Did I do the right thing? Or should I have used force?

[AZAK]

Glad that you made it home in one piece. Avoiding/deescalating/backing up was the best choice given the situation that you have outlined.

My concern would be:

stopped in front of me, trying to block me in the road between the median and the curb. Then 3 men got out and one opened my car door

This is the point that you want to avoid if at all possible; someone physically at your door handle who may want to do you harm, and especially with the door being opened by them after a "road rage" incident. What if the "little guy" had a knife? Or a gun? He hit you with his fist. (There is a reason that when someone is pulled over by the police that they have them stay in the car.)

As pax pointed out, "You won." And I would guess that your situation awareness regarding this type of incident/road rage will be a bit more "refined"/prepared in the future; hopefully helping to completely avoid any serious confrontations in your future.

I have seen my share of road ragers; up here during the Winter, I often pass by them a couple of minutes later with their vehicles off the road, stuck in a snowbank.

The "boomerang principle" (what goes around comes around) - you just don't want to be near them when it happens; so a wide berth is a good idea.

Swallowing pride and then learning from life's experiences is not always easy, but it is pretty simple. Kudos to you for examining your experience and seeking and gaining some wisdom.

[threegun]

This line has been eating at me. Simple assault does not justify the use of lethal force. Brandishing a weapon is the last thing he should have done.

At the moment you are being attacked by three men you aren't privy with the knowledge that its only going to be a fat lip. IMO if you cannot simply back out and escape you must prepare to defend yourself. Pulling and pointing your firearm at this point is both legal and the correct course of action if you are to maintain a proper defensive posture. Then if your cab is breeched the bad guys intent is clear.

Whats upsetting is how many of you guys cannot see that as easy as the bad guy stopped with a fat lip he could have continued and with help from his buddies. Yes Razorburn survived only slightly nicked. It's awesome that he was able to survive without pulling or firing his gun. Understand this however, he was lucky. He did multiple things wrong and survived despite it. Praising him only reinforces him and others to handle things wrong. I am glad all went well as we all are. I just hope if this goes down again Razor will handle it differently and in a manor that doesn't put him at the mercy of the bad guys.

This is precisely why having an understanding of the law is so important. Some say as important as having an understanding of how to respond tactically. The OP needs to upgrade both. I understand why he feels bad and its something only preparation will cure.

[threegun]

Of course, so would throwing the car into reverse since he wasn't blocked in. And "R" has the HUGE advantage of not having any moral/emotional and legal/civl issues to deal with later.

Jad0110, I stated already that reverse was the first option. What you quoted was under the premise that escape was blocked. At this point preventing an attack is justification for pulling and pointing.

IMO if you are justified in shooting the last thing on your mind should be moral or legal issues. You are either justified or not. If you are justified then you are about to get gravely injured or killed if you don't shoot.

[MikeNice81]

At the moment you are being attacked by three men you aren't privy with the knowledge that its only going to be a fat lip.

One guy punched him. The other guy kicked his car. There was no three man attack. There were three men on the scene. There were three peopel getting out of the car. Only one became physically agressive with the driver himself. The imminent fear of death was not there.

Now he might have been in fear of serious bodily harm by the one guy. That is an argument that could be made. However, since the guy had only punched him it was still simple assault. In most states jumping from simple assault to lethal force is not allowed.

The first question asked would have been, what other form of force did he try? The next would have been did he try to handle the situation without escelating the level of violence. The answer would have been no in your scenario. The third question would be, did he have any other option besides lethal force? The answer is yes. He could have simply backed away. His car was fully functional.

That is the way it would be handled in most places. In a situation like the OP's shooting would be a real dicey situation. It would be a case of splitting hairs and the DA's leanings.

Brandishing the weapon might not get you in much trouble. The question is who calls the cops first. Then you have to answer the question, was lethal force necessary. If you pull a gun it pretty much says you're willing to use it. It isn't a talisman or a toy. When it comes out that means it is ready to go boom. If that isn't the legal option keep it in the holster. Otherwise you can be seen as escelating the situation or threatening. Then you still have legal issues.

IMO if you cannot simply back out and escape you must prepare to defend yourself.

Well he could and did back out. His car worked just fine. He should have used it about to minutes earlier. However, he didn't. I think he knows better know.

Whats upsetting is how many of you guys cannot see that as easy as the bad guy stopped with a fat lip he could have continued and with help from his buddies.

I understand that very well. I also understand that only one person attacked him. I understand that his car was functional and he had other options. I also work side by side with cops. I spend hours listening to cops ask questions and reading reports. I know what the line of questioning would have been. I know that most cops would (at the very least) have drug him in and put him in the little white room.

The fact is the bad guy stopped because the OP drove off. He stopped the attack without resorting to violence. That is a major win.

He did multiple things wrong and survived despite it. Praising him only reinforces him and others to handle things wrong.

Multiple post say to lock the doors. They also say he should have backed up sooner. Nobody is reinforcing the behaviors that lead to a bad situation. We are saying that he handled the bad situation correctly. Nobody here believes he did everything right. I can think of a half dozen things he could have done differently.

The major ones have been covered. So, what we are saying is, "you handled the bad situation in the correct way. Learn from your mistakes so you don't end up there again."

This is precisely why having an understanding of the law is so important.

This is why you and I will see this differently. We are from two different states. In my state (at least my local area) brandishing or shooting would have been a problem. On 12-1-11 the duty to retreat disappears. Then we have to wait for the DA's and the courts to catch up.

Different states with different laws and different histories. That means the way we handle things under those laws will be different.

[threegun]

We are saying that he handled the bad situation correctly.

Nobody here believes he did everything right. I can think of a half dozen things he could have done differently.

Then it wasn't handled correctly was it.

He is partly responsible for the bad situation. His unlocked door, not backing out, not producing his firearm when three guys begin an attack.

One guy punched him. The other guy kicked his car. There was no three man attack. There were three men on the scene. There were three peopel getting out of the car. Only one became physically agressive with the driver himself.

LOL.

If you had been on the scene and three men had just cut you off after following you for awhile obviously aggravated, I'm sure you wouldn't be so cavalier in saying "only" one attacked.

Hopefully you understand just how quickly multiple attackers can kill or gravely injury you. Our privilege of hind site or knowing the end result of this encounter won't be available when it happens to us.

[threegun]

Brandishing the weapon might not get you in much trouble. The question is who calls the cops first. Then you have to answer the question, was lethal force necessary. If you pull a gun it pretty much says you're willing to use it. It isn't a talisman or a toy. When it comes out that means it is ready to go boom. If that isn't the legal option keep it in the holster. Otherwise you can be seen as escelating the situation or threatening. Then you still have legal issues.

As noted above, brandishing isn't the same as pointing for self defense. I don't know of a State that would charge you if you pulled and pointed on these three guys in the OP's incident. As you know you need Ability, Opportunity, and Intent before you can use deadly force. Ability was satisfied by the sheer number of attackers. Opportunity was satisfied once they closed the distance. Intent was satisfied once the violence started. The OP could have locked the door temporarily eliminating opportunity. He could have reversed out permanently doing so. Still he had everything needed to shoot much less draw.

I'm not advocating shooting here BTW. I am advocating not allowing multiple someones to get on you when you have a means to stop it. It really isn't healthy. A fat lip was a blessing for sure.

[JerryM]

Obviously hindsight is 20/20. In this case no one was seriously hurt, and the OP went home only with a split lip. As has been said "All is well that ends well." He is better off than if he had shot one of them.

But no one could have known whether the guys had guns or knives or any other weapon that could have been used to seriously injure or kill the OP. He did not know either. Three guys could pull one out of a car and beat him to death without any weapon except their fists and feet.

Since the question was asked, in my opinion he acted very unwisely and so concerned about the aftermath that he decided to take the risk of even death.
A couple of things stand out.
1. I suspect the OP was young as were his attacker. Often drivers see someone "zipping" around them a smart alec move, or a challenge. In retrospect that was a bad move, and he would have done better to not pass, but to call 911 on his cell. I think everyone has a cell and everyone has it ready except me.

2. Evidently he was able to reverse and leave after the initial attack, so why did he not do it and prevent the attack? Was his car so blocked that he could not move, and if so why did he allow the other car to block him?

As I have said, he should re-evaluate his need or desire to carry a weapon. If it is not going to be used to stop a deadly force threat then it is better left at home.

I think many would have done about the same, and many who think they are some kind of "sheepdog" would not do any better when the chips were down.

Learn from the experience, make an honest evaluation as to what you would or should do if such an incident happened again. Life goes on so don't dwell unnecessarily on it.

Regards,
Jerry

[Mr. Davis]

Any day when you don't have to shoot somebody is a good day.

You didn't have to shoot them, and you didn't. Retreating in this situation was the wise and prudent thing to do.

[FrontSight]

3 vs 1 could be a very justifiable shooting

[MikeNice81]

Then it wasn't handled correctly was it.

He is partly responsible for the bad situation. His unlocked door, not backing out, not producing his firearm when three guys begin an attack.

He handled the confrontation properly. He created the bad situation. However, he handled the situation he created in the proper manner. My advice is that certain behaviors be modified to prevent him from ending up there again.

It is like any other mistake you make. Okay you made the mistake, did you fix the problem? If you did and everything turned out okay then you handled a bad situation well. The point is to learn so that you don't create the situation again.

LOL.

If you had been on the scene and three men had just cut you off after following you for awhile obviously aggravated, I'm sure you wouldn't be so cavalier in saying "only" one attacked.

I would have called the cops about the driver when I seen him being a danger. I would have relayed the license plate information and direction of travel. Then I would have followed a short distance before finding an alternate route to my destination, if an alternative route was available.

I wouldn't have taken the chance of getting hit by the drunk driver. If no alternate was available I would have slowed down. I would have matched their speed from a distance.

I would have done a lot to avoid ever getting to the point I was cut off. If I was some how cut off I still know where the reverse gear is. If three guys try to hem in against the curb, they aren't coming to play bridge. I'm getting out of Dodge. Even if I draw there is no promise. If they are all armed I become a fish in a barell.

As noted above, brandishing isn't the same as pointing for self defense.

Showing a gun in North Carolina can get you arrested for going armed to terrorize the public. It all depends on who calls 911. Pointing it can also get you charged with "assault by pointing a gun." There are multiple misdemeanor assault charges that can be filed if you point the gun.

A Carolina Panthers player was given a 60 day suspended sentence, one year probation, and community service for pointing a gun in a parking lot confrontation. According to his testimony and the the testimony of others he pulled it and held it behind his back. He was afraid the situation would escelate to the point he needed it. The gun swept the other group of people and it became assault.

If lethal force is not a legal option the gun better stay in the holster. At least that is the case in NC.

[threegun]

Showing a gun in North Carolina can get you arrested for going armed to terrorize the public. It all depends on who calls 911. Pointing it can also get you charged with "assault by pointing a gun." There are multiple misdemeanor assault charges that can be filed if you point the gun.

Pointing a gun at someone who is putting you in fear of death or grave bodily injury is not a crime.

It absolutely DOES NOT depend on who calls the cops first. Just ask Microgunner as it happened to him. He articulated to the police why he was forced to pull and point his firearm at the bad guy and they did nothing. The facts are whats important not who has the fastest dialing finger.

He handled the confrontation properly.

The confrontation began as he was being followed. He did not handle it properly. He survived despite his mistakes and without having to shoot which was a blessing.

My advice is that certain behaviors be modified to prevent him from ending up there again.

The point is to learn so that you don't create the situation again.

One these two points we agree.

[BUFF]

Anybody remember what happened to Reginald Denny the truck driver that got pulled out of his semi during the LA riots and was hit in the head with a brick? Almost died if it weren't for a good samaritan. I don't think anyone would have blamed him if he defended himself with lethal force.

That being said, you did the right thing. I've been hit a few times in my life where I didn't do anything except stand there and bleed. It made me more aware that there are bad people in the world. More cautious. Not a bad thing to learn. You ended the fight and got out alive. No shame in that.

But you don't have to live with the decision that you took someone's life. How would you feel then? Probably worse.

[ConlawBloganon]

Gotta keep those doors locked. And keep the gun at ready if **** starts getting weird.

[thump_rrr]

As others have already mentioned you win by having come out of the situation without shooting anyone.

Not stopping retreating before someone opened your door however would have been better than the position you were in.

The main thing is that you're OK and have learned a few things along the way.

[DougU]

The OP was stupid, plain and simple. He was not aware and it cost him a fat lip. I don't know what 3 gun is trying to prove but any half-ass prosecutor would have torn him up had he decided to use his firearm because 1 guy punched him in the mouth. The thing I am left with out of this entrie thing is that the OP needs training.

Why anyone would not simply back up and drive away is beyond me. The only explanation that makes sense is that the OP wanted a confrontation (whether in anger or not) and he got what he wanted. As far as legal expertise, in many states you cannot use deadly force against an invader in your home unless they pose a threat to you or another persons life.

[threegun]

I don't know what 3 gun is trying to prove but any half-ass prosecutor would have torn him up had he decided to use his firearm because 1 guy punched him in the mouth.

How do you know that the three men rushing your vehicle and trying to assault you are only going to give you a fat lip? Seems you didn't read all my posts and you are prosecuting this incident with the luxury of hind site.

I'm not trying to prove anything. However if three guys bail out to assault me and I cannot escape I will draw down on them and explain the consequences of breaking my window. If you think that is wrong then I can only thank god that you aren't a Florida prosecutor. One that forces me to take a beating first.

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by Dougu

Why anyone would not simply back up and drive away is beyond me. The only explanation that makes sense is that the OP wanted a confrontation (whether in anger or not) and he got what he wanted. As far as legal expertise, in many states you cannot use deadly force against an invader in your home unless they pose a threat to you or another persons life.

You should look up the legal term disparity of force and learn about it.

While things turned out okay for the OP, he did make a couple of mistakes that are easily corrected through education and training. We, as readers, should also be cognizant that sometimes these events occur in a matter of seconds, without time to think up creative solutions.

Three men in a car, forcing me to the side of the road then exiting and approching my vehicle are potentially a lethal threat. Condition Red.
Why?

• People don't go forcing cars to the side of the road just to have a "civil discourse" on their driving habits. It's a "hostile" act.
• All three approaching at the same time is intimidating and threatening.
• I might be able to watch two at once and keep situational awareness high. But not three of them.
• Even with no weapons seen, 3-on-1 means I'll take serious damage if they decide to inflict it.
• Because I haven't seen a weapon, does not mean one of the three doesn't have one - gun, knife, hammer, etc.
• Criminally, three people are more likely to commit a crime than 2 people because of the group dynamics. 4 or more would be even worse.

Throw in men acting in a rude, angry or threatening manner and there is plenty of justification for displaying a firearm or pointing it. You're not "brandishing" it, you're simply informing them that you are armed and prepared to defend yourself.

Certainly backing up is a viable solution unless traffic precludes using it to escape. However don't be surprised if someone in the OP's position overlooks a viable escape route once the men begin approaching. Tunnel vision and prmary fight fixation can cause them to eliminate certain plans of action because they literally cannot see it

[micromontenegro]

If this narration is accurate,

Amen to those who say the OP handled the situation badly. Very badly, I'd say. It all ended well only because he was very, very lucky, IMHO.

Amen to those who say his gun should have remained holstered,as it did. That is about the only thing he did right, again IMHO.

In the first stance, he should have avoided the road rage episode. We don't know how he could do that, or even if he could... but I would bet it was avoidable.

And once he was blocked, he should have backed out ASAP. Waiting until the aggressors were at his car and actually opened up his door was borderline suicidal- almost unbelievable, in fact. He got very lucky.

[Rifleman 173]

Sounds like an attempted car jacking to me. At least one of them would of had some bullet holes in him if they had tried to pull me from my car.

[Sailor1911]

Bill has it!. It's the disparity of force coupled with the fact that you can't forecast the future that makes it necessary to use whatever means are necessary to defend yourself! The OP could just as easily been beaten to death on the road.

Obviously the ideal solution is not to be put in that box. But once in the box, one has to deal with the situation at hand. Certainly, if you get in that box and defend yourself, the opposition is going to maintain that you made a conscious choice to be there, and wanted the conflict, to defend the perps. If that in fact is the case, well, this group won't defend you, I don't think.

All that said, this OP got out with a fat lip and nobody died. Not a bad result! Unfortunately for the perps, not a learning experience either.

[Skans]

You're alive. Unharmed. Car has minimal damage. Bad Guys have no idea who you are or where you live. You have no legal fees. You are not charged with any crime, or even being investigated for one.

You thought about using your gun, but decided against it. Whatever happened, whatever split-decision assessments you made, whatever defensive moves you took seemed to have worked out for the best. What could have been a better outcome? Would there have been a better outcome had you used your gun?

I think the answer in your particular situation is that whatever other defensive tactics you decided to use worked better than had you decided to use your gun.

[chupps]

I've been behind drunk drivers before. I never pass them. I think it is easier to avoid a collision if I can keep them in front of me. I also use that opportunity to call the police and give them a description/license number.

With that being said, there is nothing wimpy about running away. Juries like that. If you run and they catch you, you are golden.

[BillCA]

Originally Posted by Rifleman 173

Sounds like an attempted car jacking to me. At least one of them would of had some bullet holes in him if they had tried to pull me from my car.

There's no telling exactly what was on their mind, other than it would not have ended well for the OP if he had gotten out of his car.

First order of business, if escape isn't practical, is to let them see you're armed and prepared to defend yourself. If the sight of the gun doesn't dissuade them or cause them to pause, the level of concern gets ratcheted up a notch or two. When one attempts to open the door or break the window, he gets to look at the muzzle whilst being told to go away.

If the door/window barrier is broken or someone produces a weapon is when things change from an "encounter" to an "incident".

[Johannes_Paulsen]

With that being said, there is nothing wimpy about running away. Juries like that. If you run and they catch you, you are golden.

I agree with the sentiment, but I would never use the word "golden" to describe your situation if you're set upon by some thugs, you attempt to flee, and then they catch you.

[obxned]

I would have called 911 to report a drunk driver immidiatly. Far better to do that than get to witness (or be caught up in) a serious accident. For the same reason, I probably would not pass them.