Posted on 09/22/2016 1:04:37 PM PDT by servo1969
The details on the Charlotte riots and attacks on motorists trapped on the highway and others are in our earlier post.
Instapundit (law professor Glenn Reynolds) was suspended from Twitter (then later reinstated) after posting the following tweet as those riots and highway blockades were ongoing:
Professor Jacobson has asked me to address whether such an act would be lawful as a justified act of self-defense. I’m on a flight now using airplane WiFi, so I’ll make this quick. (Before I go on, however, I should point out that Professor Reynolds has added some important context to his pithy tweet, and these later comments can be found at the link above.)
In short, one would apply the usual five elements of a self-defense justification to evaluate such a use of force against others, just as in any other instance of self-defense. Those elements are, of course: innocence, imminence, proportionality, avoidance, and reasonableness.
When all required elements are present, the use of force was legally justified. If any required element is missing, whatever that use of force might have been it was not lawful self-defense.
One of the challenges to legally justifying the use of force against highway blockades is the element of imminence. Do people who are merely blocking a roadway represent an imminent threat against which some defensive force might be justified? .
A second challenge is the element of proportionality. That is, if the force contemplated to be used against them is one’s vehicle, this will almost always constitute deadly force–that is, force capable of causing death or grave bodily injury. Deadly force can be used in self-defense only the force with which you are threatened also constitutes deadly force.
Unfortunately, persons merely blockading a highway do not inherently represent an imminent deadly force threat–simply blocking a roadway cannot normally cause death or grave bodily harm to those injured. As a result, using one’s vehicle to “run them down,” or even to physically push them aside, is unlikely to be legally justified unless there is some additional threatening conduct.
It is also worth noting that if you respond to even a legitimate threat that is non-deadly in nature with a deadly force response, it’s quite possible that you will be deemed the deadly force aggressor, even if the other party was the non-deadly force aggressor. In that case the other party could well be legally justified in using deadly defensive force against your deadly force aggression.
Chilling, right?
Note, however, that so far we’ve limited the discussion to using force against people who are merely blocking a roadway. Things change dramatically if they exceed that limited conduct and being to actually direct threats or actual force against those they have blockaded.
Once a person being blockaded has been placed in reasonable fear of an imminent deadly force attack, then that person would be legally entitled to use deadly force in self-defense, including the use of their vehicle to “run them down” and neutralize the unlawful deadly force threat.
The question then is what would be required to generate a fear of imminent deadly force that would be deemed reasonable by police, prosecutors, judges, and juries.
Certainly if the protestors attempt, or reasonably appear to attempt, to forcibly enter the blockaded vehicles, this would constitute reasonable grounds to fear an imminent deadly force attack. Such conduct would include the smashing of windows or attempts to force open doors. The same applies to attempts to set vehicles on fire, or to flip vehicles over.
Note that a defender need not necessarily wait until the protestors have turned violent against his particular vehicle. If they have begun threatening or using deadly force against other blockaded vehicles it is reasonable to infer that your own vehicle is likely to be next — you are, after all, legally entitled to defend yourself not just against the danger already occurring to you but also against the danger that is about to occur, that is imminent.
I caution, however, that you can’t just speculate that some danger about to occur, you must be making a reasonable inference from actual evidence (e.g., observations) around you. “For all I knew they were about to start setting cars on fire,” is not enough, that’s mere speculation. “I saw someone approach with a Molotov cocktail,” or “I saw other vehicles ablaze” is, in contrast, evidence from which one can reasonably infer an imminent threat.
As a parting thought, there is nothing to prevent a legislature from defining the disorderly blockading of a public way as an act against which deadly defensive force can be used, such as by creating a legal presumption under such circumstances of a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. The large majority of states have already created such legal presumptions justifying the use of deadly defensive force in other contexts — particularly in the context of an intruder in the home.
I’ll leave moral concerns about such an approach to the moralists, but legally there is no barrier to such a law, and a solid argument could be made that it constitutes good public policy. After all, protestors would still be free to lawfully exercise their First Amendment rights, and it would foster public order and safety.
Perhaps it is time to write your legislators, or start a ballot initiative or referendum?
--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Attorney Andrew Branca and his firm Law of Self Defense have been providing internationally-recognized expertise in American self-defense law for almost 20 years in the form of books, live seminars & online training (both accredited for CLE), public speaking engagements, and individualized legal consultation.
This question reminds me of the Range Rover with a women and two year old inside running over the bikers in NYC, leaving one biker with a spinal cord injury.
Eight bikers ended up being charged.
[FULL] Black Range Rover Runs Over Bikers In NYC Newyork HD
https://youtu.be/V-9WuRnolfQ
Nyc motorist ran over biker and was not charged. Never claim you aimed your car for one ...
There are two responses to ambush: retreat/break-contact and charge. If the ambush is “close” you charge through and counterattack, if the ambush is not “close” then you break contact and maneuver around the ambush — the difficult thing is determining whether you’re in a “close” situation or not.
In a ‘barricade’ situation for civilian vehicles on roads it’s very likely that the retreat (aka avoid) option is restricted — the traffic behind you for one, the buildings and structures to the sides for another, and possibly the oncoming traffic. — Cut off all avenues of escape and only fight is left.
I’d run them down. They have every intention of harming those they get their hands on. Run them down.
and then, shut the heck up and say nothing.
YEP.
Hey Bubba, the exact reason I am in the market for an old pickup, an old Suburban will do as well. Put a reinforced brush guard on the front and we are good to go.
Because there are stupid DAs, Judges, Juries and Governors wanting to run for higher political offices out there.
On top of that, you have the MSM trying desperately to get Hillary elected.
Don't forget the big block and 4-wheel-drive. No replacement for displacement. Lockers on the differentials are a good thing, too. I've seen too many 4x4s get one wheel of each axle in the air and just sit there spinning the free wheels going nowhere.
In the 60’s, my dad was leaving Walter Reed and drove right into a race riot. My father observed a vehicle in front of him stop for the mob and was attacked and smashed and the driver being yanked out of his car.
My father told me that when he saw that, he downshifted his VW Beetle, hit the gas and the rioters both bounced off the hood and dived out of the way.
Anyone have any suggestions for a good body cam system?
Post 72. . .my dad was in this situation once.
Step on the gas and thump, thump,thump. No way I stick around to get pulled out of my car. Not in this lifetime.
There was a variation (in the same article) where blades would sever the perp’s legs a few inches above the ankle...
Cars are not bulletproof. You are a sitting target for that or anything coming through the glass. They start doing anything to cars the whole lot ought to start driving and run them all down.
No. You get the hell away. You cant legally justify that.
South Africa Special.
It depends what that single person is doing or intends to do.
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.