TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:The window where deadly force could be legally used and positively affect the outcome (i.e. stop someone from dropping a rock onto car on the highway) would be pretty narrow, but it certainly could exist -- looks like it did in the story linked in the OP.

Consider this from the story (emphasis added):

“We were on our way to Fort Worth and traffic was backed up. I saw the guy on the bridge in front of us and he had a rock over his head,” he said. “I saw him throw it and hit one vehicle. Then he hit the one in frontof us. He had it over his head and I pointed at him to tell him not to do it.Obviously he done it anyway.”

“The rocks landed inside her vehicle. Praise God it didn’t go through on her side because it probably would have killed her,” he said.

So the cars were stopped, and he could plainly see the guy throwing rocks. The rocks were big enough and dropped/thrown hard enough to break through the windshields. He could see the guy ready to toss another one -- there was time to do something about it. What to do? Wagging a finger and verbally challenging didnt' work.

This would be a tough shot for a handgun. Good reason to carry a rifle in your vehicle.

WildBill wrote:

treadlightly wrote:Seems like a huge case of "it depends." A lad throwing rocks that can verbally stopped, no justification. An assailant determined to injure or kill, sure, but not as a first option.

For a kid, "Hey, stop that!"

And call the police.

For an adult, maybe draw your weapon before demanding he stop. Or she, didn't mean to be exclusionary.

You have to think on your feet.

I had a friend who had that happen to him in Detroit. He was one his way to pick me up at my hotel.
It was a brick and could have caused personal injury it hit him or caused him to crash.
There was broken glass all over the dash and front seats.

Clearly, we need more brick (and rock) control laws. Rocks in the hands of trained law enforcement is one thing, but it's not like everyone needs a rock.

treadlightly wrote:Seems like a huge case of "it depends." A lad throwing rocks that can verbally stopped, no justification. An assailant determined to injure or kill, sure, but not as a first option.

For a kid, "Hey, stop that!"

And call the police.

For an adult, maybe draw your weapon before demanding he stop. Or she, didn't mean to be exclusionary.

You have to think on your feet.

I think there is a difference here between "what do you have the right to do?" and "what should you do?"

Your proposed approaches sound perfectly reasonable and well advised, at least to me. I would never think of just shooting the assailant without warning*, but there is a theoretical question as to whether that approach would be justified under the law.

* OK , I can think of one case where I might think about just shooting with no warning. Let's say that I am testing my new spotting scope, and as I look down from my apartment window, I see a guy 500 yards away, on an overpass, throwing heavy rocks down on vehicles. He is facing me, so my backstop is the pavement of the overpass (not ideal, but the safest long-range shooting situation I could think of). I can clearly see rocks impacting and smashing through vehicle windshields, and he is raising another large rock over his head. My hunting rifle is loaded and is sitting right next to me. In that specific case, I might think about taking a shot without any type of warning.

Bitter Clinger wrote:Man throws rocks at drivers on I-30 in Downtown Dallas

http://www.fox4news.com/news/134509825-story

Seems to me that it would be. Thoughts?

No, the man was not justified in using deadly force by throwing rocks at random vehicles.

Oh wait, you are probably asking if deadly force would be justified in stopping the rock thrower. IMHO, the answer would be yes as it would be defense of others.

Hypothetically, let's say that someone was driving over the overpass where the rock thrower was located and was able to determine what the guy was doing. This assumes that the rock thrower wouldn't have stopped and waited for the vehicle to drive by before throwing his 3 rocks. Even then, if the rock thrower started to run when the good guy slammed on his brakes, then deadly force would no longer be justified, IMHO, since the threat would no longer be imminent.

With these types of scenarios, once you play them out logically, you usually get to a point where deadly force is no longer justified, just like when someone is breaking into your vehicle and likely stops once you verbally confront them (in an oral manner, of course).