Road Rage... Bad News!

[DrewGunner]

imported post

This happen to a friend of mine the other day, I don't have all the details but I thought I'd throw it on the board.

My friend, call her Susie, is driving home the other day on 518, a short highway in South Seattle. A car races up next to her and cuts her off, she honks. The guy flips his lid! Rolls the window down, starts yelling at her, flips her off, brake checks her... Then he pulls a gun out and points it at her!!! :cuss::banghead::what:She freaks outs, calls the cops and races off the freeway to try and get away from this psycho. Pulls up to a red light, cars in front of her, blocking her. Guy pulls up next to her, gets out, gun in hand, punches her window and spits on her car, the whole time waving his gun around. She manages to get away. Very shaken up but unharmed,thank god!

The police later find him and arrest him.

She now carries a colt .25 cal. (smallest gun I've ever seen).

 

[ConditionThree]

imported post

May I suggest a turret mounted ma duece?

All kidding aside, I think this brandishing bozo really needed to try that with any other lawfully armed citizen. Im certain he wouldnt have gotten very far attempting to intimidate someone prepared to defend themselves.

Tell "Susie" to upcaliber her self defense weapon. A .25 will just make a fat man angry, unless you hit him in the eye.

 

[DrewGunner]

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

May I suggest a turret mounted ma duece?

All kidding aside, I think this brandishing bozo really needed to try that with any other lawfully armed citizen. Im certain he wouldnt have gotten very far attempting to intimidate someone prepared to defend themselves.

Tell "Susie" to upcaliber her self defense weapon. A .25 will just make a fat man angry, unless you hit him in the eye.

He'd be layin on a slab if that would have been me.

In the eye? Theres a 50/50 chance the perp could be wear glasses, in that case it would probably bounce off. Better to stick it up there nose... yea, .25 cal is too small i'm working on getting her a .380 or 9mm but shes a small girl and has never shot a gun before.

 

[eBratt]

imported post

This situation presents an interesting dilemma that I think merits discussion.

It appears she was on a four lane stretch of road (two lanes each direction). If it had been you in the car, would you have shot from your vehicle through both your windows, into the other vehicle?

While I think all of our initial reactions to this would be to shoot the person threatening you with a gun, and there is no duty to retreat necessary, I am thinking that hitting the brakes might be the safest bet out there.

Let's just say that your aim is as good and you get that less-than-likely one shot kill. What happens to his car that was going 70 mph? What happens to his passengers? His kid in the back seat? To the car behind him? To your car? To anyone who happens to be on the side of the road? If this isn't a divided highway, what about oncoming traffic?

By eliminating your immediate threat, you may be creating a lethal hazard for several if not dozens of people around you.

Hands down, if I were stopped and threatened as she was when at the red light, I would take action. But when traveling 70 mph...I admit that I would probably go for as hasty a retreat as I could. Eliminating the threat-er may not stop the danger to your life.

Anyone else's thoughts?

 

[just_a_car]

imported post

Agreed eBratt. On the highway, you're better off letting them speed off and stopping on the side of the roadway after calling state patrol if you have a cellphone. Then if they also stop and approach, I'd say lethal force is definitely warranted and necessary if they are approaching with a gun.

 

[GreatWhiteLlama]

imported post

DrewGunner wrote:

i'm working on getting her a .380 or 9mm but shes a small girl and has never shot a gun before.

Whoa!

Get that girl to the range! Never let someone go around armed with no idea how to use the thing. A basic gun safety class would be better but she needs to put a couple hundred rounds through it before she ends up in a position where she might need it.

Secondly, 9mm is the smallest caliber that should be used for self defense. <--emphasized period

If you want to get her a small gun, I would strongly recommend the Kahr P9 or PM9. They are arguably the best small conceal carry guns out there. I carry the P9 and have been more than happy with it.

 

[HankT]

imported post

DrewGunner wrote:

My friend, call her Susie, is driving home the other day on 518, a short highway in South Seattle. A car races up next to her and cuts her off, she honks. The guy flips his lid! Rolls the window down, starts yelling at her, flips her off, brake checks her... Then he pulls a gun out and points it at her!!! :cuss::banghead::what:She freaks outs, calls the cops and races off the freeway to try and get away from this psycho. Pulls up to a red light, cars in front of her, blocking her. Guy pulls up next to her, gets out, gun in hand, punches her window and spits on her car, the whole time waving his gun around. She manages to get away. Very shaken up but unharmed,thank god!

The police later find him and arrest him.

Sounds like a goof with a gun to me.

Too bad there is no way to keep guns away from such types.

Unfortunately, that goof with a gun who goes on a tantrum like this hurts my rights just a little bit.

If his behavior was as described, I hope they take away his gun rights for a long time. Hell, forever would be OK with me. Make him sell off his guns and throw him in the cooler for a year or two.

 

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

DrewGunner wrote:

This happen to a friend of mine the other day, I don't have all the details but I thought I'd throw it on the board.

My friend, call her Susie, is driving home the other day on 518, a short highway in South Seattle. A car races up next to her and cuts her off, she honks. The guy flips his lid! Rolls the window down, starts yelling at her, flips her off, brake checks her... Then he pulls a gun out and points it at her!!! :cuss::banghead::what:She freaks outs, calls the cops and races off the freeway to try and get away from this psycho. Pulls up to a red light, cars in front of her, blocking her. Guy pulls up next to her, gets out, gun in hand, punches her window and spits on her car, the whole time waving his gun around. She manages to get away. Very shaken up but unharmed,thank god!

The police later find him and arrest him.

She now carries a colt .25 cal. (smallest gun I've ever seen).

Do they know WHY he did this at all ???

Did he mistake the ID of "Susie" so that so would be the victim of yet another gang related "wrong" Id shooting.

We've had a couple of those here in Utah .

 

[gregma]

imported post

eBratt wrote:

Anyone else's thoughts?

I would have done what I actually *have* had to do once. Although that did not involve a firearm.

#1 - Call 911!
#2 - Stay on with 911 while you continue to drive on the freeway, avoiding the other person as much as possible.
#3 - Wait for WSP to catch up and take over.
#4 - As soon as WSP gets involved, pull to the shoulder and wait. The 911 operator will direct you from there.

Yes, in my situation I had to drive almost 20 miles farther than I wanted to, but getting off the freeway puts you into stop lights which (as she found out) is NOT a good situation with some punk trying to make a point.

If you don't have a cell phone, then stay on the freeway, blaring your horn, flashing your lights. Someone else will call 911 guaranteed.

 

[DrewGunner]

imported post

Ebratt-- I agree. I've never shot from a moving vehicle before. Chances of hitting someone else would be far greater than hitting him i think. I don't even want to think about what would happen to the car after he was shot going 60. The only option there is to just get away from him. When your cornered at a red light with some wacko bangin on your window with a gun, now thats a different story (thats when his life would have ended).



T-rav -- She hadn't shot a gun until she acquired the colt 25. She's been to the range a few times now. I agree, I've been pushing her to go to a gun safety course or two.

 

[gregma]

imported post

DrewGunner wrote:

I agree, I've been pushing her to go to a gun safety course or two.

And I would recommend The Firearms Acadamy of Seattle for the Gun Safety class. It's free for one, and the best I've taken yet!

http://www.firearmsacademy.com/

 

[DrewGunner]

imported post

gregma wrote:

DrewGunner wrote:

I agree, I've been pushing her to go to a gun safety course or two.

And I would recommend The Firearms Acadamy of Seattle for the Gun Safety class. It's free for one, and the best I've taken yet!

http://www.firearmsacademy.com/

Hey, thanks for the link.

 

[John Hardin]

imported post

gregma wrote:

eBratt wrote:

Anyone else's thoughts?

I would have done what I actually *have* had to do once. Although that did not involve a firearm.

#1 - Call 911!
#2 - Stay on with 911 while you continue to drive on the freeway, avoiding the other person as much as possible.
#3 - Wait for WSP to catch up and take over.
#4 - As soon as WSP gets involved, pull to the shoulder and wait. The 911 operator will direct you from there.

Thanks for the BTDT report, Greg, valuable information.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Has anyone mentioned not honking at people that cut you off? (Just asking if this aspect has been examined. Not criticizing. )

Its my understanding that in order to be a perfect defense, the person who used lethal force in self-defense must not have contributed to the difficulty, needing to be free of blame in even in the minutest degree. It is also my understanding that contributing to the difficulty, but still a true act ofself-defense, may be get one charged with one of the versions of manslaughter. The distinction being contributing to the difficulty. I forget which version of manslaughter.

Then there is the whole civil lawsuit thing.

 

[joshmmm]

imported post

IANAL, yet... but I just took Criminal law this past semester.

We discussed imperfect defense to criminal law but, as far as I know, there is no suc thing as a "perfect defense" in the terms of criminal law--I suppose you could say it is the opposite of an imperfect defense???.

In State v. Abbott the New Jersey supreme court ruled that a duty to retreat does not exist when using a force less than lethal. Thus, if pushed or punched, one does not have a duty to retreat and may respond with a less than lethal amount of force similar to the amount of force needed to stop the asault.

The court stated further that in regards to using deadly force and when it would negate self-defense to a murder charge"if the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating." (keywords are, according to my textbook, knows and with complete safety-- IE: hindsight is not the view, we are talking about knowing at the moment).

We are talking about a honk--an action that would certainly not allow for the use of self-defense if the person being honked at opened fire on the honker. Thus he had no business assaulting her with the weapon (threatening with a weapon is considered assault).

We then come back to whether the honk would negate a self-defense for her if she had returned fire against him assaulting herwith a deadly weapon; iow: did she become the aggressor when she honked? If so (an idea I think would be tough to suggest--as citizen is, let alone prove) we would have to determine if self-defense would be available to her.

In United States v. Peterson the judge said that mere words do not constitute provocation or aggression. He further stated that if you withdraw from an altercation by words or acts, that self-defense is once again available. In this situation, a honk would probably be equal to words and is thus not a provocation or aggression--she is not the aggressor and self defense is still viable.

The case goes on saying that it has long been accepted that one cannot support a claim of self-defense by a self-generated necessity to kill. The right of homicidal self-defense is granted only to those free from fault in the difficulty; it is denied to slayers who incite the fatal attack, encourage the fatal quarrel or otherwise promote the necessitous occasion for taking life.

Nowhere in the situation described did the woman incite an assault on her. Honking is an everyday occurrence that we are all accustomed to. Honking is no more inciteful, most likely, than whatever caused her to honk. Because she did not aggress the guy with the gun, he was in fact the aggressor when he assaulted her with the weapon. In a civil society, we can certainly not permit assault against people for legal everyday actions. Thus, we can not deny her right of self-defense against assault when the assailant is the aggressor.

We also know, and I'm not going into case law on this, that when threatened (assaulted) with a gun, self-defense shooting is justified if you reasonably believed that your life was in imminent danger. If she had the gun pointed at her, a reasonable person would certainly believe his or her life was in danger and would be permitted to return fire against her assailant-- the aggressor.

I hope this makes sense, I tried to compress a lot of information into as small a space as possible.

 

[longwatch]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Sounds like a goof with a gun to me.

Too bad there is no way to keep guns away from such types.

Unfortunately, that goof with a gun who goes on a tantrum like this hurts my rights just a little bit.

If his behavior was as described, I hope they take away his gun rights for a long time. Hell, forever would be OK with me. Make him sell off his guns and throw him in the cooler for a year or two.

Actually sounds like criminal with a gun to me.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

joshmmm wrote:

SNIP IANAL, yet... but I just took Criminal law this past semester.

We discussed imperfect defense to criminal law but, as far as I know, there is no suc thing as a "perfect defense" in the terms of criminal law--I suppose you could say it is the opposite of an imperfect defense???.

Good post. Thanks.

To help with what is meant by a "perfect defense" see if you can find a copy of Wallace vs US. I don't have a copy with me at the moment and can't cite the United States Reports indexing. Its from 1896. I'm pretty sure the words used are "perfect defense" and "imperfect defense," but I could be wrong. One of the things you will notice is that the opinion addresses an incident where force escalated to lethal force, as opposed to verbal difficulty escalating to lethal force. Thanks for clarifying.

I read the opinion in the book, Supreme Court Gun Cases by Stephen Halbrook, David Kopel, and Alan Korwin. Bloomfield Press, copyright 2004.

 

[joshmmm]

imported post

I have looked up the wallace case and found that words can signal an intent and may be introduced as evidence of malice, premeditation, etc. Basically, words can be used to show the mens rea (state of the evil mind) required to convict of murder vs. manslaughter, etc.

In the Lexis Nexis summary it states: "Where a difficulty is intentionally brought on for the purpose of killing the deceased, the fact of imminent danger to the accused constitutes no defence; but where the accused embarks in a quarrel with no felonious intent, or malice, or premeditated purpose of doing bodily harm or killing, and under reasonable belief of imminent danger he inflicts a fatal wound, it is not murder."

The second note states: "Whenever a party by his own wrongful act produces a condition of things wherein it becomes necessary for his own safety that he should take life or do serious bodily harm, then indeed the law wisely imputes to him his own wrong and its consequences, to the extent that they may and should be considered in determining the grade of offence, which but for such acts would never have been occasioned. How far and to what extent he will be excused or excusable in law must depend upon the nature and character of the act he was committing, and which produced the necessity that he should defend himself. When his own original act was in violation of law, then the law takes that fact into consideration in limiting his right of defence and resistance whilst in the perpetration of such unlawful act. If he was engaged in the commission of a felony, and, to prevent its commission, the party seeing it or about to be injured thereby makes a violent assault upon him, calculated to produce death or serious bodily harm, and in resisting such attack he slays his assailant, the law would impute the original wrong to the homicide and make it murder. But if the original wrong was or would have been a misdemeanor, then the homicide growing out of or occasioned by it, though in self defence from any assault made upon him, would be manslaughter under the law."

This case further supports the position that honking, with no malicious intent (perhaps swerving, blaring the horn, tailgating, gesturing, etc. could create a malicious intent) can not negate a self-defense argument.

 

[joshmmm]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

joshmmm wrote:

SNIP IANAL, yet... but I just took Criminal law this past semester.

We discussed imperfect defense to criminal law but, as far as I know, there is no suc thing as a "perfect defense" in the terms of criminal law--I suppose you could say it is the opposite of an imperfect defense???.

Good post. Thanks.

To help with what is meant by a "perfect defense" see if you can find a copy of Wallace vs US. I don't have a copy with me at the moment and can't cite the United States Reports indexing. Its from 1896. I'm pretty sure the words used are "perfect defense" and "imperfect defense," but I could be wrong. One of the things you will notice is that the opinion addresses an incident where force escalated to lethal force, as opposed to verbal difficulty escalating to lethal force. Thanks for clarifying.

I read the opinion in the book, Supreme Court Gun Cases by Stephen Halbrook, David Kopel, and Alan Korwin. Bloomfield Press, copyright 2004.

I have found the perfect defense. In the Wallace case the court cites Reed v. state (Texas):

"In Reed v. State, the Court of Appeals of [**862] Texas, in treating of the subject of self defence, said: "It may be divided into two general classes, to wit, perfect and imperfect right of self defence. A perfect right of self defence can only obtain and avail where the party pleading it acted from necessity, and was wholly free from wrong or blame in occasioning or producing the necessity which required his action. If, however, he was in the wrong -- if he was himself violating or in the act of violating the law -- and on account of his own wrong was placed in a situation wherein it became necessary for him to defend himself against an attack made upon himself, which was superinduced or created by his own wrong, then the law justly limits his right of self defence, and regulates it according to the magnitude of his own wrong. Such a state of case may be said to illustrate and determine what in law would be denominated the imperfect right of self defence."

 

[apjonas]

imported post

What's the guy's name? I can't find a newspaper account or local TV report of the incident.