Legal and Prudent defense against Flash Mobs

[Pilot]

I agree. I think shooting in this situation will end your life as you know it from a legal and financial perspective. However, not shooting may just end your life period.

I guess the bottom line for me is that if I think I am going to die or my family will be harmed, I will make the decision on what to do at that moment. I don't really know what I would do. I can still run very well, but my family can't. I am not going to leave them, so I guess we will avoid, avoid, avoid, and hope never to get entangled with one of these groups.

I am going to get some large cans of pepper spray or whatever spray they sell now days.

 

[NMGonzo]

Shoot the loudest and walk to safety.

 

[jeepguy]

i have seen a few videos of this on fox news & it is very concerning to say the least. imo 1st. thing is to withdraw from the area completely if you can. if not get your family & yourself to a part of the store where you don't have to defend all four sides at the same time. 2nd. if they are their just steeling as far as i am concerend that is between them, the store owner or manager, leo's & their parents if they get cought. 3rd. if they directly bring or try to bring violence to us then its a different story. 4th. if their is a defenseless person neer by say a little old lady, a mom with child or a younger child by themselves i would try to protect them as well. as i couldn't in good conscience let the vandels hurt these people while i sit back & do nothing. i also know the smart thing is to do nothing but i have to live with myself the rest of my life. 5th. as far as shooting a bunch of them well that is just ridiculous, you cannnot believe you wouldn't be convicted of murder or attempted murder by your actions. the videos i saw these kids were steeling all sorts of stuff all over the store. so even if you did have to use deadly force it would only be the ones directly assulting you. my second point is after the first shot almost all of the rest will flea as fast as their legs will allow. i hardly doubt they would stick around to help their "friend" out when it comes to firearms. now if the little old lady fought back or a dad trying to protect his family without a firearm they would just gang up on them but i highly think they would risk death or serious harm for each other. i also agree the violence will increase if these keep happening. i hope i never have to face this & if i do i hope it is in a store where their is at least video footage to verify what was happening.

 

[Joe Demko]

No, but my lawyer is a lawyer in Ohio, and he agrees completely.

...and he's defended some self-defense cases, right?

You still haven't addressed the fact that you are going to be firing in a chaotic environment. People screaming, shoving, fleeing. Noise. Confusion. Bad guys (whom you apparently believe will be "obvious") physically assaulting victims. Now Deanimator sets his jaw, skins that smokewagon, and adds some gunfire to the mix. Do you suppose the overall level of panic and confusion will increase or decrease at that moment? In that situation, are you confident of your ability to accurately place all your shots? What will the grand state of Ohio have to say if you plug one of them wimmens and chirruns you figure to be protecting?
Go to the range. Have a friend mix up a bunch of shoot/don't shoot targets really close together. It'd be better yet if they were in motion, but we can't have everything. Get an adrenaline injection. Have other friends randomly blow airhorns by your head and shove past you while you are trying to place your shots. And don't forget to have the range officer sucker punch you to represent that flash thug you didn't see. Make it okay for him to blast you in the back of the head while the others are still going over "the rules" with you.

Not every situation is winnable and not every interaction with the criminal element can be solved with a gun.

 

[Sky]

I would think if cornered and it is the type ( Mob ) we have seen in the news this might be one of those times to pop off a couple in the ceiling if there was no danger in hitting someone. The noise might be enough to scatter the crowd. Yes I know if someone is armed you just made yourself a target but in my way of thinking (certainly not wanting to shoot someone) it seems reasonable that when approached one or two in the ceiling and something spoken along the lines of " the next one is for you and your friends; move along these are not the droids you are looking for"! Might get the job done but one never knows until confronted with the situation. Hahahaha two in the ceiling no one hurt and go to jail for a weapon discharged within the city limits even though you broke up the mob! Decisions decisions

 

[Deanimator]

...and he's defended some self-defense cases, right?

He's a criminal defense attorney with over twenty years of experience in everything from murder to arson, including self-defense. Guess whose advice I value more.

You still haven't addressed the fact that you are going to be firing in a chaotic environment. People screaming, shoving, fleeing. Noise. Confusion.

Ok, I get it. You're not against self-defense... you just only believe it's appropriate in libraries, the abbeys of cloistered monks, and in the middle of the Gobi desert.

Bad guys (whom you apparently believe will be "obvious") physically assaulting victims.

They've been obvious in EVERY recent reported attack in Chicago. But yeah, you could be right. Perhaps rather than plan for what's actually happening, instead I should plan for them being super soldiers from an alternate universe who can change their appearance at will. Man, wouldn't it be freaky to get jumped by the Jonas brothers, who really AREN'T the Jonas brothers??!! And to make things even more confusing, they could beat me in the head with a 40oz of Old English 800 while screaming, "We're not hitting you!"

Yeah, I guess it WOULD be highly inappropriate to shoot under those circumstances...

Now Deanimator sets his jaw, skins that smokewagon, and adds some gunfire to the mix.

I've heard that it sure takes some of the edge off of getting beaten in the head with a 40oz. But you see, me just taking a possibly fatal or crippling beating isn't a good "mix" for me.

Do you suppose the overall level of panic and confusion will increase or decrease at that moment?

I'll bet it certainly increases for the guy trying to beat me to death.

It's NOT my job to "minimize panic and confusion". It's my job to STAY ALIVE and HEALTHY. Letting somebody beat me to death doesn't accomplish that goal. If it keeps me alive and whole, I couldn't care less if my shooting an attacker causes Peter Marc Richman to run around screeching, "It's a cookbook! It's a cookbook!"

In that situation, are you confident of your ability to accurately place all your shots? What will the grand state of Ohio have to say if you plug one of them wimmens and chirruns you figure to be protecting?

I figure to be protecting MYSELF.

Not every situation is winnable and not every interaction with the criminal element can be solved with a gun.

Guns often BRILLIANTLY solve deadly force attacks... certainly far better than LETTING somebody kill or maim you.

NO situation is "winnable" if you just surrender. Ask the Bielski brothers.
But then I've seen people who mocked those who rose up in the Warsaw Ghetto and Sobibor. Apparently to some, it's OH so much more "civilized" to go down without a fight. Besides, it keeps the person killing you from getting "angry". No telling where THAT might lead...

 

[Kleanbore]

So far, I have not seen any reports of persons using deadly force to defend themselves against a flash mob.

However, I would imagine that, if one who had done so could make a strong case that he had had reason to believe that he had in fact been in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that using deadly force to defend himself had been his only alternative, the act might well be found to have been justified. I do not think that that is a foregone conclusion, however, in that the matter of the intent of the miscreants and the likely extent of the injuries that would vave been sustained would have to be discussed, probably in light of what had been happening in other similar incidents.

The other side of the coin is the near certainty that, among the people "downrange", there had been those against whom deadly force would not have been justified. Should any of those persons have been killed or injured, the courts, civil or criminal or both, would probably have their work cut out for them.

It would come down to a determination of (1) what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances and (2) whether the actor had acted prudently with regard to risk to others.

It is likely that the majority among those who would judge that will be those who do not like guns very much, or those who have received much of their knowledge and/or preconceptions about handguns from dramatizations in which careful one shot does the trick. Their opinions about the guilt or innocence of flash mobs may not match mine, either.

 

[Deanimator]

So far, I have not seen any reports of persons using deadly force to defend themselves against a flash mob.

Probably the number one reason is that the majority of violent "flash mob" attacks have happened in and around Chicago, where you simply don't have the legal ABILITY to defend yourself from one. And I don't doubt for one second that that's one reason why they're happening there, along with the general ineffectiveness of the local police.

Illinois appears to be ground zero for VIOLENT flash mob incidents. Where they've happened elsewhere, they've been acts of mass theft without the savage violence. A property crime, without accompanying deadly force or the imminent threat thereof isn't a legal justification for a deadly force defense in most places.

Apart from the regular small contingent of neo-Nazis who haunt online comment sections of big city newspapers, I haven't seen anyone advocate deadly force against people stealing mp3 players or cologne from a department store, no matter how many people were involved at one time. What I HAVE seen is a demand that people not be REQUIRED BY LAW to let purposefully organized robbery gangs bash their skulls in rather than defend themselves with a gun. Illinois is of course the last state in the country where that's absolutely the case, unless of course you're a cop or a member of the Chicago city council.

 

[Joe Demko]

You still haven't given us an assessment of your ability to shoot who actually should be shot, Deanimator. Your "plan", such as it is, seems to basically be to draw and start firing at these obvious flash mob thugs, who will then conveniently turn and flee the might of your ccw. Meanwhile, all the innocent bystanders in the area will also, equally conveniently, stay out of your lines of fire and not misidentify you as one more violent attacker. You seem to be counting on everybody else to behave in a particular way that is best for you and all because you won't train your 53 year old body to move a little faster.
I believe in self-defense handled appropriately, since my goal in defending myself is to continue on after the incident leading the life I enjoy. If fleeing the area fulfills that goal, then I win. If I choose to use the gun and I end up getting sent to prison and/or bankrupted in civil court, then I lose. Unlike you, apparently, I cannot guarantee where every shot I fire in a situation like that will land. I do not have eyes in the back of my head, either. I've been carrying a gun since 1983, including a bit as a deputy sheriff. I've drawn my gun a couple times with every intention of shooting, if the situation warranted it. Do not mistake my unwillingness to consider the gun as first choice in this situation as unwillingness to use it in any situation.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Firing two into the ceiling isn't the use of deadly force. IF the "force" isn't directed AT anyone, it might be called a diversion, menacing, inducing panic, criminal damaging, etc, but as stated, if it doesn't injure anyone, causes the desired effect of dispersal or prevents escalation or injury, it just MIGHT be better than all the alternatives. Who knows, until we all face a similar situation, and even then, not all are the same.

 

[Deanimator]

You still haven't given us an assessment of your ability to shoot who actually should be shot, Deanimator.

I regularly outshoot Gerry Miculek.

See that's the nice thing about the internet, you can be whomever and whatever you want to be.

My right to defend life and limb isn't contingent upon my ability to win the Steel Challenge.

Your "plan", such as it is, seems to basically be to draw and start firing at these obvious flash mob thugs, who will then conveniently turn and flee the might of your ccw.

Flee or don't flee, if they're in another location or lying on the ground incapacitated, they're no threat to me.

Once they're no longer a threat, there's no legal justification for shooting.

Meanwhile, all the innocent bystanders in the area will also, equally conveniently, stay out of your lines of fire and not misidentify you as one more violent attacker.

That's the "nice" thing about being surrounded. Friendly fire incidents are a LOT less common.

You seem to be counting on everybody else to behave in a particular way that is best for you and all because you won't train your 53 year old body to move a little faster.

Sorry, I've got no legal duty to:

• Let myself be beaten to death
• Become the next Jessie Owens or Ralph Metcalf
• Learn to pass through solid matter

I believe in self-defense handled appropriately

Which apparently is in the Library of Congress, in total silence, with everything choreographed like a kabuki play. Otherwise you have to let yourself get robbed, beaten or worse.

If fleeing the area fulfills that goal, then I win.

You still haven't gotten around to explaining how one flees THROUGH a ring of attackers. My TARDIS is in the shop...

If I choose to use the gun and I end up getting sent to prison and/or bankrupted in civil court, then I lose.

Whereas if you end up dead, or worse a crippled burden on your family or society, you "win"?

But hey, steering a wheelchair by blowing through a tube is better than possibly dealing with a frivolous lawsuit, right?

Unlike you, apparently, I cannot guarantee where every shot I fire in a situation like that will land.

If that's the criterion, then NO use of a firearm for self-defense is EVER justified, since NOBODY can guarantee that.

But hey, if you think you can run THROUGH a gang of violent attackers encircling you, go for it. Just don't delude yourself into thinking that I have any intention of following your example.

 

[Deanimator]

Firing two into the ceiling isn't the use of deadly force. IF the "force" isn't directed AT anyone, it might be called a diversion, menacing, inducing panic, criminal damaging, etc, but as stated, if it doesn't injure anyone, causes the desired effect of dispersal or prevents escalation or injury, it just MIGHT be better than all the alternatives. Who knows, until we all face a similar situation, and even then, not all are the same.

Of course that leaves you with two FEWER shots, and if you're carrying a five shot revolver, that makes a BIG difference.

I don't believe in warning shots. Shoot to stop or don't shoot at all.

If anything, warning shots make you look inclined to shoot where it ISN'T necessary. If you REALLY felt your life was in immediate, credible danger, why did you shoot a building instead of your attacker(s)?

Of course, that being said, almost every one of the genuine violent attacks in Chicago took place in the open, since the obvious pattern is to coalesce out of a crowd, concentrate against a victim, then disperse so that it's impossible for police to contain the group or grab more than a few members. I don't have a problem shooting somebody obviously intent on doing me bodily harm. I have a real problem shooting a five year old two blocks away that I never saw.

 

[daorhgih]

Change of perspective.

I have not killed a human being for the last 41-yrs. But I assure you, there will be no "chaotic environment." I remember how the scenario starts. There are no screams. No-one moves except in slo-motion. No-one runs; everyone stops. I hear nothing; I am far from confused. Get civilians to cover -- in a dressing-room, rest-room, under the counter or clothes-rack, or shrubbery. Hit the HoMy who is closest / tallest first; multiple-choice. Then hit those who look at your fire and smoke. Let the "more innocent" ones run away. No shooting in the back. Stand as long as you can; no need to save "the last round" for yourself. Such is cowardice. Have a sharp knife, or bayonet, and be practiced in its use. &c. L1S1

 

[rscalzo]

The kids - Chitwood estimated there were around 40 boys

As per the article, there was nothing beyond the thefts. So what is the justification of deadly force? Your desire to save Sears some money in lose property.

So outside of a threat of physical force against patrons in the store of a innocent bystander, what's the justification?

As far as the comment that there will be no "chaotic environment." , that I have to disagree with totally. I've seen the result much more recently and if anyone thinks it will be a calm controlled setting if shots ring out they are simply fooling themselves. Not in a urban area such as Philly.

If anything, warning shots make you look inclined to shoot where it ISN'T necessary. If you REALLY felt your life was in immediate, credible danger, why did you shoot a building instead of your attacker(s)?

On that, I am in total agreement.

 

[Deanimator]

As per the article, there was nothing beyond the thefts. So what is the justification of deadly force? Your desire to save Sears some money in lose property.

At least here in Ohio, there's no justification for deadly force in a property theft, especially of somebody ELSE'S property.

I draw a bright line between kids stealing mp3 players from a store and gangs of thugs surrounding people and beating them to the ground, either to take their belongings or sometimes for mere amusement. The latter is happening more and more in Chicago. They're going to kill somebody eventually, and sooner rather than later. The response of Emmanuel and McCarthy, the newspapers, and one or two here is essentially , "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"

 

[armoredman]

Detroitstudent, I need to ask - why would ATFE and AG Holder, (if he still has a job), get involved in a state/city issue? If I utilize deadly physical force according to state law, I don't see how the feds are going to getting involved. Nothing I own is illegal to use or carry, so ATFE is out, and the rest is for a grand jury to decide.

 

[rscalzo]

I draw a bright line between kids stealing mp3 players from a store and gangs of thugs surrounding people and beating them to the ground,

Yet that is not the case in these instances. they swarm the store, grab items and leave. If you insist on modifying the facts to suit the need, that what is the point of the original question posed?

 

[Canazes9]

Yet that is not the case in these instances. they swarm the store, grab items and leave. If you insist on modifying the facts to suit the need, that what is the point of the original question posed?

I think you need to conduct a little more research:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304778304576375661383528354.html

The latest attack occurred early Thursday morning. A spokesman for the Chicago Police Department said the attack involved "multiple" perpetrators near an elevated train platform. Described in the police report as a "strong arm robbery," the group of assailants took the victim's iPad and money and punched him in the face. No arrests have yet been made in that case.

In another incident last Saturday evening, Krzysztof Wilkowski, after shopping on Michigan Avenue, was sitting on his scooter a couple of blocks away checking his phone for a restaurant when he got whacked in the face with a baseball.....

....A few of the attackers dragged him off his scooter and pulled him onto Chicago Avenue where they punched him, hit him with his helmet and tried to grab his phone.

http://www.avclub.com/philadelphia/...or-injured-in-flash-mob-attack-in-phil,58134/

One of the victims was A.V. Club Philadelphia City Editor Emily Guendelsberger, who suffered bruises and a broken leg. She remains hospitalized.

Several people who were with Emily when the incident occurred suffered injuries, mostly bruises and lacerations; at least one person who was with Emily suffered a concussion.

While we waited yesterday for word about Emily’s condition, Philly-area media reported another “flash mob” incident at an Upper Darby Sears store, where a group of about 40 men apparently stormed the store and made off with thousands of dollars’ worth of merchandise. Both of these are just the latest in a round of flash mob incidents. Last week, Stephen Lyde was sentenced to up to 20 years for stabbing someone during a 2009 incident. And The New York Times profiled these “flash mobs” last year, with local media outlets following suit.

Last night wasn’t an isolated incident: 15 months ago, a similar incident sent several people to the hospital, and there were earlier organized mobs as well. And in 2008, a group of four teenagers assaulted a man on a subway platform and ended up killing him.”


Plenty more reading on the subject is available....

David

 

[daorhgih]

Words have meanings, and their ....

... use has consequences; "Gimme yur monies or A'hl tear you a new A**-hole" would certainly guarantee a violent reaction from me ... probably, hopefully both life-saving per life-taking. I only know of my reaction today from what I can remember from the past, and recent training. Fear becomes adrenalin very quickly for me in these situations; what I would / could ACTUALLY DO cannot be foretold. But "I have a plan" ... battle-tested.

"If the advancing crowd is shouting to "hand over your belongings," does that warrant a deadly response legally?" Yes; dead flashmob folks tell no tales.

 

[Deanimator]

Yet that is not the case in these instances.

It most certainly IS the case, as someone else showed you in detail.

 

[Cluster Bomb]

well tbh if there is some sorta riot and i turn around and a family member is being pounced on with a weapon or lrg group that could end thier existence i would end thiers first. they made a choice, they will have to suffer its consequences.

if they are steeling crap idk ill just watch, and not go on tv.....just saying

if im in the way id get out quickly as i dont wanna be seen as an obsticle in thier flash grab n go.

 

[DetroitStudent]

In Response to Armored Man,

I thoroughly agree with KleanBore. If possible, retreat to an area that would be safe for you and your family.

In response to your query about Holder, I would like to offer the following observation:

I can see a self defense shooting (especially if multiple assailants are taken down) in a flash mob setting as a "civil rights" issue. Why? Because of the fact that flash mobs are not composed of Swedes, Irish, or software Engineers from India.

I can see national attention brought to this issue. The criminals would be painted as either not involved in the flash mob or just there to "have some fun." European Americans or Asians (think LA riots) who defend themselves would be painted as intolerant bigots whose guns should be taken away.

I find that the DOJ in this administration is completely partisan, extremely well funded, and openly biased against European Americans and Asians. Although not a federal issue, a trial and conviction of a civil rights case can get a starting attorney a foot in the door for the chance at a federal judge position, etc. I can guarantee immense pressure would be exerted on the parties involved for a conviction and national media attention would be directed against you.

As someone who lived in Detroit, and whose Asian family members who owned small retail stores were regularly were held up at gunpoint by the same types of people in the flash mobs I support the right of all of us to defend ourselves. At the same time, we must be prudent and avoid confrontation if at all possible. Only if we are "backed into a corner" will society believe that we had no other alternative, no matter what the law of the state might say.

 

[sidheshooter]

Good discussion. I've especially enjoyed Deanimator's posts, culminating in #86-which gave me a good chuckle! You are a man of wide interests, Deanimator.
--
These situations can always be nitpicked to death with what ifs, changing scenario details, and gotchas. Fortunately, this is why we have fundamentals, and here (FWEIW) is my take:

You can use deadly force only:

to counter the immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

If that danger does not exist, you simply cannot shoot.

If it does, you can hardly afford to trifle with alternatives.

So far as flash mob vs. whatever else we can concoct for discussion, that's irrelevant. it makes no difference if said danger is some guy who has mysteriously dropped out of the Gobi desert night sky with the goal of putting 2 in your chest and one in your head, or if that danger is a mob of 16-year old "boys" initiating a group beat down in a store for fun.

either there is the immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent at that moment, or there isn't; simple, really-and good thing, because there is enough to deal with in the aftermath of the choice without ignoring such clear-cut guidelines governing the choice itself.

Yeah, I know that there is always the chance of hitting the innocent in the chaos of a crowd; that's why we had better be really sure of the danger defined above, because we need to articulate that we had absolutely no choice in any situation resulting in such tragedy.

If it is any consolation, true innocents will probably be trying to get away from the epicenter of a serious beat down with all their might. So far as any "boys" who might be leaning in for a closer look at the show, I offer this, from Warren on homicide:

"Any member of a mob shares responsibility with the others. All are culpable." Warren doctrine also states that "disparity of force exists up to the point that greater numbers exist." ie: knock down 5 out of 6 (a nod to wheelie fans), and the last person then becomes part of a one-on-one situation.

IANAL, make no mistake, but this is stuff taken directly from my notes from Ayoob classes. These notes would be admissible in court for me, as would the man's testimony.

YMMV on that, but most likely not on the fundamental principle governing usage of deadly force.

Again, FWIW.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

It is funny to me to see this happening in a pair of the most anti- gun citys in the US. Try that stuff in TX and it will get ugly for the Flash Mob real fast.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Once you have drawn your weapon and warned the miscreants to STAY BACK but they continue to advance, they should be considered extremely dangerous. No rational person is going to attempt an unarmed attack on someone pointing a pistol at him. If he does you can bet that he is not after your wallet.