View Single Post
Old February 28, 2012, 10:30 AM   #37
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
Quote:
-I probably would've stayed in the car to keep castle doctrine coverage.
That brings up a good point. In many states, Castle Doctrine has been extended to people's personal vehicles. This gives you greater legal protection if you stay in the vehicle and the vehicle itself can offer some protection from contact weapons like hammers/knives/fists. The flip side of this is that if your attacker has a firearm and does actually intend to kill you, staying in the car seriously limits your mobility and ability to fight back. Had Childress jumped out of the SUV with a gun and Waller was still sitting in his locked car, he would have been in a tight spot.

And the flip side of extending Castle Doctrine to vehicles is we all need to understand the danger in approaching someone's vehicle and trying to forcibly enter it (or do something that might be perceived that way like beat on the doors or windows) in those states where Castle Doctrine extends to vehicles. An acquaintance was telling me of a "road rage" incident where he was repeatedly endangered by a drunk. At a red light, he got out of his car, walked to the other's car and opened the drunk's door to find a pistol pointing at him. The drunk had definitely earned some personal counseling; but had the drunk shot my acquaintance, he might well have been justified under Castle Doctrine.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04629 seconds with 7 queries