Lyft driver shoots two carjackers in Philadelphia

[Jeff White]

So you still think it would be better if this 2,500-5,000 pound missile retained its guidance system? So Mr. Jihadi can swerve back and forth to pick off fleeing victims? Please explain how that would be better without adjusting any goalposts.

What is the title of this thread? Does it have anything to do with Mr Jihadi? No! You my friend shifted the goalposts with your Walter Mitty fantasy about stopping a terrorist attack with your handgun.

That might be a viable topic here if those attacks were frequent events in the US, but they aren’t. This thread started about a Lyft driver shooting at a car jacker in a moving vehicle. You moved the goalposts to stopping a terrorist when you couldn’t come up with a justification to shoot at the driver of a moving vehicle any other way.

Tell you what, do an online search and read some Medal of Honor citations. Take note of how much damage a human being can take and still function. Then come back and tell me that you’re certain you can get a storybook outcome when you try to stop the driver of a moving vehicle with your carry gun.

There are exceptions to every rule but virtually every police department in the country forbids shooting at suspects in moving vehicles for a couple reasons. Handgun ammunition, even your FBI approved loads doesn’t give you reliable terminal effects through the steel, glass and plastics found in most vehicles.

There is the danger (that you dismiss out of hand) that you will turn the car into an unguided missile.

If you want to stop someone from driving into a crowd use your vehicle. You stand a much better chance of actually accomplishing something then you will with your handgun.

How many shots do you think you will have to make to disable the driver? What guarantees do you have that there will be no ricochets that hit innocent bystanders? What’s your experience shooting through windshield glass? Where should you aim when shooting at a target behind windshield glass? Do you know? Say you’re shooting from the oblique, how much do you have to lead if the vehicle was moving at 25 mph?

What you’re advocating isn’t as simple as it looks in the movies.

Didn’t you suggest in a different thread that every cop should be trained to shoot like a military tier one operator? Now you’re suggesting that everyone with a carry permit is skilled enough to stop a terrorist from driving a truck into a crowd.

 

[redcon1]

What is the title of this thread? Does it have anything to do with Mr Jihadi? No! You my friend shifted the goalposts with your Walter Mitty fantasy about stopping a terrorist attack with your handgun.

Well, you were just engaged in a discussion with Plodder about the very same situation that I described and so you have now entertained the topic and so now it is part of this discussion and by now stating that it is off topic, you are again, shifting the goalposts and, as well, attacking me personally instead of addressing the point that an unguided missile is preferable to a guided missile when that missile is guiding itself into as many people as possible.

That might be a viable topic here if those attacks were frequent events in the US, but they aren’t.

It has already been shown that they are, in fact, not uncommon here in the United States or globally.

This thread started about a Lyft driver shooting at a car jacker in a moving vehicle. You moved the goalposts to stopping a terrorist when you couldn’t come up with a justification to shoot at the driver of a moving vehicle any other way.

You entertained the topic with Plodder. You can't now say that it's off topic without admitting that you're moving the goal posts to prevent a score.

Tell you what, do an online search and read some Medal of Honor citations. Take note of how much damage a human being can take and still function. Then come back and tell me that you’re certain you can get a storybook outcome when you try to stop the driver of a moving vehicle with your carry gun.

People in vehicles are shot and incapacitated all the time. It happens about once a week in my town.

There are exceptions to every rule

Yes, there are. Thank you.

There is the danger (that you dismiss out of hand) that you will turn the car into an unguided missile.

I didn't dismiss it, I weighed it and measured it.

If you want to stop someone from driving into a crowd use your vehicle. You stand a much better chance of actually accomplishing something then you will with your handgun.

I would use my brain first and foremost and then whatever tools I had most immediately available that seemed most likely to eventuate a mission kill. If I had an opportunity to dump a mag into the driver's door (in this situation ) I would deem that a reasonable plan and I know perfectly well that a jury would agree with me unanimously. The totality of the circumstances would direct my actions, not some dogmatic philosophy.

How many shots do you think you will have to make to disable the driver? What guarantees do you have that there will be no ricochets that hit innocent bystanders? What’s your experience shooting through windshield glass? Where should you aim when shooting at a target behind windshield glass? Do you know? Say you’re shooting from the oblique, how much do you have to lead if the vehicle was moving at 25 mph?

If the shot was beyond my capabilities, I wouldn't take it. If driving a car into the vehicle was a viable option, I would have to consider that. In a situation like this, I would be inclined to adopt the old NVA strategy of "grabbing them by the belt buckle" to fight them i.e. getting up as close as possible, even mounting the vehicle perhaps. If you read anything about the Nice truck attack, you would know that at least two people were able to mount the vehicle and they both contributed to the eventual mission kill.

Didn’t you suggest in a different thread that every cop should be trained to shoot like a military tier one operator?

Nope, I didn't suggest that.

Now you’re suggesting that everyone with a carry permit is skilled enough to stop a terrorist from driving a truck into a crowd.

No, I don't think I'm suggesting that either.

Anyways, I'm off to finish up some 300 blackout and I won't return to this conversation tonight.

 

[redcon1]

If the driver is on his way to escape, it is clearly best to let him proceed.

If he escapes and then kills another dozen people? Is that clearly for the best? My first thoughts here are "shoot, move and communicate". He's already attacked and now he's moving so I think I'm moving to and I'd be communicating for sure. I can't say that I would be shooting at this point though. That doesn't sound reasonable. Moving and communicating seems reasonable. I have actually been in this situation. Ever had to communicate when your heart is racing 180 bpm and your breathing too hard to speak? You need to stay calm in this situation so as not to hurt yourself or anyone else-slow is fast, fast is smooth

 

[jmorris]

One might try that in futility, but if it risked creating a clear danger to others, it would be unlawful.

If it didn’t, would it be?

There are more questions than answers as to what we know, so no harm done in speculation.

If he escapes and then kills another dozen people? Is that clearly for the best?

As far as legal recourse against you for any action you would have taken, yes.

As far as the dozen dead people, no.

 

[Jeff White]

Well, you were just engaged in a discussion with Plodder about the very same situation that I described and so you have now entertained the topic and so now it is part of this discussion and by now stating that it is off topic, you are again, shifting the goalposts and, as well, attacking me personally instead of addressing the point that an unguided missile is preferable to a guided missile when that missile is guiding itself into as many people as possible.

You completely miss my point. An unguided missile is exactly the same as a guided one when it enters a crowd of pedestrians. Mass is mass. How far away from the crowd do you intend to shoot at the driver? If you plan on engaging far enough away that the vehicle isn’t a threat to the crowd, how will you be certain of the driver’s intent. For that matter, how are you going to know it’s a terrorist attack and not simply a traffic accident before it’s obvious that the driver is deliberately running down pedestrians? Maybe the driver will be blasting “Allah Akbar!” on a loudspeaker? Or do you intend to shoot at any driver who gets too close to a crowd of pedestrians. It’s going to be pretty embarrassing when you hold out your hand for the congratulating handshake from the responding police and they spin you around and cuff you because you just shot at a truck driver who had a heart attack behind the wheel.

It has already been shown that they are, in fact, not uncommon here in the United States or globally.

That is BS! How many incidents have happened in the US in day the last 5 years? There are 315 million people in this country, tell me how many have been killed by terrorists or EDPs driving vehicles into crowds in the past 5 years? You sound just like the antis when they get on their “ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines” soapbox, you want to use a statistically insignificant number to justify this idea you have that shooting at the driver of a moving vehicle with a handgun is a viable self defense tactic. You’ve changed the conversation to “what about a terrorist attack” in an attempt to justify your idea. So tell me how many people in the US have been killed in an attack by driving into a crowd of people in the last five years. If it’s not uncommon there must be a body count at least in the hundreds.

I didn't dismiss it, I weighed it and measured it.

If you weighed and measured it completely you’ll be able to answer the questions I posed above. Have at it…..

If the shot was beyond my capabilities, I wouldn't take it. If driving a car into the vehicle was a viable option, I would have to consider that. In a situation like this, I would be inclined to adopt the old NVA strategy of "grabbing them by the belt buckle" to fight them i.e. getting up as close as possible, even mounting the vehicle perhaps. If you read anything about the Nice truck attack, you would know that at least two people were able to mount the vehicle and they both contributed to the eventual mission kill.

Earlier in this post I asked you at what point you will identify what’s happening as a terrorist attack. The Jihadist in Nice was stopped after he had already killed many people and lost enough momentum that made it possible for people to copy the NVA and hold onto him by the belt. I hope if you’re ever confronted with that situation that you find yourself up to the task. That’s one of those things you can’t predict until you’re actually faced with it. I’m not saying you won’t be up to it, I’m saying that it’s something you can’t predict until you’re faced with it. Training goes a long way towards performance but how do you train for that scenario?

Have you practiced your vehicle assault tactics?

People in vehicles are shot and incapacitated all the time. It happens about once a week in my town.

It happens almost daily in the St Louis area. ARs and AKs are the weapons of choice for that, not handguns. Running gun battles aren’t uncommon of the highways around St Louis. If I get enough energy I’ll dig out the video that was on the news of the gang banger standing in the moon roof shooting at another car in downtown. Again, he used a rifle.

 

[old lady new shooter]

If you want to stop someone from driving into a crowd use your vehicle.

That is a very good idea! If BG isn't driving too fast and you could manuever your car so he crashes into your passenger side, he would be stuck and you probably only get minor injuries. Not that yours truly would likely try this, but for a younger and more fit person it does seem a lot more workable for achieving the goal of stopping the attack car.

 

[old lady new shooter]

gang banger standing in the moon roof shooting at another car in downtown

So, presumably the gangbanger was not driving at the time, what is your opinion of someone just shooting the top part of his body that is above the roof of the car?

 

[old lady new shooter]

well i know where there is a anti highjack scooter, i think i,ll buy it and put it on the roof rack on my suv. what weight and speed do you recommend for the scooter. than i will not have to carry a nasty firearm. on second thought, i may just buy a old ford pinto.

It's the concept of an "improvised weapon", a thing that isn't normally a weapon but can be used as one in the circumstance in which a person unexpectedly finds themselves.

A completely different example, a couple of years ago a little old lady weightlifter used her coffee table to subdue a home invader, she was strong enough to lift it and crash it down onto him (which she referred to in the interview I saw at the time as "whomping"). It was a great story, probably still on youtube somewhere. IIRC she was in her 80's and still competing in powerlifting.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I'm going to say this again and I'm going to keep saying it until people understand. There are many factors that go into a charging decision. We don't talk about those things here because they aren't law. They are not a legal precedent. The fact that someone did something in one jurisdiction and wasn't charged, doesn't mean that action is now legal. It means that for whatever reason the state decided not to file charges. Try telling the judge that Joe did the same thing you did and wasn't charged for it and see how far that gets you. We discuss the law here. We can't go down the rabbit hole of "this guy in this jurisdiction did the same thing I'm advocating and no charges were filed" because that case did not establish a legal precedent and invalidate whatever laws were broken. Those cases are not legal precedent and anyone who took similar actions expecting the same out come does so at their peril.

You are talking about what you called "prosecutorial discretion" in another post, a longer and fancier way to say what I alluded to in post #84, LE considering what happened in a real life situation may result in a different outcome than a simplistic statement of the law would seem to require, regardless of how many times the latter is repeated. This is also a good answer to the question I posed when I started this thread.

 

[old lady new shooter]

.

 

[old lady new shooter]

It's the concept of an "improvised weapon", a thing that isn't normally a weapon but can be used as one in the circumstance in which a person unexpectedly finds themselves.

A completely different example, a couple of years ago a little old lady weightlifter used her coffee table to subdue a home invader, she was strong enough to lift it and crash it down onto him (which she referred to in the interview I saw at the time as "whomping"). It was a great story, probably still on youtube somewhere. IIRC she was in her 80's and still competing in powerlifting.

I found the story. Nothing to do with shooting at cars, but a great example of improvised weapons (she also poured a bottle of shampoo on his face after he was on the floor).
https://allthatsinteresting.com/bodybuilder-grandma-beats-intruder

 

[Kleanbore]

LE considering what happened in a real life situation may result in a different outcome than a simplistic statement of the law...

LE does not make charging decisions.

...would seem to require,...

"Seem" is not an operative word in law.

...regardless of how many times the latter is repeated.

The law need only be stated once, by a legislature or by a superior court, to be the law. The law is the law.

We'll see what happens in the case of the Lyft driver. He has not been charged, yet, but he may well be. If he is charged, he may plead guilty to some charge or other, or be convicted by a jury, or not.

The media account does not describe what happened in sufficient detail to give any basis for judging what he Lyft driver may have reasonably believed at the time. Testimony would make that more clear.

Some time back, a man shot and killed a thief who was diving away with his truck. He was able to convince a jury that he had believed it necessary to do so to prevent being shot by the man who was driving away. The thief was unarmed. That was a surprising outcome.

 

[Kleanbore]

So, presumably the gangbanger was not driving at the time, what is your opinion of someone just shooting the top part of his body that is above the roof of the car?

Would all of the requirements of lawful self defense be met?

 

[jmorris]

The media account does not describe what happened in sufficient detail to give any basis for judging what he Lyft driver may have reasonably believed at the time. Testimony would make that more clear.

Yes, I think the arguments here, on both sides, are conjecture based. It’s simple, we don’t know what we don’t know and that unknown information is pivotal.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Would all of the requirements of lawful self defense be met?

He's in the process of shooting people. So the danger is unequivocal and immediate.

IAC I was asking Jeff's opinion from a tactical perspective.

 

[old lady new shooter]

LE does not make charging decisions.

The DA also has a responsibility to enforce the law.

The law need only be stated once, by a legislature or by a superior court, to be the law. The law is the law.

I was referring to your repetitions of your original statement.

 

[Pudge]

LE does not make charging decisions.

"The assistant district attorney (assistant DA, ADA) (or state prosecutor or assistant state's attorney) is a law enforcement official who represents the state government on behalf of the district attorney in investigating and prosecuting individuals alleged to have committed a crime."

Quoted from wikipedia.

 

[Kleanbore]

He's in the process of shooting people. So the danger is unequivocal and immediate.

That meets one requirement.

 

[Kleanbore]

I was referring to your repetitions of your original statement.

??

What I say the law is would not matter. It is what it is, and at trial, the judge would explain it.

 

[Kleanbore]

After the investigators have completed their work and the charging authority has made a decision about the Lyft driver, we will know whether the case will be dropped, go to trial, or be settled out of court.

There could be three reasons for dropping the case: a conclusion that one or more of the shootings had been lawfully justified; a conclusion that prosecution would likely not succeed; and political considerations. The last could go either way.

Without the advantage of descriptions of precisely what happened, and without forensic evidence, we can know nothing about the case--but we do know the law. We may wait a long time for that evidence to be evaluated.

I know that if I were car jacked, I would not shoot at a person taking a car in which I was no longer an occupant unless I had reason to believe that it was the only way to avoid getting shot.

 

[old lady new shooter]

That meets one requirement.

How about you tell us what requirements are not met, when someone is actively engaged in shooting people.

 

[old lady new shooter]

??

What I say the law is would not matter. It is what it is, and at trial, the judge would explain it.

That may well be, but you continually repeating the same assertion is not useful for clarifying your meaning.

 

[Kleanbore]

How about you tell us what requirements are not met, when someone is actively engaged in shooting people.

I don't know the situation.

How would anyone know that he or she would simply be joining one faction in a gang fight?

Attorney Andrew Branca does a good job in outlining and defining the requirements of lawful self defense.

That may well be, but you continually repeating the same assertion is not useful for clarifying your meaning.

What is unclear about my assertion that one may not lawfully employ deadly force in response to what someone has done or to what someone may do in the future, which I believe I stated once, and which is an accurate description of the law?

If you want to have a more complete understanding of what the law does say, consult Branca and The Law of Self Defense.