cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
you would in about an hour
if you made it
and the concern would continue for decades
if you made it
and the concern would continue for decades
Crowd of 30 teens attacks couple in Norfolk
- Thread starter steveracer
- Start date
- Status
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Using a motor vehicle as a weapon carries with it the same elements of decision-making as using a knife, stick or gun as a weapon. It's necessary to be able to clearly articulate why a reasonable person of reasonably firmness (courage) would find it necessary to make the decision that lethal force was necessary and in fact the only option available in that precise circumstance.
The presence of a crowd, even a boisterous or unruly crowd, might be intimidating but it is not a reasonable justification for use of force. It's necessary to be able to articulate what specific people were doing what specific acts that made them a threat sufficient to warrant the exercise of force, lethal force in fact. And the presence of spectators or bystanders who are not acting in a violent manner toward the occupants of the vehicle makes using a motor vehicle as a weapon even more dicey.
The presence of a crowd, even a boisterous or unruly crowd, might be intimidating but it is not a reasonable justification for use of force. It's necessary to be able to articulate what specific people were doing what specific acts that made them a threat sufficient to warrant the exercise of force, lethal force in fact. And the presence of spectators or bystanders who are not acting in a violent manner toward the occupants of the vehicle makes using a motor vehicle as a weapon even more dicey.
robmkivseries70
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 241
Like my karate teacher said,"The best defense is NOT to be there when the punch is thrown."
txgunsuscg
Member
Actually, as VA state law has been explained to me, even if they are attacking you, you have a duty to do everything within your power to escape. There is no Stand Your Ground Law in VA, there isn't even a Castle Doctrine, per say. So, it is legally imperative (as well as tactically sound), to remove yourself from the situation as soon as you begin to get that "vibe". Other VA members, if I mispoke, please correct me.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
From Phil Van Cleave, President of VCDL
A LOOK AT CURRENT SELF-DEFENSE COMMON LAW IN VIRGINIA (IMPORTANT INFORMATION)
Virginia currently has excellent protections for those involved in the use of force for self-defense. Our protections are much broader than the "Castle Doctrines" that many states have. True "Castle Doctrine" bills provide protection only in a person's home, while Virginia common law provides protections everywhere you might be - at home, in the yard, at work, at the store, in church, etc. Some states desperately needed "Castle Doctrine" laws, as their existing laws were horrible on self-defense. Many required a person to retreat EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOME! Not true in Virginia.
Virginia is a "stand-your-ground" state. That means AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT PART OF "THE PROBLEM" and are innocent, you can stand your ground and use force to defend yourself wherever you may be. Deadly force is only allowed if you are under IMMEDIATE threat and you reasonably fear that you, or another innocent party, will be killed or be grievously injured. The death of an attacker caused by use of such deadly force is considered "justifiable homicide." Note that you don't actually have to be in a deadly situation, but only have a REASONABLE FEAR that you are in such a situation, to be justified in the use of deadly force. For example, if someone tries to rob you with a toy gun and you don't know it's a toy gun, you would be justified in responding with deadly force since you would reasonably fear that your life was in immediate danger.
If you are part of "the problem," say by making an obscene gesture or yelling a threat at someone, then, if attacked, you MUST RETREAT. The retreat must be as far as you can reasonably go and you must indicate that you give up the fight. Then, and only then, if the attacker persists, can you use force against them. If they are trying to kill you or grievously injure you, and they die because of your use of deadly force, it is considered "excusable homicide," a lower standard than "justifiable homicide." Moral to the story: don't give up your right to stand-your-ground by being part of the problem - ever.
The reason that a person who is part of the problem is required to retreat is to avoid someone committing murder under the guise of self-defense. Otherwise, a murderer could intentionally badger a victim to the point that the victim attacks out of sheer anger or frustration. At that point the murderer, standing his ground, could use that attack as an excuse to kill the victim "in self-defense," getting away with murder legally. Not good, not acceptable, and not legal.
My thoughts,
This is not to say Mr Dweeb reporter should have stood his ground, quite the contrary, He was totally ignorant of ADEE, Avoid, disengage, evade, escape. He Had no situational awareness, and acted stupidly in the face of grave danger.
A LOOK AT CURRENT SELF-DEFENSE COMMON LAW IN VIRGINIA (IMPORTANT INFORMATION)
Virginia currently has excellent protections for those involved in the use of force for self-defense. Our protections are much broader than the "Castle Doctrines" that many states have. True "Castle Doctrine" bills provide protection only in a person's home, while Virginia common law provides protections everywhere you might be - at home, in the yard, at work, at the store, in church, etc. Some states desperately needed "Castle Doctrine" laws, as their existing laws were horrible on self-defense. Many required a person to retreat EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOME! Not true in Virginia.
Virginia is a "stand-your-ground" state. That means AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT PART OF "THE PROBLEM" and are innocent, you can stand your ground and use force to defend yourself wherever you may be. Deadly force is only allowed if you are under IMMEDIATE threat and you reasonably fear that you, or another innocent party, will be killed or be grievously injured. The death of an attacker caused by use of such deadly force is considered "justifiable homicide." Note that you don't actually have to be in a deadly situation, but only have a REASONABLE FEAR that you are in such a situation, to be justified in the use of deadly force. For example, if someone tries to rob you with a toy gun and you don't know it's a toy gun, you would be justified in responding with deadly force since you would reasonably fear that your life was in immediate danger.
If you are part of "the problem," say by making an obscene gesture or yelling a threat at someone, then, if attacked, you MUST RETREAT. The retreat must be as far as you can reasonably go and you must indicate that you give up the fight. Then, and only then, if the attacker persists, can you use force against them. If they are trying to kill you or grievously injure you, and they die because of your use of deadly force, it is considered "excusable homicide," a lower standard than "justifiable homicide." Moral to the story: don't give up your right to stand-your-ground by being part of the problem - ever.
The reason that a person who is part of the problem is required to retreat is to avoid someone committing murder under the guise of self-defense. Otherwise, a murderer could intentionally badger a victim to the point that the victim attacks out of sheer anger or frustration. At that point the murderer, standing his ground, could use that attack as an excuse to kill the victim "in self-defense," getting away with murder legally. Not good, not acceptable, and not legal.
My thoughts,
This is not to say Mr Dweeb reporter should have stood his ground, quite the contrary, He was totally ignorant of ADEE, Avoid, disengage, evade, escape. He Had no situational awareness, and acted stupidly in the face of grave danger.
txgunsuscg
Member
Doc,
Thanks very much for the clarification. It seems I've only been getting told part of the story.
I do agree with you though, in this particular case, leaving would have been his best option, especially with a passenger in the car....
Thanks very much for the clarification. It seems I've only been getting told part of the story.
I do agree with you though, in this particular case, leaving would have been his best option, especially with a passenger in the car....
wrigh003
Member
I had to explain just the other day how extending the old Boy Scout "Be Prepared" motto to carrying a pistol doesn't mean "Be Prepared - to shoot somebody-" it actually means "Be Prepared to run like hell, but have a backup plan."
Not condoning a mob of teenagers throwing rocks at somebody on "their" turf or whatever, but getting out of the car was a dumb, dumb move. You run, and live to fight another day. Gun wouldn't help in this situation- use your brain, your car, or your feet and get the heck out of dodge.
Not condoning a mob of teenagers throwing rocks at somebody on "their" turf or whatever, but getting out of the car was a dumb, dumb move. You run, and live to fight another day. Gun wouldn't help in this situation- use your brain, your car, or your feet and get the heck out of dodge.
ZeSpectre
Member
I keep finding myself wondering how much longer before dash-cameras (front and rear) become common optional equipment on all cars
BSA1
member
Pop quiz: You are stopped at a red light in a bad part of town, being approached by a crowd of approx. 100 individuals. One of them throws a rock at your car. Do you:
A) Get out of the car and pick a fight you know you can't win.
B) Run the red light and get away."
_______________
Is this a trick question?
________________
I know! I know! Can you say "insurance company"?
A) Get out of the car and pick a fight you know you can't win.
B) Run the red light and get away."
_______________
Is this a trick question?
________________
I know! I know! Can you say "insurance company"?
BSA1
member
May be hard to convince a jury that you had to run him over to prevent the next potential rock from causing you death or serious bodily harm.
Not if you would read your Bible about how people were stoned to death. A practice which is still used in the Middle East today.
Not if you would read your Bible about how people were stoned to death. A practice which is still used in the Middle East today.
Coyote3855
Member
Neither the folks in the bible nor the folks in the "Middle East" had/have the option of driving away. The dude was stupid. Get out of Dodge. The insurance company will fix the car. My policy pays 100% of vandalism damage.
Bubbles
Member
There are cell phone apps that do this already, though you would need multiple phones. There are aftermarket systems as well with cameras that cover the front, rear, and both sides, with audio. They're not all that expensive either.
BSA1
member
Is retreating a attack?
Professer Fuller,
My thought is when confronted by attacker(s) or unruly situation or mob the best tactic is to retreat when possible even if armed.
So I am in my car surrounded by a unruly mob of which at least one member has a weapon i.e. rock and I am in fear of my safety.
1. Do I stay in my vehicle and hope the mob loses interest in attacking me and moves on?
2. Do I stay in my vehicle and hope the police arrive in time before the mob removes me from my vehicle and beat me to near death? Remember the Rodney King L.A. riots?
3. Leave my vehicle and take my chances outrunning the mob?
4. Get out of my vehicle and fight the mob?
5. Stay in my vehicle and drive through the mob not stopping until in a place of safety? After getting clear of the mob call 911 reporting the incident and requesting the police check the mob for injuries that may have happened when I drove through them.
6. Allow myself to be killed for fear of criminal prosectution?
Professer Fuller,
My thought is when confronted by attacker(s) or unruly situation or mob the best tactic is to retreat when possible even if armed.
So I am in my car surrounded by a unruly mob of which at least one member has a weapon i.e. rock and I am in fear of my safety.
1. Do I stay in my vehicle and hope the mob loses interest in attacking me and moves on?
2. Do I stay in my vehicle and hope the police arrive in time before the mob removes me from my vehicle and beat me to near death? Remember the Rodney King L.A. riots?
3. Leave my vehicle and take my chances outrunning the mob?
4. Get out of my vehicle and fight the mob?
5. Stay in my vehicle and drive through the mob not stopping until in a place of safety? After getting clear of the mob call 911 reporting the incident and requesting the police check the mob for injuries that may have happened when I drove through them.
6. Allow myself to be killed for fear of criminal prosectution?
Onward Allusion
Member
Really? Were you being serious or just tongue-in-cheek 'cause the lack of an emoticon states otherwise.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Yeah, and there are a bunch of people who carry guns and who are not prepared to shoot another person and as a result end up being the ones defeated or killed. If you carry a gun, being prepared does should mean being prepared to shoot somebody if the salient criteria are met.
Remember reading about Argentina back in or around the year of 2001 after their currency collapsed. All the BGs had a strong propensity to wait at the red lights to rob, pillage, and plunder. It got so bad that after dark no one would stop at the lights.
http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2008/10/thoughts-on-urban-survival-2005.html
If the vehicle can move then "MOVE"
Call 911 or the cops and report the incident. Being mad about the car and filled with loathing is better than a week in the hospital or worse.
Avoid the hospital and the pain of one (and endangerment of the female) against 100 in every way possible.
Those who think pulling a weapon and taking a few out....well good luck with that! If they don't run or back down in fear at the sight of your hand gun you would be better off (unless you like being broke and in prison for the rest of you life) just being killed.
I doubt by the time the news papers and propaganda of running over some teenagers with an automobile would work out to good 'either' so about all you could do is move forward or backward avoiding striking someone with the vehicle and get the heck out of there.
We have had threads on flash mobs before in all kinds of situations with various out comes for the victims and perps; IMO some situations are a " No Win for the Good Law abiding Citizens" if wrong place at wrong time is considered to be a factual circumstance.
http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2008/10/thoughts-on-urban-survival-2005.html
If the vehicle can move then "MOVE"
Call 911 or the cops and report the incident. Being mad about the car and filled with loathing is better than a week in the hospital or worse.
Avoid the hospital and the pain of one (and endangerment of the female) against 100 in every way possible.
Those who think pulling a weapon and taking a few out....well good luck with that! If they don't run or back down in fear at the sight of your hand gun you would be better off (unless you like being broke and in prison for the rest of you life) just being killed.
I doubt by the time the news papers and propaganda of running over some teenagers with an automobile would work out to good 'either' so about all you could do is move forward or backward avoiding striking someone with the vehicle and get the heck out of there.
We have had threads on flash mobs before in all kinds of situations with various out comes for the victims and perps; IMO some situations are a " No Win for the Good Law abiding Citizens" if wrong place at wrong time is considered to be a factual circumstance.
Last edited:
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Professer Fuller,
Professor Fuller is my wife. She's the PhD and retired university faculty member (criminal justice) in the family.
And the answer to all your questions is... the best response depends on a wide array of variables, on your ability to observe the threat, recognize and report the danger presented, analyze the situation properly and respond appropriately according to your own values and the self defense laws in your jurisdiction.
Professor Fuller is my wife. She's the PhD and retired university faculty member (criminal justice) in the family.
And the answer to all your questions is... the best response depends on a wide array of variables, on your ability to observe the threat, recognize and report the danger presented, analyze the situation properly and respond appropriately according to your own values and the self defense laws in your jurisdiction.
bubba in ca
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 373
good reason:
1) to have a 32 round magazine AND
2) the sense to not use it!
Even if you shot the right person (s), the other 90 plus rioters would be standing in line to testify that you did not. The underclass sticks by its own.
1) to have a 32 round magazine AND
2) the sense to not use it!
Even if you shot the right person (s), the other 90 plus rioters would be standing in line to testify that you did not. The underclass sticks by its own.
No mob of people could get me out of the car armed or not. Vehicle make a great weapon and escape plan to leave! Sometimes having a permit, a gun, and the right to use it, does not mean it will solve all situations .
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2
BSA1
member
And the answer to all your questions is... the best response depends on a wide array of variables, on your ability to observe the threat, recognize and report the danger presented, analyze the situation properly and respond appropriately according to your own values and the self defense laws in your jurisdiction.
Which is the polite way of saying he is s.o.l. regardless.
Which is the polite way of saying he is s.o.l. regardless.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Not necessarily.
To quote Rory Miller, again...
It is better to avoid than to run; better to run than to de-escalate; better to de-escalate than to fight; better to fight than to die. The very essence of self-defense is a thin list of things that might get you out alive when you are already screwed.
Fix Problem One first. If you don't manage to fix Problem One (the real fight), then Problem Two (the court fight) is not gonna be a problem anyway. Leastways, not for you. But don't go trying to fix Problem One until you're 100% sure you actually have Problem One. Otherwise ... Problem Two will be a problem.
To quote Rory Miller, again...
It is better to avoid than to run; better to run than to de-escalate; better to de-escalate than to fight; better to fight than to die. The very essence of self-defense is a thin list of things that might get you out alive when you are already screwed.
Fix Problem One first. If you don't manage to fix Problem One (the real fight), then Problem Two (the court fight) is not gonna be a problem anyway. Leastways, not for you. But don't go trying to fix Problem One until you're 100% sure you actually have Problem One. Otherwise ... Problem Two will be a problem.
983mauser
No guarantees. My father, our driver and I (aged 6) were caught in a large mob in a third world country once. I do not think our driver had what it would have taken to really use the car as a weapon to extricate us, but their sheer numbers made that an unlikely option, and under the circumstances it may have only served to widen attention on us. They smashed all the windows, and were throwing rocks and even bricks. At some point my father decided it was time to get out; he got both of us out of there with nothing more than a broken hand and a few bruises. Had we stayed in the car I do not think it would have gone as well.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
I think you meant to say "Given NO other choice..."
Otherwise, "So, when can I run 'em over" is as bad a reflection of mens rea as "So, when can I shoot 'em?"
Otherwise, "So, when can I run 'em over" is as bad a reflection of mens rea as "So, when can I shoot 'em?"
Driving a 2 ton vehicle through a crowd of teenagers is not an appropriate response to having a single rock thrown at your vehicle. Unless you're completely boxed in, I don't see that playing very well with a jury.
R
- Status