Close call today.

[kungfuhippie]

That's been going around for years and I don't think it's ever been true.

Damn-it, snoopes!!!
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/lightsout.asp
I could have sworn that there were shooting in Hemet, Ca. Goes to show my memory isn't as good as I remember it to be.

Disregard that, but the car crushing is real. The whole point of the fake story is the same, just take it as fiction.

 

[shooter503]

To play the Devil's advocate.

Assuming escape is not an option, if I am threatened with a firearm I can defend myself. If I am threatened with a baseball bat I can defend myself. If I am threatened by multiple assailants I can defend myself. Why is self-defence considered inappropriate when overt threats of violence are made, by multiple potental assailants, from a motor-car that is being operated dangerously and in such a manner as to clearly show that the intent of the other driver is to force you to a stop?

Why would the other car attempt to force you to a stop other than that the occupants intended physical contact? Say you avoided one attempt to stop you - how many attempts must they make before you decide that your life is in danger? After all, they are endangering your life by the actions they take to force you to stop, not to mention their possible actions when you do stop. What is the difference between having your movement deliberately impeded by two potential attackers in a hotel corridor and having your movement deliberately impeded by two potential attackers in another vehicle on a highway? In both cases you are probably in big trouble if the potential assailants succeed in boxing you in.

I agree that avoiding the problem is the best solution. I also think it would be wrong to open fire on another car regardless of the actions of the occupants unless a firearm was brandished (and even then the situation would have to be extreme). However, I do not think a jury would convict anyone for defending themselves in a situation where multiple opponents forced a car to a stop then approached in a threatening manner. The very fact that they were so persistent and dangerous in their pre-stop actions would be evidence against them.

Just checking the limits of the posts above.

 

[Geno]

My wife and I had a similar experience. In our case, I got the plate number, he went to jail and was prosecuted, and convicted:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=210179&highlight=Decision-making

Seems to be you handled it as well as can be expected. by the way, I agree about the 4X4 comment.

Doc2005

 

[mlandman]

Shooter503 posted:
Why is self-defence considered inappropriate when overt threats of violence are made, by multiple potental assailants, from a motor-car that is being operated dangerously and in such a manner as to clearly show that the intent of the other driver is to force you to a stop?

In my state, and others I have read the laws on justifiable use of deadly force, the standard used is "reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm and/or death". This is referenced to the renowned "reasonable person". "Would a reasonable person, of sound mind, think that..."

There also needs to be three factors that are satisfied:

1. Capability - They are capability - an unarmed 80 year old woman with severe arthritis is generally not capable of doing great bodily harm to a healthy 30 year old man.
2. Intent - They need to show intent.
3. Opportunity - Some one with a 3' pipe, 40 feet away, sitting on the curb does not have the opportunity. Someone 3 feet away does.

This is the standard generally used.

Verbal threats do not qualify do to the lack of immanency. If 5 thugs verbally threaten you from across the road, deadly force is not justified. If they continue to verbally threaten you and cross the road towards you, it may be.

If you are forced off the road and approached by multiple people, would a reasonable person feel that there is an imminent threat of great bodily harm?

If the approaching people all carried flowers and were smiling while singing passages from their held open Bibles, the reasonable person would not feel that there was a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm and/or death.

If the approaching people had tire irons, there would be a different reaction from the reasonable person.

• Capability - They are capability - there are multiple healthy 18 - 25 year old men.
• Intent - They forced you off the road after threatening to shoot you.
• Opportunity - You are trapped in your car and they are armed and within range of their weapons.

The reasonable person would feel an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death in this situation and deadly force would be justified if they approached close enough to use their weapons. If they got out of their car and shouted at you from 15', but made no approach, this is a very questionable situation due to the lack of immanency and lack of opportunity.

 

[TCB in TN]

This is a simple-survival of the fittest/smartest approach. Being a human and not an animal means you must use reason rather than impulse. Honking when it doesn't prevent an accident but to proclaim your anger is in violation of the California Vehicle Code

While I am not a huge fan of laying on the horn, no discussion of reasonable response should ever include any reference to California law! :banghead:

 

[shooter503]

I believe the expression is "I rest my case".

There also needs to be three factors that are satisfied:

1. Capability - They are capability - an unarmed 80 year old woman with severe arthritis is generally not capable of doing great bodily harm to a healthy 30 year old man.
2. Intent - They need to show intent.
3. Opportunity - Some one with a 3' pipe, 40 feet away, sitting on the curb does not have the opportunity. Someone 3 feet away does.

This is the standard generally used.

With the substitution of a 3500 pound motor vehicle being driven in a dangerous manner 6 feet away from you for the iron pipe I believe you reinforced my argument. What greater real time indication of "opportunity" could be required? Not only does the driver of the car have opportunity, he is actually acting upon that opportunity by endangering my life by the illegal use of his vehicle. In addition, in accordance with several recent high profile rulings, his accomplices may be charged with some sort of accessory to attempted murder.

 

[Alphazulu6]

The first car pulled up along side and there were 2 obvious gang members inside. They tried to force me to the shoulder of the road.

They might have not gotten much farther with me....... I don't take kindly to vehicular assault with intent.

 

[LAK]

I have not read every post here yet but off hand I second GRIZ22's advice. In addition to an accidental discharge, your gun may wind up out of your hand and out of sight, reach etc after a heavy impact. And even with power steering two hands on the wheel is a better idea.