TexasCHLforum.com

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?

sure it is deadly force. Years ago (maybe the 1990's, could be 80's) there was a string of these events around DFW. IIRC someone got killed.

stupid
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -case.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_rock_throwing

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).

I'm sure a jury would think so.

What was going on in this person's head?

I would think so. Defense of third person.

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

I would think that deadly force would only be authorized if they were using the evil black assault rocks.

Yes.
What's the difference between throwing rocks and sniping with a rifle? Deadly force to stop deadly force.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The article said (suggested) that the person carried 3-5 pound rocks up to the bridge and was dropping them on passing cars. After drawing your weapon if the person didn't stop what would you do? The tough question. Now pretend your wife is driving and coming up to that bridge.

rotor wrote:The article said (suggested) that the person carried 3-5 pound rocks up to the bridge and was dropping them on passing cars. After drawing your weapon if the person didn't stop what would you do? The tough question. Now pretend your wife is driving and coming up to that bridge.

Interesting thought experiment. If you drew your gun, yelled at the assailant to stop and he turned to the traffic below him with a rock, what to do?

I believe "shoot to stop the threat" is the correct answer, but it's not what I would want to do. It's tempting to think about directing a shot into his legs, but that's wrong. Stop him without killing is a fine idea, but a warning shot might not stop him from launching his rock. That's not shooting to stop a threat. That's shooting to deliver a message. Bad notion.

When in mortal jeopardy, shoot to stop a threat, call for medical and police assistance, pray for peace.

Good discussion!

Now let's take it up a notch: YOU are the victim, You have just driven UNDER the overpass and the rock comes thru YOUR windshield. Assuming you are not instantly murdered by the rock thrower, how do you, Mr. LTC, respond at that point?

Ask-tell-make

Good script for a lot of situations