PDA

View Full Version : CCW and (group/mob) attacks - what is appropriate?


CCWFacts
07-01-2011, 4:07 PM
I'm sure you've seen stories about "flash mob" or simple "mob" attacks or "happy slapping" or "knockout king (http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2011-06-09/news/knockout-king-elex-murphy-hoang-nguyen-dutchtown-murder/)". An editor of The Onion recounts her recent attack (http://www.avclub.com/philadelphia/articles/flash-mob-fallout-a-multipleperspective-account-of,58379/). Relative to what could have happened and what has happened in other flash mob attacks, her injury wasn't serious, just a broken leg. You've probably also seen the attack on 18-year-old Carter Strange (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43561261). He was nearly killed. Why did the Onion editor get a broken leg while Carter Strange was nearly killed? No reason, pure luck and chance. A kick to the head can easily be fatal or cause life-altering injuries, and the outcome is something that no one can predict.

What's the deal with use of deadly force to resist such attacks? Obviously a mob attack is a threat of death or grievous bodily injury. But if a CCWer starts getting surrounded and punched by a mob and pulls out his gun and shoots back, it's really impossible to be sure he is targeting someone who has specifically punched or kicked. The bullet could just as easily hit someone who is not in the "inner ring" of attackers, for example.

My understanding is for lethal force to be legitimate, the defender must have a reasonable fear that he is in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death from the attacker. In a mob attack, the defender does have a reasonable fear of immediate great bodily harm (as Mr. Strange experienced) but you can't shoot at a mob, you can only shoot at individuals, and does a defender have reasonable fear of a particular individual?

If you read accounts of these attacks, the victims are always highly disoriented:

When it stopped I was very disoriented; I think I was running in wavy lines, holding onto the wall. I didn’t get away, they had just moved on—but I was still thinking, “Get away.”
...
[When the police arrived] I was mad, and they asked me if I could remember anybody, any specific people who were attacking, and I was just kind of angry, and I said no. I really didn’t look at anyone’s face. I have images in my head of young guys and they had white T-shirts on, but I can’t imagine anyone’s face at all. They were like, “Could you recognize any of them?” And I said no, absolutely not.

Obviously life is in danger in these situations but is lethal force appropriate for self-defense when it's impossible to have clear awareness of who is who?

'flash mob' really does have a current meaning of 'large number of people doing unexpected, generally inoffensive things'

//Librarian

Meplat
07-01-2011, 4:16 PM
I'm sure you've seen stories about "flash mob" or simple "mob" attacks or "happy slapping" or "knockout king (http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2011-06-09/news/knockout-king-elex-murphy-hoang-nguyen-dutchtown-murder/)". An editor of The Onion recounts her recent attack (http://www.avclub.com/philadelphia/articles/flash-mob-fallout-a-multipleperspective-account-of,58379/). Relative to what could have happened and what has happened in other flash mob attacks, her injury wasn't serious, just a broken leg. You've probably also seen the attack on 18-year-old Carter Strange (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43561261). He was nearly killed. Why did the Onion editor get a broken leg while Carter Strange was nearly killed? No reason, pure luck and chance. A kick to the head can easily be fatal or cause life-altering injuries, and the outcome is something that no one can predict.

What's the deal with use of deadly force to resist such attacks? Obviously a mob attack is a threat of death or grievous bodily injury. But if a CCWer starts getting surrounded and punched by a mob and pulls out his gun and shoots back, it's really impossible to be sure he is targeting someone who has specifically punched or kicked. The bullet could just as easily hit someone who is not in the "inner ring" of attackers, for example.

My understanding is for lethal force to be legitimate, the defender must have a reasonable fear that he is in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death from the attacker. In a mob attack, the defender does have a reasonable fear of immediate great bodily harm (as Mr. Strange experienced) but you can't shoot at a mob, you can only shoot at individuals, and does a defender have reasonable fear of a particular individual?

If you read accounts of these attacks, the victims are always highly disoriented:



Obviously life is in danger in these situations but is lethal force appropriate for self-defense when it's impossible to have clear awareness of who is who?

Yes!

To the cops: I decline to make any statement without first consulting my lawyer.

To your lawyer: I fired at the people who were attacking me, I was in fear of my life, I just wanted to make them stop.

wash
07-01-2011, 4:16 PM
That's not a "flash mob".

"flash mobs" are things like Santa Rampages and Zombie Crawls. Entirely peaceful and fun.

Please change the title because it is misleading.

G60
07-01-2011, 4:18 PM
I know 'warning shots' are a no-no but there's no better way to break up one of these mobs but quick.

MountainMike
07-01-2011, 4:21 PM
It is my understanding in the situation you described because the individuals in the flash murderous rampaging mob are acting in collusion then the particulars of who threw what punch are irrelevant. Because they are all participating in the commission of a crime they all can be considered a threat.

Consider this situation: Thug attempts to rob a 7-11. Clerk pulls a firearm to defend himself and accidentally shoots and kills an innocent bystander. In this situation the thug is guilty of actions that resulted in a death of another.

joefreas
07-01-2011, 4:23 PM
Mow em down-

CCWFacts
07-01-2011, 4:24 PM
It is my understanding in the situation you described because the individuals in the flash mob are acting in collusion then the particulars of who threw what punch are irrelevant. Because they are all participating in the commission of a crime they all can be considered a threat.

Consider this situation: Thug attempts to rob a 7-11. Clerk pulls a firearm to defend himself and accidentally shoots and kills an innocent bystander. In this situation the thug is guilty of actions that resulted in a death of another.

Ok, that's what I was getting at. If that same reasoning applies in a mob attack, then that's the answer to my question. For example, I know that in the Beltway Sniper attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks) they never established who actually pulled the trigger, but it was irrelevant.

To the poster who suggested warning shots: Yeah, that does seem like a situation where a warning shot could save a life (of a perpetrator or victim), although I'm also aware that all self-defense instructors these days advise "never" to do a warning shot.

wash
07-01-2011, 4:33 PM
Still not a flash mob.

joefreas
07-01-2011, 4:38 PM
I'm glad to see Carter Strange is doing well. I thought he might end up like Bryan Stow (Dodger beating victim).

ElvenSoul
07-01-2011, 4:50 PM
Study Wyatt Earp!

G60
07-01-2011, 4:50 PM
Still not a flash mob.

this is gonna go over as well as 'clip v mag'

goober
07-01-2011, 4:52 PM
Wash is correct. The OP (and unfortunately multiple MSM outlets) are completely mis-using the term "flash mob".

These attacks have absolutely nothing to do with what is commonly termed a flash mob or the activities in which they engage.

Please don't perpetuate the mis-characterization of this (seriously heinous) phenomenon.

socal-shooter
07-01-2011, 4:52 PM
I know 'warning shots' are a no-no but there's no better way to break up one of these mobs but quick.

i agree w/this

shots ringing out will make a crowd of no good kids run..

i dont think any of them deserve to die for being young violent and stupid

hell i know i was once

goober
07-01-2011, 4:56 PM
this is gonna go over as well as 'clip v mag'

words have meaning. IMO this is more significant than clip v mag.

even one of the articles linked in the OP (http://www.avclub.com/philadelphia/articles/av-club-editor-injured-in-flash-mob-attack-in-phil,58134/) states that calling these attack "flash mobs" is inappropriate.
so if the OP is citing a source, he should at least abide by the premise of the article cited.

ubet
07-01-2011, 4:59 PM
young violent and stupid



violent is the key word, a 8 year old with a gun can kill you just as quick, just as dead as a 50year with a gun. Being young and dumb should not result in the termination of life, young violent and stupid might though.

zhyla
07-01-2011, 5:10 PM
Flash mobs are pranks, these instances are just mob attacks.

Probably a shot in the air is going to settle things quickly, but at some point if the danger is severe enough you just got to shoot somebody.

OleCuss
07-01-2011, 5:19 PM
If you believe you'll be killed if you do not shoot (and that shooting will actually improve your odds of survival), then shoot.

I don't see how warning shots would be a good idea. From the nature of what little I've seen of these incidents, you'd have to be lucky enough to have a relatively tactically advantageous position and a safe field of fire. And if you've got a mob coming after you I just don't see how wasting ammo is a good idea. Fire for effect - center of mass or don't fire at all.

And the thing about the thug being charged for the death of the innocent bystander? Maybe if you live in an area with a decent DA it'll happen that way - but the areas with the decent DA's typically don't have organized crime units conducting mob robberies and murders.

If you shoot to defend yourself against a mob you should expect to be arrested and spend a lot of time and money trying to defend yourself in court even if you did absolutely everything right. A "good shoot" still sucks very badly.

elSquid
07-01-2011, 5:24 PM
Please change the title because it is misleading.

Yup. These types of attacks aren't new... the old term was "wilding", I believe.

-- Michael

wash
07-01-2011, 5:29 PM
Yeah and flash mobs usually involve public drunkenness and inappropriate costumes at worst.

But it is a lot of fun to have strange women sit on your lap and tell you what they want for Christmas.

Meplat
07-01-2011, 5:33 PM
i agree w/this

shots ringing out will make a crowd of no good kids run..

i dont think any of them deserve to die for being young violent and stupid

hell i know i was once

I don't care how young they are, if they are volant and stupid they need to be excised from the gene pool.

stix213
07-01-2011, 5:39 PM
I believe the correct term right now for this is Flash Rob as opposed to Flash Mob.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flash+rob

The problem with warning shots is if you are in an area where discharge of a firearm is generally illegal, you can only fire your weapon when doing so rises to the level of self defense or otherwise had to happen. Firing a warning shot though, as opposed to at an attacker, shows you were not in fear enough to actually fire at a person to defend yourself (or you would have done so) so you shouldn't have fired at all. At least a jury could be convinced of that. I'm genuinely curious though if warning shots are ok when you are at a location where discharge of a firearm is just fine (like 150 yards from your NF camp ground) or if that would be considered brandishing (417?).

socal-shooter
07-01-2011, 5:43 PM
who of us hasnt been in a fight in high school or a bar?

in these flash attacks the mob never had guns, so go ahead and kill a dumb 16 year old and tell yourself you did the right thing

jeez, some of you clowns just cant wait for the opportunity to shoot a real person


i think a shot in the air would disperse most any crowd (except in the middle east)

Briancnelson
07-01-2011, 5:47 PM
There are two pretty relevant California jury instructions here:

"It is lawful for a person who is being assaulted to defend himself from attack if, as a reasonable person, he has grounds to believe that bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon him. In doing so, that person may use all force and means which he believes to be reasonably necessary and which would appear to a reasonable person, in the same or similar circumstances, to be necessary to prevent the injury which appears to be imminent." (California Jury Instructions--Criminal (CALJIC) 5.30.)

"An assult with the fists does not justify the person being assaulted in using a deadly weapon in self-defense unless that person believes and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon him." (CALJIC 5.31.)

I would think, based on that standard, if a mob of people descended on you with the apparent intent (based on a reasonable person standard) to cause massive bodily harm, you would be justified in shooting to protect yourself.

Zhukov
07-01-2011, 6:09 PM
The disparity of numbers stance is usually if you're outnumbered, the damage from attack is magnified. Thus, 2 people assaulting someone with their fists can inflict great bodily injury. Make that 5 people and it's an even higher chance.

From what I understand, if you use lethal force against a group of 5 that are attacking you. Once you get to the last person, you can no longer just use lethal force. You have to consider the last criminal as lone threat versus a mob.

oldsmoboat
07-01-2011, 6:22 PM
That's not a "flash mob".

"flash mobs" are things like Santa Rampages and Zombie Crawls. Entirely peaceful and fun.

Please change the title because it is misleading.
I was confused as to why the OP would want to shoot singers.

gunsmith
07-01-2011, 6:24 PM
who of us hasnt been in a fight in high school or a bar?

in these flash attacks the mob never had guns, so go ahead and kill a dumb 16 year old and tell yourself you did the right thing

jeez, some of you clowns just cant wait for the opportunity to shoot a real person


i think a shot in the air would disperse most any crowd (except in the middle east)


high school fights can maim, bar fights can maim and kill.

so what if they don't have a gun, one 90lb 16 yr old can kill you with one kick to the head.

You think a shot in the air can disperse the crowd, in many cases that shot can kill an innocent bystander, in fact I recall this happening before.

Despite you thinking its ok to fire a warning shot, a DA might say "hmm, you shot your gun when you were not in danger, because if you were in danger then you would have shot the person threatening your life"

Personally, my 1st & 2nd warning shot is center mass, my third is in the head.

Arisaka
07-01-2011, 6:29 PM
Belt fed.....

rshoemaker
07-01-2011, 6:33 PM
There are two pretty relevant California jury instructions here:

"It is lawful for a person who is being assaulted to defend himself from attack if, as a reasonable person, he has grounds to believe that bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon him. In doing so, that person may use all force and means which he believes to be reasonably necessary and which would appear to a reasonable person, in the same or similar circumstances, to be necessary to prevent the injury which appears to be imminent." (California Jury Instructions--Criminal (CALJIC) 5.30.)

"An assult with the fists does not justify the person being assaulted in using a deadly weapon in self-defense unless that person believes and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon him." (CALJIC 5.31.)

I would think, based on that standard, if a mob of people descended on you with the apparent intent (based on a reasonable person standard) to cause massive bodily harm, you would be justified in shooting to protect yourself.


One question on this part. Say you are carrying and some one asaults you, if an all out fight breaks out, the person asaulting you has a very good chance of getting your firearm. So does the law require that you get into a fist fight where you may loose your firearm and have it used on you?

NotEnufGarage
07-01-2011, 6:35 PM
i agree w/this

shots ringing out will make a crowd of no good kids run..

i dont think any of them deserve to die for being young violent and stupid

hell i know i was once

Screw warning shots. Most of them are going to grow up to be older, violent and still stupid.

I'd think of it as a "Pay me now, or pay me later" kind of situation and take a few of them out, if I felt I was in danger.

Cokebottle
07-01-2011, 6:49 PM
I know 'warning shots' are a no-no but there's no better way to break up one of these mobs but quick.
Yes.

A warning shot through the skull of the person closest to you.

Cokebottle
07-01-2011, 6:53 PM
Probably a shot in the air
Never, ever, ever, ever.

That bullet will come down somewhere, perhaps hundreds of yards from where you are, and injure an innocent person or cause property damage.

If shooting is justified, homicide is justified. If homicide is not justified, then even removing your gun from concealment is not justified.

Cokebottle
07-01-2011, 6:57 PM
The disparity of numbers stance is usually if you're outnumbered, the damage from attack is magnified. Thus, 2 people assaulting someone with their fists can inflict great bodily injury. Make that 5 people and it's an even higher chance.

From what I understand, if you use lethal force against a group of 5 that are attacking you. Once you get to the last person, you can no longer just use lethal force. You have to consider the last criminal as lone threat versus a mob.
If the threat remains, lethal force may still be justified.

If the last attacker is still coming after you after you have disabled his 4 partners, I'd say there's a pretty good chance that he means business and will not stop the attack until you are dead or disabled.

ZombieTactics
07-01-2011, 6:59 PM
Gabe Suarez wrote a good piece of this topic:

... Mob Attack - How to Defend? (http://www.warriortalknews.com/2011/06/the-mob-attack-what-to-do-to-defend.html)

Wherryj
07-01-2011, 7:00 PM
There are two pretty relevant California jury instructions here:

"It is lawful for a person who is being assaulted to defend himself from attack if, as a reasonable person, he has grounds to believe that bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon him. In doing so, that person may use all force and means which he believes to be reasonably necessary and which would appear to a reasonable person, in the same or similar circumstances, to be necessary to prevent the injury which appears to be imminent." (California Jury Instructions--Criminal (CALJIC) 5.30.)

"An assult with the fists does not justify the person being assaulted in using a deadly weapon in self-defense unless that person believes and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon him." (CALJIC 5.31.)

I would think, based on that standard, if a mob of people descended on you with the apparent intent (based on a reasonable person standard) to cause massive bodily harm, you would be justified in shooting to protect yourself.

Exhibit A for the defense: Pictures of Brian Stowe...and that was probably only one or two thugs.

zhyla
07-01-2011, 7:10 PM
Never, ever, ever, ever.

That bullet will come down somewhere, perhaps hundreds of yards from where you are, and injure an innocent person or cause property damage.

You're right, of course. It's unlikely, but it's still possible.

So fire it into the ground.

If you can focus on a legitimate attacker, then fine, shoot him. But in that situation I don't think I would be able to, and that's what this thread is about.

crackerman
07-01-2011, 7:12 PM
I love the sentiment that "its just kids" somehow absolves violent behavior. Someone deserves to die no matter how young they are if they are trying to kill or maim me. And 30 vs 1 is probably going to make me fear for my life.
Most people who would do a group violent attack like will not get better with age and are well past the young and dumb stage

NotEnufGarage
07-01-2011, 7:35 PM
You're right, of course. It's unlikely, but it's still possible.

So fire it into the ground.

If you can focus on a legitimate attacker, then fine, shoot him. But in that situation I don't think I would be able to, and that's what this thread is about.

Into the ground? So it can ricochet and maybe come back at you? Riiiggghhhttt..

warbird
07-01-2011, 7:37 PM
I would think that considering the size of the mob, meaning more than one person, and a clear and hostile intent without regard for someone's safety or life would meet the criteria of hostile and deadly intent towards a target. You cannot shoot at them a block away, you cannot shoot at them once they start running away and do not show continuing hostile intent such as shooting back as fleeing, and you cannot shoot at them once they surrender and comply with instructions to put themselves in a submissive posture. Warning shots only allow them to get close to you and if they have bodily contact they just might get the gun away from you and use it on you out of anger. When presented to the jury you have to be able to show that if it were not for the grace of God and a full mag or cylinder you would be dead and not in a courtroom defending yourself. You should also be able to show you had the presence of mind to have gone after the ones that presented the greatest life threatening danger to you thus allowing those that might have been swept in the emotion of the situation a chance to flee and be captured later where they can be charged with the murder of their fellow mobsters. But remember there is no "cookbook" recipe and each situation is going to present it's own problems in defending your actions. In all cases you will have to prove yourself innocent when using a CCW weapon in public. It is a LAST resort action before death in your mind to save a life.

Cokebottle
07-01-2011, 7:53 PM
You're right, of course. It's unlikely, but it's still possible.
???? It WILL come down, and nowhere near you.
Even if it does not hit a person, it is quite likely to cause property damage.
So fire it into the ground.
And it kicks up chunks of concrete that injure you or one of your attackers.
If you can focus on a legitimate attacker, then fine, shoot him. But in that situation I don't think I would be able to, and that's what this thread is about.
The entire mob is a "legitimate attacker"
The greatest threat is from the person closest to you.
Shoot them.... not the ground, not into the air, and for God's sake, don't brandish and yell "I have a gun and I'm not afraid to use it!"

You don't know whether any of the punks are armed or not. If one is, by the time you get to the words "...and I'm" you're going to have a bullet hole in your body.

tyrist
07-01-2011, 8:52 PM
In the examples all of those victims suffered serious bodily injury. All of those victims would have been legally justified in using deadly force.

Max008
07-01-2011, 9:02 PM
Being in a car were a mob is bashing and shaking your car. (eg. Last years Laker's win) And with the fear of your life you unlock your container, load a mag and open fire? Or do you step on the gas and try to egress the area?

Cokebottle
07-01-2011, 9:24 PM
Being in a car were a mob is bashing and shaking your car. (eg. Last years Laker's win) And with the fear of your life you unlock your container, load a mag and open fire? Or do you step on the gas and try to egress the area?
Sound your horn, step on the gas, and get on the phone with 911 to report the incident (you ALWAYS want to be the first person to inform the cops).
At that point, STFU and contact an attorney because you will probably need one.

amd64
07-01-2011, 9:30 PM
Being in a car were a mob is bashing and shaking your car. (eg. Last years Laker's win) And with the fear of your life you unlock your container, load a mag and open fire? Or do you step on the gas and try to egress the area?

It's too bad the drivers didn't panic and mow all the garbage down in the Lakers incident.

Flopper
07-01-2011, 9:59 PM
Never, ever, ever, ever.

That bullet will come down somewhere, perhaps hundreds of yards from where you are, and injure an innocent person or cause property damage.

The last thing I'd be concerned about in this situation is a bullet falling at terminal velocity coupled with the remote chance of it hitting a human and causing any more than a very slight injury.

Cokebottle
07-01-2011, 10:08 PM
The last thing I'd be concerned about in this situation is a bullet falling at terminal velocity coupled with the remote chance of it hitting a human and causing any more than a very slight injury.
The last thing I'd be concerned about is the welfare of my attacker.

Why give a warning shot and:

1 - Possibly injure an innocent?
2 - Give someone in the mob time to shoot you?
3 - Give the entire mob time to get closer and perhaps disarm you?
4 - Commit a crime?


It is obvious from the answers in this thread that a lot of people answering do NOT have a CCW... which is the premise of the OP's question.

If a CCW gun is drawn, it MUST be for a damned good reason or your license is going bye-bye.
If it IS drawn for a damned good reason, then there is also legal justification for shooting someone with it.


Shoot to stop the progress of the threat. A "warning shot" may very well do that, but it may have the opposite effect.

Some people watch too much TV.

bw762308
07-01-2011, 10:33 PM
Gabe Suarez wrote a good piece of this topic:

... Mob Attack - How to Defend? (http://www.warriortalknews.com/2011/06/the-mob-attack-what-to-do-to-defend.html)

Thanks, this was a good read.

Hanse Davion
07-01-2011, 10:40 PM
Im actually surprised at some of these responses. If you have to ask when it is appropriate to use your concealed weapon, then you either dont have a CCW, or you will very likely lose it at some point in the future. California is not a 'stand your ground' state, meaning you are usually not justified in using deadly force to defend yourself. You have a duty to retreat except when in the home UNLESS the intrusion does not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm making it not sufficient cause for exaction of human life. Also, CCW holders are generally held to a higher standard than members of the public if involved in a shooting.

CenterX
07-01-2011, 11:11 PM
"California is not a 'stand your ground' state, meaning you are usually not justified in using deadly force to defend yourself."

This is not true. Go get some training.

Hanse Davion
07-01-2011, 11:15 PM
The only states as of 2008 with stand your ground statutes are Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennesse, Texas, Utah, and Washington.

California has a 'Castle Doctrine' as I described above. When I say not usually justified, I did not say never.

Flopper
07-01-2011, 11:55 PM
California is not a 'stand your ground' state, meaning you are usually not justified in using deadly force to defend yourself. You have a duty to retreat except when in the home UNLESS the intrusion does not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm making it not sufficient cause for exaction of human life.

Whatever your source is. . . stop trusting it.

Paladin
07-02-2011, 12:09 AM
California is not a 'stand your ground' state, meaning you are usually not justified in using deadly force to defend yourself. Citation?

You have a duty to retreat except when in the home UNLESS the intrusion does not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm making it not sufficient cause for exaction of human life. I understand what you wrote before "UNLESS." The part after "UNLESS" does not make sense to me. Could you please rewrite it and provide a citation supporting it?

Also, CCW holders are generally held to a higher standard than members of the public if involved in a shooting. Citation?

Thank you ahead of time.

After reading your posts, I think CGF should add info re. CA laws of self-defense to their Wiki. I was surprised www.calgunlaws.com didn't have info on point (that I could find w/a very brief search).

Anchors
07-02-2011, 12:15 AM
While not a "flash mob" (sorry to the flash mob people, I know it isn't the right term), this guy was attacked by two unarmed men and shot one. No charges. (This was Ohio of course).

I started a thread about it here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=451243

The detectives/DA there felt he was justified in use of deadly force (though the suspect didn't die).

Hanse Davion
07-02-2011, 12:34 AM
� 197. Justifiable homicide by other persons

Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.


� 198. Bare fear not to justify killing; Reasonable fear

A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of such fears alone.


So as I read it, it must be a reasonable fear, not just fear alone in regards to home invasion.

As far as CCW holders being held to a higher standard, this is strictly my opinion that was given to me through the Magpul Dynamics Art of Dynamic Handgun vid, and frankly see no reason to disagree with it otherwise, but legally speaking there is no specific statute that says so, although if facing a jury I would expect them to view me somewhat differently than the general public, wouldnt you?

California does not have a duty to retreat statute either, though, so you do not have one. There are jury instructions on the matter.

5.50 SELF-DEFENSE--ASSAILED PERSON NEED NOT RETREAT
A person threatened with an attack that justifies the exercise of the right of self-defense need not retreat. In the exercise of [his] [her] right of self-defense a person may stand [his] [her] ground and defend [himself] [herself] by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge; and a person may pursue [his] [her] assailant until [he] [she] has secured [himself] [herself] from danger if that course likewise appears reasonably necessary. This law applies even though the assailed person might more easily have gained safety by flight or by withdrawing from the scene.

The issue is, however, is the potential escalation of deadly force using a concealed weapon creates. There is no doubt that if the attacker is using a gun himself you do not have a duty to retreat. However the above specifically states a "reasonable" amount of force. This is a grey area of self defense and always will be. So I ask, in such grey areas, dont you think you should at least exercise your opprotunity to retreat first if possible?

tenpercentfirearms
07-02-2011, 8:58 AM
i dont think any of them deserve to die for being young violent and stupid
That statement is epic fail. Being violent is a justifiable reason to be resisted against. If your idea of fun is beating the crap out of people, that is called great bodily injury. Everyone in this state has a right to defend themselves from great bodily injury. Being young and stupid does not exempt you from being stopped from your immediate actions of great bodily injury.

If a mob comes running down the street beating the hell out of people and I cannot get my family to safety, I will start shooting. I also live in Kern County where there isn't a mathematical possibility of not having at least one jury member ready to acquit.

If some young kid or kids die because of their actions, let it be a reminder to the rest of the kids out there that there are law abiding citizens out there that won't forfeit their rights for the perverse criminal enjoyment of youth.

Shooting shots into the air and into the ground is just plain stupid. If you have time to do that, you should have already been fleeing the area. If you are in your car, just run everyone over as you flee the area. Keep your mouth shut and call your lawyer.

These concepts are not hard. If you are not willing to shoot some violent young adult, then you probably shouldn't carry a gun and start MMA so you can learn how to effectively take punches and kicks to the head. Don't forget to train your teenage daughters the same thing and hopefully get a good chastity belt.

scarville
07-02-2011, 9:44 AM
Gabe Suarez wrote a good piece of this topic:

... Mob Attack - How to Defend? (http://www.warriortalknews.com/2011/06/the-mob-attack-what-to-do-to-defend.html)
Not a bad article. I like that he emphasizes to stay away from areas where these mobs operate and, failing that, get the frell out of there at the first opportunity. The first rule of any lethal encounter should be, "avoid it if possible."

I agree that shooting the "leaders" in the face is probably a good tactic if the goal is to gain time for escape.

Paul S
07-02-2011, 10:05 AM
..............
i think a shot in the air would disperse most any crowd (except in the middle east)


Perhaps...but suppose when that bullet comes back to earth an innocent is injured or worse. It would be ALL BAD for you. Just sayin'

cmichini
07-02-2011, 11:51 AM
If you're being attacked by a mob, that mob, in whole or in part, is your attacker. If you are reasonably in fear for your life or bodily harm from an attacker (the mob), to me the mob (or any part thereof) is your threat and you can deploy deadly force against the attacker (mob or any part thereof) until the threat stops.

Depending on the size of the mob you should hope you have an 'assualt clip' with you or once you run out of ammo, the rest of the mob will likely help you re-conceal your weapon, rectally.

Mstrty
07-02-2011, 12:07 PM
Flash mob....Flash Rob.. The MSM Hijacking Flash mob is no different than the LBGT hijacking the word marriage. This is California...get over it!

Hanse Davion
07-02-2011, 12:16 PM
If you're being attacked by a mob, that mob, in whole or in part, is your attacker. If you are reasonably in fear for your life or bodily harm from an attacker (the mob), to me the mob (or any part thereof) is your threat and you can deploy deadly force against the attacker (mob or any part thereof) until the threat stops.


I wouldn't assume the whole mob can be viewed as your attacker.

z-bob
07-02-2011, 12:18 PM
If you shoot to defend yourself against a mob you should expect to be arrested and spend a lot of time and money trying to defend yourself in court even if you did absolutely everything right. A "good shoot" still sucks very badly.So shoot enough of 'em to get your money's worth.

Old_Bald_Guy
07-02-2011, 12:19 PM
California . . . You have a duty to retreat except when in the home

I'm sure someone must've already corrected you, but after reading this statement I felt compelled to do so before taking time to read the rest of the thread.

1. You are wrong.
2. Who gave you this completely incorrect information?

Old_Bald_Guy
07-02-2011, 12:22 PM
So I ask, in such grey areas, dont you think you should at least exercise your opprotunity to retreat first if possible?

Exercising an opportunity is not the same as having a duty to exercise that opportunity.

Anchors
07-02-2011, 12:27 PM
That statement is epic fail. Being violent is a justifiable reason to be resisted against. If your idea of fun is beating the crap out of people, that is called great bodily injury. Everyone in this state has a right to defend themselves from great bodily injury. Being young and stupid does not exempt you from being stopped from your immediate actions of great bodily injury.

If a mob comes running down the street beating the hell out of people and I cannot get my family to safety, I will start shooting. I also live in Kern County where there isn't a mathematical possibility of not having at least one jury member ready to acquit.

If some young kid or kids die because of their actions, let it be a reminder to the rest of the kids out there that there are law abiding citizens out there that won't forfeit their rights for the perverse criminal enjoyment of youth.

Shooting shots into the air and into the ground is just plain stupid. If you have time to do that, you should have already been fleeing the area. If you are in your car, just run everyone over as you flee the area. Keep your mouth shut and call your lawyer.

These concepts are not hard. If you are not willing to shoot some violent young adult, then you probably shouldn't carry a gun and start MMA so you can learn how to effectively take punches and kicks to the head. Don't forget to train your teenage daughters the same thing and hopefully get a good chastity belt.

+1
Thank you.

Hanse Davion
07-02-2011, 12:30 PM
Exercising an opportunity is not the same as having a duty to exercise that opportunity.

You're right of course. But if the use of deadly force is unreasonable, that changes things. I don't want to leave anything to chance, which is why many of us want to carry a concealed weapon to being with.

Old_Bald_Guy
07-02-2011, 12:34 PM
In the aforementioned situation, I would try to take advantage of any opportunity to get the hell outta there. The second-to-last thing I ever want to have to do is shoot someone, and I would do so only in order to prevent the last-on-the-list thing: potential death or serious injury to my family or me (or other innocent people).

stangman86gt
07-02-2011, 12:35 PM
1. avoid if it all possible
2. retreat if you can
3. stop the threat
4. call 911
5. call your lawyer(if 3 is unfortunately met)
6. Don't talk without your lawyer

Old_Bald_Guy
07-02-2011, 12:38 PM
. . . if the use of deadly force is unreasonable, that changes things.
The larger topic you raise--the justifiability of force issue--is one that concerns me as well. What may be completely legally and morally justifiable may be seen by an overzealous DA as an opportunity for political gain, and juries seem to be a crap-shoot. All the more reason to be hyper-alert and try to avoid potential trouble.

Hanse Davion
07-02-2011, 12:44 PM
Agreed.

BigBamBoo
07-02-2011, 1:13 PM
...............

Hanse Davion
07-02-2011, 1:55 PM
Below is from 3-41 California Torts § 41.21 Section 3b
"No reported civil case in California has addressed the issue of whether the defendant is privileged to use deadly force in self-defense if he or she can safely avoid the necessity of doing so by retreating. In criminal cases, California courts have applied the rule that a person need not retreat under such circumstances, but may stand his or her ground and use deadly force if necessary. 14 Other authorities are apparently split as to whether the defendant is required to retreat before using deadly force. 15 The Restatement requires retreat before use of deadly force, but not before use of nondeadly force. 16 Retreat is not necessary, however, if one is attacked in one's dwelling. 17"

Anchors
07-02-2011, 2:03 PM
I am just curious where are you folks going to put yourselves in the vicinity of "mobs"? I myself do not care for large groups of people and do my absolute best to avoid large gatherings.

Also...in a close hand to hand fight with multiple combatants, the chances of you drawing your weapon and being able to use it with out it being knocked out of your hands or taken from you are going to be slim.

Of course this is just my opinion and your experience my be much different.

1. People don't choose to end up in these situations. What the OP is talking about is a car full of eight kids that drive around and look for people to assault like the kid another guy posted who got his whole face smashed in.

2. See my other thread or my post in this thread linking to it about the guy who was being attacked by two unarmed assailants and got his pistol and shot one. If your pistol is even out you should already be firing by the time they see it.

sreiter
07-02-2011, 2:27 PM
The disparity of numbers stance is usually if you're outnumbered, the damage from attack is magnified. Thus, 2 people assaulting someone with their fists can inflict great bodily injury. Make that 5 people and it's an even higher chance.

From what I understand, if you use lethal force against a group of 5 that are attacking you. Once you get to the last person, you can no longer just use lethal force. You have to consider the last criminal as lone threat versus a mob.

i would imagine if you shot everyone once, you'd still have the possibility of being harmed by all, if all 5 didnt go down.

z-bob
07-02-2011, 2:39 PM
Below is from 3-41 California Torts § 41.21 Section 3b
"No reported civil case in California has addressed the issue of whether the defendant is privileged to use deadly force in self-defense if he or she can safely avoid the necessity of doing so by retreating. In criminal cases, California courts have applied the rule that a person need not retreat under such circumstances, but may stand his or her ground and use deadly force if necessary. 14 Other authorities are apparently split as to whether the defendant is required to retreat before using deadly force. 15 The Restatement requires retreat before use of deadly force, but not before use of nondeadly force. 16 Retreat is not necessary, however, if one is attacked in one's dwelling. 17"


You are assuming that retreat is possible.

Librarian
07-02-2011, 2:48 PM
who of us hasnt been in a fight in high school or a bar?

Me.

Grade school a couple times.

Hanse Davion
07-02-2011, 2:52 PM
You are assuming that retreat is possible.

Im not assuming anything, this is from California tort law. But you are also correct...

A person has a duty to retreat under the restatement of torts if they reasonably believe that they can do so…
1) With complete safety
2) And without using deadly force

blazeaglory
07-02-2011, 3:34 PM
who of us hasnt been in a fight in high school or a bar?

in these flash attacks the mob never had guns, so go ahead and kill a dumb 16 year old and tell yourself you did the right thing

jeez, some of you clowns just cant wait for the opportunity to shoot a real person


i think a shot in the air would disperse most any crowd (except in the middle east)


sorry, nothing personal, but that is the dumbest thing ive ever heard.

a group of 16 year olds on the attack is no different than a group of 30year olds on the attack. young ones have been proven to be more violent in these situations. and regardless, a simple "mob" attack is different than a fight in a bar. this is a MOB trying to hurt you that can easily cause DEATH.

i say, you will see them coming and take out your weapon and shout "first mother ****er that wants to try it cmon!" **** brandishing laws. and if you dont see them coming and they have already surrounded you and are on the attack. you better be able to fire that weapon at center mass because they will TAKE IT FROM YOU and use it.

its better to prevent the attack and risk "brandishing" than getting killed by your own gun or going to prison for life for accidentally murdering a bystander. but if you must shoot, aim true. its your life that your defending. dont over complicate things by worrying about petty laws. would you rather be dead or in jail for a few years?

and im not condoning reckless gun behavior either but if a mob is about to beat my *** (which has happened before), if possible, i would stop it before it happened. but if i was already getting my *** beat, if i was losing and actually thought i might die, i would pity the fool that gets a bullet in his ***. if i was not in fear of my life, i would fight back and try to whip *** the old school way!

Kid Stanislaus
07-02-2011, 3:37 PM
It's too bad the drivers didn't panic and mow all the garbage down in the Lakers incident.

We don't need this kind of sentiment expressed here. This is PRECISELY what the anti-gun people will use to paint us all in a bad light. I'm not familiar with the incident in question but I'd be more inclined to say it was too bad he/he/they did not get away unscathed. ;)

IrishPirate
07-02-2011, 3:49 PM
i think a shot in the air would disperse most any crowd (except in the middle east)

and would land you in jail. Warning shots are illegal. Doesn't matter if there is one attacker or 10. You can only pull your gun to shoot, not to warn. If you're in fear of your life, kill the 16 year old. If not, keep your gun hidden. Don't carry a gun if you're not willing to take a life, and don't expect to take a life just because you're carrying a gun. Not every situation calls for defensive shooting just because you're packing heat.

Agent Orange
07-02-2011, 3:54 PM
^ Well said

...jeez, some of you clowns just cant wait for the opportunity to shoot a real person...

You're just noticing? It's not uncommon among many who carry, at least from the bravado seen on gun forums. It's why the stereotype of the "bloodthirsty" CCWer is alive and well.

Kid Stanislaus
07-02-2011, 4:00 PM
I wouldn't assume the whole mob can be viewed as your attacker.

Then you'd be a fool. The "mob mentality" coalesces them all together into a cohesive whole.

Kid Stanislaus
07-02-2011, 4:06 PM
You're right of course. But if the use of deadly force is unreasonable, that changes things. I don't want to leave anything to chance, which is why many of us want to carry a concealed weapon to being with.

In a fast breaking self defense situation you won't have any choice but to leave some things "to chance". There just will not be time to cross all the "T's", dot all the "I's" and tie up all the loose ends before a decision has to be made to shoot or not shoot. Training will help but at some point you just have to put the gun away or step off into the abyss.

Hanse Davion
07-02-2011, 4:10 PM
"Then you'd be a fool. The "mob mentality" coalesces them all together into a cohesive whole. "

Justify Self Defense against person in a mob attacking you 5 feet away and another person in the same mob 200 feet away, that is just yelling and screaming at you. Also, how can you be sure they are part of the mob if they are not attacking you or someone else? Has it not already been suggested to survive such situations you should try to blend in as much as possible? How do you know that person is not simply blending in?

Anchors
07-02-2011, 4:18 PM
and would land you in jail. Warning shots are illegal. Doesn't matter if there is one attacker or 10. You can only pull your gun to shoot, not to warn. If you're in fear of your life, kill the 16 year old. If not, keep your gun hidden. Don't carry a gun if you're not willing to take a life, and don't expect to take a life just because you're carrying a gun. Not every situation calls for defensive shooting just because you're packing heat.

Exactly.

Don't be foolish folks. When I was 16 I was 6'1", 185 pounds, and 7% body fat. Probably bigger and in better shape than most grown men (certainly better shape than I'm in now).
Kids are bored, angry, filled with hormones, and have plenty of time to sit around and fight/exercise.

I don't know who this guy grew up around, but I've seen kids 14-18 beat the living crap out of people. Even to the point of "great bodily injury" (brain damage, broken eye-sockets/jaws/noses/ribs, etc).

I don't want that to happen to me (or anyone around me ever again).
If a group of 14 year old kids starts mob-beating me, I will not be thinking twice (and neither will you once your face actually hits that pavement).


"Then you'd be a fool. The "mob mentality" coalesces them all together into a cohesive whole. "

Justify Self Defense against person in a mob attacking you 5 feet away and another person in the same mob 200 feet away, that is just yelling and screaming at you. Also, how can you be sure they are part of the mob if they are not attacking you or someone else? Has it not already been suggested to survive such situations you should try to blend in as much as possible? How do you know that person is not simply blending in?

You guys are over thinking it.
If you're in a mob of 200 people, you're dead even if you have a full-auto M2 machine gun.

Move to Phoenix and open carry an AK, no mobs will attack you. I promise. haha :D

Hanse Davion
07-02-2011, 4:19 PM
In a fast breaking self defense situation you won't have any choice but to leave some things "to chance". There just will not be time to cross all the "T's", dot all the "I's" and tie up all the loose ends before a decision has to be made to shoot or not shoot. Training will help but at some point you just have to put the gun away or step off into the abyss.

Criminal law is intentionally vague to a degree. There will never be a law to set forth all the T's and I's that needs to be crossed and dotted to justify self defense. Each case is looked at from the totality of the circumstances of the event, and knowing this, I want to make sure I at least try to satisfy all other possible means before using deadly force, as I don't want to go to jail or be slammed with a hefty civil lawsuit.

CCWFacts
07-03-2011, 1:22 PM
who of us hasnt been in a fight in high school or a bar?

in these flash attacks the mob never had guns, so go ahead and kill a dumb 16 year old and tell yourself you did the right thing

jeez, some of you clowns just cant wait for the opportunity to shoot a real person

People are getting killed, or nearly killed, in these attacks. Just because the perpetrators are dumb and 16 doesn't make the attack any less deadly. To take an example, this is what Mark Wahlberg was doing when he was 16:

Wahlberg claims to have been in trouble 20–25 times with the Boston Police Department as a youth. By the age of 13, Wahlberg had developed an addiction to cocaine and other substances.[6][7] At 15, he harassed a group of African American school children on a field trip by throwing rocks (causing injuries) and shouting racial epithets.[8]

When he was 16, Wahlberg approached a middle-aged Vietnamese man on the street and, using a large wooden stick, knocked him unconscious (while calling him "Vietnam ____ ____"), he also attacked another Vietnamese man, leaving him permanently blind in one eye, and attacked a security guard (again using racist language).[9][10]

For these crimes, Wahlberg was charged with attempted murder, pleaded guilty to assault, and was sentenced to two years in jail at Boston's Deer Island House of Correction, of which he served 45 days.

Yeah maybe he was a dumb 16-year old but lethal force would have been entirely appropriate to those attacks. The court understood this and charged him with attempted murder, not simple assault or some other minor charge. This was when he was 16!!

So the whole issue of their age is totally irrelevant to me. When I was 16 I knew not to get into a mob and beat people to death, and "youth" who don't know it may need to learn it the hard way.

I love the sentiment that "its just kids" somehow absolves violent behavior. Someone deserves to die no matter how young they are if they are trying to kill or maim me. And 30 vs 1 is probably going to make me fear for my life.
Most people who would do a group violent attack like will not get better with age and are well past the young and dumb stage

Exactly, except I wouldn't say "deserves to die". Punishment (ie, what someone deserves) is a decision to be made by courts. If I ever use a gun, it is 100% for self-defense, 0% for punishment. But I get what you're saying and agree.

That statement is epic fail. Being violent is a justifiable reason to be resisted against. If your idea of fun is beating the crap out of people, that is called great bodily injury. Everyone in this state has a right to defend themselves from great bodily injury. Being young and stupid does not exempt you from being stopped from your immediate actions of great bodily injury.
...
If some young kid or kids die because of their actions, let it be a reminder to the rest of the kids out there that there are law abiding citizens out there that won't forfeit their rights for the perverse criminal enjoyment of youth.

Shooting shots into the air and into the ground is just plain stupid. If you have time to do that, you should have already been fleeing the area. If you are in your car, just run everyone over as you flee the area. Keep your mouth shut and call your lawyer.

These concepts are not hard. If you are not willing to shoot some violent young adult, then you probably shouldn't carry a gun and start MMA so you can learn how to effectively take punches and kicks to the head. Don't forget to train your teenage daughters the same thing and hopefully get a good chastity belt.

Great post.

That's not a "flash mob".

"flash mobs" are things like Santa Rampages and Zombie Crawls. Entirely peaceful and fun.

Please change the title because it is misleading.

I'm the OP, and I'm well aware of the original meaning of "flash mob". I'm from San Francisco. Too bad, the meaning of the term has drifted from something fun and positive (100 Santas showing up and being rowdy, but in a fun, non-threatening way, people having a spontaneous dance party in an art museum, etc) to being something negative. What the two have in common is both are organized through social media things like FB. People who still want to organize the fun, original type of "flash mob" will need to be a lot more careful, which does take the fun and spontaneity out of the idea. I'm well aware the same thing happened with raves. They went from being positive, fun, private events to being mega-parties where people got hurt due to drugs, the wrong crowds, etc. Too bad.

I used the term in the title because that's the term that's being used these days.

thrillhouse700
07-03-2011, 1:54 PM
I don't understand why everyone in these articles and on here are being so PC. These are hate crimes. The problem is homework is racist and unfair......

Maybejim
07-03-2011, 2:13 PM
You're right, of course. It's unlikely, but it's still possible.

So fire it into the ground.

If you can focus on a legitimate attacker, then fine, shoot him. But in that situation I don't think I would be able to, and that's what this thread is about.

Years ago, when I was in Oklahoma, a bar owner who was confronted with a mob of kids did exactly that. He fired into the ground. The bullet ricocheted and killed one of those kids. He went on trial (I don't remember for sure, if he was convicted, I think he was). But a bullet fired straight up in the air, will not kill anyone when it comes down. Shot at an angle...that's a different story.

CCWFacts
07-03-2011, 2:17 PM
I don't understand why everyone in these articles and on here are being so PC. These are hate crimes. The problem is homework is racist and unfair......

That has started changing. Note that the youths in the Five Points assault on Carter Strange (http://www.wltx.com/news/article/141860/2/All-I-Could-Think-About-Was-What-If-I-Wouldnt-Have-Made-It) are being charged with "assault by mob" or something, which is legalese for the crime of lynching. That's right, lynching. That is not being PC, that is blunt reality.

For those who say these are just stupid 16 year olds and that anyone who would shoot them shouldn't be trusted with a gun:

I was lucky. They say I was very lucky that I survived let alone didn't have any brain damage at all. The main thing that I could think about was my friends and my family are all I really have. And all I could think about was what if I wouldn't have made it? What about all the people I wouldn't have been able to say goodbye to.

BC9696
07-03-2011, 3:34 PM
Yes!

To the cops: I decline to make any statement without first consulting my lawyer.

To your lawyer: I fired at the people who were attacking me, I was in fear of my life, I just wanted to make them stop.

Nailed it. Clear, concise and accurate!

Bad Kitty
07-03-2011, 4:32 PM
Wash is correct. The OP (and unfortunately multiple MSM outlets) are completely mis-using the term "flash mob".


That's okay, they also repeatedly said that President Obama "fists" his wife...

Then again, maybe in this case they did mean what they said...

Paladin
07-03-2011, 8:45 PM
DA: "Why didn't you first try firing a warning shot?"
CCWer: "Because with CA's Hi-Cap ban, I can't afford to waste any ammo when confronted by a violent mob." ;) :D

*****

In the spirit of accepting Eric Holder's challenge to not be a coward, but rather be willing to "talk about race", let's run a little hypothetical scenario using stereotypes to see how this could go down. The violent "flash mob" stereotypes are based on NYT's assessment in March 2010, and from what I've seen of these incidents since then, continues to be accurate ("Most of the teenagers who have taken part in them are black and from poor neighborhoods. Most of the areas hit have been predominantly white business districts." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/us/25mobs.html)

GG CCWer is middle aged white guy (we'll leave out the "overweight" aspect ;)), with a female companion (wife/gf), but w/o any kids (don't want him to be too sympathetic a character in this scenario). They are in a good part of "downtown" shopping/dining/whatever.

A violent "flash mob" suddenly and unexpectedly shows up. It is predominately African-American males between the ages of 14 and 24, with some same aged A-A females.

SHTF.

CCWer is trapped in a store or on the street and can't readily escape w/"sheeple" wife/gf. They, or at least he, get attacked. Getting punched and kicked from every direction, while trying to protect his lady, his unarmed defenses are quickly overwhelmed. In desperation, he draws his CCW and shouts, "Back off or I'll shoot." But in the loud noise of the violent mob and the feeding frenzy mentality of his attackers, some of them either don't hear what he says, don't see his drawn CCW, or simply ignore it and keep attacking. He starts firing.

1 BG is DRT (dead right there), and 2 others are wounded. The sound of the gun blasts causes a mini stampede of mobsters(?) running away from the source of the sound.

He and his lady are left alone w/the downed BG while the other 2 are screaming in agony. The mob reforms about 50 ft away shouting and chanting and videotaping CCWer and lady, crying out for revenge. Now they really start to riot and destroy property. Some BGs in the mob have guns and may decide to exact revenge right then and there. Fortunately, for this CCWer, we'll assume not. . . .

LEOs finally arrive in force and arrest the CCWer and detain his lady and whisk them away for everybody's safety. LEOs stay in place as EMTs/Paramedics arrive for the wounded.

TV/radio news interviews "mobsters" who say the white guy w/the gun had no right to shoot them -- they were unarmed and defenseless. They didn't do anything that justified shooting them. Family & friends all say Mr. "DRT" was a great guy, popular w/everybody, and was just getting his life back together and wanted to get his GED and go on to college.

Prayer vigils. Sidewalk memorials. Protest marches. Some rioting ("No Peace, No Justice!").

The Rev. Sharpton, the NAACP, and other "community leaders" show up and say that this demonstrates how the 2nd A RKBA is archaic, that the Shall Issue movement has unleashed thousands of racist Bernie Goetzes upon their community, and that these lives wouldn't have been ruined if there hadn't been a gun present.

Sacto introduces as many anti carry or anti handgun bills as they can, even though they know most will not survive federal 2nd A lawsuits. NRA-CRPA have to spend time/money/manpower/influence/IOUs killing as many bills as they can. Some still get passed. CGF has to spend time/money/manpower fighting those in court.

Criminal trial w/o conviction. More protest marches w/some rioting.

Federal civil rights lawsuit w/o conviction (no evidence showing he was motivated by racial hate, little evidence of racial hate in his past acc to family/friends/coworkers).

Since this hypothetical scenario takes place in CA, where we don't have the NRA's Model Castle Doctrine law (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=188), there's no civil lawsuit immunity, a civil lawsuit is filed by 2 living wounded BGs and/or Mr. DRT's family. CCWer loses on some cause of action bankrupting him.

In the 3 years since the shooting, the stress (incl persistent death threats -- IIRC, Bernie Goetz said after his shooting, in addition to innumerous threats, BGs twice actually tried to kill him for revenge -- he said 1 backed down at the last moment, but the other incident he refused to give any details about) has caused his marriage to break up and him to lose his job and most of his (typical CA sheeple) "friends" to abandon him (saying/thinking: "You actually carried a gun all those times we got together? What kind of paranoid nutcase are you?" "You actually pulled a gun and killed a kid? You're a murderer!")

He has aged 10 years in 3. Everyone knows his face & name but very few, if any, like them anymore. He can't get a job in his community because of this and the continued threats of violence, so he essentially flips off everyone & everything he cared about and moves to the Idaho panhandle. . . .

Call me cynical, but that is pretty much how I think things would unfold.

So, to your question: "What is appropriate?" IMHO, rather than going thru possibly, maybe even probably, what I just described, it is far wiser to stay in Cooper's Color Code of yellow (see my Crime Avoidance link in my sig line), be "politically incorrect" and profile people, and flee fast as you can as soon as you see a large group of . . . . well, I'll let you figure that one out yourself!

ETA: I should point out that I am being very optimistic in that NO criminal charges stick. Realistically, he could spend some time in the Big House. . . .

z-bob
07-04-2011, 7:49 AM
A violent "flash mob" suddenly and unexpectedly shows up. It is predominately African-American males between the ages of 14 and 24, with some same aged A-A females.
SHTF.

So what's your alternative since you can't escape? Just roll over and die? Yeah, that's a plan!

Kid Stanislaus
07-04-2011, 8:53 AM
"Then you'd be a fool. The "mob mentality" coalesces them all together into a cohesive whole. "

Justify Self Defense against person in a mob attacking you 5 feet away and another person in the same mob 200 feet away, that is just yelling and screaming at you. Also, how can you be sure they are part of the mob if they are not attacking you or someone else? Has it not already been suggested to survive such situations you should try to blend in as much as possible? How do you know that person is not simply blending in?

If he is advancing on me and making threats he's not just "blending in"!:rolleyes:

Kid Stanislaus
07-04-2011, 8:59 AM
I want to make sure I at least try to satisfy all other possible means before using deadly force, as I don't want to go to jail or be slammed with a hefty civil lawsuit.

That's a reasonable position to take, I'd do the same. However, I still believe that in a fast breaking situation (with a mob at hand) you'll have to shoot or run the risk of getting your brains kicked in. Its a choice nobody should ever have to make but reality sometimes is something of a tsunami that leaves us little room to choose.

Wallabing
07-04-2011, 9:19 AM
If this situation were to present itself to me, I have would have no regrets of using lethal force on those thugs.

Bobby Ricigliano
07-04-2011, 9:19 AM
Very ironic that none of the liberal media are calling it what it is, a HATE CRIME.

Kid Stanislaus
07-04-2011, 2:14 PM
Very ironic that none of the liberal media are calling it what it is, a HATE CRIME.

Yeah, no matter how many times they use words like "whitey", "white trash", "honky" or "white boy" it just never seems to add up to a hate crime.

ccmc
07-05-2011, 6:02 AM
DA: "Why didn't you first try firing a warning shot?"
CCWer: "Because with CA's Hi-Cap ban, I can't afford to waste any ammo when confronted by a violent mob." ;) :D

*****

In the spirit of accepting Eric Holder's challenge to not be a coward, but rather be willing to "talk about race", let's run a little hypothetical scenario using stereotypes to see how this could go down. The violent "flash mob" stereotypes are based on NYT's assessment in March 2010, and from what I've seen of these incidents since then, continues to be accurate ("Most of the teenagers who have taken part in them are black and from poor neighborhoods. Most of the areas hit have been predominantly white business districts." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/us/25mobs.html)

GG CCWer is middle aged white guy (we'll leave out the "overweight" aspect ;)), with a female companion (wife/gf), but w/o any kids (don't want him to be too sympathetic a character in this scenario). They are in a good part of "downtown" shopping/dining/whatever.

A violent "flash mob" suddenly and unexpectedly shows up. It is predominately African-American males between the ages of 14 and 24, with some same aged A-A females.

SHTF.

CCWer is trapped in a store or on the street and can't readily escape w/"sheeple" wife/gf. They, or at least he, get attacked. Getting punched and kicked from every direction, while trying to protect his lady, his unarmed defenses are quickly overwhelmed. In desperation, he draws his CCW and shouts, "Back off or I'll shoot." But in the loud noise of the violent mob and the feeding frenzy mentality of his attackers, some of them either don't hear what he says, don't see his drawn CCW, or simply ignore it and keep attacking. He starts firing.

1 BG is DRT (dead right there), and 2 others are wounded. The sound of the gun blasts causes a mini stampede of mobsters(?) running away from the source of the sound.

He and his lady are left alone w/the downed BG while the other 2 are screaming in agony. The mob reforms about 50 ft away shouting and chanting and videotaping CCWer and lady, crying out for revenge. Now they really start to riot and destroy property. Some BGs in the mob have guns and may decide to exact revenge right then and there. Fortunately, for this CCWer, we'll assume not. . . .

LEOs finally arrive in force and arrest the CCWer and detain his lady and whisk them away for everybody's safety. LEOs stay in place as EMTs/Paramedics arrive for the wounded.

TV/radio news interviews "mobsters" who say the white guy w/the gun had no right to shoot them -- they were unarmed and defenseless. They didn't do anything that justified shooting them. Family & friends all say Mr. "DRT" was a great guy, popular w/everybody, and was just getting his life back together and wanted to get his GED and go on to college.

Prayer vigils. Sidewalk memorials. Protest marches. Some rioting ("No Peace, No Justice!").

The Rev. Sharpton, the NAACP, and other "community leaders" show up and say that this demonstrates how the 2nd A RKBA is archaic, that the Shall Issue movement has unleashed thousands of racist Bernie Goetzes upon their community, and that these lives wouldn't have been ruined if there hadn't been a gun present.

Sacto introduces as many anti carry or anti handgun bills as they can, even though they know most will not survive federal 2nd A lawsuits. NRA-CRPA have to spend time/money/manpower/influence/IOUs killing as many bills as they can. Some still get passed. CGF has to spend time/money/manpower fighting those in court.

Criminal trial w/o conviction. More protest marches w/some rioting.

Federal civil rights lawsuit w/o conviction (no evidence showing he was motivated by racial hate, little evidence of racial hate in his past acc to family/friends/coworkers).

Since this hypothetical scenario takes place in CA, where we don't have the NRA's Model Castle Doctrine law (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=188), there's no civil lawsuit immunity, a civil lawsuit is filed by 2 living wounded BGs and/or Mr. DRT's family. CCWer loses on some cause of action bankrupting him.

In the 3 years since the shooting, the stress (incl persistent death threats -- IIRC, Bernie Goetz said after his shooting, in addition to innumerous threats, BGs twice actually tried to kill him for revenge -- he said 1 backed down at the last moment, but the other incident he refused to give any details about) has caused his marriage to break up and him to lose his job and most of his (typical CA sheeple) "friends" to abandon him (saying/thinking: "You actually carried a gun all those times we got together? What kind of paranoid nutcase are you?" "You actually pulled a gun and killed a kid? You're a murderer!")

He has aged 10 years in 3. Everyone knows his face & name but very few, if any, like them anymore. He can't get a job in his community because of this and the continued threats of violence, so he essentially flips off everyone & everything he cared about and moves to the Idaho panhandle. . . .

Call me cynical, but that is pretty much how I think things would unfold.

So, to your question: "What is appropriate?" IMHO, rather than going thru possibly, maybe even probably, what I just described, it is far wiser to stay in Cooper's Color Code of yellow (see my Crime Avoidance link in my sig line), be "politically incorrect" and profile people, and flee fast as you can as soon as you see a large group of . . . . well, I'll let you figure that one out yourself!

ETA: I should point out that I am being very optimistic in that NO criminal charges stick. Realistically, he could spend some time in the Big House. . . .

Great post.

ccmc
07-05-2011, 6:05 AM
Very ironic that none of the liberal media are calling it what it is, a HATE CRIME.

Because as Paladin reminded us with his well thought out post, our current AG Eric Holder has chastised us for being cowards on the race issue. The republicans could nominate a racoon and an armadillo in 2012 and I would vote for them to get Obama and the rest of his cronies out of our government.

sorensen440
07-05-2011, 6:16 AM
Id rather be killed then shoot blindly and possibly hit someone who isnt even a part of the mob.

BC9696
07-05-2011, 8:53 PM
I support aiming before shooting but that's just me. Depending on the perceived threat level and age of the aggressors, they may lose a kneecap or a heart or brain. i am certain of this...nobody is prepared to handle such a situation w/o extensive (and expensive) training so don't expect reality to mirror anything in this tread.

bill_k_lopez
07-05-2011, 9:03 PM
Flash Mob dressed like MC Hammer, dancing in sync to "Hammer Time" = justified shooting

Flash Mob of people singing songs from any Broadway Show (Les Miserables, Phantom, etc) = justified shooting