Charlottesville protests thread

[PhantOS]

i could beat an attacker to death with a chair but it isn't considered a conventional weapon either

also in cases where a vehicle is used to assault it's classified as assault with a deadly weapon

its 100 percent self defense to hit people with anything, including your car if they're trying to kill or hurt you.

beating an attacker isn't self defense under any circumstances. even if they try to fight you, fighting back beyond, like, shoving them away or subduing them with no permanent damage is outside the realm of self defense

however, they make exceptions if the attacker has a machine gun and you somehow manage to knock them out. however, if they have like a stick and attack you and you beat them up or break something they can still sue you

[Ad Bot]

[ultimamax]

as far as i know the only violent thing counter protesters did was tear down the statue without authorities consent.

I think you're thinking of a different statue. I don't believe the one in Charlottesville has been taken down yet. AFAIK there's a motion for the statue to be officially removed by the Charlottesville government or whatever.

[mod-man]

beating an attacker isn't self defense under any circumstances. even if they try to fight you, fighting back beyond, like, shoving them away or subduing them with no permanent damage is outside the realm of self defense

what makes you think this

I think you're thinking of a different statue. I don't believe the one in Charlottesville has been taken down yet. AFAIK there's a motion for the statue to be officially removed by the Charlottesville government or whatever.

oop, yeah you're right about that i was thinking of the statue in north carolina

[otto-san]

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

A defense to certain criminal charges involving force (e.g. murder).

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

[PhantOS]

what makes you think this

there are limits to self defense, you can read it on cornell's website. you only have the right to stand your ground as long as the aggressor is using deadly force and you remain a non-aggressor

going out of your way to beat the stuff out of an attacker after they are subdued/incapacitated legally makes you an aggressor and then they can use self-defense. so if, say, protesters are batting your hood with sticks and you decide to run them over and they start to scatter or run away, they are officially non-aggressors and you in the car are officially an aggressor. they can still be charged with the damage to your vehicle, but you'll be charged with assault and whatever happens after

[mod-man]

there are limits to self defense, you can read it on cornell's website. you only have the right to stand your ground as long as the aggressor is using deadly force and you remain a non-aggressor

going out of your way to beat the stuff out of an attacker after they are subdued/incapacitated legally makes you an aggressor and then they can use self-defense

oh well yeah in that case. i assumed the situation was someone was attacking you (threat on your life) while you were peacefully sitting in your car. even then you're in a car. just drive away lol

maybe a car wasnt involved

idk i saw that post and was like "wait what" but context understood

[PhantOS]

obviously driving away is the objectively best course of action, as nobody will be injured and you wouldn't have commit any crimes, and then you can sue whoever attacked you car.

what master matthew proposes is that if anyone scratches his car he now has the legal right to run over everyone in sight

[Nonnel]

Yes, signal an officer the middle of that stufffest
If the police had any presence none of this would have happened to begin with

If you're in the middle of a riot, get out of the riot and phone the police to give details of the people who hit your car. There's bound to be camera footage to go off of, too.

[beachbum111111]

what master matthew proposes is that if anyone scratches his car he now has the legal right to run over everyone in sight

Its a violating of the NAP

[Tactical Nuke]

If you're in the middle of a riot, get out of the riot and phone the police to give details of the people who hit your car. There's bound to be camera footage to go off of, too.

you're acting like getting out of a riot is like going to the local starbucks

[Deus Ex]

If you're in the middle of a riot, get out of the riot and phone the police to give details of the people who hit your car. There's bound to be camera footage to go off of, too.

You are adorable

[Drydess]

master matthew wants gta to be real life

[Nonnel]

you're acting like getting out of a riot is like going to the local starbucks

It may not be. I'm telling you that you don't have a legal right to run people over. I feel like I shouldn't have to say this.

[HellHound]

It may not be. I'm telling you that you don't have a legal right to run people over. I feel like I shouldn't have to say this.

would the situation change if the person threatening you was armed with a firearm? it might not even be obvious that a person is armed with a firearm.

[otto-san]

would the situation change if the person threatening you was armed with a firearm? it might not even be obvious that a person is armed with a firearm.

if there were obvious impending death then you would have a legal case. if they're just beating a lil on your car that isn't a case. if they are aiming guns at you threatening to shoot then that is probably legally justifiable. that being said, you could avoid this all together by evaluating options that don't involve running people over. not that there will always be an option, but people are saying these things as though it's the obvious response