Louisville Metro declares "State of Emergency"

[WLJ]

Reports of two officers shot in Portland

It was two people shot in the Portland neighborhood of Louisville

[Ben]

Taylor protest in Denver. So the driver of this car was arrested (or detained - I'm not sure of the distinction in this case). Everything I saw in the clip is what I would consider self-defense. I see at least a half dozen protestors that should have been arrested though.

Fox News is getting as annoying as CNN. "Plows through". It makes it sound like he attacked the protestors instead of trying to get the hell out of there.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/denver-police-detain-driver-after-vehicle-plows-into-breonna-taylor-protesters

[WLJ]

The Left needs to better vet their black martyrs,  because the last 3 they've rioted over have been dubious at best.

Why stop at 3? I would say nearly every one has been dubious for past 20 or more years.

[Pb]

Yes, and the leaked transcripts of jail phone calls are pretty revealing.

What did they say?   

[dogmush]

Taylor protest in Denver. So the driver of this car was arrested (or detained - I'm not sure of the distinction in this case). Everything I saw in the clip is what I would consider self-defense. I see at least a half dozen protestors that should have been arrested though.

Fox News is getting as annoying as CNN. "Plows through". It makes it sound like he attacked the protestors instead of trying to get the hell out of there.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/denver-police-detain-driver-after-vehicle-plows-into-breonna-taylor-protesters

I'm not trying to be combatitive or pick on you specifically, but I think we (conservitive-ish folks who think about self defense and wargame these things) don't really make good decisions on these protests.  Firstly we post on social media, and then we make assumptions that aren't supportable.

So in the interest of conversation I offer the following:

CO law on self defense:

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury;  or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204 ;  or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302 , robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302 , sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 , or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203 .

I don't think there's much argument that running over people with a car can kill them, and is probably deadly force (although everyone survived here)  So we are in section 2 of the law.  

Subsection b doesn't apply on it's face.

Subsection c does have kidnapping, so lets look at that:  18-3-302 Is second degree kidnapping and requires seizing AND carrying a person, person in car was not moved so that's a no go.  18-3-301 is first degree kidnapping which is defined as:

(1) Any person who does any of the following acts with the intent thereby to force the victim or any other person to make any concession or give up anything of value in order to secure a release of a person under the offender's actual or apparent control commits first degree kidnapping:

(a) Forcibly seizes and carries any person from one place to another;  or

(b) Entices or persuades any person to go from one place to another;  or

(c) Imprisons or forcibly secretes any person.

The second video in the fox news article clearly show the mob to turn around and drive the other way.  That is also reported by the "journalists" at the scene.  Hard to argue imprisonment there.  I think subsection c of the self defense law is not going to fly either.  Which leaves:

The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury

Emphasis mine.  I watched both those videos a couple times, and went to the poster's twitter feed to look for more.  That word imminent is, I think, going to be a problem for the driver.  If it had been like the guy in PA where they broke the rear window?  Sure, probably.  Trying to open locked doors?  Again, you can probably make that argument.  Blocking your travel and telling you to turn around is going to be a tough one to claim imminent danger.  Especially in Denver.*

We've talked about this enough here that I am well aware of what some of these mobs have done.  Cars get shot at, people get hurt, it absolutely happens. But you, I, or random Subaru driver don't get to [legally] apply what a random mob in another state did to the mob that you are dealing with right now (hypothetically).

I generally like everyone on this board enough to hope you don't get hurt, killed, jailed, or lose everything in a lawsuit, and in that vein, I think we owe it to our little community here to have realistic conversations about what is legal, not just what you think, or you'd like to see done.  Generally, absent any actual violence, someone blocking your travel in America is not justification for use of deadly force no matter how much you might think it should be.

It would have been a lot smarter for that driver to try and turn around and leave.  If the mob blocks that, you are in a much stronger position to justify the unassing through the crunchies.

Let me know if I missed a relevant CO law.  If 230RN or another Coloradan has insight I'd be interested.

*In addition to the plain language [heh] of the laws a prudent person is aware of the biases of the local and state police and prosecutors and adjusts their responses accordingly.

[cordex]

Being mobbed in a vehicle has to be an absolutely terrifying thing (which is, of course, the entire reason they are mobbing vehicles).

[dogmush]

Being mobbed in a vehicle has to be an absolutely terrifying thing (which is, of course, the entire reason they are mobbing vehicles).

Agreed.  It's about the perfect storm of as terrifying and intimidating as one can be without triggering most justifiable homicide laws.  Of course some folks edge across that line as well (AK guy in Austin, the folks that opened the car door on the Drill Sgt in Seattle, etc)

ETA: Also panicky people often don't make great, fully thought out decisions.  A savvy mob organizer can be prepared to capture these decisions and make sure they are broadcast, while suppressing video of their own side's misdeeds.  see: this conversation vs. the videos of the cop taking a baseball bat to the dome that have been removed from Twitter (ref: Portland thread)

[Ben]

Being mobbed in a vehicle has to be an absolutely terrifying thing (which is, of course, the entire reason they are mobbing vehicles).

This is why, other than him accurately quoting the law,  I can't really agree with Dogmush.

Preface: If the guy knew there were riots in the area, he absolutely should have avoided the area. But how are you supposed to keep track of where these pop up? Yes, he could have just turned around if he was thinking clearly and has some situational awareness. But refer to what Cordex said.

We don't know that while they were arguing, people weren't trying to open his doors, or that they didn't verbally threaten his life. In a situation where someone should have the absolute right of free passage, he may have panicked because of some act or language from the rioters (or if some don't like me using "rioters", then "non-peaceful protestors").

If someone was trying to get in my car, or threatened me in that situation, I might feel trapped and scared, and if my car was already in "D", I'm hitting the accelerator, not taking the time to switching gears to reverse first.

Again, not the law, but if he saw as many videos as the rest of us regarding what these rioters do to people in vehicles, that could certainly have played into his choices and fear.

The law is not always fair, or fairly applied. If it were, there would have been no one blocking his path on a public thoroughfare to begin with.

Edit: Dogmush posted while I was typing.

[Angel Eyes]

Taylor protest in Denver. So the driver of this car was arrested (or detained - I'm not sure of the distinction in this case). Everything I saw in the clip is what I would consider self-defense. I see at least a half dozen protestors that should have been arrested though.

Fox News is getting as annoying as CNN. "Plows through". It makes it sound like he attacked the protestors instead of trying to get the hell out of there.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/denver-police-detain-driver-after-vehicle-plows-into-breonna-taylor-protesters

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2020/09/14/trump-sacramento-visit-protester-chaos-chp-cruiser/

Little difference between the two except here it was a LEO driving a CHP cruiser.

[dogmush]

Also, I want to be crystal clear in this conversation:

I consider these people my enemy.  If you are caught in one of these protests you have essentially driven into an enemy ambush, and are engaged in violence (either physical or rhetorical) on ground the enemy has chosen.  My conversation on this subject isn't to make excuses for the enemy, or pretend that they are OK, but rather to point out some things I think you, my online friends, want to plan in advance to maximize your odds of defeating the enemy's ambush, not just there on the road, but in the courts and the court of public opinion.

Make a plan, have a plan b, do battle drills just like you do for drawing a weapon from concealment, so that if you get caught, and are panicked or scared, you aren't trying to do this on the fly.

But your plans should include what is possible (avoidance, backing up, going off road, whatever), what is legal (Use of deadly force in your jurisdiction, dashcams and sound recordings to make sure you have evidence of your side, etc), and what the social situation in your area is (will there be a group outside your home the next night, is the DA liberal and up for election, etc).  Be realistic about it though because the enemy is both realistic, and doing pretty well so far.  And successful ambushes breed more ambushes.

[Ben]

Also, I want to be crystal clear in this conversation:

I consider these people my enemy.  If you are caught in one of these protests you have essentially driven into an enemy ambush, and are engaged in violence (either physical or rhetorical) on ground the enemy has chosen.  My conversation on this subject isn't to make excuses for the enemy, or pretend that they are OK, but rather to point out some things I think you, my online friends, want to plan in advance to maximize your odds of defeating the enemy's ambush, not just there on the road, but in the courts and the court of public opinion.

Make a plan, have a plan b, do battle drills just like you do for drawing a weapon from concealment, so that if you get caught, and are panicked or scared, you aren't trying to do this on the fly.

But your plans should include what is possible (avoidance, backing up, going off road, whatever), what is legal (Use of deadly force in your jurisdiction, dashcams and sound recordings to make sure you have evidence of your side, etc), and what the social situation in your area is (will there be a group outside your home the next night, is the DA liberal and up for election, etc).  Be realistic about it though because the enemy is both realistic, and doing pretty well so far.  And successful ambushes breed more ambushes.

I can't disagree with any of this. I also am unsure, if I happened through stupidity or otherwise, to end up in one of these situations, that I wouldn't go from "Ben the AJ Squared Away keyboard warrior" to "Ben who pissed his pants and smashed down on the accelerator".

Avoidance of these is the number one tactic, but if someone gets caught up in it, law or otherwise, my sympathy will generally lie with the person in the car, even if they do something dumb. Obviously with exceptions like an armchair warrior going into a situation looking for trouble.

[charby]

(avoidance, backing up, going off road, whatever

My favorite thing to do. You can usually see a mob/situation a few blocks in front of you, pick a different street/turn around. Most of these riots situations are predictable if you listen to the news, just avoid that part of town. No reason is worth it.

Some of these people who drive in to mobs remind me of the same people who try to drive through flood waters. Darwin has to come into play sometimes.

[cordex]

My favorite thing to do. You can usually see a mob/situation a few blocks in front of you, pick a different street/turn around. Most of these riots situations are predictable if you listen to the news, just avoid that part of town. No reason is worth it.

To the extent that the mob events are predictable or avoidable I absolutely agree.  That said, they aren't always predictable or avoidable.  Nor should people have to check every time they get in the car to see if any motorist-threatening mobs have popped up along their route home.

Also, unlike you a lot of people don't have the option of avoiding their urban offices whenever they want.

Some of these people who drive in to mobs remind me of the same people who try to drive through flood waters. Darwin has to come into play sometimes.

That's kind of how I feel about the people who play in the street.

[MillCreek]

Here in Washington, we have case law such that if you are in your car, someone breaks your window and tries to drag you out, you cannot use deadly force.  The driver in that instance was convicted of first degree manslaughter and served time.

[charby]

  Nor should people have to check every time they get in the car to see if any motorist-threatening mobs have popped up along their route home.

Situational awareness, people check for weather conditions and road closures.

Also, unlike you a lot of people don't have the option of avoiding their urban offices whenever they want.

Always a choice. You don't have to go to work when your sick, take a sick day or two. If you think you have to be on your boss's call 24/7, time to switch employers. If my employer wouldn't understand during a urban unrest situation or potential, I don't want to work there.

That's kind of how I feel about the people who play in the street.

I don't want to explain myself in front of a judge and jury when I'm being charged with manslaughter, when I could of chose a different path.

[Ben]

To the extent that the mob events are predictable or avoidable I absolutely agree.  That said, they aren't always predictable or avoidable.  Nor should people have to check every time they get in the car to see if any motorist-threatening mobs have popped up along their route home.

Also, unlike you a lot of people don't have the option of avoiding their urban offices whenever they want.
That's kind of how I feel about the people who play in the street.

All this. While someone who's not "livin' in the holler without electricity" could easily find news on what's going on at the big riots in downtown Portland, Seattle, Louisville, etc., not so for probably 70% of these roadblock "protests". The whole design is "spontaneous" in order to disrupt lives.

There in no "riot radio" equivalent of weather radio for people to check every time before they leave their homes, nor should they have to. That's actually ridiculous. If you're in a situation where you can see what's happening a half mile in front of you, sure, cuss at the inconvenience, detour, and avoid trouble. That's not always the case. Many of these "protests" seem to be designed to hit bottleneck areas just so they can inconvenience as many commuters as possible.

Then of course there are the increasing invasions into suburban spaces and residential neighborhoods. Someone could easily be coming home from work rather than going to work and run into aholes in the street in their own damn neighborhood two blocks from their home.

[cordex]

Situational awareness, people check for weather conditions and road closures.

Sometimes, sure.  Weather can often be forecasted some time in advance, and planned road closures usually are announced too.  Pop-up rioting not always so much.  There was a "peaceful protest" about a mile from my office during which several cars had guns pulled on them by a mob closing down the street.  I didn't hear about it until the next day - certainly not in time to adjust my drive had I been going that direction.  Speaking as someone who has the luxury of following the news pretty closely, I'm pretty sure there was no announcement that could have warned me so I'm going to have to call BS on that.

I'm all for people taking responsibility for their own situations and avoiding being in places where bad things are likely to happen wherever you can, but you're really going out of your way to try to blame the drivers who are being attacked by rioters.

Always a choice. You don't have to go to work when your sick, take a sick day or two. If you think you have to be on your boss's call 24/7, time to switch employers. If my employer wouldn't understand during a urban unrest situation or potential, I don't want to work there.

Urban unrest has been an ongoing "potential" in many cities pretty much all summer.  People rioted in a number of cities across the country last night based on the Louisville announcement.  Sure, if I worked in Louisville I'd probably have taken yesterday off, but not many people in 2020 can afford to take off work every time there is a risk of urban rioting.  Portland is at how many days of almost continuous "urban unrest"?  I know they hit 100 straight days earlier this month.

I don't want to explain myself in front of a judge and jury when I'm being charged with manslaughter, when I could of chose a different path.

Of course.  I'm not suggesting people should mow down everyone they see in the road.  That said, for someone who is quick to damn a driver for having insufficient situational awareness to properly predict when and where rioters might theoretically block a road you seem to have very little critical to say about the situational awareness of people who actually step in front of a car and start beating on it with rocks, bottles, and signs and act shocked when the driver decides to not be where the riot is.

[charby]

All this. While someone who's not "livin' in the holler without electricity" could easily find news on what's going on at the big riots in downtown Portland, Seattle, Louisville, etc., not so for probably 70% of these roadblock "protests". The whole design is "spontaneous" in order to disrupt lives.

There in no "riot radio" equivalent of weather radio for people to check every time before they leave their homes, nor should they have to. That's actually ridiculous. If you're in a situation where you can see what's happening a half mile in front of you, sure, cuss at the inconvenience, detour, and avoid trouble. That's not always the case. Many of these "protests" seem to be designed to hit bottleneck areas just so they can inconvenience as many commuters as possible.

Then of course there are the increasing invasions into suburban spaces and residential neighborhoods. Someone could easily be coming home from work rather than going to work and run into aholes in the street in their own damn neighborhood two blocks from their home.

It's all about choices one makes. Google maps on my phone alerts me if traffic is stopped or slower than normal down the road in front of me. If we are talking pre smart phone era, I'd agree with you on no "riot radio". Perhaps those who get hung up in a riot either are looking for a fight or have their head up their ass. As I said earlier when I go to northern Wisconsin, the quickest route is through the twin cities from my place to my friend's cabin. This year I checked the riot situation in the twin cities before I traveled to there or back home. I had alternative routes home that went far from the twin cities, even had paper maps of MN and WI (I know about every paved road in north Iowa and our gravel roads are section lines) if the internet was down.

If a riot was happening 2 blocks from my house, more than likely the police will have re-routed traffic before you get that close and there won't be anything you can do about it except bitch on the Internet. Perhaps instead of thinking that you have no choice other than going through the mob, come up (today) with an escape plan for those at home and rally point outside of the city limits? If they burn your house down, insurance more than likely isn't going to cover it and you can't defend your property by shooting in most places without going to prison yourself. Life isn't fair, pick a better place to work/live next time. Lots of jobs (and cheap living) in flyover country small cities/towns with very little risk of urban violence.

[dogmush]

Funny you should mention "Riot Radio".

This Blog (I got pointed to from a FB Group) talks about some of the things the author saw in several of these protests, including the use of coms.  I've seen this before in videos of the protests roaming the streets and some on roads.  Coms and earpieces.  I am wondering if a decnet low cost VHF/UHF scanner might not pick up some interesting things near a protest.  I'm not (yet) curious enough to get close to a protest and find out, but I suspect their radio OPSEC isn't great.  If I lived in Portland or Seattle I would have figured it out already just due to the increased activity.  (So far my town has only seen a handful of roaming mobs)

But a scanner monitoring protest coms might very well let you know where the excitement is ala "riot radio".

I also have joined local FB and Twitter groups around antifa/BLM (using accounts other than my normal ones) which helpfully send me alerts when local protests are being planned.

[charby]

Sometimes, sure.  Weather can often be forecasted some time in advance, and planned road closures usually are announced too.  Pop-up rioting not always so much.  There was a "peaceful protest" about a mile from my office during which several cars had guns pulled on them by a mob closing down the street.  I didn't hear about it until the next day - certainly not in time to adjust my drive had I been going that direction.  Speaking as someone who has the luxury of following the news pretty closely, I'm pretty sure there was no announcement that could have warned me so I'm going to have to call BS on that.

I'm all for people taking responsibility for their own situations and avoiding being in places where bad things are likely to happen wherever you can, but you're really going out of your way to try to blame the drivers who are being attacked by rioters.
Urban unrest has been an ongoing "potential" in many cities pretty much all summer.  People rioted in a number of cities across the country last night based on the Louisville announcement.  Sure, if I worked in Louisville I'd probably have taken yesterday off, but not many people in 2020 can afford to take off work every time there is a risk of urban rioting.  Portland is at how many days of almost continuous "urban unrest"?  I know they hit 100 straight days earlier this month.
Of course.  I'm not suggesting people should mow down everyone they see in the road.  That said, for someone who is quick to damn a driver for having insufficient situational awareness to properly predict when and where rioters might theoretically block a road you seem to have very little critical to say about the situational awareness of people who actually step in front of a car and start beating on it with rocks, bottles, and signs and act shocked when the driver decides to not be where the riot is.

I'm not blaming all the drivers caught, sometimes *expletive deleted*it happens, but just a little bit of thinking and planning before you journey anywhere, would let you avoid a lot of situations. Getting stuck in a moving vehicle on urban streets during a riot is 100% avoidable, on a controlled highway (like what happened on I-94 last night in St. Paul) is harder to get out of, but looking down the road and seeing a bunch of tail lights glowing my be a warning something is up and perhaps find an way off the route?

One or 2 people jumping in front of your car with no crowds in a the area is not a riot situation, yes that would be mostly unpredictable, be like a dog running out in to the road in front of you.

[Ben]

It's all about choices one makes. Google maps on my phone alerts me if traffic is stopped or slower than normal down the road in front of me.

If a riot was happening 2 blocks from my house, more than likely the police will have re-routed traffic before you get that close and there won't be anything you can do about it except bitch on the Internet.

Google maps is absolutely unreliable for something like that. It's not even reliable for regular traffic updates on other than very busy roads/highways. At least 50% of the time that I find myself stuck in traffic and check the maps app, it doesn't show anything.

As to police being there, if they were there in force and enforcing laws, people wouldn't have to resort to running the roadblocks. Kyle Rittenhouse ran by a whole gaggle of police who didn't do anything because they were busy with other stuff.

[charby]

Google maps is absolutely unreliable for something like that. It's not even reliable for regular traffic updates on other than very busy roads/highways. At least 50% of the time that I find myself stuck in traffic and check the maps app, it doesn't show anything.

As to police being there, if they were there in force and enforcing laws, people wouldn't have to resort to running the roadblocks. Kyle Rittenhouse ran by a whole gaggle of police who didn't do anything because they were busy with other stuff.

Maybe I'm blessed where I live and work, maybe I have Jedi skills.

[Ben]

Maybe I'm blessed where I live and work, maybe I have Jedi skills.

Then you might not have the high ground on basically saying drivers in other areas are to blame if they get stuck in a bad situation.

[Ron]

Let's make blocking streets during a protest illegal unless there is a permit pulled and an alternative route for traffic provided.

Streets are a public right away for cars and bikes.

[bedlamite]

Let's make blocking streets during a protest illegal unless there is a permit pulled and an alternative route for traffic provided.

Streets are a public right away for cars and bikes.

Hey, quit trying to make sense.