Legalities of defense of self or third party during a demonstration

[D.B. Cooper]

but in truth, castle domain doctrine is your only real legal protection if you defend yourself.

And I think this is really the heart of the matter. We can pontificate on all manner of things. Legislators can write laws. But in the end, if you defend yourself, no matter the circumstances, you run a pretty high risk of destroying your life.

As I said earlier, we don't know what we'll do until it's time, but I feel like I'd rather take the beating on the street than go to prison forever. It's odd for me to say that as I know two people who used lethal force in self defense and won their day in court, but it's a huge personal risk. My wallet and my truck keys and a few broken bones don't seem worth the non-zero chance of life in prison.

I took my state's CCW course last summer and decided not to get the permit. I focus on avoidance a LOT more now than I did before I took that class. Avoidance is your best defense.

 

[wiscoaster]

... but ... Castle Doctrine won't apply to the scenario posed by the OP, so, basically, they're screwed?

 

[Kleanbore]

but ... Castle Doctrine won't apply to the scenario posed by the OP, so, basically, they're screwed?

1. Tho OP described a car being used in an attempt to run down pedestrians. Since the defender is not inside the car or other covered location or structure, Castle Doctrine would not apply.
2. Castle Doctrine simply eliminates any requirement to retreat from covered domaine before one defends oneself.
3. Castle Doctrine is but one defense against not having retreated before using or threatening force in a defensive encounter.

 

[wiscoaster]

3. Castle Doctrine is but one defense against not having retreated before using or threatening force in a defensive encounter.

Example of such legal defense that fits the OP scenario?

Lots of well-reasoned opinion here in this thread, but any actual case law where the court and jury have decided in such a scenario in favor of defendant?

 

[Kleanbore]

Example of such legal defense that fits the OP scenario?

If one whoa has not instigated or provoked the incident faces an imminent threat of death or serous bodily harm, and that the defender has reason to believe that the threat or use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent such harm, such action would be justified. Castle Doctrine need not be involved.

any actual case law where the court and jury have decided in such a scenario in favor of defendant?

Trial outcomes do not establish case law, but yes, there have been numerous such trial outcomes, and a lot of case law.

That applies to self defense in general. The problem withe the OP' scenario is that it is likely quite a stretch to conclude that shooting at the driver of a car would be reasonable

 

[Craig_AR]

So locally, there was an incident of a person driving a vehicle with intent to run over people legally demonstrating/protesting.
My question is, in your state (and if anyone knows about NY I’d be interested in that too) would that be a legitimate cause for use of a firearm in defense of yourself or a third party?

IANAL, but I have given the question some thought.

Arkansas is a "duty to retreat" state, with the exception of a Castle Doctrine coverage for domicile and curtilage, but not for business or vehicle (Branca, Law of Self Defense, 3rd ed., Table 5-1, p. 218).
I presume this means if the maliciously driven vehicle is driving at you, you have to step out of the way if at all possible. Once the vehicle has passed you, you would no longer be defending yourself, unless it turned and came at you again.
There is an exception in the law for LEOs on that point, but a recent local case has gotten really ugly on that point. Websearch on "Sharkey, Little Rock, 2019, police shooting" for numerous stories on the case of LEO who did not step out of the way before shooting.

As for defense of others, AR has no conditions different from self defense (Branca, Law of Self Defense, 3rd ed., Table 7-1, p. 235). I interpret this to mean that the others who are in danger should also be moving out of the vehicle's path (retreating). If they can and do not, they would not be entitled to a self-defense claim, and therefore, you, as a 3rd party defender-of-others would not be entitled to claim a defense of others shooting.
Of course, the apparent speed of the vehicle and proximity to targeted pedestrians would become part of the messy discussion in court, should it come to that. There is a big difference between a car moving slowly though the crowd, possibly bumping into protesters who refuse to move, as the car is trying to exit the area, as compared to the high speed attack that happened in Charlottesville.

Related, I note that I have heard at least three instructors, Andrew Branca, John Correia, and Ed Monk, discuss the decision on defense of others, pointing out that no citizen, armed or unarmed, has a legal obligation to engage in defense of others. It is up to the individual to decide whether there is a moral obligation to do so. Further, all three recommended balancing that against your moral obligations for your own safety and the probable aftermath as it affects you and your family.

Lastly, I think the application of Rule 4 and the likely totally unsafe backstop in a protester crowd situation would mean any attempt to shoot the attacking vehicle or its driver would put many others on the far side of the vehicle in serious danger.

Yeah, I think I would most likely just act like a shepherd and get the flock out of there.

 

[wiscoaster]

The problem with the OP' scenario is that it is likely quite a stretch to conclude that shooting at the driver of a car would be reasonable

Agreed with that ...

... just act like a shepherd and get the flock out of there.

... and with that.

 

[Kleanbore]

I presume this means if the maliciously driven vehicle is driving at you, you have to step out of the way if at all possible. Once the vehicle has passed you, you would no longer be defending yourself, unless it turned and came at you again.

Probably a good presumption.

I think an overarching consideration is why anyone in his right mind would reasonably that believe that shooting the driver of a moving car would serve as an effective means of defense agains the car.

 

[daniel craig]

IANAL, but I have given the question some thought.

Arkansas is a "duty to retreat" state, with the exception of a Castle Doctrine coverage for domicile and curtilage, but not for business or vehicle (Branca, Law of Self Defense, 3rd ed., Table 5-1, p. 218).
I presume this means if the maliciously driven vehicle is driving at you, you have to step out of the way if at all possible. Once the vehicle has passed you, you would no longer be defending yourself, unless it turned and came at you again.
There is an exception in the law for LEOs on that point, but a recent local case has gotten really ugly on that point. Websearch on "Sharkey, Little Rock, 2019, police shooting" for numerous stories on the case of LEO who did not step out of the way before shooting.

As for defense of others, AR has no conditions different from self defense (Branca, Law of Self Defense, 3rd ed., Table 7-1, p. 235). I interpret this to mean that the others who are in danger should also be moving out of the vehicle's path (retreating). If they can and do not, they would not be entitled to a self-defense claim, and therefore, you, as a 3rd party defender-of-others would not be entitled to claim a defense of others shooting.
Of course, the apparent speed of the vehicle and proximity to targeted pedestrians would become part of the messy discussion in court, should it come to that. There is a big difference between a car moving slowly though the crowd, possibly bumping into protesters who refuse to move, as the car is trying to exit the area, as compared to the high speed attack that happened in Charlottesville.

Related, I note that I have heard at least three instructors, Andrew Branca, John Correia, and Ed Monk, discuss the decision on defense of others, pointing out that no citizen, armed or unarmed, has a legal obligation to engage in defense of others. It is up to the individual to decide whether there is a moral obligation to do so. Further, all three recommended balancing that against your moral obligations for your own safety and the probable aftermath as it affects you and your family.

Lastly, I think the application of Rule 4 and the likely totally unsafe backstop in a protester crowd situation would mean any attempt to shoot the attacking vehicle or its driver would put many others on the far side of the vehicle in serious danger.

Yeah, I think I would most likely just act like a shepherd and get the flock out of there.

Yep. Seems like this is the answer the thread has largely come to.

 

[daniel craig]

Probably a good presumption.

I think an overarching consideration is why anyone in his right mind would reasonably that believe that shooting the driver of a moving car would serve as an effective means of defense agains the car.

Right?!

 

[Tommygunn]

I dunno. That's a tough case. Thinking about the "reasonable person" test, what would a reasonable person do? I think every person in the world thinks that he or she is a reasonable person regardless of reality. None of us knows what we will do until it's time to do it, but I feel like, had it been my home and my front yard...I hope I would have remained inside. I don't believe they would be in trouble right now if they had stayed within the walls of their home. At worst, they would at least have castle domain doctrine on their side. They gave that up the moment they walked out the front door. My state has open/Constitutional carry and a watered-down version of stand your ground, but in truth, castle domain doctrine is your only real legal protection if you defend yourself.

It is sometimes a fine point which separates what constitutes "best tactics" and "best law." I premised my argument on the belief that the intruders did violently enter through breaking open a gate, threaten the homeowners and their dog with death, and we're themselves, atleast in part, armed. To me that answers a "reasonable man" test. Were I on a jury, I'd find the McCloskeys not guilty (assuming above facts to be true).

Tactics .... now that is a different matter. This is a legal forum, so I'll be brief. It might seem that being inside might be advantageous. But many walls provide concealment but not cover (bullets penetrate but the shooter might not know where you are). Heavy furniture might of course help.
On a historical perspective, Machiavelli had little favorable to say good about fortification , so had the event turned out worse, with no police help, and their security team gone south for the summer, the McCloskeys might have wound up in a far more serious pickle. The single rifle would have been of little help and the wife's dinky handgun only a joke. That might not lead one to say being outside was a great move, but otoh, you don't have to remain where the enemy thinks you are.
Just a thought .......

 

[D.B. Cooper]

... but ... Castle Doctrine won't apply to the scenario posed by the OP, so, basically, they're screwed?

In my opinion (and it's just that, my opinion-I'm not a legal professional) the only instance where a defender is going to have a solid legal defense from prosecution is if he or she defends himself or herself within the walls of his or her own home. Anyplace outside of the home, even with stand your ground, you're going to have some explaining to do. s it was explaining in my CCW class, if you shoot a person in self defense, outside of your home, you absolutely will be arrested and charged. No matter what the evidence suggests. So yeah, if you defend yourself, you're pretty much screwed.

 

[DeepSouth]

I think an overarching consideration is why anyone in his right mind would reasonably that believe that shooting the driver of a moving car would serve as an effective means of defense agains the car.

I really hate to be that guy, but I really don’t understand this.
A vehicle can’t drive itself, So no one to hit gas means it slows/stops, no one to steer means the vehicle gets off course and hits something and therefore stops.

If I recall correctly in the 2016 Nice truck attack ended only when the driver was shot and killed, so how else would you stop it. Incapacitating the driver seems to me like the only way to stop a vehicle attack, unless you walk around with spike strips.

what exactly am I missing?

 

[wiscoaster]

...what exactly am I missing?

I think maybe that an obligation to get out of the way is what a jury is going to find as the reasonable form of a self-defense action in this scenario?

 

[Kleanbore]

what exactly am I missing?

A vehicle can’t drive itself, So no one to hit gas means it slows/stops, no one to steer means the vehicle gets off course and hits something and therefore stops.

Retained momentum and kinetic energy are the problem. A handgun will not stop a moving moving vehicle.

A vehicle can’t drive itself, So no one to hit gas means it slows/stops, no one to steer means the vehicle gets off course and hits something and therefore stops.

Deadly force would not be justified to keep someone from driving away.

 

[Craig_AR]

Retained momentum and kinetic energy are the problem. A handgun will not stop a moving moving vehicle.

+1

Deadly force would not be justified to keep someone from driving away.

+ another

 

[DeepSouth]

I think maybe that an obligation to get out of the way is what a jury is going to find as the reasonable form of a self-defense action in this scenario?

well obviously, but wouldn’t it reasonable to stop the guy attempting murder, possibly mass murder.

Retained momentum and kinetic energy are the problem. A handgun will not stop a moving moving vehicle.

Deadly force would not be justified to keep someone from driving away.

the disabling of the driver would obviously cause the vehicle to stop sooner, sure it wouldn’t stop immediately. I just look at it this way, the retained momentum isn’t nearly as big of a problem as aimed propelled momentum, right.

Again I hate to Keep bringing up the Nice Attack, but the simple fact is shooting the driver is what ended the attack. I seems like you all are saying that wouldn’t be legal because It wouldn’t work.... but it did work, it will always work.

I’m really not trying to argue, I just Can’t see the logic that taking out the driver wouldn’t be justified. But to be honest, I’m thinking more logically than legally but the arguments I've read Seem to be making as much of a logical argument (that I can’t follow, lol) as a legal one.

 

[Kleanbore]

the disabling of the driver would obviously cause the vehicle to stop sooner, sure it wouldn’t stop immediately. I just look at it this way, the retained momentum isn’t nearly as big of a problem as aimed propelled momentum, right

If he is driving toward you, your gun will not stop him timely.

I just Can’t see the logic that taking out the driver wouldn’t be justified.

If he has driven past you , there are a number of conditions that must exist before deadly force would be justified. They vary among jurisdictions, but these are probably the lowest in terms of justification threshold.

1. The defender has himself just witnessed the driver intentionally injuring people by using the vehicle as a weapon, and
2. The defender has an objective basis for believing that the driver will deliberately injure more people if not stopped immediately., and
3. The defender has reason to believe (1) that the use of deadly force will effectively prevent such mayhem and will not seriously endanger others.

Look at it this way:

1. One may use deadly force only to prevent, and then when immediately necessary, and not to punish.
2. What the guy has done doesn't justify the use of deadly force
3. What he might do doesn't count.
4. His being a bad guy justifies nothing.

I cannot speak to the laws or police antiterrorist tactics in France.

Got it?

 

[DeepSouth]

If he is driving toward you, your gun will not stop him timely

But it will, almost certainly stop him sooner, slow him down, and cause his path to be altered. All of these are desirable, as any one (much less a combination) could reasonably be life saving.

If he has driven past you , there are a number of conditions that must exist before deadly force would be justified. They vary among jurisdictions, but these are probably the lowest in terms of justification threshold.

1. The defender has himself just witnessed the driver intentionally injuring people by using the vehicle as a weapon, and
2. The defender has an objective basis for believing that the driver will deliberately injure more people if not stopped immediately., and
3. The defender has reason to believe (1) that the use of deadly force will effectively prevent such mayhem and will not seriously endanger others.

Look at it this way:

1. One may use deadly force only to prevent, and then when immediately necessary, and not to punish.
2. What the guy has done doesn't justify the use of deadly force
3. What he might do doesn't count.
4. His being a bad guy justifies nothing.

I cannot speak to the laws or police antiterrorist tactics in France.

Got it?

Got it, for sure.
If he’s driving away the threat to life is almost certainly over for you and with it normally goes the reason and legality of deadly force.

Ive been referring (in my mind at least) mainly to the OP, shooting at someone driving away from me isn’t really a consideration. With a few possible exceptions that you just listed.

 

[wiscoaster]

well obviously, but wouldn’t it reasonable to stop the guy attempting murder, possibly mass murder.

The grand jury deciding on charges against the guy who killed the wanna-be mass church murderer in Texas was absolved of all charges ... as well he should have been - but IMO I don't think the prosecutor should have even convened the grand jury ... but unfortunately, they're not all that "reasonable".

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Retracted.

 

[DeepSouth]

The grand jury deciding on charges against the guy who killed the wanna-be mass church murderer in Texas was absolved of all charges ... as well he should have been - but IMO I don't think the prosecutor should have even convened the grand jury ... but unfortunately, they're not all that "reasonable".

Point made!

As I admitted earlier my mind tends to lean to logic, sometimes that means in my thinking I can forget the legal. That is my error.

 

[wiscoaster]

I predict they will be convicted as well.

I certainly hope your prediction is wrong ... that would be a real and genuine miscarriage of justice. But ... more to the present ... my prediction is thread moderation.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

But ... more to the present ... my prediction is thread moderation.

You're probably correct.

 

[Kleanbore]

But it will, almost certainly stop him sooner, slow him down, and cause his path to be altered.

How might doing that be justified?