NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Carry Issues => Topic started by: omaharj on December 28, 2011, 07:20:16 PM
-
I was reading about that little brouhaha at the Mall of America,and it brought a scenario to mind. What if you are in a store,and forty people engage in a "planned riot". I'm not talking about the original flash mobs,where groups engaged in choreographed dancing to music. Now they're calling riots "flash mobs" like it's a harmless prank. This has been going on in other countries and can be highly organized with robbery as a main goal. What if women's purses are taken by violence or threat of violence? What about a stranger, ten feet from you, who resists and gets punched repeatedly? Maybe kicked as he falls down? I hope I could find something that I could consider "the line" and protect myself and those around me from a life threatening situation.
It appears the Mall of America mob was spontaneous and no one was seriously hurt. Chairs were thrown and some fistfights,resulting in nine arrests. I believe it could have escalated very easily to a potentially lethal outcome. I believe 20 youths screaming and throwing chairs would have me past level "yellow" FAST. What do you think your mindset would be? Please share your thoughts, RJ
-
Much like the mall shooting here a while ago -- your goal is to retreat / escape if you can. You are NOT supposed to be a good samaritan. **** hits the fan, you get you and your family out of harms way if you can. Your weapon is for SELF defense against IMMEDIATE grievous harm.
-
Heard about the "Knock out King" game. One man was killed by an unprovoked sucker punch to the head.
-
Pretty sure they would find another victim when staring down the muzzle of my ruger if not you try to retreat or last option stop the threat.
-
I don't think pulling a gun in the company of hundreds of people would be one of the most intelligent moves. If you did pull the trigger without being bumped, pushed, or hit, you would more than likely hit several people. I would just do everything I could to get out of the way.
-
I would just do everything I could to get out of the way.
Excellent advice.
Use of deadly force is the Very Last, Absolutely-No-Other-Option-Available Response.
Retreating to safety in the face of perilous situations is required by Nebraska state law [28-1409(4b)] if possible. Not doing so may well forfeit any claim of self-defense.
sfg
-
Then there's the fight at Westroads Mall, last Monday evening.
http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Mall_Fight_Caught_on_Video_136248543.html (http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Mall_Fight_Caught_on_Video_136248543.html)
The only thing you can do is grab your family members and get out of the area as soon as possible, especially with Westroads being a "gun free zone". Of course, the thugs and the bangers don't abide by that. Which makes it more imperative that you get out of there because you never know if any of the thugs/bangers are carrying. Or better yet, don't go there in the first place. You aren't allowed to be armed, but the thugs/bangers just may be.
Westroads is the new Crossroads, the thugs will soon ruin it as they did Crossroads. That's why you see more people going to places like Village Pointe and other places. With all the thugs and bangers that go to Westroads now, especially at night, we don't go there anymore. Daytime is relatively safe as most of the thugs are nocturnal and sleep during the day.
-
A guy I work with was at the Country Club Plaza in KC when they had a flash mob show up. It was pretty unnerving - he was walking down the sidewalk with his wife & kid when a big pack of thugs crossed the street and all started running right at them. At the last minute the pack split up and went around them but it was obvious they were trying to intimidate them.
If I know a place is prone to incidents like this I'll avoid it. My family no longer goes to the Plaza at night when we're in KC.
-
Seems like there are a few different thoughts,although it seems everyone agrees if you can avoid trouble....
Here's some interesting reading....
http://www.thateverymanbearmed.com/2011/08/flash-mobs-meet-muzzle-flash.html (http://www.thateverymanbearmed.com/2011/08/flash-mobs-meet-muzzle-flash.html)
-
This is all new to me. I hadn't heard of these things going on until I read this post. I would agree that the best thing to do if you had family/friends with you would be to try to get everyone away safely. If I were alone, however, and carrying legally, I would have a hard time not injecting myself into the situation if I felt I could keep some other innocent person from harm by these hooligans. It may not be the best legal option, but it would be the right thing to do in my opinion. Of course, any action I would take would have to be based on a clear understanding of what was going on, knowing who the bad guys were, and the risk my actions might place on other innocent people. In a situation where all Hell is breaking loose, it might be hard to know for sure who the bad guys are as well as being able to do anything about it without putting others at risk. All anyone could do is use their good judgement as to the best course of action.
-
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.
-
UNFY
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.
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
-
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1410 (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
-
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1409 (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 (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).
-
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1409 (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.
Can we agree that this is not really what the statutes state?
The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating
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
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;
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.
-
Totality of the circumstances...
-
Can we agree that this is not really what the statutes state?
re: 28-1409 (b) -- retreating / required
Well, I'm inclined to disagree. The language seems quite clear on "not justified" and "nor justified".
I'll have my boss read the statutes, and then present him with the question in as fair / balanced / impartial way I can (ie: in its raw / base form with no coaching). He's not a lawyer, but we did just recently win the Bankshot Supreme Court case ... of which he was heavily involved in nearly all aspects of the legal stuff. So I tend to trust his opinion on such things >:D.
One thing to note, when I got my concealed permit a year ago ... he was of the opinion that if a home self-defense case ever made it to the surpreme court, they'd be forced to rule with the home owner (thus striking down the anti-castle portion of state law and paving away for a castle law to be written to clear things up).
re: 28-1410
While I do see that it allows for samaritan stuff....
I can see 28-1414 (2) and (3) being used to make your justification of force pointless when the other person is a complete stranger. This also plays with "knowing" and flash mob stuff, etc.
There is also the fact that criminal law is to be read strictly as is with not being construed. Especially into absurdity. Definition of absurdity is a tad difficult to find when it comes to firearms sadly :(.
-
addenum:
if 28-1409 4.B doesn't require retreating.... then I'm also not required to surrender an item ? I can kill a mugger or home robber ?
edit: wording changed from 'home invader' to 'home robber' to be specific it's about theft.
-
Can't "kill" anyone. It's called self defense.
Does the mugger or home robber assert a claim of right thereto your property?
And don't forget there are many levels of the use of force, and deadly force can only be used to protect oneself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
The use of force against a robber is allowed but not necessarily deadly force
-
Not required to retreat:
1) While in your home, nor
2) At your place of work (unless you provoked the fracas at work in the first place.)
The above information can be coupled with the three situations where lethal force may be lawfully used:
1) Fear of death or great bodily harm.
2) Kidnapping.
3) Sexual assault.
Like DanW sez, you don't ever want to kill anyone. You simply want to stop the attack.
sfg
-
bullets prepped and in the bath, can return to typing :D
I wonder if we're kinda... getting away from the question and turned it into a generic self defense thing. If there is another thread that addresses this... feel free to point me to it :D
------
re: "kill" vs "mugger"
he has a knife pointed at me and is very threatening. he only wants me wallet or he'll kill me. according to the statute - i am required to give up my wallet. This would be 28-1409.4.b in effect. Obviously the mugger doesn't claim to own it or similar (ie: just theft).
is discharging a firearm always considered 'lethal' or 'deadly' ? Or am I silly and able to shoot in the knee ? Drawing / aiming the weapon is force, and possibly enough to end the situation... but... can't count on being that lucky.
I may not have to retreat in my home, but if he only wants my tv or wedding ring, i have to give it up, no ? Again, not retreating, but I am averting force via 28-1409.4.b
re-reading 28-1414.2 .... i think i have to revise (ie: correct / was wrong) my ascertations towards 'good samaritan towards strangers' stuff. maybe.
if someone is in the situation of grievous harm (as per 28-1409) ... i would actually venture that coming to the rescue would be ... okay ? Maybe ? naturally, depending on when you stop the situation... if it's before serious things have happened to act as evidence, then.... bad guy can just claim the intent wasn't going to go all the way with it etc.... ?
how this relates to flash mobs.... sigh. i'd undoubtedly definitely have shirt out of the way and hand resting on firearm prolly (durrr, anyone would undoubtedly).
my head hurts. probably the vinegar smell isn't helping (from plating experiment). i'll have to come back to this over the weekend :P
-
The laws, as best that I can understand them, allow for the use of force to protect a third party, given certain requirements that have already been mentioned (that the person being protected would have been justified in using force themselves, etc.). They also allow for protection of property by force. It gets a bit tricky here, but if you believe that in using anything less than deadly force to stop the burglar/robber, you subject yourself to risk of serious bodily harm or death, or if the thief has already threatened serious bodily harm or deathk, then deadly force is justified. You don't have to simply let the thief take off with your possessions. You come home and find someone heading out of your house with your TV, computer, whatever, and you tell him to stop and put it down. He blows you off and keeps heading toward his getaway car. You grab him and try to stop him. He turns around and brandishes a switchblade knife. You now fear for your life, so you pull your carry weapon and shoot the guy. Justified, as I read the law. (see below)
In Nebraska, the use of deadly force is not authorized to protect property unless the actor believes:
(a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(b) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other felonious theft or property destruction and either:
(i) Has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or
(ii) The use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of serious bodily harm.
Neb. Rev. Stat. sec. 28-1411.