Carry a concealed Rottweiler.
Thread: Crazy gangster...
What do you guys think the driver in the PT Crusier should have done?
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Thomas Jefferson
Carry a concealed Rottweiler.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
If someone attacked me like that, they better be bullet proof.
Posted using my HTC Evo
There would have been no question..... i would have ended this encounter very quickly. attacking with a weapon i would have responded in kind.
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
I was shown this by a police firearms instructor a week ago. He said the gang banger was dead two weeks after this was made.
Would all of you please add an explanation of how your selected action comports (fancy term meaning matches up with) the laws of self defense in your state? I'm interested in seeing how some of you come to the decision you have reached.
To make it even more instructive, would you please indicate exactly when and which behaviors lead you to believe your decision will be supported under the law.
I'm not trying to suggest that there is, or is not, any one proper. or even best, answer as to what to do. What I'm asking is to see how decisions do or do not match up with what your state law(s) have to say. The more I read of this kind of explanation the better I think I can work out scenarios in my own head.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
well 90% of the time i do not travel alone. seeing as he was smashing the windows on the passenger side. that would be where my girlfriend sits. he clearly has a crowbar. which when struck to a window goes through. that is aggravated elevated assault with a deadly weapon. possibly attempted murder. thats where my conclusion of dropping him comes in. anyone who endagers my life or the lives of those around me instantly becomes a target and nothing more.
i would rather run out of blood, breath and life. and die fighting. than run out of ammo , and die with my pants down -Tom Scantas
I would have shot him on the spot but the "N" word wasn't cause for in the first comment section. He had a deadly weapon in his hand and using it to cause damage to property and possible a human being.
Doesn't the Castle Doctrine come in here?
He is attacking someone with a deadly weapon, the person is trapped within their car and the car is trapped in a traffic jam. The victim doesn't have much chance to escape the attack. There was no way for the victim to know the attacker's intent. But even just smashing windows with a person in the driver seat is incredibly dangerous(the attacked did smash at the driver side window). If they are lucky, they could escape unscathed or maybe a few cuts and scrapes. If they are not lucky, they could suffer severe bodily injury, including death.
So let's recap; you're driving your car down the road, stop at a traffic light, then out of nowhere this insane man with a crowbar starts waylaying your car. You have no idea who it is or why they are attacking you. You are unable to drive off, and getting out of your car would get you killed if the attacker decides to start hitting you. So you are trapped in a small box, with sharp, dangerous glass flying around you. You are facing an imminent threat to life and limb.
Texas has Stand Your Ground law, you are not required to retreat from anyplace that you have a legal right to be, be it your home or on a public road. This was a sudden, unprovoked attack that posed serious, significant and immediate threat to life and limb. Using force and deadly force is, in my opinion, justified under Texas law to stop this attack.
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
EDIT: Deadly force under Texas law is any force that can cause seriously bodily injury or death.
Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.
(2) "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.
(3) "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.
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
Because I do not believe that there is a safe, effective means to immediately escape the attack, I also feel that it would be justified under duty to retreat laws as well. Though I could be wrong.
Last edited by Jack House; 10-23-2011 at 05:21 AM.
Alabama would be a similar situation; trapped in traffic, smashing glass, crazy... one would assume he's about to enter the vehicle and terminate his life for forcible entry of a vehicle.
If I were in that situation, I would probably shoot. The minute the window disappears from the frame by force, I assume I am in danger of my life.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Let's see, I'm disabled, have severe health conditions and am blocked in where I can't escape. The second he got in front of my bumper I would have parked on his ass. If he was quick enough to avoid that, when he came at the windows, I would have drawn and shot him in self defense. Period. In my state of Louisiana, I would be well within my rights for all of the above as I was in fear for my life from an armed and violent attacker.
PS: I am VERY glad to read that this POS is dead!
Last edited by HeroHog; 10-24-2011 at 02:15 PM.
In our state, the first hit of the hammer might have been enough justification to fire, though it may have been difficult to prove in a court of law. Let him swing a few more times, complete with his violent, abusive rant, however, and no jury would have hesitated to acquit, although I seriously doubt any charges would have been pressed against the self-defender in the first place.To make it even more instructive, would you please indicate exactly when and which behaviors lead you to believe your decision will be supported under the law.
Here in NC, using deadly force to stop this attack would probably get you charged with something--manslaughter, illegal discharge of a firearm from inside a vehicle, illegal discharge of a firearm inside city limits, etc...
But as of 1 December 2011, the "Castle Doctrine" in NC will be extended to one's car, and NC residents will be OK to "stand their ground" if they are attacked while in their car. So if this attack happened on 2 Dec. 2011, you could shoot this thug with little or no worries, legally...
I'm bot sure what magical change occurs in the universe, or what sort of divine legal reality shift occurs on 1 December 2011, other than that is the day that our General Assembly has declared the new law to take effect. But I'm sure as hell glad that the good people of NC will have "Castle Doctrine" rights extended to their vehicles--which is how it SHOULD be everywhere, and how it SHOULD HAVE BEEN all along.
Here in MD, the only people who are allowed to shoot people during vehiclular attacks are LEOs, preferably if they (the cops) are intoxicated and patronize tranny hookers...
Last edited by Dreamer; 10-25-2011 at 09:28 PM.
It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
--Barry Goldwater, 1964
Agreed, Dreamer. It should be Castle rights extended throughout our country.
Oh, wait! They did that, back December 15, 1791. When were those Bill of Rights supposed to take effect, again?