warning shot or shoot to kill but shoot to stop the threat. I do believe, at least I would hope, they would intervene. Although there is a case where it was ruled that the police have no duty to protect citizens.

I have no idea how a LEO would react to this situation just the same as none of us know exactly how we would react. We all know what we would like to do but what we would like to do and what we would actually do may be two separate things.

[suthdj]

I am not even going to reply to that as clearly you have not been paying attention at all.

Ok,So by your logic if a person shoots at you then turns and runs away it is ok to shoot him in the back, after all he may turn around and shoot again,right. I think it is who you who has failed to pay attention as from the very begining I have stated once he stops being a threat you can no longer defend yourself as he is no longer attacking. NOT A THREAT

Are you serious? You obviously have not actually read what I have written for you. I will post it one more time. PLEASE READ the big bold red letters. They are hard to miss. If you do this you will clearly see where I say IF THE ATTACKER KEEPS ATTACKING. Again, please actually read the words in big bold red lettering.

Here is what I wrote in my first post. I think it clearly states in big red letters so you can see. I am done with this charade.

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 himself then it is a fight, worthy of watching.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

You really astonish me. You see I actually read what you posted and understood it. My next question was...So, who is to say that they guy doing the beating didn't try to stop but the original attacker just kept coming?

My point was that just because you see something does not mean that you know everything that lead up to it. Just because you see a guy getting beaten does not mean that the guy doing the beating is in the wrong. At the moment the guy getting beaten may not be defending himself or attacking anymore but that does not mean he wasn't prior to what you witnessed. I believe I stated that earlier too. You would have actually had to read my comments before you decided to argue my point to know that though.

[GhostTX]

Um...you can present if the situation may prevent the use of deadly force.

PC §9.04.

Threats as Justifiable Force

The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Ergo...
Mob is headed your way. "Stop right there!".
They keep coming.
Present firearm. "Stop or I'll shoot!"

[kjolly]

In another post I read somewhere concerning a roit in a small town in the east where the chant by the mob was "beat whities" police were called, only one officer showed up and his efforts were not effective. Made me kind of wonder if maybe the other officers were delibratly late.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

In another post I read somewhere concerning a roit in a small town in the east where the chant by the mob was "beat whities" police were called, only one officer showed up and his efforts were not effective. Made me kind of wonder if maybe the other officers were delibratly late.

Do you have a link? That would be an interesting read. It seems that the AP and city officials are very cautious to call these "Flash Mobs" hate crimes as there is no evidence to suggest so.

[Heartland Patriot]

In another post I read somewhere concerning a roit in a small town in the east where the chant by the mob was "beat whities" police were called, only one officer showed up and his efforts were not effective. Made me kind of wonder if maybe the other officers were delibratly late.

Do you have a link? That would be an interesting read. It seems that the AP and city officials are very cautious to call these "Flash Mobs" hate crimes as there is no evidence to suggest so.

By AP are you referring to the Associated Press? Because if you are indeed referring to that "news" organization, then it is obvious why they aren't calling it a "hate crime". They are a left-leaning, if not fully leftist, organization. They constantly write only NEGATIVE firearms related stories, that is, where firearms were used "sucessfully" by the bad guys, but they do NOT write stories where firearms were used successfully by the law-abiding citizens. Trust me, if Eric Holder would call it a "hate crime", so would the AP...and if he wouldn't, neither would they. And we all know the sorts of things that Eric Holder would allow to be called a "hate crime". And the riots/beatings in Wisconsin wouldn't rate the attention of Mr. Holder...I'm sure he considers that "social justice"...

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

In another post I read somewhere concerning a roit in a small town in the east where the chant by the mob was "beat whities" police were called, only one officer showed up and his efforts were not effective. Made me kind of wonder if maybe the other officers were delibratly late.

Do you have a link? That would be an interesting read. It seems that the AP and city officials are very cautious to call these "Flash Mobs" hate crimes as there is no evidence to suggest so.

By AP are you referring to the Associated Press? Because if you are indeed referring to that "news" organization, then it is obvious why they aren't calling it a "hate crime". They are a left-leaning, if not fully leftist, organization. They constantly write only NEGATIVE firearms related stories, that is, where firearms were used "sucessfully" by the bad guys, but they do NOT write stories where firearms were used successfully by the law-abiding citizens. Trust me, if Eric Holder would call it a "hate crime", so would the AP...and if he wouldn't, neither would they. And we all know the sorts of things that Eric Holder would allow to be called a "hate crime". And the riots/beatings in Wisconsin wouldn't rate the attention of Mr. Holder...I'm sure he considers that "social justice"...

Yes I was referring to the Associated Press and I was being facetious. There were reports in a couple cities where it was all black "Flash Mobs" and they were beating up whites and hispanics only. Yet, no one in a position of authority would call it a hate crime. Which is funny cause if roles were reversed racist and hate crime would be the first words out of anyone's mouth and would be the title to the article about it.

[SwimFan85]

How do you defend yourself against sports fans? None of us carry enough firepower or ammo to take out the entire stadium. When could you reasonably conclude that you could lawfully use deadly force against fans of the other team? Would the mere presence of the mob and it's proximity to you allow the use of deadly force?