"No good answer" hypothetical road block

[Rondog]

All I know is here in CO it's legal to carry a loaded handgun in your vehicle to defend yourself.

Title 18: Colorado allows a person to carry a firearm in a vehicle if its use is for lawful protection of such person or another's person or property. [C.R.S. 18-12-105(2)] Colorado law also allows a person to possess a handgun in a dwelling, place of business, or automobile. However, when you carry the weapon into your home, business, hotel room, etc. it must be in plain view. Local jurisdictions may not enact laws that restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon. [C.R.S. 18-12-105.6] The Act permits the nationwide carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and retired law enforcement officers and amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213) to exempt qualified current and retired law enforcement officers from state and local laws prohibiting the carry of concealed firearms.

Title 33: In accordance with Colorado wildlife laws, including C.R.S. 33-6-125, you may carry a weapon in your vehicle. However it is unlawful for any person, except a person authorized by law or by the division, to possess or have under his control any firearm, other than a pistol or revolver, in or on any motor vehicle unless the chamber of such firearm is unloaded. A "muzzle-loader" shall be considered unloaded if it is not primed, and, for such purpose, "primed" means having a percussion cap on the nipple or flint in the striker and powder in the flash pan.

[ghbucky]

It is rather telling that these type of events keep happening in places with rather strict self defense laws, isn't it?

In KY, the castle doctrine extends to my vehicle, so if someone tries to enter it with me inside, my justification is written into the state law.

Haven't seen any of this insanity happening in states with laws like that.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by ghbucky

It is rather telling that these type of events keep happening in places with rather strict self defense laws, isn't it?

In KY, the castle doctrine extends to my vehicle, so if someone tries to enter it with me inside, my justification is written into the state law.

Haven't seen any of this insanity happening in states with laws like that.

The argument we generally make as gun owners is just because something is a law doesn’t mean criminals will follow it. But the logic here seems to be that the criminals will know that castle doctrine applies to cars in certain states and therefore not attack car drivers for fear of retribution? Even if a person didn’t have a gun they have a car, and a car versus a person is often not a winning scenario for the person (heck we just had a thread where a member suggested police should run over knife wielding assailants rather than shoot them). Not to mention if the goal is to potentially incapacitate or kill the driver that can likely be done before the driver has a chance to react (if done with some care).

Personally I’m not convinced that criminals are choosing which states to commit these crimes based on standing concealed carry legislation or similar. I think those laws are important because I believe the right to self defense is fundamental, but I am not convinced it significantly discourages crime. If we’re going to compare Kentucky to the Middle East, Mexico, or the large metropolitan centers in the US that have significant crime I think we need to be realistic that there are more differences than just castle doctrine.

This week I’ve read on this forum that police should run over knife wielders, it’s best to flee the scene of the crime after a shooting to avoid prosecution, and now in this thread the OP has suggested wiring up some electric defense grid to the exterior of his car ala James Bond in Tomorrow Never Dies. I think maybe we all need to take a breath. Yes these are concerning times and no I don’t think preparedness is bad, but from my perspective we have run away with ourselves a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ghbucky]

Personally I’m not convinced that criminals are choosing which states to commit these crimes

The point you are missing is that these are not random criminals. These are organized 'protests'. These aren't 400 random people that all coincidentally decided that 4:00 on Friday would be a good time to show up at the intersection of 5th and main and block the street.

The rest of your point is valid though.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by ghbucky

The point you are missing is that these are not random criminals. These are organized 'protests'. These aren't 400 random people that all coincidentally decided that 4:00 on Friday would be a good time to show up at the intersection of 5th and main and block the street.

The rest of your point is valid though.

Not all of those 400 people are criminals. There are actual protestors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ghbucky]

People blocking the street without a permit to protest are criminals.

[TunnelRat]

Throughout history there have been protests in the streets, with or without permits. They aren’t generally treated as criminals until violence or property destruction occurs.

The first amendment is just as important as the second. If only permit approved protests were legal the government could just choose not to issue permits, effectively ending free speech. I don’t wish to live in Hong Kong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ghbucky]

until violence or property destruction occurs.

And that is exactly what this entire thread is talking about.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by ghbucky

And that is exactly what this entire thread is talking about.

Not all of the people that show up to the protests are violent criminals. That is what I’ve been talking about for the last two posts. And I didn’t bring them up, you did in Post #29.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ghbucky]

The people that break in your window and force you to make a decision on how to save yourself are self-evidently violent criminals.

Those are who I am talking about.

You seem to believe it is perfectly fine for people to block a public road with no permit. You are wrong, but you are free to believe whatever you want.

There are laws against that kind of activity.

[TunnelRat]

Those are who we were taking about. You then brought up any people that were at a protest and in the road. My point is and continues to be not everyone at a protest is a violent criminal, or even a criminal if you are protesting in the correct manner (yes even without a permit).

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-right...esters-rights/

You are right that people cannot block traffic indefinitely without likely being charged and arrested (though police generally allow some leeway).

My point is that just because someone is blocking traffic doesn’t mean they’re part of an organized team to slash your tires, box you in, and then rob and potentially kill you (as the scenario from the OP describes). Your point that they’re not randomized criminals is true, but that doesn’t mean that all of those 400 people want to drag you from your car.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ghbucky]

but that doesn’t mean that all of those 400 people want to drag you from your car.

I haven't seen anything in here to suggest that people believe that. However, it would be extremely foolish not to recognize that there are people who are doing exactly what we are talking about in protests. We've seen it happen before. It will happen again.

The point of this entire thread is what to do if you find yourself in that situation.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by ghbucky

I haven't seen anything in here to suggest that people believe that. However, it would be extremely foolish not to recognize that there are people who are doing exactly what we are talking about in protests. We've seen it happen before. It will happen again.

The point of this entire thread is what to do if you find yourself in that situation.

To be honest with you that’s exactly how your post came across to me originally.

As for has it happened, sure. My point from the beginning is the chances of that happening are pretty low and I think on the whole people are letting their imaginations go wild.

As Sharkbite mentioned there was a thread not long ago that did have some good discussion on this as well that might be worth the OP checking out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

Not all of those 400 people are criminals. There are actual protestors.

If their protest includes standing in the street to impede traffic, it's still lawless behavior, even if only to the level of a "civil infraction" (like jaywalking) rather then a "crime (as spelled out in the state's criminal code.

There's a reason civil disobedience is called "civil DISobedience" -- it's because it involves disobeying laws.

Many other states also have laws that say anyone participating in a felony that results in a death can be charged with murder for that death. The usual example is an armed robbery in which someone is killed. In that case, any and all accomplices, whether or not they actually pulled the trigger, can be charged with and tried for felony murder. I wonder how that might extend to a situation in which someone's vehicle is attacked and the driver has to run over a "peaceful protester" to escape. If the "peaceful protester" is killed, could the other 50 or 100 or 500 "peaceful protesters" be charged with his/her murder?

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

If their protest includes standing in the street to impede traffic, it's still lawless behavior, even if only to the level of a "civil infraction" (like jaywalking) rather then a "crime (as spelled out in the state's criminal code.

There's a reason civil disobedience is called "civil DISobedience" -- it's because it involves disobeying laws.

Right I covered that in a follow on post. My point in what you quoted, which I elaborated on later, was that there is a difference between people standing in a street and a team of attackers slashing a car’s tires, smashing the windows, and dragging out the occupant to either rob or kill him. Can people be part of both? Sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ghbucky]

If the "peaceful protester" is killed, could the other 50 or 100 or 500 "peaceful protesters" be charged with his/her murder?

Well, the people standing on the highway at night got some people killed in Washington state recently, as I recall. Did anyone get charged for that?

[ghbucky]

Oh, nope.

The driver was charged:

Kelete has been charged with vehicular homicide, vehicular assault and reckless driving. His bail is $1.2 million. He faces up to 13 years in prison.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by ghbucky

Oh, nope.

The driver was charged:

I’m gonna say that if you drive up an exit ramp and then through a highway closure (going on the shoulder around vehicles parked across the center) on a closed highway and are on video veering into running people that you’re likely the person who should hold the blame.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Free opinion: People who block interstates are hostis humani generis and should be treated as such.

[HiBC]

Tunnelrat:

I think I've been reasonably clear...

"No Good answer " includes that shooting people or running over people are certainly not good answers.
They are the worst of answers if there is any other choice.

Because we are kicking ideas around,not establishing procedures,I've considered my M-1 carbine as a good tool to have in the truck.So far,the carbine has stayed home. I do ride with a 1911.

IMO,you may have underemphasized my primary plan,which is to stay the hell away from any demonstrations,even if to show up in support of LEO's or the 2 A.

Rule One Dont drive toward "The wrong place at the wrong time"

That includes NOT getting my hackles up and saying "I ain't gonna let no protest keep me from getting a brisket sandwich"

Not bad,eh?

I used to practice the 180 degree emergency brake turn to where I could put my vehicle into a parking place. I can do a 1 lane dynamic U-turn.

Reversing direction of travel from toward trouble to away from trouble is pretty good.

Meet with your approval?

If I have my hubs in,to avoid hurting anyone,even the crazys,,I can make my own off road alternative escape route,maybe. Depends on situation and terrain.but a sane,rational option. The point being to NOT HURT ANYONE

Long ago,my brother had a problem with the dogs jumping up on the car when he came home.The claws were scratching the paint and it was not good dog manners.
He hooked a Model T coil up to the car body with a switch.
It worked like an electric fence. The tires were the insulators. If you bridged from the car body to ground,you got zapped.

Not James Bond. Real world experience. Sorry you missed it. Problem is those dogs and us okie kids did not have rubber soled tennis shoes on.

If the protestors were barefoot, I'd have a good non-lethal practical method to get people off my truck.

I certainly support first amendment rights to protest.

Have you,the media,politicians,and law enforcement lost the idea that it is not only the protestors that have rights,but I do,too?

Why is the protestors protest more protected than my right to be safe in my travels?
Lets not forget that recently a black woman with her child needed to be on her way and a "Protestor" shot her child dead.

What if you have a sick child or a woman in labor in your car, you need to get to the hospital,and you are blocked?

I'll tell you something else,quite alarming. I just went to youtube to retrieve video I watched within the last few weeks. A woman with a child in her car attacked.
EVERY SINGLE VIDEO of protestors attacking cars has been scrubbed. Gone.
The ONLY point of view documented on youtube now is crazy drivers slamming into innocent protestors.

This is the "history" being documented today.

In three years,it will be used to indoctrinate your children in school

Buy important books now. The paper ones. All digital history will be rewritten.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

Free opinion: People who block interstates are hostis humani generis and should be treated as such.

You can use Latin all you want. If you have no problem with someone driving onto a closed highway by going up an exit ramp, going around a vehicle blockade, and driving at full speed into the people on that interstate than I am not sure what to tell you. That is the story ghbucky and I have been discussing. That’s not the same as the situation being described by the OP, not by a long shot in my view.

I don’t want people standing on the interstate and as we’ve discussed it’s generally illegal to do so. That doesn’t mean I want people to run them over because I consider them the “enemy of mankind” (which is genuinely reserved for pirates, terrorists, and slave traders from what I can find).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by HiBC

Tunnelrat:

I think I've been reasonably clear...

"No Good answer " includes that shooting people or running over people are certainly not good answers.
They are the worst of answers if there is any other choice.

Because we are kicking ideas around,not establishing procedures,I've considered my M-1 carbine as a good tool to have in the truck.So far,the carbine has stayed home. I do ride with a 1911.

IMO,you may have underemphasized my primary plan,which is to stay the hell away from any demonstrations,even to show up in support of LEO's or the 2 A.

Rule One ont drive toward "The wrong place at the wrong time"

That includes NOT getting my hackles up and saying "I ain't gonna let no protest keep me from getting a brisket sandwich"

Not bad,eh?

I used to practice the 180 degree emergency brake turn to where I could put my vehicle into a parking place. I can do a 1 lane dynamic U-turn.

Reversing direction of travel from toward trouble to away from trouble is pretty good.

Meet with your approval?

If I have my hubs in,to avoid hurting anyone,even the crazys,,I can make my own off road alternative escape route,maybe. Depends on situation and terrain.but a sane,rational option. The point being to NOT HURT ANYONE

Long ago,my brother had a problem with the dogs jumping up on the car when he came home.Te claws were scratching the paint and it was not good dog manners.
He hooked a Model T coil up to the car body with a switch.
It worked like an electric fence. The ires were the insulators. If you bridged from the car body to ground,you got zapped.

Not James Bond. Real world experience. Sorry you missed it. Problem is those dogs and us okie kids did not have rubber soled tennis shoes on.

If the protestors were barefoot, I'd have a good non-lethal practical method to get people off my truck.

I certainly support first ammendment rights to protest.

Have you,the media,politicians,and law enforcement lost the idea that it is not only the protestors that have rights,but I do,too?

Why is the protestors protest more protected than my right to be safe in my travels?
Lets not forget that recently a black woman with her child needed to be on her way and a "Protestor" shot her child dead.

The only thing of yours I mentioned was the electric grid on the car and I then compared it to James Bond (Tomorrow Never Dies has a scene that is exactly what you describe). I said I thought people were letting their imaginations run wild and maybe we need to take a breath. If that’s unfair to you it is what it is. Not all opinions are ones that agree with each other (this would be a pretty boring forum otherwise). As for your brother and his dogs, the law tends to regard pain compliance with humans as different from that with dogs.

As for your rights, I don’t believe I’ve denied your rights at all. Heck I’ve barely directed any comments towards you. I don’t believe I’ve suggested your rights are less important, that’s a strawman argument in my opinion. I also can’t somehow answer for all of the media, politicians, or law enforcement as I’m none of those.

I didn’t start off my comments on this thread saying how dare you prepare to defend yourself. I said to you that you can drive on flat tires. Beyond that all I’ve done so far is suggest finding methods to secure a long gun in a car (and consider your local laws for firearm transportation) and point out that just because a person is standing in the road doesn’t inherently mean he or she is prepared to assault and or kill a driver (and those comments were directed at another member).

I find it interesting that many here use “protestor” in quotes. While we’re pointing out that indeed a number of protestors have been violent, I’d like to point out the thousands of protestors that haven’t been violent for every one protestor that has. After every mass shooting I see people on the left going around putting “good guy with a gun” in quotes. The mistake here on both sides is judging an entire group by the actions of a few, and frankly the number of people killed by mass shooters likely dwarfs those pulled out of a car by a mob. Does that mean I think the second amendment should go away? No, just like I don’t think every “protestor” is going to pull me from a car or that protesting without a permit should automatically result in an arrest. Pointing that out doesn’t seem controversial to me, but apparently not.

There are violent people in the world, I’m not so naive as to not realize that. The caution from me is that in our legal system a person has to demonstrate they are a threat before you can respond in kind (something I agree with). Obviously in the original scenario a threat exists, but as people bring up other scenarios each scenario has to be examined and if I don’t see a threat (such as the story posted by ghbucky), then I’ll say as much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ricklin]

Thanks for getting the truth out on that horrible incident. Unlike others who seemed bent on telling part of the story to further inflame tensions.

Please don't be part of the problem.

Shutting down Interstate 5 is not peaceful protest. That said some idiot who commits vehicular homicide will feel the full weight of our criminal justice system.
And that is as it should be.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don’t want people run over but if you protest on an interstate that is a forseeable outcome. And the economic damage caused by blocking off an interstate is substantially greater than pirates capturing a ship circa 1720s.

[TunnelRat]

Actually in terms of percentages it might be as large of an impact (depending on how long the highway is closed and the ship we’re discussing).

I’m not sure it’s a foreseeable outcome that people will drive up exit ramps, on closed highways, and around vehicle barricades. That said if you run people over as in that story then be prepared to have fun in court, just like the driver is currently having.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk