Inquiring minds wannna know…
Professor Jacobson has asked me to address whether such an act would be lawful as a justified act of self-defense…
In short, one would apply the usual five elements of a self-defense justification to evaluate such a use of force against others, just as in any other instance of self-defense. Those elements are, of course: innocence, imminence, proportionality, avoidance, and reasonableness.
When all required elements are present, the use of force was legally justified. If any required element is missing, whatever that use of force might have been it was not lawful self-defense.
The article is kind of a downer. As he explains it, you have to be innocent, and not in the midst of a crime yourself. The threat has to be imminent, and not something that you thought maybe the guy might do at some point in the future, if he thought of it. Your response has to be proportional, so if your are killing him, he had to be about to kill you, and not doing something minor like spitting at you. You have to have taken the opportunity to avoid it, so no walking toward the crowd with the hope they threaten you so you can kill them. And your assumptions have to be reasonable, so you can’t argue that because he looked at you wrong, you perceived a threat.
I find myself longing for the full Idiocracy world, where That Fuckin Tard Had It Comin’ would be a viable legal defense.
Stopping on a highway in a little econo-shitbox to see if there will be threatening conduct, when you may not be able to power through the crowd before your window is broken and you are pulled out, would not seem a viable strategy given how fast things could spiral out of control. But apparently unless there is a direct threat, you will not be allowed to mow them down until they take offensive action, with reasonably believable, imminent, and unavoidable, potentially lethal force.
Now before somebody jumps in with a brazen disregard for the authority of the state, made up of some cocky statement that they would do it anyway and just keep their mouth shut, or an assertion they would claim the crowd threatened them, bear in mind that Law Enforcement views Black Lives Matters as a pseudo-terrorist organization.
By now, you should know what that means. Where Black Lives Matters protests, covert surveillance follows, often both local and Federal, and they may not even coordinate, or be aware of each other.
That means trained photographers will be camouflaged in hides with sightlines to the entire protest body, with high-end SLR cameras and zoom lenses, taking high-res stills. Infiltrators will be walking among the protest with hidden 1080p body video systems hidden in clothing. Vehicular with hidden covert video mounted on the cars are assigned to drive by at regular intervals. All will be trained observers who know to grab plates and identifying information even as the shit is going down all around them. And all of that ignores aviation, which is everywhere these days, and especially around these protests.
If the Black Lives Matters protest has getaway cars that can speed criminals who shoot at cops from the scene (and it will), there will also be a sizable vehicular surveillance detachment loitering in a massive surveillance box set up around the protest, probably broken up into six car teams, waiting for orders via radio control to initiate a follow on anyone who did a serious crime. If you are near a city, there is probably additional phased coverage loitering about and available, covering specific sectors with both vehicular and probably foot at decision points like intersections, who will radio the direction of a target’s travel to the team. Even if you know what it looks like, it is difficult to spot in the middle of a panicked getaway when your amygdala is in high gear and everyone will look sketchy to you.
That means, as you innocently mow down twenty or thirty of those BLM cocksuckers like a big squishy speed bump, and then whistle a little ditty as you peel away with a smile and an amused glance in the rear view mirror at the carnage you’re leaving behind, a massive machine that is professionally trained to document it will be, probably reluctantly, getting your plate and vehicle description, taking photos as your car leaves, and taking video from ground level. The moment you break the perimeter of that surveillance box, it will be initiating a radio-controlled vehicular follow which you will not detect. You will be effortlessly handed off from signature-free vehicle to signature-free vehicle, and occasionally to foot at an intersection, all the way home. So you will not see just one car following you all the way home, and you may be alone except for pedestrians you drive by at times. And you will probably even have aviation in the form of Fed-planes, in the unlikely event you decide to run counter-surveillance detection routes to draw out any tails, and use counter-surveillance techniques to lose them. You will never lose the follow when there are planes calling it.
When you pull in your garage, hear the door shut behind you, let out a sigh of relief, and ponder how easy it was to get away, a static surveillance box is quietly being set up around your house, and the only question is how long it will take the police to create a parallel construction explaining how they innocently found their way to your front door through normal investigative means, given that no law enforcement officially had any surveillance assets deployed that day.
You can see why I do not like surveillance. The world is so much less fun with them around, and they seem to gravitate to the very places where they will disrupt the fun the most. They really threaten to put a crimp in the gaiety of what would otherwise be a glorious Apocalypse of spontaneous chaos and deadly destruction. Something has gotta give before it all comes down.
Basically what I hope you take from this is that you need to recalibrate your fun meter. Most of us have, at one time or another in our youth, learned what too much fun is. At some point, we were going along, and we entered the too much fun zone. The too much fun zone begins with a realization that you have never had this much fun before, and it is awesome. Very shortly thereafter, whether it was a trip to the ER, a ride in the back of a squad car, or some other adverse consequence, we gradually came to understand that when the fun got too much, we needed to dial things back, lest we have too much fun again. Unfortunately the world has changed since we last calibrated our too much fun meters, and we need to realize that, and recalibrate them based on this new information.
A Black Lives Matter protest, arrayed out on the highway thirty deep, as you are doing 70mph heading toward it in the Ford F350 you just got back from the shop with it’s new lift kit and steel brushguard/pushbar, is too much fun just waiting to happen. The only intelligent move will be to dial it back a notch. And believe me, I am not the responsible, mature type myself, but even I would avoid mowing down anyone under those circumstances. It is just too dangerous for you.
If you do not understand the extent of the surveillance state, or have any knowledge of their procedures or deployment, then you are lacking a vital element necessary to function in the Apocalypse. You have to assume you are always being watched, and you are especially being watched when an opportunity to have too much fun presents itself, because the watchers know where too much fun may happen, and they keep a close eye on those places specifically. Take note of that lesson. Process it, internalize it, and do not forget it.
At the site, it closed with this:
As a parting thought, there is nothing to prevent a legislature from defining the disorderly blockading of a public way as an act against which deadly defensive force can be used, such as by creating a legal presumption under such circumstances of a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. The large majority of states have already created such legal presumptions justifying the use of deadly defensive force in other contexts — particularly in the context of an intruder in the home.
I’ll leave moral concerns about such an approach to the moralists, but legally there is no barrier to such a law, and a solid argument could be made that it constitutes good public policy. After all, protestors would still be free to lawfully exercise their First Amendment rights, and it would foster public order and safety.
Perhaps it is time to write your legislators, or start a ballot initiative or referendum?
That sounds like an excellent idea.