ALesson In The Use Of Deadly Forcce

Long time readers will remember that I have stated on many occasions that while I carry a weapon everywhere it is legal to do so, I also pray that I will never have to use it.  The use of potentially  deadly force is a horrendous event, fraught with both moral issues and the chance that you will be charged with a crime.  In any case, you have to know that your life is about to drastically change.

So, it was interesting to read about a University of Kansas Study That Finds Religion Shapes Gun Ownership, But Not Like Some Think. The study seems to mirror my own experiences.

“People have these stereotypes of religious individuals and think their connections to guns are simple, when in fact they’re fairly complex,” said Margaret Kelley, associate professor of American studies at the University of Kansas. “One of our main findings is religion actually drives responsible gun ownership. Because of their duty, they needed to be diligent about training and practicing and making sure they are careful with their firearm.”

Of course, the same line of thinking that one goes through when carrying a gun must apply as well for a range of issues. For instance, Civis Americanus has an article at American Thinker entitled Should Motorists Run Over Anarchists At impromptu Roadblocks? Of course, similar considerations should apply to the situation in question. A vehicle can be a powerful weapon if so used.

The author of the piece discusses situational awareness, such that if you spot certain events soon enough, you as a moral person, should get out of the way.  By staying to "see" what is going on, you are placing yourself in danger, which means that whatever happens to you is partly your fault.  But he also discusses what you should do if trapped by an  impromptu roadblock.  Of course, escape if you can.  But there are situations where you can not escape, and you do not know what they intend to do.  You should go read the whole article for the complete analysis.  I would have to reprint it all here, but that is the purpose of hyperlinks, so just go read it..

Civis Americanus also brings up a delicate topic, but one often discussed with respect to gun cases: the notion of jury nullification.

There are unfortunately plenty of virtue-signaling prosecutors who would rather ingratiate themselves with Black Lives Matter and Antifa by forcing motorists (and police) to defend themselves against bogus criminal charges than prosecute rioters who instigate the violence in the first place. Educate yourself and others about our society's generally accepted rules about use of force in self-defense. The law usually says you can use deadly force if you are in reasonable fear for your safety, but not to take the law into your own hands. Some states have "stand your ground," laws while others require you to retreat if you can do so in complete safety. If the rioters do not give the driver the option of retreating, then I think it is reasonable to conclude that whatever happens subsequently is on them. Many states also have "castle doctrines on wheels" which make vehicle invasions legally identical to home invasions. Know that a prosecutor who is sufficiently unethical to charge the driver (or cop) in the first place is probably willing to lie to the jury and the judge to advance his career. It takes only one holdout to hang a jury and make it clear to such prosecutors that they will be hitting a brick wall every time they try to bring such a case, and also to carjackers and highway robbers that juries will hang them out to dry every time.

I hope if the McCloskeys are actually brought to trial, that there is a juror who is ready to nullify that prosecution.