TexasCHLforum.com

Here's a question I just thought of in relation to carjackings.

If you are alone in the car and someone attempts to get into the car from the passenger side, are you justified from a self-defense standpoint in shooting them? I can envision an attorney saying that the driver could drive away without shooting (if the attacker couldn't actually get all the way inside the car)

Also, if the attacker did manage to get inside the car from the passenger side, should the driver shoot or get out of the vehicle without attempting to use his weapon?

Lastly . . .if an attacker attempted to gain control of the vehicle while you're inside (and the attacker is coming from either side) but does NOT have a weapon (in other words, he just plans on using physical force, no knife , no gun) are you justified in using deadly force?

Every situation is going to different. My doors are always locked so an attacker would have to break my window then unlock it in which case I would just give it the gas. If for some reason I could not take off I would send lead in the attackers direction. Unless you have xray vision, there is no way of knowing the attacker is unarmed. In Texas, deadly force can be used to stop a robbery whether a weapon is used or not.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... OF+PERSONS

[Penal Code] Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

Usual caveats apply: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, don't call me for bail money, etc. I tackle this as a chance to review and sharpen my understanding of the law. YMMV.

Legally speaking, if someone tries to, or does, with force, unlawfully enter your vehicle while you are in it, and you are not breaking the law except for minor traffic violation(s), and you did not provoke the other person, then your use of deadly force should be presumed to be reasonable. Note there's no mention of the intruder having a weapon.

With force: there has been other discussion on this forum about what that means, and legally speaking it doesn't take much to constitute "force." Opening a door or window may suffice. Certainly breaking a window. Somewhere Mr. Cotton posted that this was brought up in the Legislature hearings when this part of the PC was amended with the "castle doctrine". I also googled it and it appear to me this is a pretty common understanding of the meaning of force in laws across the country. ''

Unlawfully: You shoot the parking valet, you might have a problem. Once while waiting for my wife in the parking lot, I unlocked the doors as she came out of the store. Some guy walking by opened the door and plopped down in the passenger seat, and was very surprised to NOT see his wife sitting in the driver's seat. Apparently they had a gold Crown Vic too. I suppose technically he might have been guilty of trespassing or something, but I am just as glad I didn't shoot him, we had just had the car detailed. Now, at 3 a.m. some guy you never met before breaks a window with lug wrench, yanks the door open, and hops in... I think you can make a good case that's illegal.

You are in it (occupied). You have to be in the car. You are going to have problems if you come out of Big Box Store to find someone burgling your car and you simply blast him.

Tactically speaking: If you can drive away safely (for yourself and nearby pedestrians), I'd say do so. Much less messy and legally challenging than shooting. If you can't drive away, but you can open your own door and boogie safely... then again, less mess, less legal hassle. But, does he have friends? If you hop out, are now in the same or greater danger from them? Are there are other threats? i.e. if you hop out of your car into the path of a city bus, that's not much improvement. If you do get out, can you actually get away in good order? Do you have a physical impairment that hinders your escape? I have an arthritic knee that makes my "run" look pretty lame...I wouldn't like to bet my life on it if I didn't have to.

Morally speaking: Are you OK with using deadly force in that situation? If had a good chance to have driven away, and you knew it at the time, and you blasted him anyway, will you be good with that? Are you trained enough, and alert enough at all times that you can act on decisions (this guy is really breaking into my car with evil intent) and not panic (OMG he came out of nowhere!) ?

That's my 22 cent analysis...

george wrote:Why wasn't the door locked?

It could be unlocked for any number of reasons, none of which really impact the question of justification.

Some cars unlock automatically when placed in Park. On some of those the "feature" cannot easily be disabled.
A passenger exiting may have left the door unlocked. With central power locks at the driver's command being common now, fewer people learn to lock as they leave from other doors.
It's not uncommon to unlock doors as an intended passenger approaches. An opportunistic criminal might strike at that moment.
Sometimes windows are rolled down for ventilation.
Sometimes locks don't work.

dwsintxs wrote:Lastly . . .if an attacker attempted to gain control of the vehicle while you're inside (and the attacker is coming from either side) but does NOT have a weapon (in other words, he just plans on using physical force, no knife , no gun) are you justified in using deadly force?

A weapon may not be visible, but there's no way of knowing what his real plans are. The car itself can be a weapon with which the owner and any number of other people could be killed. Someone trying to take control of it by force is a threat.

AndyC wrote:

george wrote:Why wasn't the door locked?

That doesn't matter, any more than we're obligated to lock our doors at home; an unlocked door is in no way an invitation to enter.

Not that it would change my reaction, but considering Texas Penal code 9.31 and what is says about forcible entry, I wonder what would happen if someone entered your unlocked vehicle and the driver shot him before even being forcibly removed. I personally would take my chances in court.