Posted on 03/06/2017 8:55:01 AM PST by PROCON
There are no innocent bystanders in a crowd of antifa
http://blog.uslawshield.com/caught-in-a-demonstration-know-what-to-do-ahead-of-time/
This is from Texas Law Shield.
There would have to be an imminent threat. You can not just mow them down.
Yup, these cops were told to stand down, pitiful.
I wasn’t intending to give you a smart answer. I don’t know why they do. And to be honest, I doubt if they do either. From the pictures I saw of them, they are trained street fighters. Hired goons and thugs would probably be a better description of them. They can be beat, but you gotta know how to go about it.
Does California today meet any of these criteria?
But the mayor said if the cops engaged there would have been more violence.
In many states, being attacked by anyone and ESPECIALLY by a mob is enough of a threat to justify using deadly force to defend yourself.
The lesson here is... bring a thicker stick.
The only thing worse than a Fascist is an “Anti-Fascist.”
There's a little more to it than that. A REASONABLE fear of great bodily harm is only one element of self-defense, even in KY.
"I doubt they’d try that stuff here."
California's self-defense laws are pretty strong. Only thing really missing is a self-defense immunity provision. Probably only Texas allows the use of force in more situations.
“Put simply, the fights I saw weren’t nearly as bad as bar fights I’ve seen in real life.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-PY9aFWE8w
One punch homicide documentary. And they are just as willing to do it to the elderly. A young person attacking an older person can make the shoot no shoot matrix tilt in the direction of justification.
The bottom line is that a violent minority is attacking innocent people. Someone, somewhere, will take exception to that.
#antifaisthenewfa!
In a Nutshell: The Five Principles of the Law of Self-Defense
At no point did I see any attacks that I think a reasonable person would interpret as the kind of assault that put anyone on either side in “imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury.”
Maybe somebody just needs to Attack BOB OWENS with a Baseball Bat or Wooden Club, then get back to us as to wether or not you felt you were in “imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury.”
There’s a little more to it than that. A REASONABLE fear of great bodily harm is only one element of self-defense, even in KY.
Ask the hot dog vendor that was just acquitted of murder in a road rage incident that HE started.
It depends on the state and the level of threat, which does not have to be lethal most places I go, just “serious”. When a mob is attacking the innocent, and as soon as a punch is thrown by a masked member of that mob, the criteria for lethal force are met in many states.
“The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe himself in apparent imminent or immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from his assailant or potential assailant”
“In the case of ‘nondeadly force,’ ‘reasonable’ is defined as that amount of force that is necessary to protect oneself from imminent bodily harm. This suggests that an element of proportionality. A person may also use ‘deadly force’ in order to protect oneself from imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. The second requirement is that the danger of bodily harm be ‘imminent.’”
“The law of self-defense is the law of necessity, and the necessity relied upon must not arise out of defendant’s own misconduct. Accordingly, a defendant must reasonably fear death or serious bodily harm to himself at the hands of his victim.”
Key elements:
- belief in some form of imminent/immediate risk of death or serious bodily harm,
- reasonableness of that belief,
- danger can be to oneself or another,
- the user of lawful deadly force cannot be responsible for the confrontation, and
- proportionality - the force must in some sense be proportional or reasonable for the level of threat.
Note: A “duty to retreat” may also be present in some states.
Also note: It is important to review these laws, especially in today’s climate, for anywhere you might go.
“California’s self-defense laws are pretty strong. Only thing really missing is a self-defense immunity provision. Probably only Texas allows the use of force in more situations.”
Laughable. California has a crazy quilt of county by country rules. CCW is a may issue IF you show “good cause” which also varies from county to county. There is no state law preempting more restrictive local laws than the state.
If you are in a defensive shooting you are way better of in a dozen or more other places that California. New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Montana, etc.
Getting into a shooting in California is dicey business legally.
Bring out a razor sharp katana. Then no worries about “downrange bystanders” being hit.
And Texas is a complete weak sister compared to New Mexico. No permit required to carry openly. You can conceal with no permit if unloaded, with mag ready on your person. Everyone can legally carry in a car and a car is an extension of your home. Any weapon is legal up to and including flamethrower. Your right to self defense attaches to you personally, and not where you happen to be. Permits are available but require 16 hours of training and are too expensive for what it is. But hey.
The dems are wanting to ruin NM, but for now it’s still just fine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.