This all reminded me of an old post, I couldn’t find it in my notes file, but I found it in the archives, from July 1st, 2020.

It was after (and in response to) a new BLM tactic was adopted, of surrounding white people (in their cars) in a mob, and then an individual assassin would shoot the white person and disappear into the mob:
.

Me: “Though I am not wavering in my support for DJT at all, I am convinced he is doing what is necessary to save the Republic.
 
I am likewise convinced that, in large part, we’re on our own, until the election.

 And since we have been effectively abandoned (for whatever reason, good or not), along with the rule of law effectively being abandoned, and since the domestic terrorists are targeting regular Americans, to harass and assault and now to murder us, doing this to ordinary Americans who are simply going about their regular daily lives, it seems prudent to acknowledge what is happening now, how the terrorist mob’s tactics have escalated to murder (certainly attempted murder), and consider how to deal with such a situation if we are so unfortunate to find ourselves confronted by a mob whose tactics have now demonstrated and proven their willingness to use firearms to execute motorists from the cover of a mob surrounding a vehicle.

 The following are a few quotes from the highly acclaimed book Deadly Force — Understanding Your Right to Self Defense (Massad Ayoob, 2014) which I believe are applicable to the current threat of mob violence.
 
As you will see, knowing the following information — and being able to establish as a matter of public record that you read it here by posting in this thread that you read it — should put any individual in a better position to defend themselves in court, if it should ever become necessary.
 .
 
Regarding the use of “deadly force”:

Ayoob: “We must have reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm when we employ this level of force. Reasonable fear is starkly distinct from what the law calls bare fear, which never justifies harming another. Bare fear is naked panic, a blind and unreasoning fear. It is understood that when panic comes in, reason departs. The necessary reasonable fear doesn’t mean you’re soiling your pants or running away screaming; reasonable fear is simply that apprehension of danger which any reasonable, prudent person would experience if they were in the same situation as you, knowing what you know at the time.” (p. 26)
 .
 
Ayoob: “Once again, we must bear in mind that Reasonable Person standard: “What would a reasonable and prudent person have done, in the exact same situation, knowing what the defendant knew?” In the case of Tennessee v. Shawn” (p. 54)

 My note: This lesson is repeated many more times in Ayoob’s book, to drive the point home, the above is just a sampling.
 
After the motorist was shot by a member of the mob yesterday, captured on video at the link posted earlier in this Thread, everyone here could truthfully testify that they knew the terrorist anti-fa and BLM mob tactics have evolved to not just surrounding cars to terrorize motorists, but to use that unlawful detainment as an opportunity to execute the occupants of the vehicle.
 
KNOWING that the mob’s tactics have evolved to murder by gunshot, would a reasonable person fear death or grave bodily harm if surrounded by a mob in the current political environment and civil unrest, and consequently flee for his life, using deadly force if necessary to break through whatever obstacle was in his path?.
 .
 
Ayoob: “During my voir dire for Magliato’s defense, I explained the Tueller research, and the fact that in preparation for the case at bar, we had determined that someone like the deceased in that case could be expected to cross those 32 feet in 2.08 seconds or so. I explained ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. The question came up, would I have fired intentionally under the circumstances Magliato was facing when his Colt discharged. I replied in the affirmative. One of the New York City tabloids the next day headlined their story on the trial, ‘Cop: I Would Have Shot Him Myself.’
 
The reporter was there to hear that; the jury, unfortunately, wasn’t. Remember, that colloquy took place during voir dire of an expert witness, with the jury out of the courtroom. Judge Thomas Sullivan at that point addressed the defendant directly, and asked Magliato if he had known Gianni could have reached him and clubbed him that quickly. Frank Magliato replied honestly that no, at that time, he did not.
 
The judge ruled that he would not allow that element of my testimony to go in front of the jury. We can never allow ourselves to forget that the reasonable man standard encompasses “what would a reasonable and prudent person have done, in the same situation, knowing what the defendant knew.” If we did not know it at the time we took the action for which we are being judged, we are unlikely to be able to use it in our defense in court.” (p. 66)
 .
 
Ayoob: “For the use of deadly force to be justified, the opponent must not only possess the power to kill or cripple, but be readily capable of employing that lethal power here and now. The fear of his doing so must be not only sincere, but reasonable, as measured by the yardstick of the reasonable person standard.” (p. 84)
 
My note: the terrorist BLM and anti-fa mob has for weeks now demonstrated their capacity for violence, and as of 6-30-20 (when the video was posted at Conservative Treehouse and I became aware of it, and it was discussed here), these same terrorist organizations have now demonstrated their willingness to execute motorists who have been ‘detained’ (surrounded) by the mob.
 .
 
[edit: today, 9-22-26 (after midnight on the 9-21-26 daily thread), this is the directly applicable section I wanted to reference]

Ayoob: “Force of Numbers — The law has long since recognized that when two or more criminals attack a lone victim, their physical and tactical advantage is so great their single victim is likely to suffer death or grave bodily harm if the attack is not stopped immediately. (And, of course, the innocent victim has no prudent reason to believe that the attack will be stopped before that point by his or her violent assailants.)

A classic case in this vein was Michigan versus Ossian Sweet, in 1925. Dr. Sweet was a black physician in Michigan, in a time when segregation was law in the South, and “practice if not law” even in the North. He and his wife Gladys purchased a home in a Detroit neighborhood that was “all-white.” Hellish racial animosity ensued, and rose to the level of deadly threat.
 
On the day in question, Dr. Sweet had been so alarmed he had bought guns for the friends and relatives who came to his home to protect him. Hostile crowds formed, at first held back by local police. When the mob began to storm the house, first throwing rocks through the windows, the defenders inside opened fire. One white man was killed, and another wounded.
 
Murder charges resulted. Legendary attorney Clarence Darrow took the case for the defense. In the chain of trials that followed, all of the defenders were ultimately exonerated, either by verdicts of not guilty or by prosecutorial dismissal of charges.
 
Not long after this trial, the classic legal text Warren on Homicide appeared, in 1938. This was the authoritative text destined to become known as “The Bible of Homicide Law” among lawyers and judges.

 The author(s) made it clear that when an individual faced a mob bent on doing violence to him or his compatriots, each member of that mob shared the culpability of the entire organism of the mob…and, therefore, was equally and individually fair game for the defensive violence suffered at the hands of the lawful defender(s).” (p. 48-49)
 .
 
Ayoob: “Remember the bottom line of the jeopardy factor: it means that you, as any reasonable person would have in the same circumstances, knowing what you knew, concluded that your opponent was about to unlawfully kill or cripple you, or someone you had the right to protect.” (p. 98)
 .
 
Ayoob: “Remember the words of great police trainers like Chief Jeff Chudwin, and great police defense lawyers such as Laura Scarry: “You don’t have to be right, you have to be reasonable.” (p. 110)
 .
 
Ayoob: “Remember the yardstick of judgment: “What would a reasonable and prudent person have done, in the same situation, knowing what the defendant knew?” (p. 50)”

[End]