Self-Defence and Taking the Law Into Your Own Hands

Discussion in 'Political/Religious Topics' started by Rocky7, Sep 26, 2020.

  1. Rocky7

    Rocky7 G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    5,380
    18,958
    Alberta
    .......

    Ordinary Americans cannot rely on the police to protect them. In many cases, leftwing governors and mayors have ordered to police to stand down. For them, solidarity with the rioters is more important than the lives and property of decent citizens. We have seen the absurdity of rioters being called “peaceful protestors” when videos show cities aflame. When the police do their duty and counter the violence of the thugs, they are vilified as racists, indicted, and even shot at and killed. In these circumstances, they are hardly likely to stay on the job. If the police don’t protect you, you have no legal recourse, and in some places, police won’t even investigate cases of looting. “’Neither the Constitution, nor state law, imposes a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,’ said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. ‘Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.’ The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are ‘in custody,’ he pointed out.”


    What then are we supposed to do? In an interview on the Tucker Carlson show September 23, Danny Coulson, a retired Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI, condemned the rioters. But he thought that there was something even worse than the burning and looting, and this was the main reason he condemned them. Their actions might lead to “vigilante justice”. People must not take the law into their own hands—that could lead to chaos. Instead, we must unify around support of the police.

    His advice is useless, and it rests on a false premise. How can we support the police, when they aren’t protecting us? His advice is like urging us to put out a fire with a hose unattached to a hydrant. The false premise is that vigilante justice is bad. Is it?
    ........

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/09...fense-and-taking-the-law-into-your-own-hands/
     
    BigEd63 and Ten Man like this.
  2. Ten Man

    Ten Man G&G Evangelist

    We are supposed to listen to advice from the FBI?!?!?!!?!??? LOL!!!!!

    Screw That!!

    If the Police are being told to allow thugs to do whatever they want, then that is not an area to be in.

    I am NOT in any of those areas, and I spent a LOT of money, time, and sweat to GET OUT of one of those areas.

    Where we are now, we don't worry about BLM or ANTIFA. However, I will defend my wife and home against ANY AND ALL threats, whether the FBI thinks it's O.K. or not. If defense of oneself, family, and home has now become a "vigilante" activity, then so be it. It is only because the politicians and their minions are making it so.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2020

  3. BigEd63

    BigEd63 G&G Evangelist

    5,366
    14,689
    Arkansas
    I was once indirectly referred to by Shrub the 2nd aka G.W.Bush as a vigilante.
    I turned to my girlfriend at the time and said "He used the word vigilante like it's something bad."

    Decades earlier, as a child, I already despised that over worn phrase "Oh don't take the law into your own hands;"

    Oh excuse the hell out of me BUT:
    Am I not a United States Citizen?

    What does the preamble to the United States Constitution start with?
    The first three words!
    WE THE PEOPLE!
    So where in sam hill does the foundation for all law in the United States of America originate!

    If either federal, state or local governments refuse to provide for the security of it's citizens in favor of insurrectionists and criminals.
    Then they have neglected their governmental responsibility to us, the Citizens of the United States of America, and we have no other choice but to defend our lives, liberty and property on our own.
     
  4. rando

    rando G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    8,806
    20,747
    Maryland
    I was talking to my son in Tennessee a few minutes ago. We briefly spoke about the ongoing chit that is going on. I was saying how it is allowed to happen and I blame the Mayors and Governors for not stomping these terrorists out. I ask him his feelings as he is in law enforcement. He said about the same. He said it is not going to slow down either and picking up speed. He said how our officials allow it and letting us all down. He said it will not stop until the citizens of said states take it into their own hands and handle the trash. I am sure most of us feel the same. How far will it go on until people get tired and take to the streets and confront these low life idiots. I don't see the cops trying to get into the middle when it does come to a head. I was talking to my neighbor last night about this nonsense. I told him it it spills into my neighbor hood then I will confront and do my thing. He is like you will end up in jail like that other guy trying to protect himself. I am like right! You will see me go head on with these guys if they roll down to my house. I am not crawling into a corner like a crawfish or running away. I have had enough to say the least. Hope others are ready to fight back also.
     
  5. FortyXDM

    FortyXDM G&G Evangelist Staff Member

    Properly defending oneself is not "taking the law in your own hands".
     
    EtherialOne, TXplt, blaster and 3 others like this.
  6. BigEd63

    BigEd63 G&G Evangelist

    5,366
    14,689
    Arkansas
    I sure didn't invest in certain items to sit on my butt and play twiddley dinkies while the nation burns down around me.

    Give me 3-5 like minded people that understand it's not the time or place to be Duddley Doright or Ned Flanders but a combination of Vlad III, Francois Marion and William Quantrill.
     
  7. redcaddy51

    redcaddy51 G&G Evangelist

    I personally feel that the real problem solvers are just waiting for a watershed moment. None of us want to be the guy that fires the first shot in the war that is bearing down on us, this very moment. But one of us must.

    Those of us paying attention, have seen death delivered from above, directly to violent rioters, in several festering left wing run cities. In one case, a looter bent over to swing a cement block thru a glass door. He died with that block in his hand, moments later another looter picked up the same block, he died. Nobody heard shots, but the bodies were left behind, with the door unbroken, as the mob moved on.

    This is effective peacekeeping. No warning, No second chances, no tearful mothers justifying the unthinkable acts perpetrated by their spawn, no slick talking lawyers shifting blame or covering evidence, no community activist's calling for hope and change. Just biblical justice.

    What this latest bunch of Marxist driven anarchists (the product of our institutions of higher learning) don't seem to understand, is that when the police are prevented from stopping violence, and the court system is ineffective, things like blocking traffic or attacking restaurant patrons become capital crimes, punishable by banishment from society, permanently. Such acts will, eventually, bring a palpable clarity.

    Play stupid games-win stupid prizes.

    I'm an old sheepdog, but I ain't toothless.

    RED
     
  8. jedwil

    jedwil G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    So, I read the first few sentences of this thread. Don't need to read much more or any answers, tho they may be very educated and enlightening.
    Someone threatens my wife, me, my family, or my friends and I will do what is necessary to remove the threat.
     
    Ten Man, Huey Rider, neophyte and 5 others like this.
  9. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    Here's the rule in TX:

    Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

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

    (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

    (3) he reasonably believes that:

    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


    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.

    (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

    (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    Edit: of particular note is the definition of criminal mischief. Criminal mischief is defined as:

    a crime in which vandalism or damage to someone else’s property occurs


    (which is a pretty broad definition and would include trashing out your car by a rioter)

    Not a very looter or firebomber friendly place to be.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2020
    Ten Man, jedwil, neophyte and 2 others like this.
  10. rando

    rando G&G Evangelist Forum Contributor

    8,806
    20,747
    Maryland
    Some states are ridiculous with their laws dictating how, where, when and like you need permission to protect your life and family. The same ones that agreed with these laws are the same ones that are allowing this violence by these groups. I don't need their permission or go ahead to when I am supposed to act out when my life is threatened. Its my life and they dont care and I will now do as I need as they don't care about me and all of you. I will try to do as needed when the time comes.
     
    Ten Man, jedwil, neophyte and 2 others like this.
  11. neophyte

    neophyte Wonderment :) Forum Contributor

    NC Law

    14-51.3. Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.
    (a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:
    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.
    (2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14-51.2.
    (b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail
    bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties. (2011-268, s. 1.)
     
    rando and TXplt like this.
  12. neophyte

    neophyte Wonderment :) Forum Contributor

    continued:


    § 14-51.2. Home, workplace, and motor vehicle protection; presumption of fear of death or serious bodily harm.
    (a) The following definitions apply in this section:
    (1) Home. – A building or conveyance of any kind, to include its curtilage,
    whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed as a temporary or permanent residence.
    (2) Law enforcement officer. – Any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post-release supervision officer, or parole officer.
    (3) Motor vehicle. – As defined in G.S. 20-4.01(23).
    (4) Workplace. – A building or conveyance of any kind, whether the building or
    conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a
    roof over it, including a tent, which is being used for commercial purposes.
    (b) The lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to have
    held a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to
    another if both of the following apply:
    (1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of
    unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a home, motor vehicle, or workplace, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
    (2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
    (c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section shall be rebuttable and does not apply in any of the following circumstances:
    (1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home, motor vehicle, or workplace, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.
    (2) The person sought to be removed from the home, motor vehicle, or workplace is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used.
    (3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in, attempting to escape from, or using the home, motor vehicle, or workplace to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
    (4) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who enters or attempts to enter a home, motor vehicle, or workplace in the lawful performance of his or her official duties, and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.
    G.S. 14-51.2
    Page 1

    (5) The person against whom the defensive force is used (i) has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the home, motor vehicle, or workplace and (ii) has exited the home, motor vehicle, or workplace.
    (d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's home, motor vehicle, or workplace is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
    (e) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties.
    (f) A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
    (g) This section is not intended to repeal or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (2011-268, s. 1.)
     
    TXplt likes this.
  13. chesterwin

    chesterwin G&G Evangelist

    Hollywood and the adversaries gave us ground with one phrase of a movie. "Get off my lawn".
     
    neophyte, rando, TXplt and 2 others like this.