This is a discussion on "You da man,you da man!" within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by MadMac Didn't scenario is a different scenario. We aren't discussing a situation where someone broke your car window and is trying to ...
What we all need to remember is state to state, things vary. In Texas, and a few other states, a weapon is NOT a requirement when someone is ATTEMPTING to open your HOME or VEHICLE door. In Texas, just the fact that he was waved off and did not stop, then attempted to open the door by reaching for the handle shows his intent. It is very clear that we can take defensive action when one tries to enter our castle, which is our car or home here.
I cannot speak for any other state, but what goes in Wyoming or California may be very, very different than in Texas. The only way we should be saying if he was wrong is if we research HIS PARTICULAR STATE'S LAWS.
The main question here is if he was using force. To me, force is grabbing my door handle, even after I told him to go away or motioned him away. Now, this is the legal standing here in Texas, not sure about the OP's state right now. Here, a weapon is not a prerequisite for using deadly force, though I can't see shooting a guy for grabbing my door handle, whether legally justifiable or not. I have pepper spray, some Krav Maga training and a few other options if I'm not about to be shot, stabbed or beaten with a weapon of any kind. Once he shows any type of weapon though, all bets are off.
Personally, I would have my hand on my gun, I'd assume, but since I wasn't there I have NO CLUE how I'd have handled it, I've never had anyone grab my door handle, though I was carjacked and thrown in the trunk….
Now, did this guy have a crazed look in his eyes like he wanted to destroy you? Was he in a suit and smiling, like "hey buddy!"? I doubt a cop would grab the door handle, personally. Did he look scared like he really needed help?
After I was carjacked and the ordeal went on for almost an hour, a gun was fired, I fought for my life and was splattered with blood, I then jumped out of the Four Runner and I GRABBED THE DOOR HANDLE of a Bell Atlantic phone truck and jumped in the passenger seat - while the phone company worker had this look on his face of utter confusion as to why this freaked out bloody guy in a torn suit was all of a sudden in the front of his truck. I forgot about the significance of that until just now!
Anyway, luckily I wasn't shot, though just jumping in his truck was very stupid in hindsight. Also, I was 19 at the time and this was what got me fully into self defense 11 years ago.
From Texas SB 378 - http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodo...l/SB00378I.htm
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.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Last edited by jonconsiglio; January 6th, 2011 at 10:46 PM. Reason: spelling
Proven combat techniques may not be flashy and may require a bit more physical effort on the part of the shooter. Further, they may not win competition matches, but they will help ensure your survival in a shooting or gunfight on the street. ~Paul Howe
"Solution, only partly tongue in cheek. Open window. IF arm comes, in break it. Grab hold and hit the accelerator. Use elbow to smash it against the top edge of the door. Break fingers. Lots of choices. The point, until you have seen a weapon and heard a threat of death, use no deadly force. When attack is on with arm reaching in, consider responding in kind: aside from above, with window open you can use OC. You can take an edged weapon to the hand. G-d gave us teeth, and many of us still have them.
Gun = last option not first option.
In this scenario it is entirely possible that if window were rolled down the dude outside might have asked for a couple of bucks for coffee. Big deal. Say no, or yes as you please. If he won't quit and gets belligerent, see above."