Car Jacking--What would YOU Do?

[Kleanbore]

When we go to the range, our objective is to hit targets--paper, metal plates, or clay birds. That is also true in competition, and it's true in hunting, where the targets are live.

That is not our objective in self defense. Our sole objective is to avoid being harmed, or to prevent harm to others. We will be better off by far if no shots are fired.

In the excellent Personal Defense TV series, we saw numerous examples of how avoidance was "the best defense".

That would seem patently obvious, but here's an example in which an experienced defensive shooting instructor forgot all about it and charged into the fray, absorbing somme incoming rounds in the process.

Fortunately, it happened in a FoF session with simunitions.

The 'right' way to handle the situation is also shown.

Doing it the 'wrong' way is perfectly understandable. One finds one spouse being threatened by armed men, and one is armed.

This is about a car-jacking scenario. We hear that to be the fastest-increasing crime of violence in the country.

I think this is worth watching--a couple of times.



I learned numerous things about not walking into traps from The Best Defense TV. This series is good, too.

 

[chicharrones]

Time to "train" the spouse to drive away and meet up later, if not blocked in by other vehicles.

Back in the 1990s before my spouse and I had cell phones, she was victim of an attempted car jacking by three men at a crowded shopping mall parking lot. I was not there, but her mother was in the passenger seat while they were driving between a row of cars. The doors of her car were already locked and she floored it, with the man in front of her car running out of the way. They got away and were shaken by the incident, but I certainly do appreciate the outcome.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Yet another thread I've gotta come back to when I get time to watch this.

I learned a bit about car jacking while in Puerto Rico. That's where I learned that at night you don't stop for traffic lights/signs. You slow down, make sure the way is clear, and keep on going. Because car jacking is a problem there. I was a bit surprised when this was put out during a command briefing before pulling into port. Imagine that...the command TELLING you to break the law and it's OK!

 

[ms6852]

My father in law asked me that question a few years ago and he was surprised when I replied that I would give up the truck without a struggle. "You have a gun" he replied and I said I also have insurance. I don't believe that an old vehicle is worth the price of a human life, that is my belief, but every situation is different and without being in such an event everything is hypothetical. I still stand to reason that a vehicle is not worth taking a life or getting killed over it, especially if the family is with me.

 

[Kleanbore]

My father in law asked me that question a few years ago and he was surprised when I replied that I would give up the truck without a struggle.

That's the thing to do, if you are afforded that option.

The risk, of course is that a spouse or significant other is taken on his or her last automobile ride

 

[MedWheeler]

Definitely good points in the first scenario that are demonstrated in the second. However, the wife's peaceful exit is becoming less and less a common outcome, as more would-be carjackers are shooting at targets that attempt to escape. Many are even shooting their victims after they've relinquished the vehicle (one jacker executed his victim when he learned the vehicle was equipped with a transmission he could not operate.)

 

[Rule3]

Those were the most non aggressive polite carjackers!
First thing I would have done is hit the panic button on the Key FOB
How much time did he waste calling 911

Strangest looking gas station parking lot I have ever seen.
Yep it was a scenario. I am not tactical.

 

[Blue Jays]

In the second scenario why would she not pull their truck up to him?
He could remain behind cover of the vehicle and hop into back seat.
Or if occupied, run around front of vehicle and get into passenger seat.

 

[armedwalleye]

In the second scenario why would she not pull their truck up to him?
He could remain behind cover of the vehicle and hop into back seat.
Or if occupied, run around front of vehicle and get into passenger seat.

To pull the vehicle to him would require turning left and placing herself on the recieving side of the vehicle for incoming fire. To turn the vihicle right shileds her, but, depending on the vehicle, (a 2 door, for example) would require him to run into the line of fire to get in.
He has cover and can defend if approached or fired upon and their target, supposedly the vehicle, is already leaving, and the cops are on the way.

 

[Blue Jays]

"…To pull the vehicle to him would require turning left and placing herself on the recieving side of the vehicle for incoming fire…"

Rewatch the video. The woman "Tracy" climbed into the driver's seat and immediately made a RIGHT turn.
Better choice would have been per pausing her momentum for 1/2-second so he could jump in and drive away. The scenario did not indicate/illustrate if two bad guys even had a car where they could pursue the good guys.

 

[armedwalleye]

Rewatch the video. The woman "Tracy" climbed into the driver's seat and immediately made a RIGHT turn.
Better choice would have been per pausing her momentum for 1/2-second so he could jump in and drive away. The scenario did not indicate/illustrate if two bad guys even had a car where they could pursue the good guys.

Note that I said "depending on the car". Once the easy pickings are gone, theere is no need for them to further engage the good guy. Their mark is gone.

 

[Tirod]

I'll entertain a discussion of overall strategy, specific circumstances contrived to force a resulting action are where most of these discussions run amok.

First, carjackings occur where a car is stopped and the driver is vulnerable. Window down door unlocked at an intersection. That also means a location that is more high crime than suburbia. And overall, seeing the driver dragged out at gunpoint suggests they never had a plan of action in mind at all. Which is why the car jacker picked them - they looked the most vulnerable victim and therefore low risk.

First problem is thinking it will never happen, second, NOT USING THE GAS PEDAL. The vehicle itself, usually over 3,000 pounds with 200 HP minimum to propel it in the direction you need to go seems to be frequently ignored by victims. I think it's called "parking in the garage syndrome" where we tend to drive avoiding even a scratch in the paint, when the more appropriate attempt would be to crush the assailant by any means possible, including against another vehicle.

You want my vehicle? Be careful what you ask for. And, yes, I've done this manuever gently at a bank teller window when homeless attempt to squeeze in between my truck and the glass. I made it uncomfortably close. I could have easily killed them, I assessed the situation and decided they weren't that much of a threat.

I could have been wrong. I could get closer next time. I say that because I have already dealt with a threat of that nature and I don't have to suffer analysis paralysis, which is the #1 problem with carjacking. People don't respond soon enough because they are going thru a 45 second to 4-5 MINUTE decision loop.

Too little too late.

You don't want to be carjacked, don't ride with the windows down door unlocked and your mind somewhere else while passively steering the wheel in lala land. You see people standing about at the intersection, etc wake up and ask why? Is it normal or what is going on?

They save fortune favors the bold, start entertaining some thought into how to take away their advantages and how to react. I don't really care about sheet metal - if I am being attacked in my vehicle, then stopping the assailant with the vehicle is on the table.

It's the people who won't react decisively who promote car jacking, if there were more attackers with tire tread marks we shortly see an end to it. And not to forget, some states now actively protect drivers who are attacked by mobs of peaceful demonstrators blocking the roads. And since those laws passed, along with some memorable video drive thru's of accosted drivers escaping them, those activities are now apparently consider high risk. They don't block highways much now.

You make your decision on how to handle it, with a plan at least you addressed it. Others will make their decisions - and did 20 years ago. We have our plan and for the most part its so rare it's not something we lose sleep over.

If you would pull a gun and shoot the attacker, there is no ethical or moral difference steering into a crush zone. Lethal force is lethal force. You don't get to cherry pick when and where, you deal with what you have the most responsible way you can.

Life is more than pulling a gun as your ONLY response to a threat.

 

[Blue Jays]

@Tirod, completely agree with your assessment. This is one reason I rarely drive with windows down.
While it is just a movie, Robert DeNiro did this perfectly in HEAT in the empty drive-in movie theater scene.

 

[Zerodefect]

Use reverse. You left enough room ahead of you to maneuver at that red light. After placing the vehicle back a few feet, you might be able to steer forward and get out of there.

Especially in a truck. You've got 4 feet of battling ram to push all the traffic behind you out of the way. Nothing says move, quite like a 6500# truck with 400hp and flawless traction. And zero critical components back there.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

That is not our objective in self defense. Our sole objective is to avoid being harmed, or to prevent harm to others. We will be better off by far if no shots are fired.

I always get laughed at when instructors say, "What is the first rule of a a gun fight?" The answer they are looking for is "To have a gun" but I always respond "To not get shot." The counter is that to be in a gun fight, you have to have a gun, to which I reply that lots of people find themselves in gun fights and don't have guns because they aren't the combatants.

----------------

In the video, the good guy took two hits and the instructor says he continued to fight through. That is something they stress in their training. Got it. This is where FOF becomes less realistic because you can fight through Airsoft, paintball, and Simmunition all day long. At least the first hit appeared to take him center mass.

The 911 aspect mentioned is interesting. If you don't feel the threat is imminent, then you can stop and call 911. You fiance is in the car and two guys are trying to get into it as in the scenario, few folks are going to stop to call 911 while their fiance is being terrorized.

First problem is thinking it will never happen, second, NOT USING THE GAS PEDAL.

I only know of one case where this did not resolve the problem and the driver was shot in the face. Obviously, nothing works 100% of the time, but the farther you can move yourself from the threat, the greater your chances of not getting hurt.
https://www.nbcdfw.com/local/mall-shooting-victim-i-will-never-forget-that-face/1847240/
"He got so mad, and he just started shaking his head, 'No,' and then, he started showing me the gun," she said. "I just looked away, and I pushed the accelerator, and when I went to back up, that’s when he shot me."

 

[Blue Jays]

"…Note that I said 'depending on the car'.
Once the easy pickings are gone, theere is no need for them to further engage the good guy.
Their mark is gone…"

In this scenario they were specifically using a Chevrolet Suburban LT truck for the exercise.
The driver "Tracy" made a RIGHT turn and was positioned perfectly to pick-up the student.

In terms of risk management, leaving a "significant other" behind does not make practical sense.
Quotation marks are used because I do not know if the student and driver are actually a couple in real life.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

While an interesting video I would submit no one should share what they would do in a similar situation on the internet. Unless of course you're submitting to the perps like in the second part of the video. I'm pretty sure no agency would have a problem with that.

Secondly, I would HIGHLY advise not getting on the phone BEFORE the possibility of being in a SD situation. That just screams idiocracy.

If you're in a SD situation you call AFTER the fact stating as little info as possible. When it comes time to actually give a statement with counsel present you were in fear for your life.

Calling before hand saying you are armed and going to try to diffuse a situation (as the video suggests) is beyond idiotic.


These are obviously just my opinions...

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

While an interesting video I would submit no one should share what they would do in a similar situation on the internet. Unless of course you're submitting to the perps like in the second part of the video. I'm pretty sure no agency would have a problem with that.

Secondly, I would HIGHLY advise not getting on the phone BEFORE the possibility of being in a SD situation. That just screams idiocracy.

If you're in a SD situation you call AFTER the fact stating as little info as possible. When it comes time to actually give a statement with counsel present you were in fear for your life.

Calling before hand saying you are armed and going to try to diffuse a situation (as the video suggests) is beyond idiotic.


These are obviously just my opinions...

While I agree that what you post should be carefully thought out when it comes to matters such as self-defense, because anything you post can be dredged up later and potentially used against you, I disagree with your stipulation about when and how to use your phone.

Obviously, the circumstances one finds oneself in dictates where one's focus ought to be. When one's life is in imminent danger, taking appropriate action to preserve one's life is the priority.

That action may or may not include the use of a phone. A phone is simply another tool in one's tool box, to be used appropriately. While we can all come up with endless circumstances in which going for one's phone is NOT the best course of action, we can all likewise come up with tons of circumstances in which it WOULD be the best course of action.

And yes...I'm talking about being in an actual "SD situation".

The particular example you cited is an example of being truly asinine ("Calling before hand saying you are armed and going to try to diffuse a situation (as the video suggests) is beyond idiotic.") Taking up arms and entering a rucus to "diffuse as situation" is patently NOT "self-defense". Taking up arms to DEFEND someone in imminent danger, however, would be an example of a legally supported defensive use of deadly force. The asinine part is not the use of the phone as you cited, but the presentation and intent to use deadly force as you stated in your example.

(Qualifier: I STILL haven't watched the whole video...I keep getting side tracked and currently I can't view it where I'm at anyway. I'm assuming here that your assertion of "...try to diffuse a situation..." is accurate.)

 

[Kleanbore]

Secondly, I would HIGHLY advise not getting on the phone BEFORE the possibility of being in a SD situation. That just screams idiocracy.

Why, if time permits?

Calling before hand saying you are armed and going to try to diffuse a situation (as the video suggests) is beyond idiotic.

I would be, in sone circumstances, but not in this one, IMHO.

Taking up arms and entering a rucus to "diffuse as situation" is patently NOT "self-defense".

I think you are applying that thought out of context. The justification of deadly force most likely already existed. The defender's action could not be reasonably characterized as instigating the confrontation. The defender was not trying to prevent or stop a property crime or break up a melee.

Taking up arms to DEFEND someone in imminent danger, however, would be an example of a legally supported defensive use of deadly force.

That is precisely what the defender was preparing to do here. The question becomes one of whether the actual use of deadly force would become immediately necessary. In this case it did not, after the car was driven away.

This does raise one interesting point: The situation indicated against the use of the cell phone to take video during the incident, A body cam, however, would helped lot in providing evidence useful in an investigation or in trial court, should it have become necessary, or in helping to apprehend the perps,

 

[MedWheeler]

Blue Jays writes:

In terms of risk management, leaving a "significant other" behind does not make practical sense.

In this specific scenario, if it was my wife (who would usually also have my daughter in tow), I'd want her to keep going. I can retreat back into the store or otherwise take care of myself. If the attackers were to take the extremely-unlikely action of continuing to shoot, I'd rather it be at me alone, not all three of us as I'm trying to scramble into the now-stopped vehicle.

 

[Kleanbore]

Actually, the subject line was not intended as a serious question. We simply wanted discuss some of the relevant points.

A defender's course of action would depend upon the detail.

In my case, I would be most unlikely to find myself in such a situation. I do not like to leave my spouse undefended in the car at all.

 

[Blue Jays]

Everyone has their own "custom approach" that they prefer.
My partner and I would not be comfortable leaving each other.

Unless with simple shouted directions along the lines of:
"Drive around and meet me at the front of this store. Go!"

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

OK, finally got around to watching the video.

This wasn't a case of just "someone" making an armed diffusion attempt in some altercation they just happened upon. This guy's spouse was under aggressive and escalating seige while trapped in the vehicle.

The phone call was entirely justified, as actual violence (physical assault against a person) had not yet happened. At this point, calling 911 gets the ball rolling for assistance, and that's crucial.

 

[Blue Jays]

While certainly counterintuitive, one could even make a case for quietly calling for 9-1-1 assistance before engaging the two dirtbags (well, actors, in this training video) accosting the spouse inside the Chevrolet Suburban.

They might not even notice the "bystander" and it could potentially be worth the 20-second investment.

"…My name is Blah Blah. My spouse and I are being attacked in the parking lot behind Blauman's Department Store in Anytown, USA. I am wearing a red sweatshirt and khaki shorts. My spouse is wearing a black tee-shirt and denim jeans. The two attackers are wearing green hoodies. We need police and EMS in the parking lot behind Blauman's Department Store in Anytown, USA immediately…" CLICK.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

My father in law asked me that question a few years ago and he was surprised when I replied that I would give up the truck without a struggle. "You have a gun" he replied and I said I also have insurance. I don't believe that an old vehicle is worth the price of a human life, that is my belief, but every situation is different and without being in such an event everything is hypothetical. I still stand to reason that a vehicle is not worth taking a life or getting killed over it, especially if the family is with me.

We're on the same page. I have full insurance on the truck. It's replaceable. If I get into firefight, there is a greater than zero chance I might lose said firefight. (There is also a greater than zero chance that a bystander is injured.) Even if I do win, I still have to deal with what the state is going to do to me afterward.

I won't even get into the moral implications.