Flasb mob cleaning up a store beating a clerk (DALLAS)

[Beiruty]

Now, this minority people of color young thugs are really out of it. No farther than in Dallas.
The clerk got a beating too, he was almost killed.

Next time Mr. Clerk, deploy your shotgun and start firing. Or, so is the TX way.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/DALLAS-P ... 27988.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who is going to arrest or stop this flash mob criminal acts?

[ddurkof]

Unconfronted behavior does not change. These flash mobs will end up with someone being killed. Whether it is the clerk or one of the thugs, it will happen. It is just a matter of time.

Then there will be the uproar about how the thug was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and even though he had a long history of agg robbery, he was not a church going family man.

If the thug is the one who kills some clerk, it won't be his fault, but the clerks fault for being to aggressive.

It is getting worse, it is just a matter of time.

[Beiruty]

We should have a new law clearly justifying the use of deadly force against flash mob robberies/theft of property in daylight.
Maybe it would be a deterrence. As I see it now, one can't use deadly force against flash mob cleaning up a store, not until the clerk is attacked, deadly force is not justified.

[Medic218]

We should have a new law clearly justifying the use of deadly force against flash mob robberies/theft of property in daylight.
Maybe it would be a deterrence. As I see it now, one can't use deadly force against flash mob cleaning up a store, not until the clerk is attacked, deadly force is not justified.

Maybe, maybe not...how many extra rounds do you have on hand when you're just out and about?
Personally, at most I have 33 rounds on me when I'm out running around.
There were more than 33 people there and as bad as it sounds being a good witness might be the best thing for you and your health in the particular situation. Also, how many of those thugs do you think were likely packing as well?
Its just a bad deal all around.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

We should have a new law clearly justifying the use of deadly force against flash mob robberies/theft of property in daylight.
Maybe it would be a deterrence. As I see it now, one can't use deadly force against flash mob cleaning up a store, not until the clerk is attacked, deadly force is not justified.

While the specifics of each situation will dictate whether you personally engage a flash mob or not there are laws already in place for what you are wanting.

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), 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. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor
(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;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(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.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

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.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

[flintknapper]

MedicMan218 wrote:

how many extra rounds do you have on hand when you're just out and about?
Personally, at most I have 33 rounds on me when I'm out running around.
There were more than 33 people there and as bad as it sounds being a good witness might be the best thing for you and your health in the particular situation.

Yes, but the smart money says there won't be...once the shooting starts!

[Dave2]

We should have a new law clearly justifying the use of deadly force against flash mob robberies/theft of property in daylight.
Maybe it would be a deterrence. As I see it now, one can't use deadly force against flash mob cleaning up a store, not until the clerk is attacked, deadly force is not justified.

Maybe, maybe not...how many extra rounds do you have on hand when you're just out and about?
Personally, at most I have 33 rounds on me when I'm out running around.
There were more than 33 people there and as bad as it sounds being a good witness might be the best thing for you and your health in the particular situation. Also, how many of those thugs do you think were likely packing as well?
Its just a bad deal all around.

59, once I lose enough weight for my IWB mag carrier to actually fit inside my waistband. But yeah, one gunman vs however many are in the flash mob is not good odds.

[speedsix]

...61, but I wouldn't start shooting to protect the store's merchandise/money...it's not worth it...if they attacked ME...they'd have to move several bodies just to get to mine...

[Jumping Frog]

...61, but I wouldn't start shooting to protect the store's merchandise/money...it's not worth it...if they attacked ME...they'd have to move several bodies just to get to mine...

My own little private "Alamo".

[Keith B]

...61, but I wouldn't start shooting to protect the store's merchandise/money...it's not worth it...if they attacked ME...they'd have to move several bodies just to get to mine...

My own little private "Alamo".

Yeah, but 'Remember the Quickie Mart' just doesn't have the same ring to it.

My opioninon is use whatever you have to to get away and let them have the rest.

[Ed4032]

Where is the black community standing up against this. They condone it with their silence. There would be war cries of racist violence if the clerk had defended himself. THe black community complains that there is little development in south Dallas. This is why.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Where is the black community standing up against this. They condone it with their silence. There would be war cries of racist violence if the clerk had defended himself. THe black community complains that there is little development in south Dallas. This is why.

Just imagine if the mob was nothing but whites and the clerk was black or any other color. The hypocrisy is astonishing when it comes to racism.

[woodsong]

But it wasn't. However, if the races were flip-flopped -- and the white community was silent -- then it would be equally shameful.

OP is correct -- and did not make a racist statement.

[Beiruty]

We should have a new law clearly justifying the use of deadly force against flash mob robberies/theft of property in daylight.
Maybe it would be a deterrence. As I see it now, one can't use deadly force against flash mob cleaning up a store, not until the clerk is attacked, deadly force is not justified.

While the specifics of each situation will dictate whether you personally engage a flash mob or not there are laws already in place for what you are wanting.

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), 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. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor
(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;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(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.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

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.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

Technically, the flash mob are engaged in mass multi-actors shoplifting and stealing property, not robbery, like "hands up, this is a stick-up, give me your money, cell phone, etc or I will shoot you..." A better term is looting. Any laws that that justify deadly force against "looting" in daylight?