question on legality of shooting a carjacker.

[MrZ]

"You see he's got a gun pointed at you when you open the door. Are you within your rights to shoot/kill them?"

While self defense laws differ from state to state, the vast majority allow an individual to use force to defend themselves from "unlawful" force used by others. The use of deadly force is generally justified if you feel you, or someone else, is in threat of death or serious bodily harm. Deadly force can be used until the threat is eliminated, which does'nt mean "killed", however, if death results, it may be proved justifiable given the situation. This is where people can get into trouble, depending on their state laws, and how they applied deadly force.

You would be justified to defend yourself with deadly force in this situation, but you would be obligated to stop using deadly force once the carjacker is no longer a threat. Granted, that could very well mean that he ended up dead as a result of the deadly force applied, but that is not the only possible outcome.

Say you shoot him twice, and he drops his gun, falls to the ground and clutches his stomach. At this point, many courts would say that the carjacker is no longer a threat, and deadly force is no longer needed or authorized, and any further use of deadly force could go against the shooter.

Likewise, if an intruder in your house shoots at you, turns around and runs out the door, you may be liable if you shoot him in the back on the way out because it can be said that the criminal is no longer a threat since he is attempting to flee... Crazy, but it has happened.

Where does a threat begin and end? What action would constitute a feeling of potential loss of life or limb? You can't legislate that. The answers are different for everybody and every situation. That's where the lawyers come in, for better or worse.

Education is a must if you ever intend to use deadly force to defend yourself or others. You have got to be familiar with your state laws so that you can not only do the morally right thing, but the legally right thing if that time ever comes.

 

[x3m]

to shoot or not to shoot

i would like to put a spin on this that would make you think about the question in another way. If you do as most south africans did over here and just give in to the hijacker ( as advised by local police and government) then you create the situation where every sad son of a ........ out there says to himself 'hey this is a nice profitable and safe business to be in ' you go out point a gun at some
guy and he gives you his car ,soon every bastard with a gun or even a plastic toy gun is out there pointing at you demanding your car . i say the state is responsible for making it very clear to anybody thinking of making a living out of taking other people's property , be it a car or anything else that it will not be tolerated under any circumstance.
If everybody shoots then most criminals would rather wash your windscreen
because even the dumbest consider risk and if you make the risk very high then suddenly that easy life of crime doesnt seem so attractive anymore.
so i would say that you are morally obliged to shoot , to prevent that criminal from going out tomorrow and hijacking the next guy and accidentally or otherwise injure or kill that person.

 

[nelson133]

Here's a summary of the "stand Your Ground" package that was signed by the Governor on 7/20/06 in Michigan


MCRGO E'News & Announcements


Michigan's Castle Doctrine Package takes effect 10/01/06


Until October 1st, 2006 current case law regarding self-defense remains in effect.

Summary of each of the 6 Bill package: ( source - www.nraila.org )

SB 1046/ PA 311, sponsored by Sen. Alan Cropsey, outlines rebuttal presumptions for justified use of self-defense. The bill makes it clear that there is no “duty to retreat” if a person is in a place where they have a legal right to be.

SB 1185/PA 312, sponsored by Sen. Ron Jelinek, allows for the award of court and attorney fees in civil cases where it was determined a person acted in accordance with the Self Defense Act and where civil immunities apply.

HB 5548/PA 314, sponsored by Rep. Tim Moore, gives civil immunities to persons acting in accordance with the Self Defense Act, preventing criminals and their families from suing law-abiding citizens.

HB 5153/PA 310, sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer, puts the burden of proof on the prosecutor to show that a person acted unlawfully in the application of force, rather than the person using the force having to prove they acted lawfully.

HB 5142/PA 313, sponsored by Rep. Tom Casperson, expands the definition of “dwelling” to include a person’s garage, barn, backyard, etc.

HB 5143/PA 309, sponsored by Rep. Rick Jones, creates the Self Defense Act and specifies that it is not a crime to use force or deadly force to defend oneself if that person is not breaking any laws when defensive force was used. The person must be facing imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

 

[ronto]

Let me make this simple...If someone points a gun at you it's not because they have your welfare in mind...if you have the means and opportunity ... don't talk, just shoot him/her as many times as it takes to eliminate the threat to your life...and ask questions about the law later if you want.
At least you'll be alive to ask the question and that's better than being dead with "Here Lies a Law Abiding Citizen" on your headstone...........
If defending your life is against the law... I'll take my chances.

 

[[email protected]]

I agree with Cousin mike, it your duty to defend yourself. Think about it, This is life or death, if he has a gun on you and you have a gun with you, no matter what state, province, city, county, country or otherwise, shoot that mother- your Life first, legality later

 

[Caliburn]

So you're in the parking lot or at a red light and suddenly some lowlife is pointing a gun at you.

Ask yourself: Am I willing to bet my life (everything that I own, everything I have yet to do, my family, my kids growing up without me, everything) that this individual is only threatening me with a deadly weapon, that he has no intention of squeezing his finger 1/2 inch to kill me, that he has my personal health and well being at heart rather than any desire to leave no witnesses to the carjacking, that he won't shoot me because I'm not getting out of the car fast enough or don't have enough cash in my wallet to satisfy him or just because he just doesn't care?

If you can be certain (or, if you're a kind and forgiving person, whatever level of confidence suits you) that the person really WILL NOT harm you - give up the car. Cars are insured and not worth dying over. Or killing over.

There are risks to engaging the perp too. Will reaching for my weapon escalate the situation and make him more likely to shoot me? Can I draw quickly enough to engage before he shoots me? Will the adrenaline jolt make me do something stupid like hit the mag release button? Could he shoot me even after I've shot him?

It's a balancing act. Are the risks of drawing greater than the risk of doing nothing? Doing nothing leaves the ball entirely in the perp's court, and he's already shown that he is not an honest, law-abiding citizen.

Regarding handgun bullets and penetration, this link says it all. Even though power window motors and steel beams might get in the way, handgun rounds will generally pass right through a door.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=461635&page=1

 

[ronto]

In the dark parking lot scenario...If you have a spurless snub nose revolver in your coat pocket, just in case...He'll never know what hit him...or from where.
No need to tip your hand by reaching for a weapon, just shoot right through your coat. You can always get a new coat.
If someone points a gun at you, ALWAYS assume they are going to use it to kill you.

 

[clarence222]

when to shoot

I am no legal scholar of anything that may resemble one but the most important thing to remember when and if you are ever in that situation or one similar is.

ALWAYS BETTER TO BE JUDGED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6

 

[Shootcraps]

An ass-clown pointing a gun at you is deadly force. You answer it with deadly force. You're protecting your life, not the car.

 

[45crittergitter]

Similar thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2629416&posted=1#post2629416

 

[MountainBear]

To rehash everything everyone else has been saying, yes, you should be legally justified in shooting him. Your avenues of escape are limited. With a gun in his hand, he still poses a threat if you pull away (i.e. he shoots you in the back of the head). Even with the twenty foot rule (not official, but a good guideline) a man with a knife in his hand is a lesser threat if you can reasonably pull away from him.
However, when in doubt, live by this rule: Its better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Your loved ones probably agree...

 

[kengrubb]

Say somebody tries to carjack you, and tells you to open the door to get out. You open the door with one hand while the other is holding a gun aimed at the carjacker. You see he's got a gun pointed at you when you open the door. Are you within your rights to shoot/kill them?

Ultimately, that decision rests in the hands of the police, prosecutor, jury, judges, and maybe even the Governor.

The Gold Standard from In the Gravest Extreme says deadly force is legal when undertaken in the face of an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

One of the best questions I've ever heard this reduced to is do you reasonable believe you are about to be killed? If yes, then deadly force is legal--assuming you aren't out robbing banks and run into an off duty cop who points a gun at you.

Whether the side window is down or up, I don't believe it's going to matter. Handgun bullets of any kind are going to punch thru safety glass (side windows) but may or may not punch thru laminated glass (windshields). Here's a short read on the two. If the side windows are rolled up and one shoots thru the door, I don't see handgun bullets of any kind being stopped by the plastic, aluminum and perhaps sheet metal of a passenger car door. Maybe if it hit the crank mechanism. As such, both the carjacker and the driver have the ability and opportunity to shoot one another.

When drawing on a drawn gun, generally we are well past the point of a verbal challenge. You saw a gun pointed at you, and most reasonable people would agree that's going to place you in fear for your life. You drew your gun to protect yourself, and most reasonable people are going to agree that the would be carjacker is now likely to shoot if you don't.

 

[10-Ring]

yes...

I have a buddy that was almost carjacked about a decade ago. Instead of the car being taken, he was beaten w/ the butt of a shotgun to point that he suffered permanent brain damage. For me, someone tries to carjack me & I'm armed...there's one less carjacker in the world

 

[cgraham]

"Say somebody tries to carjack you, and tells you to open the door to get out."

*************************

That's ALL we we are told of the circumstances in this scenario.

Because the perp "tells you to open the door" I conclude the vehicle is essentially stationary.

We don't know if the vehicle was hemmed in of if there was an avenue of escape. We don't know if there are passengers. We don't know if there are witnesses.

We don't know the caliber of the drivers firearm.

With this little information, it is difficult to determine if the driver should have opened the door in the first place. Evidently he did not know the perp was armed until the door was opened.

If there was an opening, I would floor it, ducking as low as possible. Why comply with an unarmed threat? Is the guy going to shoot at a departing vehicle if he is armed, particularly if there are witnesses present? Thus duty to retreat is observed. I think this is the safest option.

I'm not going to open the door in any circumstances unless there is a gun pressed to the glass next to my head, even if I can't drive away.

To me the scenario is thus unrealistic. A better question is what to do if the perp breaks the window: now you are exposed to a grab, a blow, a knife, etc. NOW, under what circumstances can you shoot.

(If the perp had held a gun to the window, forcing you out of the vehicle, THEN I agree with the conclusions of the previous discussion.)

C

 

[B.D. Turner]

Ok here is my take on this. I open with a question first.
#1 How do you know he is a car jacker and not a crazy person with a gun?
#2 How is giving up your car somehow making you safer?
#3 Does the term "carjacker" make him less dangerious than any other psyco murderer?

Can you shoot a car jacker? No. if you give up your car and he is driving away from you there is no threat to you.

Can you shoot a person who is pointing a knife or gun at you? Yes. If your life is in danger you can protect yourself. Does any state have a law against self protection when your life is in danger?

Would I simply accelerate away? yes and then spin around and run him down with my truck....just kidding....really.....

 

[cgraham]

Good points, BD, and helpful amplification to my previous post.

But: OP: "Say somebody tries to carjack you, and tells you to open the door to get out." Has he announced a carjacking -we don't know.

If someone tells you to open the door and get out, (not having displayed a weapon), I think a carjacking (or other felony) is a reasonable, but not certain conclusion, but deadly force is not justified yet: one reason why driving off is better, or just checking the door locks and sitting tight, weapon ready for deployment (call 911 and let perp see you do it).