My Wife, S&W, and Mr. Road Rager

[rhodco]

It's a very good mental exercise to go through all these "what if's". Most of us never even think of all these ramifications until we've been in such a situation. My experience was very similar. Honking the horn.. other driver turns into enraged maniac.. confrontation was similar. The only difference in my case was that this guy wanted me to shoot him. He stood in the middle of the road in front of my truck screaming "shoot me!". With no visible weapon in his hands, and no damage to me or my truck, I knew I couldn't do it yet. He saw my gun and was not afraid. He was calling my bluff and it became a stand off until he finally drove away.

If I had been a small female, I could have shot him the moment he approached my vehicle and no jury would convict. But because I am a large man, and he had no visible weapon, it would not have been justified.

In my case, the officer that responded suggested to me that holding the gun in my hand was not the best course of action. Instead, I should have laid it on the seat next to me or on the dash board within easy reach. That way, the perp can still see it but it's not technically brandishing. If he produces a weapon, I would then have to grab mine and fire in response. Not a scenario that seems fair to me, but it's the way our justice system works.

 

[Fred Fuller]

In my case, the officer that responded suggested to me that holding the gun in my hand was not the best course of action.

I think, given your situation, holding the gun in your hand was a good course of action (assuming you didn't need both hands to drive away)- but showing it wasn't the best thing to do. If you needed both hands for driving, parking the gun under a leg or behind your back pinned against your seat (naturally, your trigger finger is always in index unless shooting, right?) would likely keep the gun in place if it was needed quickly. Putting it on the dash or on the seat next to you means if the car moves quickly, the gun is almost certainly going to skitter off somewhere, likely out of sight/reach. That very thing happened to at least one of the FBI agents on the runup to what became the Miami Shootout- not a good thing for him. He had drawn his gun in anticipation of action, put it on the seat, and subsequently lost it somewhere in the car. ( http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm )

The only time I ever had anyone suspicious on foot trying to stop my car by standing in front of it, I didn't have enough room to get around on either side. But there was no one behind me. I quietly shifted into reverse and stomped the gas- when the tires started squealing and smoking, dude was sure I was about to run him down. He bailed off into the ditch on the side of the road, I quickly shifted into first and scooted on down the road.

fwiw,

lpl

 

[leadcounsel]

I agree that the wife handled this in a reasonable manner and would have likely been justified in shooting the aggressive man.

Assuming all the facts are laid out and accurate, the key points are that the wife did nothing to warrant or escalate the situation. The horn honk is completely legal and justified. The passing on the left may have been a misdemeanor (that's not clear) but certainly not warranting a threatening assault that was forthcoming.

The aggressor committed assault and hostile intent when he used his vehicle as a weapon to box the wife in (wreckless driving or assault with a deadly weapon?) and got out of his car and approached her car with what appeared to be hostile intent (from the reasonable standpoint of the wife). Even though a weapon wasn't visible, that doesn't rule out the fact that he could have a concealed weapon. Regardless, he's clearly a man and aggressive and demonstrated an irrational willingness to verbally assault her, follow her, and use his vehicle to trap her. There is no other explanation for his actions. He had trapped her and his actions were rapidly escalating in force or show of force. And this all happened so quickly that she didn't have time to roll up the window; she had to make a choice and she grabbed for her pistol. The aggravating factor is that she's a frail woman (with MS). Is she supposed to feel protected even if she could get the window rolled up in time? Or is she supposed to wait to get grabbed by the hair and pulled out of the car through the window or stabbed in the throat to decided this is a lethal attack?

Darn straight if I were the victim in this situation he'd have been staring at the business end of my pistol too, and had he come a step closer I'd have ended the threat. He ain't coming to sell me girlscout cookies, that's for sure. And the aggressive nut may just have a shank or crowbar or pistol of his own.


Most people now have cameras with them (phones or otherwise) and I always make a habit of taking a picture of the road ragers car when I see them committing suspect behavior. Get a picture of their license plate, faces, gestures, video of their erratic driving, etc if you can.

I also agree that after he fled I would have filed a police report on the spot.

 

[Jaymo]

I had a road/steroid rager try to pull me out of my car by my throat once. He was HUGE. He looked like a pro linebacker. He blew his horn at me every time I stopped at the multiple stop signs on the road I was traveling on my way to work. When I got to the last one, and waited for the cars with right of way to go first, he exited the vehicle, ran up to mine, reached in the window, and nearly choked me out while trying to pull me out.
The seat belt kept me from going out the window.
My revolver was on the seat beside me. I grabbed it and thrust the muzzle toward his face as hard as I could. Luckily it hit him under the nose and got his attention right as I began feeling cold and woozy.
The only thing more surprising than how fast he got from his car to mine, was how fast he got back to his car and took off.
It was a very scary and unpleasant moment.

 

[highlander 5]

I've read all the responses here and a point here should be made,The gentleman's wife did the right and reasonable thing. Years ago I was reading an atricle by Mas Ayoob and IIRC it was a Q&A type article and a question came up about disabled vs abled bdoied individuals. In a nut shell disabled vs abled bodied a disabled person is at a significant disadvantage vs an abled bodied person your abled bodiness is considered a lethal weapon. Had the wife shot the nut she would have walked and if charged and gone to trial the jury most assuredly would have aquitted. Years ago in Boston a wheelchair bound man caught a 20 something thug ransacking his house. He ordered the thug to leave and said thug came at him with a piece of pipe,the disabled man drew a pistol shot tne thug dead and AFAIk was never charged and things like that usually end up in court in the People's Repulic of Ma.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by highlander 5: I've read all the responses here and a point here should be made,The gentleman's wife did the right and reasonable thing.

You might think that and I might agree, but had the situation been investigated, our opinions would not matter.

Years ago I was reading an atricle by Mas Ayoob and IIRC it was a Q&A type article and a question came up about disabled vs abled bdoied individuals. In a nut shell disabled vs abled bodied a disabled person is at a significant disadvantage vs an abled bodied person your abled bodiness is considered a lethal weapon.

What you are referring to is the concept of disparity of force. That establishes that the stronger person, even though unarmed, has the ability to cause great bodily harm to the weaker one. That's only part of the equation, however; the rest of it involves opportunity and jeopardy. The latter is often equated with intent, and as far as I can tell, the guy had done absolutely nothing to indicate that he intended to harm the person.

Had the wife shot the nut she would have walked and if charged and gone to trial the jury most assuredly would have aquitted.

Do you actually believe that one can lawfully shoot someone for yelling at them? Think again.

Had she shot him while he was approaching the car ("he didn't run at her door"), he would most probably have survived. She would have been faced with his most predictable testimony that what he had intended to do is talk about her driving--that happens all the time--and much more importantly, I think it likely that she would have a very hard time convincing anyone that she had been forced to shoot him at that point to defend herself against death or great bodily harm.

Now, had he actually tried to open the door or put his hand into the partially open window, she would in my opinion have been justified in shooting, under the law in her jurisdiction. One would then hope for her sake that the evidence would have correctly indicated what had transpired.

Years ago in Boston a wheelchair bound man caught a 20 something thug ransacking his house. He ordered the thug to leave and said thug came at him with a piece of pipe, the disabled man drew a pistol shot tne thug dead and AFAIk was never charged and things like that usually end up in court in the People's Repulic of Ma.

The operative words here are "came at him with a piece of pipe." See the difference?

Here are some things worth studying:

http://www.useofforce.us/


http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

 

[zxcvbob]

I've read all the responses here and a point here should be made,The gentleman's wife did the right and reasonable thing. Years ago I was reading an atricle by Mas Ayoob and IIRC it was a Q&A type article and a question came up about disabled vs abled bdoied individuals. In a nut shell disabled vs abled bodied a disabled person is at a significant disadvantage vs an abled bodied person your abled bodiness is considered a lethal weapon. Had the wife shot the nut she would have walked and if charged and gone to trial the jury most assuredly would have aquitted. Years ago in Boston a wheelchair bound man caught a 20 something thug ransacking his house. He ordered the thug to leave and said thug came at him with a piece of pipe,the disabled man drew a pistol shot tne thug dead and AFAIk was never charged and things like that usually end up in court in the People's Repulic of Ma.

She did OK, in my opinion. We're picking it apart to see how she could have done better -- how we could do better if put in the same circumstances.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by zxcvbob: She did OK, in my opinion. We're picking it apart to see how she could have done better -- how we could do better if put in the same circumstances.

I think you are right.

She did OK because things turned out well.

What I think we might have done better is keep the weapon out of view to eliminate the potential for our being charged (without reducing our preparedness), and to report the incident.

 

[ColdDeadHand]

OP, Kudos to your wife.
She showed quick thinking and an ability to defend herself. She even showed restraint in not shooting the guy, drawing the line with "one more step", so to speak.

I would have done the same, and I'm not disabled in any way, I'm a full-grown male and somewhat athletic. But I won't be scrapping on a street-side with a complete stranger. I have a wife and kid, and why would I get into a tussle with someone who could easily pull a pocket knife mid-fight and gut me?

I'll jump on board with some others and say that maybe she could have de-escalated more creatively, taking another route or slowing down and letting him go down the road without her. But I know that in the heat of the moment I don't always think with the 20/20 clarity of hindsight. I bet if this happened all over again today she would handle it differently.

I try to be optimistic when I can, so I'll hope that the road rager would handle the situation differently, too, now that he's had a surprise from a pistol packin' momma.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ColdDeadHand: She even showed restraint in not shooting the guy, drawing the line with "one more step", so to speak.

Restraint? What evidence could she have produced indicating that she had had no other choice but to shoot to defend herself against the imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm?

I suggest that you read Post #81 and the information linked therein.

I would have done the same, and I'm not disabled in any way, I'm a full-grown male and somewhat athletic.

I suggest that you review the part of the Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 571 (Weapons Offenses) that relates to the unlawful exhibition of a firearm before you ever consider pointing your gun at anyone unless you are engaged in a lawful act of self defense, or unless you are a sworn officer.

And before you consider shooting an unarmed person, absent a clear disparity of force, and entertain the idea of mounting a defense of justification, study the links contained in Post #81 as many times as it takes.

 

[1904]

i just got my ccw, my finace' will be taking hers next month, im going to read this to her tonight. Your wife was blocked from escaping, she did what she had to do to stay safe. bottom line

 

[A and O]

The lady did right. Lawful or not. The lady did right. I can't believe that anybody could draw any other conclusion. This is the reason we have the saying "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". Unfortunately, some people don't know the difference between right and wrong and end up on juries and on THR.

She's alive today because she did the right thing is not said lightly. We don't know, and can't know what his intentions were. We do know they were not good intentions and that's enough for me.

Thank You Sir for loving your Wife enough to protect Her in your absence. And thank Her on my behalf for perhaps scaring this idiot to his senses (hoping).

 

[Ruddie]

First off, I'm glad your wife came out of the situation unharmed. Second, if it were here in Ga. the aggressor most likely been charged with false imprisonment due to him hindering her from moving. Before anyone says anything about "She could have gotten out of the car", that would have placed her in immediate danger by means of A. Being in traffic. B. Being exposed to the ass hat that blocked her in.
As far as her pointing the gun at him, she had every right to. He was obviously not stopping to say hello. He was there for malicious intent. He was most likely bigger than her and cursing loudly and advancing toward her drivers side door. If anything she needs to be commended.
Either way, I'm glad she's ok.

God Bless.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Ruddie: As far as her pointing the gun at him, she had every right to. He was obviously not stopping to say hello. He was there for malicious intent. He was most likely bigger than her and cursing loudly and advancing toward her drivers side door.

Since none of us have heard the testimony of either participant or of witnesses, none of us can judge whether she was lawfully justified or not. We can only be very happy that everything turned out OK for her.

However, it is extremely important that no new members here take from this the belief that one would be lawfully justified in pointing a gun at someone because one believes that he was "there for malicious intent."

The links in Post #81 are worth studying and understanding completely.