What would you do if you had a business in Baltimore?

[ForeverPA]

Would you pick up your AR-15, go on the roof and defend your property, i.e. shoot the looters? I am not sure I would. Regardless of how much firepower I might have, sooner or later the mob would get to me.

[knight0334]

In Baltimore? I wouldn't live or work in Baltimore.

Now, if I had a business in PA - yes, I would. And PA law allows for the use of deadly force to stop a riot after they have been warned to cease and disperse.

[streaker69]

In Baltimore? I wouldn't live or work in Baltimore.

Now, if I had a business in PA - yes, I would. And PA law allows for the use of deadly force to stop a riot after they have been warned to cease and disperse.

Is the warning from a business owner enough to warrant deadly force or do you have to wait until the police do it? From watching the footage lastnight, it would seem the police never actually gave any order to cease and disperse, they stood by and watched it happen.

[bogey1]

If it were legal to own a firearm in baltimore, I would defend my business with firearms.

[MT1]

If I had a business in a city I would already have some type of steel roll down shutters for the doors and windows, surveillance cameras, and a pack of hungry dogs inside.

[knight0334]

Is the warning from a business owner enough to warrant deadly force or do you have to wait until the police do it? From watching the footage lastnight, it would seem the police never actually gave any order to cease and disperse, they stood by and watched it happen.

In PA it is.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 508
§ 508. Use of force in law enforcement

(d) Use of force to prevent suicide or the commission of crime.--
(1) The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent such other person from committing suicide, inflicting serious bodily injury upon himself, committing or consummating the commission of a crime involving or threatening bodily injury, damage to or loss of property or a breach of the peace, except that:
(i) Any limitations imposed by the other provisions of this chapter on the justifiable use of force in self-protection, for the protection of others, the protection of property, the effectuation of an arrest or the prevention of an escape from custody shall apply notwithstanding the criminality of the conduct against which such force is used.
(ii) The use of deadly force is not in any event justifiable under this subsection unless:
(A) the actor believes that there is a substantial risk that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless the commission or the consummation of the crime is prevented and that the use of such force presents no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; or
(B) the actor believes that the use of such force is necessary to suppress a riot or mutiny after the rioters or mutineers have been ordered to disperse and warned, in any particular manner that the law may require, that such force will be used if they do not obey.
(2) The justification afforded by this subsection extends to the use of confinement as preventive force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

And,

430 Pa. 170 (1968)
Commonwealth v. Chermansky, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued January 4, 1968.
May 21, 1968.

A private person in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. Commonwealth v. Micuso, 273 Pa. 474, 117 A. 211 (1922); Commonwealth v. Long, 17 Pa. Superior Ct. 641 (1901); 2 Trickett, The Law of Crimes in Pennsylvania 683 (1908). And in Pennsylvania we have always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified. See Commonwealth v. Micuso, supra; 2 Trickett, supra. We hasten to note that before the use of deadly force is justified the private person must be in fresh pursuit of the felon and also must give notice of his purpose to arrest for the felony if the attending circumstances are themselves insufficient to warn the felon of the intention of the pursuing party to arrest him.

The common law principle that a killing necessary to prevent the escape of a felon is justifiable developed at a time when the distinction between felony and misdemeanor was very different than it is today.[1] Statutory expansion of the class of felonies has made the common law rule manifestly inadequate for modern law.[2] Hence, the need for a change or limitation in the rule is indicated. We therefore hold that from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private person in order to prevent the escape of one who has *174 committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason, murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery, common law rape, common law burglary, kidnapping, assault with intent to murder, rape or rob, or a felony which normally causes or threatens death or great bodily harm.[3] We also note that for the use of deadly force to be justified it remains absolutely essential, as before, that one of the enumerated felonies has been committed and that the person against whom the force is used is the one who committed it or joined or assisted in committing it. Commonwealth v. Duerr, 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 484, 45 A. 2d 235 (1946). If the private citizen acts on suspicion that such a felony has been committed, he acts at his own peril. For the homicide to be justifiable, it must be established that his suspicion was correct.

[GunLawyer001]

If you were to take a stand against rioters, it would pay to videotape them. If you end up shooting a guy who's about to throw a Molotov cocktail into the building below you, you want proof, because there will be dozens of witnesses who will swear that he was merely standing nearby when you shot him out of racist animus.

Honestly, these crowds MOSTLY would run at the sound of the first gun shot, so if it were me, I wouldn't put the first round into anybody, absent imminently lethal action on their part. Pop a round or 5 into the air as soon as the mob starts kicking your doors, and they will disperse. If not, you have alternatives.

The hard-core gang members will NOT flee when you shoot, so you can't bluff. If they shoot at you, then politeness requires that you return the favor.

nb: Shooting straight up into the air will result in falling projectiles, but the return speed is just a fraction of the muzzle velocity going upwards. Any physics student can tell you that shooting a bullet upwards at 3,000 feet per second will cause it to rapidly slow down, both from fighting gravity and encountering air resistance, until it comes to rest for a brief moment, thousands of feet up, and then it will fall like any pebble or marble, accelerating due to gravity but constrained by wind resistance, until it returns to Earth (or your head) at a painful but non-lethal speed, nowhere need 3,000 FPS. People killed by bullets "fired into the air" are generally killed because the bullets were fired at a much more horizontal angle, so they never came to a stop in the air, they just went "out" very fast and kept a lot of their initial horizontal velocity, with predictable results upon impact.

Here, I found these:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...g_bullets.html

http://scienceblogs.com/dotphysics/2...s-a-bullet-go/

[Splittiebus66]

Would you pick up your AR-15, go on the roof and defend your property, i.e. shoot the looters? I am not sure I would. Regardless of how much firepower I might have, sooner or later the mob would get to me.

I don't think these animals would stomach real "resistance" to their actions ( i.e. having their brains drained out all over the pavement).

There are too many easy pickins out there to run to.

[ungawa]

My daddy taught me, "Don't throw rocks at a man with a rifle, and don't stand next to a man throwing rocks at a man with a rifle."

[DennisH82]

If and I really mean if, I would have Steele roll down gates, no places to attack a tow rope to pull them down, A good fire suppression system with some portable extinguishers. I would have some bean bag rounds for my shotgun to assist those throwing Molotov's ( legal street sweeper would be great for those group discount shoppers. Its not my fault that I hit the bottle as the young man was just about to toss it and burned up because of the burning accelerants .
As GL said lots of digital video safely stored to show multiple angles and locations. The ability to channelize and undocumented shoppers into a fire funnel just incase my life is threatened. A very good lawyer on retainer and a plan to move after since retribution would eventually happen after the smoke clears.
Above all a good cost of doing business analysis in these areas prior to opening a business in these areas to see what the return on investment is. In the end that's what it really is about, you set up shop to make money and service a need. If folks who smile at you and greet you in good times end up breaking your front window and steal everything not nailed down due to circumstances beyond your control then screw them.