so lets talk about riots, and tactics

[Celt]

So you don't want to talk about the 800# gorilla in your pants.

I appreciate the compliment, but Im Irish so its only about 400lbs.


but, while I am sure gov agents are too busy to monitor the forums Id rather not post any tactics I may employ that could ever be used against me in a court of law in an unfortunate scenario where I had to use JUDPF (justified used of deadly physical force).

 

[spat]

MAN WTF??? You live in Rochester NY! The unfriendly gun capitol of western NY and your thinking of walking down the street OPEN carrying? Dude YOU would be the one that would get arrested or worse SHOT by the police! And that stupid move would be filmed and repurposed as 'local gun nut goes on rampage/stopped by local police, story @ 11:00' I live here too, and I live on a private street but ain't no way would I walk to the end to deter anyone from coming down the street!
Stay on your own property unless you are forced out for your own safety at that point move quickly and as silently as possible.

If the cops are going to show up to arrest you, then it's unnecessary.

If it's necessary, there will be no cops.

 

[Cooolone]

Do some research or talk to your lawyer about NYS definition of domicile in regards to self defense, it is not what most lay persons assume and may include more than many think it does.

Thank you, but I believe you're mistaken what I wrote or meant, as I didn't indicate that "where" you defended yourself was an issue at all. I said using force to protect actual "property"... To my knowledge, there is no justifiable defense to use force to save your TV or personal effects in NY. That said, to prevent grievous bodily harm, prevent rape or kidnapping, and other life/death scenarios, good to go!

 

[Chevusa]

I said using force to protect actual "property"... To my knowledge, there is no justifiable defense to use force to save your TV or personal effects in NY.

Correct. You may not use deadly force to prevent damage to your property. Someone could be smashing every window in your home or car and you are not justified. The only exception is arson or attempted arson. Arson applies to your dwelling only, not your vehicle.

 

[spat]

Correct. You may not use deadly force to prevent damage to your property. Someone could be smashing every window in your home or car and you are not justified. The only exception is arson or attempted arson. Arson applies to your dwelling only, not your vehicle.

Depending on the circumstances that guy smashing the window could constitute a threat to your family.

A riot like we have been discussing, and a crowd smashing windows to gain entry could likely meet that standard.

I do not believe you are correct about arson not applying to a vehicle. I believe that is fourth degree arson, a class E felony.

 

[Chevusa]

Depending on the circumstances that guy smashing the window could constitute a threat to your family.

A riot like we have been discussing, and a crowd smashing windows to gain entry could likely meet that standard.

I do not believe you are correct about arson not applying to a vehicle. I believe that is fourth degree arson, a class E felony.

That's correct, however arson is only a justifiable cause under Article 35 when it apples to a dwelling. Article 35 specifically states that.

 

[Chevusa]

Depending on the circumstances that guy smashing the window could constitute a threat to your family.

Remember, it must be a credible deadly physical threat. Just being scared is not justification. You may use force to stop the window smashing, but not deadly force.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Remember, it must be a credible deadly physical threat. Just being scared is not justification. You may use force to stop the window smashing, but not deadly force.

2 very different Hypothetical situations;

If I'm out running errands and I stop to get gas. While pumping gas 5 antifa guys come around the corner and start smashing my car WITH my kiddos inside. Yes they're probably getting shot if they don't immediately stop and follow my commands.

Similar situation, but no kiddos, I just have to back up and walk away.



Very similar scenarios but the difference is that on the first, my kids lives are in danger.

In the 2nd it's only my property and it's not life or death.

 

[spat]

Remember, it must be a credible deadly physical threat. Just being scared is not justification. You may use force to stop the window smashing, but not deadly force.

I don't think you'd have much trouble convincing a jury a reasonable person would be in fear of their life if there are a dozen hoodlums with deadly weapons trying to gain entry to your house in the middle of a full scale riot.

 

[Chevusa]

I don't think you'd have much trouble convincing a jury a reasonable person would be in fear of their life if there are a dozen hoodlums with deadly weapons trying to gain entry to your house in the middle of a full scale riot.

Probably not. But if it's just 1 or 2 you might have a problem. You're better off inviting them to come on in, then taking care of the problem.

Also what if the people breaking your windows were unarmed?

The thing I wonder is when deadly force is not authorized but they are destroying your property what would happen if you put someone at gunpoint and told them to leave your property? It's unlikely they would call the police to report you but what if they did or a neighbor saw and called?

 

[spat]

Remember, it must be a credible deadly physical threat. Just being scared is not justification. You may use force to stop the window smashing, but not deadly force.

Actually, I was just rereading article 35 because I questioned your arson interpretation, and you do not need to be in fear of your life. You may use DPF to stop burglary.

It would be a liability nightmare, but criminally the guy trying to break in is enough justification as long as the building is occupied.

I was also unable to find the section that you suggested limited the arson justification to dwellings.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I appreciate the compliment, but Im Irish so its only about 400lbs.


but, while I am sure gov agents are too busy to monitor the forums Id rather not post any tactics I may employ that could ever be used against me in a court of law in an unfortunate scenario where I had to use JUDPF (justified used of deadly physical force).

Was just a joke spurred by "gorilla" vs. "guerrilla"

 

[Varmint]

 

[Celt]

Was just a joke spurred by "gorilla" vs. "guerrilla"

LOL, I didn't even realize as I post mostly using voice to text.

But with that said I could get all silver back on some motherfuckers and rip their arms out of their sockets and beat them with them.

 

[ricklovin93]

Use this as motivation to start the pistol permit process

I really should start the process. I've been hoping the constitutional carry movement was going to gain more traction, but it hasn't, especially in this state. I still hate the idea of having to "register" any pistol you buy with the county.

@ricklovin93
I was thinking about taking my AR with me in my car. Not legal to have it loaded though so not sure if I will. Also don’t want it in the vehicle to be stolen when I’m not inside.
An AR pistol with folding brace would be perfect. Can carry it with you in a backpack loaded and take it into a store with you. Set the bag in your cart. Nobody will even notice.

I've considered keeping my cheaper AR in the car, with some mags easily accessible (the legality of that is muddy waters). With a coated steel cable, and a quick unlocking combination lock, bolted to the car for security. My back seat is always folded down, so you would never see an AR stuffed in between the seats.

But you're still in deep if the car gets stolen with the AR in it.

 

[Chevusa]

Actually, I was just rereading article 35 because I questioned your arson interpretation, and you do not need to be in fear of your life. You may use DPF to stop burglary.

You're right, but someone damaging your home (breaking windows) is not burglary. Just going by the letter of the written law here.

I was also unable to find the section that you suggested limited the arson justification to dwellings.

It is only authorized in defense of your premises.

S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and
in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or
she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate
what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted
commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises.
Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly
physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for
such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably
believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson.

4. As used in this section, the following terms have the following
meanings:
(a) The terms "premises," "building" and "dwelling" have the meanings
prescribed in section 140.00;

S 140.00 Criminal trespass and burglary; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. "Premises" includes the term "building," as defined herein, and any
real property.

As you can now see, cars are off limits where the law is concerned.

 

[E the massive]

We had a town meeting. This guy drew the short straw.

 

[spat]

You're right, but someone damaging your home (breaking windows) is not burglary. Just going by the letter of the written law here.

It is only authorized in defense of your premises.

S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and
in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or
she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate
what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted
commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises.
Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly
physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for
such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably
believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson.

4. As used in this section, the following terms have the following
meanings:
(a) The terms "premises," "building" and "dwelling" have the meanings
prescribed in section 140.00;

S 140.00 Criminal trespass and burglary; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. "Premises" includes the term "building," as defined herein, and any
real property.

As you can now see, cars are off limits where the law is concerned.

Just breaking windows as vandalism no, but breaking windows in an attempt to gain entry would qualify.

What the dead guy's motive was could be hard to prove.

 

[Chevusa]

Just breaking windows as vandalism no, but breaking windows in an attempt to gain entry would qualify.

What the dead guy's motive was could be hard to prove.

Right but as I said I’m just going by the written law.

 

[spat]

Right but as I said I’m just going by the written law.

I think that's why the old joke goes "make sure he falls in and not out"...

If he's actually inside there is a lot less ambiguity.

 

[Cavalry]

I live in south central bumfuck. If there are 1000 protesters (or even 10) something very wrong has happened with society. If I can see you from my porch its game on. With plenty of like minded neighbors I think the only decision would be do we want to use the excavator or the dozer?

 

[Robin]

 

[Xae289]

Correct. You may not use deadly force to prevent damage to your property. Someone could be smashing every window in your home or car and you are not justified. The only exception is arson or attempted arson. Arson applies to your dwelling only, not your vehicle.

It does seem like it applies to others' dwellings as well since it doesn't specifically say arson committed on your property. Which makes sense. Any reasonable person can assume they're saving a life by shooting someone with a molotov cocktail aimed at a residential home.

 

[Vapor]

A group of 1,000? Bug out time.


Something a bit less? 25? 50?

I live half in country. A riot in my little town is an old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn.

But say, bused in?

I'm watching the house from the tree line. I can get out through the woods to a road for escape if needed. If things go hot, come and get me and play on my own terrain.


Force them to hunt you and play your game by your rules if at all possible.

This is why I need nv/thermals...

 

[CaseHardened]

I'm worried about getting stuck in the middle of a "protest" while in my car.

We've seen those videos and they escalate so fast. I dont have a ccw permit, yet, and I often wonder what I would do if caught in the middle of an angry mob while stuck in my car, and they start breaking windows to get me out of the car. I've conisdered buying a dedicated 870 to keep in my vehicles. But I haven't found a good way to keep a shotgun secure AND easily accessible in a SHTF scenario.

Until now, the main reason I CC is defense against Road Rage.

Always allow extra space in traffic.

 

[Chevusa]

It does seem like it applies to others' dwellings as well since it doesn't specifically say arson committed on your property. Which makes sense. Any reasonable person can assume they're saving a life by shooting someone with a molotov cocktail aimed at a residential home.

Actually not true. If you read through all the definitions permitting to that section of law, you have to be in control of said building. Forget exact wording now, but it's there.

Edit for definition.
"2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein"

 

[Xae289]

Actually not true. If you read through all the definitions permitting to that section of law, you have to be in control of said building. Forget exact wording now, but it's there.

Edit for definition.
"2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein"

I went back to read Article 35 and it seems like 35.20.1 clearly states that you may use deadly physical force to prevent an arson to a premesis, seemingly irrespective of who owns it. Later, 35.20.2 outlines what kind of force you can use against someone causing damage to, or trespassing, on a premesis you are "in possession or control of... or...
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein".

Basically, it seems to me that 35.20.1 outlines what kind of force you can use to protect any premesis, whether you own it or not, and 35.20.2 outlines what kind of force you can use when you own or are allowed to be on. Both seem to allow deadly physical force to terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson.

This is, of course, all academic. If people are going down my street intending to burn my neighbors' homes to the ground, but for some reason have no interest in burning down mine and the police are nowhere to be found, I'm going to shoot them. Hopefully, in that scenario, my non-lawyer interpretation of NYPL 35.20.1 was correct, but if it wasn't, fires spread.

Here's a link to Article 35 so anyone can read it for themselves. Article 35 NY Penal Law | Defense of Justification | NY Laws

[Edit] It also seems that arson covers motor vehicles per Article 150 NYPL and that using a Molotov Cocktail like device constitutes arson in the first degree.

Article 150 | New York State Penal Law | Arson | NYS Laws

Article 150 - Arson in the fourth degree when he recklessly damages a building or motor vehicle by intentionally starting a fire

ypdcrime.com

 

[Jmac00]

If the cops are going to show up to arrest you, then it's unnecessary.

If it's necessary, there will be no cops.

exactly what I was going to reply with, if it gets to that point, the cops are not going to be the problem

 

[meketrefe]

Stay in communication with your neighbors, PD and have a plan.
Keep your cars filled and plan alternative routes if you have to leave.
Avoid going near a conflict unless it is brought upon you and there is no way to scape and avoid it.
Then in extremes one might need to defend his/her life and loved ones but lets hope it doesn't get to that situation
nobody wants to be in.

 

[Chevusa]

[Edit] It also seems that arson covers motor vehicles per Article 150 NYPL and that using a Molotov Cocktail like device constitutes arson in the first degree.

There's arson, then there's arson which may be prevented with deadly force. My previous post clearly breaks that down and shows you arson of a vehicle, which everyone knows is a crime, is not a qualifying event to apply deadly force. You can do whatever you want but I'm not going to prison for a car. I'll take my insurance check and go get another one.