A Lawyer Question

If a conservative person is at one of these peaceful protests and gets arrested for defending himself against an attack, could he have any legal recourse because the protesters are breaking so many laws? We see video every day where law enforcement stands idly by while protesters throw things at people and commit damage to property.

Still can’t find work?

Start looking at the lawsuits that are showing up in these cities and states. People are going for millions of dollars already.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Recourse against who?
Against the person that attacked you, sure if you suffered injury or property damage.
Against the state for what exactly, not anticipating the attack and preventing it? The only scenario that I can think of where you might get a yes is if your attacker was a police officer and even then only in a very specific and unlikely set of circumstances.
not a lawyer

No lawyer either, but I remember hearing the lawyer commentary on the Kyle Rittenhouse debate, and they made it sound like since the cops weren't enforcing the curfew for the protesters, that Kyle likely won't get in trouble for that particular portion.

Geezer said:

If a conservative person is at one of these peaceful protests and gets arrested for defending himself against an attack, could he have any legal recourse because the protesters are breaking so many laws? We see video every day where law enforcement stands idly by while protesters throw things at people and commit damage to property.

Click to expand...

I AM NOT A LAWYER BUT ...
I believe that the answer is "No", based on these documented observations:

• most DAs are woke com-symps or are under orders from one
• that protestors are rarely interfered with -- much less prosecuted -- works against you, not in your favor
• these days, a conservative "at one of these peaceful protests" is presumed by the law to intend to offer violent opposition to said otherwise peaceful event.

In short, that game is rigged -- bought and paid for. And the conservative opposition is the target. IMO, the best thing we can do is avoid and ignore them. (Until and unless, of course.)

Saying that, I anticipate a volley of "yeah buts".

Geezer said:

If a conservative person is at one of these peaceful protests and gets arrested for defending himself against an attack, could he have any legal recourse because the protesters are breaking so many laws? We see video every day where law enforcement stands idly by while protesters throw things at people and commit damage to property.

Click to expand...

Your discourse with your wife after she beans you in the head with a frying pan has no reason to be drug thru the the CFF minefield of opinions.

Seperate of the lawlessness in places where there are ongoing protests, the courts have ruled repeatedly that the police have no duty to protect you. Suing them for failure to protect you there won't grow legs.

An angle that might be useful is an affected homeowner or business owner pursuing the city government for failure to maintain the peace and actively supporting the behavior with their public statements. Shy of that, I doubt there's much standing for an injured person who injected themself into a protest. I think most places have laws about not being in a protest with a concealed weapon. Given the demonstrated grabby hands in Kenosha, going to a protest OC is only for those who have a lot of backup or the mental fortitude to stand one's ground followed by the willingness to suffer any fallout afterwards.

IANAL. If you defend yourself you will have to prove self-defense and that you were not acting in a provocative manner. Have 2 different views on video that clearly show you didn't provoke or you're toast.

JT said:

I AM NOT A LAWYER BUT ...
I believe that the answer is "No", based on these documented observations:

• most DAs are woke com-symps or are under orders from one
• that protestors are rarely interfered with -- much less prosecuted -- works against you, not in your favor
• these days, a conservative "at one of these peaceful protests" is presumed by the law to intend to offer violent opposition to said otherwise peaceful event.

In short, that game is rigged -- bought and paid for. And the conservative opposition is the target. IMO, the best thing we can do is avoid and ignore them. (Until and unless, of course.)

Saying that, I anticipate a volley of "yeah buts".

Click to expand...

"yeah buts". "yeah buts". "yeah buts".


Near as I could determine a volley is three. So there ya are.

Fight Back Foundation

Schattenreiter said:

"yeah buts". "yeah buts". "yeah buts".


Near as I could determine a volley is three. So there ya are.

Click to expand...

Your volley is weak, sir. While it is true that a volley is three shots, the number of members of the firing party is no less than three, so a volley will consist of at least nine shots total.

Go scrounge up a couple of friends (if you can) and then come back at me, bro.

JT said:

Your volley is weak, sir. While it is true that a volley is three shots, the number of members of the firing party is no less than three, so a volley will consist of at least nine shots total.

Go scrounge up a couple of friends (if you can) and then come back at me, bro.

Click to expand...

"yeah buts". "yeah buts". "yeah buts".
"yeah buts". "yeah buts". "yeah buts".
"yeah buts". "yeah buts". "yeah buts".

I see your volleys and raise you 2 volleys of three.
(slow day at work...)

rdinatal said:

"yeah buts". "yeah buts". "yeah buts".
"yeah buts". "yeah buts". "yeah buts".
"yeah buts". "yeah buts". "yeah buts".

I see your volleys and raise you 2 volleys of three.
(slow day at work...)

Click to expand...

I hope that @Schattenreiter appreciates the reach-around.

JT said:

Your volley is weak, sir. While it is true that a volley is three shots, the number of members of the firing party is no less than three, so a volley will consist of at least nine shots total.

Go scrounge up a couple of friends (if you can) and then come back at me, bro.

Click to expand...

Well since I don't have any artillery pieces that was the best I could do. And dont' axe me how this posted like this cause I don't know.






Three-volley salute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Not to be confused with 21-gun salute.

Sailors of the United States Navy, armed with M14s, form a rifle party and fire a volley salute on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln during a burial at sea ceremony.

"Three Volley Salute"

Menu
0:00
A US Army rifle party firing three volleys
Problems playing this file? See media help.
The three-volley salute is a ceremonial act performed at military funerals and sometimes also police funerals. The custom originates from the European dynastic wars, in which the fighting ceased so that the dead and wounded could be removed. After this was accomplished, three shots were fired into the air to signal that the battle could resume.[1]

It should not be confused with the 21-gun salute (or 19-gun or 17-gun, etc.) which is fired by a battery of artillery pieces.

Car0linab0y said:

IANAL.

Click to expand...

yeah.. hehehehe that's not how you're supposed to use an iPAD.

Gonna' have' say no due to the SC decision that they don't have to save you but you can rest assured any lawyer worth his salt will be putting the police dept., DA's office and the mayor on trial when you get to court.I hope a jury would have enough common sense to acquit.

SCOTUS has ruled that police do not have a duty to protect, defend, or help you.

While they are law enforcement officers, there is no timeframe specified for when they enforce a law.

poller said:

SCOTUS has ruled that police do not have a duty to protect, defend, or help you.

While they are law enforcement officers, there is no timeframe specified for when they enforce a law.

Click to expand...

I get that. But, you arrested me and there's video evidence of them breaking many laws while you do nothing.

You to the cop: "Why you arresting me? They breaking the law too"

Cop: "I only got one set of cuffs and you won the lottery."

DA: "Did you break the law?"

You: "Yes, but so did a bunch of other people and the cop didn't arrest them" (actus reas - guilty act)

DA: "Did you know you were breaking the law?"

You: "Yes, but those other people also knew they were breaking the law" (mens reas - guilty mind)

Judge & Jury: "Guilty!"

poller said:

You to the cop: "Why you arresting me? They breaking the law too"

Cop: "I only got one set of cuffs and you won the lottery."

DA: "Did you break the law?"

You: "Yes, but so did a bunch of other people and the cop didn't arrest them" (actus reas - guilty act)

DA: "Did you know you were breaking the law?"

You: "Yes, but those other people also knew they were breaking the law" (mens reas - guilty mind)

Judge & Jury: "Guilty!"

Click to expand...

If this guy had an attorney he'd be objecting. He'd also have counseled his client to plead the 5th.

Timfoilhat said:

If this guy had an attorney he'd be objecting. He'd also have counseled his client to plead the 5th.

Click to expand...

Just as the DA would object to any discussion of what the cop or other unrelated parties were doing, as they are not relevant to the issues at hand.

The example above was used to point out the relevant legal issues: actus reas and mens reas. That is, did the accused commit an illegal act, and did they have knowledge and intent to commit the act? What the LEO or other unrelated parties were doing at the same point in time is not relevant.

While you can be morally indignant about selective enforcement of the law, selective enforcement is usually not a legal issue. Where it becomes a legal issue is when it becomes a case of discrimination or abuse of civil rights. I.e., LEOs enforce the law only for a specific class of people (blacks, for instance, but not whites; or those on one side of an issue, but not those on the other side of an issue).

poller said:

Just as the DA would object to any discussion of what the cop or other unrelated parties were doing, as they are not relevant to the issues at hand.

The example above was used to point out the relevant legal issues: actus reas and mens reas. That is, did the accused commit an illegal act, and did they have knowledge and intent to commit the act? What the LEO or other unrelated parties were doing at the same point in time is not relevant.

While you can be morally indignant about selective enforcement of the law, selective enforcement is usually not a legal issue. Where it becomes a legal issue is when it becomes a case of discrimination or abuse of civil rights. I.e., LEOs enforce the law only for a specific class of people (blacks, for instance, but not whites; or those on one side of an issue, but not those on the other side of an issue).

Click to expand...

If we're sticking to the original question, an arrested based upon self defense while attending a protest, I think the defense attorney would very much be arguing the police not doing their jobs is relevant to the case and should be admissible testimony as it sets the stage for the clients defense. That said, it might open a lot of doors for the DA to do his job allowing him to attack from different angles and paint the accused as negligent for being there and in violation of other laws concerning being armed while protesting or attending a protest (laws on this vary from place to place.) I think this issue might see some form of doctrine of competing harms type defense for the accused. I can't say that's a successful strategy, but it might provide enough to prevent a jury from unanomously agreeing with the prosecution.

Best idea is to stay out of it if you can.

It would be tough in NC. You cannot legally carry a firearm on public property (like a street or sidewalk) while observing any political demonstration. So you might get away with self defense, but you also might get hit with charges for an illegally carried gun.

§ 14-277.2. Weapons at parades, etc., prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person participating in, affiliated with, or present as a spectator at any parade, funeral procession, picket line, or demonstration upon any private health care facility or upon any public place owned or under the control of the State or any of its political subdivisions to willfully or intentionally possess or have immediate access to any dangerous weapon. Violation of this subsection shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor. It shall be presumed that any rifle or gun carried on a rack in a pickup truck at a holiday parade or in a funeral procession does not violate the terms of this act.
...
(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to concealed carry of a handgun at a parade or funeral procession by a person with a valid permit...

Having a concealed carry license allows you to carry at funeral processions and parades, but not demonstrations. You would still be illegally carrying a gun at the time you defend yourself if you happened to be present at or looking in the direction of the "demonstration".
As @JT , @Timfoilhat , @Car0linab0y are getting at - you knowingly went to a blue-city "justifiable protest" with a weapon tucked away, probably looking for trouble because you are a deplorable racist and you just wanted to shoot a young black man. That you happened to shoot a sponsored white career-felon who was trying to split your head open with a brick is entirely irrelevant to your motive, which was evil.

Timfoilhat said:

If we're sticking to the original question, an arrested based upon self defense while attending a protest

Click to expand...

What @Geezer actual asked was:

If a conservative person is at one of these peaceful protests and gets arrested for defending himself against an attack, could he have any legal recourse because the protesters are breaking so many laws?

Click to expand...

Once again, whether the guy next to you is illegally picking his nose (and was or was not arrested for it) is not relevant to the question of whether or not you properly used deadly force in a self defense situation.

The classic example is:

1. Rioter points a gun at you
2. You shoot rioter - classic legal self defense (ignoring weapon at demonstration laws)
3. Rioter falls to ground and you shoot him a second time - now it may no longer be legal self defense as the rioter may not have presented a deadly threat to you

This is the exact situation that Kyle Rittenhouse found himself in with Gaige Grosskreutz. Once Grosskruetz was injured and wasn't pointing the weapon at Kyle, Grosskruetz no longer presented a deadly threat. That Grosskruetz (or anyone else in close proximity) had seconds earlier potentially committed multiple felonies is not relevant to the legal issue of self defense.

Best idea is to stay out of it if you can.

Click to expand...

Amen, Brother!

To clarify what I was getting at, if I had a good attorney he/she would point out that law enforcement did absolutely nothing while watching the protesters destroy private and public property. I get arrested for defending myself, isn't that selective enforcement of the law?

And, I agree the best plan is to avoid the situation all together. But, we have seen where the situation comes to you, ie: mobs coming into restaurants and assaulting diners.

Geezer said:

To clarify what I was getting at, if I had a good attorney he/she would point out that law enforcement did absolutely nothing while watching the protesters destroy private and public property. I get arrested for defending myself, isn't that selective enforcement of the law?

And, I agree the best plan is to avoid the situation all together. But, we have seen where the situation comes to you, ie: mobs coming into restaurants and assaulting diners.

Click to expand...

we've also see them break down iron gates and go into neighborhoods

poller said:

What @Geezer actual asked was:

Once again, whether the guy next to you is illegally picking his nose (and was or was not arrested for it) is not relevant to the question of whether or not you properly used deadly force in a self defense situation.

The classic example is:

1. Rioter points a gun at you
2. You shoot rioter - classic legal self defense (ignoring weapon at demonstration laws)
3. Rioter falls to ground and you shoot him a second time - now it may no longer be legal self defense as the rioter may not have presented a deadly threat to you

This is the exact situation that Kyle Rittenhouse found himself in with Gaige Grosskreutz. Once Grosskruetz was injured and wasn't pointing the weapon at Kyle, Grosskruetz no longer presented a deadly threat. That Grosskruetz (or anyone else in close proximity) had seconds earlier potentially committed multiple felonies is not relevant to the legal issue of self defense.



Amen, Brother!

Click to expand...

NOW I see where you're coming from.

Geezer said:

But, we have seen where the situation comes to you, ie: mobs coming into restaurants and assaulting diners.

Click to expand...

I have the same question, you are at dinner with your wife and a crowd of 'peaceful protesters' destroy your table, throw food/drink/tableware and physically attack (hit,spit, etc) you or your wife....what options are out there besides the obvious one.

ppirate said:

I have the same question, you are at dinner with your wife and a crowd of 'peaceful protesters' destroy your table, throw food/drink/tableware and physically attack (hit,spit, etc) you or your wife....what options are out there besides the obvious one.

Click to expand...

When I had a carry permit (still waiting for Meck to issue since my move) I carried a knife, a flashlight with a crenulated bezel, mace (Fox labs), and a pistol. This gives you options that aren't lethal. It also gives you options that can stay in your pockets if you have to go someplace where the doos are posted.
I do suggest some classes on how to use this stuff.

I also suggest https://lawofselfdefense.com/shop-losd/ know the law. Author has classes and is a SME.