Legally, how do you deal with something like this?

[Eric_H]

BART takeover robbery: 40 to 60 teens swarm train, rob weekend riders

^TLDR: 40-60 minors of teen years swarmed a train car and committed multiple robberies.

Now, I think anyone with a brain knows that giving over your stuff when facing 40-60:1 odds is the best move.

However, young men in groups are often more prone to excessive violence than individuals (I've read a few studies that indicate this at least) - if you were facing something like this that got violent - what could you legally do to defend yourself? Do odds like that represent deadly force when the offenders are minors? Does the fact that you can't escape due to being on a moving train change anything?

 

[Headhunter]

This might be an unpopular but to me if someone's attacking me and seriously trying to hurt me I couldn't give a damm about the legal side I'm going to do whatever I have to do to keep myself safe. I'd rather do a few years in prison than be dead or seriously injured.

That's if you're attacked though if it's just a robbery I give them whatever they want (mainly since I don't carry much cash and I don't have a mobile so the bastards ain't getting much off me anyway lol )

 

[Buka]

Where's Bernie Goetz when you need him?

 

[CB Jones]

 

[hoshin1600]

"i am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advise"
if it happened in the united states there is generally a concept that you must be in imediate and unavoidable danger of death or severe bodily harm. there are three things that must be present to establish this.....
1. intent
2. ability
3. opportunity

then there is the rule that says that the lethal response must be "reasonable". that a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would make the same decision as you did.

from what i read this incident would not call for lethal force. the intent was to remove you of your belongings, not to cause you death or severe bodily harm. there were no other passengers that were in that position, so it could be argued that it would be reasonable that they would only take your stuff.
now if there were verbal threats that they were going to kill you, with or without your compliance then that would be different. if you had seen other passengers be shot or really beaten then that would be different. there is allowance for a disparity of force and multiple attackers qualifies as such, but you would still need to show their intent. again from the reports it looks like a grab and run situation.
on the flip side you could argue that you were in fear of your life, but with so many other victims that did not sustain sever injuries that argument may not hold up.

 

[PiedmontChun]

Realistically, if its kids (obviously under 18) just taking stuff, I don't carry a lot so its more hassle than anything just canceling credit cards and grieving the loss of a BOGO coupon. The principle of it would outrage me for sure, but I would hesitate being initiating anything physical. If I was in the company of a large group, big enough where there is enough potential resistance to make it trouble for the flash mob should they follow my lead? I would probably fight back. Me and a couple people on a train car against dozens of teens, with no clear exit? No way.

I'm not a legal expert, but you do have a right to say "no" to someone stealing your stuff, and then if it escalates to being physical, that is self-defense to respond physically. I don't have to prove my life was in danger to resist against what is a mugging. Using more violence than would seem reasonable, based simply on the presence of multiple would-be assailants, would be hard to defend I would think though.

 

[CB Jones]

"i am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advise"
if it happened in the united states there is generally a concept that you must be in imediate and unavoidable danger of death or severe bodily harm. there are three things that must be present to establish this.....
1. intent
2. ability
3. opportunity

then there is the rule that says that the lethal response must be "reasonable". that a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would make the same decision as you did.

from what i read this incident would not call for lethal force. the intent was to remove you of your belongings, not to cause you death or severe bodily harm. there were no other passengers that were in that position, so it could be argued that it would be reasonable that they would only take your stuff.
now if there were verbal threats that they were going to kill you, with or without your compliance then that would be different. if you had seen other passengers be shot or really beaten then that would be different. there is allowance for a disparity of force and multiple attackers qualifies as such, but you would still need to show their intent. again from the reports it looks like a grab and run situation.
on the flip side you could argue that you were in fear of your life, but with so many other victims that did not sustain sever injuries that argument may not hold up.

Pretty good.....did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?

Just to add a few things....You must be in danger or someone else in danger...You are allowed to protect someone else (just to clarify)

You are not legally obligated to hand over your possessions. You can refuse and if they escalate to a level which is reasonable to believe that you are in great bodily harm...you would be justified to use lethal force to protect yourself.

You are allowed to pull your weapon and give them commands to stop....if they attack you or try to disarm you...you are justified to use lethal force until they stop.

 

[Tez3]

Ok I know I like posting this but the answer really is ...Gurkhas! ( it's slightly glorified but the Gurkhas here say it is true)
Armed With Only A Khukri This Gurkha Soldier Took On 40 Men And Saved A Girl From Being Raped

 

[CB Jones]

Ok I know I like posting this but the answer really is ...Gurkhas! ( it's slightly glorified but the Gurkhas here say it is true)
Armed With Only A Khukri This Gurkha Soldier Took On 40 Men And Saved A Girl From Being Raped

He said, ‘Fighting the enemy in battle is my duty as a soldier. Taking on the thugs on the train was my duty as a human being.’

Awesome!

 

[elder999]

Shoot a couple of them. Then shoot the ones that are stupid enough to come closer, instead of running away.

 

[Buka]

When you grow old, and have health problems that are doing you in, AND, have everything you have in someone else's name (that's an important AND) - you have a different perspective on certain things.

F' em. Everybody's gotta be doing something when they die, if they want to be trying to take my phone and wallet, that is their choice. Little pack of wolves.

 

[Paul_D]

I think anyone with a brain knows that giving over your stuff when facing 40-60:1 odds is the best move.

I would hope anyone with a brain knows that giving over your stuff when facing 1:1 odds is the best move.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am not against shooting juvenile thugs if they threaten my life, etc.

I would note that the scenario given is a tough one. A train. Innocent citizens. Bullets can miss, and they can go through people and hit other people.

I believe I would refrain unless I was absolutely certain I was about to be killed or seriously injured and I had a clear field of fire with nothing behind the person I wished to shoot (unless it was more people I wished to shoot).

Just wanted to throw that in there. IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.

 

[FriedRice]

This was Oakland, CA. It's almost impossible to be granted a carry permit.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I'd rather do a few years in prison than be dead or seriously injured.

You shouldn't have to do a few years just for refusing to be dead or seriously injured. The law says you're allowed to defend yourself. I would also advise you to know a good lawyer.

 

[JP3]

It is an interesting tactical problem, compounded by a couple interesting legal questions. That is for certain.

It might be neat to wade through a bunch of idiot kids doing the thug thing breaking arms and legs as you go... but I bet you'd do at least 20 years.

But, if one of them had a blade or a small handgun, or if one of the other passengers shouted out that one of them did? There's a twist.

As I said, interesting. And... to be avoided, eh?

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

BART takeover robbery: 40 to 60 teens swarm train, rob weekend riders

^TLDR: 40-60 minors of teen years swarmed a train car and committed multiple robberies.

Now, I think anyone with a brain knows that giving over your stuff when facing 40-60:1 odds is the best move.

However, young men in groups are often more prone to excessive violence than individuals (I've read a few studies that indicate this at least) - if you were facing something like this that got violent - what could you legally do to defend yourself? Do odds like that represent deadly force when the offenders are minors? Does the fact that you can't escape due to being on a moving train change anything?

If I was alone on a train in the first place, I would've been prepared beforehand. I'm hitting the emergency call button on my phone first and foremost if I can. For legal reasons, I can't say that I'm allowed to carry weapons, but it is a dangerous world we live in so I'm sure you get the hint (lol). Tactical is the best way to go. They make less-lethal rounds now for riot control and just these types of situations. As for them being teenagers, old folks, mentally disabled persons, etc. I would make no discrimination against shooting them. If all you have are lethal rounds, draw your weapon and issue a warning shot. If need be, shoot them in their feet where you're less likely to kill them. Unless they have guns too. Then just shut up and wait for the police to show up, and try not to get in their way.

 

[CB Jones]

They make less-lethal rounds now for riot control and just these types of situations.

Carrying less-lethal round??? You are kidding right?

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

Carrying less-lethal round??? You are kidding right?

Why not? With a less-lethal round, you can accomplish the same task.

 

[CB Jones]

Why not? With a less-lethal round, you can accomplish the same task.

Until you encounter someone shooting real bullets.