Doc3402
Member
Too bad you didn't follow the links. You might have a better understanding of why they were posted.Doc:
You posted this as if the story you cite was the point of the OP's original question, or as if it had been linked and was under discussion. Neither is true.
It's not too hard to find cases that prove any rule by being exceptions to that rule. I did not follow the links; I presume they lead to a news story in which a person was shooting in self defense as he/she was driving and that said driver was not charged in connection with either the firearm discharge(s) or the non-standard driving.
OK, but that doesn't negate my point. I invite you to follow my reasoning:
Driving is a serious activity that most people tend to take for granted. Doing it properly requires one's full attention. Most of us have had close calls in traffic while we were doing something we shouldn't have been doing. Shooting is a similarly attention-heavy activity.
Trying to make an accurate shot, or even an inaccurate one, falls squarely into the "not while driving" category.
If I'm focused on drawing and shooting, I'm not focused on driving, and I could very well collide with another vehicle, a pedestrian, or an obstacle. If I do that, personal injury will likely result, and since I was doing something other than focusing on driving, I will very likely be charged with negligence, reckless driving, etc. If someone dies, that escalates to homicide.
If I'm firing a shot while I'm focused on driving, I'm not properly focused on where that bullet is going. If I miss my target or my bullet passes through it, how can I know what's beyond? If that bullet strikes another person, I will be charged. If that person dies, again we're looking at a homicide charge.
That's why I said the driver/shooter will likely do time. Sure, he might get lucky and not hurt anyone with either his car or his bullet, but I stand by my position that mixing two such potentially lethal activities is severely unwise and can almost certainly be avoided. Training is what makes good drivers and good shooters, but almost nobody trains or practices for such a drive/shoot scenario. Why would we advocate doing something under stress that we have not trained to do under controlled conditions? Why on Earth take such a risk when simply driving will nearly always separate us from the danger?
As far as the rest of your post goes, your reasoning really doesn't apply to the situation this man found himself in even though I agree with you in most circumstances. Under attack is under attack. This was not a situation the shooter chose or instigated, yet he felt a need to defend himself against somebody that had already used his car as a weapon more than once. The police and state attorney seem to agree with him.