# When is it OK to shoot this guy?



## Cruentus (Jan 31, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F4YCXDydFA&feature=related

This is a serious question. 

Some of you have seen this already. I am curious about the use of force issue here when the enraged dentist forces himself into the other man's vehicle. Now, in this circumstance, he got out and yelled at the man to move the vehicle.

But, a vehicle is a deadly weapon. If someone is trying to hit you with their vehicle, you can reasonably use deadly force to stop that person.

This dentist was unarmed. But he was clearly enraged and unpredictable. There is no reasonable expectation that he wouldn't have used that vehicle as a weapon when he first got in (maybe kicked it in reverse or in drive, smash another vehicle or person, etc.). The dentist forcing himself behind someone elses vehicle is akin to him trying to grab a gun or a knife, really.

So, at what point in a circumstance like this would it be justifiable to pull your firearm to stop the use of a deadly weapon (in this case, a vehicle)?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 31, 2008)

In _that_(particular) case, use of deadly force wouldn't have been justified unless the dentist actually moved his vehicle towards someone with clear intent to hit them with it. Instead he got out of his own vehicle and essentially threw his weight around. Dunno what the initial problem was but the Mercedes driving individual was clearly not in control of himself and thus was physically abusing others around him. No, he didn't like being filmed but so what? Pushing down the "sister" was another assault charge but he didn't continue his assault on her and again deadly force wasn't needed or warranted. 
Bad thing was that the brother (initial rage victim) struck the dentist when the attack on his "sister" was finished. This is another assault charge which should be levied against him, not the dentist. 
The officers interceded and defused the situation admirably and without needing to draw their weapons as they saw there was no threat to life as well. 

You have to quickly assess the situation correctly. In the heat of the moment this is difficult to do and you sometimes can only go moment by moment. Trying to anticipate one's actions is futile I think. The dentist was wrong in shoving the woman when she was speaking to him. It wasn't clear what she said and she might have said something offensive to him (racial slur maybe??) that caused his anger to escalate to where he shoved her down. This does not make it okay by any means but escalation usually takes two parties. 

There was not just *ONE* wrong person in that video.  

But no, shooting this guy when there was no clear evident threat to life wouldn't been justified. Had he pulled a weapon then yeah of course... but only, ONLY after clear warnings to cease and desist have been made. You cannot arbitrarily just draw your weapon, haul off and shoot someone ala Indiana Jones, in the street without clear warning first. Even most police officers are required to do this.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 31, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> But no, shooting this guy when there was no clear evident threat to life wouldn't been justified. Had he pulled a weapon then yeah of course... but only, ONLY after clear warnings to cease and desist have been made. You cannot arbitrarily just draw your weapon, haul off and shoot someone ala Indiana Jones, in the street without clear warning first. Even most police officers are required to do this.



You are seeing the situation in hind site, and from a video camera.

Picture that you are parked, waiting to pick someone up. And some screaming, enraged individual decides to approach your vehcile, rip you out from behind the wheel, and start to get in your vehicle.

Is he demonstrating, the intent of committing extreme violence? He definatily has the ability and opportunity as soon as he gets behind that wheel. So really, intent is the make or break to justify a shooting. 

This just isn't that black and white...

I know I personally would fight him without the use of a firearm because he is initially unarmed, and would only pull my weapon if the situation changed. But that doesn't mean that you wouldn't be justified in shooting someone pulling you aside and getting behind your wheel...


----------



## kaizasosei (Jan 31, 2008)

of course he started the pushing, but they escalated some in my opinion. 

this is a perfect example of how difficult it is for people to deal with physical force.  
the dentist really was quite aggressive however in pushing the guy away-even pushing him away from the car the other party was suposed to get into at the start.  the woman however really chose the wrong course of action, which was to push the guy.  but then again, by getting knocked down by his onehanded(yet forceful) push, that really put him in a bad enough light that he even showed no resistance when getting arrested.- 
the other party was the first to start punching, he just happened to be in the often more advantageous position of being the defender of his own rights of personal space etc.
i dont think it's ok to shoot anyone.  i would consider the experience of this incident as a lesson learnt for everyone. 

j


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 31, 2008)

Cruentus said:


> You are seeing the situation in hind site, and from a video camera.
> 
> Picture that you are parked, waiting to pick someone up. And some screaming, enraged individual decides to approach your vehcile, rip you out from behind the wheel, and start to get in your vehicle.
> 
> ...


True, hindsight... however; the driver of the vehicle was already OUT of the car, standing in the door well and was subsequently pushed out of the way... a push is not a pull (it's still assault). But getting into the car with obvious intent to drive it where he wanted it... out of his own car's path.. could be considered theft, or at least attempted theft... even if he meant to drive it only 30-40 feet.
I agree that I would've fought back from him; touching me, touching my car and getting into it. But I still don't see warranted use of a firearm or weapon at that point. As you say if it continued and turned out that HE had a weapon... then yes, of course. 

Wondering what the LEO's here think about it?


----------



## kaizasosei (Jan 31, 2008)

seems to me that if that guy started punching, people may be in need of surgery.  not to mention what he could do to you molars with a drill or hooklike tool if he managed actually to gain entrance into your mouth.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2008)

I'm not an LEO and I am not a lawyer but in NYS (other states may be different) it appears you can't shoot him, or at least that is my interpretation of this

From - New York State Law 



> "Deadly physical force" means physical force which, under the
> circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death
> or other serious physical injury.


 



> S 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally.
> 3. A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common
> carrier of passengers, or a person acting under his direction, may use
> physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it
> ...





> S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
> under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
> (a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to
> use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not
> ...


 



> S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and
> in defense of a person in the course of burglary
> 2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
> licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
> ...


 



> S 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.
> 
> 1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or
> attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to
> ...


----------



## thardey (Jan 31, 2008)

If it was me, I saw no reason to shoot the guy, and in hindsight, I would hate myself for having done it. 

It also goes to show what stupid things people will get in a fight over. Why didn't he just move the car? Obviously he had the ability to move it. It seemed like a pride issue, for everybody involved.

I know that I would have a hard time not punching the guy if he shoved my sister to the ground, though. As the driver got out of the car, the dentist was still facing the sister. He only backed up and turned towards the driver when he was attacked. The driver couldn't see his sister behind the car, nor would he be able to tell if she had been punched, or shoved, or what.

Of course, it also goes to show how fast self-defense can turn into a separate act of assault, depending on different people's point of view.


----------



## kaizasosei (Jan 31, 2008)

no doubt.  acting up like that is what get people shot all the time.
i can think of countless places where his aggression would have gotten him shot pretty quick.
but i personally have a hard time accepting that option as a martial artist. 
if someone uses guns or knives on me, i guess i might also end up escalating the level of violence, but generally i try to stay human and am confident in my  ability to communicate as well as my rights as a human being.
 so if someone would have shot him in the situation i could see it happening.  sure seemed like a bully, but wasnt actually a robber.-even if he may be charged with theft.

j


----------



## Doc_Jude (Jan 31, 2008)

Justification of deadly force (you never shoot to wound) requires Ability, Opportunity, and Manifest Jeopardy on the part of the assaulting party, and Preclusion on the victim's part. When both parties are in cars and out of their cars at relatively the same time, the parameters aren't met. 
Outside of the car, however, the disparity in size would *perhaps* justify the drawing of a weapon, whether gun/knife/bat, as a deterrent. That little guy probably couldn't have handled the big guy if he had con't the assault upon the female, some kind of weapon would have been required to stop the assault, if there was no assistance available. Assistance was present, however, and they all seemed to get the point of who was in the wrong. 

Nope, no justifiable use of deadly force.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 31, 2008)

The cameraman appears to be talking to officers nearby and theres a squad car right there in one shot, I wonder what took them so long to take control of this guy?

What was a camera crew doing there in the first place?


----------



## kaizasosei (Jan 31, 2008)

good point .  maybe he's already a famous bully.??


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 31, 2008)

This explains it http://wcbstv.com/local/dentist.parking.rage.2.564640.html


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 31, 2008)

Generally, I would say that it's a prime example of why we shouldn't pack millions of us in close proximity to each other.

We're still a tribal animal and thus happiest in small communities.  Mound us togther and stress us and this is the sort of thing you get i.e. intelligent, educated people behaving in unfathomably aggressive ways.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Jan 31, 2008)

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - Agent K, _*Men In Black*_


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 31, 2008)

Let's look at this a different way; take this issue out of the picture, and just consider that your parked behind the wheel in your car, and someone opens your unlocked door and starts trying to pull you out, screaming obscenities and acting enraged. However, no weapon is present.

Do you have the right to shoot that person?

I say that if you are unable to fight him off, at the moment he gets behind the wheel, if he has demonstrated that he has intent to gravely harm someone with the vehicle, then I say that yes, deadly force is justified. The ability and opportunity becomes present once in the vehicle, it is just "intent" that needs to be demonstrated at this point (which can be subjective, and where disagreements would occur). Secondary arguments might occur regarding opportunity if the vehicle is blocked in, or if it isn't evident that he could easily pull out and harm someone with the vehicle.

You would not be able to use deadly force until "ability to do grave bodily harm" becomes present. If the person has a weapon or is much larger and more powerful then you (and trying to beat on you to get into the vehicle) then ability may be present. Otherwise, ability does not really present itself at that moment of the assault until he is actually in the vehicle and trying to drive off.

That's what I think, anyway. I would like to hear some LE and attorney opinion on this too. I don't disagree with anyones answers here, incidentally; I just believe that this isn't as black and white of an issue as people might want to think...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 31, 2008)

Cruentus said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F4YCXDydFA&feature=related
> 
> This is a serious question.
> 
> ...




It would have been a non issue for me. At 7 seconds into the tape when he moved that close I would be yelling to back up. At 8 seconds into the tape when he touched me I would have touched him back. Not knowing his state or intention I would most likely stuck a finger or thumb into his eye and then grabbed him from behind and dragged him away from my car. 

But that is me.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 31, 2008)

Cruentus said:


> Let's look at this a different way; take this issue out of the picture, and just consider that your parked behind the wheel in your car, and someone opens your unlocked door and starts trying to pull you out, screaming obscenities and acting enraged. However, no weapon is present.
> 
> Do you have the right to shoot that person?
> 
> ...


 
Maybe yes maybe no, I am thinking in NYS no. But then if you did it would then be up to the court to decide.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 31, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Maybe yes maybe no, I am thinking in NYS no. But then if you did it would then be up to the court to decide.



I agree with you on this; that it will ultimately come down to how good is your attorney and how understanding is the court system to your situation as to whether or not it is justified. 

A "grand theft auto" style jacking where the jacker is unarmed leaves a big gray area regarding use-of-force and what is or is not appropriate. For me, I hope it never happens of course; and if it does I just hope I react in a manner that is appropriate...

As to NYC:



> S 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally.
> 3. A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common
> carrier of passengers, or a person acting under his direction, may use
> physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it
> ...



See, depending on the circumstance it would be REASONABLE to assume that an irate person who forces himself behind the wheel of your vehicle  could cause  death or  serious injury to those around him. A car, under a given circumstance,  is considered a deadly weapon. THis is why police are justified to shoot  if someone  backs  up  or moves a car towards them in a threatening manner.

It will come down to reasonableness based on your perceived intent of the assailant. I just think it might be a difficult road for you if you do use deadly force in this situation, so one better be sure...


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 31, 2008)

It all comes down down to articulation. If I drag you out of your car and hop in and drive off and you shoot me in the back of the head, you used deadly force to protect property, which outside of a residential burglary or arson attempt is a no no in most penal law. If I drag you out and you catch your arm in the seat belt and I drive off dragging you, thats a whole different kettle o fish. How you argue the point that you [being a reasonable man] felt your life was in danger is what matters. In this case here I dont see it.


I believe that the "victim type" is important here too. A woman with a kid in the back could probably get away with capping the guy. A male who is involved in a road rage incident, no so likely.


----------



## searcher (Jan 31, 2008)

You have to ask yourself this, "Is there a risk of death or permenent bodily harm?" 


If there is neither, then you have no choice but to back off.    Any individual would have to feel truly threatened and in risk of either of the two listed above.    Trust me, nothing would have been better then to give this guy what he deserves.   Which I believe he got by being arrested.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 31, 2008)

Cruentus said:


> Let's look at this a different way; take this issue out of the picture, and just consider that your parked behind the wheel in your car, and someone opens your unlocked door and starts trying to pull you out, screaming obscenities and acting enraged. However, no weapon is present.
> 
> Do you have the right to shoot that person?


 
AFAIC, yes...If I'm minding my own business and am suddenly confronted with the type of scenario you mentioned I can reasonably assume that the guy is attempting to harm me.  Since I won't know ahead of time whether it's a car-jacking, a kidnapping attempt, or just a "road-rage" type incident, and based on their behavior and demeanor, I'm going to have to assume the worst (especially if there's someone in the car with me).  In other words, I will treat them as a serious threat and act to stop the threat any means necessary.

The problem with the video is that we see the whole thing and make our judgements based on the entire situation.  If we put ourselves in the shoes of the man who got assaulted, the perspective changes.  In his place, I don't think I would have drawn my sidearm but, as Rich said, I certainly would have "touched him back."


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 31, 2008)

Just to keep the ball rolling...

compare the video of the dentist with this one (warning: strong language).
  This guy definately deserves to get shot (or run over since your car packs more ft./lbs. than your pistol )


----------



## chinto (Feb 1, 2008)

ok where I live the film does not show a deadly force issue from what I can see. but if you pull up to a stop light and some one opens the door and attempts to pull you out of your car, a case could be made for fear of your life if there has been car jacking in that aria and people have been murdered or badly injured. In that case shooting the assailant could be justifiable if a reasonable person would have feared for their life. I would say its up to your gut and your judgment as to if your life is at stake.  

in the case of the video I would say that the dentist or who ever he was should go down for at least 3 counts of assault and battery, and one of disorderly conduct, and perhaps one for attempted grand theft auto or even carjacking which is usually a much more serious charge in most jurisdictions.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 1, 2008)

Cruentus said:


> I
> 
> See, depending on the circumstance it would be REASONABLE to assume that an irate person who forces himself behind the wheel of your vehicle could cause death or serious injury to those around him. A car, under a given circumstance, is considered a deadly weapon. THis is why police are justified to shoot if someone backs up or moves a car towards them in a threatening manner.
> 
> It will come down to reasonableness based on your perceived intent of the assailant. I just think it might be a difficult road for you if you do use deadly force in this situation, so one better be sure...


 
True it all comes down to reasonable but in the situation that was filmed he was not trying to run the guy over therefore I am not 100% sure any court would at that point consider that car a deadly weapon and although I have not looked it up lately I am not sure what constitutes a car being considered a deadly weapon. If it was at all times then it would be justifiable to shoot a guy driving by just because he failed to yield or ran a stop sign and that I am pretty sure would not be considered reasonable in a court in NYS no matter how much we may all want to.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 1, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> Just to keep the ball rolling...
> 
> compare the video of the dentist with this one (warning: strong language).
> This guy definately deserves to get shot (or run over since your car packs more ft./lbs. than your pistol )



Oddly enough that is a different situation. That guy probably would've merited deadly force *IF* he had attacked the driver, but he was smashing the car, which still is serious because in a rage he _could_ start on the driver. But the driver was still capable of getting away and thus avoid harm to herself (? looked like a woman behind the wheel?), which is more important than the car... especially if the car is insured. 
Had I been behind the wheel, armed, yeah I'd probably stop and get out and leveled the weapon at the guy with stern warnings of an imminent shooting and even then I'd tried to go for the good wound and get him in the leg, to bring him down. Then I'd probably try to get the video camera because that's your best witness in court right there. 

Either way that is a guy who needs serious serious help. Working himself into a rage like that then randomly choosing a car to vent, not caring if the car was occupied or not.


----------



## kaizasosei (Feb 1, 2008)

i may be missing out on something but i don't still dont quite understand what he was trying to do-??


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 1, 2008)

Let me amend [or add detail] to my previous post. In my example I said 



> If I drag you out of your car and hop in and drive off and you shoot me in the back of the head, you used deadly force to protect property, which outside of a residential burglary or arson attempt is a no no in most penal law.



of course that doesnt mean that you cant argue fear of your life and a justified shoot, if you shoot me WHILE im attempting to drag you out of the car. But if I yank you out, you are fine, and there is nobody else in your car and you shoot me to prevent the taking of the vehicle, the situation is different. of course this also all depends on your state laws and what they permit.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 1, 2008)

I think some of you really need to think about what would constitute the use of deadly force here, as it seems that some of you either have an inability or are simply refusing to look at the circumstances without hindsight present.

Shooting the assailent in Kenpotex's example would have been completely justified. In hindsight, no one died or was seriously injured so it is easy to sit back and say that deadly force was not justified and be correct.

But without hindsight, you have a crazed individual attacking at your vehicle with a deadly weapon. At that point, you don't have to wait until he is half way to your head with the weapon before you have permission to respond. It would have been incredibly reasonable to assume that he had intent to do grave bodily harm, and to respond accordingly...

That said, I would agree that shooting the dentist probably would not have been justified (pending it didn't escalate further) but fighting back certianly would have been.

This is just such a gray area that it leads to interesting variance on opinion...


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 1, 2008)

Yeah, but I'm not so sure it would hold up in court, shooting someone for jacking your car - which is essentially what this guy tried to do.  There were a whole lot of officers in So Cal who got into a WHOLE lot of trouble for shooting people backing down freeway on-ramps, driving erratically, speeding in excess of 65 mph and leading in high-speed chases.  It was deemed that most of these were fatal and unnecessary shootings so policy changed (at least back when I lived there, can't comment on current policy there).

Self-defense shooting seems SO cut-and-dried sometimes, but this hind-sight is exactly what a jury will use to judge you with.  "How do you know he wasn't just going to park your car for you?" and "Why would you park illegally in the street, blocking a driveway?"  It could be deemed that the victim himself was asking for it (though I would completely disagree with that assessment).  

In the court, it's all about spin.  

I don't know what I'd do, frankly, because I can't imagine parking there like that.  But if I were approached in such a fashion having parked legally?  I'd prolly let him have the car if I were without the kids and assess his actions.  To run me over, he'd have to maneuver the vehicle and if he were starting to motor towards me, I'd shoot.  

But in the case of the video KenpTex posted, I'd definitely shoot.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 1, 2008)

kaizasosei said:


> i may be missing out on something but i don't still dont quite understand what he was trying to do-??


If you're talking about the guy bashing on the blue car (video) he was just trying to prove he was such a badass mo-fo gang-bangah s.o.b. and bla bla bla fricken bla. Listen to his rant before he starts in on bashing the blue car. Worked himself up into a right frenzy, what? 

As for the dentist it was probably out of frustration that he couldn't find a parking space, in a too much of a g-damned hurry and the other guy either cut him off or stopped because he was looking for a parking space himself or just plain lost and confused and trying to get his bearings... the dentist lost it and probably waited all of say 20 seconds too long behind the guy to get him to move and get out of his way so he could park. It's not totally clear as to the why's and wherefores on that one. 

A buddy of mine who lived in NYC for a couple of years told me that you do not just sit there in traffic you MOVE and keep moving until you got a space to park, pull over or just get out of the way.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 1, 2008)

Cruentus said:


> I think some of you really need to think about what would constitute the use of deadly force here, as it seems that some of you either have an inability or are simply refusing to look at the circumstances without hindsight present.
> 
> Shooting the assailent in Kenpotex's example would have been completely justified. In hindsight, no one died or was seriously injured so it is easy to sit back and say that deadly force was not justified and be correct.
> 
> ...




May I offer or give a real life situation I was in? 


While sitting in traffic that was stopped on the express way, I was in the right lane and I had to pull half off the road to avoid a piece of car. (* aka front bumper *) The minivan behind me also moved over to avoid the car parts in the road. Traffic stopped. This guy driving along side of the highway just passing everyone could no longer get by as we were half off the road. He swerved back in front of people just behind the minivan. He then started screaming out the window to move over. I was pondering getting out of the car and moving the car parts when he gets out of his car yelling and screaming and begins to run up towards my car. I stepped out of my car, (* yes I was watching the mirror as I was also looking out the side window to see if it was too big for me to move or if I would have to ask for help. *) and put up my left hand started speaking to him and asking him a question. "Are you a police officer of an EMT trying to get to the accident?" The guy in the minivan who was with his wife and kid in the middle seat did not see the guy behind him, but he saw me get out of the car raise my hands and move towards him asking questions or speaking. (* His windows were up and his AC was on. *) The driver of the minivan reached behind himself and pulled a firearm out and chambered a round. His wife screamed. He was raising the weapon up. The guy who was screaming at me still and still moving towards me, took a swing. I parried and then checked him in the shoulder. He fell. The guy in the minivan was surprised as he did not see this guy until he was on top of me swinging. The Guy who swung was on the ground and his wife was now coming up screaming at me not to hurt him, and why did I hit him. (* Total time about 5 to 8 seconds *) Even though the guy was the one coming towards me was the initial threat, I saw his hands were empty and I saw that his suit jacket was open, and during his movement, he was not carrying in the front nor under the shoulder. The threat to me changed in an instant and what I did not state above was that I continued to repeat myself asking "Are you a cop or EMT?" and I got real loud so the guy in the minivan could hear me. 

I am not sure if he would have shot me while standing by the rear fender of my car, or if he would have waited until I approached his car more? The guy who was the initial cause and threat never knew how close he was to being in real trouble. He was just upset and had to move. 

I told his wife that I did not hit him but I stopped him from hitting me and that I would wait for the police to file any report. 

Traffic cleared. I did not care about the car parts in the road. I got back into my car and drove off. 

Most people do not understand when a threat was present. 

Most people do not react in time.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 1, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> I am not sure if he would have shot me while standing by the rear fender of my car, or if he would have waited until I approached his car more? The guy who was the initial cause and threat never knew how close he was to being in real trouble. He was just upset and had to move.
> 
> I told his wife that I did not hit him but I stopped him from hitting me and that I would wait for the police to file any report.
> 
> ...


In your case it seemed to be a good thing that the guy (with the gun) didn't react in time. 
Some people just... I dunno... don't have the wherewithal to mentally be responsible enough to own a gun. This guy was going to SHOOT you simply because you're walking up to his car... sheesh.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 2, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> In your case it seemed to be a good thing that the guy (with the gun) didn't react in time.
> Some people just... I dunno... don't have the wherewithal to mentally be responsible enough to own a gun. _*This guy was going to SHOOT you simply because you're walking up to his car... sheesh.*_


And there ya go, eh?  THAT's the question, I think.  How do you know? And what do you do?  Shoot them all and let God sort them out?  Well, some people subscribe to that philosophy applied to self-defense.

Cruentus ... what would YOU have done?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 2, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> In your case it seemed to be a good thing that the guy (with the gun) didn't react in time.
> Some people just... I dunno... don't have the wherewithal to mentally be responsible enough to own a gun. This guy was going to SHOOT you simply because you're walking up to his car... sheesh.



Having a weapon deployed and ready is not the same is shooting or pulling the trigger. It could be is natural reaction to seeing a 6'3" 280 (* I think that was my weight then *) guy jump out of a car and raise his hands start to approach, when he was just stuck in traffic. 


Now, while talking to his wife (* we all talk in cars with other people *) he did not see in his mirror the person behind him. 

I always watch my mirrors. I have been rear ended before and when I come to a stop I watch those behind me. Even more than one car as there can be a multi-car accident. I have had people get out of their car and approach my vehicle before. Both from the front and behind. (* Location Location Location.  *) 

So, being the well trained person who has learned from their mistakes or as some might say the slightly paranoid individual I am I always look for trouble. 

So in the original case the guy is pushed out of the way, and he is surprised by it. Like I said the guy would not have gotten that close to me and would not have touched me without being touched back. 

In my case the guy with the gun was surprised it happens to everyone, but the guy who swung on could have gone after the guy with the gun. What would have happened then instead of me just passing his strike and checking his shoulder so he fell? With the guy with the minivan and his wife and kids in the car, I could see where he would be afraid for life and family life. 


In another case, I was ready to turn right and there was just enough room to do so and then stop and wait for the light on the next street, when the light turns green for me and I begin my turn. The guy across form me who had the left already runs his light red (* Note my light was already green *) and he barrels out across me flips me off and blows his horn and cuts me off. I stopped my car and flip him off. (* I know bad reaction. I was younger and I make mistakes what can I say *) He then reached into the back of his car and started to look for something while yelling at me through his open passenger window. I was thinking gun. Yo get one or two or three pointed at you and do not want to be trapped again. So, I put the car in reverse and try to back up. The guy behind me sees the reverse lights and backs up so I do not hit him and so forth until I get about 25 feet. Then I realize I can get out and run, but not real cover, only concealment. So I drop the car into Low 1 and rev up the engine to while brake torque is holding the vehicle in place. Most guys have done this before. I was ready to launch my vehicle at him to hit him if a gun came up on line. I figured if I hit him hard enough maybe he could not shoot others.

Note: The Passenger which looked to be his wife, which I have not mentioned until now was already dead in my mind. This guy had given up this person's right to live with his possible threat. I was willing to turn my vehicle into a weapon and most likely kill some one. (* His car was a little Ford Escort and I had Pontiac Grand Am. Just enough mass to that she should have been crushed. *)

The guy finally comes up with a Mag Flash light and shake it at me. I take my foot off the pedal and begin to laugh. The threat was not as bad as I thought it could be based upon previous experience. This guy just continued to yell and shake is flash light at me. I just waved at him and let the guys behind me honk their horns while I watched the other cars pile up behind him before he moved on. Once he was clear, I turned right and continued my with my life. 

The point I am trying to make, is that I would not have let him have kept the gun on line. I had plans to drop the seat back and fall back to reduce my target window on me. As it was a straight shot I did not have to worry about my aim with my weapon. I would not have let him get out of the vehicle as I would have launched the car at him and his wife. 


What I have found.  Most people are not ready for this situation. They are surprised or the adrenaline gets them or the panic or flight versus fight. (* there is nothing wrong with running away to avoid a conflict to live another day. *) But is you are trapped and unable to move out then what does one do? I have also found that when it comes right down to it most people do not have it in them to make that decision to take the person out. Be it temporary or permanently. Some can do it in a fit of rage, but then it is an accident not something the react too and choose to do. Hence my comments about poking the guy and then locking him up and dragging him off as my plan and usually is my plan, unless I am backed into a corner with my life on the line.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 3, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> And there ya go, eh?  THAT's the question, I think.  How do you know? And what do you do?  Shoot them all and let God sort them out?  Well, some people subscribe to that philosophy applied to self-defense.
> 
> Cruentus ... what would YOU have done?



My reaction level is a bit different then most people due to my training. I don't need to get my weapon out and chamber a round because someone got out of their car and might be a threat because if I want to, I can have my weapon out and a few rounds into my target in about a second. So I can afford to leave my weapon holstered until I am certain that the person is attacking me and not just getting out of a car. I can also have my ink pen buried into someones throat before they realize what happened too; negating me from having to pull a firearm at all.

So for me, I am not pulling my weapon out until I am sure that there is a deadly threat. But I can afford other options that most people cannot; this is not due to superhuman powers, just an accelerated level of real-world training and experience that anyone could have if they had my training and experience.

So the question isn't what would I do. I think the question is, what would the appropriate response be? I think that it wouldn't be appropriate to be pointing your weapon about unless there was a deadly threat. Seeing someone get out of their car by itself does not consititute a deadly threat. Someone trying to pull you out of your vehicle or someone trying to bash your vehicle (and possibly you inside) with a prybar would consititute a deadly threat; and in those cases it would be reasonable to pull a weapon and follow an appropriate force continuum.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 3, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> The guy in the minivan who was with his wife and kid in the middle seat did not see the guy behind him, but he saw me get out of the car raise my hands and move towards him asking questions or speaking. (* His windows were up and his AC was on. *) The driver of the minivan reached behind himself and pulled a firearm out and chambered a round. His wife screamed. He was raising the weapon up. .


 

So let me get this straight:

*this person saw you approach his car, and, size/mass notwithstanding, saw you raise only your left hand which could be considered a placating gesture and definitely not what an average person would view as a "fighting" stance,

*Then without even assessing the threat just decided to draw his sidearm,

*Then decides that, gee, he might be drawing it, so just maybe he might have to use it, and only now( Only NOW) decided it might be a good idea to have a round in the pipe and waits till now to chamber it?

Is this accurate?

It's people like that that give people like me a bad name.

Grumble mutter cuss.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 3, 2008)

Cruentus said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F4YCXDydFA&feature=related
> 
> This is a serious question.
> 
> ...



The initial driver and the female could have articulated a justification for use of lethal force, because of the significant apparent size and strength difference between them and the black dentist.  

The car is NOT a good consideration.  Most police departments very strictly limit when an officer may shoot at a car, for good reason.  In a perfect world, you place one shot between the driver's eyes.  WHO'S STEERING THE CAR NOW?  You've just created a 1 to 2 ton unguided missile...  Not a good thing.  And that's in a perfect world.  In reality, when Mr. Murphy adds his 2 cents... you fire 8 to 12 shots at the moving car, miss the driver, hit the baby in the car seat or the Eagle Scout in the back (which really happened, over a dine & dash here in Virginia a couple of years ago) or rounds go bouncing everywhere else.



MA-Caver said:


> True, hindsight... however; the driver of the vehicle was already OUT of the car, standing in the door well and was subsequently pushed out of the way... a push is not a pull (it's still assault). But getting into the car with obvious intent to drive it where he wanted it... out of his own car's path.. could be considered theft, or at least attempted theft... even if he meant to drive it only 30-40 feet.
> I agree that I would've fought back from him; touching me, touching my car and getting into it. But I still don't see warranted use of a firearm or weapon at that point. As you say if it continued and turned out that HE had a weapon... then yes, of course.
> 
> Wondering what the LEO's here think about it?



Got the answer?  Lethal force is justified to defend yourself from imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death.  There is room to create justification here, based on relative differences in size -- but it's not good.  It's not a good lethal force situation, especially since he was pretty cooperative as soon as the cops came up, and was somewhat restrained (pushing, not punching).  



Doc_Jude said:


> Justification of deadly force (you never shoot to wound) requires Ability, Opportunity, and Manifest Jeopardy on the part of the assaulting party, and Preclusion on the victim's part. When both parties are in cars and out of their cars at relatively the same time, the parameters aren't met.
> Outside of the car, however, the disparity in size would *perhaps* justify the drawing of a weapon, whether gun/knife/bat, as a deterrent. That little guy probably couldn't have handled the big guy if he had con't the assault upon the female, some kind of weapon would have been required to stop the assault, if there was no assistance available. Assistance was present, however, and they all seemed to get the point of who was in the wrong.
> 
> Nope, no justifiable use of deadly force.



If you're gonna draw a gun or knife in self-defense situation -- be ready to use it.  And be sure it's a situation that you may use lethal force.  Especially if you draw a gun.  Because if you're wrong -- you've just done two things: committed the offense of brandishing, and created a justification for lethal force to be used against you.  

Let's look at this situation.  It seems the two cops were somewhere else at the start of the incident; I see a cruiser, but it's pretty deep into it before they get involved.  Let's simply assume they were in a coffee shop nearby; someone comes running in, and tells them "there's guy trying to steal a car and beating people up!" or something to that effect.  They come out, and they see you holding your gun on a guy in shirt and tie...  Could go real bad, real quick, huh?  Especially if there was a language barrier, or just tunnel vision.



Cruentus said:


> My reaction level is a bit different then most people due to my training. I don't need to get my weapon out and chamber a round because someone got out of their car and might be a threat because if I want to, I can have my weapon out and a few rounds into my target in about a second. So I can afford to leave my weapon holstered until I am certain that the person is attacking me and not just getting out of a car. I can also have my ink pen buried into someones throat before they realize what happened too; negating me from having to pull a firearm at all.
> 
> So for me, I am not pulling my weapon out until I am sure that there is a deadly threat. But I can afford other options that most people cannot; this is not due to superhuman powers, just an accelerated level of real-world training and experience that anyone could have if they had my training and experience.
> 
> So the question isn't what would I do. I think the question is, what would the appropriate response be? I think that it wouldn't be appropriate to be pointing your weapon about unless there was a deadly threat. Seeing someone get out of their car by itself does not consititute a deadly threat. Someone trying to pull you out of your vehicle or someone trying to bash your vehicle (and possibly you inside) with a prybar would consititute a deadly threat; and in those cases it would be reasonable to pull a weapon and follow an appropriate force continuum.



One thing I don't like about your thinking here...  Action is always faster than reaction, and you're setting up a reaction of "oh no, I need my gun, gotta draw!"  Assess the situation; if it appears to be heading towards a lethal force situation -- get the gun out; it doesn't have to be on target yet.  You could draw to a low ready, or even simply draw it, and hide it behind your leg.  (Lots of drivers have no clue I had my gun out when I was talking to them...)


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 3, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> So let me get this straight:
> 
> *this person saw you approach his car, and, size/mass notwithstanding, saw you raise only your left hand which could be considered a placating gesture and definitely not what an average person would view as a "fighting" stance,
> 
> ...


 

Yes.

He looked to be a cop. He acted like a cop. I am not sure, he may have throw away the one in the chamber, as I did not see anything fly out. But that does not mean it did not happen. I was also looking at the guy approaching me. 

He also relaxed when he finally realized what I was saying which was "are you a Cop or EMT?"


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 4, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> One thing I don't like about your thinking here...  Action is always faster than reaction, and you're setting up a reaction of "oh no, I need my gun, gotta draw!"  Assess the situation; if it appears to be heading towards a lethal force situation -- get the gun out; it doesn't have to be on target yet.  You could draw to a low ready, or even simply draw it, and hide it behind your leg.  (Lots of drivers have no clue I had my gun out when I was talking to them...)



True. I agree with you and nice post overall as it does bring some clarity on the vehicle as a weapon issue. 

I am saying that I am not someone who would have to fumble around to get my weapon out, or who wouldn't be ready to pull my weapon. Therefore, I could wait til I was at least sure that the situation was reasonably approaching lethal force before drawing. So someone getting out of a vehicle, and even being upset in yelling might not require me to pull my firearm... but if indicators were there that this could approach a lethal situation, I wouldn't hesitate to have my weapon out. I definatily wouldn't wait until the last possible second to have it out, regardless of my reaction level and level of training!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 4, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> The initial driver and the female could have articulated a justification for use of lethal force, because of the significant apparent size and strength difference between them and the black dentist.
> 
> The car is NOT a good consideration. Most police departments very strictly limit when an officer may shoot at a car, for good reason. In a perfect world, you place one shot between the driver's eyes. WHO'S STEERING THE CAR NOW? You've just created a 1 to 2 ton unguided missile... Not a good thing. And that's in a perfect world. In reality, when Mr. Murphy adds his 2 cents... you fire 8 to 12 shots at the moving car, miss the driver, hit the baby in the car seat or the Eagle Scout in the back (which really happened, over a dine & dash here in Virginia a couple of years ago) or rounds go bouncing everywhere else.
> 
> ...


 

Nice post jks9199!  You are spot on in your assessment.  Tried to rep you but I have to spread it around.


----------

