How would you have reacted to this???

[festus]

Sheriff's Office seeking alleged carjacker
Comments 9 | Recommend 0
April 16, 2010 5:21 PM
Brian Hughes
Florida Freedom Newspapers
Link Removed
CRESTVIEW - Police responded to a possible carjacking that had taken place at the intersection of Live Oak Church Road and John King Road around 12:30 p.m. this afternoon.

The male victim told police he was waiting to turn left when a black male got in passenger side of his car, pointed a handgun at him and told him to drive. The alleged carjacker directed the victim to drive him to Interstate 10, where they headed westbound toward Pensacola.

Because the car apparently left Crestview Police’s jurisdiction, the investigation was turned over to the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s office, police spokesman Lt. Andrew Schneider said.

The victim called and talked to his mother who phoned it in to Crestview Police, sheriff's spokeswoman Michele Nicholson said.

“After several miles the guy got out and ran to a 2000 full-sized Cadillac and jumped in and took off,” Nicholson said. “They put out a BOLO (be on the lookout) on the car all the way to New Orleans.”

Police are searching for a large black male, 6-feet, 5-inches tall, 280 lbs., with corn-rowed hair, dressed in a black T-shirt and black pants, Nicholson said. He should be considered armed and dangerous.

Nicholson said the victim was uninjured in the incident.

 

[HK4U]

First he would not get in my car because I keep the doors locked. Second I am always armed. I may not have been able to pull may gun at first but when he turned his back on me to exit the car I would do my best to make sure he never got the chance to car jack someone else.

 

[Itstjs]

If that happened to me, I would more than likely have seen him coming for one. Two I would have taken him where he needed to go, and like HK4U said, when he got out, I would have shot him dead the minute he stepped out of the car...

 

[mojo]

Be aware of your surroundings at all time......like HK, my doors are always locked; but even so it seems I am always "observing" especially when I am stopped.

 

[Alaska444]

If that happened to me, I would more than likely have seen him coming for one. Two I would have taken him where he needed to go, and like HK4U said, when he got out, I would have shot him dead the minute he stepped out of the car...

CCW allows you to shoot to stop in a situation where the aggressor has the ability, the opportunity and imminent jeopardy to cause great bodily harm or death to you. We are not authorized to shoot to kill, so I would not recommend making a statement like yours above. Since this is a public forum, it could come back to haunt you in a later courtroom if you are ever involved in a situation. Lastly, when the bad guy is getting out and running away loses the effect of imminence. I don't believe that is the right time to think of shooting to stop, he has already ended the threat to you. Shooting to kill a BG to prevent a future crime is a crime in itself. I would not go there. Just came back from my NV CCW class today so all these issues are quite fresh in my mind.

 

[CDR_Glock]

Unfortunately, the gun was already drawn on him. Even if a gun could be drawn the carjacker already has the advantage.

My only observation is that if the guy with the gun did not put his seat belt on, I would hit something to ensure he would feel the force of the collision. Although I would be minimally hurt, he would likely be dead (more likely) or severely injured enough for me to disarm him and wait for the police/EMS after/while he was bleeding to death.

 

[Woody1960]

Be aware of your surroundings. My doors are always locked. I always keep a safe distance between me and the car ahead on me.Heck I dont even park any where I can get blocked in.:wink:

 

[mappow]

I like the seat belt option CDR. If I didn't put him through the windshield after I hit something, he'd have lead poisoning from the rounds as he bounced off of it.
I agree with you also Alaska on the threat departing the vehicle is now NOT a threat. BUT I do take extreme exception the your statement "We are not authorized to shoot to kill". IMHO-you'd best shoot to kill. YOU have evaluated a situation that is in imminent danger to yourself and or your family. This assessment, in your mind, put you in a position that you deemed this incident is life threatening. YOUR only option is to meet the threat head on and kill or be killed. IE..Self defense. Hence the Laws on the books for CWP and your right to defend your self.

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

 

[HK4U]

We teach in the classes in Texas that you always say if asked, "I shot to stop the threat". You never tell the authorities or anyone else that your intentions were to kill. Now if the BG happens to expire then so be it. As for shooting him as he flees if he just pulled off an armed car jacking I believe that is a felony and under Texas law you can shot to stop the fleeing subject.

 

[ecocks]

I like the seat belt option CDR. If I didn't put him through the windshield after I hit something, he'd have lead poisoning from the rounds as he bounced off of it.
I agree with you also Alaska on the threat departing the vehicle is now NOT a threat. BUT I do take extreme exception the your statement "We are not authorized to shoot to kill". IMHO-you'd best shoot to kill. YOU have evaluated a situation that is in imminent danger to yourself and or your family. This assessment, in your mind, put you in a position that you deemed this incident is life threatening. YOUR only option is to meet the threat head on and kill or be killed. IE..Self defense. Hence the Laws on the books for CWP and your right to defend your self.

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

I don't necessarily agree with a blanket statement that a threat moving away from you is not a threat. Too much is dependent on the exact situation encountered. The guy could very well exit the car, turn back and shoot, reasoning that he doesn't want witnesses and didn't want your blood or brains to splatter on him in the confines of the vehicle. When drugs are involved and the individual is not thinking straight, they can reach decisions and take actions that are not reasoned or even fully controlled physically. Someone else could be there (at the destination) telling him to elminate witnesses or get your wallet, get that ring he saw on your finger, take your kid, whatever.

Simply, like so many of these scenarios, it is impossible to know the exact details of how you would react based on the criminal's behavior, the environment, your level of training, where your firearm is located, etc.

 

[handgonnetoter]

I don't necessarily agree with a blanket statement that a threat moving away from you is not a threat. Too much is dependent on the exact situation encountered. The guy could very well exit the car, turn back and shoot, reasoning that he doesn't want witnesses and didn't want your blood or brains to splatter on him in the confines of the vehicle. When drugs are involved and the individual is not thinking straight, they can reach decisions and take actions that are not reasoned or even fully controlled physically. Someone else could be there (at the destination) telling him to elminate witnesses or get your wallet, get that ring he saw on your finger, take your kid, whatever.

Simply, like so many of these scenarios, it is impossible to know the exact details of how you would react based on the criminal's behavior, the environment, your level of training, where your firearm is located, etc.

I agree. Years ago another guy and I were mugged at gun point in Detroit. We were on our way to get our physicals for the service. I did not have a gun, as they did not issue permits back then. Even if I would have been carrying, the chances of me being able to get my gun into action - his gun was about two feet away from our faces - were small. He had our butts dead to rights. We lost our money, but not our lives. Some situations will allow us to deploy our weapons in time, others don't. I would have been mad enough to shoot that car jacker in the back, but I don't know if I would have or not. If he were facing me with gun in hand - and I had the opportunity - in a heart beat. Lets just hope and pray that if we ever find ourselves in such a pickle, we react in such a way that we stand our ground properly without landing ourselves in jail.:biggrin:

 

[Alaska444]

Having now taken 3 ccw classes in the last 3 months, we most certainly do not have the express authority to shoot to kill, only to stop. If they stop because they are dead, then that is the risk that they took when the instigated the aggression. A lawful shooting is one where we intended only to stop the threat and it must be immediately related to a threat to great bodily harm or death. If the threat is leaving the car, you will be on very shaky ground to say the threat was still imminent and may actually be considered murder especially if you have stated in public that is what you would do in that circumstance. In addition, preventing future crimes is NOT an authorized CCW right either. What we say on public forums can and have in certain cases come back to haunt the person who stated them. THe last class I took in Las Vegas really brought home how great a responsibility we have with CCW permits. That should permeate our public forum talks as well. It is discoverable evidence mind you should some one want to know what you really think about different situations.

 

[wolfhunter]

So far, the responses to the OP have been, "It wouldn't happen to me because..." and "I'd do as directed until I can (slam on the brakes & risk getting shot while disarming him) or (Shoot him in the back after he gets out)"

The first set of answers ignore the posed question. The second set falls into the two variants I've mentioned. The first of these keeps the answerer at risk through out the scenario with increased risk at the point of action against the BG. The second poses huge legal issues. All of these answers are full of macho bravado and wishful seen-it-in-a-movie thoughts.

If, as in the OP, the BG is pointing a gun and getting in before you've spotted them, do as you're told! Once the BG is IN your car, pointing a gun, you are a hostage. Observe the BG for identifying marks, jewelry, clothing, hair style/color, size/build, etc. When the BG gets out of your vehicle, observe where they go and the vehicle/building they go into. Yes, get your weapon out in case the BG decides to eliminate a witness, but that's it. Once you can discretely and safely call 911, give them the information you've gathered.

 

[Saber]

Finally, this response is on point, as to ‘What would you do?’. I agree, once I have a gun pointed at me, I would comply unless I felt the situation was absolutely critical i.e. forced to go down some desolate road whereby the BG was likely to kill me. Then, I would take my chances and do whatever comes to mind in a strictly 'do or die' choice. As I learned in the military, the best chance of escape is in the first few seconds or minutes...

 

[theicemanmpls]

First he would not get in my car because I keep the doors locked. Second I am always armed. I may not have been able to pull may gun at first but when he turned his back on me to exit the car I would do my best to make sure he never got the chance to car jack someone else.

HK, if I remember correctly, you claim to be a former law enforcement officer with many years of experience. Let me get this straight, you are advising civilians to back shoot a felon who is leaving the scene of the crime? Is a police officer allowed to back shoot escaping felons if they pose no threat?

IMO, the time for DGU has passed. The bad guy leaving your vehicle is clearly not a threat. While car jacking is a most serious felony, IMO, one is allowed to use DGU, to prevent the crime, not to catch the criminal.

 

[HK4U]

HK, if I remember correctly, you claim to be a former law enforcement officer with many years of experience. Let me get this straight, you are advising civilians to back shoot a felon who is leaving the scene of the crime? Is a police officer allowed to back shoot escaping felons if they pose no threat?

IMO, the time for DGU has passed. The bad guy leaving your vehicle is clearly not a threat. While car jacking is a most serious felony, IMO, one is allowed to use DGU, to prevent the crime, not to catch the criminal.

Read the Texas penal code from cover to cover. Let me know what you find.

 

[6shootercarry]

I keep the doors locked so entry would have been difficult.

If he had raised the gun in the window I'd be on the gas, car in front of me or not. Get some attention!! and get moving away from the threat. If there were no car in front of me problem solved. Stop just up the road a piece and call police. Keep an eye on the jackass and wait for the police to arrive.

If he failed to get you the next person to the light will be his next victim possibly. If he does get into another car by force follow that other can and stay on the line with police directing them.

Yea, lots of variables involved here. I took my best "shot" at it...

Peace...

 

[6shootercarry]

HK, if I remember correctly, you claim to be a former law enforcement officer with many years of experience. Let me get this straight, you are advising civilians to back shoot a felon who is leaving the scene of the crime? Is a police officer allowed to back shoot escaping felons if they pose no threat?

IMO, the time for DGU has passed. The bad guy leaving your vehicle is clearly not a threat. While car jacking is a most serious felony, IMO, one is allowed to use DGU, to prevent the crime, not to catch the criminal.

I had this discussion with a LEO I know and it was filled with what if's.

If the police officer has reason to believe that the fleeing suspect is a danger to others than a judgment can be made to use force.
The decision was upheld.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

In the case written about here in this post, the suspect was described as being armed and used the gun in commission of a felony. I would consider that a reason for use of force and I believe a jury would as well. The fact that a gun was pointed at me, be it loaded or unloaded, I consider that an act of aggression. I don't read minds I read actions... His intent was to shoot...

Peace...

 

[HK4U]

I had this discussion with a LEO I know and it was filled with what if's.

If the police officer has reason to believe that the fleeing suspect is a danger to others than a judgment can be made to use force.
The decision was upheld.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

In the case written about here in this post, the suspect was described as being armed and used the gun in commission of a felony. I would consider that a reason for use of force and I believe a jury would as well. The fact that a gun was pointed at me, be it loaded or unloaded, I consider that an act of aggression. I don't read minds I read actions... His intent was to shoot...

Peace...

Good points. I will also add that what a person can and can not do varies quite a bit by where he lives. For instance what a law abiding citizens can do here might get you thrown in jail in CA. In Texas we are less tolerant of criminals. Quite a few years back, I think it might have even been before we had the right to carry, a man was sitting in his truck in the parking lot of a local mall. He witnessed a man shoot and kill a woman and take off in his vehicle. The citizen pulled out his 44 mag and shot and killed the shooter as he was attempting to leave the scene. The guy had no legal reason at the time to be carrying a hand gun and yet he was no billed by the grand jury. Heck he might even been given an award by the police dept. I don't know.

 

[GETMRUTN]

I don't necessarily agree with a blanket statement that a threat moving away from you is not a threat. Too much is dependent on the exact situation encountered. The guy could very well exit the car, turn back and shoot, reasoning that he doesn't want witnesses and didn't want your blood or brains to splatter on him in the confines of the vehicle. When drugs are involved and the individual is not thinking straight, they can reach decisions and take actions that are not reasoned or even fully controlled physically. Someone else could be there (at the destination) telling him to elminate witnesses or get your wallet, get that ring he saw on your finger, take your kid, whatever.

Simply, like so many of these scenarios, it is impossible to know the exact details of how you would react based on the criminal's behavior, the environment, your level of training, where your firearm is located, etc.

+1 Very well put.