Self-Defense and "Taking the Law into Your Own Hands"
- Thread starter Talyn
- Start date
jumpinjoe
Hellcat
Unfortunately what we're often seeing is that LEO's are not being allowed to protect the citizens, some even being told directly to 'stand down' and/or "well, just give them some space to destroy some stuff". That last quote is a paraphrase of the previous mayor of Chicago a few years ago, maybe it was Baltimore after the Freddy Gray incident. I just don't remember for certain ...... but it was in response to the riots after some such incident.
Let me be perfectly clear ...... I do not condone nor support any bad intentions and/or actions of LEO's, and believe they should be held fully accountable for those actions if/when intentional or through negligence. However, in no way, shape, form, or fashion should even the slightest amount or sign of rioting, vandalism, looting, or any other illegal actions by any apparently peaceful protestors be acceptable to any civilized citizenry or society.
On edit: Any event of illegal actions such as we've been seeing around the country these past few weeks should be met with 'like' reactions and stopped by any/all means required!!!
Last edited:
Keystone19250
SAINT
My opinion is that there is both a fine line and a broad gap in the differences in situations between (self defense) and
(Taking the law into your own hands)
Otherwise known as “vigilantism”
Self Defense.........
As mentioned above I am included in those that will be proactive in protecting myself and my family and friends from an individual/group intended on doing harm.
When thinking about projecting yourself into a situation that did not originally affect “you” then you might/could be viewed as a vigilante which could open the door for being held responsible if things go south.
(Taking the law into your own hands)
Otherwise known as “vigilantism”
Self Defense.........
As mentioned above I am included in those that will be proactive in protecting myself and my family and friends from an individual/group intended on doing harm.
When thinking about projecting yourself into a situation that did not originally affect “you” then you might/could be viewed as a vigilante which could open the door for being held responsible if things go south.
Peglegjoe
Professional
I think the difference is:
Self-defense: REactive.
Vigilantism: PROactive.
One is defense; one is offense. Vigilantes go out and hunt for bad guys to stop, and/or inject themselves into situations that did not come to them. i.e. scanner-listeners who hear about an incident, go seek it out, and get involved to try and stop the bad guy.
Self-defense? You're simply reacting to a bad guy(s) who came to you, in your space, to take your stuff (or safety, or loved ones), and you simply stand your ground.
Big difference.
Self-defense: REactive.
Vigilantism: PROactive.
One is defense; one is offense. Vigilantes go out and hunt for bad guys to stop, and/or inject themselves into situations that did not come to them. i.e. scanner-listeners who hear about an incident, go seek it out, and get involved to try and stop the bad guy.
Self-defense? You're simply reacting to a bad guy(s) who came to you, in your space, to take your stuff (or safety, or loved ones), and you simply stand your ground.
Big difference.
Keystone19250
SAINT
Agreed. I also believe that there is sometimes a fine line between taking the law into your own hands and vigilantism or at the least your trying to help and your perceived as being the aggressor.
My Opinion.
KillerFord1977
SAINT
Let them march down the street and protest. The minute they enter private property, it is no longer a protest but and act of aggression. Let the police handle the public domain. If the crowd enters your private property like they did in St Louis, then it becomes self defense. Self defense may be as mild as on your front porch drinking coffee with a not so happy dog sitting with you. Most folks steer clear of unhappy pooches.
wmg1299
Professional
I couldn't agree more. Gun owners can't catch a break from the mainstream media. I fail to see how exercising your God-given right to defend yourself and your property in any way qualifies as "taking the law into your own hands". It's sad to think that the media openly associates taking personal responsibility for your own needs with doing a job that should be reserved for the government. Sadly, we are not alone. The media treats homeschoolers the same way.
If you have to defend yourself or family outside of your home there is a high probability you are going to need a lawyer. Once I decided to conceal carry I also enrolled in a Conceal Carry Insurance program that offers a lawyer on call 24/7. I will use the incident in St. Louis that KillerFord1977 mentioned as an example. No matter how justified that couple was in displaying their weapons, they are now heavily involved in the criminal justice system. That couple is quite rich and can afford to hire lawyers, can you? I highly suggest finding a conceal carry insurance that fits your needs and pocketbook.
Peglegjoe
Professional
+1,000.
I also enrolled (US Law Shield) when I received my carry permit. No matter what you do, no matter who you are, no matter if you're right or wrong...you WILL get arrested, you WILL go to trial, and there WILL be both criminal and civil suits against you. Need proof? Kyle Rittenhouse. Clearly in the right, clearly defending himself while in fear for his life (which is corroborated by the statements from the survivor who is on record (and on film) saying he wanted to kill Rittenhouse)...still being railroaded by both the press, and by the legal system.
Because he had the nerve to not just roll over and let himself be killed.
I also enrolled (US Law Shield) when I received my carry permit. No matter what you do, no matter who you are, no matter if you're right or wrong...you WILL get arrested, you WILL go to trial, and there WILL be both criminal and civil suits against you. Need proof? Kyle Rittenhouse. Clearly in the right, clearly defending himself while in fear for his life (which is corroborated by the statements from the survivor who is on record (and on film) saying he wanted to kill Rittenhouse)...still being railroaded by both the press, and by the legal system.
Because he had the nerve to not just roll over and let himself be killed.
KillerFord1977
SAINT
Lets take the gun away from the occasion with Rittenhouse. Say he had a bat, or machete or even a homemade hand weapon of some sort. He put himself in a position to inject himself onto the scene. He drew the attention of the others on purpose to force their hand. Its like a sports fan sitting on the opposing sideline and yelling obscenities at the players and surrounding fans. It is going to draw attention and reaction in an unnatural way and force one into defensive mode. IMO that is what Rittenhouse did. He changed the dynamic from a casual observer who had to draw is gun in self defense because he got caught in the scene vs interjecting himself into the scene. Yes he fired in self defense, but he also brought that self defense situation upon himself. Very convoluted situation.
Just a little advice for everyone to which most already know:
Be careful of what you write on the internet on how you would react to being in a potential bad situation because if for some reason you are in said situation your comments can and will be used against you by the law and media. Law enforcement has a long reach and they have the means to track your history throughout the internet even if you think your being anonymous with not putting any personal info forward. Our comments online are eternal and they can and will be scrutinized & twisted to make a bad situation appear premeditated.
Be careful of what you write on the internet on how you would react to being in a potential bad situation because if for some reason you are in said situation your comments can and will be used against you by the law and media. Law enforcement has a long reach and they have the means to track your history throughout the internet even if you think your being anonymous with not putting any personal info forward. Our comments online are eternal and they can and will be scrutinized & twisted to make a bad situation appear premeditated.
Last edited:
So true.
D
Detonics
Guest
Very good thread, I do suggest to everyone to get some form of insurance, I personally recommend ( https://www.uslawshield.com ) Best choice and value, I have personally used them. or ( https://www.usconcealedcarry.com ) second choice.
And now for the BAD NEWS !!!! THE POLICE ARE NOT HERE TO PROTECT YOU !!!
04-278.pdf.
www.barneslawllp.com
Sorry to be the barer of bad news.
And now for the BAD NEWS !!!! THE POLICE ARE NOT HERE TO PROTECT YOU !!!
04-278.pdf.
The Police are Not Required to Protect You — Barnes Law
To Protect and to Serve” – the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us.
www.barneslawllp.com
Sorry to be the barer of bad news.
Peglegjoe
Professional
That is very true.
I disagree that Rittenhouse "injected" himself anywhere. He was helping clean graffiti off public buildings earlier that day (all on video), and as a trained EMT he was out that evening with his kit, as one of extremely few EMTs on site (and also a police trainee). If I recall from seeing the videos, he initially went to a car lot to try and tend to an injured person who had been shot, which is where he was first attacked, and fired his first shot before running.
Towards the police.
On the way, he tripped and fell, and was attacked (again) by the crowd.
Granted - no uniform. But, the kid was doing what he was training to do - trying to help people, in a bad situation. Yes, he was armed...and apparently, it's a good thing he was.
Once he got back up, he went directly to the police line where he surrendered himself and his weapon. Doesn't sound like someone "looking for trouble" to me. He broke the first rule of surviving a confrontation - "avoid the confrontation" - but since he's a trained EMT and was training to be a police officer...well...they're trained to run TO danger, unlike the rest of us. Should he have followed the buddy system? Yep. Should he be getting prosecuted for murder? No way.
And I'm fine going on record saying so. I know (and admire) entirely too many EMT's, trauma paramedics, police and fire personnel, to say anything bad about them, their chosen field, or the choices they are faced with every day. As far as I'm concerned, this kid (and he is a KID) was trying to do hero's work, and he got attacked for it. First responders have STONES...and this kid's got a monster pair of 'em. I hope he makes it through this, and can put them to good use, following through on his Responder training.
I disagree that Rittenhouse "injected" himself anywhere. He was helping clean graffiti off public buildings earlier that day (all on video), and as a trained EMT he was out that evening with his kit, as one of extremely few EMTs on site (and also a police trainee). If I recall from seeing the videos, he initially went to a car lot to try and tend to an injured person who had been shot, which is where he was first attacked, and fired his first shot before running.
Towards the police.
On the way, he tripped and fell, and was attacked (again) by the crowd.
Granted - no uniform. But, the kid was doing what he was training to do - trying to help people, in a bad situation. Yes, he was armed...and apparently, it's a good thing he was.
Once he got back up, he went directly to the police line where he surrendered himself and his weapon. Doesn't sound like someone "looking for trouble" to me. He broke the first rule of surviving a confrontation - "avoid the confrontation" - but since he's a trained EMT and was training to be a police officer...well...they're trained to run TO danger, unlike the rest of us. Should he have followed the buddy system? Yep. Should he be getting prosecuted for murder? No way.
And I'm fine going on record saying so. I know (and admire) entirely too many EMT's, trauma paramedics, police and fire personnel, to say anything bad about them, their chosen field, or the choices they are faced with every day. As far as I'm concerned, this kid (and he is a KID) was trying to do hero's work, and he got attacked for it. First responders have STONES...and this kid's got a monster pair of 'em. I hope he makes it through this, and can put them to good use, following through on his Responder training.
So true. It would be different if he was just there with the gun. He was there to do good deeds just had a gun to protect himself which he needed to save his life from bad people that where there to do bad things.
