Defending (the Occupants of) your Vehicle

[Kleanbore]

Interestingly, the Law of Self Defense After Action Report for 03 March 2020 covered a scenario that pertains to some of the recent discussions we have had on THR.

A father was driving with his two teenage children when an EDP--an emotionally disturbed person--told him to get out of what she said was her car. She was on a bicycle.

He was unable to drive away at first ,due to traffic. The EDP recruited others, who attacked the car and tried to break in. They were beating on the car with bicycles. There were six of them.

One of the attackers acted as if he were threatening with a concealed weapon.

The father and one of the children called 911.

When the father was able to try to drive away, he had a man on the hood, and he was followed at speed by a man on a motorcycle

The incident was recorded on video with sound. Attorney Andrew Branca explained in some detail how and why in some parts of the action, sound, no defensive force would likely have been justified, while in others, deadly force would have been appropriate.

He explained why the father's legal position would have been severely compromised had he exited the car to confront the attackers.

Andrew also discussed how much weaker the father's position would have been had force been used and the video did not exist.

The video ran out before the situation was resolved. Andrew assumes that the family was safe.

It is one very scary story. I have seen numbers of crazy-looking homeless people on the street, but I have never seen crazy people come together to help each other commit violence.

There was no indication that the father possessed a firearm.

My takeaways:

• It is a good idea to always have a firearm with you in your car where you can access it while belted in.
• While driving away from trouble should always be Plan A, it may not be possible.
• Do call 911, and stay on the line.
• If you can, have someone start taking video
• You may have to shoot from inside the car.
• Do not exit the vehicle.
• Personally, I would want to have a firearm with reasonable capacity, or two guns.
• Everyone who carries a gun for defensive purposes should avail himself of LoSD training and the blog posts.

Again, there were things for which deadly force would have been indicated, and things that would not have even justified pepper spray.

These did not occur in a continuum that move from less severe to more severe as the situation unfolded.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

Link to video?

 

[Kleanbore]

Link to video?

One has to subscribe to the LoSD blog.

It's worth it.

 

[40-82]

Interestingly, the Law of Self Defense After Action Report for 03 March 2020 covered a scenario that

• Do not exit the vehicle.

.

Kleanbore, would you discuss a little more why you shouldn't leave the vehicle? If you're in a position where you can't drive away, and most likely you're uncertain just how your antagonists may be armed, wouldn't it be natural to seek the extra mobility of being on your feet; that is unless they're already outside the door?

I may be missing something very obvious, but it's probably better to admit ignorance and look foolish than one day find myself in a situation I don't handle well because I don't know what to do. I can see where actively advancing toward the threat might be viewed as feeding the aggression, but unless you're confident the situation is contained I would have guessed that would have been a secondary consideration

 

[Old Dog]

but I have never seen crazy people come together to help each other commit violence.

Never visited downtown Seattle, eh? Walked to the ferry terminal from the stadium after the ballgame ran late, or took a wrong turn and ended up at 3rd and Pine?

Seriously though, some good stuff to ponder. We don't often consider scenarios such as being in our vehicles, or with our children in our vehicles, too.

 

[Kleanbore]

Leave the vehicle? You never want to move toward the fight or to do anything that might put you into the position of being considered a mutual combatant.

 

[40-82]

Leave the vehicle? You never want to move toward the fight or to do anything that might put you into the position of being considered a mutual combatant.

Even to the point of being in an untenable position? I worry about being in a parked vehicle and the extra difficulty of watching what's happening behind me.

I definitely can see how exiting the vehicle if the potential assailants are coming at you on the driver's side could be seen as approaching the threat rather than retreating, regardless of your intentions.

I also wonder if you just sat in the vehicle without reacting, looking like a helpless victim, that if the assault came to the point that they were breaking in on both sides with tire irons, bricks, and rocks, and you waited until then to react, and had to shoot quick, if you couldn't also be accused of intentionally allowing the situation to escalate?

Shouldn't you be very reluctant to present a firearm just to get the potential assailants to back off, especially when you couldn't consistently watch most directions? It might not work, and it might pass the initiative to the assailants.

The more I consider the situation the fewer good options I'm seeing.

 

[Hartkopf]

When your car is on fire, it’s time to exit.

 

[Kleanbore]

I also wonder if you just sat in the vehicle without reacting, looking like a helpless victim, that if the assault came to the point that they were breaking in on both sides with tire irons, bricks, and rocks, and you waited until then to react, and had to shoot quick, if you couldn't also be accused of intentionally allowing the situation to escalate?

No.

Shouldn't you be very reluctant to present a firearm just to get the potential assailants to back off,....

Always.

 

[edwardware]

If you're in a position where you can't drive away. . . wouldn't it be natural to seek the extra mobility of being on your feet. . .

Hold on. You're going to remove your 2500lb, 200 HP Ironman suit and join a fistfight, because you aren't creative enough to ram the car in front of you whilst running over your attackers? For serious?

Until the vehicle's disabled (not "blocked in by traffic"), STAY IN THE CAR.

And while you're there, drive it. Unless you're Jerry Miculek, you're a better driver than shooter. Drive the suit of armor for goodness sake.

 

[boom boom]

This is a similar case NY case where a group of motorcyclists were harassing and eventually assaulted a driver and his family. No firearms but a car itself is a lethal weapon and a motorcyclist got ran over during the fracas.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Hollywood_Stuntz_gang_assault

When the harassment turned to assault,
"Shortly after, on the Henry Hudson Parkway in Upper Manhattan, motorcyclist Christopher Cruz merged in front of Lien and applied his brakes, quickly slowing down before being involved in light bumper contact with Lien's Range Rover. Cruz reportedly sustained minor injuries after being struck by the SUV.[13][10] Lien and many of the motorcyclists stopped their vehicles. The video shows many of the bikers gathering around the Range Rover driven by Lien. "And as they're around my car, I feel it being hit, being kicked", he said.[18] Lien accelerated to escape, reportedly driving over three motorcycles and a rider, named Edwin Mieses, who had dismounted and was in front of the Range Rover. "I'm horrified at this point, and I recall asking my wife, 'What do I do? What do I do?' She says, 'Just go! Just go! And I make a hard right because I see there's an opening and I ... I just go." Lien said.[18][19] Mieses was severely injured, suffering a fractured spine and punctured lung.[20][21][10] Mieses later stated that he was checking on Cruz after his collision with the Range Rover and was walking back to his bike when he was hit.[22][10]

The bikers then followed Lien for several miles. Lien's wife called 911 four times in an eight-minute time span during the drive.[23][10] A few minutes later, the video shows Lien stopping for a red light and a biker is seen running up and opening the driver's side door before Lien accelerates again to escape.[24][25][10] Several minutes later, the SUV came to a halt behind other vehicles at a red light. One of the bikers then dismounted his motorcycle and struck the driver's window of the Range Rover with his helmet, shattering it. Lien was then dragged from the vehicle and assaulted. Another uploaded video shows Lien lying on the ground with bikers stomping on him and beating him with their helmets.[26][10]

The assault continued until a bystander named Sergio Consuegra intervened, stepping in between the bikers and Lien. Consuegra testified that he held out his arms and yelled "That's it, guys, let it go! Let it go!" He said the bikers "froze" at that point and stopped assaulting Lien.[27] Consuegra told police that one biker, later alleged by prosecutors to be Robert Sims, also attempted to pull Lien's wife from the vehicle and allegedly said "you're going to get it, too" before other bystanders yelled at him to stop and the biker let her go.[15][28][29][30] Lien's wife testified that "somehow they got my door open and tried to yank me out of the car, pulling my arm and leg. I tried to kick them off and I screamed, "there's a baby in the car,"'[31] Ng said he was unable to pull her out because she had her seat belt on. After the biker retreated, she managed to get the passenger door shut and climbed into the backseat to check on their daughter, who was covered in broken glass, but otherwise unharmed.[32]

Lien sustained lacerations to his face and sides, requiring stitches at a local hospital.[29] Photos of the SUV after the incident show extensive damage. The driver side, passenger side, and rear windows are smashed. One tire is completely flat, and a second one is missing entirely.[33][34]"

Several of the bikers were NYC police officers.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-new-york-road-rage-incident-turn-into-self-defense-case/

Had the driver used or shown a firearm in such a case, he might very well have been charged along with the bikers.

 

[40-82]

Hold on. You're going to remove your 2500lb, 200 HP Ironman suit and join a fistfight, because you aren't creative enough to ram the car in front of you whilst running over your attackers? For serious?

Until the vehicle's disabled (not "blocked in by traffic"), STAY IN THE CAR.

And while you're there, drive it. Unless you're Jerry Miculek, you're a better driver than shooter. Drive the suit of armor for goodness sake.

I was thinking about a situation where you were blocked in and couldn't move the vehicle. I'm not presenting myself very well if I gave the impression I would choose staying and fighting when I had the option of driving away.

 

[boom boom]

One thing to remember, is that you should always see the bottom of the tires of the vehicle in front of you at intersections.

That gives you at least enough room to maneveur either to the right or left if necessary.

It also means that if you get backended that you might not also hit the car in front of you to get a double whammy.

 

[Hartkopf]

One thing to remember, is that you should always see the bottom of the tires of the vehicle in front of you at intersections.

That gives you at least enough room to maneveur either to the right or left if necessary.

It also means that if you get backended that you might not also hit the car in front of you to get a double whammy.

Also, if you are in extreme danger, bend fenders and bumpers to leave the area if you’re blocked in.

 

[Kleanbore]

I was thinking about a situation where you were blocked in and couldn't move the vehicle. I'm not presenting myself very well if I gave the impression I would choose staying and fighting when I had the option of driving away.

In the case described, the father did not have th option of driving away.

That did not make getting out and engaging the people who had been banging on his car an appropriate response, for the reasons mentioned above.

 

[Antihero]

This happened in Spokane Valley at a Walmart I've been to a lot.

I'm glad I moved away from that area....

 

[40-82]

In the case described, the father did not have th option of driving away.

That did not make getting out and engaging the people who had been banging on his car an appropriate response, for the reasons mentioned above.

OK. Thanks.

I didn't see the video, but from your description of it your assessment makes complete sense to me.

I perhaps got carried away in my thinking and for a minute last night, I thought you meant "Don't get out of the car, no, not ever." I don't see your thinking as that rigid. The thought expressed later in the thread, if I remember started, by boom boom of never pulling in so close to the vehicle in front so that you don't have room to maneuver is a habit worth consciously cultivating. If you give yourself a few feet, there's often room on the shoulder of the road for a sudden turn.

When you've given up your vehicle, you've given up your escape, and that's not a move to be taken lightly.

The wrong split second decision in a moment of crisis is either going to get you killed or back you into a decision that you'd rather not have to defend in a courtroom. Sometimes a subtle habit that appears to have nothing to do with self-preservation in the moment it's made can make all the difference.

 

[Kleanbore]

perhaps got carried away in my thinking and for a minute last night, I thought you meant "Don't get out of the car, no, not ever."

No. Get out when you get to the police station, or when the police arrive at the scene, after the incident is over.

When you've given up your vehicle, you've given up your escape, and that's not a move to be taken lightly.

That's part of it.

The other is that you may well have eliminated one of the requirements of a legal defense of self defense, and if you don't meet all of them, you will lose the entire case.

"Rather not have to defend in a courtroom"? That could describe the outcome any use of force, which could be made legally indefensible by the wrong move.

 

[bearcreek]

Link to video?

I'm guessing this is the video. https://www.khq.com/top_story/video...cle_472f0cb4-5e6f-11ea-83d7-ff91d4e4e5ae.html

 

[Kleanbore]

'm guessing this is the video. https://www.khq.com/top_story/video...cle_472f0cb4-5e6f-11ea-83d7-ff91d4e4e5ae.html

That is part of the video.

 

[bearcreek]

That is part of the video.

What part is missing? That seems to cover everything you described, no?

I also wonder if you just sat in the vehicle without reacting, looking like a helpless victim, that if the assault came to the point that they were breaking in on both sides with tire irons, bricks, and rocks, and you waited until then to react, and had to shoot quick, if you couldn't also be accused of intentionally allowing the situation to escalate?

Shouldn't you be very reluctant to present a firearm just to get the potential assailants to back off, especially when you couldn't consistently watch most directions? It might not work, and it might pass the initiative to the assailants.

The more I consider the situation the fewer good options I'm seeing.

Take a look at the video I just posted. IMO, the biggest reason for that father to stay in that vehicle was to protect his kids. Getting out, in this specific situation, would have potentially put them in an even more dangerous position.

 

[Kleanbore]

IMO, the biggest reason for that father to stay in that vehicle was to protect his kids. Getting out, in this specific situation, would have potentially put them in an even more dangerous position.

Perhaps.

Andrew's point was that it might have seriously weakened a legal defense of self defense, had he had to use force when outside of the car.

 

[bearcreek]

Perhaps.

Andrew's point was that it might have seriously weakened a legal defense of self defense, had he had to use force when outside of the car.

We could debate which was the most important reason for him to stay in the vehicle I suppose. Personally, I care more about my kids than I do about the law so.... Fortunately, in this case, he didn't need to choose between the two.

What part of the video is missing?

 

[Kleanbore]

What part of the video is missing?

I'm not going to rewatch the entire blog post to try to compare, but what the video does not show that is really important is Andrew's frame-by frame discussion of the legal aspects
as they relate to the possible use of force.

It's a lot more involved than thinking "those are bad guys, who are attacking a man with kids in the car, so he can defend against them". It's just not that simple.

What would have happened, had he exited the car to confront the woman hitting it, had deadly force been used? A poor outcome. Andrew would not have been justified in using any force against her, from inside or out, and if she attacked him after he had exited the car, he would likely have given up the required condition of innocence-- and therefore, his entire defense.

How about the man trying to pull the driver door open? Different story--within the context of the overall incident, the defender could reasonably infer that deadly force was immediately necessary, and because he had given up innocence by getting out , it would have been justified.

How about the man putting his hand in this shirt? Same things: context and innocence.

The man beating on the passenger side window? Same things.

The man following on the motorcycle? Nope. It never rose to that level.

How about the man on the hood? Could he have lawfully braked, thrown him off, and run over him? NO!

Suppose there had been no video, and he used deadly force? It would have been his word against all of theirs.

 

[bearcreek]

I'm not going to rewatch the entire blog post to try to compare, but what the video does not show that is really important is Andrew's frame-by frame discussion of the legal aspects
as they relate to the possible use of force.

I see. I thought you meant that some of the video of the incident was missing.