Yesterday, a BLM mob attacked a grocery store in Rochester, New York, and prevented about 100 people from leaving. From The Daily Wire:
Black Lives Matter protesters in Rochester, New York, mobbed a Wegmans grocery store on Tuesday afternoon, trapping an estimated 100 customers inside.
Video shows protesters chanting “Black Lives Matter” and referring to Daniel Prude, a black man who died about a week after a viral encounter with the Rochester Police Department. The state’s Democratic Attorney General announced last month that a grand jury will not seek charges against officers involved in the incident.
Before heading to the grocery store, protesters yelled, “We have a long walk today, we’re shutting s*** down,” according to 13WHAM-TV reporter Michael Schwartz…
The store was mobbed and forced to close, as an estimated 100 customers remained locked inside…
Schwartz reported, “The group has set up here at East Ave. Wegmans. Cars following have carried these supplies. Last time I saw a tent setup was at Occupy City Hall. Shoppers cannot leave.”
The article includes some video clips, and points out that the police did not intervene.
I’m not an attorney, so I can’t give legal advice, but it seems to me that a case can be made that lethal force might be justified in such situations. What BLM did to the shoppers appears to be “unlawful restraint” or “abduction.” From the New York penal code, article 135:
S 135.00 Unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping and custodial interference; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to this article:
1. “Restrain” means to restrict a person`s movements intentionally and unlawfully in such manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved, without consent and with knowledge that the restriction is unlawful. A person is so moved or confined “without consent” when such is accomplished by (a) physical force, intimidation or deception, or (b) any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement.
2. “Abduct” means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by either (a) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found, or (b) using or threatening to use deadly physical force.
New York penal code, article 35 tells us when it’s justifiable to use physical force:
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person…
None of the exceptions listed thereafter apply to this situation. Also, any reasonable person would recognize that a raging mob, such as we see in the videos, does pose a risk of “imminent use of unlawful physical force.”
It appears to me, as a non-attorney, that people are legally allowed to use physical force to free themselves from unlawful abduction in the State of New York. As for the courts upholding such a right, that’s something we would expect in a First World country – and I don’t think the US qualifies as such any longer.