Angry Father Confronts Cowardly Antifa Agitators Blocking the Street in Bloomington After They Make His Children Cry

US News & Politics RRSC
41

I’m sorry TWR but you’re just flat out wrong. The reasonable belief is on the part of the ACTOR, not the jury or yourself.

  • a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.

This isn’t about your perception or opinion or mine, it’s about the perception of the person acting in self defense. If the jury thinks he was justified in self defense, he goes free. Period. If you have thugs around your car and they have masks on and you “REASONABLY BELIEVE” that you’re in harms way, hit the gas.

Just a question though. Why on earth would this be different than fearing for your life and shooting someone? It’s the same standard of proof needed to convict you of a crime. If the jury believes you feared for your life, they will vote not guilty. If they feel like you were just being a prick to try to injure someone that was in your way, you’ll get charged.

1 Like
42

Fear fight or flight !
If your car and your kids are surrounded by masked scum and you know from their past that these scum have burnt cars assaulted citizens .
If you can’t flee you must fight or perish !
Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6 !

43

There’s no reason to put yourself on a path to prison when there has been no attack.

Neither legally nor morally do you have a necessary or excusable use of deadly force absent a clear threat of imminent grave bodily harm or death.

Simply blocking you in does not in any way justify the use of deadly force.

44

You’re dead wrong period here. There is no imminent or immediate deadly threat in this situation and the “reasonable person test” isn’t what you “feel” it’s what the police, prosecutor, and jury are willing to accept as a “reasonable belief that the threat is imminent, immediate, and the end result of not using deadly force will be grave bodily harm or death on the part of the defender or those he/she is defending”.

“I was scared they might attack” will put you in prison for 10-30 years or more.

45

You’ve just changed the bar and the scenario here.

In the scenario we’ve been discussing they are simply blocking the car in, they are not armed and they are not trying to break into the car.

Even simply banging on the vehicle with their hands would not meet the bar for the use of deadly force which is what you would be doing by accelerating into and through the crowd.

46

In your mind in that moment of time your perception is all there is and that is as real as it gets !
Roll the dice with your life I but can’t see any man taking the chance with their kids life’s .

1 Like
47

Panic is not a substitute for lawful and reasonable actions.

If you’re going to use deadly force you better make damned sure it’s reasonable and lawful.

Your car/truck is a relatively safe place particularly as long as those surrounding you are unarmed.

48

image
“I got little kids, and you’re scaring them to death,” Clapper said.
He said he turned onto the street looking for a place to park for the market, and suddenly he saw a “mob” of people, about half of them dressed in the antifa uniform of all black clothing and covered faces, blocking the street and scaring his 6- and 8-year-old sons.
Abby Ang, who is an activist in No Space for Hate and was not dressed in black with antifa, said the SUV seemed to appear out of nowhere.

Because the protesters were walking down the middle of streets, Ang said she thought traffic could be a problem but figured any issue would be more likely near the square where there are more cars.
image https://www.idsnews.com/article/2019/08/suv-at-antifa-no-space-for-hate-protesters-bloomington-farmers-market
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
You may wish to take a chance with your family but I know how fast anything can turn a thoughtless mob into a pack of killers .
Anyone in thous photos could have died from a hit in the head .

1 Like
49

What does that have to do with the scenario we’re discussing?

Nothing.

Unless there’s an actual imminent/immediate threat of grave bodily harm or death you cannot respond with deadly force in any state in the US without ending up in prison.

50

Bull your telling me that a policeman facing a man with a knife must let the man stab him before he can use deadly force .
What would that man have to witness before he could move his family to safety .
One of the scum throw a rock thru his window and rendering him unconscious ?

51

No I’m not.

Someone facing me with a knife and evil intent who closes to within 21’ is absolutely an imminent and immediate threat of grave bodily harm or death.

The same person absent the knife or other obvious weapon does not pose such a threat.

Unarmed people do not pose the same level of threat as armed people.

52

Look dude, you believe what you want. I quoted the law. It’s not up to the interpretation of the police or the prosecutor. It’s whether or not the jury believes that the driver reasonably believes force was necessary for self defense. No one’s talking about just randomly driving into a crowd because they’re blocking the street, we’re talking about a crowd of masked individuals surrounding your car and putting hands on it. If you don’t see a threat there, then I fear for your safety because it’s just stupidity.

For instance, a 68 year old man drove through protestors that were beating on his car… no charges. Police referred to him as the victim. There was another jackass that drove INTO the crowd because he was annoyed and he was charged with several misdemeanors such as reckless driving. That’s the reason why the litmus test of fear for your life is important. Any lawyer with a damn will invoke fear for life as a reason to take action in self defense. If I’m on the street and you surround my car and start beating on it, you’re putting yourself in harms way because I have no idea what your intent is and I’m not going to wait for you to break my window and pull me from the car. I have a 3,000 lb weapon and I’ll use it just like it was a .44 magnum to defend my family and myself.

2 Likes
53

You just changed the bar from people simply blocking your path to people attacking the car.

Who do you think decides whether or not your case ever gets to court to begin with? It’s the police and prosecutors.

You quoted the law but you didn’t even quote the proper law, you quoted the law relative to non deadly force.

You plow a car into protesters for any reason and you have just used deadly force.

54

BULLSHIT. You have NO IDEA what that person can do. . . and let’s be clear, we’re talking about a CROWD, not a single individual. . . but you’re telling me a person walking at you aggressively doesn’t give you the right to act in self defense? I’m trained very well in self defense and it makes me wise enough to know I’m not fighting anyone that I don’t absolutely HAVE to fight… you start cussing me and walking at me as though you’re going to attack… you’re getting the business end of my pistol.

1 Like
55

You keep moving the bar now with each subsequent post.

An unarmed person 21’ away yelling at you doesn’t pose a deadly threat unless he’s charging at you.

56

No sir. I changed NO bar… I never once referred to just driving into people for blocking the path. I’ve been talking about masked people surrounding your car from my first post in this thread. After all, the title of the thread is angry antifa agitators…

I’ve been very clear about fear for your life and you’ve been humping my leg and telling me I’ll go to prison… you’re just flat out wrong bud. If I believe my life is in danger, the only bar I have to clear if charges are brought is to convince the jury that I reasonably believed I was in danger… that’s the bar.

As to the law, you’re welcome to point out the difference. The bar is and always has been fear for your life. I quoted 9.31 because 9.32 refers to it… so here’s 9.32 as well.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31 ; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

57

Ok, we’re done. I’ve been consistent. You invented the 21’ nonsense and imjimo plainly stated a policeman facing a man with a knife…

You’re welcome to your opinion no matter how wrong it is. Back to my original post, if you surround my car as a masked group of Antifa protestors, be prepared to get run the hell over. It’s absolute STUPIDITY to NOT use that car as a deadly weapon to protect yourself. We’ve all seen what Antifa does and as much training as I have, I’m no match for a crowd… my car, however, IS.

58

Key part of the law.

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

The situation described does not meet the criteria.

There is no immediate or imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death in this scenario and thus no lawful use of deadly force to stop it.

59

This was your painted scenario to which I replied, no mention of a knife or other weapon.

60

By the way, you stated an unarmed person doesn’t pose a deadly threat… I said bullshit. They absolutely CAN pose a deadly threat which is why you err on the side of caution. Again, we’re not talking about a guy standing 21’ away minding his own business or just calling you an asshole… we’re talking about a THREAT… which going back to my original statement… masked people surrounding my car is a threat no matter what you think. Antifa is violent and I’ll not hesitate to use force to defend myself. The litmus test is whether or not I believe I need to use force and the jury will decide whether or not it was reasonable.