Drive By-WWYD?

[Wienerdogtroy]

The BB has a nominal caliber of .177 inches...the .17 HMR has a caliber of .172 inches. And at even a slight distance, the average human eye cannot tell the difference between those two and/or .22 LR or .22 Magnum barrel openings...pointing a BB gun at someone is a very stupid and very dangerous thing to do...this is the sort of info that needs to be spread by law enforcement via "the local news". It would certainly be tragic to read that some kid got some holes punched in him due to pointing a BB gun at someone, but who's fault would it be if they did? I'd say the parents who never taught their kids a darned thing about firearms safety, for starters. The list is longer than that, of course, but its got to start somewhere...

I want to make it VERY CLEAR that I was NOT advocating shooting at a moving vehicle in a neighborhood or anything of the sort. I was merely pointing out the danger to the kid who points a BB gun at someone. I understand the forum rules about not advocating illegal or unsafe conduct.

Agreed. I don't think anyone is advocating that.

[Wienerdogtroy]

If you did shoot one of these kids - you might have a defense criminally - but I'm betting the entire family is going to sue in civil court and probably win.

The frivolous lawsuit should get tossed by summary judgement if it even makes it that far. There's civil immunity for crime victims who fight back with justified deadly force.

Meanwhile, I think the entire neighborhood should sue the family for all the shot up windows and other malicious intentional property damage. I think parents are still responsible for their minor children. That would be a small step to justice.

Don't hold your breath on that. Few cases are knocked out on summary judgement.

[srothstein]

If you did shoot one of these kids - you might have a defense criminally - but I'm betting the entire family is going to sue in civil court and probably win.

The frivolous lawsuit should get tossed by summary judgement if it even makes it that far. There's civil immunity for crime victims who fight back with justified deadly force.

Meanwhile, I think the entire neighborhood should sue the family for all the shot up windows and other malicious intentional property damage. I think parents are still responsible for their minor children. That would be a small step to justice.

Don't hold your breath on that. Few cases are knocked out on summary judgement.

One reason that few cases are thrown out on summary judgment is that few lawyers will take a case that is a clear loser. The law is clear that they will lose on a justified shooting, so the plaintiff's attorney must see enough to argue the justification before taking the case. I would think that a case of a teenager pointing a BB gun at someone would justify the resultant shooting pretty clearly. For the police officer in the valley a few weeks ago, the courts seemed to accept this as justification, even though there were some reporters and the suspect's family were less accepting of the justification.

[Matt78665]

Was at a company Christmas party in very nice neighborhood in Austin. Kids driving around shooting paint guns (at my truck unfortunately). We had same discussion.......how would we know if weapon stuck out the car window shot paint balls or real bullets? In the split second you have to decide it would be very difficult.

[bizarrenormality]

Don't hold your breath on that. Few cases are knocked out on summary judgement.

Few cases in general? Or few cases where the law says there's civil immunity?

[Heartland Patriot]

I would like to say "Thank You" to srothstein for helping to clarify things. I believe that he actually has some background in that area of legal affairs here in the State of Texas. Just because many people get successfully sued after a shooting is ruled justified IN OTHER STATES, does NOT make that true here in Texas. And, as on many things of that nature, my hat is off to folks like Mr. Cotton, the TSRA, the NRA and many others who have helped us to make our laws more just in this state than in places such as California and New York.

[C-dub]

I'm thinking that there also might be big difference in the glass used in cars from then compared to now. IDK, what do you think?

[WSimons]

In response to the original question, duck, draw, and wait. Preferably doing the first two as rapidly as possible. Get behind cover, weapon ready. If it becomes apparent that the threat is in fact only perceived and not real, reholster. If the threat is never dispelled, wait. If at all possible to evade the threat safely, do so. Otherwise, attempt to get as much information about the vehicle (even make/model/color is better than nothing) without risking undue (and unsafe) exposure. If, in the unfortunate event it becomes apparent that your cover is insufficient, take action to neutralize the threat.

I've had this conversation before, and a lot of people have asked... why draw if you're taking cover?
My response? How long before that cover's blown and you're spotted? Besides that, why NOT? If you're in a situation where someone's riding around shooting (or displaying something that looks perceptibly like a gun) that sure as heck qualifies as a threat in my book, and until the danger passes, one way or another, I'd rather be ready to defend myself. They've already got the upper hand by being in a vehicle with a weapon drawn, and if you can't get away without risking taking a bullet or BB, having your gun out and ready can only hurt your odds. If someone sees you... well, chances are they're gonna see what you're hiding from, too. Again, can't hurt your chances.