Have you considered what "reasonable" means?

[Crusader103]

To counter a couple of posts, whether or not the force applied is capable of overcoming the threat presented has actually come up in some cases.

It enters in this manner. Consider it a jury instruction when they determine "reasonableness." Judge: "Would another person, facing the same or similar circumstances, with the same or similar training and knowledge at the time the force was applied, have performed in a same or similar manner?"

How can you say that a reasonable person would do something that is unreasonable, i.e. shoot at something that isn't likely going to stop?

Juries can often get past the reasonable perception of a lethal threat. But would they agree that the use of force was reasonable? Contrary to popular belief, it is a two part question. If a jury can be convinced by opposing counsel that a firearm is highly unlikely to stop the threat of a motor vehicle how can the use of force in that manner be applied by a reasonable person? You are in essence asking a jury to consider a person's unreasonable action (doing something that will not stop the threat) reasonable.

A person can very well be justified in believing their life is in imminent danger yet unjustified in the application of force, i.e. shooting into a frantic crowd with the gunman in the middle. True, the circumstances are different but the effect is the same. A person who by all accounts reasonably believes their life to be in danger is not justified in shooting.

At least, that is the argument.

And by the way, please read my disclaimer below. These are not necessarily my personal beliefs but arguments that are made concerning real people in real cases with which I have been professionally involved.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Consider it a jury instruction when they determine "reasonableness." Judge: "Would another person, facing the same or similar circumstances, with the same or similar training and knowledge at the time the force was applied, have performed in a same or similar manner?"...

Is that a real jury instruction? There are examples of jury instructions actually used. There are also model instructions. Is the question of the likelihood of success addressed in any model jury instructions?

There's been a lot of "blue-skying" in this thread and little or no attempt to look at real life examples. Reasonableness is always an issue, so how have courts of appeal addressed the question when lethal force has been used against someone driving a car or truck?

In both Plumhoff and Mullenix, cited by me in post 6, the Supreme Court considered the question of the reasonableness of using lethal force against a driver of a car. The discussions in each case focused on possible alternatives, but didn't really question of effectiveness of the strategy. In any case, the use of lethal force was effective under the circumstances that did obtain.

 

[JohnKSa]

Judge: "Would another person, facing the same or similar circumstances, with the same or similar training and knowledge at the time the force was applied, have performed in a same or similar manner?"

This question has a very specific focus--determining if the force was justified, not determining whether or not it was likely to be effective.

The argument in question would be like taking the word "facing" in that statement and saying that if the attacker were behind the defender that force wouldn't be justified because they wouldn't be "facing" the threat.

Obviously that's not the focus of the question nor is the word "facing" applicable to the physical orientation of the defender even if it can be construed to have that meaning by someone who is trying to creatively turn a simple question into something that's complicated enough to be confusing to simple-minded jurors.

A person can very well be justified in believing their life is in imminent danger yet unjustified in the application of force, i.e. shooting into a frantic crowd with the gunman in the middle. True, the circumstances are different but the effect is the same. A person who by all accounts reasonably believes their life to be in danger is not justified in shooting.

Shooting wildly at a group of innocent people in the hopes of stopping an attack is completely different from firing at a specific threat that is trying to kill you when you can't escape. The circumstances are different. The effect is different. Everything is different. Very different. It's not surprising that it is, because it's going to take an off-the-wall example/analogy to try to justify what is, frankly an off-the-wall argument.

And by the way, please read my disclaimer below. These are not necessarily my personal beliefs but arguments that are made concerning real people in real cases with which I have been professionally involved.

Frankly, I'd tell them that they're grasping at straws. The justification for the use of deadly force is based on the reasonable belief that there's no other option that will prevent death or serious injury, not on reasonably believing that the available means of deadly force application is likely to be effective.

So if someone attacks a small, frail person who has only a tiny pocket knife, this argument would make it illegal for them to attempt to defend themselves with their only weapon because it is so terribly unlikely to be able to incapacitate the attacker.

It's very creative, but it's ridiculous. I'm not saying that they can't get a jury to buy the argument, but that's another story entirely, isn't it.

...whether or not the force applied is capable of overcoming the threat presented has actually come up in some cases.

I'd be very interested in those cases--ESPECIALLY the outcomes. What can you tell us about them?

 

[HB]

From my research, departmental policy prohibits firing into occupied vehicles unless you have the "exigent circumstance" stuff falling into play.

I understand the reaction I guess but you're better off running. Most of the videos I've seen of such situations show officers squaring up and opening fire.

HB

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Yes, I have considered what "reasonable" means, and it gives me a healthy dose of fearful respect.

The kind of fear that makes one consider one's actions, that is...not the debilitating fear that locks one up and prevents one from taking any action at all.

"Reasonable" means a subjective evaluation of the totality of circumstances and actions by other people, within the framework provided by the law.

At best, it's an interpretation of one's actions, weighed against the meaning and intent of the governing laws. But the reality is that even this will be tainted one way or the other by personal beliefs, education, and biases.


For the scenario briefly described by the OP with respect to the car and driver, I can think of several quirks in which the outcome of shooting the driver might be justified or unjustified.

Why? Because the simple fact that physics won't actually stop the car when you shoot at it or the driver does not necessarily mean that shooting in self defense would not be justified. What if, for example, the driver is deliberately chasing the person down, regardless of how he's running and dodging?

The object isn't to stop the car...it's to stop the driver who is using the car as a means to inflict serious bodily harm or death on his chosen victim.

 

[Decoy80]

Isn't the idea to stop the car? In order to stop it one must first stop the driver intent on making a greasy spot of every pedestrian in his path. He is ultimately the unreasonable factor in the scenario presented. I am uneducated and enjoy reading the very serious discussion on the reasonable things one must first consider before stopping the 5000 pound missile with an idiot at the wheel. I hope never to be faced with the given situation. I fear I might over think the reasonableness of my actions and fail to stop the bad guy in the car,losing the thing dearest to me, life itself.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

You're close. However, the idea is no more to stop the car than it is for you to stop the gun of a mugger. The car is only the instrument, under the direction and control of the driver.

That part is correct.

 

[Decoy80]

You are right that the car in this scenario is just the tool the bad guy is using to commit a crime. Being just a common man with only a high school diploma matters such as laws are not usually simple and straightforward, nor easy to understand. Things are not clear and well defined to the masses. Most legislation is written by attorneys and I think complicated purposely so litigation is necessary. It would be reasonable to suspect that. Clear cut right or wrong would be so simple. This discussion has been enlightenment for myself. there are many different ways the situation can be viewed and how ones reasoning can be in question.