i drew on someone today. que obligatory critique. (pardon the detail please)
- Thread starter Bobarino
- Start date
- Status
MillCreek
Member
I just got back from the range, where I was chatting with a couple of SCSO deputies and three WSP troopers who were there doing some qualifying. I was describing this scenario to them and asked their thoughts on the matter. Bear in mind that these people are not prosecutors but are local LEO in western Washington.
All of them agreed that if the original poster had shot and killed the driver of the other car, he would have been immediately arrested and possibly charged with either murder in the second degree or manslaughter in the first degree. If the driver had lived, the original poster would have been charged with assault in the first degree. The state troopers (who primarily enforce motor vehicle laws on our state highways) said that in the situation as described, they would immediately have arrested the original poster for assault in the second degree. They take a very dim view of drivers pulling out firearms to resolve driving disputes. The SCSO deputies were silent on this.
All of them said that in order for any claim of self-defense to have a prayer in court for this type of situation, the other person has to be either armed with some sort of weapon capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury and is actively and visibly threatening you with it, or the other person would have to be much larger and stronger than you, is threatening you with bodily harm, and is manifesting an intent to commit such harm upon you, such as actually breaking into your car. In this scenario as described, they feel there would have been no justification for shooting and doubt very much that any self-defense claim would be successful, especially in the urban areas of western Washington.
Unfortunately, I had to leave to get home, and I completely forgot to ask them what they would have done in this situation while off-duty.
Very interesting comments, and if we have any other Washington state LEO present or anyone who works in criminal defense or prosecution, perhaps they can comment as to the accuracy of what I heard today. Although I know a great deal about some types of civil law in Washington, my criminal law knowledge is not all that great.
All of them agreed that if the original poster had shot and killed the driver of the other car, he would have been immediately arrested and possibly charged with either murder in the second degree or manslaughter in the first degree. If the driver had lived, the original poster would have been charged with assault in the first degree. The state troopers (who primarily enforce motor vehicle laws on our state highways) said that in the situation as described, they would immediately have arrested the original poster for assault in the second degree. They take a very dim view of drivers pulling out firearms to resolve driving disputes. The SCSO deputies were silent on this.
All of them said that in order for any claim of self-defense to have a prayer in court for this type of situation, the other person has to be either armed with some sort of weapon capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury and is actively and visibly threatening you with it, or the other person would have to be much larger and stronger than you, is threatening you with bodily harm, and is manifesting an intent to commit such harm upon you, such as actually breaking into your car. In this scenario as described, they feel there would have been no justification for shooting and doubt very much that any self-defense claim would be successful, especially in the urban areas of western Washington.
Unfortunately, I had to leave to get home, and I completely forgot to ask them what they would have done in this situation while off-duty.
Very interesting comments, and if we have any other Washington state LEO present or anyone who works in criminal defense or prosecution, perhaps they can comment as to the accuracy of what I heard today. Although I know a great deal about some types of civil law in Washington, my criminal law knowledge is not all that great.
Aguila Blanca
Member
Sorry if I'm late -- I just saw this thread.
You are not a failure. You did everything right. Kudos for having the restraint to not cap the guy.
You are not a failure. You did everything right. Kudos for having the restraint to not cap the guy.
Aguila Blanca
Member
Oops
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Member
IANAL ... but that doesn't stop me from trying to play one on the Internet.mmike87 said:
The laws of most states (and I'm fairly certain of Washington, because I have had this discussion with an LEO friend there) first do NOT have a duty to retreat. Second, a threat does not have to be verbal. The guy was engaging in threatening behavior, first by trying to cause an accident, and second by leaving his vehicle, approaching our hero's car, and waving his fists around in a threatening manner. The law does not require that you fear for your life, it allows the use of deadly force for self defense if you are in fear of your life or serious (some states use the word "grievous" (sp?) bodily harm. I think there is no question that this was not a case of "brandishing." The gun was not shown initially to intimidate the other driver. The other guy was the aggressor, and the pistol was displayed as a means to deescalate the situation. Bottom line -- if YOU are in fear, you are justified in employing lethal force. It doesn't matter if another person might not have been in fear in the same situation. If YOU are in fear of death or serious bodily harm, in virtually every state you are entitled to use deadly force in self defense.
I am surprised by the reaction of the state troopers queried in a follow-up post. They should understand the law a bit better than they apparently do.
I agree that firing is not called for.
I can also see the wisdom in this statement- "If it's worth drawing, then it's worth shooting. If it's not worth shooting, then it's not worth drawing. Drawing as a deterrant is a very dangerous game."
I believe that the aggressor would have had to have some contact with the window before firing would be justified. I guess my question is how much faith do you have in the window? Do you feel that it would be necessary to have weapon presented before the aggressor hits the window, or do you risk the aggressor breaking the window and grabbing you before your weapon is presented.
I guess size of the aggressor and poster would play some role but I think most roadside bully types aren't at the small end of the scale.
This statement is a little odd to me-
"All of them said that in order for any claim of self-defense to have a prayer in court for this type of situation, the other person has to be either armed with some sort of weapon capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury and is actively and visibly threatening you with it, or the other person would have to be much larger and stronger than you, is threatening you with bodily harm, and is manifesting an intent to commit such harm upon you, such as actually breaking into your car."
So if I am a big guy say 6' 2" 225 and some guy 5' 6" 175 sees me on the sidewalk, yells I am going to kill you and runs at me, I have to take a beating before I can fire? I guess my understanding (and I am no expert) is that a threat was in the mind as much as reality. That is the perception of the threat is the key not necesarrily the threat.
For example, we mentioned before that the aggressor was probably an average guy having a fight with his wife, whatever. I agree with this statement, with the knowledge of how the aggressor ended up acting, my perception is that he isn't that threatening because I know the outcome. BUT I would not know this while he was storming my car.
Anyway not trying to argue here, just discuss. Given the way the situation ended I imagine the poster would not have needed to draw. BUT not knowing how the situation would end may have necessitated the draw (in my opinion)- in the event that the aggressor was going to follow through the poster would have had to have the pistol aimed to stop the guy from coming through the window. The poster drew to fire to stop the guy from coming through the window. Luckily (for both parties) the guy walked and the poster holstered.
I can also see the wisdom in this statement- "If it's worth drawing, then it's worth shooting. If it's not worth shooting, then it's not worth drawing. Drawing as a deterrant is a very dangerous game."
I believe that the aggressor would have had to have some contact with the window before firing would be justified. I guess my question is how much faith do you have in the window? Do you feel that it would be necessary to have weapon presented before the aggressor hits the window, or do you risk the aggressor breaking the window and grabbing you before your weapon is presented.
I guess size of the aggressor and poster would play some role but I think most roadside bully types aren't at the small end of the scale.
This statement is a little odd to me-
"All of them said that in order for any claim of self-defense to have a prayer in court for this type of situation, the other person has to be either armed with some sort of weapon capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury and is actively and visibly threatening you with it, or the other person would have to be much larger and stronger than you, is threatening you with bodily harm, and is manifesting an intent to commit such harm upon you, such as actually breaking into your car."
So if I am a big guy say 6' 2" 225 and some guy 5' 6" 175 sees me on the sidewalk, yells I am going to kill you and runs at me, I have to take a beating before I can fire? I guess my understanding (and I am no expert) is that a threat was in the mind as much as reality. That is the perception of the threat is the key not necesarrily the threat.
For example, we mentioned before that the aggressor was probably an average guy having a fight with his wife, whatever. I agree with this statement, with the knowledge of how the aggressor ended up acting, my perception is that he isn't that threatening because I know the outcome. BUT I would not know this while he was storming my car.
Anyway not trying to argue here, just discuss. Given the way the situation ended I imagine the poster would not have needed to draw. BUT not knowing how the situation would end may have necessitated the draw (in my opinion)- in the event that the aggressor was going to follow through the poster would have had to have the pistol aimed to stop the guy from coming through the window. The poster drew to fire to stop the guy from coming through the window. Luckily (for both parties) the guy walked and the poster holstered.
Lupinus
Member
Lets review-
Guy cuts me off because he is driving like a maniac
Slams on his breaks trying to get me to rear end him
Stops his car in the middle of the street blocking me with no way for me to escape
Gets out of his car yelling screaming and acting generaly deranged
now to me this signals a guy who is willing to hurt me and possibly has a few screws loose
Then begins an attack by pounding on my window trying to get into my car and at me, so I shoot him.
I will take my chances with a jury on that if it even gets to a jury.
Pulling a gun to resolve a traffic dispute is pulling one after you have a fender bender cause the other guy ticked you off or someone cuts you off you race up along side them and point a gun. Not persuading a guy who is irate and has displayed threatening behaviour (and that of possibly being a few fries short of a happy meal) in more then one form to get back in his car and leave. He pulled it to defend himself, not intimidate or scare the other driver.
MillCreek
Member
Hawkmoon, I believe you are incorrect in your statements regarding the degree of threat necessary to use deadly force that results in the death of the assailant. I have cut and pasted here the Washington statute on justifiable homicide:
RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.] Now mind you, I have not done any legal research to look at what are no doubt many cases interpreting and expanding upon this.
Based on what I have read in the Seattle media in recent years and some of the case law, I think there has to be a much more tangible threat, in order to successfully use a self-defense jury instruction. And FYI, in recent years, our state patrol has put a lot of emphasis on arrest and prosecution of drivers using or displaying firearms in the context of road rage or other driving situations. The local media also talks about this periodically.
This has been a most interesting thread, and I continue to believe, based on my own research, that under Washington law, the original poster could have been arrested and perhaps successfully prosecuted. Those who think otherwise and I will hopefully never have to find out whom is correct. I also continue to believe that if the other driver had displayed a weapon, a baseball bat or some other instrumentality capable of causing great personal injury, than the original poster's actions were justified. Under Washington state law, the ability of the other person to harm you, as for example having a weapon, is very germane to self-defense. If they do not have a weapon, you are very likely on shaky legal ground in this state.
RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.] Now mind you, I have not done any legal research to look at what are no doubt many cases interpreting and expanding upon this.
Based on what I have read in the Seattle media in recent years and some of the case law, I think there has to be a much more tangible threat, in order to successfully use a self-defense jury instruction. And FYI, in recent years, our state patrol has put a lot of emphasis on arrest and prosecution of drivers using or displaying firearms in the context of road rage or other driving situations. The local media also talks about this periodically.
This has been a most interesting thread, and I continue to believe, based on my own research, that under Washington law, the original poster could have been arrested and perhaps successfully prosecuted. Those who think otherwise and I will hopefully never have to find out whom is correct. I also continue to believe that if the other driver had displayed a weapon, a baseball bat or some other instrumentality capable of causing great personal injury, than the original poster's actions were justified. Under Washington state law, the ability of the other person to harm you, as for example having a weapon, is very germane to self-defense. If they do not have a weapon, you are very likely on shaky legal ground in this state.
You brandished a weapon without appropriate cause. If the guy opened your door and actually tried to drag you out, or broken your window to get after you, sufficient cause would have been made.
Perhaps just removal from the normal carrying location, i.e. glove box or holster, could be considered brandishing, but I certainly would go that far, but not point it at an individual or let him even see it, until the above occurred. I would have it at ready, within easy reach, and probably with my hand on the grip, given your conditions, but would not let someone see it or point it at someone.
Pointing the firearm is strictly forbidden without immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury in every state law I have read. Agreement with your actions just demonstrates that some concealed carriers are either disregarding the law and intend to do what they will, do not really know what the would do, or missed that question on the CC exam. The police let you off, gladly so; you were lucky....twice. Don't push it! If I were the sheriff, your butt would have spent a night in my jail, just as a reinforcement of the wording of the law.
Perhaps just removal from the normal carrying location, i.e. glove box or holster, could be considered brandishing, but I certainly would go that far, but not point it at an individual or let him even see it, until the above occurred. I would have it at ready, within easy reach, and probably with my hand on the grip, given your conditions, but would not let someone see it or point it at someone.
Pointing the firearm is strictly forbidden without immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury in every state law I have read. Agreement with your actions just demonstrates that some concealed carriers are either disregarding the law and intend to do what they will, do not really know what the would do, or missed that question on the CC exam. The police let you off, gladly so; you were lucky....twice. Don't push it! If I were the sheriff, your butt would have spent a night in my jail, just as a reinforcement of the wording of the law.
Old Dog
Member
MillCreek is most correct when he says
It would seem seem that perhaps some of the deputies from some of the more rural SO's may be more inclined to view these incidents reasonably, but all bets might be off if it's WSP, SPD, TPD or King County SO responding ...
I'll offer this up as a hypothetical scenario to some more seasoned LEOs around here tomorrow and see what they have to say ...
I just recalled an incident I personally witnessed in Island County where a young man not only was prosecuted for misdemeanor unlawful display under RCW 9.41.270, but also lost his CPL after displaying his handgun during a heated verbal altercation in which he'd been the one actually verbally threatened ...
It would seem seem that perhaps some of the deputies from some of the more rural SO's may be more inclined to view these incidents reasonably, but all bets might be off if it's WSP, SPD, TPD or King County SO responding ...
I'll offer this up as a hypothetical scenario to some more seasoned LEOs around here tomorrow and see what they have to say ...
MillCreek
Member
I am doing some research right now on Washington case law. I am looking at a case, State v. Hanton, 94 Wn.2d 129, (1980) with almost the exact same fact pattern as here: Petitioner and the victim were driving their respective automobiles in Bellevue, Washington, on February 25, 1977. While leaving an intersection, petitioner pulled in front of the victim's car in such a manner as to cut him off, causing him to apply his brakes to avoid an accident. This apparently made the victim quite angry, for he followed close behind petitioner's car until they stopped at the next stoplight. There the victim left his car, came up to petitioner's car, opened the door, and attempted to pull him out. Petitioner thereupon drew a pistol and shot him. He died several days later as a result of the wound. Petitioner was charged with and convicted of first degree manslaughter.
At appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial on the issue of giving a self-defense jury instruction without allocating the burden of proof for a self-defense claim. He was apparently convicted again at the second trial.
Another case, State v. Walker, 136 Wn. 2d 767 (1998) had the following findings: [2] Homicide - Self-Defense - Reasonable Apprehension of Harm - Subjective and Objective Test. A defendant, charged with a homicide offense is entitled to a self-defense instruction only if the defendant produces some evidence tending to prove that the homicide occurred in circumstances amounting to self-defense. One element of self-defense is that the defendant must have had a reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm. A reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm is determined by applying a mixed subjective and objective analysis: Whether the defendant's apprehension is subjectively reasonable is evaluated from the defendant's perspective in light of all the facts and circumstances known to the defendant at the time of the incident. Objective reasonableness focuses on what a reasonably prudent person similarly situated to the defendant would have done under the circumstances.
[3] Homicide -Self-Defense - Instruction - Necessity - Sufficiency of Evidence - Review. A defendant charged with a homicide offense is not entitled to a self-defense instruction unless sufficient evidence is produced tending to support the defendant's claimed good faith belief that deadly force was necessary to fend off the victim and that the belief, viewed objectively, was reasonable. A self-defense instruction is not warranted if the trial court either finds that the evidence presented by the defendant does not support the defendant's claimed good faith belief that deadly force was necessary (a factual finding reviewed for an abuse of discretion) or finds that no reasonable person in the defendant's shoes could have perceived a threat of great bodily harm under the circumstances then present (a legal finding reviewed de novo for an error of law).
For some reason, the Washington appellate database is now having problems, so I will try again later, and will post on any additional cases that I find. The first case, in particular does confirm pretty much what the SCSO deputies and WSP troopers told me about a charging offense if you shoot the assailant and they die. The first case also illustrates that if someone is trying to drag you out of your car, you are not justified in using deadly force. I had thought that you were justified, so I will be changing my mind about that post haste.
What I also read on some of the other self-defense appellate cases also is tending to confirm my thoughts that shooting an unarmed assailant will rarely, if ever, get you a successful self-defense claim to criminal prosecution. Again, these cases I am reading are Washington law, and have no force or precedential value outside of Washington. Your state laws may vary, and you would need to research your own state case laws before drawing any conclusions germane to your own jurisdiction.
PS: The database is still having search problems at 22:25, so I will try again tomorrow.
At appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial on the issue of giving a self-defense jury instruction without allocating the burden of proof for a self-defense claim. He was apparently convicted again at the second trial.
Another case, State v. Walker, 136 Wn. 2d 767 (1998) had the following findings: [2] Homicide - Self-Defense - Reasonable Apprehension of Harm - Subjective and Objective Test. A defendant, charged with a homicide offense is entitled to a self-defense instruction only if the defendant produces some evidence tending to prove that the homicide occurred in circumstances amounting to self-defense. One element of self-defense is that the defendant must have had a reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm. A reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm is determined by applying a mixed subjective and objective analysis: Whether the defendant's apprehension is subjectively reasonable is evaluated from the defendant's perspective in light of all the facts and circumstances known to the defendant at the time of the incident. Objective reasonableness focuses on what a reasonably prudent person similarly situated to the defendant would have done under the circumstances.
[3] Homicide -Self-Defense - Instruction - Necessity - Sufficiency of Evidence - Review. A defendant charged with a homicide offense is not entitled to a self-defense instruction unless sufficient evidence is produced tending to support the defendant's claimed good faith belief that deadly force was necessary to fend off the victim and that the belief, viewed objectively, was reasonable. A self-defense instruction is not warranted if the trial court either finds that the evidence presented by the defendant does not support the defendant's claimed good faith belief that deadly force was necessary (a factual finding reviewed for an abuse of discretion) or finds that no reasonable person in the defendant's shoes could have perceived a threat of great bodily harm under the circumstances then present (a legal finding reviewed de novo for an error of law).
For some reason, the Washington appellate database is now having problems, so I will try again later, and will post on any additional cases that I find. The first case, in particular does confirm pretty much what the SCSO deputies and WSP troopers told me about a charging offense if you shoot the assailant and they die. The first case also illustrates that if someone is trying to drag you out of your car, you are not justified in using deadly force. I had thought that you were justified, so I will be changing my mind about that post haste.
What I also read on some of the other self-defense appellate cases also is tending to confirm my thoughts that shooting an unarmed assailant will rarely, if ever, get you a successful self-defense claim to criminal prosecution. Again, these cases I am reading are Washington law, and have no force or precedential value outside of Washington. Your state laws may vary, and you would need to research your own state case laws before drawing any conclusions germane to your own jurisdiction.
PS: The database is still having search problems at 22:25, so I will try again tomorrow.
Last edited:
you did good.
Some thoughts. As others have said
pepper spray as a first line of defense.
cell phone on line with 911 would help your self defense claim(you telling the BG to back off)
perhaps a gun at low ready just below the dash might be a better approach intially.
That said, glad you are o.k. and it turned out as well as it did.
Some thoughts. As others have said
pepper spray as a first line of defense.
cell phone on line with 911 would help your self defense claim(you telling the BG to back off)
perhaps a gun at low ready just below the dash might be a better approach intially.
That said, glad you are o.k. and it turned out as well as it did.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Good outcome; but you got lucky with an understanding officer. You certainly could have been arrested and charged at a minimum and likely would have in several jurisdictions.
I think one thing you need to ask yourself here is what would you have done if he hadn't backed off? We can already tell the guy isn't rational based on his behavior with a wife and baby in the car. What if he had decided to keep coming at you? What is it going to look like in court when you shoot an unarmed man in front of his wife and baby? If you don't shoot, then what happens when nutso gets into a fight with you over control of the gun?
Frankly, once you pulled the gun, there were three possible outcomes and two of them were very bad for you. Even the outcome you did get could have been a lot worse if not for an understanding cop.
The great thing is everything turned out well and now you have the opportunity to devise a different solution to that scenario. One thing I would consider in that scenario is calling 911 as soon as you see it starting (he stops in the street). Not only would that give a recording of what happened, it puts you on record as trying to deescalate the situation if something does go bad.
I think one thing you need to ask yourself here is what would you have done if he hadn't backed off? We can already tell the guy isn't rational based on his behavior with a wife and baby in the car. What if he had decided to keep coming at you? What is it going to look like in court when you shoot an unarmed man in front of his wife and baby? If you don't shoot, then what happens when nutso gets into a fight with you over control of the gun?
Frankly, once you pulled the gun, there were three possible outcomes and two of them were very bad for you. Even the outcome you did get could have been a lot worse if not for an understanding cop.
The great thing is everything turned out well and now you have the opportunity to devise a different solution to that scenario. One thing I would consider in that scenario is calling 911 as soon as you see it starting (he stops in the street). Not only would that give a recording of what happened, it puts you on record as trying to deescalate the situation if something does go bad.
Sounds like you did fine. I think your instincts to get out of the car were correct. You don't want to be in the car if the guy does produce a weapon. The odds are against you armed or not. I don't agree with a couple of things I've read here:
1. You have to wait until you see a weapon to perceive a threat. The guy was acting in an aggressive and irrational manner. Just what were his intentions in getting out of the car and confronting you?
2. That OC is a reliable or effective intermediate use of force. Particularly outside. I've had a large dose at close range in a very controlled environment. Burned terribly, and I couldn't see, but that was due to the direct stream I took in both eyes. No real effect outside of that. I wasn't already mad or pumped up on adrenalin. I suspect that if I was it would only make me madder. If there was any wind at all you would probably get as much as the aggressor.
If we choose to arm ourselves we must acknowledge several realities.
1. We will find ourselves at the mercy of the courts when we use firearms, legitimately or not. If you cannot accept this then leave them at home.
2. When we go out armed we take on a responsibility to the general public to protect that weapon.
3. We will encounter situations where the answer to the question of shoot or don't shoot, draw or don't draw, isn't at all clear. The speed at which these situations develop makes it that much more difficult to determine. Factor in human fallibility, particularly when under duress and consider this when you consider #1.
1. You have to wait until you see a weapon to perceive a threat. The guy was acting in an aggressive and irrational manner. Just what were his intentions in getting out of the car and confronting you?
2. That OC is a reliable or effective intermediate use of force. Particularly outside. I've had a large dose at close range in a very controlled environment. Burned terribly, and I couldn't see, but that was due to the direct stream I took in both eyes. No real effect outside of that. I wasn't already mad or pumped up on adrenalin. I suspect that if I was it would only make me madder. If there was any wind at all you would probably get as much as the aggressor.
If we choose to arm ourselves we must acknowledge several realities.
1. We will find ourselves at the mercy of the courts when we use firearms, legitimately or not. If you cannot accept this then leave them at home.
2. When we go out armed we take on a responsibility to the general public to protect that weapon.
3. We will encounter situations where the answer to the question of shoot or don't shoot, draw or don't draw, isn't at all clear. The speed at which these situations develop makes it that much more difficult to determine. Factor in human fallibility, particularly when under duress and consider this when you consider #1.
johnnytang24
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 76
Hi all,
Sorry if this is off topic, but what would the legal ramifications be of using pepper spray in a situation like this? Instead of drawing a firearm, just stepping out of the vehicle, spraying, then notifying the police?
Thanks.
Sorry if this is off topic, but what would the legal ramifications be of using pepper spray in a situation like this? Instead of drawing a firearm, just stepping out of the vehicle, spraying, then notifying the police?
Thanks.
cz75bdneos22
Member
luck was on your side this time..good for you.
always, when carrying a gun, you must consider its use as a last resort. This is defined by law, as defense of life, yours or others.
any other use of a gun, will bring you consequences. time (jail), money (lawsuits), or death (opponent was luckier)...nothing that i've read in your scenario meets the definition of justified use of deadly force. you've described in detail a man's behavior (reaction) to an event, which we can agree was his fault. yes, his (reactions) were negative. But then, so were yours. Still, you proceeded to up the ante knowing you had a gun. otherwise, you would'nt have done what you did. If i carried a gun...and felt like everyone that acted crazy towards me or others needed to be put out of their misery, then i probably would have killed hundreds of people by now..there's some crazy folks outhere, Y'all!
always, when carrying a gun, you must consider its use as a last resort. This is defined by law, as defense of life, yours or others.
any other use of a gun, will bring you consequences. time (jail), money (lawsuits), or death (opponent was luckier)...nothing that i've read in your scenario meets the definition of justified use of deadly force. you've described in detail a man's behavior (reaction) to an event, which we can agree was his fault. yes, his (reactions) were negative. But then, so were yours. Still, you proceeded to up the ante knowing you had a gun. otherwise, you would'nt have done what you did. If i carried a gun...and felt like everyone that acted crazy towards me or others needed to be put out of their misery, then i probably would have killed hundreds of people by now..there's some crazy folks outhere, Y'all!
joab
Member
I only read a few of the first page responses, but what many are missing is the fact that drawing in this case actually deescalated the encounter.
If you had waited for him to try to drag you out of the car you would have had to shoot him.
The fact that there were many witnesses did not stop him from confronting you and I would bet that those witnesses would not have done anything to stop hhim if it went further.
Nothing wrong with your actions as far as I can see
If you had waited for him to try to drag you out of the car you would have had to shoot him.
The fact that there were many witnesses did not stop him from confronting you and I would bet that those witnesses would not have done anything to stop hhim if it went further.
Nothing wrong with your actions as far as I can see
sturmruger
Member
I think you did really well. You were in no way the aggressor and you had no avenue of escape. Pointing your gun at him might have been a little bit much, but since you came out ok it doens't matter.
My plan for a situation like this would be to dial 911 with my left hand and get my right hand on my gun just in case I need it. My doors are always locked so I don't need to worry about him trying to open my door. I also carry OC with me so I could have threatened him with that as well as shooting him if need be. I think I would wait till he was banging on my window before I drew my gun and pointed it at him. I want to make sure that he has crossed all the threashholds before getting to the point of drawing my gun. I do not agree with the statement that if you draw your gun you have to use it. I don't remeber the numbers, but there are a lot of crimes that are thwarted with the mear sight of a gun if you have to shoot everytime you pull you gun out of the holster you will could be shooting people that you don't need to.
My plan for a situation like this would be to dial 911 with my left hand and get my right hand on my gun just in case I need it. My doors are always locked so I don't need to worry about him trying to open my door. I also carry OC with me so I could have threatened him with that as well as shooting him if need be. I think I would wait till he was banging on my window before I drew my gun and pointed it at him. I want to make sure that he has crossed all the threashholds before getting to the point of drawing my gun. I do not agree with the statement that if you draw your gun you have to use it. I don't remeber the numbers, but there are a lot of crimes that are thwarted with the mear sight of a gun if you have to shoot everytime you pull you gun out of the holster you will could be shooting people that you don't need to.
Bobarino
member
yes, there are many citations on this board and others estimating the number of defensive uses of a firearm to prevent an attack or crime that reach into the millions of times per year that only involve the mere showing of a firearm. we use this estimate in debates with anti-gun people all the time as a reason for carrying a gun. yet, when it actually happens, we seem to become split. half say its right, half say wait until he starts pummeling you. my intentions were to prevent the pummeling from starting in the first place. obviously hard for others to see but since i was there, it seemed vry obvious to me that a pummeling was about to ensue. i had zero exits, a very aggressive and clearly irrational individual that had already nearly hit me out of negligence then TRIED to cause a wreck with me immediately after, rapidly approaching my car with fists flying and obscenties flying even faster. what other interpretation could i make? the one i made was this guy wants to start a fight. he obviously doesn't care about his own safety or that of his family so why would i think he cares any more about mine? if its ok (in his mind) to involve your wife and kid in a wreck intentionally to play tough guy, its certain ok beat a beat a stranger.
some here make it sound like i was the aggressor. obvioulsy i wasn't. i just wanted the guy to go away without hurting anyone. if i had let him hurt me first, i would have been left with little choice but to defend myself with force. i didn't want it to get that far.
OldDog,
mind if i ask where you can find those cases? i search the legislature's site all the time for laws, but i don't know where to find case law.
not to discount what the WSP said, but i have not had good impressions from any WSP officer in the past. i've had to take every single ticket i've ever gotten from WSP to court because they were bogus. ALL of them were dropped. WSP has proven to me to nothing but a bunch of hotheads. i've had very good experiences with PCS, TPD, PPD, and Lakewood PD. all of them seemed like very good people. i'm not bashing cops, just relating my experiences.
this is all a learning experience and again, i appreciate everyone's feedback.
Bobby
MillCreek
Member
Bobby, I think you actually meant to ask me where I found the cases cited above in my post. I do a lot of legal research in my job and have access to various paid databases such as Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw. However, a very good free database for Washington case law can be found here:
http://search.mrsc.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=courts.htm$vid=courts:court
Type in the keywords you wish to search, select both the Washington Reports (Washington Supreme Court decisions) and Washington Appellate Reports (Washington Court of Appeals decisions) and click the 'search' button. Some search terms that will be handy for this discussion include self-defense or RCW 9A.16.050. If you read the case law, I think you will be surprised to learn how narrowly the right of self-defense is construed against an unarmed person.
Of course, as you probably know, trial court decisions (Superior Court for X County) are not reported and do not make case law.
http://search.mrsc.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=courts.htm$vid=courts:court
Type in the keywords you wish to search, select both the Washington Reports (Washington Supreme Court decisions) and Washington Appellate Reports (Washington Court of Appeals decisions) and click the 'search' button. Some search terms that will be handy for this discussion include self-defense or RCW 9A.16.050. If you read the case law, I think you will be surprised to learn how narrowly the right of self-defense is construed against an unarmed person.
Of course, as you probably know, trial court decisions (Superior Court for X County) are not reported and do not make case law.
Bobarino
member
oops, sorry Millcreek. yes, i meant to address you. thanks for the link. i'll save that one to my favorites and search a little and see what i can find. i appreciate that.
Bobby
Bobby
CDignition
Member
Whoo...most of you guys need more training in the laws of your state....Just cause the guy is acting crazy, shaking his fists, soes not allow you to pull a firearm....even if there were more than one guy, youre likley to be hung in court...theres one thing to being judged by 12, but you dont want to be judged guilty by 12 and go to prision for 20 years...
answerguy
Member
Bobarino said:
I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out or not but that is not the sign for "Why me?". I'd say it's more like "***!" or "*** are you doing you idiot?".
Not that I wouldn't have done the same thing in similar circumstances.
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
i didnt read every reply, so apology if its already been suggested...
you could have had the gun unholstered, on the seat, or in your lap, and been calling 911 while he ranted/raved/etc. that way, you have the advantage of being first to call for help, and you can be telling the dispatcher that as you are cornered, if the roadrager tries to get inside the vehicle you will respond with deadly force.
but you made it home okay, thats all that matters.
you could have had the gun unholstered, on the seat, or in your lap, and been calling 911 while he ranted/raved/etc. that way, you have the advantage of being first to call for help, and you can be telling the dispatcher that as you are cornered, if the roadrager tries to get inside the vehicle you will respond with deadly force.
but you made it home okay, thats all that matters.
- Status