# Car Fu



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 24, 2016)

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (or a cop) this is not legal advice.  My opinion only.

When you are in your car, you are wearing bogu (armor).  It is both a help and a hindrance with regard to self-defense.

Some folks have a belief that they are not allowed to intentionally hit someone with their car.  While this is normally true, when we're talking about self-defense, it's just another deadly weapon.  Like a gun or a knife.  It can and will maim and kill other people.  However, there is nothing in the self-defense laws that says you can't use it for legal self-defense against a deadly threat (in places and circumstances where deadly force is permitted in self-defense at all, that is).

A car is a dangerous place to be if you are approached by attackers.  If a person or people manage to make it to your door, they can keep your door closed quite easily, denying you the ability to escape the vehicle.  If they have a gun, well, you have heard the term 'like shooting fish in a barrel,' haven't you?  You're the fish, in this case, and your car is the barrel.

If they block your car in, once again, you typically can't easily escape.

Therefore, do not allow this to happen to you.

Remember that your car is armor.  It can trap you, but it can also protect you.  You can use it as a battering ram.  You can use it to escape at high speed.

My personal opinion is this:  I would never allow an obviously-angry road-rage type driver to exit his vehicle and step up to my car door with me inside.  

Exiting the vehicle puts me in a dangerous situation.  Now I am going to have to fight mostly likely and I don't know if he has friends in his car, if he's armed, or if he was actually just planning to steal my car (a common tactic in Detroit, FYI).  Staying in my car is equally dangerous, for reasons stated above.

Therefore, I am going to use my car to escape if I can.  I will back up at high speed if possible, spin my car around, and drive in the opposite direction at a high rate of speed.  What if a cop sees me?  I hope a cop DOES see me!

I'll drive up on the curb.  I will drive into the oncoming lane (if safely possible).  I don't give a dang, this is a life-threatening situation and I am LEAVING.

And if I think I have no other choice to protect my life as well as the lives of anyone who might be in my vehicle, I will drive over the person who is approaching me in a threatening manner.  I'll smush him between my car and his, I don't care.

Here's the thought-pattern behind this.

First, he has done something to convince me he's a road-rager and not someone who merely wants to tell me my taillight is out.  Maybe he's been cutting me off, swerving at me, following me with his middle finger extended, etc, etc.  In any case, I am fully aware of his hostile nature and intent.

Second, he has either followed me as I stopped or he has forced me to stop by cutting me off and slamming on his brakes.  He has me cornered.

Third, he has exiting his vehicle and is advancing towards my car in a menacing manner.  I don't know what he intends to do, but I am scared (in the legal sense) that he intends to kill me or do me great bodily harm.  And it won't be hard to do - he could pull a gun and just murder me right there in the driver's seat, and I could do nothing to stop him.  I could get out and run and he could shoot me before I got ten steps away.

Given the circumstances, I am in what the courts call "the reasonable person" description of fear of my life.

That allows me legally to defend myself, even using deadly force.  Even before I have seen a gun.  The law does not require you to get hit before you hit back. It doesn't require you to get shot at before you shoot back.  It requires that a so-called 'reasonable person' would be in legitimate fear of their life.  And that definition has been met.

I drop the car into gear, gun it, and escape if I can.  Again, if there is no other way for me to leave, I'm going to drive right over that bastich.

Again, I am not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.  Read up on the laws of self-defense and use of deadly force in the location where you are; pay an attorney for advice if you are still unclear.  This is my opinion only.  But my advice is this - remember that your car is a weapon, and a legitimate one to use if you must in a self-defense situation.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 24, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Some folks have a belief that they are not allowed to intentionally hit someone with their car.


Car jacker comes to window, speed off.  Give him some more options, try to chase a car down, try to hang on, or give up.   I'm not saying that this is the universal but it's how my brain works.  In terms of being shot, I rather have bullets hit the car first before it hits me, especially if the guy is going to shoot me anyway when I get out of the car.  If I'm at a intersection with a stop light, I'm pretty sure he not eager to follow me into a busy intersection.

Please do not take this as "what to do" or how to defend against a carjacker.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 24, 2016)

If you think you're a sitting duck by just being in the car, the seatbelt makes you so much more so.

Don't pull over for someone you don't know whom you aren't reasonably certain is law enforcement nor emergency services.

When I lived in Westchester County, NY, a friend of mine who was a corrections officer was telling me about a string of incidents involving people criminals getting the flashing lights that magnetically stick to the roof that you see in movies that undercover cops use.  They were pulling people over and robbing them.  The area had far more legitimate unmarked cars than the typical Caprices and Crown Victorias.  

His advice was if an unmarked car is trying to pull you over, drive as if you don't know they're behind you and call 911.  If it's legitimate, they should be able to tell you and confirm with the cop that you weren't intentionally evading.  If not, you've got 911 on your side.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 24, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> His advice was if an unmarked car is trying to pull you over, drive as if you don't know they're behind you and call 911. If it's legitimate, they should be able to tell you and confirm with the cop that you weren't intentionally evading. If not, you've got 911 on your side.


I like this and never even thought of it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 24, 2016)

If it's a real cop he'll do a Pitt maneuver and a felony hot stop. You will eat gravel.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 24, 2016)

JR 137 said:


> His advice was if an unmarked car is trying to pull you over, drive as if you don't know they're behind you and call 911.  If it's legitimate, they should be able to tell you and confirm with the cop that you weren't intentionally evading.  If not, you've got 911 on your side.


Yes -- and no.  911 on a cell phone (in the US) generally determines your location based on cell towers, and sends it to the appropriate dispatch center for that tower.  All good... unless you're on the border of jurisdictions.  If the tower is in one, and you're in another -- they won't know what's up, or it may take several minutes to figure things out.  Or if it's the "right" dispatch center, but the cop trying to stop you is not part of that (where I work, you could easily have about 4 or 5 different agencies with different dispatch centers crossing wires...  County won't know what I'm doing, my dispatch won't know what county's doing, airport or state or park or... all different.  In fact -- the 911 call taker won't even automatically know what county officer is doing; all the calls go to 1 place, but they have 9 districts)  That said -- my advice would be to slow down, pull to the side as far as safely possible (so that they can pass if that's their goal), indicate that you see the lights, and proceed to lit area while calling 911.  First -- the law requires you to pull over and stop so that they can pass you if that's their goal.  It's really annoying when drivers won't get out of your way when you're trying to get somewhere...  Second -- it reduces the pucker factor for the cop; he isn't trying to figure out whether you're trying to run, clueless, or what... Third -- it gives the 911 center you're dealing with time to figure things out and get the right agencies patched in.  If it's taking you long while to get there -- pull over.  LOWER your window a inch or two -- and ask the officer to call for back up.  I only know of one instance where an impersonator called for back up... and it didn't work out well for him!

Officers driving unmarked cars should be aware that drivers may not immediately recognize them as a police car, and be prepared for unusual reactions.  You still have obligations under the law, as well, and the goal is to strike a reasonable balance.
.


----------



## KangTsai (Dec 24, 2016)

Yeah, I think breaking a few toes here and there with a commercial miniature tank is a great option over getting shanked.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 25, 2016)

I know a South African guy who was a cop in SA. So many episodes of car jacking that seems like an everyday occurrence. Scary stuff.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Dec 30, 2016)

Imho, there are too many variables in these types of incidents.  And I think most people would look more closely at the use of a car as a weapon of self defense, than they would for other actions; that includes police, prosecutors, and jury members.  I also think it would likely be put to a higher test.  Not saying it should be, but I suspect it would.

As I said, to many variables possible in self defense situations.  I hope I am never in such a situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 30, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> Imho, there are too many variables in these types of incidents.  And I think most people would look more closely at the use of a car as a weapon of self defense, than they would for other actions; that includes police, prosecutors, and jury members.  I also think it would likely be put to a higher test.  Not saying it should be, but I suspect it would.
> 
> As I said, to many variables possible in self defense situations.  I hope I am never in such a situation.


I don't know about the professionals (prosecutors, etc.), but I do think there's a different reaction by most people (read: jury members) to someone running someone over with their car. It feels like the person in the car is protected. It feels like they could get away. It feels like a very calculated and aggressive maneuver. Regardless of whether any of these feelings are appropriate, I think they tend to exist.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 30, 2016)

One could say that I am less concerned about potential jury reaction than I am with preserving my life from a definable threat and in reasonable fear of my life.

One could also ensure they used terms like "I was just trying to get away" rather than "I intentionally drove over the bastard." Same net effect, but they play differently.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 30, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One could say that I am less concerned about potential jury reaction than I am with preserving my life from a definable threat and in reasonable fear of my life.
> 
> One could also ensure they used terms like "I was just trying to get away" rather than "I intentionally drove over the bastard." Same net effect, but they play differently.


Agreed. I'll choose to deal with a jury over the undertaker any day.

As for the perception, I'm thinking how prejudicial a statement like "deliberately ran him over with a two-ton automobile" can be. It's like the difference between "shot him with a rifle" and "shot him with a military-style assault rifle". They're quite literally the same thing ("assault rifle" is a cosmetic description), but one is far more inflammatory.

Of course, those considerations, as you said, take a much lower priority than self-protection in the moment. It's just something for consideration of those who appear to imply they'd go for the "run them over" option as soon as it seemed remotely justified. I'm not saying I wouldn't do it - just that I'd want to have as clear a justification as if I were going to shoot them, and some of the posts I've seen lately seemed a bit...accelerator-happy.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 30, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I'll choose to deal with a jury over the undertaker any day.
> 
> As for the perception, I'm thinking how prejudicial a statement like "deliberately ran him over with a two-ton automobile" can be. It's like the difference between "shot him with a rifle" and "shot him with a military-style assault rifle". They're quite literally the same thing ("assault rifle" is a cosmetic description), but one is far more inflammatory.
> 
> Of course, those considerations, as you said, take a much lower priority than self-protection in the moment. It's just something for consideration of those who appear to imply they'd go for the "run them over" option as soon as it seemed remotely justified. I'm not saying I wouldn't do it - just that I'd want to have as clear a justification as if I were going to shoot them, and some of the posts I've seen lately seemed a bit...accelerator-happy.



I understand.  My point with this thread was not to be blood-thirsty, but to point out that people in a car have both a danger (being attacked whilst pinned inside) and an escape pod / weapon.  Being afraid to drive away (including through yon bad guy if necessary) is something a person practicing self-defense should reconsider.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I understand.  My point with this thread was not to be blood-thirsty, but to point out that people in a car have both a danger (being attacked whilst pinned inside) and an escape pod / weapon.  Being afraid to drive away (*including through yon bad guy if necessary) is something a person practicing self-defense should reconsider*.



Figured that would be natural response. Not no so much plough down the crim, but more put your foot down in a fight or flight response. Pretty sure that would be what I would if I drove. Could always stop and confront by parking up a little down the road. But I suppose if you have a 9mil pointed at your face, if the hardiest would probably bulk at the idea of fight at that point. Guess a car could be akin to a Roman Tortoise.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 30, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Figured that would be natural response. Not no so much plough down the crim, but more put your foot down in a fight or flight response. Pretty sure that would be what I would if I drove. Could always stop and confront by parking up a little down the road. But I suppose if you have a 9mil pointed at your face, if the hardiest would probably bulk at the idea of fight at that point. Guess a car could be akin to a Roman Tortoise.



I have, at times, spoken to martial artists who have odd notions about what the law requires of them in self-defense cases.  People who seem to think they cannot do X technique or that they cannot use a weapon they happen to have in their hand at the time for otherwise lawful purposes (baseball bat, flashlight, stick, etc).  They seem to think that even though the law allows them to defend themselves, they are somehow forbidden from clocking bad guy in the noggin with a metal flashlight, for example.  Listen, if you're allowed to be where you are, to have the item you happen to have, and someone goes after you, you defend yourself.  If that means hitting yon slag in the punkin' haid with a tire iron because you just happen to be changing a flat tire at the time, then so mote it be.  You don't have to avoid using what could otherwise be used in your defense just because it's a 'deadly weapon', assuming you have the right to defend yourself using deadly force in the first place.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have, at times, spoken to martial artists who have odd notions about what the law requires of them in self-defense cases.  People who seem to think they cannot do X technique or that they cannot use a weapon they happen to have in their hand at the time for otherwise lawful purposes (baseball bat, flashlight, stick, etc).  They seem to think that even though the law allows them to defend themselves, they are somehow forbidden from clocking bad guy in the noggin with a metal flashlight, for example.  Listen, if you're allowed to be where you are, to have the item you happen to have, and someone goes after you, you defend yourself.  If that means hitting yon slag in the punkin' haid with a tire iron because you just happen to be changing a flat tire at the time, then so mote it be.  You don't have to avoid using what could otherwise be used in your defense just because it's a 'deadly weapon', assuming you have the right to defend yourself using deadly force in the first place.



Yeah, as our dear old Geoffrey Boycott (English cricketer and ex captain) it's a sticky wicket. Heard it said that those big Maglites were made for a reason. Smash someone in the noggin, would be construed as a deadly strike. Smash them in the thigh and dislocate muscle probably wouldn't. Personally on the law I am not an expert, but sometimes situations I have been in, you get time to ascertain and judge to a certain extent. Car jacking I would imagine is a deadly encounter, and imagine haveing the opportunity to grab them, or slamming the car door in their face wouldn't be. Or would that be. Guess it would depend on having a decent brief, and judge with common sense.


----------



## wingchun100 (Dec 30, 2016)

I had a friend who was in his car and being threatened by a guy with a bat. The guy stood in his way, and it was the only exit from where he was. So he gunned it and hit the guy. It went to trial. Luckily, the jury was smart enough to realize if my friend hadn't gotten out of there, the guy would have beat him to death with the bat.

What can I say? Never bring a baseball bat to a car fight.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 30, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Yeah, as our dear old Geoffrey Boycott (English cricketer and ex captain) it's a sticky wicket. Heard it said that those big Maglites were made for a reason. Smash someone in the noggin, would be construed as a deadly strike. Smash them in the thigh and dislocate muscle probably wouldn't. Personally on the law I am not an expert, but sometimes situations I have been in, you get time to ascertain and judge to a certain extent. Car jacking I would imagine is a deadly encounter, and imagine haveing the opportunity to grab them, or slamming the car door in their face wouldn't be. Or would that be. Guess it would depend on having a decent brief, and judge with common sense.



Again, I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.  My opinion on this subject is based on my own experiences in law enforcement.

In general - very general - a person who is where they may legally be, doing what they may legally be doing (in other words, 'minding their own business') has the right to defend themselves against violence or the threat of violence.

Self-defense in general is broken into two categories - deadly force and other than deadly force.  Typically, one employs deadly force with force multipliers such as a knife or a gun.  Typically, the use of empty hands and feet is not considered deadly force (there have been cases where the use of feet was considered deadly force, so I do speak in general terms).

Some states in the US have a 'duty to retreat' if it is possible to do so, which is good advice in general anyway.  Others have more of a 'stand your ground' law.

Either way, a person who is in fear of bodily harm typically has the right to defend themselves (assuming they cannot retreat safely in some states).  The test is the so-called 'reasonable person' test.  Would a hypothetical reasonable person be in fear of being injured by an attacker?   If so, then self-defense using force is permitted.

Further, if a person is reasonably (again the 'reasonable person' test) would be in fear of their life or of great bodily harm, they may be permitted to defend themselves using lethal force.

That's pretty much it.  Most laws don't get specific.  You can defend yourself using non-deadly force in such situations where it is permitted, using whatever methods come to mind and you can actually employ.  Gouge out an eye?  Kick in the wedding tackle?  Rip out hair?  Punch in the snot-locker?  Whatever works, my friend.

The same is true of deadly force.  Most laws do not say "you may shoot them in a non-vital spot using a calibre bullet of less than blah blah blah," or anything of the sort.  If you happen to (legally) be in possession of a gun, that's fine.  A knife?  Great?  A hockey stick?  No problem.  A car?  Yep.  Can you bash their brains in with a gigantic ceramic vase in the shape of a Siamese cat?  Well, if that's what you happen to have at hand, go for it.

The point here is that people tend to make rather simple things very complicated, because they presume that since it's the law, it must therefore be complicated.  It's generally not.

When such events occur, the typical response is based on how it is perceived by the police who initially respond to the situation.  If they see that a bad guy took a swing at you with a knife, and you, a law-abiding citizen who was legally where you were allowed to be, doing what you were legally allowed to do, chose to employ the chain saw you happened to be (legally) using to cut up firewood at the time and removed his limbs like a hot knife through butter, the chances are pretty good that they are not going to arrest you or write up a report indicating that you were a suspect.  You're a victim.  

Prosecuting attorneys don't spend their time looking for victims of crimes to turn into suspects.  When the cops think something funny is going on or it's not quite a clear-cut case of self-defense, or there are conflicting stories that seem plausible, they may well instigate further investigation, which may turn into criminal charges down the road.

Part of the job of the victim, which many do not seem to be aware of, is to ensure that they do not disabuse anyone of the clear-cut understanding that they are indeed the victim.

The cop asks "Where you in fear of your life?"

Victim: "Nah, I knew I could kick that punk's face in.  I've trained for 20 years and could not wait to finally use my skills."

Probably the wrong answer.

Victim: "Yes, I was afraid he was going to hit me when he raised his fists and said ''I am going to hit you'' so I defended myself as a last resort since I could not escape."

Much better response.

What actually happened?  That's between the victim and his Creator.  The victim should not lie - but the victim should understand that victims have rights, and people looking to test their skills do not.

Clear?

This is really not difficult stuff.  People make it difficult.  Why, I do not know.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 30, 2016)

wingchun100 said:


> I had a friend who was in his car and being threatened by a guy with a bat. The guy stood in his way, and it was the only exit from where he was. So he gunned it and hit the guy. It went to trial. Luckily, the jury was smart enough to realize if my friend hadn't gotten out of there, the guy would have beat him to death with the bat.
> 
> What can I say? Never bring a baseball bat to a car fight.



I can't say what the circumstances were surrounding your friend's situation. Sorry he had to go to trail (was it civil or criminal?) and glad he prevailed in court.

To the law, a car is a deadly weapon.  No different strictly speaking than a gun or a knife.  If you can legally defend yourself in a given situation with deadly force, you can use a car if that's the situation you find yourself in, in my opinion.

However, there is nothing that stops you from being sued in civil court in most circumstances (certain 'Castle Laws' provide civil immunity too, but most of those mean in your home, not in your car).

That's something I like to remind people of from time to time.  You can be in the right - you can still be sued.  You may win, but it will cost you lots of time and money.  Nothing to be done for that, it's how the law works.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.  My opinion on this subject is based on my own experiences in law enforcement.
> 
> In general - very general - a person who is where they may legally be, doing what they may legally be doing (in other words, 'minding their own business') has the right to defend themselves against violence or the threat of violence.
> 
> ...



Yeah, that is pretty clear. Why people make it difficult I don't know either, but I could imagine that great many people have never even punched a person in the face. Perhaps there is a mentality that dictates that rather than actually punching, it's the visceral feeling of the after affect that drives humans to not doing what they could do, or even should do.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 30, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Yeah, that is pretty clear. Why people make it difficult I don't know either, but I could imagine that great many people have never even punched a person in the face. Perhaps there is a mentality that dictates that rather than actually punching, it's the visceral feeling of the after affect that drives humans to not doing what they could do, or even should do.



That's a very good point.  As we've become more civilized, we have stepped away from the understanding that we have a set of fangs, we're the top of the food chain, the apex predators, for a very good reason - we're deadly killers and always have been.  Maybe it's good that we shy away from that; but the bad guys don't, and that works against us if we can't wake up the demon inside when we need it.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2016)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's a very good point.  As we've become more civilized, we have stepped away from the understanding that we have a set of fangs, we're the top of the food chain, the apex predators, for a very good reason - we're deadly killers and always have been.  Maybe it's good that we shy away from that; but the bad guys don't, and that works against us if we can't wake up the demon inside when we need it.



Yes the demon inside all of us. I used to believe that our nature could be controlled, and that military was a good way of doing that. Well maybe not a good, but sure you  can see what I mean. Take away whatever switch controls murderous, or homicidal intent, would be the answer. But having been able to watch human behaviour, or preventing fights etc, I have concluded that human instinct, I.E. not wanting to cause proper harm, is challenged when human instinct is challenged beyond reason.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 7, 2017)

Saw this and thought of this thread.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 9, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> If you think you're a sitting duck by just being in the car, the seatbelt makes you so much more so.
> 
> Don't pull over for someone you don't know whom you aren't reasonably certain is law enforcement nor emergency services.
> 
> ...



Check with your jurisdiction on that last bit.  The law doesn't cover that as an option in mine and even if you eventually stop you can find yourself being taken out of the car at gun point.  Why?  Let me explain to you the inefficient nature of dispatch.

First, background.  This is the dispatch system for a county with over 50 PDs split up into a number of dispatch zones.

1. Call to 911 goes to a "call taker" not dispatcher.  This person's job is to enter location and basic information into a computer that then automatically ships the call to the "dispatcher."   The call taker may be able to access the data of an officer calling in a vehicle failing to stop but if you say "I am at Main and York Sts" but the officer called in "trying to stop a car at 2nd and Pine" when it started they won't find it.  You would think "hey just mention the town.  Okay...Well the City I work in shares it's zip codes with 7 other jurisdictions that surround us, 3 of which are in a completely different county.  So if you say "Citytown USA" and you are actually in "Township USA", they can't even look it up by typing XXPD into the system (every PD as a 2 digit number identifier) and that before we talk about the ones potentially not on the County Dispatch system, either because they use State Police Coverage or are in a different County (both different dispatch systems.). All of these potentially lead to you still catching a fleeing and eluding case.  

Your best bet is to familiarize yourself with the proper color and mounting of lights on patrol cars.  If you don't know or still doubt, and aren't in the boondocks, put on your hazard lights and drive to a well lit and/or populated location to pullover.  If none of that works, play the odds.  The chances of you actually being stopped by an impersonator are pretty slim.  The stats get tilted by things like phone calls claiming to be police demanding payment for unpaid fines, people claiming to be police officers as part of a resume for self defense classes or to get discounts on education at Colleges etc.


----------



## JR 137 (Jan 9, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Check with your jurisdiction on that last bit.  The law doesn't cover that as an option in mine and even if you eventually stop you can find yourself being taken out of the car at gun point.  Why?  Let me explain to you the inefficient nature of dispatch.
> 
> First, background.  This is the dispatch system for a county with over 50 PDs split up into a number of dispatch zones.
> 
> ...



My post was meant to come across as if you're really unsure and fearing the person pulling you over is an imposter.

If I had a bad feeling about it, I'd call 911 and let them know I don't think it's an actual police officer.  I'd give them the plate number of the vehicle following me if possible and follow what they say.  If they say pull over, I'll do so.  If they say don't and give me alternate instructions, I'll follow those.

Now that I think of it, quite a while back, a guy bought a former police cruiser and put some lights behind the grill.  He pulled a friend of mine's sister over one night.  When he got to the window, she realized what was going on, took off and called 911.

Unfortunately for him, her father was a police officer in the jurisdiction it occurred and both brothers were corrections officers at the county jail.  He admitted his intent was to rob and rape her.  He'd been convicted of it in the past.

Don't ask me how I forgot about that one.

And as someone locally found out the hard way recently, the police department isn't always staffed, especially at night.  Rather than driving to the police station and getting robbed and beaten up as you're trying to open the door and run in, go to the fire station instead.  Always someone there.

It's a sick world out there.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 9, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> My post was meant to come across as if you're really unsure and fearing the person pulling you over is an imposter.
> 
> If I had a bad feeling about it, I'd call 911 and let them know I don't think it's an actual police officer.  I'd give them the plate number of the vehicle following me if possible and follow what they say.  If they say pull over, I'll do so.  If they say don't and give me alternate instructions, I'll follow those.
> 
> ...



Well regarding the first point, and your example.  That is why I said get familiar with where the lights are on real unmarked cares.  Many States have standards on the placement of lights on unmarked vehicles.  Just a couple of cheap lights in the grill wouldn't cut it my State so if I saw them I would immediately call BS. 

My point about describing the dispatch thing is to illustrate how convoluted the process can be and how the call taker might not even know who/what agency to say "stand down" to and your "alternate instructions" can still result in you being removed from a car at gun point where things can go bad, and if the "go good", sitting in lock up.  Maybe you get released if it gets sorted out OR maybe you end up waiting to see a Judge for a preliminary arraignment on fleeing and eluding charges.

At least in my town fleeing to elude has gone up dramatically over the last couple years.  It's a screwed up world all around and in some cases (this may be one of em) there are no real right or wrong answers its all about playing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Well regarding the first point, and your example.  That is why I said get familiar with where the lights are on real unmarked cares.  Many States have standards on the placement of lights on unmarked vehicles.  Just a couple of cheap lights in the grill wouldn't cut it my State so if I saw them I would immediately call BS.
> 
> My point about describing the dispatch thing is to illustrate how convoluted the process can be and how the call taker might not even know who/what agency to say "stand down" to and your "alternate instructions" can still result in you being removed from a car at gun point where things can go bad, and if the "go good", sitting in lock up.  Maybe you get released if it gets sorted out OR maybe you end up waiting to see a Judge for a preliminary arraignment on fleeing and eluding charges.
> 
> At least in my town fleeing to elude has gone up dramatically over the last couple years.  It's a screwed up world all around and in some cases (this may be one of em) there are no real right or wrong answers its all about playing.


Yeah, the issue here is definitely two-sided. From the civilian point of view, the advice of driving until you find a safe place seems sound. If you include the LEO point of view, that can look a lot like some instances that went south really fast for them, which raises the stress level, gets guns out, and raises the chance of things "going bad" for everyone involved.

I suspect there's not a lot of risk in delaying pulling over very briefly - putting on hazard flashers, slowing down, and continuing a block or so to a lighted area where others could witness. Beyond that, the LEO behind you has to start wondering what's going on.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 9, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, the issue here is definitely two-sided. From the civilian point of view, the advice of driving until you find a safe place seems sound. If you include the LEO point of view, that can look a lot like some instances that went south really fast for them, which raises the stress level, gets guns out, and raises the chance of things "going bad" for everyone involved.
> 
> I suspect there's not a lot of risk in delaying pulling over very briefly - putting on hazard flashers, slowing down, and continuing a block or so to a lighted area where others could witness. Beyond that, the LEO behind you has to start wondering what's going on.



What makes it more complicated is this.  It is literally standard practice that if the officer perceives it is a "pursuit" situation, if the car stops you initiate a felony car stop, which means gun drawn, behind the door and yelling (or PA) "driver, stick both hands out the window.  With your left hand reach across and remove the keys from the ignition.  Take the keys and place them on the roof of the vehicle..." yada yada yada.


----------



## TieXiongJi (Jan 26, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (or a cop) this is not legal advice.  My opinion only.
> 
> When you are in your car, you are wearing bogu (armor).  It is both a help and a hindrance with regard to self-defense.
> 
> ...


Pretty god damn reasonable argument.


----------



## TieXiongJi (Jan 26, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> If you think you're a sitting duck by just being in the car, the seatbelt makes you so much more so.
> 
> Don't pull over for someone you don't know whom you aren't reasonably certain is law enforcement nor emergency services.


That is the safest route, but it leads to a callous society. Someone asking for help on the side of the road? If I can help, I will. Maybe that is the day I die, but I can't bring myself to ignore others.



JR 137 said:


> When I lived in Westchester County, NY, a friend of mine who was a corrections officer was telling me about a string of incidents involving people criminals getting the flashing lights that magnetically stick to the roof that you see in movies that undercover cops use.  They were pulling people over and robbing them.  The area had far more legitimate unmarked cars than the typical Caprices and Crown Victorias.


You called out one of the problems with unmarked police vehicles.



JR 137 said:


> His advice was if an unmarked car is trying to pull you over, drive as if you don't know they're behind you and call 911.  If it's legitimate, they should be able to tell you and confirm with the cop that you weren't intentionally evading.  If not, you've got 911 on your side.


I have heard similar advice from a anarchist who was afraid of all official government representatives.
I asked a cop friend, told me, "You're friend is paranoid and crazy." Paraphrasing; Driving more than 1 mile after being flashed is cause for aggressive pursuit.

Quick story; Woman's brakes went out and for some reason she couldn't slow down. Cops are pursuing her, but she can't pull over because of her speed. Calls 911 and gets connected to the police who instruct her how to stop in her situation.
So I do agree having 911 on the phone is better than not if you are in danger.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Feb 3, 2017)

I liv in a small-ish city, under 100,000 people. No huge drug problems or crime, just normal underbelly stuff that any town near an interstate would have. Yet, we have a high ratio of unmarked police cars to marked police cars, with no real reason that's been articulated by the department. Most middle class (and white) people don't care, don't have any concern, but there was a march and petition by some civil rights groups and among their demands for local law enforcement or the city was for police cars to be clearly marked. For the most part, there was a write up in the news paper, some citizens disregarding them or even worse, labeling the peaceful protesters 'thugs'. Nothing came of it that I am aware of.

It really got my head thinking about the issue of unmarked cop cars, as someone who often is suspicious of police, and always a fan of government authority being kept in check. If I was a person of color, in a bad neighborhood, being pulled over without knowing why I was being pulled over - adding the scary component of not being able to 100% trust that the person pulling me over actually has both the jurisdiction and cause to pull me over makes a bad situation worse.
The last thing we need as a society is people even more paranoid during a traffic stop over a broken tag light, who then act distressed, and then it escalates to where someone gets hurt. Unless you are truly going undercover, and have reason for it, I don't see the value or benefit of unmarked cop cars.
Even as a non person of color, if I see flashing lights, I am pulling over somewhere safe and preferably with video camera surveillance like a convenience store, if I can't make out who is even pulling me over because they are unmarked, I am going to pull over in the most absolutely PUBLIC place I possibly can.


----------

