When is Deadly Force justified during a riot?

[BIKER13]

Fenced in compound at my place,They have the high ground in the back though.400 yard free fire zone to the hill.

 

[Laxguy59]

Fenced in compound at my place,They have the high ground in the back though.400 yard free fire zone to the hill.

Group 5 riot compound

 

[linebacker]

Fenced in compound at my place,They have the high ground in the back though.400 yard free fire zone to the hill.

I have to ask. Are you protecting yourself from them or are you protecting them from you?

 

[Apollo]

And you think that alone is going to protect you from LE, the DA, Judge and Jury, all of whom will be evaluating your actions after the fact with 20/20 hindsight?

Who gives a **** about a judge and jury? That's the last thing ill be thinking about before I pull the trigger. You have to be alive to be judged!! Doh!!

 

[Apollo]

Fenced in compound at my place,They have the high ground in the back though.400 yard free fire zone to the hill.

We can dig a moat and throw a couple sharks in the mix.

 

[fondoo57]

When they start to riot ?

 

[Ken Ford]

Has anyone considered this? Let's hope this is nothing more than an interesting conversation, but understanding the legalities may be very important to some of us very soon.You've got rioters on the street outside your home or business. What action by the rioters would justify your use of deadly force?

The law would be the same whether a riot of one on one situation.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. They say it will go to the jury this Friday and I live in an area where rioting is a real possibility. Now is the time to think about my response.

Just went to the Jury.

 

[GeauxLSU]

You are obviously a thoughtful man and have a reasonably cool head. You are also applying those traits to everyone and that is not the case. The point I'm making is that there are a lot of people out there that would become very frightened well BEFORE there was a real threat to them and if they think the law would allow it, they would take action at that time.

Again, that is where we disagree. I just don't think anyone is sitting at a window sill with a rioter in their cross hairs thinking "I'm legal, it's go time!". Legality in life and death situations only comes up AFTER the fact.
Bear, I realize you are trying to have an academic discussion about a particular SHTF scenario but you are crossing the line from what is legal, and what is reality, in a life & death situation. If the two cross paths, it's coincidence.
I would never shoot or not shoot someone based on what is legal. I will shoot someone when and only when I think I am saving my life or that of another, period. There may be a situation where I'd be legally right to shoot someone and wouldn't and vice versa. I'm not going to pretend to have a handle on the myriad of scenarios and laws that would apply or not, as to be blunt.... I don't care. I don't say that in a cavalier fashion either, I say that because my life is either endanger or not. The "law" doesn't get to dictate when I personally get to protect myself when I feel threatened. "The law" is not there to evaluate the situation. I am. The jury can decide if I was 'right'.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Oh, come on man. Where did I say this was even an option?

Your implication (I think) is that people should NOT shoot if they feel their life is threatened but it would be against the law. Correct?
If I'm threatened and don't shoot, plan B is roll up and die. I have no intention of ever going to plan B.

 

[Byte Stryke]

Just went to the Jury.

They haven't even had closing arguments yet