BLM confrontation: armed standoff outdoor diners in Louisville, KY

[Snake-Eyes]

It's not "brandishing" when they lay hands on you.
It's not "brandishing" if you are in fear for your life or someone you are protecting.

According to RECENT history, large groups of BurnLootMurder and auntie-fahs don't play nice with the unarmed or the elderly or the handicapped. Their own PRECEDENT is any reasonable person's basis of assessing the situation.

Once again, a bunch of thugs owe their ability to continue to breath unaided to the restraint excercised by peaceful citizens.

 

[Carl]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[wildrider666]

Ah, NO: the two "armed groups/persons" are not the same under the LAW!

A reminder: lawfully carrying a firearm only exists as long as the person's "conduct/actions" are lawful. We have the business patrons as peacefully enjoying the wares of the merchant at outside tables (lawful). The other "group" at some point transitioned to a "mob" with some of them openly armed and clearly in support of the ENTIRE MOBS ACTIONS as it escalated and became a mix of armed trespass, harrassment, damage to private property threats, assault whatever (unlawful). The armed people acting as part of that MOB are "No Longer legally armed" when they cross the line into criminal conduct directly or aiding and abetting. Those "armed folks in the Mob" are not justified if they tried to "protect" persons committing crimes.

No different then being the aggressor and provoking a fight, then pulling a gun when your ass is getting kicked.

 

[FrommerStop]

Ah, NO: the two "armed groups/persons" are not the same under the LAW!

A reminder: lawfully carrying a firearm only exists as long as the person's "conduct/actions" are lawful. We have the business patrons as peacefully enjoying the wares of the merchant at outside tables (lawful). The other "group" at some point transitioned to a "mob" with some of them openly armed and clearly in support of the ENTIRE MOBS ACTIONS as it escalated and became a mix of armed trespass, harrassment, damage to private property threats, assault whatever (unlawful). The armed people acting as part of that MOB are "No Longer legally armed" when they cross the line into criminal conduct directly or aiding and abetting. Those "armed folks in the Mob" are not justified if they tried to "protect" persons committing crimes.

No different then being the aggressor and provoking a fight, then pulling a gun when your ass is getting kicked.

You raised a good point. Do you by chance know how florida law applies relative to mob actions and self defense?
I know relative to blocking cars the laws have recently changed.

 

[wildrider666]

Mob or individual Threat(s) are only different in the magnitude of the Threat(s) presented against you. Obviously, the more people creating the Threats increases the disparity of their Threats/Force to your ability to defend yourself from grave bodily injury or death. For "me", the line in the sand moves towards an earlier/sooner engagement with my application of potentially lethal force based on my "perception" and I know I can clearly articulate exactly what I'm responding against. Holstered handguns and others on slings with muzzle up/down aren't a threat. Firearms held in hands low ready with muzzles held toward my direction ARE a Threat when combined with the totality of their actions. "Unarmed" Mob participants that are also threatening, verbally and acting physically aggressive in unision with the armed mob are in fact part of the overall Threat: They are NOT innocent bystandards nor social media "press" making phone vids or live streaming. Without playing scenario games, I'll know it when I preceived it. Yes, we are responsible for every round fired and where it goes/who it hits.

I will never be in a "Mexican Standoff". I will defensively extricate myself and loved ones before it boils to a use of force situation. I don't give a shit about appearances, property or trespass and I don't give a shit what assholes say or try to prevoke. However, If I clear leather: I'm justified (my perception) and I'm going to stop the Threat(s) with extreme prejudice to accomplish just that; no more, no less. Right or wrong, its always the dumbshit with zero situational awareness that leaves physical barriers (gets out of vehicle, moves toward mob) pulls a gun or weapon doesn't use it and gets jumped and thumped. If I'm using lethal force to defend myself and another civ tries to physically stop my defense; that person is a lethal Treat by attempting to increase my vulnerability and shifting the situation to enhance the BGs efforts. I'll engage that person(s) with the same lethal force.

Finally, don't be that guy doing the "bring it on/come get some" or flip the bird hand gestures. Shit like that can change the perception of your position from threatened victim to provocateur and escalator of conflict/violence. If you contribute to increase the adversarial situation, you to can loose your claim to being purely defensive.

I won't debate the above plans of action, they are mine and only I am responsible. The above is neither legal nor tactical advice to anyone. You do what ever you see fit. We also understand all the "what if" (lawyer, insurance, civil suit, DA, LE, making statements, criminal charges,...) B.S. and don't need to rehash that ad nauseam either.

 

[Rebel_Rider1969]

Here I figured out how to increase the odds