Search found 9 matches

by Excaliber
Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:24 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?
Replies: 99
Views: 12634

Re: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?

Oldgringo wrote:
Excaliber wrote:Ladies and gentlemen of the Forum, it would appear that our repeated good faith attempts to generously share the best fruits of our knowledge and experience in this thread are falling on deaf ears.

It is clear at this point that the OP is not posting to enhance his own knowledge or to contribute to ours, but merely to stir up controversy and insult those of us who tried to help in the hope of getting our gentle folk to say something uncivil or contrary to law so he could use it for whatever purpose he has in mind.

The commonsense rule we're all familiar with is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a pretty good bet it's a duck. I think the same type of analysis is applicable to trolls, and by that standard, I don't think there's much reason to doubt that's what we're looking at here, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Whether that is in fact actually the case or not is irrelevant at this point. A wise man once said that it is unproductive to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed. I think it would be appropriate to apply that rule here.
Yes, there was also an old adage advising against getting in er,...uh, I forget, ...it was some sort of a contest with a skunk. Somebody help me to remember.
Was it one of these?:


"A bulldog can whip a skunk, but sometimes it's not worth it."

"What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself."

"Sometimes when you get in a fight with a skunk, after a certain point, you can't tell who started it."
by Excaliber
Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:04 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?
Replies: 99
Views: 12634

Re: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?

Ladies and gentlemen of the Forum, it would appear that our repeated good faith attempts to generously share the best fruits of our knowledge and experience in this thread are falling on deaf ears.

It is clear at this point that the OP is not posting to enhance his own knowledge or to contribute to ours, but merely to stir up controversy and insult those of us who tried to help in the hope of getting our gentle folk to say something uncivil or contrary to law so he could use it for whatever purpose he has in mind.

The commonsense rule we're all familiar with is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a pretty good bet it's a duck. I think the same type of analysis is applicable to trolls, and by that standard, I don't think there's much reason to doubt that's what we're looking at here, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Whether that is in fact actually the case or not is irrelevant at this point. A wise man once said that it is unproductive to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed. I think it would be appropriate to apply that rule here.
by Excaliber
Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:41 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?
Replies: 99
Views: 12634

Re: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?

austinrealtor wrote: Lastly, if you don't believe us, read what happened to a hot-tempered young man on a freeway in Austin recently when he pulled his gun to "defend himself" from a road rage incident ....

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/man" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 44356.html
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=36789&hilit=austin+road+rage
Thanks, Austinrealtor. That case is a perfect example what actually happens when the OP's legal theory and problem solving methodology are used in real life.
by Excaliber
Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:47 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?
Replies: 99
Views: 12634

Re: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?

JayCee wrote:
Excaliber wrote:
While your point about displaying a gun is not the same as using one is technically correct, I don't see an application to either of the OP's situations. Where was the imminent threat to his life?

Creative imagination doesn't hold up in court, and to the extent that he felt endangered by another driver, he could have easily evaded that threat with better driving choices - like slowing down and letting the other driver speed on.

Setting aside the OP's astonishing logical leap from TV's in the sun visors to a conclusion that the other driver was a gangbanger who posed an imminent danger of shooting at the OP, I don't buy the innocent posturing in the second instance the OP cited. While anything is possible, when someone passes a vehicle on the shoulder at very high speed, cuts into another operator's lane, and slams on the brakes, an examination of what happened between those vehicles in the 60 seconds prior to those moves will usually (as in just about always) provide insight into why that vehicle was selected for this treatment.

Plain and simple, from the information provided in the original post, there was no threat that would justify displaying or using a firearm to resolve the situations described in either instance. There are numerous far more reasonable alternatives available.

KD5NRH's suggestion to buy a bluetooth headset to make calling 911 easier would be a good start.
OK, since you appear to be hung up on this let me help you out.
I'm not talking about a simple honk/flip the bird scenario. I'm talking about a car swerving at me at 75-80 mph, cutting off other vehicles in an attempt to block me and tailgaiting me with brights on. We were in heavy traffic which is dangerous enough on a good day and I had to pay my full attention to the cars around me in addition to the individual causing all the trouble. It was also night time on a weekend where a good 25% of drivers are intoxicated. We're not talking some jerk on an empty farm road harrasing someone. I did everything I could to get away, when I moved to the right so did he, when I passed a car and changed lanes, he followed. Basicaly he looked as if he was trying to get beside me and I'm pretty sure it wasn't to exchange pleasantries. This incident was completely unwarranted (and I know I'm talking to strangers here) but I assure you I have an above avarage sense of awareness especially when driving. The car in question was harassing other vehicles before he set his sights on me. Traffic was moving at 70-75 and this guy wanted to do 90 and anyone that got in his way got swerved at or brake checked.

...and, Excaliber, since you feel that I made a "logical leap" in my assumption that this person was a gangbanger, you seem to think that saw just a TV in the visor and that's it? C'mon...how about you give me the benefit of the doubt? I've lived in this city for 15 years, worked in some rough spots with and around some rough people so let me tell you I'm not speaking out of turn when I labeled this guy a gangbanger.

As far as the other guy in the Avalance, it dosent take much to make a little car like mine spin out from a tap to the rear or side and that's exactly what he was about to do. Why should I speed or swerve to a shoulder or exit which could potentially result in a wreck when all I had to do was say "back off" by putting my gun on the seat? If he had hit me, I'd have wrecked and if I lived I'd have no one to press charges on. Last january I got hit by a hit-n-run and almost got into a serious head-on as a result so if you don't believe that stuff like this happens then you're either naive or blind.

I come here looking for experts and I'm assuming that there are some here so lets show some mutual respect. I know plenty of lefties that think people like Texans or CHL holders are nothing more than mouth-breathing redneck tea-baggers but I'm giving you guys the benefit of the doubt so show me the same courtesy... Also, both of these events happend months ago so surely there's some details I'm forgetting or misremembering, I posted them as a kind of hypothetical situation, only on that was based on something that actually happened to me. It's asanine to try and pick apart details and then ignore the main question. Forest for the Trees???

Bottom Line is that I got my answer (mostly) so let's keep the assumptions of character and ability to ourselves. Thanks.
JayCee, you will remain confused and unhappy with the responses of our Forum members who actually understand the issues involved until you take the time and trouble to educate yourself on the well established provisions of Texas law regarding lawful self defense. Without that fundamental knowledge, there is no shared basic for effective communication.

You could do that by taking a CHL class, or you could get a quick peek at the basics in Chapter 9 of the Penal Code and the other sections it references. The full text is readily available online.
by Excaliber
Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:29 am
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?
Replies: 99
Views: 12634

Re: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?

BrianSW99 wrote:I don't think it would have been a good idea to pull a gun in the original situations presented, but it was also said earlier in this thread that you are only justified in pulling your gun out if you would be justified in shooting the person. From my understanding of the law, that's not the case. Here's why:
PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
So, if the threat of deadly force is not actually considered deadly force, then it could be used any time the "threat of force" would be justified. Threat of force is justified any time the use of force is justified. The use of force could be justified for a wide variety of situations that wouldn't allow you to use deadly force. Now, to be fair, PC §9.31, the self defense statute, does say that the use of force is justified "when and to the degree" the person feels the force is necessary, so I wouldn't be pulling my gun out for trivial matters. However, I do believe there are situations in which a person would be justified in pulling out their gun out of fear for their life even though the other person has not [yet] made a specific threat of deadly force. Of course, pulling a gun is not guaranteed to diffuse the situation. It could make it go from bad to worse very quickly so you would need to be prepared for that. For that reason, there are probably very few situations in which I would consider doing so.

IANAL,
Brian
While your point about displaying a gun is not the same as using one is technically correct, I don't see an application to either of the OP's situations. Where was the imminent threat to his life?

Creative imagination doesn't hold up in court, and to the extent that he felt endangered by another driver, he could have easily evaded that threat with better driving choices - like slowing down and letting the other driver speed on.

Setting aside the OP's astonishing logical leap from TV's in the sun visors to a conclusion that the other driver was a gangbanger who posed an imminent danger of shooting at the OP, I don't buy the innocent posturing in the second instance the OP cited. While anything is possible, when someone passes a vehicle on the shoulder at very high speed, cuts into another operator's lane, and slams on the brakes, an examination of what happened between those vehicles in the 60 seconds prior to those moves will usually (as in just about always) provide insight into why that vehicle was selected for this treatment.

Plain and simple, from the information provided in the original post, there was no threat that would justify displaying or using a firearm to resolve the situations described in either instance. There are numerous far more reasonable alternatives available.

KD5NRH's suggestion to buy a bluetooth headset to make calling 911 easier would be a good start.
by Excaliber
Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:08 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?
Replies: 99
Views: 12634

Re: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?

gigag04 wrote:troll?
I was just about to PM you with the same suspicion.
by Excaliber
Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:51 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?
Replies: 99
Views: 12634

Re: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?

JayCee wrote:
Excaliber wrote: Have you answered your own question?
Good info. Yes there's really no "good" ending to a story like this but I'd rather be the one breathing at the end of it.
Besides, isn't "brandishing" only a misdemenor? So worst case scenario, I diffuse the altercation but he calls 911 and I pay a fine. I'm OK with that outcome. No one got in a wreck and no one got shot.

In the 2nd scenario when I thought the driver was about to shoot me and there was no where to swerve; If I went thru it again only armed I would still be inclined to at least shoot a tire out, anything to make him miss or not be able to chase us anymore. People survive car accidents all the time but not so much the gunshot to the face... I'll gladly go to court against a ganbanger, I look like the guy that does your taxes and have a great attny.
The short version is that you can't lawfully use deadly force every time someone around you does something stupid, even if was dangerous and they did it willfully. You certainly can't lawfully do things that recklessly endanger innocent parties.
Couldn't we apply that logic to any self-defence scenario? Anytime we fire a weapon there's a risk of injury or death to bystanders. I've heard from a cop that training at the range only is a joke, he said "try running 100 yards in 110 deg heat while on adrenalin and then trying to draw and shoot, that's what it's like when you're ina life/death scenario." How many CHL holders are still a decent shot when scared s#itless? There's a scene in Boogie Nights that plays out that scenario perfectly.
Although you asked for solid answers from the knowledgeable folks on this Forum, your above post suggests you don't agree with the ones you received and are determined to do what you were going to do anyway.

That's fair enough, and I wouldn't try to convince you otherwise. Everyone makes his own decisions based on what he thinks is best and lives with the consequences.

I wish you good luck.
by Excaliber
Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:03 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?
Replies: 99
Views: 12634

Re: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?

JayCee wrote:See, here's where it's nice to get the benefit of the doubt.

Both of these situations were so fast-paced that pulling over or taking an exit simply weren't possible. On top of that driving (a manual transmission) in traffic at high speed while trying to call 911 (only to be transferred 3-4 times until the appropriate dispatch is reached) seemed more dangerous than simply placing a piece of metal on the seat next to me.

It's very easy to say "pull over call 911" after the fact when you're removed from the situation, but when in the heat of the moment and you're afraid for your and your loved one's lives I'm going to make the deciscion that has the best outcome for me and my family, regardless of the law.
I'd like to know that I wouldn't spend the rest of my life in jail for shooting someone while protecting my family. For the record I would shoot to disable the vehicle if this ever happened again. Obviously killing the driver can cause a bigger problem.

Full Disclosure for those that didn't read my "intro" post: I don't currently have a CHL so I'm not familiar with the law 100%. I'm just trying to get as much info from the experts here as I can.
Since very few handgun rounds will stop an engine, your "vehicle disabling" tactic is pretty much limited to shooting at tires. Let's see where that goes:

Keep my discussion of situation #2 above the same, except for the part where the driver gets shot. Instead, replace that with 4 founds fired at the tires. (The first 3 miss because this is not an easy thing to get right while 2 vehicles are in independent motion). One of the rounds ricochets off the pavement and strikes a pregnant woman in the head. She loses control, hits the guardrail, and her vehicle lands upside down in the roadway on the opposite side of the highway, where it's immediately struck by an oncoming car. The young woman does not survive.

Your 4th round successfully punctures a front tire on the target vehicle. The tire immediately deflates and the sudden difference in rolling friction on the two sides of the vehicle causes the car to go into an uncontrollable spin which ends in front of an oncoming 18 wheeler hauling gasoline......(continue with the earlier version.)

The short version is that you can't lawfully use deadly force every time someone around you does something stupid, even if was dangerous and they did it willfully. You certainly can't lawfully do things that recklessly endanger innocent parties.

If you think this doesn't make sense, think about how the actions you proposed would look to you if they were performed by someone else and it was one of your family members who ended up getting scraped up from the pavement and into a chopper - or the coroner's van.

I would strongly suggest you take the CHL course as soon as possible. It will answer the vast majority of your questions.
by Excaliber
Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:44 pm
Forum: New to CHL?
Topic: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?
Replies: 99
Views: 12634

Re: Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?

JayCee wrote:Hey guys, I'm wondering if anyone has had to do the above.

I've had 3 or so situations in the past couple of years where I was randomly "attacked" while driving, I'm wondering how justified (if at all) I would be in drawing a weapon to diffuse these situations.

On one particular occasion I was leaving work and attempting to merge on the Hwy but there was an orange Avalanche that was halfway in the right lane and the merge/exit lane. I gave him a few seconds to either exit or enter the hwy but he stayed there for several seconds and was unaware or too intoxicated to tell what was going on. Well, I had to get on so he needed to move. I honked at him in case he didn't realize what he was doing at which point he swerved at me, looking me dead in the eye. I dropped a gear and sped up (sports car vs truck, duh) to get around him and he began to chase me, tailgating me even as I changed lanes and tried to evade. I could have layed on the gas and lost him eventually but that would have been dangerous for me and other drivers, so since he was so close he could probably read my radio station, I pulled my pistol from the console, cocked it and layed it on the seat in clear view. Fortunately that made him reconsider his course of action and he immediately backed off 10 car lengths.
Now I know and feel that I did the right thing since calling 911 while trying to evade some crazy redneck would have put me at greater risk (and accomplished nothing) than simply displaying the fact that I can make this altercation a lot more serious than some bumpkin with a grudge is willing to take it. The question is, was I right in the eyes of the law?

Another time I was driving with my fiancee and out of nowhere a car passes me on the shoulder doing at least 90 (I drive around 10 over and don't loiter in the left lane, FYI), cuts me off and brake checks me. The car is driven by a big black man and has TVs in the visors; so not to stereo type, but this guy was either gang affiliated or wants people to think he is. I try to avoid him, change lanes and sure enough as soon as he gets a chance he's in front of me again, stomping on his brakes. It's night time but traffic is moving at decent speed but is so thick that theres not a lot of room to manuver so basically we're stuck with a guy in close proximity that apparently wants to cause an accident or worse. At several points the other car was beside us and I had no way of knowing if I or my fiancee were going to be shot in the face. I wasn't carrying my pistol that night (and regretted it ever since). My question is: if I was carrying and those events transpired, would I be justified in shooting the other driver car-to-car? Let me reiterate: there was no backing down or running away given the traffic.
Is it justifable to use a weapon to preempt assault?

...and for all those that might be led to believe that I somehow caused these events with either bad or aggressive driving, just let it go. I'm a very safe and considerate, mature driver and have the record to show for it!
Welcome to the Forum, JayCee.

Without getting into a deep discussion of the law, I think you can answer your own question about whether or not such an action would have been a good idea in the two circumstances you described without a whole lot of effort.

Although you got the result you wanted in the first case and it's unclear what happened in the second, let's think these incidents through another step or two to see if the best options were used.

In the first case, the driver backs off and remains 10 car lengths behind. However, instead of forgetting about it, he calls 911 to report some nut just threatened him with a gun while he was innocently driving down the road. He gives a detailed description of your car, your tag number, you, and the gun. About 5 minutes later 3 marked units pull you over in felony stop formation with guns drawn and order you to get out of the car and lie on the pavement. They observe a cocked gun that exactly matches the one he described on the passenger seat. This appears to clearly support the complainant's contention that you pointed it at him and that's how he knew what it looked like. As you're being handcuffed and read your Miranda warning, your contention that that's not what happened at all would start......how?

In the second case, you have your gun and the situation unfolds exactly as you described. You opt to roll down your window and fire at the other driver, who is struck in the head and dies instantly. Since there is no longer a live driver, his vehicle goes out of control and cuts in front of an 18 wheeler hauling gasoline. The truck jackknifes and overturns, 3 other cars run into it before they can stop, and a huge fireball erupts from the spilled fuel all over the road. Initial reports confirm 6 fatalities, and 4 serious injuries airlifted to the local burn center. A witness in the car that was behind yours when you fired has called 911 and said he saw you raise a gun and shoot the other driver for no apparent reason. He gives your tag number and vehicle description to the police. A preliminary examination of the other driver's body quickly reveals what appears to be a gunshot wound to the head.

Repeat the part from the 1st situation with the felony stop, etc. Then jump to the explanation part.

How does the decision to fire your gun look at this point?

Have you answered your own question?

Return to “Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?”