Before continuing, first watch the clip below. The important part happens after about 25 seconds into the video.
What would you do?
So, put yourself in the situation of the driver in the blue car. What would you do if this happened to you while stuck in traffic? Would you be justified in using your firearm? I’ve asked a lot of people and many said, yes, it would be justifiable. Their reasoning stems from the fact that the man is clearly violent and may have caused serious or fatal injury to the driver. However, I do not agree.
Use of a firearm is not justifiable
In my opinion, using deadly force with your firearm in this scenario is not justifiable. Here’s why:
- The driver had some protection inside the car. The violent man was armed with a blunt instrument, but he didn’t brandish a firearm. While the driver’s property was in danger, I don’t think you can reasonably claim that his life was being threatened.
- The driver had other less-than-leathal options. For example, he could have hit and disabled the man with his car.
- Most importantly, looking around the immediate vicinity, I cannot see any safe backstop and it was a crowded area. A stray round, or one that overpenetrates, would likely have hit an innocent bystander.
Responsible ownership
Now put yourself in the situation of a bystander. Imagine that you and your loved-ones were in a nearby car. If I saw the driver get out and start shooting, I would be cursing the driver, not the initiator. Why? Because shooting in that environment is reckless.
Pro-firearms sites often focus on the right to use firearms for self-defense. We, however, are supposed to be peaceful and responsible owners of guns. In my opinion, responsibility is demonstrated in our unwillingness to use the firearm unless there is no other choice. This brings me to my point in the baby bat thread about the importance of carrying other tools for self-defense. For example, pepper-spray or a taser may have been more appropriate in this situation.
What do you think? How would you have reacted?
At first glance, yes, we might say that a use of FA would be appropriate. But, being responsible FA owner we should elude from harms way as much as possible. Taking life is not that easy as it looks.
The guy only hit the vehicle and he did not even try to enter the vehicle to do harm on the driver. What the driver did was the proper way to move away from the threat. That situation if you use your FA, then it is difficult to prove that your life is in danger (but of course if you have a very good lawyer it’s a different story). Human right group will be at your a** . Right now even some LEOs have difficulty in proving there action because of some group. IMO
If the attack was unprovoked and he came up to me and did that, I would draw my gun, point it at him, and order him to stop. If he refuses and tries to attack me with that kind of body language, I would shoot him.
Reason: Although he may not be armed himself, his body language, aggressiveness, and intent to cause grave harm is clear. The only reason why he was not able to inlfict grave physical injury was because the driver moved the car back and forth without getting out. Had the driver gotten out, she would have been assaulted and possibly severely beaten. For me, that is reason enough to shoot him.
@fallujah Interesting. Let’s say you shot and killed the guy, and fortunately no-one else was hurt. As we can see from the video, there are plenty of witnesses so that’s not a problem. How would this play out in court and where does the law stand in this situation?
I think it the US, it would depend on the laws of the particular state. In the UK even if you fought back with another blunt instrument, you could still be in trouble. How about Philippine law?
Since you’re a lawyer, I think you’re the best person to ask! 🙂
It would be difficult to predict what a court would rule in this situation. However, if were a judge trying the case, If the car owner shot the aggressor, I would acquit the shooter on the ground of self defense. The requisites for self-defense under the Revised Penal Code are:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
All of those three requisites must be present in order to claim self-defense. As we can see in the video, the aggressor simply attacked a vehicle owner for no reason at all. So there was unlawful aggression on his part. The intensity and gravity of the attack clearly showed the aggressor’s intent to cause grave or serious bodily harm to the car owner. And there was no provocation on the part of the car owner; he was simply attacked.
The key issue will be the reasonableness of shooting or using a gun against the aggressor. Again, in my opinion, the savagery of the attack and the body language of the attacker clearly showed his intent. Consequently, it was justified to shoot him.
Remember, though, that when you shoot the aggressor do so only so much as to stop him. Do not pump 30 rounds into him as that will give the impression that you are the aggressor, not him.
Let’s look at frame by frame…the assailant did go to the driver seat and bang the wind shield…at first glance we will be in shock and trying to analyze things…if that guy goes to my driver’s seat, I’ll drop my windows and point the gun and said STOP! LAST WARNING OR I’LL SHOOT!!!…if possible make a citizen’s arrest…until the cops came…if he stills continue to charge despite the yell’s… well let him have my LEADs!
Just like fallujah, I would probably draw my firearm and point it at the guy and order him to stop but I would not immediately fire at him. Not unless I am convinced that my life is in imminent danger. If I could flee I would, but if I cant and the guy breaks the window of my car to gain access to me then that’s the time I would probably discharge my firearm.
i don’t think i would shoot the man if i were alone. but if i were with my wife and kids, it’s a different story. i wouldn’t wait for a broken glass to cut my child’s face to draw my pistol and order him to stop. if he continues to agress us, i would have to shoot… both his thighs 🙂
but since i carry pepper spray too, i would use that first and see if that will suffice.
@rabidwolverine you make a very good distinction that I didn’t consider e.g. who is in the car with me? If it was just me and a driver or some male friends, I would try alternative means first. But if there were loved-ones in the car, then all bets are off and the guy probably signed his own death warrant. In that case I would get out of the car, give a verbal warning, and if he didn’t comply, shoot until he drops. Still, I would be worried about hitting an innocent bystander so I use JHPs in my carry pistol to prevent over-penetration.
Judgment on whether to shoot or not is a very difficult call. As you can see from the video, the action happened so fast, it’s hard to make a quick decision, especially if deadly force is to be used. The bottom line that should guide everyone is: Is the aggressor in a position to either kill you, or your loved ones, or is he capable of inflicting grave bodily harm. That is a diffcult judgment call on your part.
Use deadly force only as a LAST RESORT.
However, the flipside of that argument is that by the time you decide that it’s time to shoot and defend yourself, you may already be DEAD.
Use utmost discretion in drawing your gun, but once you commit yourself do not hesitate to use it. In other words once you draw your gun you ought to be prepared to shoot, otherwise do not draw it at all.
I have heard that in the US, shooting to wound could get you in serious trouble because it can be argued that your life was not in sufficient danger. Would that be the case here?
Yes definitely. But more importantly, when your life is in danger, you need to stop the threat immediately and not monkey around with warning shots or shooting to wound. Unlike in the movies, a gunshot wound to a limb or appendage is not a simple hole that you could patch up. It could cause severe enough damage to make you lose your leg or arm or cripple or paralyze the person for life, if not kill the person from loss of blood later. Legally, it’s nearly the same as if you killed him, with just a slight different length of penalty. Remember also that if you shoot him, whether he dies now or a year later, it’s the same as if you killed him outright. The legal effect is the same: your shot is still the proximate cause of his death.
Two shots center mass, and if he fails to go down, one shot in the head.
Very well said sir fallujah.
Two shots center mass, fails to go down, one shot in the head. And a very good lawyer.
very nice one sir..
mga sir hindi po ba applicable ang doctrine of self help dito? “Art.429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.”
what force is necessary to repel that kind of attack? sa criminal law dapat meron actual threat to your person to qualify for justifying circumstance pero sa civil law pwede gumamit ng force if yung threat eh sa property mo. pag ganyan nangyari sa akin he will definitely meet his maker.
Interesting information, I bookmark this page! buy viagra online viagra online purchase cialis buy levitra online sorry 🙁 d7fnqO2bdjkn7ass13aber
Usefull post. I bookmark this page. cialis professional online generic viagra generic cialis purchase levitra viagra professional online buy viagra soft buy propecia online
With only that blunt object he possesses and without a gun and that he even did not directly intend to inflict injury to the driver but rather just damaging the car as shown in the video, the driver did well in trying to elude the situation. That was the best action taken by the driver and bet had been followed by phone call to the authority. But, he should have redied at that point his firearm should the condition worsen to the max.