Car Jacking--What would YOU Do?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue Jays said:
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.
Click to expand...
Counterintuitive?
 
If they just want my car or truck I would let them have it by running them over if they were armed.
Besides my old vehicles no one would want unless it was to get away from something or someone. I figure if they are willing to risk their life to forcibly try to take my car, I'm willing to run them over to save my life.
If they got into my car I would get out, unless they have a gun & was going to try to kill me anyway. Then I would defend myself just like if I was walking down the street.
 
Kleanbore said:
"…Counterintuitive?…"
Click to expand...
Yes. Seeing a partner being accosted (even just verbally) most people would quickly spring into action.
Quietly standing to the side posing as a "disinterested bystander" while strategically calling 9-1-1 requires fortitude.

It would also be counterintuitive yet could ultimately tip the scales in your favor.
Tough judgement call to make while in the moment, for sure.
 
They can have the vehicle. We exit the vehicle, find cover and activate the kill switch. Also since we are armed we prepare for the next phase should it come to that.
 
Kleanbore said:
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.
Click to expand...

I only have one point to make.....If someone tries to take my truck by force, I will ruin their day. If I don’t, then my wife will. There will be no pauses for reflection, or consideration for their sorry lot in life. At carjacking range, it will be eyeballs and earholes only. That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.
 
Roknstevo said:
I only have one point to make.....If someone tries to take my truck by force, I will ruin their day. If I don’t, then my wife will.
Click to expand...
That may be lawfully justified, but as DB. Cooper said, "t'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)". No truck is worth the risk to a reasonable person.
 
AK Hunter said:
they have a gun & was going to try to kill me anyway.
Click to expand...

My default setting is compliance does not guarantee my safety and I'll act accordingly.
This is applicable even if they have the drop on me, compliance does not guarantee they won't shoot me anyway.
I'd rather try and possibly suffer the consequences than not try and suffer the consequences.
 
Out west we used to hang people for stealing cattle and horses. My truck is my horse. My weapon is neatly tucked between my seat and the center seat. If a person starts to walk up to my window whether at a traffic light or parking lot my hand automatically goes to my gun. And I carry out of the truck as well so there's that.
Be aware of your surroundings .Its a crime war out there.
But thats just me living in he southwest.
 
The video is informative. Thanks for posting the link. The desirability of using vehicles, and other large things, as concealment and/or cover, is always important. The desirability of using one’s probably-superior marksmanship skills, from a distance, is also a best practice. (Never assume, however, that a bad guy cannot shoot.) This is, of course, a reason to carry a weapon with a substantial, hand-filling gripping area, and good sights.

If my spouse stays behind, in the truck, she is usually armed, and will probably have access to more firearms, on and about her person, than I am carrying. She is perfectly able to drive the truck, which is probably going to be her truck, anyway. (We have his-and-hers Toyota Tundras, but hers is newer, and more comfortable, for her.) So, in real life, I would, probably, only need to provide the distraction that allows her to drive, or to choose to go to guns, herself, if something made driving problematic.

My wife was a forensic death scene investigator, for 21 years, for the Medical Examiner of one of the USA’s most-populous counties, so she knows a thing, or two, about how fatal carjackings and robberies have happened.
 
ms6852 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This may be the best way to survive the incident with the least amount of drama, but I could never do it.

Even if I were in my crappy 200,000 + mile $1,700 Montero, it's still MY vehicle. I'm just not wired to allow an evil person to take from me what is rightfully mine. While I do not believe an old vehicle is worth the price of a human life, I also do not believe in allowing myself to become a victim if I feel I have even the smallest chance to resist. I would have to instantly weigh the odds, and respond according to what I view my chances are of coming out with both my life, and my property.

No, I would not consider the life of the aggressor as a factor in my deliberation. The decision to steal was made not by me. They get the vehicle, or a fight, depending on if I think I can win. It's that simple.

This is me taking "the high road". I don't let evil win.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men should do nothing."
 
My carjacking strategy is simple. Don’t go places to get carjacked. Busy intersections means lots of eyes. County roads mean guns in the vehicle. That just leaves side streets in town, so avoid those areas as much as possible and don’t stop at times when you have to be there. My new job puts me in that spot and I gladly drive 3 miles a day further to avoid driving through “the hood”
 
Space Ghost said:
I'm just not wired to allow an evil person to take from me what is rightfully mine.
Click to expand...
Best to employ reason rather than emotion.

Space Ghost said:
While I do not believe an old vehicle is worth the price of a human life, I also do not believe in allowing myself to become a victim if I feel I have even the smallest chance to resist. I would have to instantly weigh the odds, and respond according to what I view my chances are of coming out with both my life, and my property.
Click to expand...
Risk management involves weighing the likelihood and consequence of loss against those of the benefit or gain. I can conceive of no personal property that would be worth even the lowest likelihood of the loss of life or crippling injury, the greater-than-zero chance of life imprisonment, or the large expenses of the defense of justification. The last of those is not really a "maybe"--the cash register will be running moments after the attorney is contacted.

Space Ghost said:
The decision to steal was made not by me. They get the vehicle, or a fight, depending on if I think I can win. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
One may not lawfully employ deadly force to prevent theft or to prevent the loss of tangible property except in one US jurisdiction.. Carjacking is robbery, which is a crime against persons; the use of deadly force would be lawful due to the imminent threat of death or injury--not to save a vehicle.
 
So if I am inside my vehicle and some loser is trying to break in my window or waving a weapon around demanding I get out of my car that is a threat against my body and potentially I could get murdered, kidnapped, raped or endure great bodily harm. And this is what Arizonans can legally do.

Arizona's Castle Doctrine
Deadly force is justified in cases where the individual feels it is necessary to defend them selves or others against murder, great bodily harm, rape, or kidnapping. This applies to the person's home, place of business, or anywhere the person has the right to be.

Statute
A.R.S. §§ 13-411, -413, -418, -419
What is Castle Doctrine?
Castle Laws are laws that address the use of force when defending one's self inside their home, or on their property. Some states expand this to vehicles, and the person's place of work. Castle Laws generally include: the places where this law applies, the requirements fro use of deadly force, if there is a duty to retreat, the amount of force that maybe used in defending one's self or others. These vary widely from state to state.

Arizona's Stand Your Ground
The use of deadly force in defense of one's self or others, and no duty to retreat applies to anywhere the person has the right to be.

What is Stand Your Ground?
Stand Your Ground Laws are often expansions of the Castle Laws. They address the use of force outside of one's home, place of work, or vehicle. They cover most of the same issues as the castle laws (the places where this law applies, the requirements fro use of deadly force, if there is a duty to retreat, the amount of force that maybe used in defending one's self or others) the main difference is the location. Some states that do not have a technical Stand Your Ground Law have extensive Castle Laws that address locations outside of the home, place of work, etc. The circumstances of the law vary widely from state to state.
 
Make all your grandstanding gestures you wish.

But remember that your ACTIONS will not be judged based solely on what YOU believe.

They will be judged based on what OTHERS believe to have been a reasonable response based on the circumstances presented to them about whatever particular encounter you were in for which you chose to use deadly force, with respect to what the laws allow as permissible.

What this means is that NONE of us can afford to believe that they can blanket presume the use of deadly force is justified in any given instance ahead of time. Every real life scenario is unique unto itself, and so shall the justification to use deadly force be likewise presumed.
 
Kleanbore said:
Best to employ reason rather than emotion.

Risk management involves weighing the likelihood and consequence of loss against those of the benefit or gain. I can conceive of no personal property that would be worth even the lowest likelihood of the loss of life or crippling injury, the greater-than-zero chance of life imprisonment, or the large expenses of the defense of justification. The last of those is not really a "maybe"--the cash register will be running moments after the attorney is contacted.

One may not lawfully employ deadly force to prevent theft or to prevent the loss of tangible property except in one US jurisdiction.. Carjacking is robbery, which is a crime against persons; the use of deadly force would be lawful due to the imminent threat of death or injury--not to save a vehicle.
Click to expand...

This is NOT emotion, this is my belief system. I will not abide evil.

I know all about "risk management". I spent 28 years in the uniform of my country, and 10 in law enforcement, CO in a max security SHU, and Campus Police. I've been in countless fights, been bit, stabbed twice, heat stroked out twice, been shot at numerous times, (never hit yet) been struck by a car, climbed out a window to escape a building fire, been in a tank wreck, and had my truck blown out from under me. Yes, I've even had the new plague.

I wouldn't think of using "deadly force" to prevent theft. I would, however, fight my ass off to prevent theft. I simply choose not to give up what is mine.

Now if the thief, decides to threaten my life during the process, then I'm not really preventing a theft now, am I?
At that point, I'm defending my life.
THIS, I am allowed to do by law.
This I will do, no matter what, because not only do I not want to give up what's mine, but I don't want to give up my life.


Did you watch the video?
The guy was telling the 2 bad guys to get away from his vehicle.
He was simply saying "No, you can't have what's mine." He's allowed to do that.
Once the two would be carjackers pulled iron, it ceased to be about the car. It was a matter of his life. This would have been a justified case of self defense.

This is what I'm saying. You don't give in to evil if you don't have to. You never do unless you absolutely have zero choice. IMHO, even then, you are only placing yourself at the mercy of people... without mercy... so your odds still don't go up by much. This is why evil must not be allowed to prevail.
 
I drive a convertible, car jackers dream, provided they know how to drive a stick. :neener: (Then they can drive to the hospital for those bullet wounds)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Priorities for Self Defense Outside the Home
Replies
0
Views
1K
Kleanbore
K
K
  • Locked
Self Defense Outside the Home--Priorities and Thoughts
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
5K
jdh
jdh
G
  • Locked
WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH SELF DEFENSE
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Jeff White
J
L
  • Locked
Force on Force; Defense from Vehicle
Replies
11
Views
896
Wichaka
Wichaka
K
  • Locked
Choosing a Defensive Handgun--and More
Replies
5
Views
513
wvfarrier
wvfarrier
Back
Top