Per this thread these things do seem to be popping up lately. If a riot happens and a gang of teen looters tries to break into your store during the chaos can you legally use deadly force to repel them from gaining entry?
Even in gun friendly territory can malls legally restrict store owners ability to possess firearms on site? Do they?
Since you don’t live in a mall store you can’t rely on the Castle Doctrine. So to use deadly force someone’s life has to be in danger. You can’t use deadly force to prevent a theft or destruction of property. But if it’s a mob you might be able to get away with claiming a reasonable fear to life and limb.
So it looks like you might be able to do so under some, but definitely not all, circumstances.
I believe in most states you cannot use deadly force simply to protect property. I am also pretty sure that landlords can get away with a lot of things; to have some exclude firearms (even those legally owned) would not surprise me.
I can’t believe that there is any legal justification for firing into a crowd.
Whether it’s legal or not, it’d be a stretch to find a jury who’d convict a store owner who had a gang of kids rush inside his store, armed with baseball bats (which is what they normally use to smash the glass display cases, no?). It’s not the looting, but the real fear for his life that any person would reasonably feel given similar circumstances, that would undoubtedly save him from being convicted.
Here in Ohio, a kid whose mother sued us for a dog bite (bogus claim) years ago, was recently shot to death after he and another kid pulled out a gun to rob a convenience store. The shop clerk wasn’t even charged, let alone convicted. It turns out that the gun wasn’t loaded, but it didn’t matter. The mere threat of harm is sufficient to allow you to defend yourself with deadly force.
I’m just not that sure. Again, as in the other thread, looking at the incident in Monroeville Mall --------
Lets say three or four of the kids decided to take advantage of the mayhem and grab something handy to rob/loot a store. Not knowing if bats would be at hand lets just say clubs. They rush the Apple Store and try their best for some high end consumer electronics. Clerk Bob pulls his 9mm and starts busting caps on their asses.
Clerk Bob is going to face some serious questioning. Was he so sure of his aim that all the innocent people around weren’t under a larger threat from him than they were the rioting youths? Did he actually hit the ones who were presenting the most threat? Did he have any other option? Was there a supply room hen could have locked himself in? Does Apple have any sort of corporate policy about this sort of situation? And somewhere in there someone is going to play some sort of race and/or age card. It’s almost a given.
Lone clerk against a specific threat in a sort of vacuum? Probably going to be fine. But someone slinging lead in a riot involving possibly thousands? I wish it was otherwise but I would want to have the number of one damn good attorney in my wallet if that happened to me.
When I was young, late 40’s to 1960 or so, I was told that looters could be shot on sight. You could just be a bystander. Looters were open season for anyone to take down…
I don’t know for sure if anyone, police, national guard, etc. ever did but even if it was never a real thing anywhere. That was what I was told. :dubious:
I can’t speak to whatever laws are on the books, but seems sensible to me that if folks had a freer hand to retaliate against such deplorable behavior, such behavior wouldn’t happen as often.
In Columbus, OH, High St is one of the borders the Ohio State main campus. On the West side is the campus and on the East side are about 8 blocks of stores and bars for the student trade. And it’s the site of an annual riot the evening of the OSU-UM football game. First time that game day rolled around when I lived just off campus, I took a stroll to look around. Police in full riot gear were standing every 10 feet on the East side. Many store windows and doors were boarded up. Even the carry outs and bars, not that they were closed for business). And in one storefront that wasn’t boarded up, there was a very ticked off looking worker sitting on a stool in plain view of anyone walking by his storefront. He was holding a chrome (and somewhat engraved, though) Colt Govt model .45 acp.
On second thought, I figure anything capable of breaking out a plate glass window can be considered a deadly weapon.
In that time frame people were killed for signing people up to vote; it was a very different time. Today just isn’t the same thing.
I think what you are talking about is declarations of Martial Law. In theory it allows some authority (usually the Governor?) to basically say “shoot looters on sight”. I believe that may have happened once or twice but cites fail me right now. I believe LA during their riots had some looters shot and the shootings justified but I believe the number was like under 5. In cases where the shooter was “military” the shooting had to be investigated by at least three different (law enforcement) authorities and found to be justified or not.
One of the reasons ML doesn’t result in piles of dead looters is that the military (and people I believe) still have to operate under specific Rules of Engagement given to that specific declaration. After Katrina, the ROE for the National Guard was “only when human life is in danger” and the active military dispatched weren’t even allowed bullets because of possible legal complications.
So even during riots and even under Martial Law, check the fine print. Your mileage, as always, may vary.
Here’s a month-old thread on the same issue of shopkeepers defending against rioters: If I was a store owner in Ferguson, MO.... - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board