justified self defense shooting

JoeSparky said:

The assumption being made by some posting on this thread is the the surviving driver leaving the car initially HAD NO OTHER OPTIONS. And this is my point... NOTHING in the story yet tells me that the driver was "trapped" in his car with no way to DRIVE away and leave the scene INSTEAD OF GETTING OUT OF THE CAR. GIVEN THE OPTION OF LEAVING THE SCENE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE WISER THING TO DO--- Now, if he was UNABLE to leave the scene/area, I agree with the other options.

Click to expand...

Does your state have a duty to retreat, or castle doctrine? I'm trying to understand where you are coming from here.

Leaving isn't always the right thing, or the safest thing to do.

Earlier this summer, I was in a situation with an angry driver, I tried leaving at first, he chased me, after 1/2 mile, I let him pass, hoping that would satisfy his ego, but he just stopped in front of me in the middle of the road. I was hoping he would do that, as it gave me the advantage. We bickered a little, and I was able to disappear before he got back in his car to chase again. He never knew I was armed, I kept that to myself, but it was nice to have the upper hand. Leaving isn't always an option.

stainless1911 said:

Does your state have a duty to retreat, or castle doctrine? I'm trying to understand where you are coming from here.

Leaving isn't always the right thing, or the safest thing to do.

Earlier this summer, I was in a situation with an angry driver, I tried leaving at first, he chased me, after 1/2 mile, I let him pass, hoping that would satisfy his ego, but he just stopped in front of me in the middle of the road. I was hoping he would do that, as it gave me the advantage. We bickered a little, and I was able to disappear before he got back in his car to chase again. He never knew I was armed, I kept that to myself, but it was nice to have the upper hand. Leaving isn't always an option.

Click to expand...

My state does NOT have a duty to retreat. In fact just the other day a 19 year old burglar was shot and killed by a homeowner as he was attempting to open the sliding glass door at the back of the home (homeowner shot through the glass). No charges have been filed against the homeowner as per statute he was 100% justified in his actions. Also, Utah law allows me to use any force needed up to and including force that may cause death to prevent a carjacking.
I am just saying if it is possible to avoid the situation that may have been the wisest choice. Obviously, if someone is not going to let it go then you have to do what you have to do.

My ONLY concern, and it wasn't that big to me (even though I was the one that used the word "blame") was to point out that IF he could have avoided the situation it may have been the wiser choice. Once the situtation has progressed where you have multiple potential assailants (some armed) then you have to do what you have to do--- and the prosecutor seems to be satisfied that this surviving driver WAS JUSTIFIED IN HIS ACTIONS.

I am well aware of ones limited options to successfully defend oneself or others with you WHILE YOU ARE INSIDE YOUR VEHICLE. That being said, IF one successfully avoid the confrontation then you don't have to deal with all the other stuff, INCLUDING FORGIVING YOURSELF FOR ACTIONS TAKEN THAT WERE LEGALLY JUSTIFIED BUT RESULTED IN YOUR BEING FORCED TO TAKE ANOTHER'S LIFE.

Very well, but please don't shout.

stainless1911 said:

Very well, but please don't shout.

Click to expand...

Please understand I was not shouting.... but emphasizing!