Taylor protest in Denver. So the driver of this car was arrested (or detained - I'm not sure of the distinction in this case). Everything I saw in the clip is what I would consider self-defense. I see at least a half dozen protestors that should have been arrested though.
Fox News is getting as annoying as CNN. "Plows through". It makes it sound like he attacked the protestors instead of trying to get the hell out of there.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/denver-police-detain-driver-after-vehicle-plows-into-breonna-taylor-protesters
I'm not trying to be combatitive or pick on you specifically, but I think we (conservitive-ish folks who think about self defense and wargame these things) don't really make good decisions on these protests. Firstly we post on social media, and then we make assumptions that aren't supportable.
So in the interest of conversation I offer the following:
CO law on self defense:
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204 ; or
(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302 , robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302 , sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 , or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203 .
I don't think there's much argument that running over people with a car can kill them, and is probably deadly force (although everyone survived here) So we are in section 2 of the law.
Subsection b doesn't apply on it's face.
Subsection c does have kidnapping, so lets look at that: 18-3-302 Is second degree kidnapping and requires seizing
AND carrying a person, person in car was not moved so that's a no go. 18-3-301 is first degree kidnapping which is defined as:
(1) Any person who does any of the following acts with the intent thereby to force the victim or any other person to make any concession or give up anything of value in order to secure a release of a person under the offender's actual or apparent control commits first degree kidnapping:
(a) Forcibly seizes and carries any person from one place to another; or
(b) Entices or persuades any person to go from one place to another; or
(c) Imprisons or forcibly secretes any person.
The second video in the fox news article clearly show the mob to turn around and drive the other way. That is also reported by the "journalists" at the scene. Hard to argue imprisonment there. I think subsection c of the self defense law is not going to fly either. Which leaves:
The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury
Emphasis mine. I watched both those videos a couple times, and went to the poster's twitter feed to look for more. That word imminent is, I think, going to be a problem for the driver. If it had been like the guy in PA where they broke the rear window? Sure, probably. Trying to open locked doors? Again, you can probably make that argument. Blocking your travel and telling you to turn around is going to be a tough one to claim imminent danger. Especially in Denver.*
We've talked about this enough here that I am well aware of what some of these mobs have done. Cars get shot at, people get hurt, it absolutely happens. But you, I, or random Subaru driver don't get to [legally] apply what a random mob in another state did to the mob that you are dealing with right now (hypothetically).
I generally like everyone on this board enough to hope you don't get hurt, killed, jailed, or lose everything in a lawsuit, and in that vein, I think we owe it to our little community here to have realistic conversations about what is legal, not just what you think, or you'd like to see done. Generally, absent any actual violence, someone blocking your travel in America is not justification for use of deadly force no matter how much you might think it should be.
It would have been a lot smarter for that driver to try and turn around and leave. If the mob blocks that, you are in a much stronger position to justify the unassing through the crunchies.
Let me know if I missed a relevant CO law. If 230RN or another Coloradan has insight I'd be interested.
*In addition to the plain language [heh] of the laws a prudent person is aware of the biases of the local and state police and prosecutors and adjusts their responses accordingly.