It does appear that some of it is, but that's less important than the discussion.
Defending (the Occupants of) your Vehicle
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
- Status
Guess that depends on what's missing, if anything.
Wouldn't necessarily wait for that. You'd be surprised how few people it takes to put a car on it's roof.
There is a secondary issue, as well, don't get involved in other people's fights. Call 911, be a good witness, and stay out of it. If the driver had decided to use lethal force or the enraged folks surrounding the car got angry at an interloper then you might get it from both sides.
edwardware
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 4,424
I think this reflects difficulty switching gears from "driving mode" to "fight for your life mode". If you have a few feet of room between you and the cars infront and behind, you can very effectively deny anyone on foot the ability to get within arms reach without being killed or severely injured by your car. You'll be causing a lot of autobody damage, but it beats dying or engaging in an optional fist/gun fight.
If a pedestrian is standing within armslength of your running vehicle, it's because you are allowing them to. Viewing the vehicle as a suit of armor and defensive weapon changes everything.
scaatylobo
Member
No one mentions the use of LESS THAN LETHAL FORCE ??.
I carry ASR [ aerosol subject restraint ] aka Mace, at all times and as I have had it used on me too many times [ including training ] I can attest to the fact that it works at least better than 90% of the time.
If you open your window just enough [ and be SURE the spray is directed OUTSIDE ] you will generally find you have a bit more space to remove yourself and your vehicle.
And I also agree that my 4500+ pound SUV can move away much better than myself.
I have seen the NYC attack on the driver of that SUV so many times I lost count.
He was put in harms way by a reckless LARGE group of bikers and was attacked by same.
And yes, a few were UC officers [ under cover ] ,that used the excuse they did not want to blow their cover.
As an LEO that is total B.S.,if your see a threat of such a degree of force = your are " Duty Bound" [ yes that is the term ] to take action.
Happily the driver was not killed or crippled.
As to the bikers that tried to force him off the road,they got what they deserved [ and yes I am a 'biker' ].
I carry ASR [ aerosol subject restraint ] aka Mace, at all times and as I have had it used on me too many times [ including training ] I can attest to the fact that it works at least better than 90% of the time.
If you open your window just enough [ and be SURE the spray is directed OUTSIDE ] you will generally find you have a bit more space to remove yourself and your vehicle.
And I also agree that my 4500+ pound SUV can move away much better than myself.
I have seen the NYC attack on the driver of that SUV so many times I lost count.
He was put in harms way by a reckless LARGE group of bikers and was attacked by same.
And yes, a few were UC officers [ under cover ] ,that used the excuse they did not want to blow their cover.
As an LEO that is total B.S.,if your see a threat of such a degree of force = your are " Duty Bound" [ yes that is the term ] to take action.
Happily the driver was not killed or crippled.
As to the bikers that tried to force him off the road,they got what they deserved [ and yes I am a 'biker' ].
entropy
Member
Oh, I think opening the window far enough to spray a cloud of pepper spray would have diffused the situation quickly, as scaatylobo mentions. Once the physical attacks on the car commenced, pepper spay would have been justified, unless in a criminal sanctuary area.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I don't think the intent of "stay in the vehicle" was intended to include "even when it becomes a death trap".
Honestly, a vehicle is a heck of a lot of armor and interference to people seeking to attack occupants. We can all posit scenarios and say "but...but...but...". However, the honest truth is that in the vast majority of those scenarios, exiting the vehicle will expose oneself to even greater danger.
I haven't seen this video, or Andrew Branca's advice/critiquing of it...yet.
But I submit that if the first reaction of people is to start positing refutations based on (fill in the blank) without first having watched and listened to this, that said people are very likely going to miss the entire point of the presentation.
I look forward to viewing and listening to this. However, with respect to membership, I'm currently fiscally restricted as I'm seeking to totally eliminate a ton of annoying small expenditures and some debts. So I'm not currently open to a paid monthly membership to Branca's Law of Self Defense community.
I remain open to such legal analysis. Because knowledge is good.
Honestly, a vehicle is a heck of a lot of armor and interference to people seeking to attack occupants. We can all posit scenarios and say "but...but...but...". However, the honest truth is that in the vast majority of those scenarios, exiting the vehicle will expose oneself to even greater danger.
I haven't seen this video, or Andrew Branca's advice/critiquing of it...yet.
But I submit that if the first reaction of people is to start positing refutations based on (fill in the blank) without first having watched and listened to this, that said people are very likely going to miss the entire point of the presentation.
I look forward to viewing and listening to this. However, with respect to membership, I'm currently fiscally restricted as I'm seeking to totally eliminate a ton of annoying small expenditures and some debts. So I'm not currently open to a paid monthly membership to Branca's Law of Self Defense community.
I remain open to such legal analysis. Because knowledge is good.
According to Branca, not when the car was simply being beat upon with a bicycle. Once serious attempts t o break in or open the doors were occurring, that and arguably more.
I am not aware of anything missing in the way of happenings--just edited for length.
This happened in Spokane, Washington, FWIW.
The people in the video being discussed here were in a car in a parking lot of a Walmart in Spokane Washington, not an SUV in NYC and only one "biker" (if by "biker" you mean "person who is riding or who owns a motorcycle") was involved.
PWGUNNY
Member
In my concealed weapons class a scenario like this was discussed. The instructor referenced the Castle Doctrine and told us we have stronger rights in 3 places; Home, Work, and Vehicle. In South Carolina, these are our "Castle", and we do NOT open that car door. If the assailant opens the door, defend yourself.
I also remember the biker vs bmw attack, as I lived in NY at the time and was an avid sportbiker. That was a bad situation all around.
I also remember the biker vs bmw attack, as I lived in NY at the time and was an avid sportbiker. That was a bad situation all around.
Read the whole thread. He was referring to my post.
Sounds good.
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,334
So...
1) The video starts with a woman standing in front of the vehicle. She has nothing in her hands and does not appear to present an immediate and severe threat. The vehicle is not surrounded by other vehicles and the driver could drive away, but running over the crazy lady at that point would likely have gotten him into trouble.
2) At some point the woman moves away from the front of the car. At that point, I would have driven away, making a U-turn if necessary. Even if it seems like the situation has ended, putting space between you and crazy people is a good plan.
3) Driver didn't do that. He just pulled up a few yards and got behind traffic again. Oops. Crazy lady is still a part of his life.
4) Driver continues to sit in traffic while crazy lady acts crazy. Still plenty of opportunity to U-turn and drive away.
5) Crazy lady is joined by crazy friends - probably all fellow homeless/addicts/whatever, which shouldn't be surprising but isn't really germane. Guy standing in front of car is doing the "I have a gun" thing with his hand in his jacket. Now is time for the driver to worry about immediate and severe threats. In his shoes I would be ready for a hard acceleration with intent to both stop the attacker - if he does produce a gun - and also get away from the possibility of further violence. A valid argument can be made that the driver is justified at that moment to drive over the guy. The trouble would be getting the legal system to agree with that argument. I personally don't think I would drive over him at that point. I certainly would not produce a gun, let alone begin firing it.
6) It also is important to note here that he is still not wedged into traffic, although he is near an intersection with a red light. I think it is reasonable, in such a situation, to carefully break traffic laws, such as making a right on red (if that is not legal in the particular state) or cautiously running a red if it can be done with reasonable safety.
7) Guy still has his "gun hand" inside his coat. Driver is looking at his cell phone, presumably dialing 911, and now is completely unprepared to respond if the guy pulls out a gun. Oops, again.
8) Guy in blue approaches driver's door and opens it, because it wasn't locked. At this point I'm almost rooting against the driver, because geez.
9) Driver slams door on blue guy. Blue guy is upset and banging on car. Driver continues to just sit there. Guy in front still has his hand in his jacket. IT IS TIME TO LEAVE. Drive into your attackers - because that is what they now are - if you need to, but get away. Do it gently if you think you can afford to, violently if you think you have to and can justify it. Once you are away from immediate danger, pull over or drive to the nearest law enforcement station, and get your report in.
10) But no, driver continues to sit around wondering what happens next. Which is more yelling, beating on windows, trying door handles. Driver finally figures it's time to leave and begins trying to drive away. Black shirt guy jumps onto the hood, driver stops.
11) This is now a new scenario that requires driver to re-analyze. Priority #1: where is "I have a gun in my coat" guy? Did he produce a gun? Then drive. Driver has no obligation to hood guy if his buddy is pointing a gun at driver. Secondary considerations: where are the other "bad guys" and what are they doing? Each one needs a quick threat assessment. Also is hood guy doing anything but sitting there? If so, he's not an active threat and driver needs to be gentle with him. I personally would consider driving slowly away from the scene, for my own safety, without unduly threatening hood guy, but that's another situation where reasonable people can disagree, and a prosecutor could disagree with reasonable people.
12) Finally, motorist drives away with unknown motorcyclist following. Now is time to call 911 while driving to the nearest law-enforcement agency.
Sorry for the long post. Short version: motorist had plenty of opportunities to get away from this trouble before it turned into real trouble. Motorist should have doors locked at all times. Motorist needs to downgrade the importance of his cell phone in his own mind. And perhaps most important for the purposes of this discussion: this was never a go-to-guns situation. The appropriate defensive weapon here was the car, from beginning to end. At no point should he have relinquished (exited) it and at no point should he have tried to supplement or replace it with a gun.
1) The video starts with a woman standing in front of the vehicle. She has nothing in her hands and does not appear to present an immediate and severe threat. The vehicle is not surrounded by other vehicles and the driver could drive away, but running over the crazy lady at that point would likely have gotten him into trouble.
2) At some point the woman moves away from the front of the car. At that point, I would have driven away, making a U-turn if necessary. Even if it seems like the situation has ended, putting space between you and crazy people is a good plan.
3) Driver didn't do that. He just pulled up a few yards and got behind traffic again. Oops. Crazy lady is still a part of his life.
4) Driver continues to sit in traffic while crazy lady acts crazy. Still plenty of opportunity to U-turn and drive away.
5) Crazy lady is joined by crazy friends - probably all fellow homeless/addicts/whatever, which shouldn't be surprising but isn't really germane. Guy standing in front of car is doing the "I have a gun" thing with his hand in his jacket. Now is time for the driver to worry about immediate and severe threats. In his shoes I would be ready for a hard acceleration with intent to both stop the attacker - if he does produce a gun - and also get away from the possibility of further violence. A valid argument can be made that the driver is justified at that moment to drive over the guy. The trouble would be getting the legal system to agree with that argument. I personally don't think I would drive over him at that point. I certainly would not produce a gun, let alone begin firing it.
6) It also is important to note here that he is still not wedged into traffic, although he is near an intersection with a red light. I think it is reasonable, in such a situation, to carefully break traffic laws, such as making a right on red (if that is not legal in the particular state) or cautiously running a red if it can be done with reasonable safety.
7) Guy still has his "gun hand" inside his coat. Driver is looking at his cell phone, presumably dialing 911, and now is completely unprepared to respond if the guy pulls out a gun. Oops, again.
8) Guy in blue approaches driver's door and opens it, because it wasn't locked. At this point I'm almost rooting against the driver, because geez.
9) Driver slams door on blue guy. Blue guy is upset and banging on car. Driver continues to just sit there. Guy in front still has his hand in his jacket. IT IS TIME TO LEAVE. Drive into your attackers - because that is what they now are - if you need to, but get away. Do it gently if you think you can afford to, violently if you think you have to and can justify it. Once you are away from immediate danger, pull over or drive to the nearest law enforcement station, and get your report in.
10) But no, driver continues to sit around wondering what happens next. Which is more yelling, beating on windows, trying door handles. Driver finally figures it's time to leave and begins trying to drive away. Black shirt guy jumps onto the hood, driver stops.
11) This is now a new scenario that requires driver to re-analyze. Priority #1: where is "I have a gun in my coat" guy? Did he produce a gun? Then drive. Driver has no obligation to hood guy if his buddy is pointing a gun at driver. Secondary considerations: where are the other "bad guys" and what are they doing? Each one needs a quick threat assessment. Also is hood guy doing anything but sitting there? If so, he's not an active threat and driver needs to be gentle with him. I personally would consider driving slowly away from the scene, for my own safety, without unduly threatening hood guy, but that's another situation where reasonable people can disagree, and a prosecutor could disagree with reasonable people.
12) Finally, motorist drives away with unknown motorcyclist following. Now is time to call 911 while driving to the nearest law-enforcement agency.
Sorry for the long post. Short version: motorist had plenty of opportunities to get away from this trouble before it turned into real trouble. Motorist should have doors locked at all times. Motorist needs to downgrade the importance of his cell phone in his own mind. And perhaps most important for the purposes of this discussion: this was never a go-to-guns situation. The appropriate defensive weapon here was the car, from beginning to end. At no point should he have relinquished (exited) it and at no point should he have tried to supplement or replace it with a gun.
Last edited:
bdickens
Member
"...the man who jumped on the hood was arrested on a separate warrant...."
In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle: "surprise, surprise, surprise!"
In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle: "surprise, surprise, surprise!"
he did start to drive away. apparently believing that the incident was over.
And was blocked by pedestrians
An assumption that it could be done, and Andrew di not list that as an option.
With people in front of him....
He had told his children to lock the doors, but in the heat of the moment, he failed to lock his.
Eihter way, it would constitute the use of deadly force. If the driver reasonably believed that he could avoidd it, it would not have been lawful
He did not.
And that is precisely what he did.
Nothing like Monday morning quarter-backing, is there? Andrew posts these as "after action reports", and he customarily suggests alternative courses action. But the suggested none this time.
Except when the man pilled the door open, in that particular context. Andrew explains why--and why the use of pepper spray would have been imprudent.
Using it as a weapon would have been the same as firing a gun, legally.
Why?
I disagree. Had he been justified in using deadly force, the focussed use of a gun would have entailed less risk of injury or death to someone against whom such force might not have been justified than would the use of a car as a deadly weapon.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
While we may come down on someone for not taking a particular action, keep in mind that most people have an inherent predisposition NOT to act in a violent or potentially lethal way to other human beings, especially in face-to-face scenarios.
Many of us here may think this strange...perhaps even false. But nevertheless, it's true.
The vast majority of people are not looking for, nor are they prepared for, violence psychologically.
Many of us here may think this strange...perhaps even false. But nevertheless, it's true.
The vast majority of people are not looking for, nor are they prepared for, violence psychologically.
You nailed it.
As things turned out, the father did not use his car as a weapon-and he did not have to do so.
Had he been forced to do so, that video might have been his only ticket to personal freedom.
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,334
He didn't "drive away". He pulled forward a few yards, which could be reasonably expected to accomplish nothing.
"Pedestrians"?
An observation, easily verified. And I really do not care what "Andrew" lists as options.
"People"?
They should have all been locked as soon as the doors were closed, and stayed that way.
The first part is not necessarily true. As you yourself have said, law is not always black and white. The second part addresses nothing I've written.
I cannot imagine why you felt compelled to point that out.
No, he sat there for a while, with the guy on his hood, while the other attackers continued with whatever they were doing.
What is the difference between "Monday morning quarter-backing" and "suggesting alternative courses of action" in an "after action report"?
So you can't drive into a man who is standing in front of your car indicating he has a weapon, but you can pull a gun on a guy with both hands empty and plainly visible when he opens you car door?
Nope. Not even close.
Because he was already in possession and control of his weapon. Trying to drive his car and produce (let alone effectively use) a gun would have reduced his effectiveness with both.
That is a huge, unsupportable stretch.
White Rhino
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2018
- Messages
- 9
Not a direct response to the video, (which I have not watched), but In some situations I feel safer getting out of the car. For example, pulling up to a drive through ATM machine at night. Seems much more likely that I would see/ hear a potential robber coming and turn to face them before they were right up on me. Having freedom of movement, and possibly even using my own car as cover, rather than only having one pane of glass between us. One time a "buddy" of mine crept up behind my car and pretended to put a gun behind my ear at a busy fast food drive through. That experience stuck with me.
I think it was technically Spokane Valley wasn't it?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll