so lets talk about riots, and tactics

[Chevusa]

I did just find something interesting that I was not aware of:

S 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in
preventing an escape.
4. ...
A private person acting on his or her own account may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.

So if someone robs a place or person you can shoot them to stop them from getting away? Wasn't expecting that.

 

[GOPerfect]

I did just find something interesting that I was not aware of:

S 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in
preventing an escape.
4. ...
A private person acting on his or her own account may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.

So if someone robs a place or person you can shoot them to stop them from getting away? Wasn't expecting that.

This is exactly what I'm talking about knowledge is power.

those that understand and know their rights are better off than those who do not.

many people that get jammed up with law enforcement is because they don't know their rights.

 

[CaseHardened]

Those of you that choose to live in rural areas are so wise !

I began with a new home, on an acre of land. Bordering on Conservation Land: Box Turtles, Chipmunks, Ancient Stone Fence.

Moon bat City Hall, but in the Northeast that is unavoidable.

Wife forced me to move to a tiny house on the Mass North Shore, well worn.

So now, although I'm in a "Good" Neighborhood, it just ain't the same

 

[tirwin1]

I did just find something interesting that I was not aware of:

S 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in
preventing an escape.
4. ...
A private person acting on his or her own account may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.

So if someone robs a place or person you can shoot them to stop them from getting away? Wasn't expecting that.

Interesting. While you might eventually be acquitted my sense is that if the average citizen were to shoot some someone in immediate flight (particularly in the back) they would face the full weight of the judicial system for a period of time. Bare minimum they would be faced with significant legal bills.

 

[Chevusa]

Interesting. While you might eventually be acquitted my sense is that if the average citizen were to shoot some someone in immediate flight (particularly in the back) they would face the full weight of the judicial system for a period of time. Bare minimum they would be faced with significant legal bills.

It all depends on police and DA. If your exact actions are permitted clearly in Article 35, there would be no justification for a charge. Keep in mind, they don't have to immediately charge you to figure out the rest later. They may choose to investigate the situation for a period of time before deciding that no charges are warranted.

 

[SomeSoldier]

I am not arguing one point or another. There are parts of article 35 specific to employment, for the most part article 35 is for all people.

All I want is for people to read it no it and understand it. This justification for the use of force is one of the most important documents a gun owner can know

And this is per state, so if you carry in PA. You better know their use of force laws, because I bet they differ a lot.

 

[SomeSoldier]

Interesting. While you might eventually be acquitted my sense is that if the average citizen were to shoot some someone in immediate flight (particularly in the back) they would face the full weight of the judicial system for a period of time. Bare minimum they would be faced with significant legal bills.

If you shot someone in the back as they were fleeing away from you towards a family member (say their occupied bedroom). I would be willing to bet you would have justification.

 

[Celt]

Interesting. While you might eventually be acquitted my sense is that if the average citizen were to shoot some someone in immediate flight (particularly in the back) they would face the full weight of the judicial system for a period of time. Bare minimum they would be faced with significant legal bills.

and you better be 110% certain they committed one of the violent crimes where you are allowed to use DPF. What if it turns out the DA decides not to charge the criminal with one of those crimes because they are more sympathetic to some poor soul who is less fortunate, and they have an axe to grind with private gun owners.

 

[Xae289]

Here we go again, all the NY gun forum legal experts.

Yea, I am sorry I got the topic so fixated on the letter of Article 35 instead of the more interesting conversation on tactics. I don't think I'm an expert and I'm definitely not giving legal advice or qualified in any way to do so. I got caught up wading through a law that is definitely confusing to a non-legal expert so as to to understand the limits of our right to self defense "by the book" here.

In practical terms, I do agree with everything you've said.

 

[tapper3]

Those of you that choose to live in rural areas are so wise !

I began with a new home, on an acre of land. Bordering on Conservation Land: Box Turtles, Chipmunks, Ancient Stone Fence.

Moon bat City Hall, but in the Northeast that is unavoidable.

Wife forced me to move to a tiny house on the Mass North Shore, well worn.

So now, although I'm in a "Good" Neighborhood, it just ain't the same

I feel for you, brother. But hang in there.

First 5 years of marriage we were on a 25 acre old farm. Then the wife said she was tired of driving 5 miles for a gallon of milk.

2nd 5 years of marriage we were in a suburb where I could piss after 3 beers and hit a neighbor's house. Then the wife said she missed living in the country.

25 years later happiness still reigns.

 

[togmaster]

Act like the rioters and act like you're on their side and make your way out.

That's why you should always carry shoe polish.

 

[Jmac00]

That's why you should always carry shoe polish.

ok, thats racist, and now Im forced to run out and loot a liqueur store...

 

[Bustedknees]

Correct. You may not use deadly force to prevent damage to your property. Someone could be smashing every window in your home or car and you are not justified. The only exception is arson or attempted arson. Arson applies to your dwelling only, not your vehicle.

Add fear of life to the situation.. then kill the f#$ker ..

 

[meketrefe]

Act like the rioters and act like you're on their side and make your way out.

Exactly. The most effective weapon in the world is not made of metal,
or aluminum or polymer but it is intelligence and information.

It is like police who are very good at undercover are not the ones who have the best
or most extensive training but perhaps the ones who are resourceful and street savvy.

 

[Chevusa]

Add fear of life to the situation.. then kill the f#$ker ..

Was that fear reasonable to the 12 jurors? You've got some selling to do.

 

[Cooolone]

Sorry, got a lot of catching up to do, lol. Didn't realize this thread got some wind and took off

Correct. You may not use deadly force to prevent damage to your property. Someone could be smashing every window in your home or car and you are not justified. The only exception is arson or attempted arson. Arson applies to your dwelling only, not your vehicle.

Hahaha, unless you're "in" that vehicle!

Just breaking windows as vandalism no, but breaking windows in an attempt to gain entry would qualify.

What the dead guy's motive was could be hard to prove.

One side to the story always wins!!! But to be sure, there are prosecutors in this State that would ask why you didn't turn and jump out your window to escape rather than take a life!

It does seem like it applies to others' dwellings as well since it doesn't specifically say arson committed on your property. Which makes sense. Any reasonable person can assume they're saving a life by shooting someone with a molotov cocktail aimed at a residential home.

Well... Like I noted above, and people like "BIDEN"... You'll be questioned as to why you didn't shoot the Molotov Cocktail "out of the hand" rather than kill... Lmao!

In regards to Article 35///

I think gun owners in New York State should do a bit more studying of this Article. One of the reasons Law Enforcement is able to "get away" with so much is because Article 35 is fully understood by all in the profession.

Do not just read it, learn it, research the article. Dig deep, many may be surprised at how much it protects all gun owners.

We all know that an average citizen is placed into a higher level of scrutiny when the use of DPF is used. But definitely agree, not many pay enough attention to it.

^^^This^^^ And snag a pack of gum to blend in.

Ummmmm, that pack of gum can get you killed, as entering a property during a riot to steal is stealing, and "en mass" with other rioters is not my place to determine your intent as being with the mass/group, you represent a deadly threat.

Just move, and keep moving, exit stage right, as soon as the opportunity presents itself, lol.

I did just find something interesting that I was not aware of:

S 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in
preventing an escape.
4. ...
A private person acting on his or her own account may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.

So if someone robs a place or person you can shoot them to stop them from getting away? Wasn't expecting that.

You're misquoting ... The use of force can not escalate in defense! Fist for fist, etc. This is the use of force, not deadly force! Deadly force is specifically prescribed and has narrow definition.

If the person has disengaged and is leaving, moving away from you, prescribing that they represented a "threat" would be extremely difficult! Just saying...

Is a good thread, and discussions along this line are generally helpful for a better understanding of your (our) legal obligations regarding the use of force. But I've posted it before and will reiterate here again. I don't like to "precondition" expectations or scenarios as to what, why, how it would be ok to do something when this or that happens. Because in "life" it doesn't usually work that way. A moment's hesitation to assess whether or not I'll get in trouble protecting myself could in essence, get me killed.

Bottom line is, when your Spidey senses is tingling, and or a deadly threat presents itself and you're in fear for your life, reaction is and should be immediate, animalistic, and prejudicial to ending the threat!!! Worry about all the other bullshit after, when you're hugging your loved ones!

Again, sorry for the long post, wanted to put my $.02 in the pot!

Carry on...

 

[Chevusa]

You're misquoting ... The use of force can not escalate in defense! Fist for fist, etc. This is the use of force, not deadly force! Deadly force is specifically prescribed and has narrow definition.

If the person has disengaged and is leaving, moving away from you, prescribing that they represented a "threat" would be extremely difficult! Just saying...

Nothing was misquoted. Not a single letter was typed from me. It is a direct copy and paste from the exact law. This is the last section of Article 35. It specifically says DPF is authorized in "making an arrest or in preventing an escape" on a person who "is in immediate flight therefrom" the listed crimes. That's clear as day. If you're in flight you're running away. It's there in writing for all to see. Read it a few times and let it sink in.

Article 35 has a few different sections. The first section covers a "threat" to yourself, like you suggested. This is in 35.30. It covers completely different things.

Link to 35.30

 

[Cooolone]

Well, I would love to see that exercised, use DPF on a fleeing person, in the back is even better! Let's see how that works out for you in New York! Best defense is going to be to say that's the way it's written, so you did it (applied your interpretation)!

Hey, don't forget to send us post cards lmao...

 

[Steal2B]

 

[GOYABEAN]

Get your inner riot on

Damascus Flexforce Riot Control Suit - FX1-MED

Outdoor, Law Enforcement, Military & Tactical Equipment, Hunting

www.bereli.com

 

[Jsmegs77]

Get your inner riot on

Damascus Flexforce Riot Control Suit - FX1-MED

Outdoor, Law Enforcement, Military & Tactical Equipment, Hunting

www.bereli.com

I'd answer the door in that.

 

[Vapor]

View attachment 75000

Lol just giving you a hard time.