Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?

[JayCee]

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!

[Purplehood]

If I understand other postings on this very subject, you can use the threat of deadly force only in order to prevent the use of deadly force against you. In other words, you can threaten someone with a weapon only if you are justified in shooting them.

At least that is how I interpret it. There is another thread on the subject floating around somewhere.

[dicion]

In my not-so-legal opinion, neither showing, nor shooting a handgun is legal in either scenario.

If you were that scared, pull over to the shoulder and stop. If he stops with you, call 911. If he exits the vehicle and begins walking toward yours, take off. Chances are they will not, because they know you'll just take off. A mexican standoff like that is beneficial to you, because the longer you sit there, the more likely police will show up at the scene.

If they're tailgaiting you, take an exit, and at the last second, go back to the mainlanes.
If they're in front of you, stay in the mainlanes, and at the last second, take an exit.

There's plenty of ways to attempt to avoid the situation then to exacerbate it by drawing a firearm.

[Keith B]

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!

Not flaming here, but the choice you made in the first scenario was totally a bad one. Calling 911 is the FIRST thing you do. Your best bet is to stay in your car, and drive normally. If possible, you should pull into an area where there are plenty of witnesses and let them decide if they want to abandon their aggressiveness or continue. If they get out of their vehicle and head at yours, unless they have something in their hand to be able to gain entry to your car or to harm you in some way, then they will NOT be able to hurt you through a rolled-up window. If they do try to force entry into your car, THEN you can prepare to use force if necessary to stop the threat.

And on the second scenario, NO, you would not be justified.

Again, not flaming here, and not sure if you have your CHL, but I feel your posts indicate you may need to review the rules and laws on the threat and use of deadly force. Carrying a pistol for defense is a VERY serious matter and must be treated as such, and knowing the rules of when to use it and when to not use it, as well as situation deescalation techniques is imperative..

[JayCee]

If I understand other postings on this very subject, you can use the threat of deadly force only in order to prevent the use of deadly force against you. In other words, you can threaten someone with a weapon only if you are justified in shooting them.

At least that is how I interpret it. There is another thread on the subject floating around somewhere.

So if someone is weilding a car as a weapon would the law consider it deadly? It most certainly is one to me.

In my mind if someone is acting dangerously and threatening to hit me then pulling a weapon to make the other driver rethink their actions is justified. I just don't know if the law would agree.

[dicion]

If I understand other postings on this very subject, you can use the threat of deadly force only in order to prevent the use of deadly force against you. In other words, you can threaten someone with a weapon only if you are justified in shooting them.

At least that is how I interpret it. There is another thread on the subject floating around somewhere.

So if someone is weilding a car as a weapon would the law consider it deadly? It most certainly is one to me.

In my mind if someone is acting dangerously and threatening to hit me then pulling a weapon to make the other driver rethink their actions is justified. I just don't know if the law would agree.

That's the kicker. Self Defense is a defense to prosecution. You start out Guilty, and have to prove your innocence.
You would need to prove that they were acting dangerously, and that you reasonably believed your life was in danger.

Of course, if you do shoot someone like that, they, and everyone they know is going to swear, in court, that they were just driving along, doing the speed limit, when you cut them off, pulled a gun, and shot them.

Barring Video footage showing them doing what they were doing, it's a losing game. Only way to win, is not to play.

[terryg]

Not flaming here, but the choice you made in the first scenario was totally a bad one. Calling 911 is the FIRST thing you do. Your best bet is to stay in your car, and drive normally. If possible, you should pull into an area where there are plenty of witnesses and let them decide if they want to abandon their aggressiveness or continue. If they get out of their vehicle and head at yours, unless they have something in their hand to be able to gain entry to your car or to harm you in some way, then they will NOT be able to hurt you through a rolled-up window. If they do try to force entry into your car, THEN you can prepare to use force if necessary to stop the threat.

And on the second scenario, NO, you would not be justified.

Again, not flaming here, and not sure if you have your CHL, but I feel your posts indicate you may need to review the rules and laws on the threat and use of deadly force. Carrying a pistol for defense is a VERY serious matter and must be treated as such, and knowing the rules of when to use it and when to not use it, as well as situation deescalation techniques is imperative..

Yes, I concur completely. Based upon the information as you have presented it, in the first situation, I think you put yourself a great legal risk for any number of possible scenarios. Despite the aggressor role of the other driver - if he, upon seeing you weapon, swerved to get away and caused a deadly accident - it would not be a leap for a DA (and a jury) to find you culpable. Especially if the other driver survives the crash and can describe your weapon. And that is just one of any number of scenarios that can be imagined.

[Excaliber]

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?

[JayCee]

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.

[Keith B]

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.

Well, here are the other issues: Shooting into a vehicle to 'disable it' is pretty well a myth. Very rarely will it work, and more than likely you will end up hurting or killing someone else. And, instead of the murder charge, you just get to spend less time on an assault with a deadly weapon charge.

If you can't pull over, as I said before, just drive normally. By aggressively driving, you are just helping fuel the other person's anger and making them more determined 'to not let you get away'. If there is no chase, then they will usually cool down. If they start literally ramming your vehicle or trying to force you off the road, THEN you can protect yourself, but not before.

Not sure where and who you are taking your CHL class from, but they should cover these types of scenarios and what you should and shouldn't be doing. Bottom line, the pistol being pulled is a LAST defense and only if your life is TRULY in danger, not a perceived threat.

[Purplehood]

I would have to agree with Excalibur's take on the situations as the OP describes them. Even if you the OP were totally innocent and the BG-driver totally at fault, all it takes is one witness that only saw the OP shooting and nothing else (because they simply didn't notice while they were on their cell phone) to ruin an attempt at a valid self-defense shooting.

Stop the car. Take off at the first exit that you can when the other guy is ahead of you. Have your honey get on the phone.

Above all, take steps to diffuse the situation/avoid the situation/leave the situation. It may not seem "right", but unless you plan on being the newest incarnation of the Road Warrior it is the right way to go IMHO.

[Excaliber]

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.

[JayCee]

[quote="Excaliber
Have you answered your own question?[/quote]

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.

[dicion]

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.

There is no brandishing law in Texas, instead they will charge you with Displaying a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm Which is a Class B Misdemeanor, which means possible jail time, and will also cause you to lose your CHL instantly.

[RPBrown]

I have to agree with excaliber here. I travel a lot and have seen several cases of road rage, stupidity and intimidation. Some of which was directed at me. Only once did I consider pulling my weapon and that was when I pulled over to cal 911 and he pulled over behind me. However, when he saw me on the phone, he quickly left. Now, had he gotten out and approached my truck WITH ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES A WEAPON then my weapon comes out and at the ready. But that would have been the only case.