Defending (the Occupants of) your Vehicle

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it was technically Spokane Valley wasn't it?
It was. I should have been more specific.

I'm interested in seeing how this plays out, I'm pretty sure in Idaho the fact he was attempting to break into the car means he could have used legal force. I'm not sure "attempting" is covered by castle doctrine though
You may be right, but Spokane Valley is in Washington, not Idaho.
 
It was. I should have been more specific.

You may be right, but Spokane Valley is in Washington, not Idaho.

Yes I know. I live in Idaho and have lived in spokane(west Central actually).

I was wondering how Washington would handle it and comparing it to idaho
 
One reason I carry pepper spray. For times when you feel threatened but not enough to warrant deadly force. Might not work on everyone. But it helps.
Yes. I do too.

This discussion about it in this instance was as follows:
  • Andrew mentioned that sing pepper spray against a person who was simply beating on the car with a bicycle would not nave been appropriate.
  • When the man was pulling the door open, deadly force would have been justified under those circumstances, but under those circumstances, blinding a man who may have knife and is within armed reach if you when you are sitting in a driver's seat would not have been prudent; "he knows hare you are" and can stab you.
 
Yes. I do too.

This discussion about it in this instance was as follows:
  • Andrew mentioned that sing pepper spray against a person who was simply beating on the car with a bicycle would not nave been appropriate.
  • When the man was pulling the door open, deadly force would have been justified under those circumstances, but under those circumstances, blinding a man who may have knife and is within armed reach if you when you are sitting in a driver's seat would not have been prudent; "he knows hare you are" and can stab you.
I suspect that the driver would get a good whiff of pepper spray yourself if you tried to apply it through the car door opening. Stun gun or some such, even a knife (which in most states would be considered lethal force), might be a better option in such a case.
 
I suspect that the driver would get a good whiff of pepper spray yourself if you tried to apply it through the car door opening. Stun gun or some such, even a knife (which in most states would be considered lethal force), might be a better option in such a case.
You named THE reason that trainees in the academy are gassed.

Then they have to FIGHT OFF THE EFFECT and draw their gun and address the threat.

Trained many in that class,and been through it too many times to remember,and then got a few REALLY GOOD DOSES on the street when deploying it.

It works about a bit better than 90 % of the time.

Its just part of a list of choices and gives you less than lethal force option,and that even sounds good to a jury should it get to that point.
 
Did he say that any sort of resistance at all would be appropriate in that case?

This is a general rule of thumb, if they are damaging property even if you are in a stationary vehicle, they are not posing death or grievous injury. And please do not bring up Texas and defense of property laws--even there you would have to sort out whether vehicles in a public area would be covered.

When they are breaking windows and or try to open doors or threatening to use weapons of a sort to do so and/or shouting messages that would constitute assault, then you must do the calculus of self defense and others as to what a reasonable person might do. Personally, I would generally be to try to escape by the vehicle if possible and if the attackers are on foot but is a complicated legal problem whose solution might vary by state.
 
This is a general rule of thumb, if they are damaging property even if you are in a stationary vehicle, they are not posing death or grievous injury.
I'm aware of that general rule of thumb (as insane as that is). I was asking specifically about Andrew Branca's opinion on the matter.
 
I'm aware of that general rule of thumb (as insane as that is). I was asking specifically about Andrew Branca's opinion on the matter
He said that the use of non-deadly physical force (not including pepper spray) would generally be lawful , but that getting out of the car to try using such force that might well compromise the defender's position should bad things unfold.

I wouldn't even think about it.

Why do you think the "general rule of thumb", which has been established law for a very long time, "insane"?

Getting a law degree would help you understand that.

And signing up for the Law of Self Defense Level 1 course on April 25 would be a very good idea.
 
Why do you think the "general rule of thumb", which has been established law for a very long time, "insane"?
What I meant was that not being "allowed" to use force to defend property unless there is a threat of serious bodily injury or death is insane.

Getting a law degree would help you understand that.
Perhaps. The thing is, I'm not confused about what the law is, I just disagree with it.

And signing up for the Law of Self Defense Level 1 course on April 25 would be a very good idea.
I would like to do that at some point. Unfortunately, it won't work out in the near future.
 
The thing is, I'm not confused about what the law is, I just disagree with it.
A deeper understanding of legal principles and how they have evolved over the centuries would almost certainly change that, for any reasonable person.
 
A deeper understanding of legal principles and how they have evolved over the centuries would almost certainly change that, for any reasonable person.
Guess we'll just have to do the old "agree to disagree" on that one. You don't think a person should be able to legally use force (note that I didn't put "deadly" in front of force) to prevent intentional damage to their property?
 
You don't think a person should be able to legally use force (note that I didn't put "deadly" in front of force) to prevent intentional damage to their property?
Of course, and reasonable (defined later by others) non-deadly force is lawful.

But the physical, legal, and financial risks are not insignificant, and they usually outweigh the value of the property.

Insurance is a much better idea.
 
But the physical, legal, and financial risks are not insignificant, and they usually outweigh the value of the property.
Exactly, and that's the part that I think is insane. It should not be a significant legal and financial burden for someone to legitimately defend their property.
 
Exactly, and that's the part that I think is insane. It should not be a significant legal and financial burden for someone to legitimately defend their property.
Ah, but one must pass go and have any use of any force judged as to whether if it was done "legitimately". Otherwise , who is to say?

Remember, you do not enter as a certified "good guy", and no one would reasonably be expected to accept your side of the story uncorroborated.

No reasonable person who understands basic legal concepts could consider that "insane".

That will involve expenses--and some risk. The probability that the answer will turn out to be "no" is greater than zero.

And of course, the defender could end up limping or with his arm in a sling for some time.

Not so if one relies upon insurance.
 
Fyi
I keep a chain in the door pocket in case I get 'stuck'.
15854276615526693639106163842107.jpg
 
You can wrap it around your strong hand to protect it from most injury, then punch with it
Sure.

It would, of course, be a deadly weapon.

Go back to the video, and consider how that weapon might have been lawfully and effectively employed, against whom, and at what moments during the incident.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top