Memphis, Tennessee is now a South American and South African shithole.



This is a tactic often employed in the Third World.

Some thugs will set up a road block and will rob the cars and trucks. Sometimes they will murder the drivers and steal the vehicles.

Right now they are just looting trucks and causing chaos.

Unless this is stopped, it will escalate.

For citizens, it needs to be legal to be able to run criminal road blocks like this.  People shouldn’t have to submit themselves for theft, assault, and murder.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

13 thoughts on “It needs to be legal to run a roadblock”
  1. Looks like Tennessee needs to take up the policies of Arkansas State Police.
    Or change the laws so you can use lethal force to stop any felony in progress.

    1. Or change the laws so you can use lethal force to stop any felony in progress.
      I like this option, first because it broadens the range of scenarios in which it’s legally acceptable to use force.
      Second, because the Left has a hard-on for making everything a felony so that people lose their rights for trivial crap. But if a Leftist city council member or alderman could be legally shot while taking part in an Antifa riot (for felony intimidation/vandalism/looting/threatening/assault/etc.), they might be less inclined to declare everything a felony — or take part in Antifa riots.
      Just another case of, “Until it’s their ox being gored….”

  2. “For citizens, it needs to be legal to be able to run criminal road blocks like this”

    And to legally apply lethal force, by whatever means, against anyone, at anytime, who is deliberately restricting a citizen’s movement on a public thoroughfare.

  3. It is legal. This is all the authority you need:
    “Your honor, I was in fear of losing my life.”
    Yeah, you won’t beat the ride but ’tis better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    1. But you have to reasonably show you were in fear of suffering death or grave bodily harm.
      IANAL, but if you’re in your car, you’re probably not reasonably in such danger. If they’re beating on the car and causing damage, but structurally it’s holding up, you’re probably still not reasonably in danger.
      But if the glass is breaking, or someone pulls a weapon capable of penetrating the “shell” and inflicting injury (e.g. a gun, a pickax, a crowbar, etc.), then all bets are off. At that point, you objectively ARE in danger.
      As much as I hate the idea that the mob can total my car and not face any penalty, I for one am not willing to take the chance that the jury will nullify any law as it applies to my case — jury nullification is extremely rare, and the judge probably won’t even include it as an option in his/her jury instructions. I’d much rather have all my self-defense bases covered and be able to clearly articulate why driving through the crowd (or pulling the trigger) was my last resort, only done in extremis, and only to the extent necessary to save the lives of the people in the car.

      1. If they are pulling on the door handles to try and get in, that’s attempted breaking and entering. In Indiana, castle doctrine applies to occupied vehicles. So by attempting to enter my vehicle against my will, lethal force is now authorized and I can use ANY means to defeat the threat up to and including using the 4,000 pound missile I’m in control of.

        1. Again, IANAL, but a creative prosecutor could spin that as saying they were just “testing the locks”. Hardly a lethal force threat.
          In Indiana, if someone comes to your front door, jiggles the handle, and walks away (whether it’s locked or not), is that “attempted breaking and entering”?
          (Also, it should go without saying, lock your car doors. Don’t make it easy on them.)
          In Oregon, if your car is parked on a public street, the courts have said you have no reasonable expectation of privacy from police searches; the 4th Amendment doesn’t cover it like it would your home, or if it were parked in your closed garage. It’s not much of a stretch to say that if you’re out driving on a public street and a mob attacks, you don’t enjoy the same “Castle Doctrine” protections as you would at home. It’s different, because it’s different.
          I’m not saying they’re right. I’m just pointing out that “reasonable” means two very different things to the State as prosecutors and to us as defendants.

          1. That’s the thing, they’re not just jiggling the handles and walking away, they are quite clearly attempting to break in, after holding you against your will.

          2. You present a very important point that so many firearm carriers don’t realize, which is the law is intentionally written ambiguously, I believe, to keep lawfare healthy and relevant. For instance, let’s say for argument, that legislatures wrote their laws in plain English using only ‘definition one’ for all directives of a law, that resulted in a definite single meaning that could not be manipulated. And therefore, every gun carrier would know exactly the legal boundaries they must remain within. How much monetary loss would occur as a result?
            Ok, I’m done fantasizing. Back to reality, when attempting to understand the statute in question, one must always obtain the appellate court case law that pertains to the particular case and then the relevant jury instructions. This is the only way to even come close to knowing what is “Reasonable” and what is not ahead of time. Learning your state’s self-defense and gun statutes using these three sources and then working those directives into your self-defense strategies and tactics—such as a mob attack in your vehicle, is the most responsible a gun carrier can be.
            And it is essential that you document your research, your self-training efforts, sources and resources, so that this can be entered into the court proceedings by your lawyer in order to educate the jury as to your “Reasonableness” being legally founded in law. Especially if you end up taking the stand in your own defense. What the defendant knew at the time of the altercation is key to knowing Reasonableness, which is the wildcard of the five elements of self-defense.
            To document, I use this blog, a website, my online and physical library, emails, social media, and my office wall, and my business journal. Oh, ya, and I pay two legal services a monthly retainer and use their online services to further document my interests in self-defense use-or-force law.
            You can have enough documentation these days so start collecting it today. It’s never too late to aggressively support your own cause, which is to go home every night safe and healthy.

      2. In most Castle Doctrine states, if you’re in your car, breaking no laws, and someone tries to break into your car, they are presumed to be a threat to your life or safety.
        And car windows can be broken by hand, or with a cheap window breaker.

      3. Re “if it’s holding up” — but it might not continue to do so. In self defense, you don’t have to wait until the bad guy fires the first shot or makes the first knife cut; the threat of that happening is justification.
        Also to consider one example, looking at NH law (RSA 627:4(II) — and note that NH is not, strictly speaking, a castle doctrine state — it says deadly force is justified if you reasonably believe that the other person:
        (a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
        (b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
        (c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
        (d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor’s dwelling or its curtilage.

        So it’s not just a case of threat of death or severe bodily harm (the case usually mentioned); kidnapping, burglary or rape are also justification. And (a) makes the point I mentioned when it says “is about to…”. Interestingly enough, a threat of arson is also justification in NH (it doesn’t require knowing or believing the premises are occupied — RSA 627:7).

  4. If entry is attempted I’m sure you would be legally justified in fleeing, after all, you do have a duty to retreat in some states and it is quite reasonable to assume if someone is attempting forced entry of your vehicle, exiting it to escape is not a reasonable move. That leaves you one option, flee in your vehicle.

  5. Are they just the sweetest, bless their hearts.

    I was [silently] hoping that the first 2, um, gentlemen, fell out of the car and broke their bloody necks. I was a bit disappointed.

Comments are closed.