What would you do? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : What would you do?


AcenJay
02-09-2010, 13:15
At what point in this video is the use of deadly force justifiable? What if you were the driver in the car, and also what if you saw this happening from about where the camera is?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0PQ4p8lGfA

swotivated
02-09-2010, 13:44
Deadly force is a last resort.

I wouldn't have shot that guy if I were the driver, but that's just me.

If I'd been standing near the camera and he'd headed my way he'd be a gunpoint. If he kept closing (inside 20-30 ft, he'd get shot).

Do what you feel is right and can be justified by an attorney in court.

David Armstrong
02-10-2010, 09:53
I'm with swotivated. No need for deadly force. Shoot when you must, not when you can.

Dreamaster
02-10-2010, 10:01
When he was standing behind the car I would have had much more fun time running over his @$$.

Keep in mind though guys, he was assaulting that vehicle with a "deadly weapon", and shouting obsenities. Someone could have been hurt from the broken glass.

This video had a great "adrenaline rush" factor for me, I think I'll use it to work on desensitizing myself to this kind of behavior, especially the screaming. When I hear a woman scream I almost freeze in fear, exactly opposite of what I need to be doing, which is keeping a clear head and acting if necessary. It's physiological.

Dexters
02-10-2010, 10:06
That's what happens when a person doesn't have anything to loose and the country doesn't have the resolve to do anything about it.

The driver did the correct thing - got out of there. Yes he did incur car repair cost but probably less expensive than attorney fees if he shot or attacked the vandal.

Dreamaster
02-10-2010, 10:15
That's what happens when a person doesn't have anything to loose and the country doesn't have the resolve to do anything about it.

The driver did the correct thing - got out of there. Yes he did incur car repair cost but probably less expensive than attorney fees if he shot or attacked the vandal.

But that doesn't do anything to bring the vandal to justice... you are basically saying the vandal has free reign on society. The "polite" thing to do would have been to call the police and driving around in circles to keep the guy busy until they could get there, praying the dude doesn't hurt someone in the process?

swotivated
02-10-2010, 10:22
When he was standing behind the car I would have had much more fun time running over his @$$.

Keep in mind though guys, he was assaulting that vehicle with a "deadly weapon", and shouting obsenities. Someone could have been hurt from the broken glass.

You're looking at this all wrong man. IMO, people like you shouldn't be carrying.

It's not your duty as Joe CCW to "deal with" guys like this. Get out of there!

Dexters
02-10-2010, 10:29
But that doesn't do anything to bring the vandal to justice... you are basically saying the vandal has free reign on society. The "polite" thing to do would have been to call the police and driving around in circles to keep the guy busy until they could get there, praying the dude doesn't hurt someone in the process?

That's true - vandals do have free reign in society and the attacker was proving it. The attacker was not afraid of the police or (lack of) jail time. Take away the fear of the law and you have the Rodney King LA Riots.

This video is a great lesson for us all on how thin the veneer of civilization is in the USA.

Dreamaster
02-10-2010, 10:30
You're looking at this all wrong man. IMO, people like you shouldn't be carrying.

It's not your duty as Joe CCW to "deal with" guys like this. Get out of there!

LOL... maybe that's why the wife has a permit and I don't. I really don't understand your point of view though... to me it's thinking like this that it's no small wonder people have to live in fear in places like "the bronx". People need to stand up for themselves. That doesn't always mean applying deadly force... I never said anything about shooting the guy, but the dude seriously needs to be taught a lesson somehow.

Dexters
02-10-2010, 10:49
LOL... maybe that's why the wife has a permit and I don't. I really don't understand your point of view though... to me it's thinking like this that it's no small wonder people have to live in fear in places like "the bronx". People need to stand up for themselves. That doesn't always mean applying deadly force... I never said anything about shooting the guy, but the dude seriously needs to be taught a lesson somehow.

I'm from 'da Bronx'. What you learn is situational awareness- learn go and no go areas - and choosing your battles - when to fight or run. Those who choose to fight too many times usually got seriously hurt. The attacker in the video will not learn - nor will the thousands like him.

Sam Spade
02-10-2010, 12:10
Lethal force is justified when you can articulate that he has the means, opportunity and intent to do you serious injury. In AZ, I have no duty to retreat.

IMO, I can make that case at 0:51. That's the point where he stops beating on the passenger side and moves towards the driver's window.

"Get out of there" is a fine solution. Unfortunately, it wasn't available in this scenario due to traffic. When the driver goes as far as possible and crackhead comes after him again, never mind that this happens more than once, I think that the "reasonable fear" case is well made.

"Shoot when you have to, not when you can" is also good advice. Bear in mind, though, that there is no single right answer for how much risk a person should tolerate. My training and experience makes my view of acceptable risk different than your's. My physical condition makes my view different; passengers present, knowledge of who this clown is, .... lots of things come int the decision. As long as means, opportunity and intent are in there, it's good.

Gallium
02-10-2010, 12:17
He hit my car so hard I was startled and pressed on the gas instead of the decelerator.

He has a 3lb hammer, and I have a 2300lb car....advantage me.

'Drew

David Armstrong
02-10-2010, 12:22
"Shoot when you have to, not when you can" is also good advice. Bear in mind, though, that there is no single right answer for how much risk a person should tolerate. My training and experience makes my view of acceptable risk different than your's.
Very true and very important. My risk tolerance is apparently quite a bit higher than many here, probably due to a personal history of experience in situations and a high level of training, coupled with a strong concern for and awareness of the cost/benefit part of a risk analysis. Someone with different levels of experience, understanding, skill, etc. would and should have a different view of what risk is acceptable and what is not. Good point, Sam.

David Armstrong
02-10-2010, 12:24
But that doesn't do anything to bring the vandal to justice... you are basically saying the vandal has free reign on society.
I don't think that is correct. Just because you don't want to get into a fight with a crazy guy doesn't mean you think he should have free reign on society. There are plenty of other options, such as calling the police after you have gotten away, that would help bring the guy to justice.

MTPD
02-10-2010, 13:13
Oh, man, it's just another poor misunderstood Haitian illegal. Let's bring a bunch more of their babies over so they can grow up and be just like their daddys. After all, isn't it our civic duty?

Actually, I wouldn't have shot the POS. Not unless he started trying to beat his way inside my vehicle and endangered me or mine personally.

AcenJay
02-10-2010, 14:45
Lethal force is justified when you can articulate that he has the means, opportunity and intent to do you serious injury. In AZ, I have no duty to retreat.

IMO, I can make that case at 0:51. That's the point where he stops beating on the passenger side and moves towards the driver's window.

"Get out of there" is a fine solution. Unfortunately, it wasn't available in this scenario due to traffic. When the driver goes as far as possible and crackhead comes after him again, never mind that this happens more than once, I think that the "reasonable fear" case is well made.

"Shoot when you have to, not when you can" is also good advice. Bear in mind, though, that there is no single right answer for how much risk a person should tolerate. My training and experience makes my view of acceptable risk different than your's. My physical condition makes my view different; passengers present, knowledge of who this clown is, .... lots of things come int the decision. As long as means, opportunity and intent are in there, it's good.

It looks like he actually took a swing at the driver side windows at 0:54 too. Right there, the driver could have fired if he/she had a gun if he/she was unable to drive away from being boxed in. Of course driving away didn't look to be an immediate option, so after the assailant had demonstrated those means, opportunity, and intent by attacking the driver side window, wouldn't it be justified to use the car as a weapon and run his ass over or pin him up hard against a vehicle in front or behind?

swotivated
02-10-2010, 14:59
"Get out of there" is a fine solution. Unfortunately, it wasn't available in this scenario due to traffic. When the driver goes as far as possible and crackhead comes after him again, never mind that this happens more than once, I think that the "reasonable fear" case is well made.

Having lived in AZ, I think deadly force (either shooting him or running him over) would certainly be justified there. It's not that way in every state.

Even though the driver was unable to peel out and leave the area he still managed to keep moving, making it very hard for the guy to hurt him (can't say the same for the car unfortunately).

On an unrelated note, I can add this to my many reasons for upgrading from 9mm. I don't have full confidence that I would be able to shoot through my car windows with 9mm JHPs in a situation like this. Does anyone have experience with this? What's penetration and accuracy like?

Blaster
02-10-2010, 17:51
I would travel back in time and eradicate from the face of this planet any DNA remotely associated with that sorry excuse for a human being.

Dreamaster
02-11-2010, 08:38
Having lived in AZ, I think deadly force (either shooting him or running him over) would certainly be justified here. It's not that way in every state.

Even though the driver was unable to peel out and leave the area he still managed to keep moving, making it very hard for the guy to hurt him (can't say the same for the car unfortunately).

On an unrelated note, I can add this to my many reasons for upgrading from 9mm. I don't have full confidence that I would be able to shoot through my car windows with 9mm JHPs in a situation like this. Does anyone have experience with this? What's penetration and accuracy like?

How can you criticize me and say I shouldn't be carrying and then turn around and say deadly force could be justified in the same thread???

k-lo
02-11-2010, 11:49
i read somewhere that crackhead got shot and was killed by LVMPD in another incident afterwards.

For me, it all depends on a couple of things. If I were driving alone and the guy started hitting my car I would look for avenues of exit (preferrably with my car), if a safe exit is not available I'd stay inside the car. Now if he breaches my safety zone (cabin) either by breaking the windshield/windows or opening the door that's where I think I'm justified in trying to incapacitate him with my weapon.

Now if I were with my family that would be a totally different matter.

sapper1911
02-11-2010, 13:30
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
from sam: Lethal force is justified when you can articulate that he has the means, opportunity and intent to do you serious injury. In AZ, I have no duty to retreat.

IMO, I can make that case at 0:51. That's the point where he stops beating on the passenger side and moves towards the driver's window.

"Get out of there" is a fine solution. Unfortunately, it wasn't available in this scenario due to traffic. When the driver goes as far as possible and crackhead comes after him again, never mind that this happens more than once, I think that the "reasonable fear" case is well made.

"Shoot when you have to, not when you can" is also good advice. Bear in mind, though, that there is no single right answer for how much risk a person should tolerate. My training and experience makes my view of acceptable risk different than your's. My physical condition makes my view different; passengers present, knowledge of who this clown is, .... lots of things come int the decision. As long as means, opportunity and intent are in there, it's good. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Sam, I couldn't agree more.

As far as "Shoot when you have to, not when you can": There has been times in my professional career that I could have used lethal force yet choose not to. Afterwards, a co-worker of supervisor would ask why I did not. Once I and others were actually chastised by my commander for using an assisting department’s less lethal bean bag rounds. The commander thought (without being there and even before speaking with anyone there) that we should have “shot that b***h”. Good for morale when we were just high fiven each other for having such cool heads. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
In hind sight the only response I can say is that at the time of these incidents I did not feel it was needed. I was ready to use such force, but something inside me said it was not the right time and the subjects in all cases were arrested with lesser levels of force than were warranted. Now I want to make it clear that I have no qualms killing in order to protect myself, my family, my neighbor, or the community I protect, just that in the aforementioned incidences. I did not think I needed to even though I could. <o:p></o:p>

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Glock30 Guy
02-11-2010, 13:54
I carry mace for just such an occassion. No, he was not trying to kill the driver, just his car. I'd try to drive away. If he broke the drivers window and tried to hit me with that bar, I'd shoot. At that point, he was threatening my life. Otherwise, mace and just drive away.

swotivated
02-11-2010, 14:07
How can you criticize me and say I shouldn't be carrying and then turn around and say deadly force could be justified in the same thread???

As David Armstrong said: "Shoot when you must, not when you can."

Having lived in AZ (and still carrying an AZ CCW), I know that AZ law would "cover you" if you shot the guy. Again, just because you can take a life doesn't mean you need to. AZ law is very very liberal in it's lethal force laws.

Furthermore, in your post that I was criticizing, you seemed to indicate that the use of foul language and the presence of broken glass factored into your justification for use of lethal force.

You can't kill someone just because you're nervous or scared or very uncomfortable.

I'm making these assumptions about you based on a few paragraphs you wrote. I'm just some dude on the interwebs, so don't get too down on yourself if I'm way off.

Gallium
02-13-2010, 00:50
I carry mace for just such an occassion. No, he was not trying to kill the driver, just his car. I'd try to drive away. If he broke the drivers window and tried to hit me with that bar, I'd shoot. At that point, he was threatening my life. Otherwise, mace and just drive away.


You have to try and visualize this happening to you, and not from the perspective of a wide angle camera lens that shows 40 seconds of footage prior.

It's easy enough to be convinced the lunatic is coming at you, not just smashing your motor vehicle.


'Drew

rohanreginald
02-13-2010, 08:07
You're looking at this all wrong man. IMO, people like you shouldn't be carrying.

It's not your duty as Joe CCW to "deal with" guys like this. Get out of there!

so we have become a society of victims. I can do nothing to protect my property or my family is what you are saying.

I would have drawn on this guy. If he got any closer after I'd drawn, he most likely would have got it. I know this is arm chair quarterbacking, but I would be in fear of my life when he started smashing in the windows.

Bashful
02-13-2010, 09:18
At 54 seconds when he is drawing back on the drivers door is when he has the means and the intent or the potential means and intent to cause serious bodily injury, including death to the driver. The use of deadly force at that point would be justified.

"Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force."

"It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."

k-lo
02-13-2010, 10:44
You're looking at this all wrong man. IMO, people like you shouldn't be carrying.

It's not your duty as Joe CCW to "deal with" guys like this. Get out of there!
I disagree. it's not about duty. It's about surviving the encounter. You are the victim here not some Mr. CCW looking for andrenaline rush. Duty is when you're walking down the street, and you see this happening to an old lady in her PT cruiser, now as a civilian with a CCW do you aid and assist, that's a question of duty because now you have a choice to introduce a firearm into the mix or simply call 911 and watch.

In this case i guess it boils down to what's the individual threshold. I feel I would be totally justified in shooting when he started hitting the windshield infront of me. Guys, I don't know about you, but the windshield is only 3 feet from your face, maybe less that's not a very good distance. If the bat came through, the next swing could hit you smack on the face. I'm not going to wait for that to happen.

Btw, it's Las Vegas Blvd, there's dozens even a hundred people that can vouch for what really happened. Dude's a crackhead, was armed with a pipe or bat, that's a deadly weapon. Cops see the banged-up PT cruiser, was stuck in traffic. I think I would be justified. just my .02

Misty02
02-13-2010, 12:01
Wow! I would have definitely been terrified and believed he was going to seriously hurt me once he hit the driverís side window. Seeing that the attack continued after that, the expectation would have been that the guy wouldnít stop until he reached the inside of the vehicle. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The driver showed an enormous amount of restrain, she even stayed in her lane, didnít hit other cars or used the sidewalk as means of escape. I fear I would have at least tried to hit him with the car. It might not have incapacitated him long enough, not enough space to gain speed to create a disabling hit. Maybe pin him under a tire as I called for help? <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
It appears my tolerance for risk is lower than others here. If someone hits my driverís side window with a metal bar (which is about 1 foot away from my head) and continues the attack trying to eliminate the protective barrier the vehicle creates I would consider myself to be in eminent danger or serious bodily injury. Anything I can think of at the time to get out of danger would be put into motion. I believe that the vehicle itself would have been my first choice of weapons in that case.<o:p></o:p>

.

carrynaspringfield45
02-13-2010, 12:32
Why shoot? In this scenerio, the individual driving the blue PT Cruiser had the opportunity to run his dumb a** over, twice. Once when he was in front of the vehicle and the other when he was behind the vehicle. If it were me, I wouldn't have thought twice about running him over. Period. That display was an attack, plain and simple. No need to waste a perfectly good bullet on a p.o.s. like him.

Jerry C
02-13-2010, 12:44
When he started breaking the glass I would have put the car in park, got out and stepped back a few feet and pulled my phone out and called 911. If he came towards me with the hammer the cops could outline him with white chalk when they arrived.

rohanreginald
02-13-2010, 15:58
When he started breaking the glass I would have put the car in park, got out and stepped back a few feet and pulled my phone out and called 911. If he came towards me with the hammer the cops could outline him with white chalk when they arrived.

+1 on that

Dexters
02-13-2010, 16:38
so we have become a society of victims. I can do nothing to protect my property or my family is what you are saying.

I would have drawn on this guy. If he got any closer after I'd drawn, he most likely would have got it. I know this is arm chair quarterbacking, but I would be in fear of my life when he started smashing in the windows.

I wouldn't say 'victims' in this case; more of cost vs benefit analysts. Shoot or run over the guy and pay with time and money for legal defense versus time and insurance cost for just getting out of the situation.

There isn't much to gain by shooting or running over the guy with the car, so just drive away and call the police from a safe distance.

rohanreginald
02-13-2010, 16:50
I wouldn't say 'victims' in this case; more of cost vs benefit analysts. Shoot or run over the guy and pay with time and money for legal defense versus time and insurance cost for just getting out of the situation.

There isn't much to gain by shooting or running over the guy with the car, so just drive away and call the police from a safe distance.

So when the crackhead breaks into my home when my family is going to bed, I am to wake everyone up, retreat to somewhere far away and then call 911?

You have got to be kidding. To let someone else provide all the security for me and my family is simply not acceptable. Especially when I have to retreat somewhere far away and call for help.

If the driver or anyone else in that car was man/woman enough to step up and stop this attack, then they would have prevented even further damage from happening to their property and someone elses. Someone reported that the crackhead eventually got shot by cops a little while later. Why does have society have to wait for one more attack before stopping this threat. That seems to me to be a failure of the system you propose, if people and private property have to keep being damaged before someone with the right credentials can act to stop it.

Just keep driving away and all of our problems will go away (sarcasm).

Gallium
02-13-2010, 17:07
So when the crackhead breaks into my home when my family is going to bed, I am to wake everyone up, retreat to somewhere far away and then call 911?

You have got to be kidding. To let someone else provide all the security for me and my family is simply not acceptable. Especially when I have to retreat somewhere far away and call for help.

If the driver or anyone else in that car was man/woman enough to step up and stop this attack, then they would have prevented even further damage from happening to their property and someone elses. Someone reported that the crackhead eventually got shot by cops a little while later. Why does have society have to wait for one more attack before stopping this threat. That seems to me to be a failure of the system you propose, if people and private property have to keep being damaged before someone with the right credentials can act to stop it.

Just keep driving away and all of our problems will go away (sarcasm).


Sir,

What is the extent of your dealings with the law, or the courts on anything related to use of deadly force?


'Drew

rohanreginald
02-13-2010, 19:09
First off I am not a "mall ninja" nor do I aspire to be one. Second, I have never had to deal with the law or the courts regarding deadly force, and I sincerely hope I never have to.

The OP asked at what point you could defend yourself with deadly force. I am sure to those that serve communties and deal with dirt bags like that guy may have a higher threshold of when to defend themselves. But watching that video and trying to place myself in that situation, I would be freightened for my life and I may have acted differently.

There are many other posts on this thread that agree deadly force would have been justified in this situation. The actuall party involved did not run the guy over with the car, did not pull out a gun, or any other weapon or device to defend themselves. That is fine, I don't have a problem for someone else to react that way. The issue I was bringing up was the fact that someone suggested that's what everyone should do in that situation.

I am not saying some bystander with a ccw sash/badge should have stepped in. I am not saying that any do gooder should have intervened at all. And I do not know where this happened or what the local laws are in this area regarding deadly force. I was however, responding to the post that said something to effect of "its better to drive away and call from a safe distance". I don't think that is the best policy to be placed on society, was my point that I was trying to make.

If everyone had the attitude of just driving away to safe distance, then why would anyone ever ccw. If more people stood up to crime, I believe there would be less crime overall. Statistics show in my area that since ccw permits have become so popular, violent crime has decreased. I was trying to correlate that stat to this situation and Dexters post. If you want the actual study, it will take some perusing of the local paper.

Now you can tear me apart for everything I wrote. I can take it.

swotivated
02-13-2010, 19:55
Statistics show in my area that since ccw permits have become so popular, violent crime has decreased. I was trying to correlate that stat to this situation and Dexters post. If you want the actual study, it will take some perusing of the local paper.

Sir,

Please link that article. I've heard of this theory but have never seen a report, though I haven't really researched it.

Stats are funny and can be looked at many ways. Correlation isn't the same as causation. "Hey there was less crime in 2009 than 2008. Looks to me like higher numbered years help reduce crime." :upeyes:

Again, not saying that's what's going on here necessarily and I'd really like to read that article.

Gallium
02-13-2010, 20:08
First off I am not a "mall ninja" nor do I aspire to be one. Second, I have never had to deal with the law or the courts regarding deadly force, and I sincerely hope I never have to.

The OP asked at what point you could defend yourself with deadly force. I am sure to those that serve communties and deal with dirt bags like that guy may have a higher threshold of when to defend themselves. But watching that video and trying to place myself in that situation, I would be freightened for my life and I may have acted differently.

There are many other posts on this thread that agree deadly force would have been justified in this situation. The actuall party involved did not run the guy over with the car, did not pull out a gun, or any other weapon or device to defend themselves. That is fine, I don't have a problem for someone else to react that way. The issue I was bringing up was the fact that someone suggested that's what everyone should do in that situation.

I am not saying some bystander with a ccw sash/badge should have stepped in. I am not saying that any do gooder should have intervened at all. And I do not know where this happened or what the local laws are in this area regarding deadly force. I was however, responding to the post that said something to effect of "its better to drive away and call from a safe distance". I don't think that is the best policy to be placed on society, was my point that I was trying to make.

If everyone had the attitude of just driving away to safe distance, then why would anyone ever ccw. If more people stood up to crime, I believe there would be less crime overall. Statistics show in my area that since ccw permits have become so popular, violent crime has decreased. I was trying to correlate that stat to this situation and Dexters post. If you want the actual study, it will take some perusing of the local paper.

Now you can tear me apart for everything I wrote. I can take it.

Since you've responded to my question, I thank you. You'll notice I've not accused you of anything - that would be grossly impolite. What I did do, was ask a question, so I could abstain from making any assumptions about what you would, or would not do.

The reason why I asked if you've had any interaction with the police or courts on deadly force is...it shows. And I didn't specifically mean if you yourself had used deadly force. I should have been more clear with my question and more broad, to ask if you were involved as victim, participant, 3rd party, witness, etc.

When I run classes on CCW, I always advocate my students take a 1/2 day, and sit in on a court session for a couple of hours, so they can appreciate just how ponderous and ...oppressively vast our criminal courts are. The folks who have said they would probably avoid shooting the idiot if possible, are most likely the ones who have some appreciation for how the criminal justice system works.

Have others have said, you don't shoot someone because you can, you do so because you must.

'Drew

rohanreginald
02-13-2010, 20:35
It's interesting what you post and teach your students. I see a lot of value in the exercise of attending a criminal court for a half day. legal proceedings can suck the life out of anyone. And that I do have first hand knowledge of.

I do know a couple of people that have used deadly force in the past, as ordinary citizens. I can tell you that one of them was acting a little outside of the law and he went to prison for a short time. The other gentleman that I know was car jacked by three men. The guy pulled out his gun and unloaded in one of the car jackers. The other two fled. Police arrived and it was chaotic for a while as all the confusion was straightened out. Turns out the cops let my buddy go home within an hour, never filed chargers and let him take his gun with him. Case closed.

Two situations and two very different outcomes.

In response to your previous post...I get it!

Gallium
02-13-2010, 20:40
It's interesting what you post and teach your students. I see a lot of value in the exercise of attending a criminal court for a half day. legal proceedings can suck the life out of anyone. And that I do have first hand knowledge of.

I do know a couple of people that have used deadly force in the past, as ordinary citizens. I can tell you that one of them was acting a little outside of the law and he went to prison for a short time. The other gentleman that I know was car jacked by three men. The guy pulled out his gun and unloaded in one of the car jackers. The other two fled. Police arrived and it was chaotic for a while as all the confusion was straightened out. Turns out the cops let my buddy go home within an hour, never filed chargers and let him take his gun with him. Case closed.

Two situations and two very different outcomes.

In response to your previous post...I get it!

:cheers: :beer:

'Drew

Misty02
02-13-2010, 21:30
I wouldn't say 'victims' in this case; more of cost vs benefit analysts. Shoot or run over the guy and pay with time and money for legal defense versus time and insurance cost for just getting out of the situation.

There isn't much to gain by shooting or running over the guy with the car, so just drive away and call the police from a safe distance.

That would be the best option if it appears available. If you believe youíre boxed in and out of options you may have to reconsider. It worked out well for the lady on the video, had the metal bar gone through the driverís window and hit her the outcome wouldnít have been the same.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I donít know how her vehicle would have faired if she had gone on the sidewalk and knocked out those news stands. Are those strongly bolted to the sidewalk or can a vehicle at low speed push them out of the way to create an exit out of that situation?<o:p></o:p>

.

Dexters
02-13-2010, 21:32
I wouldn't say 'victims' in this case; more of cost vs benefit analysts. Shoot or run over the guy and pay with time and money for legal defense versus time and insurance cost for just getting out of the situation.

There isn't much to gain by shooting or running over the guy with the car, so just drive away and call the police from a safe distance.


So when the crackhead breaks into my home when my family is going to bed, I am to wake everyone up, retreat to somewhere far away and then call 911?

You have got to be kidding. To let someone else provide all the security for me and my family is simply not acceptable. Especially when I have to retreat somewhere far away and call for help.



Captain K - "Scotty - beam me out of my car and into my house so that I can make a point!"

Scotty - "Jim, I'm giving it all I can."

Captain K - "Bones, can you help."

Bones - "Dam it Jim, I'm just a country doctor. The only thing I can do is to give everyone a shot of LSD. So, while you might not make sense, those around you will be so spaced out they might think you sound logical."

panzer1
02-13-2010, 21:50
Oh, man, it's just another poor misunderstood Haitian illegal. Let's bring a bunch more of their babies over so they can grow up and be just like their daddys. After all, isn't it our civic duty?

Actually, I wouldn't have shot the POS. Not unless he started trying to beat his way inside my vehicle and endangered me or mine personally.:rofl:I would have shot him as soon as he came over to the drivers side & tryed to brake the window.At that time I fear for my life!

panzer1
02-13-2010, 22:00
I carry mace for just such an occassion. No, he was not trying to kill the driver, just his car. I'd try to drive away. If he broke the drivers window and tried to hit me with that bar, I'd shoot. At that point, he was threatening my life. Otherwise, mace and just drive away.How do you know that he did not what to KILL the driver if he did get to him.Once he tryed to brake the driver's side window & if he did I have no dout that he would have hit or killed the driver.I would have shot at that point.

panzer1
02-13-2010, 22:03
so we have become a society of victims. I can do nothing to protect my property or my family is what you are saying.

I would have drawn on this guy. If he got any closer after I'd drawn, he most likely would have got it. I know this is arm chair quarterbacking, but I would be in fear of my life when he started smashing in the windows.
Me to that guy was a madman and could kill you real fast if he got to you.

Tailhunter
02-14-2010, 11:28
Back over him, run forward over him ..... but when the driver side window smashes and he has access to me ... bullet in left eye.

bambikilr
02-14-2010, 11:58
i would have shot him when he came around to the driver side window...i would have called 911 if i was a bystander on the street

Vic777
02-14-2010, 12:05
He was acting for the camera ... the driver would have been justified in running him down. If I was standing there and he came at me, I would be justified in "dropping him".
He attacked a car with female driver I think, and looks like he was just trying to hurt the car, not the driver ... but his judgement is poor. As I say, I think it was all for the camera. Anyone know what happened to him, did the car owner get justice?

swotivated
02-14-2010, 12:12
He was acting for the camera ... the driver would have been justified in running him down. If I was standing there and he came at me, I would be justified in "dropping him".
He attacked a car with female driver I think, and looks like he was just trying to hurt the car, not the driver ... but his judgement is poor. As I say, I think it was all for the camera. Anyone know what happened to him, did the car owner get justice?

I think you're absolutely right; there were several chances I saw where he could have really injured the people but would just move to another part of the car to scratch.

Of course, that's really just a footnote we're able to see in this '20/20 hindsight' video. I don't expect anyone would be able to make the distinction in the moment.

Dexters
02-14-2010, 14:41
I think you're absolutely right; there were several chances I saw where he could have really injured the people but would just move to another part of the car to scratch.

Of course, that's really just a footnote we're able to see in this '20/20 hindsight' video. I don't expect anyone would be able to make the distinction in the moment.

But, your observations would have been made in a court trial or earlier. If the driver would have used deadly force he would have had to deal with your observation. Maybe your observation might have swayed a jury to convict.

The driver in the video made the correct decision.

swotivated
02-14-2010, 17:15
^Ya, agree 100%.

tuica
02-14-2010, 17:18
When he begins bashing in the windows - deadly force is justified. Before - if my wife and children are in the vehicle.

David Armstrong
02-15-2010, 10:52
from rohanr:
If everyone had the attitude of just driving away to safe distance, then why would anyone ever ccw.
You CCW for those times when you can't drive away, or otherwise getout of trouble.
If more people stood up to crime, I believe there would be less crime overall. Statistics show in my area that since ccw permits have become so popular, violent crime has decreased.
FWIW, violent crime has decreased just about everywhere, CCW permits withstanding, and there is no evidence I'm aware of that shows if mor epeople stand up to crime that there will be loess crime overall. The type of criminal activity may change, but there are a lot of variables to figure into the mix.

David Armstrong
02-15-2010, 10:54
Misty asks:
I don’t know how her vehicle would have faired if she had gone on the sidewalk and knocked out those news stands. Are those strongly bolted to the sidewalk or can a vehicle at low speed push them out of the way to create an exit out of that situation?

Newstands tend to go over fairly easily. The old mailboxes, on the other hand, are set pretty sturdy.

David Armstrong
02-15-2010, 10:57
from NYC Drew:
The folks who have said they would probably avoid shooting the idiot if possible, are most likely the ones who have some appreciation for how the criminal justice system works.
I've noticed that also over the years. For the most part, it seems those who have actually been involved with the courts and/or those who have actually dealt with shootings and such tend to be far less enthusiastic about shooting folks than those who have never been involved in an actual incident.

Revvv
02-15-2010, 11:35
In GA this man would have been shot. No questions asked. He is a threat to the occupant of the car. It appeared that the driver was in the passenger seat and had to move into the driver's seat. First swing was at the passenger window.

I would have pulled and aimed. If he took another swing, I would have pulled the trigger. My intentions wouldn't be to immediately kill the man. However, I would be sure to incapacitate him so that the authorities would find him bleeding all over his weapon. There was no call for this type of abuse to innocent people. The man is a coward, and a moron.

I'm not a violent person. I have never had to pull a weapon. I have only been threatened once in my adult life, and the offender had a gun. I was able to disarm him before he could pull his weapon out of his jacket. I was lucky and there were officers close enough that they witnessed the aggressor. If I had waited on them I would have been shot. I had the right to shoot to kill at the point he reached for his gun.

I have never killed, and do not ever want to be in the position to do so. If I am in the position though, I will not hesitate to protect my family, myself, and those around me.

Misty02
02-15-2010, 15:54
Newstands tend to go over fairly easily. The old mailboxes, on the other hand, are set pretty sturdy.

Nice to know; hopefully Iíll never be faced with something similar. Itís probable that under such stress the brain may not be able to assess every single possible way out. Even while comfortably sitting in my house I was not able to assess if an attempt to push the news stands with the car to create an exit would have worked.
.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

nmk
02-16-2010, 08:43
If he is smashing in my driver's side window and I can't immediately drive away, the legal system is not the first thing on my mind. If I have a face full of broken glass and crowbar, it may be too late.