Personal Defense: Establish Your Line in the Sand Now, Before You’re Forced To Do It

storefront sikhs

Storefront Sikhs courtesy Twitter

With all the incidents of anarchy and unrest of late, there’s a chance that someday you or your loved ones could find yourselves on the dangerous end of a mob’s anger. With that in mind and while you can think calmly and without haste, consider what the threshold would be for you to use deadly force if confronted by a hostile mob in your car, on your property, or in your home.

As has been seen time and time again, you cannot be cavalier in wielding deadly force in self-defense. Neither the local prosecutor nor the jury pool will likely come from a group of NRA Annual Convention goers full of vocal advocates for right to armed self-defense.

Far from it, especially in blue states. That goes double for the deepest blue states like Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey and so forth.

But even in solidly red states, there are jurisdictions where the local prosecutors side with criminals over law-abiding citizens every day (city of St. Louis, for example). You really need to consider this ahead of time.

In your vehicle

You cannot use deadly force (either your gun or your vehicle itself) to stop people from damaging your car. And brandishing a firearm hoping it will “part the Red Sea” of angry protesters will likely get you a arrested and prosecuted by criminal-friendly prosecutors in larger cities. Don’t brandish unless you’re justified in using deadly force — in reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm — and willing to follow through if the bad guy persists. You’re not starring in a Miami Vice episode.

At home, consider a similar scenario, that of a hostile mob. No, it will probably never happen, but the McCloskey’s in St. Louis no doubt thought it would never happen to them, either. But it did.

They brandished their guns as a hostile mob tore down a gate and poured onto their private property (once again, they live in a private neighborhood where others must be invited in). The Soros-bought St. Louis Circuit Attorney, Kimberly Gardner, thought the McCloskey’s were criminally wrong for threatening the horde with guns.

Even with the McCloskeys’ restraint, the prosecutor had police seize their guns a few days later. Now they face felony charges from a criminal-coddling politicized prosecutor.

Sometimes you just can’t win against a hostile prosecutor. So be prepared for a jury trial.

As an aside, do you have self-defense insurance? Now would be a fine time to sign up for a policy!

At home or your business

What is your line in the sand at home or at your place of business? Is it someone throwing bricks through your windows? Is it someone lighting a Molotov cocktail outside? Is it a violent and tumultuous entry as they break down your door?

What if they set upon your car that’s parked in front of your house, but don’t threaten you inside your home? Laws around the use of deadly force to protect property differ widely from state to state. It’s important to know what’s legal when you live before it happens.

Think though it now, while you have time and can consider your options and the consequences. Know who to call: 911, even if only to get it on the record, and your attorney (keep their number programmed in your phone).

You need to consider these questions now, not when you’re in the middle of a confrontation you didn’t want, but are forced to deal with. One in which there is a flood of inputs, emotions and adrenaline to manage in addition to a dynamic events going on around you.

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    It’s real simple. If you threaten me or some one I care about I will be waiting next to your dead body when the police show up.

    I will let the lawyers sort the rest of it out.

    1. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

      This.

      Between Stand Your Ground and Castle Law here in South Carolina I feel good about lawfully defending myself from people trying to harm me.

      I’ve seen convicted felons basically execute armed robbers lying in wait and only face federal weapon charges. A mob attacking anyone in vehicle or at their home would get zero sympathy from my sheriff or the public. To hell with living anywhere would be murderers and attackers get more assistance from authorities than their victims.

    2. avatar A says:

      I highly, Highly recommend finding a smokeless range and practicing different scenarios. We have one near me and it has shown me all sorts of deficiencies I have. Not only in technique, which is massively important obviously. But in learning and developing the knowledge in WHEN to use such force.

      1. avatar ILExile says:

        I’m sorry, but I seem to be ignorant here. Could you define what you mean when you say “Smokeless Range”?

        1. avatar Frisky says:

          Lasers or sims, nothing live.

    3. avatar Thixotropic says:

      Me too.

      Two weeks ago, i used John Boch’s name and advice and bought a membership in ACLDN and received a nice 20% discount on my first year membership.

      It is important in jurisdictions like St. Louis and my town, Houston, where we have DA’s and District Prosecutors that Soros and Bloomberg BOUGHT into office. They will spend public money to prosecute you IF they think they can force you to ‘Cop’ a criminal plea because you do not have the financial ability to defend yourself. Regardless whether you are justified or not. Unfortunately, the amount of Justice you receive from the corrupt Criminal Justice System is directly proportional to the amount of money you can use to present a defense. Just as General Flynn who was clearly framed by a Deep State FBI.

      Thank you, John Boch.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        Left Houston in 1969. Everyday since then I am thankful that I left. Got USCCA membership for my wife and myself.

    4. avatar Darkman says:

      Borrowed from a poster on this site. Sorry Memory escapes me as to who posted it. Says it all.
      “You’ll know you did your job. When the first responders puke at the sight of it.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Sounds very familiar. 🙂

    5. avatar frank speak says:

      easy to say what you would do…until you’ve actually been through that wringer…the best advice still rings true…:”When in doubt…DON’T!”….[it will save you a lot of grief and financial hardship]….

    6. avatar Indianrider says:

      Please. Not more of that. It’s precisely what contributes to making matters difficult for ggod guys with legal guns.

  2. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Arson, attempted arson or a credible threat of arson is a shooting offense, even here in NY. It carries the same penalties as attempted murder. And, if someone dies as the result, it’s murder one. Check your local laws.

    Unbelievable how all the arson being committed in these riots has been reported as “demonstrations” and “mostly peaceful protests”.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      As Ben Shapiro correctly pointed out “mostly peaceful” is, in and of itself, a meaningless statement.

      A murderer is “mostly peaceful” even on the day of the murder. They probably spent the majority of that day not being violent. It’s the few minutes that killed someone that matter.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Ted Bundy was mostly peaceful.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          And Jeffy Dalhmer was mostly a good cook…

          Lol Shapiro used OJ as the example, not sure I’d run with that since he was acquitted but whatever.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          Ford’s Theatre was a mostly peaceful evening when Lincoln was assassinated.

      2. avatar C.S. says:

        MSM: here, eat this… it’s mostly s***-free..

        1. avatar Big E says:

          Two thumbs way up for this comment!

      3. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        That’s the way the prosecutor laying charges on the cops talked about that guy who got shot after fighting with the cops, taking a taser away from one and shooting it at the cop. “He was cooperative and peaceful for more than 40 minutes.”

    2. avatar Ing says:

      Tells you a lot about what side the media is on, doesn’t it. Part of everyone’s preparation should include the awareness that you’ll be painted as the bad guy by a lot of people, no matter what you do.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        I ran into Jerry Nadler in DC and asked him to disavow the Antifa violence/rioting in Portland.

        His response?

        “THATS A MYTH”

        https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1287538621445296128

        1. avatar BLAMMO!! says:

          As if it’s political suicide to denounce something that’s universally bad. So, what could be the basis of his aversion?

        2. avatar Ing says:

          “It’s a Myth: Live in Portland!”

          Performances live-streaming every night from downtown Portland. Episodes have been running periodically since January 2016. The current season opened 6 weeks ago and will go on as long as the Portland mayor and city council want it to.

        3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          “That’s a myth”

          I’m about 25 miles south and a wee bit west of Portland.
          It ain’t no myth.

    3. avatar tdiinva says:

      Posetion of a Molotov Cocktail is a destructive device under federal law. If you are confronted by someone holding one snap a picture even if you aren’t the intended target. When it is convenient give it to BATF and give them something useful to do instead of harassing law abiding gun owners.

      1. avatar kj says:

        Ha, ha, that’s cute. They will probably find that he was just refueling his car and using the flame for light in the ye olde-timey way.

    4. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Albany had a few arsons because no one but the paranoid (or bothered to read the commie reddits) believed that there would be a coordinated violent effort. Troy Schenectady and a few others had business owners and citizens talking about exactly that topic of arson and the law. Didn’t even have looting in the other protests for some reason.

    5. avatar frank speak says:

      that statute…[arson/attempted arson].. usually applies to occupied structures….

      1. avatar BLAMMO says:

        How does anyone have any way of knowing that a structure is NOT occupied?

    6. avatar Rob Schneeweiss says:

      I would include rocks and frozen water bottles in the list of weapons that pose a credible threat to my life or the life of those I care about, and throwing one at me will result in that person being shot. Repeatedly. I also include the shining of lasers in an attempt to blind people. That is a credible threat, and should be met with a laser of my own, followed by several 180-grain pieces of lead delivered at 2000 FPS.

  3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    “You cannot use deadly force (either your gun or your vehicle itself) to stop people from damaging your car. “

    I don’t mean to be “that guy” who likes to split hairs, but general statements like this can be misleading without clarification. I can’t speak to other localities, but in CA any structure or location that serves as your domicile may be protected with deadly force if necessary. That includes your motorhome, camper, or even your car if you have no traditional house as your residence and the vehicle serves as your domicile. If attackers are attempting to destroy your only means of shelter, you may certainly present arms to dissuade the threat, and may use deadly force as a last resort if your domicile is being threatened with destruction.

    So at least in CA, if you live in your motorhome and protesting thugs approach it and present a Molotov, you may do whatever is necessary to neutralize the threat.

    1. avatar All Hail! says:

      That’s right defend your car to the last shot like ‘I Haz A Question’ recommends, and bask in his reflected awesomeness now and forevermore! All Hail!!!

    2. avatar enuf says:

      Consider what is happening right now in Austin TX. Investigators are pouring over every scrap of video and still photo from the public, conducting dozens of witness interviews. Key question is did Foster point his AK at the driver that killed him?

      Better be sure you are in the right, because the authorities will examine your every action by the split second to determine if they approve or want you squashed like a bug.

      “Legally” squashed like a bug I mean. Not like a giant boot or something.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Pretty much true for any defensive shoot, I imagine. Which is why I’m looking into an improved security cam system for my home and perimeter, with focus on legally advantageous angles both indoor and out.

        Of course, the best course of action is always to remain the Grey Man and not go looking for a fight in the first place…such as walking in the middle of a traffic-blocking mob of agitators while openly strapped with an AK-47 and then rushing up to a car in which the driver is trapped, but what do I know…

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Yeah, I agree. The home security camera system is a good idea. As is the same for your vehicles. I’ve heard that vehicle cameras are pretty much standard in some countries, Russia for one.

          Agree too on never go looking for a fight. I’ve had several opportunities to get into a shootout in my life, have used a gun twice to get away and been lucky enough to never have to shoot.

          Hope my luck continues that way.

      2. avatar Anymouse says:

        A gun doesn’t have to be pointed at you for you to take action to defend yourself. Having a gun in hand is an imminent threat with a deadly weapon, and if they are acting like they intend to harm you, you can take action. You don’t need to try and out draw someone who has a gun on you with their finger on the trigger. Of course, you have to be prepared to explain to a jury that your fear of your life was reasonable. Someone with a rifle slung on their back coming up to ask for directions isn’t a threat. Someone who yells at you and goes to a rifle ready posture very well may be.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Thing is, if it is simply about someone walking up to you with hands on their rifle, well there’s a hell of a lot of that going on in these scenarios right now. The difference between these people being menacing or just not knowing what else to do with their hands is going to be very subtle … until it isn’t.

          Enormous opportunity for miscalculation on both sides of that math.

      3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        Let’s hope the guy has a GoFundMe page. All People Of The Gun should give him help.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Last I saw mention in the news the Go Fund Me for Garrett Foster was over $90,000.

    3. avatar BLAMMO!! says:

      Yeah, you can’t shoot someone for keying your car (unless you’re Vincent Vega), but if a mob is beating on your car with hammers and crowbars, those are deadly weapons and justify the use of deadly force, especially if they are also blocking any means of escape.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Blammo!,

        Hear, hear!

        If a mob surrounds your car and begins slapping and/or pounding on your car’s windows and body panels with their bare hands, that is not a credible, imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm and does not legally justify using deadly force in my personal opinion.

        If a mob surrounds your car and manages to break a window with their bare hands and yet does not attempt to grab you or a door handle inside, I believe that is not a credible, imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm, either, and also does not legally justify using deadly force.

        If a mob surrounds your car, and either beats on your car with melee weapons or otherwise breaks your windows and begins trying to pull you out or open the doors, I personally believe that is a credible, imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm and legally justifies use of deadly force.

        Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the above is NOT legal council/advice.

        1. avatar Specialist38 says:

          Do tell. Detached reflection in the face of an uplifted knife is a rare thing indeed.

          Let me know how credible you think the threat is after it happens to you.

        2. avatar Gary Mandigo says:

          If your spouse and children are in the vehicle and twenty or more young male thugs are yelling that they are going to kill you and your family (no visible weapons) and they block your means of escape, does a reasonable person wait to see how they fare against twenty enraged male thugs or does the reasonable person simply say to their family and themselves, I love each of you and I am going to do everything possible to keep you alive and safe from these crazed male thug criminals!
          Regardless of what some commie coward DA might try to do through the legal system (hopefully the justice system).

          Truth:
          Most violent attacks happen with a very short time frame (3 seconds or thereabouts).

          So, for anyone who is ever in a mob scenario, if no escape is available or apparent (we may not be aware of a possible exit strategy when faced with the above scenario), then protect our loved ones at all cost! Period.

          For reference: yard ago when my wife and I lived in Midtown Atlanta a mob of “partying Freaknevkers” did exactly what is described above hen we were attempting to cross over onto Peachtree Street from West Peachtree Street. Thank GOD that we managed to get through the cars that were trying to block us from crossing onto Peachtree Street.

        3. avatar Someone says:

          “If a mob surrounds your car and manages to break a window with their bare hands and yet does not attempt to grab you or a door handle inside, I believe that is not a credible, imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm, either, and also does not legally justify using deadly force.”

          How long does it take to grab you in such situation? When that happens and you are being dragged out through the broken window, it might be to late to do anything about it. Even if disparity of force and threats of violence are not enough, as soon as the glass breaks, all bets are off.

      2. avatar Joshua Samuels says:

        I’m with Vincent Vega. You don’t mess with a man’s vehicle. Should be a shoot-on-sight offense.

      3. avatar frank speak says:

        you could conceivably confront someone conducting a property crime…that’s an “understandable” reaction…but not with the threat of deadly force..much depends upon the reaction of the person being confronted and how it dictates what you do next…carrying some sort of non-lethal protective device as a supplement and option to your firearm is strongly advised….

    4. avatar Randy Jones says:

      I do not recommend defending your car if they are simply protestors blocking your path. Keep it locked and keep the windows up. If they break into your car, try to flip it over or try to disable it, that’s not a peaceful protest and do what you have to to get out of there. Otherwise unless there is a real danger to your safety, let them walk on by. Insurance can replace an antenna, mirror, wiper or fix the paint.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        True, it’s just stuff that can be replaced.

        But here is the nightmare scenario. Somehow you find yourself trapped by the mob in a protest, just imagine you did everything to avoid it but still it happened. 50 people beating on windows and car, blocking your path, you are armed. The window breaks and hands start reaching in to drag you and you passenger out.

        What to do?
        Gun it and run over several that will probably die from injuries or start shooting out of broken window killing several?

        1. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Why not both.

        2. avatar Tired of the bs says:

          MA
          That’s it
          Both and whatever else is necessary to escape the situation.

        3. avatar Peter Gunn says:

          “What to do?
          Gun it and run over several that will probably die from injuries or start shooting out of broken window killing several?”

          Technically speaking, “gun it” would apply to both of the above actions.

        4. avatar Henry Bowman says:

          The only thing I’d be worrying about in a scenario like that is whether I was killing ENOUGH of them.

      2. avatar Specialist38 says:

        So, are you going to exit your car ….. lock it….
        and then stand around with the mobsters while they vandalize it?

        And then vandalize you….because…..they can.?

        If I’m on a jury where a mob has attacked a car with people in it and someone gets run over or ventilated…….not guilty!

  4. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    If you are stabbed by an Antifa child molester. You will still need a lawyer if you shoot him in self defense.

    “Antifa militant and convicted pedophile Blake David Hampe was arrested in the early hours of Saturday following his alleged stabbing of a black Trump supporter in Portland.”

    https://thepostmillennial.com/antifa-militant-arrested-for-stabbing-black-trump-supporter-in-portland

    1. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

      These Antifa f*s are sick as s*t …

      “… officers from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection who performed a search of his [the antifa militant’s] vehicle discovered “a lot of merchandise for children” including sleeping bags, children’s stickers, children’s underwear, children’s towels with superhero prints, and packages of trading cards—alongside 12-15 condoms, lubricant, a camera, a cellphone, and a laptop.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Ah, so THAT IS why the Antifa types want to dismantle our police, courts, and prisons.

        1. avatar Top says:

          And why they all look pasty-white and skinny. As if they’ve spent too much time in front of their PCs in Mommy’s basement.

          And always remember, “USE YOUR WORDS!”

    2. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      I really hope they fry that guy for the stabbing, but I hope even more they make him walk a yard with a chomo conviction.

      1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

        Ink it on his forehead and put him in genpop

    3. avatar Dude says:

      “While police respond to an alleged stabbing situation

      A BLM rioters yells at the responding officers, follows him to his vehicle

      Then proceeds to kick it after the door closes ”

      They aren’t interested in justice for black victims unless it fits their agenda. That’s why everyone should just be interested in justice for all, not some special “justice” with an adjective in front of it like the dems keep pushing for.

    4. avatar Shire-man says:

      In just about any other circle the presence of a kiddy diddler would be a death blow to the cause. Here we have like the 5th high profile blm/antifa alligned arrest of a diddler and the show goes on.

      I swear the whole lot of these cretins from the stooge on the street to the suburban with the yard sign to the suits in DC are mentally ill, criminals or both.

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    I hate courts because as a retired lawyer I know how totally corrupt they are, but I hate undertakers even more. If you are threatened, you will have to do what you have to do. Everything else is bvllshit.

    Only the dead have no regrets.

    1. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

      Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I like you. You’re one of the few lawyers I’ve ever heard openly admit to the corruption. Many will in private but without being asked? Publicly? Not so much.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        legal interpretations are frequently…and often by design…left it the gray area…it provides a consistent source of funding for the legal profession…..

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I’ve been a primary party to multiple court cases and lawsuits over the years, both as complainant and defendant. Every single attorney (private law firm or public defender) I’ve ever met in my life was inept and not worth a fraction of their salary. Every prosecutor I’ve ever crossed paths with (D.A., Deputy D.A., agent, et al) were far more interested in twisting everything for a victory rather than pursuing justice, even when it entailed an innocent person being thrown under the bus. In one particular case, during one scheduled appearance/hearing, the uniformed Bailiff on duty in the courtroom was so disgusted by the D.A.’s actions against our party that he had to recuse himself from the room. He later met us in the hallway before we exited the building and expressed his severe disappointment (to the extent that he could, seeing that he was in uniform and not supposed to show any partiality) of how the Prosecutor behaved and how the presiding Judge allowed it.

      I’m not fond of Courts.

  6. avatar joeyj says:

    Talk is cheap. A proper defense in court is really, really expensive. You better have a really, really good defense attorney’s private number in your pocket, along with a hefty retainer in liquid funds. The only way to win a lethal force encounter is……to avoid it in the first place.
    That said, when all else fails, it would behoove one to understand your jurisdiction’s law on use of deadly force. At the very least, I encourage everyone to read and commit to memory under high stress the writings of Massad Ayoob in his book “Concealed Carry” pp.44-45 “Rules of Engagement” addressing the triad of Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy…..AOJ….which must be present simultaneously in all 50 states to justify deadly force, in what the courts call “common custom snd practice”. Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are covered in pp 46-49. Another great Ayoob book is the original “In the Gravest Extreme” dealimg with the role of firearms in personal protection.

    1. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      the general precedent is that a reasonable person in the same situation would have had a reasonable fear of imminent death, or grievous bodily harm (loss of life, limb, or eyesight). Note that a jury decides whats reasonable

    2. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

      Totally agree. While there are some fairly reliable consistent themes, the ACTUAL laws of self-defense vary dramatically across the country – both de jure and de facto. A jury in Commiefornia is not going to evaluate a shooting incident the same was a jury in Wyoming would.

      Does your state have a “duty to retreat” doctrine (Commiefornia does)? Does it have a “Castle doctrine”? “Stand your Ground”? What is your local prosecutor like (if you have a Soros puppet, you WILL get prosecuted, no matter what the facts). In general, what is your local courts’ history on dealing with self-defense cases?

      These all matter. If you don’t know them? I would recommenc you don’t carry. Pretty much ALL of the major gun orgs either give or sponsor “law of self defense” training, and the good ones are tailored to the jurisdiction. GET EDUCATED. Frankly, the major issue isn’t getting convicted (although that is a potential) – most cases plead out. The REAL issue is that you can easily be financially devastated by one of these cases.

      Of course, in extremis, you “do what ya gotta do”, and worry about it afterwards – even prison is better than a pine box. But if you don’t know what the law is, you are likely to miss little things that could greatly enhance your chances of either getting your case dropeed, or at least winning it.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      “A strange game…the only way to win is not to play”……..

  7. avatar strych9 says:

    Lighting things on fire really is one of those gray areas as to what it means since fire spreads on it’s own.

    That said, my general rule is “If you are acting aggressively and light up an incendiary device and are within range to use it against me or another innocent person to good effect, I’m probably going to drop your ass first and ask questions later”.

    Vehicles can take a beating so that’s what insurance is for. If they don’t try to get in or take someone out by force I can’t see doing much other than slowly driving forward. Break a window… expect a bullet in your face as the reaponse.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Fortunately in Kentucky you can shoot the arsonist dead. With the match, or Molotov cocktail, still in their hand. Before they set your property on fire. I learned this in my state required CCW class. Presented by lawyers who quoted KY law.

  8. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    Another scenario … how far will you go to protect a stranger from deadly force? Someone is getting knifed in the local Wally World; will you defend them? This happened in the city close to me, and a Good Samaritan put holes in the knife wielder with his concealed carry, and was not charged. Think about it now, and decide.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      always risky to “get involved”…even with the best of intentions….a cop is obligated to do so..[and is legally protected]..you aren’t……

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    “That said, when all else fails, it would behoove one to understand your jurisdiction’s law on use of deadly force.”

    When all else fails it’s a little too late for anything except fighting. I do have that understanding — I practiced law for 35 years — but understanding is not going to do me a lot of good if my life is threatened. That’s why I carry a gun instead of a copy of the Massachusetts General Laws.

    I do not intend my last words to be “I know the law!”

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      ‘I do not intend my last words to be “I know the law!”’

      OTOH, that’s some cold shit to be saying if it’s the last word they ever hear.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        “I am the law!” In my best Stallone voice.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Loved the original. Typical Stallone over-the-top semi-campy fun. The remake was so bad I never even finished watching it and stopped half an hour before the end.

    2. avatar Specialist38 says:

      Indeed!

  10. avatar Specialist38 says:

    So……my take is that if people attack “my car” with baseball bats, bricks, etc….with me in it…..they are attacking ME and MINE. I will respond accordingly with the vehicle or a firearm if the vehicle is disabled. I have no intention to be hurt, maimed, or killed so a bunch commie wanna-bes can improve their street cred.

    Now it’s a different story if I’m not in it.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      “You cannot use deadly force (either your gun or your vehicle itself) to stop people from damaging your car.”

      But when a violent mob surrounds you in order to block your escape, and begins vandalizing your car, at what point do you engage in use of deadly force (just moving your car is use of force after they surround you completely) before you are overwhelmed and become the next Reginald Denny? Hopefully before they succeed in disabling your car or setting fire to it with you in it.

      Somebody in Austin last weekend thought that time had come when the mob surrounded them and somebody approached the driver’s door from behind brandishing a PSA AK47. I suspect that if the current DA doesn’t disagree with the victim’s risk assessment, the next one will.

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        I agree it’s a judgement call.

        If my car is surrounded and people advance and start attacking the car. My right foot is going to the floor.

        I have advised my family to do the same. YMMV.

        Unlike Reginald Denny, I am not deluded to think “we cannot all get along”.

        1. avatar Specialist38 says:

          Auto correct replaced can with cannot……dammit.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        FedUp,

        Here is the problem when a mob with melee weapons begins beating on your car: are they intent on only vandalizing your car or are they intent on maiming/murdering you? It could go either way.

        So I look at it this way. Suppose that a mob surrounds your car and members of the mob begin shooting your car. If they are only shooting the engine compartment and the trunk, does that mean that they are merely “vandalizing your car” and thus are not a credible, imminent threat of maiming/murdering you — which therefore does NOT legally justify responding with deadly force?

        My personal standard is pretty simple when a mob surrounds my car. If:

        they attack my vehicle with visible weapons
        — OR —
        otherwise breach my car and attempt to enter my car or pull me out

        They have demonstrated hostile intentions toward me with the means and ability to maim/murder me. Thus, I will respond with deadly force and I believe that I will be legally justified to do so.

  11. avatar Kyle says:

    I spend alot of time in a car, so for me its easy.

    1) Avoid riots
    2) If 1 not possible, Lock your doors and dont make any threatening moves. Call 911 and record everything you see.
    3) If mob smashes on car, just try to record as much as you can.
    4) If Mob busts window or a firearm is pointed at me by mob….Well, the call at 911 just got elevated to a higher priority, as I will then be in fear of my life and will be “stopping the threat”, or have been “murdered by the mob”

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      ^^THIS^^

  12. avatar M. Murcek says:

    Lawyerly advice from a barrister I used to have lunch with when I was an ink stained wretch covering the courthouse beat: “Shoot to kill. Then it’s your word against his dead ass. And it’s illegal to tamper with a crime scene, but it’s better if the dead subject is found inside the house.”

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      Tampering with a crime scene will destroy any credibility in your case. Modern forensics will probably find blood/splatter, drag marks, bullet trajectories, etc that are inconsistent with your story and proof that you’re lying. Waiting until the threat breaches your house adds evidence that it was a reasonable threat, but it’s not necessary if the outside threat can do damage by pointing a gun into the house or having fire at the ready.

  13. avatar Jimmy James says:

    From Band of Brothers’ “Fire and maneuver boys, fire and maneuver.”

  14. avatar enuf says:

    Understanding the law where you live is reasonable advice.

    The usual spin on the McCloskey’s using them as an example of standing up to a mob, is nonsense. The local news has covered this extensively and plenty of links have been shared on TTAG. The trespassers/marchers/protesters walked thru an open and undamaged gate, one of four pedestrian gates. The damaged gate happened later and it turns out it was already in a bad state, the McCloskey’s themselves have it down as a complaint against the property owner’s association.

    When those people streamed thru in large numbers they immediately walked into the street or the sidewalk. None set foot on the McCloskey’s property. None of the video reviewed in the local news reveals any threats made against the McCloskeys. On the other hand the McCloskeys admit to threatening their own neighbors with their guns for merely walking across a small corner of grass they are suing for ownership of, and remains in dispute with the association.

    The McCloskey’s over reacted and made up lies after the fact. They are hot headed left wing elitists and lousy representatives for the right to defend your home with a gun.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Egad, enuf. False, and false. I myself posted a link to one of the vids (here on TTAG, a couple of weeks ago) uploaded by one of the protesters themselves, in which some of the mob were recorded making aggressive postures against the McCloskeys, and several threats were clearly heard in which people said they were going to overpower them, take their weapons from them, and destroy their house. And this was uploaded from a protester, no less!

      I’ve seen the video evidence and provided it to TTAG…the McCloskeys were absolutely within their rights.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        And one of the was waving a pistol at the homeowners, which was not a deactivated Jennings/Jimminez.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I Haz a Question,

        Who overtly threatened whom first?

        If the mob overtly threatened the McCloskeys before the McCloskeys pointed their firearms at the crowd, then the McCloskeys are in the clear legally speaking.

        If the McCloskeys were simply pi$$ed off at the trespassers, started pointing firearms at them for trespassing, and then the mob responded with threats in kind, then the McCloskeys are in serious legal jeopardy.

        So, who overtly threatened whom first?

        And before the peanut gallery starts foaming at the mouth:

        An unruly mob of trespassers who are doing nothing other than walking down a private street are NOT an imminent threat of maiming/murdering a homeowner standing 30+ feet away next to his/her home, and therefore does not legally justify using deadly force (in this case pointing firearms at the trespassing passers-by).

        Whether or not the mob had done nothing other than trespass and pass by the home on the private street, I do not know since I do not have all of the available evidence.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          best advice?…dial 911…(describe them as a threatening presence)…do not verbally engage or threaten with a weapon…just sit on your porch…(the presence of a weapon is optional)….and utilize video whenever possible….the “Get of my lawn!” approach is seldom helpful….

      3. avatar enuf says:

        You have to examine these things in sequence. Taken out of sequence I would agree the McCloskey’s could be defended in their actions. Problem is, no one threatened them, no one damaged any property before they came out and made their own threats. No one set foot off the sidewalk or street before the McCloskeys came out with their guns, pointed their guns and made their threats.

        Whatever some loud mouths uttered after that was in response to the McCloskeys and the organizers in the crowd moved in quickly and moved them along.

        It is something I can never tolerate, people who insist on lighting a fuse that does not need to be lit.

        They called 911. Within no one doing anything more than streaming down the road and the sidewalk, they called 911 and announced they had to get off the phone and get a gun. Had they stayed in their house, told 911 they were now armed and secure and reported the movements of the crowd, they would earn my praise.

        They did not do anything smart or in self defense after getting off the 911 call. They charged outside, started making threats to people who were up until that moment entirely ignoring them and their property.

        The McCloskey’s have been pulling such shit for many years. It’s mostly been in the courtroom, suing everyone for little things, big things, every opportunity they file lawsuits against everyone. Their own family included. And it ain’t the first time they pulled a gun over a piece of land they do not own.

        That’s the small triangular area of grass and some flowers alongside the sidewalk up against the gate. It is in contention with the McCloskeys and the association. And the McCloskey’s pulled a gun on a neighbor for walking on that grass, next to the gate.

        These are not the sort of people that Second Amendment supporters need on our side. Idiots who light unneeded fires make vastly more trouble than they are worth.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      You hang out with them a lot, do you?

    3. avatar Montana Actual says:

      You are so full of shit.

    4. avatar MtnDewey says:

      Bottom line for me is simple, I live in a gated community, private property, no trespassing. You may NOT protest on private property without consent. End of story. Willingly trespassing can be construed as felony trespassing.
      Regardless of what the media says(which is bullshit), the McCroskey’s are within their rights to be safe and secure with all privacy afforded to them as you are. You may not violate their civil rights because you want to protest over a convicted felon who died of a heart attack while on fentanyl.
      The first Amendment regards PEACEFUL PROTESTS, not trespassing, B and E or threatening people in their neighborhoods. Simple, don’t break the law and you will not have a weapon “brandished” at you.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        the system is often stacked against you when you “brandish”…some folks just have to learn that the hard way…..

      2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        When you are on your own property and threatened by a mob with a history of violence then there is no such charge as brandishing. I guess to satisfy most here, the couple should have wrapped their defensive firearms in a frigging beach towel to satisfy their brandishing theory. The brandishing charge would be for something like pulling a gun on a person because they didn’t wear a mask.

    5. avatar Someone says:

      “The local news has covered this extensively and plenty of links have been shared on TTAG.”

      Let’s wait what evidence gets presented at the court. If I believed all that I see on the news, I would still think that the little innocent teen aged angel Trayvon Martin was hunted down by bloodthirsty white gun owner for no reason other than racism.

    6. avatar Gary Mandigo says:

      Regardless whether or not the gate was open, unlocked or broken, the simple fact that this is private property (the entire area that is within the gated community), is trespassing.

      If all protesters, rioters, demonstrators, Marxist, communist and assorted groups have looted, committed arson, assault and yes murder and then are within a private community uninvited and shouting at people, and police are not responding (uncertain if couple in question called 911) does the reasonable and prudent justification prevail.

      Reverse this and let the biased DA be faced with a group of angry people some of whom may have participated in actions listed above, and no body guards or security and no police are there to safeguard her, what action would she take?

  15. avatar Montana Actual says:

    Don’t surround me, in a car or not, and don’t try to pin me down – or keep me from moving where I want to go. That’s all I am going to say. Doing either of those things leaves too much room for you to be violently attacked and killed instantly. Not everyone is just going to bang on your vehicle, or break a window… you are surrounded and someone will escalate regardless of what you do. It’s the reason they surrounded you.

  16. avatar Docduracoat says:

    The bottom line is that all of us who carry a gun need to have self defense insurance.
    Available from several different companies, all at about a price of one or two dollars per day.
    It’s too bad that the state of New York has threatened all of the various concealed carry coverage companies so that option is not available anymore in New York.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      ….always a good idea…[insurance]…if you’re only going to get one phone call make sure it’s the right one…

  17. avatar Darkman says:

    I decide the If and When I feel threatened. I will decide what level of action I will take. Up to and including killing the perp with multiple rounds (Anything deserving to be shot, Deserves multiple rounds) of high velocity death.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Yes, true, could not agree more.

      And after that a whole bunch of people make their own evaluation if you were right or wrong. Try and tell some of the more powerful among them about your personal authority being superior to their administration of the law, and you will fare poorly.

      It’s just the reality of living in a civilization based upon laws, not upon our individual will.

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        Having lived a long life. If it becomes necessary to take out a few scum bags to make the world a better place in exchange for that. So be it. Greater Men have given more. Fear of anything has never been a guiding force in my life.

  18. avatar MtnDewey says:

    The good thing I have going for me is castle doctrine and stand your ground in Florida. I also am fortunate enough to belong to a gun insurance group(USCCA), and have lawyers at my disposal. As former LEO (CA), I am well verse in AOJ, and as an almost graduate of a BS in BCJ I try to hold on to any and all learning in regard to the criminal justice system and Constitutional law as well.
    Ignorance is not bliss in a court of law, and you do not want to ever become case law in regard to a shooting. Even if you win, it may take years and you have become a felon, lost your rights, maybe family, maybe job. You will recoup, but not after a lot of damage.
    I will defend myself, family, property and a total stranger from injury, loss of property or death to the best of my ability. I will not harm others, insult nor threaten, I will not have them done to me. Life is short, I will not worry about tomorrow, it isn’t promised.

  19. avatar fteter says:

    For many of us, state/local law will draw the threshold for us. We may not like it, but it’s nevertheless a fact. Know your state and local laws on self-defense and defense of others. And have some legal coverage.

    1. avatar MtnDewey says:

      concur

    2. avatar MtnDewey says:

      Meanwhile in Eugene, Ore. Two people point guns at each other…nothing happens. I believe deep down the violence will escalate, martial law will be implemented and this vaccine will become mandatory…welcome to 1984.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        A discussion on “Jacobson v Massachusetts, US Supreme Court, 1905”:
        https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/mandatory-vaccination-legal-time-epidemic/2006-04

        It’s an interesting read.

        Suffice to say that no “1984” or martial law are needed. If the State decides, within the bounds set by the Supreme Court in the above case, that vaccination must be mandatory for the public good, the State may use its police power to enforce that vaccination or any other public health need.

        Doubt it will come to such, but the legal framework has long existed, been found constitutional and is from time to time enforced in very specific cases.

  20. avatar Oldstool says:

    I’m old, don’t really give a damned anymore, just looking for a reason to kill something. 3 squares a day and free healthcare, meh.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      …dying in prison is never a pleasant option…

      1. avatar Deliverance says:

        Yeah but you get more love then you’ll ever need.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      I am also old. My hope is to make it to the end with minimal fuss and bother. Honestly I’ve no idea what that means, but I’m very sure it means avoiding gunfights.

      And prison is not on the list of acceptable “fuss and bother”.

      1. avatar Deliverance says:

        You strike me as the kinda guy that would be quite popular in prison.

        1. avatar Specialist38 says:

          So you’re lonely in there?

          At least you get some “screen time”.

  21. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Establish Your Line in the Sand Now, Before You’re Forced To Do It”

    Already have…
    MY personal safety comes before everything else, in my vehicle, in my home, or out shopping…

  22. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Never ever tell anyone about thinking/planning your response to someone crossing the line in the sand. Planning equals 1st degree murder.

  23. avatar JUST THE FACTS! says:

    Who what! There is no crisis! These panzie limp wristed punks living with their mommy could not stand up to a real man on their best day!

    The Dems are letting it happen!

    1 gun truck or A-10 would end this BS in …………………………………..001secs make sure u build a wall 1st so no useless retard on welfare escapes! POOF!

  24. avatar Chris Morton says:

    CASTLE DOCTRINE.

    In Ohio, I have the same right to defend myself in my vehicle as in my home.

    Don’t put that to the test, you won’t like it.

  25. avatar Brian says:

    Like Duffy’s man, if me or mine are threatened, I shall have to take steps.

  26. I live in West Texas. Austin is our capitol, and I avoid it as much as possible because Austin is proudly weird. I know the places that can get you in trouble if you drive there. I know I have the right to drive anywhere in Austin, but if I am aware that a destructive mob is having their party in a section of town, I will use my sound judgment and conduct my business at a different location. Why drive to a place where you know you might have to use your legal firearm and exercise your right of legal self-defense? I stay aware of threats while driving in a strange city, and am prepared to defend myself, but I will not purposely drive to a trouble spot.

  27. avatar Chiefton says:

    Personally, I wish they would roll back the clock to the time that you were allowed to use deadly force to protect your property from theft and damage. The crime rate would drop dramatically. You come on my property to steal or damage it then I can protect it. Insurance does not ever cover all of your losses and why should I have to stand by and watch someone freely take money from me in the form of a deductible? Enough of this feel-good, bleeding heart society. These crimes get committed because there is no fear of reprisal when they commit the crimes and no fear of the courts when they are caught. No real ramifications.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email