General Categories > Carry Issues
Violent flash mobs
unfy:
armed and humorous: well... if you do go good simaritan, you'll be doing it without any legal backing really. I appear to not have a link / quote of the statutes in question that show that you're on your own if you stick your nose into other's people business.
A similar 'crisis of conscience' thread would be my 'render first aid to bad guy after being forced to fire' thread. Consensus seems to be to call 911 and let the pros handle it in that situation.
SemperFiGuy:
UNFY
--- Quote ---I appear to not have a link / quote of the statutes in question that show that you're on your own if you stick your nose into other's people business.
--- End quote ---
Here's one applicable state law. Note that it addresses "use of force" and not "use of lethal force". NSS 28-1409, referenced below, addresses lethal force.
28-1410. Use of force for protection of other persons.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 28-1414, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:
(a) The actor would be justified under section 28-1409 in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;
(b) Under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
(c) The actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section:
(a) When the actor would be obliged under section 28-1409 to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, he shall not be obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person;
(b) When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 28-1409 to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if he knew that he could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause him to do so before using force in his protection if the actor knows that he can obtain complete safety in that way; and
(c) Neither the actor nor the person whom he seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the other's dwelling or place of work to any greater extent than in his own.
Source:Laws 1972, LB 895, § 5; R.R.S.1943, § 28-837, (1975).
sfg
omaharj:
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1410
If you are surrounded by a mob, I believe the above statute would protect you from charges if you saved someone nearby. I am not a lawyer. Of course,avoiding trouble is best,but do you avoid every place where people gather? Brian (Koenig) mentioned his friend in KC,what if that wasn't a practice run,but an all out attack? I'm reminded of the Seinfeld episode where George is at a child's party. Someone saw smoke and yelled "Fire!" George shoved kids out of the way and knocked down an old lady with a walker to get to the door. Surely there's a course of action that a compassionate human can take in a dangerous riot? Anyway, I'm too old and slow to outrun a bunch of 19 year old thugs.
My original post was an effort to discuss where the line for intervention would be. I don't have this sorted out for myself and was hoping others would help me. This mob thing will most likely get worse and we'll probably hear about a ccw holder reacting. I hope they act with full legal support and a clear conscience. I also hope they don't get robbed and their gun taken. RJ
While I was looking up statutes and typing,Semper fi was posting,heheh
unfy:
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1409
Section (4) sub-section (b) --
This is the thing that prevents castle doctrine ... but it also states retreating is required if possible.
This also references 28-1410 (2) - (a) and (b) (basically just a copy / paste). (b) is a bit confusing. You urge the other person to surrender the item (ie: being robbed) ... if they don't comply and surrender the item... as a bystandard you are now allowed to use force (even though the person getting robbed is not by 28-1409 ?!).
If you see someone surrounded by a flash mob getting the **** kicked out of them... *you* are able to retreat.
The other person obviously can *not*.
You have no ties to this person, so... coming to their defense ... is wholly good samaritan.
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1414
This talks about coming to the wrong conclusion putting you at fault for the use of force.
IANAL ... but... there are questions regarding if you know the other person is wholly innocent and stuff (ie: complete stranger, maybe they're getting what they deserve ???).
There has been a single instance in my concealed-carry-life-so-far where I would have stepped in and did something when I saw something happening (some vandalism)... but being concealed carry I left it alone and simply tried to report it (which I didn't call 911 cause it wasn't a life threatening issue... but... there was no other way to get in contact with any authority late at night... and their website thing had a limit of like 200 characters on submission so i could give virtually no details... sigh).
Dan W:
--- Quote from: unfy on December 30, 2011, 06:41:03 PM ---http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1409
Section (4) sub-section (b) --
This is the thing that prevents castle doctrine ... but it also states retreating is required if possible.
--- End quote ---
Can we agree that this is not really what the statutes state?
--- Quote ---The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating
--- End quote ---
That is not the same as "required...if possible" Retreating at all cost is not the requirement
I also think you are misreading the statute in 28-1410
--- Quote ---The actor would be justified under section 28-1409 in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;
--- End quote ---
I read this to mean, if the person I am trying to protect would be allowed to use deadly force in self protection, them I am also allowed to use deadly force in his defense, and I would only be required to retreat if both of us "know that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating"
"Knowing that one can retreat in complete safety" may well be a difficult, if not impossible, thing to "know" in the midst of a flash mob attack.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version