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

[xcgates]

So simply by carrying a gun, you now are incapable of honking and alerting someone to the fact they are impeding the flow of traffic/doing something stupid or dangerous?

Sure, don't go looking for conflicts, but don't turtle up and not have any interactions out of fear.

 

[BLB68]

First, I'm glad the OP's wife is OK.

Second, when confronted with a road raging idiot, she should have changed her travel route, preferably turning off onto a street that the idiot has already passed. I can't tell from the OP whether this was possible in this case, but it's something to keep in mind.

As to intent: We can't know if the guy intended to physically harm the lady. However, we do know that he went to lengths far beyond flipping her the bird or yelling a few obscenities at her as he drove by. He made an effort to box her in, then approached her still spewing obscenities. Even if you think he may somehow not have been a threat at this point, by this time he has made a concerted effort to terrorize and dominate the woman, and he has removed her option to flee. It's not such a stretch that she felt fear for her safety. This is the message the idiot sent by his actions. If he didn't want to cause her to fear for her safety, then he wouldn't have blocked her in and approached aggressively, would he?

She was completely justified in displaying force at that point. Had he continued to move toward her at that point, she'd have been justified in shooting him, IMO. Any time you are holding someone at gun point and they advance, that's a pretty clear indicator of their intent.

 

[BLB68]

digging in your purse to find your jframe is definitely a fine motor skill. How hard is it to push a button? Most of the power windows I've encountered are a toggle type if you realize it's going down instead of up slide your finger the other way.

There's a huge difference in controlling a single finger when you have a CNS disorder and moving your arm and closing all of your fingers at the same time. I'm going to take the word of the husband of the lady with MS over your opinions on what constitutes fine motor control.

Unfortunately every jury is different. If there are people on this forum who have doubts I can assure there would be some on the jury that doubt too.
I say this because obviously you're a little too close to the situation to view it unbiased. Also your only getting your wifes side of the story.

I'm going to have to agree with the OP and his instructor that this would never go to a jury trial. All of the criteria to use deadly force were met. I think there's a chance the situation could have been avoided altogether, but from the moment the guy boxed her in and advanced on her, she did OK.

It's amazingly hard to box somebody in with your car - otherwise cops wouldn't need stop sticks or have to use the pit maneuver to get people to stop. Reverse would have worked just fine.

I think you may have missed the multiple times that it was stated there was a car behind her at a light. Even if there was only the one car behind her, she would have to rely on that driver being smart enough and alert enough to the situation to back out of her way before doing anything. By the time this third party responded, had the guy intended her harm, it would have been too late.

As an ex-LEO, I can tell you that it's not terribly hard to box someone in the way this guy did. High speed chases are a completely different situation.

 

[NidStyles]

I find it ridiculous that so many here are suggesting someone changes their life and habit's to avoid escalation with someone that was clearly already breaking the law. Last time I looked this whole road rage thing was illegal. Blocking someone's car off in the middle of traffic is dangerous and also illegal. Getting out of a vehicle and yelling profanely and acting in aggressive overtones can be leveled under Assault. If the man turn's out to have been carrying a knife or another sharp instrument it's Aggravated Assault.

Here in AZ, she was completely within the bound's of the law, other than her passing in the intersection.

I find it simply amusing that so many would like to find fault in her action's, when clearly she was the victim in this situation. While although she was not completely unfounded in the escalation of the issue, she did not ask for him to act in such a manner. Her disability is the key factor in her action's. I have seen what M.S. does first hand with my step-father. Pushing a button is a fine motor skill, as the hand will tend to shake under stress. Grabbing a solid chunk of steel the size of a J Frame is not something that would be effected.

The question comes down to this. What was this guy's action's? What were his intent's?

Clearly he was acting irrational, and of course overly aggressive. His intention's could not be predicted, as he was not of sound mind during this incident. As such, no one would be able to accurately assume that he would have stopped at yelling at her through the window.

With his action's up until the firearm was made present in the situation, he clearly could have pulled her out of the car and proceeded to add Battery to the Assault, and turned it into Aggravated Assault through use of physical violence.

Everyone arguing that she went over the bound's is being ridiculous. Her intention as per her statement was that she would fire if he did not stop. That is the intention behind Self-Defense carry, is it not?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NidStyles: I find it ridiculous that so many here are suggesting someone changes their life and habit's to avoid escalation of with someone that was clearly already breaking the law. Last time I looked this whole road rage thing was illegal. Blocking someone's car off in the middle of traffic is dangerous and also illegal. Getting out of a vehicle and yelling profanely and acting in aggressive overtones...

Everyone needs to understand that the fact that someone is breaking the law does not generally give someone who is not a sworn officer the right to threaten or to employ deadly force to enforce the law. For defense, or to prevent certain serious felonies (the list of which varies according to jurisdiction), yes when necessary, or in a few jurisdictions under very rare circumstances perhaps, but those were not in play here.

Was she in imminent danger? Perhaps--I would have to know more details.

The question comes down to this. What was this guy's action's? What were his intent's?

It most certainly does.

 

[NidStyles]

Imminent danger was clear by his action's. Just by acting in the manner than can be seen as Assault against a person of lesser Physical Stature and Health it's clear he was putting her Life in danger. A reasonable person might assume that he may have only hit her a couple of times, or simply pulled her out of the car.

It doesn't takes a Orthopedic Surgeon to remind you that the neck and head are the weakest parts of the human body. It only takes 8lbs/in to break one of the plates of the skull.

The question would end up as this, did she knowing of her own personal frailty, fear for her life? Obviously she did, because she is a responsible permit holder, and she did pull her firearm.


I honestly can not comment on the legality of what I'm stating for the state of TN, I believe that's the state this occurred in. I can say that here in Arizona, as it stands right now, no legal action would be taken. Had there been a shooting. There would be an investigation obviously, but I doubt anything would come from it. She'd be more at risk of a Civil Suit from the dirtbag's family though.

Just to add, the legality of his action's are usually useful in determining the character of said person for uses of Intent. Although had a shooting occurred and she been in a defensive legal battle, the D.A. would most likely try to frame the debate about the legality of her resorting to a firearm. This would be done by ignoring the obvious ramification's of the past behavior of the man involved. Bringing character into the situation set's a clear record for disregard for safety of others, as law's of the road are set up primarily with that intent.

 

[rscalzo]

if someone is sitting in the middle of the road not responding to a green light, they should expect to get a toot of a horn.

Who hasn't lost concentration and missed the light changing? A short sounding of the horn is not unusual.

A few years back on a one lane highway I was behind a small pickup doing ten to fifteen under the posted limit of 55. I have been behind some drivers, maybe due to age and the night time conditions that weren't comfortable in the dark hours. When legal I accelerated and passed the pickup only to have the driver match my speed which at this point was well above the speed limit.

At this point I was now past them. they tried i again with a car behind me. To them I guess it was a game that could have ended badly. As the threat was now behind me, there was no reason for any further action although I would have liked to get the license plate it wasn't possible.

 

[NidStyles]

I drive slow on purpose. I drive an '89 Bronco with a lift, and the gas mileage is not that great. For that reason alone I keep to the right, and drive at the very most at the speed limit, but usually under it for the sack of not wanting to burn fuel that I don't need to.

I have been absent minded in at light's before, and I usually thank people when they honk at me. They are helping me get to my destination after all.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NidStyles: Imminent danger was clear by his action's. Just by acting in the manner than can be seen as Assault against a person of lesser Physical Stature and Health it's clear he was putting her Life in danger. A reasonable person might assume that he may have only hit her a couple of times, or simply pulled her out of the car.

Maybe, maybe not. In either Arizona or Tennessee, the existence if imminent danger would be presumed under the law had the assailant unlawfully entered her automobile. That had not yet happened.

The question would end up as this, did she knowing of her own personal frailty, fear for her life?

Not exactly. The real questions would be, (1) did she have a basis for a reasonable belief that deadly force (or in Arizona, the defensive display of a weapon--see below) was immediately necessary to defend herself to prevent death or serious bodily harm, and (2) could she produce at least some evidence supporting that argument?

Had the man at least attempted to enter the automobile, that burden would likely have been rather easily met. If it were just her word against his, however, or if another witness were unable or unwilling to confirm her story with any degree of certainly, that would present a bigger issue.

Obviously she did, because she is a responsible permit holder, and she did pull her firearm.

That would not enter into the judgment at all.

I honestly can not comment on the legality of what I'm stating for the state of TN, I believe that's the state this occurred in. I can say that here in Arizona, as it stands right now, no legal action would be taken.

The princial difference between relevant the statute laws of Arizona and Tennessee is that Arizona law specifically allows the defensive display of a weapon under some circumstances in which deadly force may not be justified. That provision essentially allows for a person to avoid, or to present a defense of justification against, aggravated assault charges, should a perceived threat of using a weapon arise during an incident. The defendant will also have to provide some supporting evidence to pursue that defense successfully.

So--it goes back to maybe, maybe not--there is no certainty.

Personally, I am always inclined to not share the details of any encounters publicly or with anyone other than an attorney under the privilege of attorney/client communication.

 

[BLB68]

Allowing an angry person who has just unlawfully detained you to get within arm's reach of an open car window, given the disparity in size and physical condition implicit in the fact that she's an adult female with MS and he's an enraged adult male, would be stupid and possibly fatal. She did the right thing.

That the law would presume intent under certain circumstances does not mean that those are the only circumstances that can be used to show intent. Basically, what you described is an application of castle doctrine to a vehicle. That doesn't cover any other number of situations, and being in the vehicle does not necessarily mean that you have to wait for it to be breached to defend yourself.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by BLB68: Allowing an angry person who has just unlawfully detained you to get within arm's reach of an open car window, given the disparity in size and physical condition implicit in the fact that she's an adult female with MS and he's an enraged adult male, would be stupid and possibly fatal.

The possibility that harm may occur does not justify the use of deadly force. The state may argue that she should have simply closed the window, and she would likely have to demonstrate why she did not. Would it prove convincing?

She did the right thing.

I won't dispute that based on what has been related, but it is quite possible that the charging authority would not see it that way.

Basically, what you described is an application of castle doctrine to a vehicle. That doesn't cover any other number of situations, and being in the vehicle does not necessarily mean that you have to wait for it to be breached to defend yourself.

You are absolutely correct. However, if that threshold (unlawful forcible entry) has not been exceeded, the presumption of a reasonable belief that imminent danger existed is not provided, and the person in the car will have to provide other evidence of a reason to believe that imminent danger existed.

So, what other evidence is there? Perhaps the location of his car--but whether that would suffice is not a forgone conclusion either way.

She had disparity of force and an inability to retreat on her side, but whether the testimony of other witnesses would support a claim that she was really in imminent danger when she was inside her automobile and all the other person was doing was yelling might well depend on the luck of the draw in jury selection--and upon jury instruction regarding the law.

Claims that the approaching person was screaming and yelling are unlikely to suffice--they very rarely justify the use of deadly force in the absence of other compelling evidence.

 

[SSN Vet]

"ARE YOU GONNA (expletive) SHOOT ME?!". She said "YES!".

That says it all to me, right there!

A fighting attitude is absolutely necessary, and without it, a gun may well prove to be a liability.

My wife and I discuss her getting her permit every six months or so. She either can't or doesn't want to take up a self defense / fighting mind set.

I guess I'll just count myself lucky. The only person she wants to fight with is me

 

[W.E.G.]

Thumbs up to the wife for her courage!

Bravo!

 

[BLB68]

The possibility that harm may occur does not justify the use of deadly force. The state may argue that she should have simply closed the window, and she would likely have to demonstrate why she did not. Would it prove convincing?

Snipped the rest, because I'm in agreement with what you had to say. Thanks for the response.

As to the possibility of harm. Depends on your jurisdiction, and whether the people deciding whether to try you or not agree that you had a reasonable belief that you were in danger. I agree that this could get sticky if it went that far, but I think the "possibility" of harm and the general concept of a reasonable belief are one in the same.

As to the window. I know for a fact a side car window won't stop me when I'm not enraged, and I'm not all that physically imposing. It's a good thing to roll up the window, but it's a very temporary barrier at best, and at worse, you could end up with glass in your eyes and be unable to defend yourself. In every case I've seen of someone being snatched out of a car after breaking a side window, it was accomplished swiftly and with minimal resistance. Glass shattering in your face is jarring, no matter who you are, possibly more so in this lady's case. I think it'd be hard to argue (logically, we all know legally and logically sometimes don't meet up) any duty to roll up a car window under the circumstances.

Edit: Just to respond to this:

Claims that the approaching person was screaming and yelling are unlikely to suffice--they very rarely justify the use of deadly force in the absence of other compelling evidence.

I think if the story happened as told that she had other compelling evidence. As you stated, without a reliable witness or camera footage (possible traffic cam, for general example), this may be difficult. Though in a he-said she-said scenario, I think there may be some room for leniency, as there would be a lack of evidence to both sides of the story.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by BLB68: I think the "possibility" of harm and the general concept of a reasonable belief are one in the same.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. It's one thing to believe that harm is possible, and another to conclude that serious harm is imminent. A defense of justification would hinge on the latter.

As to the window. I know for a fact a side car window won't stop me when I'm not enraged, and I'm not all that physically imposing. It's a good thing to roll up the window, but it's a very temporary barrier at best, and at worse, you could end up with glass in your eyes and be unable to defend yourself. In every case I've seen of someone being snatched out of a car after breaking a side window, it was accomplished swiftly and with minimal resistance. Glass shattering in your face is jarring, no matter who you are, possibly more so in this lady's case. I think it'd be hard to argue (logically, we all know legally and logically sometimes don't meet up) any duty to roll up a car window under the circumstances.

All very true indeed, and a good reason to prefer the kinds of statutes that specify that an attempt at forcible entry into an occupied automobile provides a (rebuttable) assumption that a person had a reasonable belief that imminent danger existed (example: Texas; "or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied... vehicle, ...").

Legislatures in some states have opted to place a more restrictive condition into their codes.

The same thing, of course, applies in the case of unlawful entry into a domicile. The codes in some states (Texas, again, for example) mention an attempt at unlawful entry made with force. Others do not, and some specifically state that the intruder must have entered unlawfully. Colorado is among the latter; however, one unfortunate soul who broke the glass in a door and reached in to unlock a door was killed by the occupant, and charges have yet to be filed against the shooter. The man's arm had entered the house.

So--some legislatures have been more restrictive, for reasons that were undoubtedly discussed in some depth during the legislative process.

So, while the side window of most cars offers little physical protection, the codes in some jurisdictions offers less legal protection than in others. As to case law, I do not know, and that could be much more important than what the code appear to say to the layman. Of course, in the case at hand, not even an attempt had been made.

The man might have broken the glass, but he did not. What does that say about evidence regarding his intent? That question would hinge on testimony to which we are not privy.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Ok we will try this again since the powers that be were not pleased with my first response...

The possibility that harm may occur does not justify the use of deadly force. The state may argue that she should have simply closed the window, and she would likely have to demonstrate why she did not. Would it prove convincing?

That's all well and good except for the fact that she DID NOT use deadly force. Drawing a weapon is not the same as using it just as taking your keys out of your pocket is not the same as starting your car.

Throwing around laws and use of force concepts such as Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy are great in sounding good but if they are not applied correctly then the conclusions that some of the previous posters have made are wrong.

Here is another concept for you that most of the critics are ignoring or are unaware of, it's called Totality of the Circumstances. That is the standard used by the courts and law enforcement to decide weather a person's actions were reasonable and legal in self defense situation.

So let's take this situation and break it down:

1. A small statured female
2. Our victim has MS which makes her even less able to defend herself
3. An able bodied man who has demonstrated irrational and aggressive behavior.

Now let's add these facts to the situation:

1. The man pursued the woman in her vehicle to continue the confrontation when it clearly should have ended.
2. The man used his vehicle as a means to block off the escape of the female.
3. The man exited his vehicle and began approaching the female while shouting angry and threatening words.

These circumstances clearly dictate that a prudent person in our lady's situation would determine that this man had intentions to escalate the situation further. At this point she is not required to wait any longer to take some kind of action. Drawing a weapon at this point is not only acceptable it is smart. For those who have actually had training in critical incidents you know that the aggressor is at the advantage because you are reacting to his actions against you. This is known as a reactionary gap and if you wait until you are actively being attacked, shot at, or assaulted to make a move to draw your weapon then you are most likely going to fail.

Liken this situation to one that a LEO might encounter going to a call dealing with a armed individual. The LEO is not forced to keep his weapon in the holster until he has a gun pointed at him and he is further not forced to hold his fire until he is actually shot at. That seems to be the standard that some on here are advocating for and it is just impractical and dangerous.

Gunowners can often times be our own worst enemy and our own worst critics. A lot of gunowners read laws and statutes and think that they now know how a deadly force incident should unfold. What they don't realize is just because laws are written in certain ways don't always mean they get enforced to the letter. There is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law that a lot of people seem to have a problem understanding.

To the OP your wife did just fine and got out of a dangerous situation without being hurt and that is the whole point behind carrying a firearm. Listen to your training officer and those with experience in dealing with these situations and you will hear the truth.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Dbl0Kevin,

As a rule here on THR, we encourage taking discussions such as this private until the issues in question are settled, and not airing them on an open forum.

Now that you have reiterated your points without the language I found objectionable in your earlier post, let's explore a couple of things here. For the record, given the circumstances, I agree that having a firearm in hand was an appropriate response to the situation as it existed. Displaying it? Well, I'm not at all familiar with the law as it is applied in the jurisdiction in question. Whether displaying the weapon was appropriate or not I'm in no position to say. Not that it matters a whole lot, because what I think regarding the incident is worth... well, approximately as much as what you think, to put it frankly, since the incident occurred in a jurisdiction other than your own, in a state other than your own. Like they say- opinions are like certain anatomical features, everyone has one.

But again, that's neither here nor there. Let's look at a few other things. As has been so often stated here, there is no substitute for knowing how your own local laws are applied, and what the standards of conduct regarding legal self defense really are. There's a really fine distinction there. And the place to learn what the lawful standards of conduct regarding self defense in your jurisdiction really are IS NOT on the street, nor is it in the courtroom. The place to learn is before it's necessary to apply those standards to an event that transpires in your own life.

How do you learn? With luck, it will be adequately covered in your CCW class. Or it could be covered in one of the NRA classes available in a lot of places. But if you still don't feel you know all you need to know, what then?

Well, you could talk to your local prosecutor or ADA, but I wouldn't take that route lightly. He or she might get the wrong impression of the reasons for your questions. I would talk to a good criminal defense attorney in my jurisdiction, even if I had to pay him or her for an hour of their time (many attorneys don't charge for initial appointments). After all, paying for an hour to stay out of trouble is much cheaper than paying for several hundred hours to try and get out of trouble if you get something wrong.

So, did the OP's wife do anything wrong?

I don't know.

Apparently she didn't get into any legal trouble over what she did. She did get herself out of a situation where she thought she was in sufficient danger to to warrant displaying a firearm. Was she correct in what she was thinking?

I don't know. And frankly I'm not prepared to believe that anyone else here is in any better position than I am to know whether she was or not.

No one here at S&T or any other place can tell anyone what to think. We wouldn't if we could.

In general we aren't even going to tell you how to think. We might wish we could, but we know it isn't likely to work. But if we can get people TO think- to think ahead, to rationally consider the probable outcomes of their actions, then we will have done some good.

We have certain standards of conduct here in S&T. One of the primary standards here is that we profess to be the Good Guys. That means we have to act in certain ways, and in order to act in the proper way we must first channel our thoughts in the proper direction.

So - do you know how the law regarding self defense is applied in your current jurisdiction? Do you know the standards in your current jurisdiction that define lawful conduct as far as self defense is concerned? Are you planning to go traveling outside your usual place of residence, and have you determined the basic standards of conduct and legalities there in advance?

And most important, are you willing to observe those standards and legalities, even under pressure?

The original post in this thread did not ask any direct questions of us, nor did it directly ask for comments. The story was posted as a memorable episode, and it is memorable for good reason. It should be enough to make us all think about what we would do, what we SHOULD do, if confronted with a similar situation.

In that, I hope it worked.

lpl

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Dbl0Kevin: That's all well and good except for the fact that she DID NOT use deadly force. Drawing a weapon is not the same as using it just as taking your keys out of your pocket is not the same as starting your car.

In two states that I know of , one may lawfully present or display a weapon in circumstances in which the use of deadly force is not justified, but that is not true in most jurisdictions.

Here is another concept for you that most of the critics are ignoring or are unaware of, it's called Totality of the Circumstances. That is the standard used by the courts and law enforcement to decide weather a person's actions were reasonable and legal in self defense situation.

No argument there.

So let's take this situation and break it down:

1. A small statured female
2. Our victim has MS which makes her even less able to defend herself
3. An able bodied man who has demonstrated irrational and aggressive behavior.

All of that would indeed enter into the situation had she actually defended herself against an unarmed man.

Now let's add these facts to the situation:

1. The man pursued the woman in her vehicle to continue the confrontation when it clearly should have ended.
2. The man used his vehicle as a means to block off the escape of the female.
3. The man exited his vehicle and began approaching the female while shouting angry and threatening words.

All good points, except that they would probably not justify the use of deadly force--or therefore, the presentation of a weapon. Number 2, maybe, but not 1 and 3.

These circumstances clearly dictate that a prudent person in our lady's situation would determine that this man had intentions to escalate the situation further.

Based on the report that the enraged driver was not giving any real indication that he was about to do anything but ent, and on the fact that angry words are often exchanged in traffic situations, I'm not at all sure that the evidence we have at hand really supports that contention, and if I'm not, you can bet that a bunch of folks who are lukewarm at best on the idea of citizens carrying guns will be unlikely to reach that conclusion.

At this point she is not required to wait any longer to take some kind of action. Drawing a weapon at this point is not only acceptable it is smart.

That is precisely what is in question, isn't it?

For those who have actually had training in critical incidents you know that the aggressor is at the advantage because you are reacting to his actions against you. This is known as a reactionary gap and if you wait until you are actively being attacked, shot at, or assaulted to make a move to draw your weapon then you are most likely going to fail.

Very true.

Liken this situation to one that a LEO might encounter going to a call dealing with a armed individual. The LEO is not forced to keep his weapon in the holster until he has a gun pointed at him and he is further not forced to hold his fire until he is actually shot at.

Nor is anyone else, for that matter.

Also, there is a very significant difference in the standard for producing a weapon for civilians and sworn officers, In my state, the prohibition against displaying a weapon in a threatening manner except when engaged in a lawful act of self defense does not apply to law enforcement officers, and for good reason.

That seems to be the standard that some on here are advocating for and it is just impractical and dangerous.

No.

One more time: the guy was shouting at her. That never justifies either the threat or the use of deadly force.

Be aware that had she been charged with criminal assault, and were I on the jury, I would likely be most sympathetic to her cause, and I would try to consider all aspects of extenuating circumstances. The problem is, as one who carries a gun, I would almost certainly be excluded from the jury, and those who were empaneled would be given a set of jury instructions that might not be helpful to her cause.

How would they decide? We cannot know.

Thank you for your thought provoking post, and I hope you find my reply to be helpful.

 

[onebigelf]

Good for your wife! I'll bet YOU feel better knowing for a fact that if something ever happens you can count on your wife! I'm sorry for your wife having to go through that, but she did nothing wrong and handled the situation well. Now you and she both know that she can take care of herself and that she doesn't freeze in a crisis! I hope you bought her something nice.

John

 

[Ryanxia]

I hate to say it because, after all this is the High Road, but in your wife's situation I'd rather get in trouble for brandishing/threatening/etc than be at the mercy of a road raged stranger.

I'm not one for drawing unnecessarily but given your options better safe than sorry

P.S. This is loosely based on some of the other comments I skimmed through regarding legalities.

Glad all went well and thanks for the sharing of the experience. Sometimes we don't get to hear/read about the gritty stuff that fuels our preparedness.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

Kleanbore,

I think we are in about 95% agreement on this issue save for this:

All good points, except that they would probably not justify the use of deadly force--or therefore, the presentation of a weapon. Number 2, maybe, but not 1 and 3.

The problem you seem to be having is you are looking at each factor individually to see if they would alone justify a deadly force response. That is the wrong perspective in such an incident. Of course standing on it's own merit either one of those facts would not elevate a situation to possible deadly force, but when looked at collectively I certainly believe they would. You have to consider ALL the factors together to decide the totality of the circumstances.

One more time: the guy was shouting at her. That never justifies either the threat or the use of deadly force.

I find it strange that even you yourself acknowledge the fact that there were other extenuating circumstances in this incident yet continue to break it down to this simple statement. No one is saying that if you are just standing around or sitting in your car minding your own business and a guy walks up to you and yells at you that you can shoot him. Again all factors taken into a account the man made several decisions to escalate the situation when it could have ended and continued to advance. You can't simply state that he was just yelling at her. He clearly was not there to discuss the latest fashion trends, or perhaps solicit her for a political donation. What other conclusion can one come to based on the facts presented than the man intended to continue the escalation of the situation as he previously demonstrated by his own actions?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Dbl0Kevin: You have to consider ALL the factors together to decide the totality of the circumstances.

I certainly agree with that.

Again all factors taken into a account the man made several decisions to escalate the situation when it could have ended and continued to advance.

Yes indeed. Now, what is it that indicates that he had made any decision to escalate the situation to cause death or serious bodily harm?

You can't simply state that he was just yelling at her.

The point I was making is that mere words, even angry words, do not justify the threat or the use of deadly force. Some states even include that statement in their criminal codes, and others, in jury instructions.

Now, his having boxed her in was a more serious action; however, she could have found out the hard way that, while he could well have been charged for doing that, that action did not justify her pointing a gun.

After all, had she shot him, he probably would have been unable to move his car.

What other conclusion can one come to based on the facts presented than the man intended to continue the escalation of the situation as he previously demonstrated by his own actions?

One very plausible conclusion is that he merely intended to continue to yell at her about her driving until he felt he had made his point. That happens more than it should in our society.

The question is whether the actions of the individual up to that point were sufficient to justify a threat of deadly force in her jurisdiction, or whether some attempt to break a window would have been necessary and/or sufficient. I do not know the answer to that, and how others would have answered the question would only be known if there had been a charging decision one way or the other, and if necessary, a trial.

The problem is that the pointing of a gun in a threatening manner is a crime, absent justification, and pursuing a defense of justification would require her to produce some evidence to that effect. Whether she could have done so will remain unknown.

It is my opinion that the state laws as written are somewhat less limiting in this regard (displaying a firearm when threatened) in Arizona and Texas, but she was not in either jurisdiction, and I am not at all knowledgeable of the case law in her home state and of how it has made itself into the jury instructions there.

The totality of the facts? I think she had every reason to be very concerned. Having the gun in her hand inside her automobile would certainly have been prudent. I would have done so.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

I think we are on the same page here. Obviously the situation would be investigated had it gone any further and any speculation on what would have happened is pure conjecture since nothing else did happen. That being said I'd rather err on the side of drawing a weapon in such an instance and deal with the investigation afterwards. Of course my perspective may be biased seeing as how I deal with situations like these quite frequently and I know first hand how few of them actually come down to charges, let alone trials.

Bottom line is use your best judgment out there. While it is great for people to think through situations beforehand and to read up on case law and statutes you don't want to over think things so much that when the time comes you hesitate and get hurt because you were afraid of what would happen after.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Dbl0Kevin: I think we are on the same page here.

Excellent! Nothing like a good discussion, and we do appreciate your participation. Perhaps it will benefit others who are new here.

Obviously the situation would be investigated had it gone any further and any speculation on what would have happened is pure conjecture since nothing else did happen.

Exactly.

That being said I'd rather err on the side of drawing a weapon in such an instance and deal with the investigation afterwards.

I'm quite certain that I would draw. It's just that I would be extremely reluctant to actually expose the gun until the danger appeared imminent--and that's a judgment call.

Of course my perspective may be biased seeing as how I deal with situations like these quite frequently and I know first hand how few of them actually come down to charges, let alone trials.

It's the old risk management problem. The likelihood may be low--maybe even remote--but the consequences of just going though a criminal investigation would be too rich for my blood. Perhaps I've seen one too many log of billable hours from outside counsel.

So--if one draws, but does not present the gun until the last minute, he or she reduces the risk of being charged with aggravated assault, but is still quite ready to defend.

And there's even a possible downside to that: the chance to deter the crook by the mere presentation of the weapon may be reduced.

It would seem that it all comes down to timing, just as in comedy and sports.

 

[clutch]

digging in your purse to find your jframe is definitely a fine motor skill. How hard is it to push a button? Most of the power windows I've encountered are a toggle type if you realize it's going down instead of up slide your finger the other way.


Unfortunately every jury is different. If there are people on this forum who have doubts I can assure there would be some on the jury that doubt too.
I say this because obviously you're a little too close to the situation to view it unbiased. Also your only getting your wifes side of the story.

It's amazingly hard to box somebody in with your car - otherwise cops wouldn't need stop sticks or have to use the pit maneuver to get people to stop. Reverse would have worked just fine.

First item, I have a new to me car. I often hit the wrong switch since I can't see it in the morning at McD's for my breakfast sandwich causing the rear window to partially lower. Secondly, when I do hit the right switch. It wouldn't be much of a leap for the OP's wife to hit the autodown side of the rocker while under stress instead of the up side.

As to boxing in a car against a curb in traffic, in heavy traffic there are cars behind her that are boxed by others streaming by.

Clutch