Lyft driver shoots two carjackers in Philadelphia

[old lady new shooter]

Okay, so it happened that way. That incident would not establish case law even if Willeford had been tried and acquitted. It means nothing.

Willeford shot at BG while BG was driving a moving vehicle, through the rear window, i.e. BG was driving away from Willeford at the time. If your previous statement were applicable, Willeford would have been charged.

 

[Kleanbore]

The Williford incident tells us absolutely nothing about the lawfulness of such an act.

 

[Blue Jays]

My anticipation is rational, decent, and law-abiding people (especially like the thoughtful people who post here) will have an innate sense of whether to run, hide, jump down an embankment, drive away, or shoot back. At the same time…one has to trust their own judgement. Conditioning yourself to agonize over such urgent tasks to the point of mental paralysis is bad. It is imperative good people think quickly and act assertively.

 

[redcon1]

For some reason you seem obsessed with making up a scenario where it’s justified to shoot at the driver of a moving vehicle.

Hardly. I'm obsessed with thinking.

The incident under discussion involved shooting at the driver of a moving car, and you have been trying to argue that such an act would be lawfully justified to prevent the car from causing injury.

So it's meta-argument analysis time then. Fine. the argument was posed that officers were instructed not to shoot at moving vehicles (although we all know they still do it) BECAUSE "unless your backup gun is a 90mm recoiless rifle in an ankle rig, you aren’t carrying anything that will reliably stop a vehicle". I then stated that the FBI rates handgun effectiveness on a number of parameters including its ability to penetrate a car door and windshield and carry on to inflict deeply penetrating wounds on the occupants/drivers suggesting that the ability to shoot into/through a car is still considered tactically relevant to the leading Law Enforcement agency in America. I then provided two examples of when it would be advisable to shoot into a moving vehicle-the Nice Truck attack or a similar event or a driveby shooting which nobody bothered to respond to. Instead, I was basically accused of being insane.
The fact is, there are instances where shooting at a moving vehicle is tactically sound and I have simply pointed them out not because I want to get into a peeing contest with anyone at this excellent forum which I have always held in high regard and not because I'm a nut looking for an excuse to shoot at cars but because I enjoy a good dialectic and, at the same time, I loathe eristic internet fights and also, because I just think I'm right here.

In this particular case, I have not heard anything about charges being filed against the Lyft driver. I doubt we will and I'm not sure any of us have gotten the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth such that we can form an educated opinion which has lead to the devolution of this thread into what we have here. I feel like I have said everything I want to say here in this thread. I'm done with this now, have a great day/night.

 

[eastbank]

well i know where there is a anti highjack scooter, i think i,ll buy it and put it on the roof rack on my suv. what weight and speed do you recommend for the scooter. than i will not have to carry a nasty firearm. on second thought, i may just buy a old ford pinto.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

For some reason you seem obsessed with making up a scenario where it’s justified to shoot at the driver of a moving vehicle.

Indeed. This is EXACTLY what we CAN'T do.

We can all make up and interpret virtually any scenario to support any view we want. But real life doesn't give us that luxury. Real life is rarely clear-cut, and even when it is, the consequences of our actions often revolve around the fact that the people who are charged with determining afterwards whether or not our actions were, in fact, justified are dealing with evidence that is not so clear-cut.

Any number of details in real life could shatter the carefully crafted hypothetical scenarios we may all come up with. And those details cannot be either ignored or deemed inconsequential.

Hypotheticals are useful for TRAINING, but only if they revolve around gaining a better understanding of how the actual written laws work.

We learn the specifics of the laws and then learn how to interpret the application of those specifics to the generalities of real life.

If we end up in a situation in which deadly force becomes the path we choose to follow, nothing is set in stone until the moment we pull that trigger. Everything that lead up to that instant in time is now subject to intense scrutiny, and heaven help us if we erred in our judgement.

We all make errors in judgement. That's a fact of life. But when it comes to deadly force, we cannot afford to lead ourselves astray with fantasy.

 

[armydog]

Hardly. I'm obsessed with thinking.


So it's meta-argument analysis time then. Fine. the argument was posed that officers were instructed not to shoot at moving vehicles (although we all know they still do it) BECAUSE "unless your backup gun is a 90mm recoiless rifle in an ankle rig, you aren’t carrying anything that will reliably stop a vehicle". I then stated that the FBI rates handgun effectiveness on a number of parameters including its ability to penetrate a car door and windshield and carry on to inflict deeply penetrating wounds on the occupants/drivers suggesting that the ability to shoot into/through a car is still considered tactically relevant to the leading Law Enforcement agency in America. I then provided two examples of when it would be advisable to shoot into a moving vehicle-the Nice Truck attack or a similar event or a driveby shooting which nobody bothered to respond to. Instead, I was basically accused of being insane.
The fact is, there are instances where shooting at a moving vehicle is tactically sound and I have simply pointed them out not because I want to get into a peeing contest with anyone at this excellent forum which I have always held in high regard and not because I'm a nut looking for an excuse to shoot at cars but because I enjoy a good dialectic and, at the same time, I loathe eristic internet fights and also, because I just think I'm right here.

In this particular case, I have not heard anything about charges being filed against the Lyft driver. I doubt we will and I'm not sure any of us have gotten the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth such that we can form an educated opinion which has lead to the devolution of this thread into what we have here. I feel like I have said everything I want to say here in this thread. I'm done with this now, have a great day/night.

I don't see you as desperate to get rounds off in any given SD situation, vehicle or no vehicle. There is a lot to think about with all the crazy stuff going on these days. Butting heads with others is inevitable when you start wargaming all the possible scenarios. You're going to especially butt heads with LE cause they might assume there is too much fantasy going on and based on my history with reading some threads, especially with the ridiculous bear defense threads, I don't blame them for jumping in.

I remember hearing the shots fired on the video of the Waukesha parade video as the guy was speeding off again. They played that few seconds in a loop over and over and over. And that was after the driver already mowed down some people. Sometimes you are presented with a no win situation and you still might not even hit the target. Some places, anything is expected and any outcome is accepted regardless of how many innocent people get hurt by either side. But not here in the USA.

On a humorous note, I was on a FOB guarded by 82D guys and certain Americans in civilian clothes in a mercedes were entering the winding entrance of the FOB and just passed the sign, I forgot exactly what it said but it if you went any further you would be shot... and they did and one paratrooper fired one 5.56 round into the engine and the entire car erupted in flames, but everyone got out. I thought there had to be more to the story, but there wasn't. lol

 

[jmorris]

Reasonableness.

Ok, I was pretty sure effectiveness wasn’t in there.

The subject of the OP wouldn’t be the first to fire upon a vehicle. Effective or not. Seems like even professional law enforcement seem to think it is reasonable at least sometimes, to fire at someone behind a windshield.

https://www.click2houston.com/news/...ed-into-patrol-car-jersey-village-chief-says/

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article257109877.html

https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-new...involved-shooting-chase-petersburg-08-28-2021

https://www.wsiltv.com/news/crime/i...cle_c298bc96-b906-5657-8a5f-e9e5fbbcf994.html

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/0...h-car-before-crashing-shots-fired-by-officer/

Seems that sometimes it is more effective than yelling “stop”.

As for effectiveness,

The officer’s defense of killing Mr. Mifflin, who wielded neither a gun nor a knife, is one repeated over and over across the country: The vehicle was a weapon. In a New York Times investigation of car stops that left more than 400 similarly unarmed people dead over the last five years, those words were routinely used to explain why police officers had fired at drivers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/police-traffic-stops-shooting.html

Justifiable or not that ^ is 80 occurrences a year for 5 years where a driver was killed from outside the vehicle by a firearm. So it would be difficult to argue that it would be unreasonable to think the method could save your life. The claim has undoubtedly kept many out of jail vs be the action that put them behind bars.

 

[old lady new shooter]

The Williford incident tells us absolutely nothing about the lawfulness of such an act.

Maybe what it tells us is that real life LE are capable of distinguishing between a repeated assertion and real life.

 

[Kleanbore]

So it would be difficult to argue that it would be unreasonable to think the method could save your life.

I don't think so. One would have to believe that shooting the driver could reasonably prevent the moving car from doing mayhem.

The defendant would, I think, most likely fail in arguing that the doctrine of competing harms (which is the basis of all use of force legal defenses) would justify his action.

 

[Kleanbore]

Maybe what it tells us is that real life LE are capable of distinguishing between a repeated assertion and real life.

???

 

[old lady new shooter]

Ok, I was pretty sure effectiveness wasn’t in there.

The subject of the OP wouldn’t be the first to fire upon a vehicle. Effective or not. Seems like even professional law enforcement seem to think it is reasonable at least sometimes, to fire at someone behind a windshield.

https://www.click2houston.com/news/...ed-into-patrol-car-jersey-village-chief-says/

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article257109877.html

https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-new...involved-shooting-chase-petersburg-08-28-2021

https://www.wsiltv.com/news/crime/i...cle_c298bc96-b906-5657-8a5f-e9e5fbbcf994.html

https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/0...h-car-before-crashing-shots-fired-by-officer/

Seems that sometimes it is more effective than yelling “stop”.

As for effectiveness,



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/police-traffic-stops-shooting.html

Justifiable or not that ^ is 80 occurrences a year for 5 years where a driver was killed from outside the vehicle by a firearm. So it would be difficult to argue that it would be unreasonable to think the method could save your life. The claim has undoubtedly kept many out of jail vs be the action that put them behind bars.

NYT article is behind the firewall.

 

[Jeff White]

If your previous statement were applicable, Willeford would have been charged.

I'm going to say this again and I'm going to keep saying it until people understand. There are many factors that go into a charging decision. We don't talk about those things here because they aren't law. They are not a legal precedent. The fact that someone did something in one jurisdiction and wasn't charged, doesn't mean that action is now legal. It means that for whatever reason the state decided not to file charges. Try telling the judge that Joe did the same thing you did and wasn't charged for it and see how far that gets you. We discuss the law here. We can't go down the rabbit hole of "this guy in this jurisdiction did the same thing I'm advocating and no charges were filed" because that case did not establish a legal precedent and invalidate whatever laws were broken. Those cases are not legal precedent and anyone who took similar actions expecting the same out come does so at their peril.

 

[Kleanbore]

If your previous statement were applicable, Willeford would have been charged.

No, not necessarily. That's not the way the world works. There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion.

And if you do not believe my "previous statement" to be an accurate description of the law, you have some learning to do.

 

[jmorris]

The fact that someone did something in one jurisdiction and wasn't charged, doesn't mean that action is now legal. It means that for whatever reason the state decided not to file charges.

There is a flip side to that coin too. Just because you do everything right does not mean you won’t be charged, either. In any jurisdiction.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I'm going to say this again and I'm going to keep saying it until people understand. There are many factors that go into a charging decision. We don't talk about those things here because they aren't law. They are not a legal precedent. The fact that someone did something in one jurisdiction and wasn't charged, doesn't mean that action is now legal. It means that for whatever reason the state decided not to file charges. Try telling the judge that Joe did the same thing you did and wasn't charged for it and see how far that gets you. We discuss the law here. We can't go down the rabbit hole of "this guy in this jurisdiction did the same thing I'm advocating and no charges were filed" because that case did not establish a legal precedent and invalidate whatever laws were broken. Those cases are not legal precedent and anyone who took similar actions expecting the same out come does so at their peril.

I never said it was legal precedent, I just pointed out that the treatment Willeford received did not match kleanbore's statement.

 

[Kleanbore]

There is a flip side to that coin too. Just because you do everything right does not mean you won’t be charged, either. In any jurisdiction.

True fact.

And Andrew Branca tells us that even if all of the known facts support the legal defense of self defense in a use of force incident, there is still perhaps a ten per cent chance of conviction.

 

[Kleanbore]

I never said it was legal precedent, I just pointed out that the treatment Willeford received did not match kleanbore's statement.

You said that if Willeford had acted unlawfully, he would have been charged.

 

[Jeff White]

There is a flip side to that coin too. Just because you do everything right does not mean you won’t be charged, either. In any jurisdiction.

This is also true. We seem to forget that when we use force to defend ourselves or others we are breaking the law. What we are presenting is an affirmative defense. We are saying that our violation of the law was justified and falls into the exemption the legislature wrote into the law allowing people to use force in self defense. So yes, you can do everything right and still be charged.

I never said it was legal precedent, I just pointed out that the treatment Willeford received did not match kleanbore's statement.

And that is completely irrelevant. One can find tens of thousands of cases where charges weren't fled when they could have been. Since it is impossible to rely on the discretion of the police and the prosecutor and public opinion to stay out of trouble, we don't discuss them here and will always point out what the law says.

 

[jmorris]

One would have to believe that shooting the driver could reasonably prevent the moving car from doing mayhem.

I would suspect that to be the OP’s defense.

Interesting concept though. Wonder how many people have used a tool to defend their life that they did not reasonably believe would save their life but it was the only (aka “best”) tool at their disposal at the time?

 

[Kleanbore]

Wonder how many people have used a tool to defend their life that they did not reasonably believe would save their life but it was the only (aka “best”) tool at their disposal at the time?

One might try that in futility, but if it risked creating a clear danger to others, it would be unlawful.

 

[plodder]

Why don’t one of you “shoot at the driver of a moving vehicle” advocates tell me what load you are carrying that will stop a large SUV or pickup? As a matter of fact, why don’t you tell me what load you carry to stop a compact car?

Maybe I missed it but I did not get the impression that anyone is advocating shooting something that will stop a vehicle, they (we) are suggesting that at some point, at some time it may be possible to stop a perp from bulldozing through an entire avenue crowded with pedestrians (or a parade route) by putting a hard stop on the driver. Is my ccw .45aarp or 9mm going to penetrate an engine block? Obviously not, but there is the chance that a well aimed shot by a competent marksman could reduce the amount of mayhem some deranged individual could perpetrate. Am I that competent marksman who has the situational awareness, clarity of thought and skill to recognize the threat and react in time? Honestly I doubt it and I pray I never have to find out.

And besides, I don't watch TV so I know not of these characters and programs to which you refer.

 

[Jeff White]

Maybe I missed it but I did not get the impression that anyone is advocating shooting something that will stop a vehicle, they (we) are suggesting that at some point, at some time it may be possible to stop a perp from bulldozing through an entire avenue crowded with pedestrians (or a parade route) by putting a hard stop on the driver.

My point is that if you get a “hard stop” on the driver you have just created a 2500 to 5000 pound unguided missile. Cars and trucks don’t have a “deadman’s switch”. Once the driver is incapacitated the vehicle is going to continue on its trajectory until something brings it to a stop. I fail to see how getting a “hard stop” of the driver of a vehicle heading into a crowd stops the vehicle from heading into the crowd.

How many bad traffic accidents have occurred because a driver had a heart attack or stroke at the wheel? That’s the same thing as getting a “hard stop” on the driver.


If you’ve never shot at a target inside a vehicle I would suggest you get one from a junk yard and try it sometime. Windshield glass will change the trajectory of most bullets. Do you know the interior construction of the doors on every vehicle you might have to shoot at? Handguns v. a subject in a moving vehicle just aren’t a good idea.

 

[redcon1]

Maybe I missed it but I did not get the impression that anyone is advocating shooting something that will stop a vehicle, they (we) are suggesting that at some point, at some time it may be possible to stop a perp from bulldozing through an entire avenue crowded with pedestrians (or a parade route) by putting a hard stop on the driver.

My point is that if you get a “hard stop” on the driver you have just created a 2500 to 5000 pound unguided missile.

So you still think it would be better if this 2,500-5,000 pound missile retained its guidance system? So Mr. Jihadi can swerve back and forth to pick off fleeing victims? Please explain how that would be better without adjusting any goalposts.

 

[Kleanbore]

So you still think it would be better if this 2,500-5,000 pound missile retained its guidance system? So Mr. Jihadi can swerve back and forth to pick off fleeing victims? Please explain how that would be better without adjusting any goalposts.

If the driver is on his way to escape, it is clearly best to let him proceed.