Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?

[Dave2]

Also FWIW the word should be defuse, not diffuse. You're removing the fuse fro ma bomb, not misting a plant.

I like your illustration

Seriously, though, referring to the second situation you mention, I think you'll have a very hard time convincing the police and DA that shooting him (or her) from a vehicle (moving at 70 MPH, no less!) was your only way out. Even if you could convince them that deadly force was necessary, they'd probably get you for reckless endangerment or something because (as somebody else already pointed out) there's a high chance that something very bad will happen to others on the road. Then, since this would almost certainly* go to trial, you'll have to convince twelve people who probably think that guns are only for cops & criminals to let you off. Even if the driver was a Bad Guy (and not just letting his kids watch Finding Nemo on the way to grandma's house), and even if he was in fact out to get you, I think you'll be unlikely to succeed because even if nothing else, you could've pulled over and given the driver a chance to go on his merry way. A lot of the laws are written in terms of "what would a reasonable person think", and I doubt twelve random people would see it that way. So now you're going to jail for a long time. How long? Well let's say you manage talk the charges down from "murder" to "involuntary manslaughter". Then you're looking at up to twenty years. That's twenty years of being in a dangerous environment without the means to defend yourself, plus you won't be able to protect your family, either. And it's a felony, so when you do eventually get out, they won't give you your gun back, nor will you be able to buy an other one, nor will you even be able to vote for people who want to get those laws changed.

I'm not telling you not to defend yourself if you really do know for sure that your life or the lives of your loved ones are in imminent danger, but perhaps given the potential consequences, you should reconsider what it means to "know for sure".

*I think. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[RPBrown]

If I pulled my gun every time I was cut off, it would constantly be out so I could be arreasted for failing to conceal. Like I said earlier, I have come close to pulling my weapon once and even that was after I had 911 on hte phone and the guy was walking up to my car. Even then I didnt because he had no weapon.

If you do what you are talking about, plan to spend some jail time. If we that are pro 2A are disagreeing with you, what do you thing a jury of unknowing will do?

If you are truely wanting to learn, then LISTEN to what the people here are telling you, get a CHL handbook and really read it, take the class and ask questions.

If you are not willing or wanting to learn but want to do it your way, have your wife post where you are locked up so maybe one of us will come visit (and say told you so).

[Oldgringo]

Jaycee,

There's a lot of sound advice being offered here for free. If you don't like what you're hearing, why not ask your Attorney for his considered opinion. If you don't have an Attorney, check in the Yellow Pages. The phone book is full of them and they are awaiting your call. It sounds like you're gonna' need one sooner or later, so you might as well get one or two lined up while there is a break in the action?

ITMT, would you be so kind as to describe your vehicle and usual travel routine. I, for one, will make every effort to stay out of your way when you're on the highway. I always tried to avoid school yard brawls when I was a juvenile, now that I am an adult, I certainly don't want to be the cause of a road rage incident with anyone - especially you.

[JNMAR]

For the record, I don't advocate shooting at people in traffic, the debate here is whether or not you're allowed to threaten force to dissuade an attacker in the highway.

As has been told to you repeatedly, the short answer is NO. That has been the consistent consensus of opinion to the question as you first posed it. Do you really think you're going to keep arguing your point until they see it your way? It ain't gonna happen.

Talk is cheap, if you really think you're right, follow your gut man... just do it...if you have the money to pay him, your attorney will love ya for it and by the time he's done trying to keep you from being the Big Boy's Baby, he'll likely own your spiffy little sports car, your gun, your home and who knows maybe your girlfriend.

The rumor has been confirmed, P T Barnum was right!

[The Annoyed Man]

This is the part that hangs me up.
pulling a gun for .500 of a second and defusing the whole situation
What are the odds of defusing versus escallating the situation. If the OP has done nothing Wrong and the aggresive drivers are intent on harm or the "Gangbanger has just been Challenged!
RETREAT is the safest option.

Statments like this make me think many of you haven't even been in so much as a schoolyard brawl much less an actual self defense scenario. I have, on both counts, several times. Gang members are like cockroaches, they scatter when threatened and are not in greater numbers. Besides that isn't there the chance for escalation in any 'threat of force' scenario?

Also FWIW the word should be defuse, not diffuse. You're removing the fuse fro ma bomb, not misting a plant.

Now you've gone and done it. Several of the respondents on this thread are either active or retired law enforcement. I personally know one of them has probably been a cop nearly as long as you've been alive, if not longer. Others here are combat veterans in the nation's various wars. You really are speaking from an uninformed position. I would not go any further down that road unless you're really prepared to back it up.

One can have plenty of experience with violence, including violence perpetrated by really bad people.... get shot at, legally deploy and use a firearm.... etc., etc., etc., and still have a clear-eyed view as to what the law allows, and what it doesn't - most particularly when that is their damned job to know it, unlike you. You certainly don't have to pay any attention to what they say if you don't want to, but it would be foolish on your part if you don't, and it becomes a waste of their time. Those members who have posted opinions opposite to your own have taking the time to do so because they have a genuine interest in helping you to get squared away in your understanding of the law. You don't appear to be inclined to take advantage of the advice.

Earlier in the thread, you said: "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." That turns out not to be the case. What you're looking for, in truth, is for someone to endorse your misunderstanding of the law, and you're not finding it. So you argue about it, and disrespect their experience?

Please. Do me a favor. Pay, like the rest of us have paid, to take a CHL class, and get taught exactly what you've been told here. Then argue with your CHL teacher about it. Maybe he'll refund your money and throw away your paperwork. Maybe then you'll be convinced.

Or not. I don't care.

[Excaliber]

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.

[Oldgringo]

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.

[Hoi Polloi]

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.

I know two about pigs (don't wrestle with a pig... and don't cast pearls before swine...) but I don't know any about skunks.

[Excaliber]

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."

[bdickens]

Shooting from a moving vehicle at another moving vehicle is the very definition of reckless endangerment.

Enjoy your stay in prison, JayCee.

[Oldgringo]

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."

Close, but no cigar. "...don't get in a p******g contest with a skunk..."

[Hoi Polloi]

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."

Close, but no cigar. "...don't get in a p******g contest with a skunk..."

I thought that one ended with "with a drunk."

I guess I misheard that one!

[anygunanywhere]

This is the part that hangs me up.
pulling a gun for .500 of a second and defusing the whole situation
What are the odds of defusing versus escallating the situation. If the OP has done nothing Wrong and the aggresive drivers are intent on harm or the "Gangbanger has just been Challenged!
RETREAT is the safest option.

Statments like this make me think many of you haven't even been in so much as a schoolyard brawl much less an actual self defense scenario. I have, on both counts, several times. Gang members are like cockroaches, they scatter when threatened and are not in greater numbers. Besides that isn't there the chance for escalation in any 'threat of force' scenario?

Also FWIW the word should be defuse, not diffuse. You're removing the fuse fro ma bomb, not misting a plant.

Actually, I have drawn my handgun at least three times over the last 25 years of carrying prior to and after the CHL law was enacted in Texas. I have never shot anyone, praise God, and pray I never do. Thankfully, when they saw the bidness end of a .45 ACP their thought process changed. In all circumstances I would have been justified in the use of force. One was a robbery by multiple BG, one was a crazed lunatic who was assaulting me when I was with my wife, two sons, and two of my son's friends, and one was a theft of property by three individuals at my home after a garage sale.

I have been in my share of fist fights over the years too. Gone toe to toe with marines, peaceniks and other individuals. Been beat by a rogue cop with a 5 cell maglight.

The only time I have been messed with by gangstas was in Kalifornia, and I acquired the services of a wise seargeant in the local gang unit. I explained the situation to him and he counseled the juvenile bangers and cautioned them that yes, I would deal with any situation in a manner they would not like, and they left me alone.

There is a lot of experience sharing here, some choose to listen, others do not.

Anygun

[JayCee]

Wow well this got out of hand didn't it.

Look I got the answers I came for but I'm not going to sit here and have people pass judgement on me for doing what I did in a bad situation while unaware for the law or paint me in a bad light because they read others comments and jumped on the bandwagon of bashing me. It seems that most of seem to think that I just got cut off or flipped the bird, if so you need to go and re-read what I wrote. I assure you that this was much worse. My fiancee was terrified and for a good 45 seconds I was doing everything I could to dodge drunk drivers and another car intent on harming us. I'm GLAD that most of you have never been in my place, I'm GLAD the worst thing you've seen is a middle finger. Most of the time, that's as bad as it gets. I experience minor incidents weekly in my 400 mile per week drive but these were above and beyond what would be the 'new normal' for roadway behavior. End of story.

I never disrespected anyone who intended to inform me but I damn sure will have words with someone who tries to paint me as some crazy road warrior waving a gun whenever possible.That's simply not the case. BTW My best friend just got back from serving 6 years in combat in Iraq and I have many other military and LEO as friends and am the son of a disbled vet so DON'T EVER tell me that I don't respect those that serve. I'm just seeing about a 60/40 split here in that some of you are wise and knowledgeable and the others have seen too many episodes of Walker: Texas Ranger and think they can pass judgement on others based on their limited life experience.

Sure, I do enjoy debating issues but that doesn't mean I'm discounting the information or the sources. Aren't public forums for debating?

So let me propose this question: what would a cop do if someone did to them what was done to me? Why is the protocol different just because I'm a civilian? What if you were walking down the street and someone tried to run you over could you draw on them? Why or why not?