here is a great scenario for discussion

[festus]

Would this be a case with a justifiable use of deadly force?
If no why?
If yes, at what point did it become justifiable?

Link Removed

 

[BluesStringer]

Would this be a case with a justifiable use of deadly force?

Without a doubt, yes. As I understand it, NC has a SYG law that extends to your vehicle.

If no why?

Nil.

If yes, at what point did it become justifiable?

I'm not going to say when it would be prudent to fire because we haven't seen video of the four separate car strikes, the angles and availability to adequately acquire the target, but at any point that the victim was able to conclusively determine that it was an attack with a vehicle, and not simply an accident, from that point on he would be justified. That could've been at the first hit depending on what preceded it, but definitely by the second strike there was no doubt. He even said as much on the 911 call. I think he was on the phone for the first hit too, and if that's true, he was already aware of some extreme aggressiveness that I would think would justify firing as the BG's car was bearing down on his the first time.

Blues

 

[walknotinfear]

In Florida I am 98% sure you would be justified in using deadly force to stop the threat. (I am no lawyer). Scary situation.

 

[BC1]

It isn't even a SYG issue. Even those states with a duty to retreat may stand their ground if they cannot retreat safely or if the aggressor continues to pursue. And there was absolutely a deadly threat. I'm assuming that father had no means to protect himself against someone armed wit a 2,500 pound bullet.

 

[tcox4freedom]

IMHO- The dad did all the right things-- called 911, drove to a safer & populated area, got his daughter out of the primary danger zone and sought safety for himself.

If he were armed, there would have been no safe opportunity to fire while being chased & rammed repeatedly. Since non of us were there, we can only speculate & imagine how things played out. As long as there was available cover & the relative safety of the store building, I see this as a "no-shoot" situation.

(Caveat- If the dad was being chased across the parking lot and the BG was attempting to run him over while trying to get to the store, I see this as possibly the first and only time where a hg may be able to safely come into to play.)


-

 

[UATKP]

After the second impact... time to draw and fire...

 

[wolf_fire]

Would this be a case with a justifiable use of deadly force?
If no why?
If yes, at what point did it become justifiable?

Link Removed

Is there really a question about this incident? A man with a 4000 lb weapon is trying to beat you and your daughter into either serious injury or death. Yes it most definitely would be justifiable to defend yourself against that.

When? When it became clear to you that you were fearful of severe bodily injury or death.

When would it be prudent? This all depends on where everyone is situated at the time. If you have no clear shot, then it wouldn't be prudent. If you risk other innocents being shot, then this wouldn't be prudent.

It's hard to stop a vehicle with a handgun. I have been trained not to shoot at windshields or tires of moving vehicles because a lot of times the bullet will ricochet off of them. So, how one would go about using justifiable force in this situation would be a bit tricky without knowing all the information.

 

[BC1]

IMHO- The dad did all the right things-- called 911, drove to a safer & populated area, got his daughter out of the primary danger zone and sought safety for himself.

If he were armed, there would have been no safe opportunity to fire while being chased & rammed repeatedly. Since non of us were there, we can only speculate & imagine how things played out. As long as there was available cover & the relative safety of the store building, I see this as a "no-shoot" situation.

(Caveat- If the dad was being chased across the parking lot and the BG was attempting to run him over while trying to get to the store, I see this as possibly the first and only time where a hg may be able to safely come into to play.)


-

I believe he should have been capped once the impact was determined deliberate. I also think when the aggressor left his car and entered the store he continued to be fair-game. Considering he has attempted to kill or inflict bodily harm four times I would believe the victim may assume he intends great harm. He intends to continue the assault. At this point drop him as soon as he gets in close.
.
A similar incident in NY in 2009 resulted in the driver being shot right behind the wheel by an off-duty cop who was hanging out at a bar where a patron began trying to ram people. Thank God its legal to carry in a bar here.
.
Link Removed
Link Removed

 

[tcox4freedom]

I believe he should have been capped once the impact was determined deliberate. I also think when the aggressor left his car and entered the store he continued to be fair-game. Considering he has attempted to kill or inflict bodily harm four times I would believe the victim may assume he intends great harm. He intends to continue the assault. At this point drop him as soon as he gets in close.
.
A similar incident in NY in 2009 resulted in the driver being shot right behind the wheel by an off-duty cop who was hanging out at a bar where a patron began trying to ram people. Thank God its legal to carry in a bar here.
.
Link Removed
Link Removed | PRIVATE OFFICER MEDIA[/URL]

I agree with you. I think he was within his rights to defend himself as soon as it was discovered the BG had severe malice & harmful intent on his mind. But, I think shooting from a moving vehicle at another moving vehicle is usually a BAD idea and a waste of ammunition. I think it's hard to focus on your driving and shoot very accurately when someone keeps ramming your car.

Up until the point where the victim parked the car and sought refuge for he & his daughter inside the store, the best available weapon he had at his disposal was his car. Once he was in a place where he & other motorist were out of danger, he could have then focused on a more definite & effective counter strike.

-

 

[SGT504MP]

A tough call. And a tough shot, how do you shoot at a car ramming you from behind? or the side? Through the rear window? How accurate do you think you could be? I mean you're trying to evade the mutt, and shoot at a moving vehicle at night at the same time? Good luck. And remember you're responsible for each round fired.


Lets say after being purposely rammed the third time as you enter the parking lot you, turn around (while your vehicle is still moving) and finally get a good sight picture. You take the shot and your round penetrates the glass and kills or incapacitates the driver. The out-of control vehicle now crashes into a woman pushing a shopping cart with a child in it and injures or kills them. Or mounts the curb and injures or kills a number of pedestrians. It would be hard to justify your actions as reasonable & prudent to a grand jury.


I think this dad, in dangerous and highly dynamic situation, made all the right moves.

 

[Cherokee]

I think there is no question of whether or not deadly force is authorized here, it is the matter of how you'd go about responsibly taking those shots. I agree with the masses here, when he got out of his car as well and started following them inside, that would've been the best time to introduce him to a wall of lead. He OBVIOUSLY had malicious intent.

Sent from my Windows Phone using Tapatalk