TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/l ... 09432.html

I've never thought of being in any danger when stopped on the Interstate in a traffic jam. But apparently in today's time stopping traffic on the Interstate and then looting 18 wheelers and setting fires is a new "tactic".

No doubt people were trapped in their cars with the doors locked, wondering whether to stay or make a run for it.

People who were just driving through Charlotte had no idea what this was even about.

http://100percentfedup.com/nc-mob-attac ... her-video/
A slightly more biased news story.

philip964 wrote:http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/l ... 09432.html

I've never thought of being in any danger when stopped on the Interstate in a traffic jam. But apparently in today's time stopping traffic on the Interstate and then looting 18 wheelers and setting fires is a new "tactic".

No doubt people were trapped in their cars with the doors locked, wondering whether to stay or make a run for it.

People who were just driving through Charlotte had no idea what this was even about.

http://100percentfedup.com/nc-mob-attac ... her-video/
A slightly more biased news story.

Looting and destroying property does not get you anywhere. Being destructive and violently protesting has not gotten the BLM anywhere in their "movement."

I saw a link on the second page from a protestor that posted a video saying they would take their protest to the suburbs.

Unidentified man helping to organize protests in suburbs tells Mark Barber of WSOC: “We need to go where the immediate threat is at. Whether it’s a threat or not, I just want us to go to the area where the gentleman lives, so we can actually have the people with the money be concerned about the people without the money.”

Reporter: “So you plan to protest in the suburbs?”

Man being interviewed: “Yes. Cuz I figure if we go hit them in their area, then they’ll be more potent (?) to what’s going on in our area.”

A hate crime? Nah..nothing to see here, move along.

These protesters or people like them are gonna mess with the wrong person eventually. It's coming.

They're not protestors.

They're criminals and should be treated as such.

cirus wrote:These protesters or people like them are gonna mess with the wrong person eventually. It's coming.

Abraham wrote:They're not protestors.

They're criminals and should be treated as such.

Abraham wrote:They're not protestors.

They're criminals and should be treated as such.

They believe that they are exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest, without actually knowing what the 1st Amendment says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The culture war being pushed by the race-baiters and others is all about division -- and designed to ultimately usher in the age of statism, denying the rights of the individual in favor of serving the many. Whether it is division by race or by socio-economic standing, it is still pitting some "us" against another "them" so that folks won't pull together and solve their problems peaceably, thereby providing an opportunity for the State to step in to "fix" things and create the utopian society where all are the same.

In this environment the chances are greater for someone defending themselves to be prosecuted than for criminal protestors to be prosecuted.

I wonder how the protestors are going to like it if the 2nd Amendment is abolished, guns confiscated and the government has free reign to put down dissent without fear of an armed uprising?

Those 10's of thousands of heavily armed federal agents won't have to play nice anymore.

For protesters, I keep my glock on my hip (actually almost all the time), with 10.5" AR pistol in backseat with chest rig, 4 mags, and 1 extra glock mag. They all come to ride with me in the front seat in event of a protester highway shutdown.
I would be the guy that turns this into a bad day for violent protesters.

I'm curious as to the legal situation if this were to happen in Texas. Consider this hypothetical.

You are driving down the highway and traffic comes to a stop. Let's say you are in the middle lane and are blocked in by stopped vehicles on both sides. Up ahead, you see several hundred violent protesters smashing car windows with rocks, dragging occupants from their vehicles and beating them while they set various cars on fire. They are approaching your car.

For this hypothetical, let's assume you are well armed for the situation and are in the car with 3 other LTC holders (on your way back from a 3 gun match). You each have an AR-15, a HD Shotgun, and 2 handguns along with plenty of ammo and spare magazines. So an armed resistance is at least plausible.

At what point could you legally display your weapons, and at what point could you legally open fire? Do you need to wait until the mob has reached your vehicle? Until you are surrounded? Or can you take action before that time?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm curious as to the legal situation if this were to happen in Texas. Consider this hypothetical.

You are driving down the highway and traffic comes to a stop. Let's say you are in the middle lane and are blocked in by stopped vehicles on both sides. Up ahead, you see several hundred violent protesters smashing car windows with rocks, dragging occupants from their vehicles and beating them while they set various cars on fire. They are approaching your car.

For this hypothetical, let's assume you are well armed for the situation and are in the car with 3 other LTC holders (on your way back from a 3 gun match). You each have an AR-15, a HD Shotgun, and 2 handguns along with plenty of ammo and spare magazines. So an armed resistance is at least plausible.

At what point could you legally display your weapons, and at what point could you legally open fire? Do you need to wait until the mob has reached your vehicle? Until you are surrounded? Or can you take action before that time?

My first action would be to drive away, even if it meant ramming other cars out of the way. No matter how well armed one (or a few) may be, at some point the "mob" becomes unstoppable, whereby they gain control of the weapons, and use them against you. I know it sounds implausible, but in a true mob mentality, even unarmed people bent on violence, will not stop even when there compatriots are dropping around them, from bullets. You and I and most "individuals" will realize superior firepower and stop attacking, but in a frenzied mob, that reasoning does not take place. JMHO

Soccerdad1995 wrote:At what point could you legally display your weapons, and at what point could you legally open fire? Do you need to wait until the mob has reached your vehicle? Until you are surrounded? Or can you take action before that time?

Let's look at TPC 9.31

[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.

and 9.32

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor 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.

Those sections go on to explain in which instances where you are automatically given the presumption that your use of force/deadly force is justified, but in my non-lawyer opinion (law types feel free to correct me) is that you still have the defense that you reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent or end the attacker's use of force/deadly force.

Also according to 9.04, threatening to use deadly force if necessary is not considered deadly force.

Sec. 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.

Jusme wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm curious as to the legal situation if this were to happen in Texas. Consider this hypothetical.

You are driving down the highway and traffic comes to a stop. Let's say you are in the middle lane and are blocked in by stopped vehicles on both sides. Up ahead, you see several hundred violent protesters smashing car windows with rocks, dragging occupants from their vehicles and beating them while they set various cars on fire. They are approaching your car.

For this hypothetical, let's assume you are well armed for the situation and are in the car with 3 other LTC holders (on your way back from a 3 gun match). You each have an AR-15, a HD Shotgun, and 2 handguns along with plenty of ammo and spare magazines. So an armed resistance is at least plausible.

At what point could you legally display your weapons, and at what point could you legally open fire? Do you need to wait until the mob has reached your vehicle? Until you are surrounded? Or can you take action before that time?

My first action would be to drive away, even if it meant ramming other cars out of the way. No matter how well armed one (or a few) may be, at some point the "mob" becomes unstoppable, whereby they gain control of the weapons, and use them against you. I know it sounds implausible, but in a true mob mentality, even unarmed people bent on violence, will not stop even when there compatriots are dropping around them, from bullets. You and I and most "individuals" will realize superior firepower and stop attacking, but in a frenzied mob, that reasoning does not take place. JMHO

I agree. And that's why, from a purely tactical standpoint, it would be a good idea to start engaging before the mob got very close to your position. I'm just not sure if you would be in a good position legally if your first shot hit someone who was 100+ yards away from you.

BTW, I agree that exiting the situation by vehicle is the best choice if at all possible. Sometimes that will not be possible.

Jusme wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I'm curious as to the legal situation if this were to happen in Texas. Consider this hypothetical.

You are driving down the highway and traffic comes to a stop. Let's say you are in the middle lane and are blocked in by stopped vehicles on both sides. Up ahead, you see several hundred violent protesters smashing car windows with rocks, dragging occupants from their vehicles and beating them while they set various cars on fire. They are approaching your car.

For this hypothetical, let's assume you are well armed for the situation and are in the car with 3 other LTC holders (on your way back from a 3 gun match). You each have an AR-15, a HD Shotgun, and 2 handguns along with plenty of ammo and spare magazines. So an armed resistance is at least plausible.

At what point could you legally display your weapons, and at what point could you legally open fire? Do you need to wait until the mob has reached your vehicle? Until you are surrounded? Or can you take action before that time?

My first action would be to drive away, even if it meant ramming other cars out of the way. No matter how well armed one (or a few) may be, at some point the "mob" becomes unstoppable, whereby they gain control of the weapons, and use them against you. I know it sounds implausible, but in a true mob mentality, even unarmed people bent on violence, will not stop even when there compatriots are dropping around them, from bullets. You and I and most "individuals" will realize superior firepower and stop attacking, but in a frenzied mob, that reasoning does not take place. JMHO

While I agree with you about a "true mob" not stopping, I don't think that is what we are dealing with here. Someone starts sending rounds down range and these people are going to run the other way, fast. Not saying stopping to fight it out is the right choice if you can drive away for a number of reasons. I highly doubt you will see these degenerates running towards 4 armed men with AR-15's, just look what happened with the Dallas shooting during the BLM protest. On another note people thought I was paranoid when I started carrying an AR in my truck, this was the exact situation I said I was worried about. Guess I'm not that much of a crackpot anymore.