Carjacking

[vintage68]

Recently a woman in my town was ordered at gunpoint to give a carjacker the keys to her car when she was walking back to her vehicle in the parking lot.

It had me thinking, would using deadly force with a CCW be legal in this situation?

By the way, the idiot carjacker didn't get very far, he didn't know how to drive a manual!!

I live in Reno, NV.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

Ya, but he probly already had his gun out before she could do anything. Sure I'd draw if possible , but its unlikely it would work.

 

[bigfatdave]

Ya, but he probably already had his gun out before she could do anything. Sure I'd draw if possible , but its unlikely it would work.

And then the carjacker shifted focus from the key-source to the key-receptacle ... while still presenting a viable and immediate threat.
Threatening me with a gun is deadly force, and that's why I CC. I hope I don't end up ever needing it, but some thug with a gun is a threat to my safety/life and the safety/lives of others, which brings us into justified use of deadly force in a defensive context.

 

[cane]

To quote a movie character "his back were to me".

 

[mljdeckard]

Now I am usually the one in here telling everyone, "When in doubt, if there is any other possible option, DON'T SHOOT."

The problem with a carjacking is, when this guy takes your car, you don't know what he's going to do with it. If he's violent and desperate enough to violently steal the car of a total stranger, he's desperate enough to wind up on the news from the helicopter view as he runs red lights, goes against traffic, and endangers all kinds of lives. He can now kill with his gun AND your car. For this reason, I would likely be taking any opportunity I could to stop his actions by any means necessary, and I feel confident that my lawyer will be able to sell it to the D.A. and the jury. A reasonable person would rather stop the problem there than let a dangerous high-speed chase commence.

 

[GHF]

In Florida

The forcible entry into a vehicle is treated the same way as a forcible entry into a building (home, RV, tent, business). The assumption is that the person forcing the entry can/will use deadly force, and deadly force is immediately available to deal with the threat. That is the essence of Castle Doctrine (vehicles and buildings are treated the same here.)

Short answer - draw and shoot.

 

[2RCO]

In MO from what my CCW instructor said, as part of stopping a forcible felony it's a justified shoot. Since I often have a small child in a car seat with me I can state that NO ONE is taking the car from me with her in it. If I have to beat a carjacker to death with my bare fists I will do so. If I'm out on my own, no car alone is worth the risk so I'll take whatever I deem to be the path of least resistance.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Ya, but he probly already had his gun out before she could do anything. Sure I'd draw if possible , but its unlikely it would work.

Unless you are a Texas Grandmother.
I believe it was about the middle of last year that a armed punk tried to take the car keys from a senior lady.
She took his gun away and shot him in the stomach with it.
Too bad he didn't have a larger caliber gun, he lived.

 

[FlaChef]

If a thug has weapon you should feel threatened with death or gave bodily harm.
That said, drawing vs a gun that is already out is risky, try distraction and diversion IF you are going to try it at all.
However if someone will be happy with a thing of some sort then I am all for letting them have it (it ain't worth increasing the already present risk to my body). Things can be replaced, I can't.
But you never know if that will satisfy them into going away (if they are shaking and obviously strung out then they cannot be predicted at all).

In the end it is your call and none of us know what we will do until it happens, and all the monday morning quarterbacking in the world won't change the fact that if you get to walk away you did good.

Legally though, he is a threat if he has a weapon. He is in the act of committing a forceable felony. Your states take on castle law (and whether or not that includes your vehicle) or any such "duty to retreat" will be factors in how a prosecutor feels about your case (but they do not change the fact that the definition of a grave threat does exist).

 

[husbandofaromanian]

How about shooting out a couple of tires once he is in the car. Then stand there daring him to open the door.

 

[Art Eatman]

First off, know your state laws on the general subject of self-defense and deadly force. It varies.

The physical situation: The Bad Guy has the keys. He enters the car. At that point he has the problem of what to do with his weapon as he looks for the ignition and checks the controls. At the very least he's distracted from being able to maintain any credible threat. That's when an armed owner then has the power and it becomes decision-making time.

 

[mgkdrgn]

If someone has a gun on me, they are an immediate threat to my life. Why they have it on me is immaterial.

I'm right handed.

My keys are normally in my LEFT front pocket. My daily carry is in my right. Action is faster than reaction.

What -would- I do? Honestly, I don't know. How many other people around, what else do I have in my hands, where is he, who else is with me, where is my car, what is his demeanor ... etc, etc. Way to many variables.

 

[Cosmoline]

Carjackings, muggings, etc. are not contract negotiations. You are under imminent unlawful deadly peril until you are out of his range or he's clearly exiting. Up until that point you'd better defend yourself if you have to. "Money or your life" is not a valid agreement folks. These guys can and frequently do kill you too. Same with carjackings.

 

[Phatty]

My keys are normally in my LEFT front pocket. My daily carry is in my right. Action is faster than reaction.

So, are you advocating doing the ol' toss your keys to the carjacker with a nice high arch, and while the carjacker is looking up at the keys to catch them you do a fast draw and fire?

 

[sniknah]

shoot to KILL !!!

 

[razorback2003]

Form of Robbery

Carjacking would be a form of robbery or in its on class of violent felony crime in most states. You should check your state laws, but I do know that in TN I would be very legal for stopping a carjacker with deadly force. I also know that all the states I have lived in or traveled to it would be legal because carjackers are threatening someone's life for a vehicle. I would assume it would be legal to stop with deadly force in all 50 states, especially if the carjacker has some sort of weapon, like a pipe, bottle, knife, gun in his hand. We do not have to retreat in Tennessee from carjackers either. Some states you have to TRY to retreat in public IF safe to do so. Realistically, I find it hard to believe you would have problems using deadly force against a carjacker with a gun in his hand anywhere in America because you are protecting life when you get right down to it.

 

[bondmid003]

In North Carolina deadly force is authorized to stop a carjacker, but I'm not sure if it applies to stopping someone from carjacking someone else. The law was somewhat of a response to the death of Micheal Jordan's dad after being carjacked on Highway 40

 

[Kleanbore]

In Florida...The forcible entry into a vehicle is treated the same way as a forcible entry into a building (home, RV, tent, business). The assumption is that the person forcing the entry can/will use deadly force, and deadly force is immediately available to deal with the threat. That is the essence of Castle Doctrine (vehicles and buildings are treated the same here.)

Short answer - draw and shoot.

And one of the operative words in the law is "occupied." The woman discussed in the OP was "walking back to her car."

Of course, that does not mean that the use of deadly force would not be lawful.

And it does not help in Nevada.

As Art Eatman says, know your state law.

And do not presume that you would be justified in shooting as the guy takes off in your car.

Consult an attorney in your state. Worth infinitely more than internet advice.

A little lay internet research indicates that a bill has been drafted in Nevada that would extend a presumption of justifiability to an invasion of an automobile--provided the actor is in it. Best I can tell it has not been enacted into law.

 

[mgkdrgn]

So, are you advocating doing the ol' toss your keys to the carjacker with a nice high arch, and while the carjacker is looking up at the keys to catch them you do a fast draw and fire?

What I am suggesting is that I have options, and I need to weigh those options based on the specific situations and circumstances. My daily carry is small enough that the first he will know that I have it is when he hears it go off.

If the BG is right handed, he will have to reach across his body to take the keys from my left hand. (I'm assuming he'll have his gun in his right.) His focus will be on my left hand. His arm will be between me and his gun. My my right hand will have already been placed in my right pocket when I went for my keys (hands in both pockets).

I will not use deadly force to protect property ... but I will not hesitate to use it to protect my life, the lives of my family, or the life of an innocent.

 

[ar10]

We, (Columbus, OH) have them all the time. Three "kids" tried it on me a couple of years ago, but I was lucky they ran like hell when I had my gun pointed at the closest one.
Ohio law classifies car jacking as a violent crime, although the term car jacking isn't an actual law on the books. It's usually aggravated robbery, or some other type of felony.
In my INAL opinion yes you can use deadly force if you're believe you may suffer great bodily harm. Just remember, have your attorney sitting in the wings to CYA and say as little as necessary when LE shows up.

 

[Castrolr1]

For us in Texas

Deadly Force in Defense of Person

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."