When To Pull and or Shoot

[maat]

Hello, I'm new here. I'm interested in discussing situations that may lead to justified brandishing and shooting in self defense. I'm going to start by providing a YouTube video of a situation. This discussion is not limited to this occurrence and I welcome others to provide scenarios and videos to discuss this issue.

This may be a familiar video that has been addressed, but I'm new and have had no luck finding an ongoing scenario thread.

In this video, a car is being chased and eventually attacked by a cycle gang. At the point the biker smashes the drivers window, I would have shot the biker. Agree, disagree?

I've been on a highway where these nuts think they own the road. They can be very intimidating.

 

[Eidolon]

. justified brandishing

Doesn't exist. I think you may mean a justified defensive display. Basically if you would be otherwise justified in using deadly force you would be justified in threatening deadly force.

At the point the biker smashes the drivers window, I would have shot the biker. Agree, disagree?

Maybe, but even if he did there's no guarantee that it would have changed the outcome.

Ya pays your money and ya takes your chances

 

[bofh]

This particular incident has been discussed before in this thread: What would you do?

In general, learn skills that will help you to avoid situations and to deal with them when they happen. Learn how to defend yourself with an appropriate level of force. Learn the legal concepts of justifiable use of force, including justifiable homicide according to your state's law. Learn what not to do.

When someone smashes my car window with the intent to attack me, I am going to defend myself to the best of my abilities. That includes driving away if I can without injuring an innocent person or using the appropriate level of force against the attacker. My state, TN, has extended the castle doctrine to the car. Note that shooting an attacker while sitting in the car does have its own hazards and should be learned in a training class and practiced.

Now, what's next? There are multiple attackers. Will they flee? What's your plan? Do you stay with the car? The circumstances of the situation and your training decide that.

As for "brandishing", what does that even mean? Waiving your gun around to "warn" someone is something for movies and may very likely land you in jail in reality.

"Can I?" ... or "Should I?" are the wrong questions anyway. "Do I have to?" ... is the right question.

 

[maat]

This particular incident has been discussed before in this thread: What would you do?

In general, learn skills that will help you to avoid situations and to deal with them when they happen. Learn how to defend yourself with an appropriate level of force. Learn the legal concepts of justifiable use of force, including justifiable homicide according to your state's law. Learn what not to do.

When someone smashes my car window with the intent to attack me, I am going to defend myself to the best of my abilities. That includes driving away if I can without injuring an innocent person or using the appropriate level of force against the attacker. My state, TN, has extended the castle doctrine to the car. Note that shooting an attacker while sitting in the car does have its own hazards and should be learned in a training class and practiced.

Now, what's next? There are multiple attackers. Will they flee? What's your plan? Do you stay with the car? The circumstances of the situation and your training decide that.

As for "brandishing", what does that even mean? Waiving your gun around to "warn" someone is something for movies and may very likely land you in jail in reality.

"Can I?" ... or "Should I?" are the wrong questions anyway. "Do I have to?" ... is the right question.

Avoiding the situation goes without needing to say, we all know this. I'm looking to discuss actual scenarios where this is not available. The car was pinned. He did escape once. The guy was beat badly and had family in the car.

My question is: once the window is broken and they are attempting to open the door, do you shoot or not?

There are numerous other scenarios where one has to make quick decisions. IMO, being mentally and situationally prepared helps when seconds count.

I use brandishing as pulling your weapon as a deterrent or deesculator. Would showing the gun to the biker possibly stopped the break in?

 

[maat]

Doesn't exist. I think you may mean a justified defensive display. Basically if you would be otherwise justified in using deadly force you would be justified in threatening deadly force.



Maybe, but even if he did there's no guarantee that it would have changed the outcome.

Ya pays your money and ya takes your chances

.

True, but the outcome was bad anyway. I believe mental preparation is important, in this and other scenarios to prepare. IMO, the best option was to show the gun while the biker was walking up, then shoot him once he penetrated the car.

 

[bofh]

Avoiding the situation goes without need to say, we all know this. I'm looking to discuss actual scenarios where this is not available. The car was pinned. He did escape once. The guy was bear badly and had family in the car.

My question is: once the window is broken and they are attempting to open the door, do you shoot or not?

I answered that question!

There are numerous other scenarios where one has too make quick decisions. IMO, being mentally and situationally prepared helps when seconds count.

I use brandishing as pulling your weapon as a deterrent or deesculator. Would showing the gun to the biker possibly stopped the break in?

What you describe is illegal! It is also stupid, unless you want to motivate the biker to lawfully shoot you!

 

[Eidolon]

"Can I?" ... or "Should I?" are the wrong questions anyway. "Do I have to?" ... is the right question.

Really, this is the best answer you're going to get.

 

[bofh]

.

True, but the outcome was bad anyway. I believe mental preparation is important. Inset his and other scenarios to prepare. IMO, the best option was to show the gun while the biker was walking up, then shoot him once he penetrated the car.

You could be charged with murder. Once you show your gun, you applied lethal force without justification.

Stupid is as stupid does!

 

[SkippySanchez]

I answered that question!



What you describe is illegal! It is also stupid, unless you want to motivate the biker to lawfully shoot you!

"Brandishing" in a situation where one would otherwise be justified in a self-defense shooting is not illegal in Kansas. If showing the handgun stops the life-or-limb attack, that is legal.

That said, if you whip it out you better be prepared to use it. Just waving it around will likely get you shot.

 

[SkippySanchez]

You could be charged with murder. Once you show your gun, you applied lethal force without justification.

Stupid is as stupid does!

Charged with murder? Maybe. Convicted? Probably not. Depends on what lead up to the situation before the camera started rolling. Did the driver initiate the confrontation? Did he injure or kill the guy on the bike that he ran over? As much as we'd like this to change in this era of protesters blocking highways, it's illegal to intentionally hit someone with a motor vehicle. Some states are now crafting laws along these lines.

 

[maat]

Really, this is the best answer you're going to get.

Well, would you have had to under those circumstances?

 

[bofh]

"Brandishing" in a situation where one would otherwise be justified in a self-defense shooting is not illegal in Kansas. If showing the handgun stops the life-or-limb attack, that is legal.

Read what he wrote: "to show the gun while the biker was walking up". There has to be a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to justify the use of lethal force. Once that threat exists, one may point the gun at the threat and one may choose to shoot. Otherwise "pulling your weapon as a deterrent or deescalator" is illegal.

 

[maat]

You could be charged with murder. Once you show your gun, you applied lethal force without justification.

Stupid is as stupid does!

This makes no sense at all. The biker is clearly attacking the car. I would had the gun ready to shoot anyway. Showing it could have deterred the attack.

 

[maat]

Read what he wrote: "to show the gun while the biker was walking up". There has to be a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to justify the use of lethal force. Once that threat exists, one may point the gun at the threat and one may choose to shoot. Otherwise "pulling your weapon as a deterrent or deescalator" is illegal.

A biker walking up with a helmet in the manner he did clearly shows intent to harm.

 

[maat]

Charged with murder? Maybe. Convicted? Probably not. Depends on what lead up to the situation before the camera started rolling. Did the driver initiate the confrontation? Did he injure or kill the guy on the bike that he ran over? As much as we'd like this to change in this era of protesters blocking highways, it's illegal to intentionally hit someone with a motor vehicle. Some states are now crafting laws along these lines.

IMO, the driver had plenty of reason to believe he was being attacked before he ran over the biker to flee.

 

[bofh]

Charged with murder? Maybe. Convicted? Probably not. Depends on what lead up to the situation before the camera started rolling. Did the driver initiate the confrontation? Did he injure or kill the guy on the bike that he ran over? As much as we'd like this to change in this era of protesters blocking highways, it's illegal to intentionally hit someone with a motor vehicle. Some states are now crafting laws along these lines.

As I said, could. The post that I was replying to included changing the situation to showing the gun first, when there is no justification for it, then if that doesn't help shoot. Once you show your gun without justification as a threat, the biker has a right to self defense using lethal force.

This is why these discussion threads are useless. The complete situation, as it evolves, defines which actions one has to take and which actions are legal. Changing a part of the situation, changes everything, making everything hypothetical and guess work.

It is also generally not illegal to intentionally hit someone with a motor vehicle. The circumstances dictate if it is or not. The driver in the OP's video was not charged for running over the bikers. There is even an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the Hollywood Stuntz gang assault.

 

[bofh]

A biker walking up with a helmet in the manner he did clearly shows intent to harm.

You clearly do not understand the law then. What threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to justify the use of lethal force exists here? Good luck with that jury.

 

[bofh]

IMO, the driver had plenty of reason to believe he was being attacked before he ran over the biker to flee.

That wasn't the justification for using lethal force. The driver was boxed in and surrounded by the bikers. That's false imprisonment.

 

[bofh]

This makes no sense at all. The biker is clearly attacking the car. I would had the gun ready to shoot anyway. Showing it could have deterred the attack.

As I said, you clearly do not understand the law then.

Once the window is broken, there is no barrier between you and the attacker. That's usually when the justification for using lethal force applies. By that time, showing the gun to the biker is the same as pointing it at him. If he complies, good if he doesn't then you may lawfully use deadly force.

If the window is not broken and the biker is hammering at the car, you are not in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Hence, displaying your gun is illegal and stupid.

 

[Eidolon]

You could be charged with murder. Once you show your gun, you applied lethal force without justification.

Stupid is as stupid does!

Winning hearts and minds