Wrong person to carjack

[Roland Thunder]

Car jacking victim turns the tables on carjacker, holding him at gunpoint until the police arrive


http://www.ajc.com/videos/news/man-h...-until/vDShbr/

[Bultaco]

"There is no walking away. Walking away was before you got in my car. You must have woke up stupid this morning."
Two of the best lines ever! Man has a sense of humor.

[Pahoo]

Two of the best lines ever! Man has a sense of humor.

Not only that, but for the most part, kept his cool. Instead of being intimidated, I feel he actually got a little pi$$ed.

Be Cool and;
Be Safe !!!

[P5 Guy]

What would be the options if the car-jacker just got up and walked away?
You can't shoot a guy with his back to you, no matter what he's done before, right?

[BobCat45]

I think you are right, if he walked away without appearing to make any threatening moves (additional threatening moves, subsequent to your repelling his initial attack), I think you would have to let him walk.

Interested to read what other people, who know more about the law than I do, have to say about it.

And in the end, what better outcome than: it is over and he walks away? You didn't have to shoot, didn't have to prove self-defense, didn't have your pistol taken as evidence, don't have to wonder "what if?" or "was it really necessary?".

...and maybe, instead for carjacking the next person and maybe hurting or killing them, the guy will become less stupid and change his ways. Not holding my breath, just thinkin'.

[Snyper]

I think you are right, if he walked away without appearing to make any threatening moves (additional threatening moves, subsequent to your repelling his initial attack), I think you would have to let him walk.

You don't have to let him walk, but you can't use deadly force.

[Bultaco]

The guy stayed on the ground because "he woke up stupid". Really, the bad guy was obviously not the brightest bulb on the tree. Probably didn't want to test the car owner physically either.
You're right that if he got up & ran the smart move would be to let him go. He looked like a prime candidate for Darwinian elimination from the gene pool pretty soon anyway.

[BobCat45]

Understood about not using deadly force, but if you use any force at all to detain him, it seems like that is some kind of "citizens arrest" - about which I know nothing except people use the phrase sometimes.

If he has ceased attacking, how much physical force, and and on what grounds, can one use to detain him for the cops?

[Slimjim9]

That's a great story and best possible outcome, but it is certainly grey area in terms of what the guy was legally allowed to do. In my state there is no such thing as citizens arrest so I suspect what he did would not have been completely lawful. Also seems unlikely he would be prosecuted for it either but depends on what lawyer groups might want to get involved.

[OldMarksman]

There are at least four very good reasons to not attempt to detain anyone at gunpoint:

1. He may get the better of you while you are detaining him; that happens
2. You may be ambushed by an accomplice while your attention is focussed on him
3. There is the risk of an untintentional discharge
4. Should he decide to depart, there is nothing you can really do about it (you do not want to get into a scuffle when you have a gun), and if he has spent any time in prison, he will most probably know that.

And there are more.

Not for me, thanks.

[Rbrt3474]

My dad was coming home from work late one night in downtown Ft Worth. While he was stopped at a red-light, a young guy ran up, hit his vehicle with a baseball bat and proceeded to open the driver door. As he did, he came nose to nose with my dad's .380. He didn't try to detain him or wait on the police, instead he had the hoodlum empty his pockets and took his $40 as compensation for damages to his van (it was just a work van anyway). That has always seemed pretty fair to me. Might've taught the bad guy a lesson, no danger of his buddies coming up and helping while waiting for police, etc. Don't think you could call that robbery either since it was just compensating for damages. Sure do love to hear him retell that story!

[Lost Sheep]

OldMarksman, everything you posted is true.

I wish it weren't. It rankles me that if I see (or am victim of) a crime, the development of social norms, of case law and of written law over time has given the advantage of the righteous over to the criminal.

NEW SUBJECT:

Given the recent reports of police shooting unarmed black people, this story is a rather remarkable good outcome. Not so much remarkable for its outcome, but remarkable that it has not hit the national media. You know, "60 Minutes" and "20 Minutes" (the show that did the hatchet-job story "IfI Only Had a Gun" a few years ago).


NEW SUBJECT:

I did exactly the same thing last year, without the "You know what this is" remark. I hopped in the passenger seat of a stranger's car. A friend an I were at a supermarket and I hopped in what I thought was his car and Lo! and Behold!. Wrong car. The owner and I had a pleasant enough conversation that lasted about 5 words and I apologized and left.

Lost Sheep (and I didn't get that moniker for nothing, obviously)

[Lost Sheep]

Rbrt3474, it is a good story. Great homily and moral lesson.

The truth of the matter is that any time you have to pull a weapon to protect yourself you are well advised to call the police. It is often the first to call who gets the assumption of innocence.

Also, the more a given miscreant is reported as behaving badly, the more likely it is he will be turned over to our corrections system for correction.

Consider: If a passerby who did not witness the initial assault were to see the latter half of the incident and call the police, your Dad my have been defending himself against charges of armed robbery. Hopefully the physical evidence would have cleared him.

Lost Sheep

p.s. also see the first paragraph of my post #12, which I was composing as you posted yours.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Lost Sheep:

It rankles me that if I see (or am victim of) a crime, the development of social norms, of case law and of written law over time has given the advantage of the righteous over to the criminal.

That is debatable, but the real deterrent for me is the risk of serious injury or of unintentionally doing something way beyond that is called for. And toward what end?

[stagpanther]

I couldn't tell--did the guy who jumped into the car threaten with a weapon or actually assault?

[OldMarksman]

I'll offer two suggestions:

1. The risk of having someone jump unexpectiedly into the passenger seat is a scary one, and one way to mitigate it is to have a pocket revolver immedately accessible to the left hand.
2. Should one decide to hold someone at gunpoint, it would be prudent to tell him in a commanding voice to slowly turn his face away from you, to slowly put his hands out and keep them there, and to slowly cross his ankles.

There is still a risk, of course, of being ambushed by an accomplice.

[jmhyer]

As a tactical point about this (and other) cases, I feel obliged to point out the importance of keeping your vehicle doors locked at all times. Unlock as you are in immediate proximity to the car, then immediately lock once you are inside.

Just saying...

[Lost Sheep]

Originally Posted by jmhyer

As a tactical point about this (and other) cases, I feel obliged to point out the importance of keeping your vehicle doors locked at all times. Unlock as you are in immediate proximity to the car, then immediately lock once you are inside.

Just saying...

Good advice, but it would have made no difference to the OP's experience.

The incident happened after the doors all automatically unlocked when the vehicle transmission was put into park.

My car, when using the remote unlock feature unlocks only the driver's door (it takes a second action of the transmitter to unlock the other doors).

Lost Sheep

[Brit]

I think I could program the unlock situation, on delivery, my Jeep just unlocks drivers door, swing legs out, push lock button when door opens, slam, and go.

All the time same moves, if I am with my Wife, same, only I walk around to her door, she pops her lock, I hold her hand, pop button closed, off we go.

What? Too much the Gentleman for this day and age? I grew that way.

[TailGator]

My first thoughts were similar: Do I want to reprogram my car so that the doors don't unlock when the car is placed in park? There are situations in which you want to sit still for a time without unlocking the doors, and I have up until now just put it in park and immediately hit the lock button, but that gives a second or so of vulnerability.

In response to some of the earlier posts: The important thing is not whether the other guy is facing towards you or whether he is obeying your instructions, or whether he may pose a threat to someone at a later time (as sometimes comes up in these discussions), but whether he poses an immediate threat to you and/or other innocents.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TailGator:

The important thing is not whether the other guy is facing towards you....

Except that if he is facing toward you he has better ability to see when your guard is down and draw and shoot you.

....or whether he is obeying your instructions, or whether he may pose a threat to someone at a later time (as sometimes comes up in these discussions), but whether he poses an immediate threat to you and/or other innocents.

Very true, and that's a good reason to not try to detain him in the first place.

[stagpanther]

2nd request for info--did the video/post indicate the car jacker had a weapon brought to bare or actually assaulted the driver??

[BigMikey76]

2nd request for info--did the video/post indicate the car jacker had a weapon brought to bare or actually assaulted the driver??

The video doesn't mention anything about a weapon or any attempted assault. It just says that the guy got in the car and said, "You know what this is."

I don't know if I would have responded the same way. I probably would have drawn my gun, since it is reasonable, IMO, to assume that a car jacker is going to be armed, but holding him at gunpoint? Seems to me like stepping above my pay grade. Get him out of the car, lock the doors, get out of the situation and call the cops so they can do their job. I certainly would not have stood there spouting one liners for the camera.

[stagpanther]

2nd request for info--did the video/post indicate the car jacker had a weapon brought to bare or actually assaulted the driver??
The video doesn't mention anything about a weapon or any attempted assault. It just says that the guy got in the car and said, "You know what this is."

I don't know if I would have responded the same way. I probably would have drawn my gun, since it is reasonable, IMO, to assume that a car jacker is going to be armed, but holding him at gunpoint? Seems to me like stepping above my pay grade. Get him out of the car, lock the doors, get out of the situation and call the cops so they can do their job. I certainly would not have stood there spouting one liners for the camera.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
Last edited by BigMikey76; Today at 12:20 PM.
BigMikey76 is online now Report Post

That's what I suspected.

This rises to the level of property trespass--maybe--and that's about it. A few states might recognize this as the equivalent of breaking into and entering a home.

I'm not going to second-guess what the gun-bearer did--but in my view was very very risky given the tenuous nature of proving clear and imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by stagpanther:

This rises to the level of property trespass--maybe--and that's about it.

Do you have a basis for that assertion?