Parking lot incident

[Wildalaska]

Alright Wild, I will humor you. How many times does a guy have to pound on your window with a fist, before you decide to point a gun at him? Im asking seriously here.

Well the last time it happened to me I let the jerkoff pound away while my HP sat under my thigh and the cell phone with 911 in the other hand. He got the hint when I yelled to him the cops were on the way.

The window breaks and you are trapped? Deadly force is authorized IMHO and I doubt any jury will disagree. And you wont hear me questioning.

WildihavbenothingtoprovepouindawayAlaska ™

[Sixer]

However, this was basically over a parking space: before the person whose car was in the space pulled out, the OP could have chosen to move on when he saw an irate driver in the car behind him. Waiting for the space to be free was more important to him than avoiding a potential confrontation by moving his car. Was he obliged to move his car? Of course not. Would it have been smart? I'd say yes

Maybe I misunderstood, but I was under the impression that by the time the angry guy approached the OP's car, he was blocked from the front by the lady slowly pulling out and blocked from behind by the angry dude's car. If so, I could see how that might be a pretty threatening situation.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Yeah, if we're going to voice an opinion about this, at least get the facts right folks.

1)The OP's car was trapped at the time of the incident. The person leaving the parking spot was directly in front and the irate person's car was directly behind.

2)He did not start the altercation.

[TailGator]

What peetzakiller said, PLUS the OP said he pulled into the parking place to wait for LE to arrive, so that he didn't give the appearance of fleeing LE.

This was NOT over a parking place, at least by the words of the OP. (Who knows what the other guy was thinking?) If someone is backing out of a space in a parking lot, you can't safely get by, you have to wait on them whether you want their spot or not. The other guy was a flaming, um, jerk because he thought himself too important to wait on anyone else.

I am not certain that pointing the gun was good, but I am not entirely certain it was the wrong move, either. Results count, whether you know Latin or not. OP ended the confrontation without bloodshed. Maybe there were intangible aspects to the situation that led him to think a display was right. Legally he could have caused himself trouble, perhaps, but it worked and he wasn't charged. (Although I have to remind you, Microgunner, that the jerk could change his mind about filing a complaint about it for a while yet.)

[cracked91]

Alright, im going to state a fact that I have not seen posted so far

It is nearly impossible to break safety glass with your hands. And by nearly I mean maybe the hulk could do it. I have never seen a case where someone was able to just smash through with their fist. It take a sharp edge to shatter it, and then it can be smashed away.

That said, I am not really leaning toward either way on this one.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Results count, whether you know Latin or not.

That's funny right there.

Sorry Vanya.

[Evan Thomas]

From Microgunner's original post:

Toyota behind me quickly became impatient and began tooting his horn. I felt bad for blocking the isle but I needed that space. The woman was moving very slow and after the third toot I looked in my driver's side view mirror just in time to see an incredibly irate man, face fire engine red, teeth gritted stomping toward my door.

(My emphasis)
I stand by what I said in the earlier post. No, it didn't end up being about the parking space... but that was how it started, as an avoidable confrontation. Was Mr. Red-faced Toyota-head being an aggressive idiot? Of course... but if someone's honking at me persistently, I tend to think there may be a reason for me to move.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

That's funny right there.

Sorry Vanya.

No problem...

Just saying that to claim that pointing a gun was the right thing to do because everyone walked away unharmed is a really common form of faulty reasoning... Another name for it is "magical thinking," which is all too common when it comes to guns and self-defense...

[mskdgunman]

I've run into a fair number of people who are just not impressed when you point a gun at them. Some people just aren't going to be indimidated by the simple presentation of a gun. Most criminals who have spent any time in the system can feel whether or not you're going to use it and once it's in play, you've limited yourself to a couple options. You can either shoot it, put it up or possibly have it taken from you and used against you. While I hate to armchair quarter back, the OP was asking for opinions so, for what it's worth, I vote for locking the door, drawing the weapon but keeping it out of view, calling the cops and looking for an out. If it meant losing the parking space, then so be it. If the guy breaks the window and reaches into the car, you take the next step. If an opening presents itself, you take it and leave. Just becasue you CAN stand your ground legally, doesn't always mean it's a good idea.

[maestro pistolero]

I tend to think there may be a reason for me to move.

ONCE AGAIN, the OP was blocked from the front and the rear, according to the post.

[Evan Thomas]

ONCE AGAIN, the OP was blocked from the front and the rear, according to the post.

Not to start with. From one of Microgunner's later posts:

By the time it had escalated to the point of confrontation the elderly woman, whose space I'd been waiting on, had begun backing out, trapping me between her and the assailant's car.

(My emphasis)
It seems clear to me from this that it would have been possible for him to drive on when the assailant was still in the horn-tooting stage, before the confrontation occurred. Also (yes, with hindsight) desirable, IMO. I'm not so much trying to second-guess what he should have done, but to point out that -- in general -- it makes sense to avoid having things "escalat[e] to the point of confrontation."

[maestro pistolero]

By the time it had escalated to the point of confrontation

OK, but that still doesn't tell us the exact timing of when the gun was drawn, vs when the car was blocked. Not that it changes my opinion that the OP should have employed other tactics prior to reponding with his pistol. He apparently had no other plan but to threaten with the gun, which in my view, was premature.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

OK, but that still doesn't tell us the exact timing of when the gun was drawn, vs when the car was blocked. Not that it changes my opinion that the OP should have employed other tactics prior to reponding with his pistol. He apparently had no other plan but to threaten with the gun, which in my view, was premature.

Yes, absolutely.

[choicesmade24]

I am pretty sure that wildalaska is one of the people that are thinking about the end consequences of shooting a man that is simply unarmed. I am with wildalaska all the way but then again my wife is an attorney and I think about courtrooms and jurors and such. Many of people have ruined their lives because they have shot someone or beat someone for less than this. To me it is not a deadly force situation. I would be dead or in jail right now if I drew a gun on every person that ever wanted to fight me or "kick my as" or threatened me in this way.

[Stevie-Ray]

Respectfully:

You pull a gun you pull the trigger.

If you have no intention of shooting, then keep the gun in it's holster.

Am I reading this right? Or was some of the intent lost in the edit? You pull a gun you pull the trigger. This of itself is totally and completely ridiculous.

If you have no intention of shooting, then keep the gun in it's holster. On that we can agree as long as you also realize intentions can change.

[Microgunner]

OK, but that still doesn't tell us the exact timing of when the gun was drawn, vs when the car was blocked.

Here is how I remember it. I spot the old lady loading her trunk in the next aisle. I was pleased to find I was the first to pull in behind her. I stop, she's now getting in her car which is parked askew because she came down the aisle the wrong way when she parked. Almost immediately the gold Toyota behind me honks his horn. I look back and think "should I move on or wait?" By this time the elderly woman iis settling into the seat of her dark red Ford Focus. I decide to wait even though I felt sheepish about blocking the aisle. Toyota beeps several more times impatiently. Red Focus begins backing out but since she is askew it requires some maneuvering on her part along with a lot of head swiveling. I'm now blocked in. The Toyota driver now lays on the horn and I look in my driver's side view mirror in time to see the angry guy, who is actually the passenger in the Toyota being driven by another guy, come around between our vehicles in the described rage. I drew my pistol upon seeing this but kept it unseen until he hit my window with the side of his fist and began screaming the things he was planning to do to me. And you know, I believed him and prepared by pointing the KelTec at him. This all took maybe 60-90 seconds. The Toyota could have gone down 2 aisles at any time he wanted. Yes I aggravated him and I knew I was doing so, but he took it to a whole other level that surprised the s**t out of me, both in severity & swiftness.

[noelf2]

Since 99% of the 1 million - 2 million instances of firearm self-defense end with no shots fired, by some of your accounts those were all irresponsible uses of firearms.

Best thing I've read in this whole thread.


Here's the dumbest, basically because of the implied superiority and arrogance:

Dude I take more heat on this Board than anyone simply because i ask folks to think.

Op, I'm with you 100% on this one brother. You sound like a peaceful man and know how to make a bad situation end peacefully. I would have done the exact same thing, with my KelTec.

[Wildalaska]

You sound like a peaceful man and know how to make a bad situation end peacefully. I would have done the exact same thing, with my KelTec.

LOL.....

Here's the dumbest, basically because of the implied superiority and arrogance:

In relation to your input, its not implied

WildcanyoujestfeelthetestosteroneAlaska TM

[Lavid2002]

call 911, keep your gun holstered....as you can see you accomplished nothing by whipping it out. Dont pull the pistol unless you are going to shoot him then and there. Besides...if you feared for your life that bad you could have drove away as he got out of his car and approached you. Sounds like you used your concealed carry to get a parking spot. : )

[Sixer]

Sounds like you used your concealed carry to get a parking spot. : )

Really? I mean c'mon... even with the smiley face at the end... that's just an insulting, pointless comment.

He used his gun to try and deter a REALLY angry guy that was banging on his car and threatening him... Right or wrong, saying that his actions were an abuse of his CCW is a matter of opinion. Saying that he used his CCW to get a parking space... that's just not right.

[scottaschultz]

This may be somewhere in the last 119 posts, so if it is, please forgive me.

I used to have handicapped plates on our vehicles because of my late wife's disability so I appreciate the fact that these spaces exist.

So when this guy starts honking at you and you looked in your mirror, did you see handicapped plates or one of those mirror tags (we have them in MO, not sure if you have them in FL)? If not, why not just continue down the aisle and let the guy in the truck find a spot? Sure, you take your chances that the handicapped spot might be taken, but most Wal-Marts have quite a few designated spots. I find it hard to believe, unless it was a Saturday afternoon perhaps, that all of the handicapped spaces would be taken.

Sure, you could stand your ground like you did and risk having an "incident", or you could have just just moved on and looked for another spot or driven around and positioned yourself in a better spot so as not to block other cars from coming down the aisle while waiting for the spot you just had to have became available. This whole mess could have easily been avoided.

Scott

[Microgunner]

call 911, keep your gun holstered....as you can see you accomplished nothing by whipping it out. Dont pull the pistol unless you are going to shoot him then and there. Besides...if you feared for your life that bad you could have drove away as he got out of his car and approached you. Sounds like you used your concealed carry to get a parking spot. : )

You didn't read the thread, did you?

[eclipsetactical]

I think the whole situation is a very grey area. In FL, as he was saying and I know cause I have several friends that live there, they have one of the most liberal laws about being able to draw your gun on somebody. As well they have one of the most liberal laws about being able to fire on a perp. Under FL law he would have legally been able to shoot that gentleman that got out and pounded his fist against his window. The gentleman showed agression, and threatened the starter of this thread. Another factor that comes into play is the handicap situation, being handicapped obviously provides a much greater chance had a physical confrontation happened that the handicapped person would be hurt and most likely in a sever way.

Seeing as all CCDW laws are different in each state as well as use of deadly force in such a situation I can see where in FL this would be permitted. I can also see where in KY with the handicapped circumstances that this would have been permitted. I can also see where in some other states this would not be permitted. I sit in on classes with some of the instructors here in KY and I remember one of the points they always make is that if you are traveling to a different state and want to carry your weapon concealed you need to call ahead and check the laws.

The only reason I go through all this is to say honestly only people in FL with a CCDW from there, or people familiar with FL law inparticular can really make an educated statement about the situation at hand. Everyone else can have an opinion but it is just that an opinion that holds no legal bearing on what actually happened.

I know that this gentleman was just in pulling his gun and pointing it at the person under FL law. Thinking logically and not by law it also served a purpose of the situation not escalating and froze the perp. in his tracks although it could have went the other way and the perp. could have kept coming and forced a shot to be fired. So I go back to my original statement of this is such a grey area. More grey in the philisophical area then in the actual area of law.

[Wildalaska]

Under FL law he would have legally been able to shoot that gentleman that got out and pounded his fist against his window

Really? You sure about that?

WildisayyouarewrongAlaska TM

[eclipsetactical]

As I understand it under FL law all you have to do is be threatened or feel threatened with bodily harm. KY law reads a little different as you have to be threatened with bodily harm that will cause injuries which could affect your well being for a prolonged time. I.E. Broken bones, etc. or of course feel threatened to the point you think you are going to be shot or stabbed. Or if you see a gun (whether it be real or not) and you assume it is and are going to be fired at you are able to use deadly force. Basically in KY as long as you can say you FEEL threatened by these perameters you are within your right to use deadly force no matter that if later it is found out that the gun pointed at you was fake. Been through my CCDW and sat in on many classes taught by instructors. I have been thinking about becoming an instructor myself so I am pretty up on the KY law part of it. Also pretty up on the FL law part of it from friends from FL and other vendors at gun shows we work from FL talking about it.

Also in KY there are laws as follows:

Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible.
(See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)

Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest
(Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.)

[Dr. Strangelove]

Here are some of the Florida laws which deal with this situation, as well as some info from Charles Bronson, FL State Agricultural Commissioner. (No joke, that's his real name)

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...776/ch0776.htm

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

Here's the definition of forcible felony:

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Originally Posted by eclipsetactical

As I understand it under FL law all you have to do is be threatened or feel threatened with bodily harm.

Not entirely true. You are only able to respond with deadly force to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony". (See definition of forcible felony above)

Originally Posted by eclipsetactical

Under FL law he would have legally been able to shoot that gentleman that got out and pounded his fist against his window.

Possibly, if he can convince a grand jury that there was imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, or that a forcible felony was taking place. Are you willing to bet your freedom that your case is that clear cut? I'm not.
Sitting in a closed automobile with the windows up while an unarmed man screams at you and strikes the car a couple of times would be a hard sell to me as a juror as justification for use of deadly force, or even pointing a firearm at someone.