Your Rules of Engagement - Rioters threaten to move to suburbs

[TXAZ]

We live 20+ miles from a major Texas urban center that has been making the news. There was a specific threat yesterday about certain groups coming to a location very close to us then move the riots to the suburbs from there.

So...this is becoming much closer to home.

Without getting into politics (please!), what are your considerations / rules of engagement in a civil insurrection environment?
Previously I've never really considered:

The local PD *not* responding. (They have an incredibly fast average response time)
Large groups of rowdies coming down the street with or without weapons.

Any objective feedback appreciated.

[Sharkbite]

Ive put some thought into this topic.

You can defend yourself against a deadly attack with deadly force. A brick thrown into your head constitutes a deadly threat

A fire bomb thrown into/onto my house constitutes a deadly threat to me and my family. The same hold true for one thrown onto my neighbors house.

Now, in my state there is a “castle doctrine” and a “Stand your ground” type law in place. So, i have no duty to retreat, and can protect my home from attack. YMMV

[Pahoo]

What's that old saying about the presence of; Sheep, Sheep herders and Sheep-dogs. I guess I'm a Sheep-Dog. …..

Woof-Woof and;
Be Safe !!!!

[Aguila Blanca]

Do you have an attorney you can call and ask for guidance?

Failing that, dredge up and read the Texas statutes on the use of deadly force. Read CAREFULLY. You are likely not going to be in a situation where anything other than deadly force on your part is involved. This isn't a one-on-one argument threat devolves from name calling to nose punching. This is a riot.

In Texas, I believe, you are allowed to use deadly force at night to protect property. Confirm that. Next up -- look up "arson" in the Texas penal code. Most likely, I expect you'll find that arson is a felony. Throwing Molotov cocktails at occupied dwellings is arson according to my understanding. Are you allowed to use deadly force to resist or prevent a felony?

Lastly, assess your personal views very carefully. If worst comes to worst, are you (a) willing to shoot someone who is threatening your home? Knowing that if you shoot one, you may have to shoot a dozen or more?

And are you willing to take the chance that if you have to shoot some rioters, you may be arrested? You may or may not be cleared -- eventually -- but if you start shooting people, you have to face the reality that you may be arrested. Are you prepared for that possibility?

I don't know if that's much (or any) help. I hope it doesn't come to that for you. I'm sitting here hoping it doesn't come to that for me, because I honestly haven't yet answered for me the questions I just asked you.

[HiBC]

Laws have not changed. My personal ROE have not changed.

Deadly force is not for anger,punishment,revenge,etc. Property crimes,with the exception of an arson in progress,,do not jusify deadly force.(in my state)

I'm not looking for an excuse to shoot anyone.

But my home in my castle. I will not be invaded.

Years ago,I watched the live helicopter feed of what happened to Reginald Denny. He was dragged out of his truck and nearly killed.

It would be a grave mistake to begin smashing my pickup windows trying to get to me.

Its the same as always. When I have legitimate fear my life is in mortal danger,I have the right to defend myself.

There is no free fire zone on protestors. Its not a war,they are not enemy troops.

And they have no special permit to do me harm,no matter what justification they think they have.

No change to rules of engagement regarding deadly force and self defense.

The situation may have prompted you to consider what you have not consideres before. Its good to be prepared.

Its questionable to use internet opinion,or what I have chosen,as a good plan for you.

At the least,states vary. One way to get trined with straight information regarding self defense and deadly force would be to spend $60 or so on a concealed weapon training course.

Legal rights and responsibilities are an important part of the training.

Now,a whole 'nuther can of worms might be tactics during riot / mob conditions.

I'm not the guy and this isn't the thread. I think one sound tactic would be :Avoid being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'm not John Wicks. Even John Wicks would be in trouble in one of these mobs. A silly skate board to the back of your head makes tactics,mag capacity,and what gun moot.

[44 AMP]

Speaking generally and leaving aside FOR NOW, state laws which may modify things, generally you are justified using deadly force to respond to deadly force.

However, you are only justified using deadly force against the person(s) who are attacking you, NOT the people standing around watching, or even urging them on.

This does not change if there is a riot. Shooting into the crowd would almost certainly be a criminal offense (and barking stupid, but that's a different matter than the law).

Remember that you are personally, legally, and financially responsible for every round you fire. You might be justified dropping the brigand throwing a firebomb at your home, but you aren't justified shooting the 4 people near him who aren't holding firebombs (for example)

Another point to consider, at some point, the rule of law will return and your actions will be judged by people who were not there...and you will be held to the legal standards of your state, riot or no riot.

Tactically speaking, your home is your castle, but unless it actually is a castle, its probably not built to withstand an attack. If you don't have nice tall stone walls, a moat and a drawbridge, best to keep your dragon chained up unless you are already in gravest extreme.

Shooting to scare them off MIGHT work, but its also equally possible that it will simply attract the attention of the mob, AND, also might be seen as a provocative first act, in the courtroom that may come well afterwards.

There is no easy answer, no "do this, and all will be well" because until it happens you can't know what it will be. Your legal rights won't be changed, but there's a big difference between concern over what might happen in a court a few weeks (=/-) down the road and the possibility of your home becoming a smoking ruin and the injury or death of your family and yourself tonight!

Talk to a lawyer, and get a feel for what you generally can do, and what you should NOT do.

[RGRacing]

Great Question and Great Responses -
I am/was 11 blocks from the street/trash can fires Friday night in Mpls.
All these same questions were boiling in my brain.

Do you to need to wait until the the cocktail is in the air or when their arm is cocked.

It was thought provoking to say the least.

Thanks

[Tom Servo]

Do you to need to wait until the the cocktail is in the air or when their arm is cocked.

Only you are going to be there to make the decision. It comes down to your own judgment and what you can explain to a grand jury.

[TXAZ]

Aguila Blanca, great points. Yes I've had a discussion with the attorney about drawing, pointing or heaven forbid shooting an attacker / intruder.
One other note from the lawyer:
' A 'good shoot' (3 angle video from CNN, Fox & your neighbor clearly showing you being brutally attacked, followed by your successful stopping the threat) is going to cost you $7-10K if you early exonerated, in legal fees to help avoid the minefield.

A 'bad shoot' will cost much more, and may involve losing your home, livelyhood, or freedom.

So my general attitude for firing a weapon (fun or in defense) is:

There's 2 things attached to every bullet:

1) An angry lawyer - not yours
2) A blank check - yours
Be careful what you shoot, threaten or attempt to intimidate while holding a weapon.

Good comments, not interested in shooting anyone, but as one moniker noted: I'm too old to take an a$$ whoopin' and too young to die.

I was really wondering where other people were on the issue.

Please continue the discussion!

[Double Naught Spy]

Yeah, I don't see where the ROE has changed in any appreciable way, only the potential threat level.

[buck460XVR]

Problem with the type of rioting/looting going on now is that a lot of it is mob mentality. Normally good folks getting caught up in the minute and busting a window 'cause everyone else is. Then add to that the innocent bystanders that are still peacefully protesting next to the window smashers. How many have seen the picture of the little girl that was maced? Could have just as well been a rubber bullet in the eye or a brick to her head. Had a nephew-in-law tear gassed when he tried to leave his apartment building to go somewhere safer in the state Capital on Saturday. My niece was with our family celebrating her grandmother's birthday and he stayed at home with the dog.

Seen a lot of crap on social media about folks chanting "cocked and locked...cocked and locked". Saw memes posted about guys with ARs in a hunting tripod stand over a baitpile of cellphone and iPads. It's one thing to protect yourself, your loved ones and your castle. It's another to think Vigilantism and get trigger happy.

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by buck460XVR

...

Seen a lot of crap on social media about folks chanting "cocked and locked...cocked and locked". Saw memes posted about guys with ARs in a hunting tripod stand over a baitpile of cellphone and iPads. It's one thing to protect yourself, your loved ones and your castle. It's another to think Vigilantism and get trigger happy.

These are the guys that the attorney noted have already sunk themselves before they pull the trigger, even on a 'good shoot':

They've shown (at least in the civil trial) they want to shoot (someone) and they shot their client, so they should be awarded $$$$$$, not to mention the grand jury taking a likely less tolerant look at the facts.

[JohnKSa]

Without getting into politics (please!), what are your considerations / rules of engagement in a civil insurrection environment?

NOTHING changes.

There is not a different set of laws for civil unrest.

You will still be responsible for abiding by all state, federal and local laws regarding the possession, carry and discharge of firearms and regarding the use of deadly force.

In Texas, I believe, you are allowed to use deadly force at night to protect property.

Yes, but it's complicated. I wrote it all out one time and it took pages to get it all explained thoroughly. It's on TFL somewhere.

Next up -- look up "arson" in the Texas penal code.

PREVENTING the imminent commission of arson is legal justification for use of deadly force in TX. Again, it's not that simple, one would be well-advised to read through the entire section of pertinent law and to ask for help from an attorney if it's not perfectly clear.

You can defend yourself against a deadly attack with deadly force. A brick thrown into your head constitutes a deadly threat.

It's just not that simple. If there's no real possibility that the brick can be thrown far enough to get to you, or if there's some solid barrier between you and the thrower that the brick likely wouldn't go through, then it's not a deadly threat.

Here's how it works. If you, through no fault of your own find yourself in a situation where you reasonably believe that you have no other reasonable option to prevent imminent serious injury or death other than to use deadly force, then you use deadly force--because there's no other reasonable option. Then you hope that the deadly force laws will keep you from going to jail for committing homicide or assault with a deadly weapon--that they will justify your action.

If you go into this thinking of the deadly force laws as a checklist that you can run down to find out if it's legal to shoot someone, you're going to likely get yourself in a lot of trouble because your mindset is all wrong and mindset is a CRITICAL part of justification for the use of deadly force.

Laws have not changed. My personal ROE have not changed.

Correct!

Do you to need to wait until the the cocktail is in the air or when their arm is cocked.

You need to leave when you see the mob unless that's absolutely not an option. Don't hang around until they get their molotov cocktails ready to go and then watch them light them if you can leave. Trying to take on a mob with small arms is a pretty rough proposition all the way around.

Yeah, I don't see where the ROE has changed in any appreciable way, only the potential threat level.

Correct!

Folks--EVERYTHING is on video these days. You will answer for EVERYTHING you do.

The laws are the same. The legal jeopardy is the same. Don't lose track of the idea that the deadly force justifications are to keep you alive when there's no other option. Don't start thinking that they're in place to give you police powers or to enable you to go out and do law enforcement's job.

[Hal]

Rent the movie - "The Sand Pebbles". Watch it and note what's taking place in that movie & what's taking place right now.

The opposition is just looking for an instance, any instance, that they can lie about & blow completely out of proportion.

Any shot taken is going to result in far more than what the legalities of the justice systems layout, It will have to hold up in the court of public opinion.

I've mentioned this numerous times here in the past - sooner or later, the rioters will figure out that burning down their own neighborhood does no good & they take it to the suburbs.

Well - welcome to that time.

Just keep in mind that - these so-called "protesters" are going to be heavily armed with cell phones for shooting videos & social media for "trying" your actions.

[BarryLee]

One thing to consider is the potential political aspect involved with shooting someone. A few years ago an acquaintance of mine was involved in a self defense shooting after he surprised a group of burglars. The Police arrived and conducted an initial investigation and told him he had nothing to worry about. A few days later he was arrested after the District Attorney's Office issued a warrant.

His attorney told him he would never be convicted based on the evidence, but because the burglar happened to be a member of a minority group and we are moving into an election cycle the DA was trying to appear as if he was doing the "Right" thing. Anyway, the process drug on for over a year until charges were finally dropped.

As you might guess this cost him a good bit of money and extreme stress. Also, even though all the local media covered the initial incident only one small paper with low circulation covered the final resolution.

[Sharkbite]

It's just not that simple. If there's no real possibility that the brick can be thrown far enough to get to you, or if there's some solid barrier between you and the thrower that the brick likely wouldn't go through, then it's not a deadly threat.

But my statement was “a brick thrown into Your head”. If they are too far away the brick wouldnt get to your head. Similarly, if a barrier prevented it reaching you it could not be thrown into your head. My statement precludes those situations from existing.

So, it is as simple as i stated. Nothing added, nothing deleted. Someone throwing a brick into your head is deadly force and deadly force could be used to defend against it.

[44 AMP]

"into" implies penetration. Absolutely deadly force. However, I don't think any of us would be able to respond in that situation. Also "thrown into your head" also implies it has already happened. and gives me a mental picture of someone trying to use deadly force to defend against a Second brick, while having the first brick sticking out of their skull...

Not a likely scenario, I'm thinking...

"thrown at" your head, and "thrown against" your head are slightly different situations and quite different than "thrown into your head".

[Erno86]

My absolute??? limit...is dry firing my choice of firearm, in front of my TV set every night.

No...I haven't shot my TV set out yet.

[Ignition Override]

Memphis has seen very little, if any apparent looting. The only demonstrations have been in their "safe spaces": downtown or Midtown Memphis.

With No violence, outer suburbs here have been calm.
No neighbors have discussed it, nor waitresses etc--none at all.

* Antifa Pansy Thugs and other true thugs realize how many people own either ARs, or AKs or just a handgun or a BPD: Biden- Pellet -Device, and are willing to immed. deploy them if any home were to be targeted.

Hal: the scenario you describe is certainly plausible, however to imagine them 'operating' so far from the "protection" or tolerance of the Democratic mayors in big cities would require an extremely effective and influential leadership, would it not?

[JohnKSa]

But my statement was “a brick thrown into Your head”. If they are too far away the brick wouldn’t get to your head. Similarly, if a barrier prevented it reaching you it could not be thrown into your head. My statement precludes those situations from existing.

So, it is as simple as i stated. Nothing added, nothing deleted. Someone throwing a brick into your head is deadly force and deadly force could be used to defend against it.

In the extremely simplified situation where you reasonably believe in advance of the throw (presumably because you are so close to the thrower) that thrown brick will go “into your head” then yes, a reasonable person would consider that to be an act that is likely to cause serious injury or death, and it would justify the use of deadly force to PREVENT the thrower from carrying out the action.

Someone simply throwing a bricks isn’t sufficient justification for use of deadly force. (I know you didn’t say that, but bear with me.) Even someone throwing bricks in your direction, even if they are aiming it at you, even if they say they are trying to hit you in the head isn’t so straightforward. If they’re far enough away that you can easily dodge, or if there’s no reason to believe they can reach you with the bricks, or no reason to believe they could hit you, or if there’s something between you and the brick thrower you can use as a barrier, then a reasonable person wouldn’t believe that the only option to prevent imminent death or serious injury was to shoot the thrower.

Ok, I realize you didn’t say that someone simply throwing bricks is grounds for shooting them. The reason I made a point of responding is that the legal use of deadly force is all about prevention. If you put yourself (or allow yourself to remain) in the middle of a situation where you’re so close to a potential threat that there’s no reasonable doubt that a thrown brick will end up going “into your head”, when prevention is the goal, there’s an obvious question a reasonable person would ask. “Why, if you are so concerned about your personal safety, did you remain so close to a potential threat when a relatively minor effort would put you out of the range of thrown bricks or put a barrier between you and the brick thrower?” etc. Reasonable people understand that persons carrying bricks to throw at others are not especially mobile and are relatively easy to avoid, the range of a thrown brick is somewhat limited given the heft of a brick, and that dodging a brick when it is thrown at anything other than very close range is not that terribly difficult.

Just to be clear, I’m talking about taking a big picture view from a purely pragmatic perspective. You want to prevent injury or death from thrown bricks, keep away from people throwing bricks. Very simple. You don’t need to shoot people to avoid getting hit in the head by thrown bricks—it’s easy to just to avoid those situations 99 times out of 100--maybe even more often than that. You don’t want someone with common sense to look at the situation after the fact and wonder why you did what you did to get yourself into such a pickle. You also don’t want to look back at a situation and realize that you could have solved the problem very simply without having to shoot anyone by not putting yourself in a jam in the first place.

I'm not saying there are no circumstances under which a person with a brick would pose a deadly threat that justified responding with deadly force, I'm just saying that we need to not focus in so narrowly on specific details that we miss the forest for staring at a particular tree. It's important to keep in mind that we don't just magically find ourselves in a situation, there are circumstances that lead up to it, and if those circumstances don't pass the smell test, then maybe that's not a good situation to use as an example of when deadly force is warranted.

People pare things down to these really oversimplified and clear situations (e.g. someone throwing a brick “into your head”) and then want to pretend like that’s a reasonable outcome of a common sense approach to personal safety, and also want to try to analyze it in isolation as if anyone would agree that a person who is concerned about self-defense is likely, during a period of widespread and heavily publicized civil unrest, to unexpectedly end up confronted with a brick-throwing threat at ranges so close that the only logical conclusion is that a thrown brick will cause a serious head injury and that only deadly force will extricate the innocent defender from the situation.

It’s almost always possible to “game” a situation where deadly force will appear justified, but if the situation being set up is so oversimplified as to be meaningless, the resulting conclusion is equally meaningless. The focus needs to be on real-world situations. More often than not, as in this case, a less narrowly focused/gamed/artificially constrained situation reveals that not only are many options open, actually getting into the artificial situation in the first place is logically inconsistent with the overall stated goal of remaining safe.

[Hal]

Hal: the scenario you describe is certainly plausible, however to imagine them 'operating' so far from the "protection" or tolerance of the Democratic mayors in big cities would require an extremely effective and influential leadership, would it not?

& the alternative is what? 22 different sites in 11 different cities - in every corner of the country - erupted in violence at pretty much the same time - - by chance?
I find that extremely difficult to accept.

[Sharkbite]

44AMP said...

Someone simply throwing a bricks isn’t sufficient justification for use of deadly force. (I know you didn’t say that, but bear with me.) Even someone throwing bricks in your direction, even if they are aiming it at you, even if they say they are trying to hit you in the head isn’t so straightforward. If they’re far enough away that you can easily dodge, or if there’s no reason to believe they can reach you with the bricks, or no reason to believe they could hit you, or if there’s something between you and the brick thrower you can use as a barrier, then a reasonable person wouldn’t believe that the only option to prevent imminent death or serious injury was to shoot the thrower.

We are back to talking about the 3 corner stones of all self-defense. ABILITY, OPPORTUNITY and INTENT. Without all 3 of those established as present... no self-defense is legal.


A guy without a brick, lacks the ABILITY to throw a brick
A guy a block away cant throw a brick that far... no OPPORTUNITY to hit me
A guy building a Brick retaining wall in my neighbors yard... no INTENT

But thats not what we are talking about. The context matters. An angry mob approaching and an individual runs up to the pile of bricks being used to build my neighbors retaining wall. He is now 20yards from me and throws it at me. He has met all 3 criteria.

Maybe bis first one misses and he is reaching for another...does he pose a deadly threat? I think yes.

We can talk about preclusion and other options all day long. The question was about “ROE’s” and using force to defend yourself under the current civil unrest.

I used “a brick thrown into your head.” as an example of a deadly threat, and it is.

ABILITY
OPPORTUNITY
INTENT

Same as any use of force, with or without riots

[JohnKSa]

I used “a brick thrown into your head.” as an example of a deadly threat, and it is.

ABILITY
OPPORTUNITY
INTENT

I've said several times that in the narrowly defined scenario you've created, deadly force would likely be justified. I don't think there's any practical benefit to you explaining again what I've already agreed with.

An angry mob approaching and an individual runs up to the pile of bricks being used to build my neighbors retaining wall.

I apologize in advance for injecting some reality into this “scenario-izing”, but if a mob is approaching, you need to be leaving—or at least taking cover. There is no way you’re going to be able to hold your position against a mob of people who are willing to close with and throw bricks at a person with a gun.

Ok, that aside, now, as script writers, we’ve given this attacker a ready supply of bricks within easy throwing distance and we’ve also written the script so that the defender has made the decision to try to fend off an “angry mob” with small arms rather than take the logical approach that a person truly concerned about safety would take--to get away from the danger. Yes, under those circumstances, if you let yourself get into this situation, you can go ahead and play out the situation using deadly force and hope things go well for you.

This is what I meant when I said that : “It’s almost always possible to “game” a situation where deadly force will appear justified, but if the situation being set up is so oversimplified or contrived as to be meaningless, the resulting conclusion is equally meaningless. The focus needs to be on real-world situations. More often than not, as in this case, a less narrowly focused/gamed/artificially constrained situation reveals that not only are many options open, actually getting into the artificial situation in the first place is logically inconsistent with the overall stated goal of remaining safe.

I do agree that if you can’t, (or won’t and are in a no duty to retreat state) get away from a person who is throwing bricks at you from a distance close enough to be a deadly threat, and there’s no other reasonable way to stop them, then it is probably legal to respond with deadly force. Keep in mind that you don’t get to be the sole arbiter of the meaning of “reasonable” and if your definition doesn’t agree with the authorities’ or a jury’s, things may get very unpleasant for you.

What I don’t agree with is the premise that the scenario is particularly realistic, and I have a general problem with the whole—“Wait while I come up with this specific and unlikely situation that I can then use to demonstrate that it could be legal to shoot someone throwing bricks at me.”

Deadly force laws are about prevention, and they provide a safety net for citizens who have no other options to save their lives. It’s a mistake to get into the mode of “scenario-izing” to set up carefully engineered situations where shooting could be legal. Deadly force laws aren’t supposed to be a “recipe for legally shooting people”, they’re there as a last resort for when things go terribly wrong.

Same as any use of force, with or without riots.

This is exactly the correct answer. Riots do not change the rules. Exactly the same laws apply as always and in exactly the same ways as always.

And, lest we fall into the trap of thinking that this is all nit-picking, here's a guy who thought his gun would keep him safe so he took it with him to confront protesters. He apparently got overwhelmed by the situation, pointed his gun at someone when he didn't have sufficient justification, and now he's been arrested and charged with aggravated assault/assault with a deadly weapon.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...rrest/2374054/

If you are really worried about your safety, take yourself away from the danger if at all possible. Don't let things develop into a no-win situation. Don't wait around within throwing distance of piles of bricks during a riot because you think you can just shoot if someone starts picking them up to throw at you. It's much better to not be in that situation in the first place.

And, most of all, don't get into the mindset that deadly force laws are a checklist that you can run down and if all the right boxes are checked (A box? Check. O box? Check. I box? Check! Shoot!), you get to shoot someone. That's not what they are there for, and taking that kind of mindset can lead to all kinds of problems.

[Sharkbite]

I apologize in advance for injecting some reality into this “scenario-izing”, but if a mob is approaching, you need to be leaving—or at least taking cover. There is no way you’re going to be able to hold your position against a mob of people who are willing to close with and throw bricks at a person with a gun.

I would point out the Korean shop owners in the Olympic/Union area of Los Angeles during the “Rodney King” riots in 1992. They did EXACTLY that. Stood their ground and held off a mob that would have certainly looted and burned that neighborhood.

So, this is not some far fetched wild movie script. We’ve seen it live on the news.

Those who dont study history are doomed to repeat it....And im done with this one.

[JohnKSa]

They did EXACTLY that.

First, you set up this very specific scenario that justifies the outcome you wish to achieve, now you want to generalize it when I comment on it exactly as you set it up to be.

What I said was: "There is no way you’re going to be able to hold your position against a mob of people who are willing to close with and throw bricks at a person with a gun." That was exactly the scenario you devised.

The shopkeepers did something very roughly similar, but not 'exactly' that by any means. In fact it was very different.

Clearly that wasn't the situation with the shopkeepers or one of two things would have happened. They would have been overrun and killed, or they would have piled up bodies in front of their shops. In fact, neither of those things happened. As far as I know, not one of them was killed, and as far as has been reported, they never had to actually kill anyone to deter them.

For one thing, they were operating from rooftops where they were mostly out of range of thrown projectiles. Very wise move for persons concerned about their personal safety, and it also means they are less likely to get "pushed into a corner" and be forced to shoot someone. Second, they were there in force, not just one person trying to stand down an angry brick-throwing mob on his own.

Those who dont study history are doomed to repeat it.

That is true, as far as it goes--although remembering it accurately is important.

However, this saying (that I just created) is more relevant to the discussion: "Those who scenario-ize unrealistic situations in an attempt to gain a practical understanding of the use of deadly force will fail to achieve their goal."

Again, I'm not nitpicking--understanding this is important. I provided an example of a person who thought that a gun would solve his problems because he either hadn't thought things through, or because he hadn't thought things through properlly. He put himself into a situation unwisely, didn't follow a reasonable plan and ended up paying the price. And he wasn't even attacked--he got rattled and he screwed up without even being put into the same kind of chilling scenario you created. It's important to keep the big picture in mind--critically important.

Really thinking through a successful defense scenario against a mob using small arms (as opposed to just picking one or two, dramatically oversimplified situations) is a good exercise--but it does not encourage one to be optimistic about the outcome. Yes, we can look at history and see how some successfully solved the problem in the past, but it's important to consider all the circumstances that worked in their favor. For example, being on the rooftops was very smart--a critical factor. But having a number of defenders supporting each other was also important. With just one defender, for example, the building could have been set on fire while the defender was distracted. And the whole scenario was critically dependent on no one being willing (or able) to shoot them since they were, of necessity forced to be exposed to be an effective deterrent.

Is it possible for brick-throwing to justify deadly force response? Yes. But that's not really a useful practical conclusion as I've explained a number of times. It is far more useful and instructive to think about how a situation could evolve to such a debacle and what steps could be taken along the way to prevent having to kill someone--and to keep from being in deadly danger in the first place. Rather than choosing/devising a scenario of questionable probability where deadly force is justified, it would be far wiser to look at the big picture and think about how a situation is realistically likely to come about, and what pitfalls, both legal and life-threatening could be hiding along the way.