Protests - the next level?

[Soccerdad1995]

https://apple.news/A1Lo3yQWtQNarjwADmKuVaw

This is saying the 17 year old has been arrested.

He is not from Kenosha or WI.

Yea, Antioch IL I think is where he’s from. He shoots after he’s thrown to the ground and swarmed by rioters. That’s what I saw in videos available right now.

It will be interesting to find out whether he was asked by the business owner to help protect their property. Given the widely publicized arson attacks in that area during the last couple days, I think it is very reasonable for a business owner to assume that they will not get sufficient protection from the police.

Regardless, it appears from the video that both shootings were justified, since he was only fired after he was under direct attack and in reasonable fear for his life both times. First while being chased by a man who was trying to throw a Molatov coctail at him, then after being knocked to the ground by a violent mob.

But if he was there at the request of the property owner, that would undercut any prosecution assertion that he was "just looking for trouble". IANAL.

As an aside, this is what happens when government fails to protect the inalienable rights of it's citizens, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The citizens will step into the void and protect those rights themselves. And we should all begin to question why we continue to have a government that is not fulfilling the reason it was created in the first place (per the Declaration of Independence and also Locke's 3rd Treatise on Government), which is the very protection of those rights.

[oljames3]

BLM protestors enter a restaurant and begins to taunt and get in the face of a young woman at a restaurant. He wants her to raise her fist and shout Black Lives Matter. She refuses

OK, she wasn't hurt, and that's good. And I don't figure anything like this is ever likely to happen in Texas...and that's good too. But if it happened to me, I'm not sure what the best strategy is. My first thought is to surreptitiously get my hand on my gun (under shirt, IWB) in case it turned physical. But I worry that it would further excite the Communists if this was noticed. What do y'all think is the right response to a situation like this?

Your pistol is the wrong tool. Texas Penal Code 9.31. (b)(1). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTW ... m/PE.9.htm

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

Thus, no force would be justified in the situation depicted in the video. Feigned compliance and/or leaving are better choices.

"In case it turns physical," your pistol is still not a good option. While "production of a weapon" as a threat of deadly force can be legal (TPC 9.04) against mere force, what do you do if the threat fails?

Attorney Andrew Branca explains the law of self defense. https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/
On Thursdays, Branca conducts a Facebook LIVE "News/Q&A." See the page for the time. You can ask questions. https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefense/

[philip964]

Guy with the skateboard is dead.

Seems pretty clear cut.

[RSX11]

"In case it turns physical," your pistol is still not a good option. While "production of a weapon" as a threat of deadly force can be legal (TPC 9.04) against mere force, what do you do if the threat fails?

If a mob of people crowded around me, screaming and threatening me, starts beating me, I think I'm reasonably going to fear death or serious bodily injury (I'm 66 and not as tough as I used to be). Would not deadly force be appropriate in response to this situation? Or should I count on the goodwill of the Communists, and just hope for a light beating? One thing's for sure, I'll go down fighting under a hailstorm of fists, bootheels and skateboards before I'll be coerced into making a gesture of support for any movement.

[oljames3]

"In case it turns physical," your pistol is still not a good option. While "production of a weapon" as a threat of deadly force can be legal (TPC 9.04) against mere force, what do you do if the threat fails?

If a mob of people crowded around me, screaming and threatening me, starts beating me, I think I'm reasonably going to fear death or serious bodily injury (I'm 66 and not as tough as I used to be). Would not deadly force be appropriate in response to this situation? Or should I count on the goodwill of the Communists, and just hope for a light beating? One thing's for sure, I'll go down fighting under a hailstorm of fists, bootheels and skateboards before I'll be coerced into making a gesture of support for any movement.

We must each decide for ourselves which risks we are willing to manage and which benefits matter most to us.

Attorney Andrew Branca explains the law of self defense. https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/

Yes, disparity of force or number of attackers can alter the justification of the use of force or deadly force.

You are talking about three separate fights; screaming and threatening, beating, and fear of death or serious bodily injury. TPC 9 requires that our response to a threat be proportional. Against verbal provocation alone (screaming), no force is justified. Against mere force (fists), only mere force is justified. Against deadly force, "when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary", force and deadly force can be justified. Proportionality also comes into play with the disparity of number of attackers or disparity of force which can alter the justifiable response.

"When and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary." Reasonableness does not mean what is reasonable to the defender, but what is reasonable to the jury. The jury members likely have never been confronted by a number of angry persons and thus have no conception of what the defender experienced. Also, the jury will deliberate in comfort and safety, having sufficient time to arrive a reasoned verdict. Branca says:

What’s reasonable to one person may not be reasonable to another, however. This element of reasonableness is partly a reflection of the particular defender under the specific circumstances. The reasonable perception of, and defensive options for, a defender who is young, healthy, and fit may well differ from the reasonable perceptions and defensive options of an elderly, ill, or disabled defender.

I can see a viewpoint from which all five elements of a valid claim of self defense could be made in this incident. So much depends on the subjective reasonableness of the defenders actions.

While the use of force, or even deadly force, could be justified, the tactical situation is fraught with peril.

[RSX11]

I am a 68 year old Vietnam ear vet, retired in 2012, 70% disabled. In the video in question (https://www.wnd.com/2020/08/blm-activis ... olidarity/), I do not see an articulable threat of death or serious bodily injury to me. Your mileage will vary.

Well, I did say "if it got physical". I agree it would be unwise to to start shooting just from people yelling at you. I am concerned about the best course of action right before the skateboards start to fly into your head, and right after.

[srothstein]

While I think the shootings were justified, the media is obviously upset and disagreeing. They are calling the kid a vigilante and a fugitive. They are also saying he fled the state to avoid prosecution. He has been arrested at his home and charged with first degree murder.

How do you become a fugitive when most of the videos clearly show him surrendering himself to the police right after it happened? I have no faith in the local federal prosecutor not trying to charge him with interstate flight, a federal crime. They have done a lot worse when they did not agree with the local prosecutors or juries.

[parabelum]

While I think the shootings were justified, the media is obviously upset and disagreeing. They are calling the kid a vigilante and a fugitive. They are also saying he fled the state to avoid prosecution. He has been arrested at his home and charged with first degree murder.

How do you become a fugitive when most of the videos clearly show him surrendering himself to the police right after it happened? I have no faith in the local federal prosecutor not trying to charge him with interstate flight, a federal crime. They have done a lot worse when they did not agree with the local prosecutors or juries.

I agree Sir. Plenty of video of the kid going up / running to the police with his hands in the air. How did he flee?

[oljames3]

I am a 68 year old Vietnam ear vet, retired in 2012, 70% disabled. In the video in question (https://www.wnd.com/2020/08/blm-activis ... olidarity/), I do not see an articulable threat of death or serious bodily injury to me. Your mileage will vary.

Well, I did say "if it got physical". I agree it would be unwise to to start shooting just from people yelling at you. I am concerned about the best course of action right before the skateboards start to fly into your head, and right after.

Now we are discussing two separate fights; screaming crowd vs seated woman and armed mob vs rifleman.

We must each decide for ourselves which risks we are willing to manage and which benefits matter most to us. "Get physical" could mean mere force or it could mean deadly force. One person with only fists is almost always mere force. A number of persons with fists could easily be deadly force, if their conduct shows they mean to attack.

Against imminent and unlawful deadly force, the question becomes how best to respond to ensure survival. If I do not survive the physical fight, the legal fight will be of little import.

[RSX11]

Y'know, your replies are practically content free, while simultaneously not answering my original question. Let me put it baldly as possible, with no room for misunderstanding. If confronted with a similar mob, would you ready yourself to be able to draw your gun (what I'm thinking I would do), do something else, or do nothing? And if a beat down on you by the mob started, involving multiple people, would you endure it stoically, draw your gun and start blazing away, or...something else?

[oljames3]

Y'know, your replies are practically content free, while simultaneously not answering my original question. Let me put it baldly as possible, with no room for misunderstanding. If confronted with a similar mob, would you ready yourself to be able to draw your gun (what I'm thinking I would do), do something else, or do nothing? And if a beat down on you by the mob started, involving multiple people, would you endure it stoically, draw your gun and start blazing away, or...something else?

You are not going to get the answer you want. The law does not work that way and neither does life.

I carry my S&W M&P9 M2.0 5" openly in a Safariland 7TS ALS with Guard. I don't have to get anything ready.

When confronted by mere force, I will avoid deescalate, defend with force in that order. When confronted by a deadly force threat, I will avoid, deescalate, defend in that order.

My pistol is my last resort and my goal is to survive, not go out in a blaze of glory.

Your mileage will vary.

[anygunanywhere]

"In case it turns physical," your pistol is still not a good option. While "production of a weapon" as a threat of deadly force can be legal (TPC 9.04) against mere force, what do you do if the threat fails?

If a mob of people crowded around me, screaming and threatening me, starts beating me, I think I'm reasonably going to fear death or serious bodily injury (I'm 66 and not as tough as I used to be). Would not deadly force be appropriate in response to this situation? Or should I count on the goodwill of the Communists, and just hope for a light beating? One thing's for sure, I'll go down fighting under a hailstorm of fists, bootheels and skateboards before I'll be coerced into making a gesture of support for any movement.

We must each decide for ourselves which risks we are willing to manage and which benefits matter most to us.

Attorney Andrew Branca explains the law of self defense. https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/

Yes, disparity of force or number of attackers can alter the justification of the use of force or deadly force.

You are talking about three separate fights; screaming and threatening, beating, and fear of death or serious bodily injury. TPC 9 requires that our response to a threat be proportional. Against verbal provocation alone (screaming), no force is justified. Against mere force (fists), only mere force is justified. Against deadly force, "when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary", force and deadly force can be justified. Proportionality also comes into play with the disparity of number of attackers or disparity of force which can alter the justifiable response.

"When and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary." Reasonableness does not mean what is reasonable to the defender, but what is reasonable to the jury. The jury members likely have never been confronted by a number of angry persons and thus have no conception of what the defender experienced. Also, the jury will deliberate in comfort and safety, having sufficient time to arrive a reasoned verdict. Branca says:

What’s reasonable to one person may not be reasonable to another, however. This element of reasonableness is partly a reflection of the particular defender under the specific circumstances. The reasonable perception of, and defensive options for, a defender who is young, healthy, and fit may well differ from the reasonable perceptions and defensive options of an elderly, ill, or disabled defender.

I can see a viewpoint from which all five elements of a valid claim of self defense could be made in this incident. So much depends on the subjective reasonableness of the defenders actions.

While the use of force, or even deadly force, could be justified, the tactical situation is fraught with peril.

“Fists” are deadly. I disagree with your reasoning.

[parabelum]

Especially if the one getting punched is elderly and or on blood thinners...

[03Lightningrocks]

"In case it turns physical," your pistol is still not a good option. While "production of a weapon" as a threat of deadly force can be legal (TPC 9.04) against mere force, what do you do if the threat fails?

If a mob of people crowded around me, screaming and threatening me, starts beating me, I think I'm reasonably going to fear death or serious bodily injury (I'm 66 and not as tough as I used to be). Would not deadly force be appropriate in response to this situation? Or should I count on the goodwill of the Communists, and just hope for a light beating? One thing's for sure, I'll go down fighting under a hailstorm of fists, bootheels and skateboards before I'll be coerced into making a gesture of support for any movement.

We must each decide for ourselves which risks we are willing to manage and which benefits matter most to us.

Attorney Andrew Branca explains the law of self defense. https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/

Yes, disparity of force or number of attackers can alter the justification of the use of force or deadly force.

You are talking about three separate fights; screaming and threatening, beating, and fear of death or serious bodily injury. TPC 9 requires that our response to a threat be proportional. Against verbal provocation alone (screaming), no force is justified. Against mere force (fists), only mere force is justified. Against deadly force, "when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary", force and deadly force can be justified. Proportionality also comes into play with the disparity of number of attackers or disparity of force which can alter the justifiable response.

"When and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary." Reasonableness does not mean what is reasonable to the defender, but what is reasonable to the jury. The jury members likely have never been confronted by a number of angry persons and thus have no conception of what the defender experienced. Also, the jury will deliberate in comfort and safety, having sufficient time to arrive a reasoned verdict. Branca says:

What’s reasonable to one person may not be reasonable to another, however. This element of reasonableness is partly a reflection of the particular defender under the specific circumstances. The reasonable perception of, and defensive options for, a defender who is young, healthy, and fit may well differ from the reasonable perceptions and defensive options of an elderly, ill, or disabled defender.

I can see a viewpoint from which all five elements of a valid claim of self defense could be made in this incident. So much depends on the subjective reasonableness of the defenders actions.

While the use of force, or even deadly force, could be justified, the tactical situation is fraught with peril.

“Fists” are deadly. I disagree with your reasoning.

I would have to agree. I am a pretty tough old guy but still an old guy. Well, older than I used to be and taking a fist or foot to my head is not something I am sure I can survive.