Never Again Will I...

[GreezyG]

Ok I'm back and wow! Thanks for all the comments.

I never stated that I was going to start shooting, if I had been armed. The truck in my opinion did aim at me. I saw him coming and pulled all the way over to the curb and he turned even more. My first thought is that it could have been a gang initiation. Looking for a random victim.

When he saw the cop turn the lights on and he took off in a cloud of diesel confirms my feeling that the BG was up to no good.
---------
But this is a good "what if" scenario IMO.

What if, the truck hit me and then turned around to take another run at me. The police open fire in these scenarios. I should include that I drive a VW Jetta, no match to an F350 whatsoever.

[bnc]

Reaffirms my belief that nothing good happens at 2am, other than sleep.

[GreezyG]

Reaffirms my belief that nothing good happens at 2am, other than sleep.

Also why I don't like going downtown.

[Justin Franklin]

Ok I'm back and wow! Thanks for all the comments.

I never stated that I was going to start shooting, if I had been armed. The truck in my opinion did aim at me. I saw him coming and pulled all the way over to the curb and he turned even more. My first thought is that it could have been a gang initiation. Looking for a random victim.

When he saw the cop turn the lights on and he took off in a cloud of diesel confirms my feeling that the BG was up to no good.
---------
But this is a good "what if" scenario IMO.

What if, the truck hit me and then turned around to take another run at me. The police open fire in these scenarios. I should include that I drive a VW Jetta, no match to an F350 whatsoever.

I think if they had already hit you and were coming back at you, then you would stand a better chance of convincing a grand jury that you "believed" you had to act immediately to prevent harm to yourself or others. Penal Code Section 9.32 discusses this.

[Hoi Polloi]

Reaffirms my belief that nothing good happens at 2am, other than sleep.

That's not quite the way my all-but-demure grandma used to say it! If I adopted this version, I might actually be able to repeat the sage advice.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Even if that was the case...the truck "allegedly" tried to hit them...missed and turned around. At this point my gun would be out of the holster. If I did not have a way out and he was for sure coming at me...AGAIN...your darn tootin I would fire on him.

At this point I am truly in fear for my life (more people are killed in car accidents than by gun fire). He is trying to hit me with his truck and do Lord knows what...so yea I would have defended myself.

My interpretation…while I can understand your opinion, I don't think this would play out well in the courts. Maybe he's coming back to apologize….maybe he has a disorder. If he had hit you and was coming at you again, that might be more in your favor. I don't know of any "case law" with similar circumstances. Does anyone else know of any case law similar to this "hypothetical" situation?

Several months ago I was first hand witness to a man who ran head on into another vehicle in League City. The man was driving a large SUV and after hitting the other vehicle, he kept pressing on the gas causing the wheels to spin. The guy was conscious and appeared to be in full control of his mental faculties….at least that's what it looked like from the side of the road. My first thought was…"what is this guy doing? is he trying to kill the people in the or ther car?" I know it was risky, but I went up to the SUV and opened the passenger door. The man did not look over at me. I realized then that there was something not right with this guy. I slammed the gear shift into park and took the keys. All the while this guy is still trying to drive off. The rest of the story….turns out the gentleman had a previous brain injury and was not supposed to be driving. Someone from his church had unknowingly given him their car keys so he could go get donuts. Turned out to be a bad mistake for everyone involved, but thankfully no one was seriously injured.

While one might argue that they believed they would be acting in the defense of a third party or defense of self in this thread, there are just too many unknown variables.

And how are you to know if they are really trying to hurt you or if they have a disorder? You aren't supposed to know nor is there any way that you can know. All you know is the facts...someone is trying to hit you with a MOVING VEHICLE.

Getting hit by a moving vehicle has been proven to be detrimental to your health.

At the point that you are threatened with being hit with a moving vehicle and you have no other way out...regardless of the mental state of the individual behind the wheel...one should think that you are in fear for your life and you are justified in using not only but force but deadly force. Especially since they are threatining you with deadly force.

[lowonair]

Reaffirms my belief that nothing good happens at 2am, other than sleep.

thats not true . im a night person. i usually cant sleep at night even with sleeping pills and being up all day. i spend my weekends off with friends and we are out til dawn sometimes, but we arent out getting drunk either. just having legal fun.

[Justin Franklin]

And how are you to know if they are really trying to hurt you or if they have a disorder? You aren't supposed to know nor is there any way that you can know. All you know is the facts...someone is trying to hit you with a MOVING VEHICLE.

Getting hit by a moving vehicle has been proven to be detrimental to your health.

At the point that you are threatened with being hit with a moving vehicle and you have no other way out...regardless of the mental state of the individual behind the wheel...one should think that you are in fear for your life and you are justified in using not only but force but deadly force. Especially since they are threatining you with deadly force.

Discussions like this are good in the sense that they get people thinking, but they can be difficult due to all the "hypotheticals." I can sit here and read the story with one mindset and others can read it a different way. This is true when it comes it real life events as well…how is the grand jury going to interpret the events? Like it or not, our freedom is on the line because our actions are subject to the interpretations of other. When we are in a situation, we must do our best to keep a clear mind and examine all the different angles. That's not always easy to do…that's why we need to practice!

To make a long story short, pulling the trigger should always be the LAST resort.

[The Annoyed Man]

To make a long story short, pulling the trigger should always be the LAST resort.

That's the bottom line, right there. And, in keeping with that old chestnut about nothing good happening at 2 a.m. (which of course has exceptions for those for whom 2 a.m. corresponds to everybody else's 2 p.m.), if one is going to take the responsibility of carrying a gun around, then wisdom dictates circumscribing one's behavior to some degree, if possible, so as to avoid putting one's self into situations where there is a higher probability of needing the gun. Of course, one can't necessarily help it if they live or work in a higher crime area. They have to go there. So the question becomes, "do I really have to be in X place or do Y thing?" And lest anybody get their back up about that, I am not suggesting that you no longer have the freedom to come and go as you please, nor a moral obligation to restrict your movements. I am merely saying that someone who carries a gun has an extra measure of responsibility to act with wisdom.

I used to work in an ER. There is no doubt whatsoever that the number of gunshot patients brought to emergency rooms increases with the lateness of the evening. That's just a fact. Yes, we saw gunshot patients at 11 a.m. and 3 p.m., but those represented a small fraction of the total numbers. Most happen late at night. Those are facts. And by the way, ditto for stabbings and savage beatings.

Life is a game of statistical probabilities. Will I ever confront the situation described in the OP at 2 in the afternoon? It could happen, but the odds of it happening are lower because people are generally out and about doing whatever it is they do during the daytime, instead of out drinking, or cruising around looking for trouble or victims. There are too many possible witnesses.

Hence the wisdom that "nothing good happens at 2 a.m." It may not be universally true, but it is good general advice.

[Justin Franklin]

To make a long story short, pulling the trigger should always be the LAST resort.

That's the bottom line, right there. And, in keeping with that old chestnut about nothing good happening at 2 a.m. (which of course has exceptions for those for whom 2 a.m. corresponds to everybody else's 2 p.m.), if one is going to take the responsibility of carrying a gun around, then wisdom dictates circumscribing one's behavior to some degree, if possible, so as to avoid putting one's self into situations where there is a higher probability of needing the gun. Of course, one can't necessarily help it if they live or work in a higher crime area. They have to go there. So the question becomes, "do I really have to be in X place or do Y thing?" And lest anybody get their back up about that, I am not suggesting that you no longer have the freedom to come and go as you please, nor a moral obligation to restrict your movements. I am merely saying that someone who carries a gun has an extra measure of responsibility to act with wisdom.

I used to work in an ER. There is no doubt whatsoever that the number of gunshot patients brought to emergency rooms increases with the lateness of the evening. That's just a fact. Yes, we saw gunshot patients at 11 a.m. and 3 p.m., but those represented a small fraction of the total numbers. Most happen late at night. Those are facts. And by the way, ditto for stabbings and savage beatings.

Life is a game of statistical probabilities. Will I ever confront the situation described in the OP at 2 in the afternoon? It could happen, but the odds of it happening are lower because people are generally out and about doing whatever it is they do during the daytime, instead of out drinking, or cruising around looking for trouble or victims. There are too many possible witnesses.

Hence the wisdom that "nothing good happens at 2 a.m." It may not be universally true, but it is good general advice.

Very well written! Kudos!

[VMI77]

Even if that was the case...the truck "allegedly" tried to hit them...missed and turned around. At this point my gun would be out of the holster. If I did not have a way out and he was for sure coming at me...AGAIN...your darn tootin I would fire on him.

At this point I am truly in fear for my life (more people are killed in car accidents than by gun fire). He is trying to hit me with his truck and do Lord knows what...so yea I would have defended myself.

My interpretation…while I can understand your opinion, I don't think this would play out well in the courts. Maybe he's coming back to apologize….maybe he has a disorder. If he had hit you and was coming at you again, that might be more in your favor. I don't know of any "case law" with similar circumstances. Does anyone else know of any case law similar to this "hypothetical" situation?

Several months ago I was first hand witness to a man who ran head on into another vehicle in League City. The man was driving a large SUV and after hitting the other vehicle, he kept pressing on the gas causing the wheels to spin. The guy was conscious and appeared to be in full control of his mental faculties….at least that's what it looked like from the side of the road. My first thought was…"what is this guy doing? is he trying to kill the people in the other car?" I know it was risky, but I went up to the SUV and opened the passenger door. The man did not look over at me. I realized then that there was something not right with this guy. I slammed the gear shift into park and took the keys. All the while this guy is still trying to drive off. The rest of the story….turns out the gentleman had a previous brain injury and was not supposed to be driving. Someone from his church had unknowingly given him their car keys so he could go get donuts. Turned out to be a bad mistake for everyone involved, but thankfully no one was seriously injured.

While one might argue that they believed they would be acting in the defense of a third party or defense of self in this thread, there are just too many unknown variables.

A very similar situation to what happened across the street from where I used to live. I can think of a lot of different explanations for the scenario described that do not justify the use of force, much less deadly force. I think if you shoot someone who you merely "believe" is trying to run into your with their vehicle you're going to prison. And this is without even considering the possiblity that there are other occupants of the vehicle you can't see, like children. Shoot a child in that scenario and your life is over.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Even if that was the case...the truck "allegedly" tried to hit them...missed and turned around. At this point my gun would be out of the holster. If I did not have a way out and he was for sure coming at me...AGAIN...your darn tootin I would fire on him.

At this point I am truly in fear for my life (more people are killed in car accidents than by gun fire). He is trying to hit me with his truck and do Lord knows what...so yea I would have defended myself.

My interpretation…while I can understand your opinion, I don't think this would play out well in the courts. Maybe he's coming back to apologize….maybe he has a disorder. If he had hit you and was coming at you again, that might be more in your favor. I don't know of any "case law" with similar circumstances. Does anyone else know of any case law similar to this "hypothetical" situation?

Several months ago I was first hand witness to a man who ran head on into another vehicle in League City. The man was driving a large SUV and after hitting the other vehicle, he kept pressing on the gas causing the wheels to spin. The guy was conscious and appeared to be in full control of his mental faculties….at least that's what it looked like from the side of the road. My first thought was…"what is this guy doing? is he trying to kill the people in the other car?" I know it was risky, but I went up to the SUV and opened the passenger door. The man did not look over at me. I realized then that there was something not right with this guy. I slammed the gear shift into park and took the keys. All the while this guy is still trying to drive off. The rest of the story….turns out the gentleman had a previous brain injury and was not supposed to be driving. Someone from his church had unknowingly given him their car keys so he could go get donuts. Turned out to be a bad mistake for everyone involved, but thankfully no one was seriously injured.

While one might argue that they believed they would be acting in the defense of a third party or defense of self in this thread, there are just too many unknown variables.

A very similar situation to what happened across the street from where I used to live. I can think of a lot of different explanations for the scenario described that do not justify the use of force, much less deadly force. I think if you shoot someone who you merely "believe" is trying to run into your with their vehicle you're going to prison. And this is without even considering the possiblity that there are other occupants of the vehicle you can't see, like children. Shoot a child in that scenario and your life is over.

care to expand on these scenarios?

[GreezyG]

If one believes that someone is trying to run them over then you should be in reasonable fear for life and limb. Any car can kill you. Honestly, I have the utmost sympathy for the disabled, my parents were social workers their whole careers. But if my life is threatened I will protect it. I'm not going to stop and evaluate the mental condition of the possible BG.

[VMI77]

Even if that was the case...the truck "allegedly" tried to hit them...missed and turned around. At this point my gun would be out of the holster. If I did not have a way out and he was for sure coming at me...AGAIN...your darn tootin I would fire on him.

At this point I am truly in fear for my life (more people are killed in car accidents than by gun fire). He is trying to hit me with his truck and do Lord knows what...so yea I would have defended myself.

My interpretation…while I can understand your opinion, I don't think this would play out well in the courts. Maybe he's coming back to apologize….maybe he has a disorder. If he had hit you and was coming at you again, that might be more in your favor. I don't know of any "case law" with similar circumstances. Does anyone else know of any case law similar to this "hypothetical" situation?

Several months ago I was first hand witness to a man who ran head on into another vehicle in League City. The man was driving a large SUV and after hitting the other vehicle, he kept pressing on the gas causing the wheels to spin. The guy was conscious and appeared to be in full control of his mental faculties….at least that's what it looked like from the side of the road. My first thought was…"what is this guy doing? is he trying to kill the people in the or ther car?" I know it was risky, but I went up to the SUV and opened the passenger door. The man did not look over at me. I realized then that there was something not right with this guy. I slammed the gear shift into park and took the keys. All the while this guy is still trying to drive off. The rest of the story….turns out the gentleman had a previous brain injury and was not supposed to be driving. Someone from his church had unknowingly given him their car keys so he could go get donuts. Turned out to be a bad mistake for everyone involved, but thankfully no one was seriously injured.

While one might argue that they believed they would be acting in the defense of a third party or defense of self in this thread, there are just too many unknown variables.

And how are you to know if they are really trying to hurt you or if they have a disorder? You aren't supposed to know nor is there any way that you can know. All you know is the facts...someone is trying to hit you with a MOVING VEHICLE.

Getting hit by a moving vehicle has been proven to be detrimental to your health.

At the point that you are threatened with being hit with a moving vehicle and you have no other way out...regardless of the mental state of the individual behind the wheel...one should think that you are in fear for your life and you are justified in using not only but force but deadly force. Especially since they are threatining you with deadly force.

You might want to reconsider what you're saying.....which appears to suggest you believe you can shoot at a vehicle that "looks like" it is going to hit you. I'm pretty certain if you do that you're going to go to prison. It seems to me you'd need to demonstrate at least two things in court to stay out of prison: 1) that it is reasonable to shoot people who lose control of their vehicles, are afflicted by strokes, or heart attacks....whatever....since you said you'd shoot without knowing why another vehicle is about to hit you; and 2) that it is reasonable to believe that shooting at a vehicle about to collide with you is likely to stop such a collision (and I'd maintain that in most circumstances, it isn't, and in fact, hitting the driver might cause a collision that otherwise wouldn't have occurred, since you've already admitted you don't know anything about the intentions of the driver).

To make #1 fly, you're also going to have to convince a jury that it is reasonable to risk killing other occupants of the vehicle, like children, when a driver loses control, say, due to a stroke or heart attack, and it looks like his vehicle may collide with yours. And it won't matter whether or not there are actually children in the vehicle because the prosecution will introduce that possiblity given your argument that the intentions of the driver are not a factor in your decision to shoot. It's just my opinion of course, but I don't think you're going to find a jury that will accept your line of reasoning.

[Fangs]

IANAL... and I'm glad some of you guys aren't either.

Important parts marked:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

If someone's exhibiting all the signs of trying to crush me while they're driving a huge truck and I don't reasonably believe that I can escape without putting myself and my passengers at risk, then yes, I'm going to shoot them. I've had people try to run me off the road before and I've had friends who've died from car wrecks. If someone's medically incapable of driving then they should... hmm... NOT DRIVE.

That having been said, nothing good happens on the east side of I-35 in Austin.