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.
stay safe.
The curiosity is quite understandable.
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.