When is Deadly Force justified during a riot?

[EugenFJR]

Not trying to be a jerk, but it seems you have the stance that the guys or girls have a right to riot... They do not... And I think If you defend your property from people throwing bricks and setting stuff on fire, the state might just see why you NEED to fire on a crowd that was threating your home or your self...

 

[HuntFishLive!]

when your life is in danger with just cause and proof!

 

[Bear44]

Not trying to be a jerk, but it seems you have the stance that the guys or girls have a right to riot... They do not... And I think If you defend your property from people throwing bricks and setting stuff on fire, the state might just see why you NEED to fire on a crowd that was threating your home or your self...

Just because they are rioting does not give anyone the right to kill them. That's not my opinion, that's just what the law says. The laws concerning justifiable homicide are specific and "throwing bricks and setting stuff on fire" does not cut it for justification. It will depend on what they are throwing bricks at and what they are setting on fire.

Again, this discussion is meant to get people thinking about exactly when they can legally defend themselves in a riot. Here's another situation to think about. You are in your car stopped in traffic. There are rioters all around the car. When would the use of deadly force be legal? Just because they're there? They start yelling threats at you? Shoving the car? Hitting the car hood with their fists? With clubs? They start smashing your windows? They are trying to pull you from the car?

At what point would you respond with deadly force? When you get scared IS NOT a good enough answer.

 

[Bear44]

when your life is in danger with just cause and proof!

Actually, proof is not needed. In fact, the danger does not even need to be real, but YOU DO need to have reasonable cause to believe it is real and be able to show why you thought that. That reasonable cause thing is the key. Other people that can calmly evaluate it latter need to agree that your fear was reasonable.

 

[woodstock]

Bear seems like your asking for absolute certainty on this but there isn't any, just like the rest of life.

You do your best and live with the results.

 

[EugenFJR]

I'm not a lawer, but I do know when my life is in danger, that includes bricks being thrown at me... I know, make a 911 call and throw bricks at the cops, and see how long it takes for them to shoot you. Better yet have 50 of your friends with you all throwing bricks and setting things on fire when you ambush that first patrol car.

 

[Bear44]

I'll give you an example of how fear alone does not justify. This happened in a different country that is less than friendly.

Many years ago me and another man were sitting at a table having something to eat. Two LEO came into the place and started talking to the employees. We new that there was an organization that was looking for us with ill intent and that they had some LE on the payroll. We were discreetly egressing the AO and thought we were clear of their area of influence. These two LEO were from the area we had left and were well outside their jurisdiction. Needless to say, our adrenalin got pumping real quick. We were definitely in fear for our lives at that point. Both of us drew our sidearms and had them ready for use under the table. If they had even approached the table we would have killed them. Fortunately, they did not approach the table and they hardly noticed us. Our fear had us ready to kill them and it would have been a huge mistake. Granted, it would not have been the courts that would have been our biggest problem there, but it would have been almost impossible to get clear of the situation if we had pulled the trigger.

A response based only in fear does not justify. There MUST be legitimate reason for the fear.

 

[Bear44]

Bear seems like your asking for absolute certainty on this but there isn't any, just like the rest of life.

You do your best and live with the results.

Does your best not include serious consideration of the situation?

I know full well there is no such thing as absolute certainty in ANY decision, but I have no intension of abandoning all thought because of that. My best includes thought before, during and after.

How many of you that seem to think that my attitude equates to hesitation to act would agree that the best weapon you have is your mind? If you do, why do you think that using it is a bad idea?

 

[Bear44]

I'm not a lawer, but I do know when my life is in danger, that includes bricks being thrown at me... I know, make a 911 call and throw bricks at the cops, and see how long it takes for them to shoot you. Better yet have 50 of your friends with you all throwing bricks and setting things on fire when you ambush that first patrol car.

Yes it does, if they are close enough for the bricks to have any chance of reaching you. That would definitely be a time to shoot.

See folks! He has thought about it and made a decision beforehand. Now he won't have to make that choice on the fly (which could cause him to hesitate) and he is more likely to survive the encounter and still not go to jail.

Why is understanding this so hard?

 

[GeauxLSU]

Why is understanding this so hard?

I think what's hard to understand, at least for me, is how anyone believes a discussion of this sort is going to change how anyone actually REACTS in such a circumstance.
Regardless of the law, I fear for me life, I shoot. I don't fear, I don't shoot. Anything else is nonsensical.