Just got chased by a random car...

[Brian Pfleuger]

by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument;

he causes such injury

evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death

in furtherance of the commission or attempted commission of a felony

None of those apply. If you use ANY level of force against the person in my scenario or as you say

"Anyone that leaves their car to confront you is committing "Aggravated Assault, with intent"

It would be YOU and not them that was committing an extremely serious crime. I highly doubt that there is a single jurisdiction in the USA that would allow ANY use of force against someone who gets out of a vehicle and "confronts you".

[Jim243]

Most likely, said act would itself constitute aggravated assault, or whatever it is called in the jurisdiction at hand.

It is unless in self-defense to protect yourself and your family from sudden harm.

Jim

[Jim243]

I highly doubt that there is a single jurisdiction in the USA that would allow ANY use of force against someone who gets out of a vehicle and "confronts you".

I am sorry Brian we disagree on this. There have been many cases adjudicated where the defendant has shot an unarmed attacker and has been acquitted on grounds of justifiable homicide.

I am not saying everyone should do so because it will depend on the circumstances surrounding the case and the temperament of the local States Attorney as well as any previous history of the assailant. If some giant gets out of his car screaming at me with a tire iron in his hand, they will be notifying his next of kin. I am sure the family will say he was a God fearing church goer that could never hurt a fly. But I will deal with that once my family is safe.

Jim

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Jim243: The only question i have is do you shoot him before he injures you or do you have to wait till after you have been injured???

Stop for a minute.

The justification of the use of force does not revolve around what crime the person against whom the use of force has been used may have committed, or may be charged with. That is completely irrelevant.

Justification will depend entirely upon whether the defender had reason to believe that the use of force had been immediately necessary. Period.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Jim243

I am sorry Brian we disagree on this. There have been many cases adjudicated where the defendant has shot an unarmed attacker and has been acquitted on grounds of justifiable homicide.



I am not saying everyone should do so because it will depend on the circumstances surrounding the case and the temperament of the local States Attorney as well as any previous history of the assailant. If some giant gets out of his car screaming at me with a tire iron in his hand, they will be notifying his next of kin. I am sure the family will say he was a God fearing church goer that could never hurt a fly. But I will deal with that once my family is safe.



Jim

You've completely changed the scenario.

You started with
"Anyone that leaves their car to confront you is committing "Aggravated Assault, with intent"

First it's "anyone" who gets out to "confront you".

Now it's "a giant... with a tire iron".

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Jim243: If some giant gets out of his car screaming at me with a tire iron in his hand,...

That would be very worrisome, but there would be other factors. Distance. Whether he was approaching. Whether you had been able to drive away. And so on. All very important.

...they will be notifying his next of kin.

Careful! Should it become immediately necessary, as a last resort, you would be justified in using force to defend yourself, but you do not want to be quoted as having wanted his demise.

I am sure the family will say he was a God fearing church goer that could never hurt a fly.

That is irrelevant.

But I will deal with that once my family is safe.

Actually, the criminal justice system will "deal with that". Your role may be that of suspect or defendant.

[Jim243]

Actually, the criminal justice system will "deal with that". Your role may be that of suspect or defendant.

Most likely as defendant, and the criminal justice system does not "deal with that", too often felons are pleaded down to misdemeanors to clear the court systems of their case overloads.

The person that attacked Brian committed a class B felony under NY state law and was never charged even with a misdemeanor, the next person that the individual will attack (and he will attack again) might not be as lucky as Brian was and I would blame Brian for that for not prosecuting him (I do like Brian however).

Back in the early 1980's I was elected to public office here in Illinois and issued a badge and police powers (but not as a LEO). Two thing I found very distasteful, people that failed to register to vote and then did so and those that think they can get away with crimes against "persons" and get off with a light sentence or are never prosecuted because witness are fearful to come forward or take the time to do so.

If you don't stand up and be counted or stand for something, then you will surly fall for anything. and call a ace of spades a ace of hearts.

So stand up and tell these roadside bully's that their days are numbered. Tell your Secretary of State of these incidents along with the persons Lic number, they will get their Lic suspended.

Jim

[johnelmore]

Im wondering. At what point would it have been appropriate to draw a pistol? What about my "bear repellant"? I wasnt about to let him get into a position where he could attack me.

As for my bear repellant. I dont carry it around in my vehicle, but now I am. It has a range of 30 feet and the attacker gets put into a cloud of pepper. Not just a little stream, but a huge cloud.

[Pond, James Pond]

I don't know about the US legal aspect but, had you not had a means of driving around, I would have considered drawing when he cut you up, forcing you to stop so he could get out of his car. Had he had a gun at 6 o'clock, you wouldn't have known it before it was pointing at you through the driver side window.

Bear spray through the barely opened window (being careful not to flood the car interior! ) would be preferable.

As it happens you had a means of escape which fortunately you took, but did you have time to check over your shoulder?
You could have pulled out in front of an HGV (semi') for example, in your bid to get away in a hurry.

His is the kind of mentality (which I have experienced and witnessed far more than I like to consider) that would make me far more worried about unfettered access to guns over here...

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Jim243

If some giant gets out of his car screaming at me with a tire iron in his hand, they will be notifying his next of kin.

I'm with Brian here: You've changed your story entirely. You originally claimed that if someone stopped their car, got out, and then walked toward you aggressively, then you were justified in shooting them. You never mentioned a tire iron or any other type of weapon.

In the scenario you originally mentioned, lethal force would not be justified. To claim otherwise is not only incorrect, but it's also irresponsible: Many people who are new to concealed carry read this forum and we should do our best to avoid spreading bad information to them, especially information that can get them thrown in jail if they follow it.

I also agree with OldMarksman: It's extremely foolish to make any public statements about your intent to kill another person, even if it's justified in the scenario you're presenting.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by johnelmore: Im wondering. At what point would it have been appropriate to draw a pistol?

See this, and in particular, the section entitled "Justification."

If the incident occurs in a jurisdiction in which the presentation of a weapon would be lawfully justified only when the use of deadly force would be justified, you would be justified if you had reason to believe (1) that someone had the ability to cause you great bodily harm; (2) that he had the opportunity to do so; (3) that you were indeed in jeopardy; (4) that presentation was necessary (in some states, retreat might be required; in all, it is a good idea). Of course, you would have to be able to sufficiently support the basis for your reason for that belief after the fact, and witnesses whose recollections differed from your perception could make that difficult.

If someone simply "leaves their car to confront you", none of the above applies.

If "some giant gets out of his car screaming ... with a tire iron in his hand", the first consideration will be distance. A person some distance away would not have the opportunity to use the tire iron against you. The distance at which he might will be a matter of judgment, and if the evidence that you are able to present after the fact supports justification in the minds of the triers of fact, you would have a pretty good chance.

That's assuming that you had not had a reasonable alternative. But whenever you do draw your pistol, you had better have a good idea of the answer to the questions, "why am I doing this, and just what is it that I intend to do with this thing?".

[johnelmore]

I dont think at any point I had a reason to draw any type of weapon. Lets say I did then he could turn around and say that he was chasing me because he thought he knew me or some odd excuse. I was basically reacting on a gut feeling that I was in danger, but there was no clear proof.

If he rammed my car or produced a weapon then there would be more justification. Simply him following me or him getting out of his car wasnt justification in my book.

If my car stopped at any point then he would have jumped out and then come towards the car. Auto glass can be smashed through in seconds and bullets go right through it. So I wasnt going to stop. I think revolving around a populated neighborhood was the best idea in hindsight. Lets say I knew where the police station was located and got caught at a light getting there...

[Mainah]

IMHO any tense situation that results in not having to talk to a doctor or a lawyer is a victory.

[Frank Ettin]

Maybe this would be a good time to take another look at the basic legal reality of the use of force in self defense.

1. Our society takes a dim view of the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.
   
   
   1. However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
      
      
   2. Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.
      
      
   3. Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.
   
   
2. The amount of force an actor may justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.
   
   
   1. Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --
      
      
      1. Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
         
         
      2. Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and
         
         
      3. put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.
      
      
   2. "Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."
      
      
   3. "Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.
      
      
   4. "Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.
      
      
   5. And unless the standard justifying the use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.
   
   
3. If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.
   
   
   1. Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
      
      
   2. If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.
      
      
   3. Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.
      
      
      1. Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
         
         
      2. In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.
         
         
      3. It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.
         
         
      4. It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.
   
   
4. Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.
   
   
5. Sometimes a defensive use of lethal force will have grave consequences for the defender, even when ultimately exonerated. For example --
   
   
   • This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.
     
     
   • Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
     
     
   • Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
     
     
   • Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
     
     
   • Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.
     
     
   • Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.
     
     
   • And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.

[alt4852]

I'm really happy to see responses like the ones from Brian and OldMarksman, as this statement:

If some giant gets out of his car screaming at me with a tire iron in his hand, they will be notifying his next of kin.

is extremely disturbing to me. The use of lethal force is and should always be considered one of last resort. Taking someone's life even if you think they're a menace or a hotheaded jerk is not justified unless they present you with no other option.

If someone "gets out of their car" and seems aggressive, it is your duty to exercise every other option available of avoiding a confrontation, especially if you are armed. In a hypothetical where you control the conditions you would feel justified in discharging your weapon, I feel as though your threshold for determining the use of lethal force is uncomfortably low.

[SocialAnarchist]

I try to position my car where I am not blocked in when at an intersection. I leave space between me and the car in front of me. I would drive over the median or onto the shoulder to avoid a confrontation if necessary.

I guess perhaps I look at carrying a firearm for self protection differently than many here. For me I look at this as a problem solving matrix:

1) Practice situational awareness.
2) Avoid confrontation.
3) If possible, and reasonable, escape the situation.
4) If given no choice draw my pistol.
5) If given no choice shoot the agressor.
6) Call the police and remain on scene. (Whether you end up drawing, or firing your weapon, to get your version out there first.)
7) Cooperate with the police. Saying no more than absolutely necessary without legal counsel present.

[A pause for the COZ]

I agree with Frank, very good write up by the way. Thank you.

In my view, If I have to use deadly force to protect myself.
I expect as a result, My life will be turned asunder.
Not fair by any means, The act it self would be a traumatic event.
To only have another trauma inflicted by the Criminal Justis system.

But I am of the mind that the police and the county DA's are not on your side after one of these events.

Those facts have altered or at least framed my intended responses.
An example would be burglaries out side of my home but still of my property.
In my state we have the right to protect our property.
Although legal and justified. By our own choice. We wont confront a out side break in.
A call to the police, then let them do their jobs.
We decided there is nothing we have out side that is worth taking a life to protect, or the resulting hoop la from the Justis system.

In side the home... Thats a whole nother kettle of fish. After a breach their intent is displayed. My response will be automatic and lethal.

On the street in CC situation. Man I dont know. There are just too many possible scenarios. To put a if this then that type of plan together.

I try to avoid those kinds of confrontations as a 1st defense.
Then I guess it would depend on the level of threat felt.
In a individual situation I may be able to resist the fear for a bit.
But if my wife and kids are at risk. I may have long court appearances in my future.

Its not an easy choice to make. it comes with way more responsibility than just letting some one else be responsible for your safety.

But it is responsibility I am willing to take to protect my self and family.
Like the old story goes. It would be preferable to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[Jim243]

It's extremely foolish to make any public statements about your intent to kill another person,

I have no problem with public statements. It is a matter of public record where I stand on this issue, but someone that has cut you off and jumps out of their car in what looks like uncontrollable rage with or without something in their hand has already given me cause to believe that me or a member of my family is in grave danger of being injured or killed.

I have no intent on killing anyone, but being placed in such a situation may give me no other option to stop an attacker.

May I ask, why you each have a CCW and carry if not to protect yourself and your family???

Jim

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Jim243

May I ask, why you each have a CCW and carry if not to protect yourself and your family???

It's hard to protect your family from inside a jail cell. You'll probably argue that it's worth going to jail to protect your family, but what if your family didn't need protecting in the first place?

Basically, when you said this...

Originally Posted by Jim243

Anyone that leaves their car to confront you is committing "Aggravated Assault, with intent" (a criminal act) and you are justified to shoot to defend yourself.

...you said that it's OK to shoot anyone who gets out of their car to confront you. Let's say you rear-end someone: If they then get out of their car and they're angry at you (understandably), you're just going to start shooting? Because that's basically what the quote above says.

Remember, a confrontation doesn't have to be physical, the vast majority of the time they're simply verbal. That kind of confrontation happens all the time in the US without any actual violence occurring. But you're just going to start shooting the moment someone gets angry at you and decides to confront you?

To answer your question: I have a CCW, I have a wife and a baby daughter, and I'm fairly street-smart and I know how to evaluate a situation. If I had decided to just shoot every person who confronted me over the years, I would've been thrown in jail a long time ago.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Jim243: I have no problem with public statements.

The problem is, what you have posted publicly or written, or what you have on your posters, T-shirts, and bumper stickers, may well end up being used as evidence against you to indicate a predisposition to violence.

That could make it much more difficult for you to convince others that your actions had been necessary as a last resort.

Of less importance to your future, but not to be forgotten, is that such statements do not promote responsible gun ownership or the objectives of boards such as this one.

...someone that has cut you off and jumps out of their car in what looks like uncontrollable rage with or without something in their hand has already given me cause to believe that me or a member of my family is in grave danger of being injured or killed.

There's a little more to it that that. Study Frank Ettin's post some more. Pay particular attention to Paragraph 2. Study the links provided in Paragraph 4.

Understand that verbal threats alone do not justify the use of deadly force.

Understand also that your belief will be judged by others, who will decide whether it was reasonable, based on what you knew at the time.

I have no intent on killing anyone, but being placed in such a situation may give me no other option to stop an attacker.

That may well be true, but you did not say "stop". When you spoke of "notifying his next of kin" you spoke unmistakably of killing someone.

May I ask, why you each have a CCW and carry if not to protect yourself and your family???

I do carry to protect myself and my family. If I have reason to believe that it is immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, I will draw. If I have reason to believe that it is still immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, I will shoot to stop. I will lake every possible effort to stop shooing when the threat has been stopped.

I am aware that statistically, there is about a one in seven chance that if I do shoot someone with a handgun, the shots may prove fatal. But my intention does not encompass causing that eventuality.

[alt4852]

Remember, a confrontation doesn't have to be physical, the vast majority of the time they're simply verbal. That kind of confrontation happens all the time in the US without any actual violence occurring. But you're just going to start shooting the moment someone gets angry at you and decides to confront you?

Precisely. Road rage is ubiquitous, but the stories about altercations turning deadly or resulting in bodily harm are not common. If someone angrily wants to give you a piece of their mind, that is not grounds to open fire on them. As Theohazard mentioned, of the six million or so car accidents that occur every year, can you imagine if everyone who pulled over and expressed any anger or frustration were suddenly considered immediate threats and fair game to be gunned down?

I worked in retail when I was a teen. If I felt justified deploying a concealed carry weapon every time an angry customer yelled directly in my face or clenched his fist in anger over an unhonored warranty due to store policy, I'd be guilty of mass murder.

At the end of the day, carrying a weapon comes with a great deal of responsibility that should not be taken lightly. It is your responsibility to exercise any means of avoiding a confrontation within reason. It is your responsibility to ask yourself whether your life or the life of your family is really in immediate danger. The vast majority of the time, it isn't.

someone that has cut you off and jumps out of their car in what looks like uncontrollable rage with or without something in their hand has already given me cause to believe that me or a member of my family is in grave danger of being injured or killed.

Someone stepping out of their car without a weapon is not an immediate danger to your life. Lock your doors, raise your windows, and try to find a way to maneuver away. Yelling at you, throwing their hands up in the air, kicking your bumper.. those are not reasons to take someone's life. Human life is valuable; even if it's someone you consider a bully. Again, I urge you to reconsider the threshold at which you think lethal force is justified.

[johnelmore]

Exactly what I mean. A verbal confrontation is not a good reason to draw or use any type of weapon. Although it might be a good reason to get into a defensive position, call the police and distance yourself. I have called the police many times over loud verbal disputes. For example, at a place I worked at a long time ago the police were called a few times each year because of loud profane customers. Ive seen loud arguments on the street mediated by the police.

Drawing a pistol and standing defensively behind the car is debatable. I would simply not get out of the car and keep moving if I perceived a threat. If the guy was on foot and confronting me while I am on foot then thats debateable. If I draw the pistol then there are many laws out there in which I can be prosecuted with. If I dont draw the pistol then I face a beat down. In another scenario drawing the pistol could lead to another pistol being drawn by a neighbor or the perpetrator himself escalating the situation. It can be a no win situation.

The best thing to do is do whatever you can to avoid the situation.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by alt4852

Someone stepping out of their car without a weapon is not an immediate danger to your life. Lock your doors, raise your windows, and try to find a way to maneuver away. Yelling at you, throwing their hands up in the air, kicking your bumper.. those are not reasons to take someone's life. Human life is valuable; even if it's someone you consider a bully. Again, I urge you to reconsider the threshold at which you think lethal force is justified.

Exactly. This is very well said.

[8MM Mauser]

It used to be considered POLITE to give a "Beep, beep" if someone didn't notice the light change. No people want to get shot over it. Pretty amazing.

I really don't understand why people get offended at honking horns. It is the only method of communication available between to drivers really. So what is the big deal?

[sheldonmcneely]

I almost had the same experience back when I was still a grade schooler and I must say that I develop this kind of a phobia whenever there is a strange vehicle behind our car.