Pulling weapon to diffuse a road rage scenario?

[jimlongley]

The other car had video'd the incident and called 911.

This was before I got my CHL, but it certainly made an impression on me.

IMHO the OP was asking to be arrested in the first incident.

But off topic, I bought a neat little video camera for our trip to Hawai'i, a VHOLDR helmet cam, and now that the trip is long over, I have taken to placing it on the dashboard of my car. It's amazing the stuff I catch, and forward to the LEOs.

We have a two lane left turn in our city, where a lot of people drive in the mirror and if you try to turn left the the right lane, they swing into that lane in the middle of the turn to block you from passing them, apparantly so they can gain that all important one car length lead, and then they have to swerve across two lanes to get on the expressway.

I have never waved a gun at any of them, but I do sometimes wave my camera.

[Excaliber]

I don't think it would have been a good idea to pull a gun in the original situations presented, but it was also said earlier in this thread that you are only justified in pulling your gun out if you would be justified in shooting the person. From my understanding of the law, that's not the case. Here's why:

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

So, if the threat of deadly force is not actually considered deadly force, then it could be used any time the "threat of force" would be justified. Threat of force is justified any time the use of force is justified. The use of force could be justified for a wide variety of situations that wouldn't allow you to use deadly force. Now, to be fair, PC §9.31, the self defense statute, does say that the use of force is justified "when and to the degree" the person feels the force is necessary, so I wouldn't be pulling my gun out for trivial matters. However, I do believe there are situations in which a person would be justified in pulling out their gun out of fear for their life even though the other person has not [yet] made a specific threat of deadly force. Of course, pulling a gun is not guaranteed to diffuse the situation. It could make it go from bad to worse very quickly so you would need to be prepared for that. For that reason, there are probably very few situations in which I would consider doing so.

IANAL,
Brian

While your point about displaying a gun is not the same as using one is technically correct, I don't see an application to either of the OP's situations. Where was the imminent threat to his life?

Creative imagination doesn't hold up in court, and to the extent that he felt endangered by another driver, he could have easily evaded that threat with better driving choices - like slowing down and letting the other driver speed on.

Setting aside the OP's astonishing logical leap from TV's in the sun visors to a conclusion that the other driver was a gangbanger who posed an imminent danger of shooting at the OP, I don't buy the innocent posturing in the second instance the OP cited. While anything is possible, when someone passes a vehicle on the shoulder at very high speed, cuts into another operator's lane, and slams on the brakes, an examination of what happened between those vehicles in the 60 seconds prior to those moves will usually (as in just about always) provide insight into why that vehicle was selected for this treatment.

Plain and simple, from the information provided in the original post, there was no threat that would justify displaying or using a firearm to resolve the situations described in either instance. There are numerous far more reasonable alternatives available.

KD5NRH's suggestion to buy a bluetooth headset to make calling 911 easier would be a good start.

[bdickens]

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!

Something tells me your self-asessment of your driving is - shall we say - a bit too rosy. I've been driving for almost as long as you've been alive and I've had exactly one road-rage incident like you've described, and I cut the guy off. And I'm an aggressive driver.

[JayCee]

1st off, I'm not a troll.

Secondly, I appreciate the responses and the wealth of information here and I don't mean to disrespect those sources of info in any way.
I simply personally feel that using a vehicle as a weapon could/should be seen as a threat just as a thug with a bat and is grounds for a "threat of force" scenario. There are always "what-ifs" and variables we can't control but for the sake of discussion let's assume that events are as I described in that I had no way to evade someone intent on causing an accident.

I've heard all the stories about muggings at the ATM, home invasions or gang violence etc. in other words situations where drawing a weapon would be justified, so why would someone using their car as a weapon any different?

Let me also add I've been around long enough to understand the social structure of internet forums in that faceless screen names can't exactly tell the story of a person so I'm not going to debate with you guys about my driving ability, temperament or how good of a shot I am or whether I have the critical thinking ability to analyze a dangerous situation appropriately. People are predisposed to project their own inadequacies and biases on people they don't know, so keep that in mind when you make statements like "you say you drive fast, that must mean you're a jerk." or "how do you know he was a gangbanger?" etc.

[Cobra Medic]

I don't think a weapon is usually the best choice for diffusing or defusing the situation, but a weapon is often the best choice for defending yourself when non-violent conflict resolution fails.

[bdickens]

I apologize if you've been mischaracterized, but being brand-new and post asking about rather dubious and inadvisable conduct with a firearm just seems suspicious.

[JayCee]

While your point about displaying a gun is not the same as using one is technically correct, I don't see an application to either of the OP's situations. Where was the imminent threat to his life?

Creative imagination doesn't hold up in court, and to the extent that he felt endangered by another driver, he could have easily evaded that threat with better driving choices - like slowing down and letting the other driver speed on.

Setting aside the OP's astonishing logical leap from TV's in the sun visors to a conclusion that the other driver was a gangbanger who posed an imminent danger of shooting at the OP, I don't buy the innocent posturing in the second instance the OP cited. While anything is possible, when someone passes a vehicle on the shoulder at very high speed, cuts into another operator's lane, and slams on the brakes, an examination of what happened between those vehicles in the 60 seconds prior to those moves will usually (as in just about always) provide insight into why that vehicle was selected for this treatment.

Plain and simple, from the information provided in the original post, there was no threat that would justify displaying or using a firearm to resolve the situations described in either instance. There are numerous far more reasonable alternatives available.

KD5NRH's suggestion to buy a bluetooth headset to make calling 911 easier would be a good start.

OK, since you appear to be hung up on this let me help you out.
I'm not talking about a simple honk/flip the bird scenario. I'm talking about a car swerving at me at 75-80 mph, cutting off other vehicles in an attempt to block me and tailgaiting me with brights on. We were in heavy traffic which is dangerous enough on a good day and I had to pay my full attention to the cars around me in addition to the individual causing all the trouble. It was also night time on a weekend where a good 25% of drivers are intoxicated. We're not talking some jerk on an empty farm road harrasing someone. I did everything I could to get away, when I moved to the right so did he, when I passed a car and changed lanes, he followed. Basicaly he looked as if he was trying to get beside me and I'm pretty sure it wasn't to exchange pleasantries. This incident was completely unwarranted (and I know I'm talking to strangers here) but I assure you I have an above avarage sense of awareness especially when driving. The car in question was harassing other vehicles before he set his sights on me. Traffic was moving at 70-75 and this guy wanted to do 90 and anyone that got in his way got swerved at or brake checked.

...and, Excaliber, since you feel that I made a "logical leap" in my assumption that this person was a gangbanger, you seem to think that saw just a TV in the visor and that's it? C'mon...how about you give me the benefit of the doubt? I've lived in this city for 15 years, worked in some rough spots with and around some rough people so let me tell you I'm not speaking out of turn when I labeled this guy a gangbanger.

As far as the other guy in the Avalance, it dosent take much to make a little car like mine spin out from a tap to the rear or side and that's exactly what he was about to do. Why should I speed or swerve to a shoulder or exit which could potentially result in a wreck when all I had to do was say "back off" by putting my gun on the seat? If he had hit me, I'd have wrecked and if I lived I'd have no one to press charges on. Last january I got hit by a hit-n-run and almost got into a serious head-on as a result so if you don't believe that stuff like this happens then you're either naive or blind.

I come here looking for experts and I'm assuming that there are some here so lets show some mutual respect. I know plenty of lefties that think people like Texans or CHL holders are nothing more than mouth-breathing redneck tea-baggers but I'm giving you guys the benefit of the doubt so show me the same courtesy... Also, both of these events happend months ago so surely there's some details I'm forgetting or misremembering, I posted them as a kind of hypothetical situation, only on that was based on something that actually happened to me. It's asanine to try and pick apart details and then ignore the main question. Forest for the Trees???

Bottom Line is that I got my answer (mostly) so let's keep the assumptions of character and ability to ourselves. Thanks.

[Excaliber]

While your point about displaying a gun is not the same as using one is technically correct, I don't see an application to either of the OP's situations. Where was the imminent threat to his life?

Creative imagination doesn't hold up in court, and to the extent that he felt endangered by another driver, he could have easily evaded that threat with better driving choices - like slowing down and letting the other driver speed on.

Setting aside the OP's astonishing logical leap from TV's in the sun visors to a conclusion that the other driver was a gangbanger who posed an imminent danger of shooting at the OP, I don't buy the innocent posturing in the second instance the OP cited. While anything is possible, when someone passes a vehicle on the shoulder at very high speed, cuts into another operator's lane, and slams on the brakes, an examination of what happened between those vehicles in the 60 seconds prior to those moves will usually (as in just about always) provide insight into why that vehicle was selected for this treatment.

Plain and simple, from the information provided in the original post, there was no threat that would justify displaying or using a firearm to resolve the situations described in either instance. There are numerous far more reasonable alternatives available.

KD5NRH's suggestion to buy a bluetooth headset to make calling 911 easier would be a good start.

OK, since you appear to be hung up on this let me help you out.
I'm not talking about a simple honk/flip the bird scenario. I'm talking about a car swerving at me at 75-80 mph, cutting off other vehicles in an attempt to block me and tailgaiting me with brights on. We were in heavy traffic which is dangerous enough on a good day and I had to pay my full attention to the cars around me in addition to the individual causing all the trouble. It was also night time on a weekend where a good 25% of drivers are intoxicated. We're not talking some jerk on an empty farm road harrasing someone. I did everything I could to get away, when I moved to the right so did he, when I passed a car and changed lanes, he followed. Basicaly he looked as if he was trying to get beside me and I'm pretty sure it wasn't to exchange pleasantries. This incident was completely unwarranted (and I know I'm talking to strangers here) but I assure you I have an above avarage sense of awareness especially when driving. The car in question was harassing other vehicles before he set his sights on me. Traffic was moving at 70-75 and this guy wanted to do 90 and anyone that got in his way got swerved at or brake checked.

...and, Excaliber, since you feel that I made a "logical leap" in my assumption that this person was a gangbanger, you seem to think that saw just a TV in the visor and that's it? C'mon...how about you give me the benefit of the doubt? I've lived in this city for 15 years, worked in some rough spots with and around some rough people so let me tell you I'm not speaking out of turn when I labeled this guy a gangbanger.

As far as the other guy in the Avalance, it dosent take much to make a little car like mine spin out from a tap to the rear or side and that's exactly what he was about to do. Why should I speed or swerve to a shoulder or exit which could potentially result in a wreck when all I had to do was say "back off" by putting my gun on the seat? If he had hit me, I'd have wrecked and if I lived I'd have no one to press charges on. Last january I got hit by a hit-n-run and almost got into a serious head-on as a result so if you don't believe that stuff like this happens then you're either naive or blind.

I come here looking for experts and I'm assuming that there are some here so lets show some mutual respect. I know plenty of lefties that think people like Texans or CHL holders are nothing more than mouth-breathing redneck tea-baggers but I'm giving you guys the benefit of the doubt so show me the same courtesy... Also, both of these events happend months ago so surely there's some details I'm forgetting or misremembering, I posted them as a kind of hypothetical situation, only on that was based on something that actually happened to me. It's asanine to try and pick apart details and then ignore the main question. Forest for the Trees???

Bottom Line is that I got my answer (mostly) so let's keep the assumptions of character and ability to ourselves. Thanks.

JayCee, you will remain confused and unhappy with the responses of our Forum members who actually understand the issues involved until you take the time and trouble to educate yourself on the well established provisions of Texas law regarding lawful self defense. Without that fundamental knowledge, there is no shared basic for effective communication.

You could do that by taking a CHL class, or you could get a quick peek at the basics in Chapter 9 of the Penal Code and the other sections it references. The full text is readily available online.

[Oldgringo]

JayCee, you will remain confused and unhappy with the responses of our Forum members who actually understand the issues involved until you take the time and trouble to educate yourself on the well established provisions of Texas law regarding lawful self defense. Without that fundamental knowledge, there is no shared basic for effective communication.

You could do that by taking a CHL class, or you could get a quick peek at the basics in Chapter 9 of the Penal Code and the other sections it references. The full text is readily available online.

He might also look and see if anybody still does the Dale Carnegie course in his neighborhood.

[A-R]

I don't think a weapon is usually the best choice for diffusing or defusing the situation, but a weapon is often the best choice for defending yourself when non-violent conflict resolution fails.

This is very well stated and important for everyone to remember when things go sideways.

There's a VERY IMPORTANT reason why "non-violent dispute" resolution is one of four major topics that must be covered in the CHL course. In many ways, it may be the most important - certainly is equally as important as understanding PC Chapter 9 Use of Force. But it can also look like Communication 101 or worse yet pyscho-babble to a lot of folks. It's hard to apply all the little acronymns and lists of dos and don't to actual real-life scenarios when your adrenaline is flowing.

But learning and incorporating techniques to defuse, de-escalate, avoid, or escape confrontation is a MUST for anyone who carries a gun. Equally as important as learning how to shoot accurately, learning the go/no go places lists, which signs = PC 30.06 or 51% etc

[JayCee]

I would agree that there is no "shared basic for effective communication" but not for the same reasons that you think...

as far as CHAP 9, I'm starting to like this bit, it sounds as if it would apply:

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

So by my interpretation let's say you have a worst case scenario on the highway and the other driver has made it clear he attempts to cause a collision, you've made every prudent attempt to evade and he still persists. It seems the law would agree that pulling a gun in an attempt to dissuade the attacker is justified and legal. I'm pretty sure that reasonalbe people would agree that pulling a gun for .500 of a second and defusing the whole situation is a safer alternative than swerving thru traffic and playing cat and mouse while trying to dial a phone. What if there was an accident as a result of evading?

Apart from the fact it involves cars, I don't see how this is any different than some random instigator on two feet trying to beat your head in and you draw your weapon and scream 'stop or I'll shoot'. Why are the protocols for defending yourself different because you're in a car?

[A-R]

to the OP, some points to examine more closely and really think about:

- You've stated that calling 911 on your cell phone or even slowing, stopping, or exiting was difficult in these situations. How in the world do you think accurately shooting a gun in these situations would be easier or a better decision?

- For citizens (as distinguished from law enforcement, military etc.), using deadly force to stop an attempted use of deadly force is NOT REQUIRED by law, ethics, or even common sense in many cases. RETREAT, finding cover, safe harbor, calling for "backup" (the police) .... all of these are OPTIONS to be considered in any threatening scenario of any kind. Actually using deadly force CAN BE a first resort (example: guy out of nowhere runs toward you with a bladed or heavy blunt-force weapon in an open parking lot with no cover available), but 99.999% of the time the use of deadly force is a LAST RESORT.

- in both scenarios you cited, you have countless other OPTIONS you could choose that have now been explained to you from other members of this forum.

- you keep coming back to "but he was using his car as a deadly weapon" or whatever .... SO WHAT!?!?! If 10 people walk in to wherever you are right now and open fire with fully automatic AK-47s, are you going to immediately move to using deadly force to stop their deadly force by firing back at them with a handgun? Or are you going to seek cover, evade, look for an escape, call 911? In a fight between a person with a car and a person with a gun, I'll take the car EVERY TIME and twice if the person with the gun also has try to drive a car while firing the gun

- Most of the good people on this forum truly are trying to help you. And remember, we're all "on your side". We're like-minded people who believe in RKBA and self-defense. If WE (collectively speaking for the majority of the forum who've replied to this thread) have concerns about how you're responding to these hypothetical situations, how do you think a JURY will react if you actually pull a gun or God-forbid shoot it while driving a car on a crowded freeway? You're not going to have all of us sitting in judgment on you. If you're lucky, at best, your jury will be made of people who are on the fence or indifferent to RKBA/self-defense issues - worst case, you get a bunch of gun-hating nanny-staters who think anyone who would use a gun for any reason oughta be locked up.

- Remember this: If you wouldn't do it without a gun, don't do it WITH a gun. Carrying a gun has the unwanted effect of making some people think they're 10 feet tall and bulletproof. In each scenario, decide what you would do WITHOUT a gun and therein probably lies the correct answer. Only if the answer is "I or others would probably be seriously injured or killed" without me using my gun should your own use of a gun be considered.

Lastly, if you don't believe us, read what happened to a hot-tempered young man on a freeway in Austin recently when he pulled his gun to "defend himself" from a road rage incident ....

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/man ... 44356.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=36789&hilit=austin+road+rage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[anygunanywhere]

If I am in my Super Duty and someone wants to play tag, so be it. My truck has a lot more energy than my .45 ACP.

Cell phones and situation avoidance are your best bet.

I have had a few road rage encounters in my day, and looking back, I contributed to the incident. I consciously try to avoid them these days, and this really takes effort on my part because I am agressive by nature. We need to be the smarter and wiser ones in the situation.

Wisdom on how to handle these situations is acquired.

The law will never say that if some insane individual swerves at you that it justifies going to slide lock as you drive down the highway.

Learn from your encounters and grow as an armed individual. The streets are only going to get worse, not better.

Anygunanywhere

[LJM]

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.

[Abraham]

Jaycee,

Rather than go through a lot of frustration here, unsatisfied with the various responses you're getting, take the time to get a CHL. The training you'll receive will answer your questions to your satisfaction.

Assuming you can pass a background check, that is... You have to have a clean record even for your MPA carrying, well, relatively clean, there's room for a little forgivable past michief...

If not, you may want to look into the legality of carrying in your vehicle under the auspices of the MPA.