Attacked in fast food drive through
This is a discussion on Attacked in fast food drive through within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; One nice thing about having a vehicle is that it can provide a fair amount of protection against a lower-level assault. No telling how a ...
August 2nd, 2012 07:59 AM
One nice thing about having a vehicle is that it can provide a fair amount of protection against a lower-level assault. No telling how a given encounter's going to proceed, of course, but retreating temporarily back into the vehicle is certainly something to consider when faced with such an escalating situation in future.
The simple act of putting your "back against the wall" can help ensure people absolutely see you in the right, as the victim. Particularly if it turns out that the perimeter (your vehicle as a barrier) is breached, then you're standing on fairly solid ground if you end up using significant, even lethal, force to withstand the attack.
Of course, in a state with no legal duty to retreat, you're technically not going to be required to do so, but particularly with all the Stand Your Ground crap flying about in the press, it's got people on edge about the whole notion of being the one left standing. Considering all of your options ain't a bad thing.
The way nearly all such laws are written, it's deemed lawful if OTHERS (DA, GJ) deem it to have been reasonable. Communicating one's thought process is only the very first step in justifying one's actions, if lethal force is employed.
Originally Posted by k6gixx
That said, I agree that the statutes should absolutely support legitimate defense of life whenever life is reasonably felt threatened.
August 2nd, 2012 08:08 AM
I certainly would have been in fear for my life. Boxed in, could not drive away, hand on my throat while I'm in a position in which I am physically disadvantaged to fight. The guy could have crushed my windpipe or I could have black out in a matter of seconds. All after I tried to de-escalate. Once he backed off after seeing the gun, then yes, lethal force should not be used - but before - why not?
As for the passenger, for a non-lethal option, he would have to get out of the truck, run to the other side, and tackle the guy. Four, five seconds? How long does it take to crush a windpipe?
Curious as to why some do not think use of lethal force was justified? Seems like the OP was going to experience grave bodily injury or death.
August 2nd, 2012 08:11 AM
He reached through the window? A good start would have been opening your door hard to knock him off balance. I'm not trying to knock your handling of the situation. I wasn't there and given where I keep things it probably would have been easier for me to reach my weapon than my OC, and at that range you're going to hit yourself with some of it. I don't know about in Texas, but in OK you'd have been justified due to Castle Doctrine extending to vehicles. The trick is, you'd have been nailed for a weapons charge in all likelihood, because keeping a loaded weapon in your vehicle is not legal without a license.
You didn't die, he didn't die and charges are being filed against him. Works for me.
This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.
August 2nd, 2012 08:19 AM
Kudos, you guys did great.
August 2nd, 2012 08:25 AM
Was the assailant grabbing & choking you with both his arms through the driver's window of your truck? Do you have electric windows? I'd have rolled up my window & trapped his elbows. Then scrapped him off my truck with the edge of the nearest concrete block wall, ideally at around 45 m.p.h. (* yeah, I know it's an impractical, unlikely solution. But the idea of peeling him off my truck like scrapping dog crap off my boot...kinda' appeals to me. It shouldn't kill him, but it would sure scab him up a bit.)
There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.
August 2nd, 2012 08:42 AM
I am perfectly fine with carrying OC spray, but that is because I have been sprayed with it and know what it feels like and how to push through it. My wife wants to carry it, but with her not knowing what the backlash of getting it in her own face may be, I am hesitant. I don't wish that "just sprayed" feeling on anyone undeserving and my wife has a temper problem...
Originally Posted by Burns
August 2nd, 2012 08:43 AM
I also carry a knife... But I don't think of it as a less than lethal option. And I wonder what a GJ would say?
If someone confronts me with a knife, I consider that deadly force, I do believe the state and legal system would as well under the "reasonable man standard."
So, If I use a knife on an attacker who has no weapon, assuming there's no "disparity of force" at play, I would probably be guilty of some crime even if I were defending myself.
Pepper spray, stun gun, taser, those ARE less than lethal under the law. A knife, not so much.
Just my thoughts... Glad the outcome was good.
It could be worse!
August 2nd, 2012 08:49 AM
I guess that guy would fall into the category of a 'mean drunk'.
+1 for getting a non-lethal option (e.g. pepper spray).
I think you'd have prevailed legally if you had shot him, but it would have been a very expensive victory.
The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.
August 2nd, 2012 08:52 AM
I agree that you probably would have been justified in shooting, but my guess is it may have ended up in court (but it was in TX, so you never know).
At that distance, OC spray would probably gotten you and the BG, and put you at a disadvantage to defend yourself, although it is still a good thing to have for other situations.
Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine
August 2nd, 2012 08:55 AM
I will add like few others this
since when did getting choked by someone not justified enough?
You don't consider your life in danger when you are being choked?
I'm not telling you this, but the LEOs who said that it wouldn't have been justified.
August 2nd, 2012 09:07 AM
The cop was probably right; you would have gone to jail. You might have beaten the charges but never the less you would have gone to jail ($20,000 later). You can protect yourself if you feel your life is in danger but in this case you have to prove it because there is no weapon other than his hands and getting whooped in a drive thru is not imminent danger.
I agree with Mr. Burns when he said he would have gave him a face full of PS and it would hopefully have defused the situation.You just can't shoot someone because you got into a fight. You really need to evaluate your reason to carry if every time you get into a fight you run for a gun and learn to carry a less then lethal weapon and it might save you a lot of cash
there is a number of shootings that where a person is getting beat up at traffic lights and in intersections but most if not all resulted in arrests of the shooter first and then court
PC §9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.
Subch. C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE- skipped-
PC §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.(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly 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 an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(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.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the
60 TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS
deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of
deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
here do some reading if you are going to carry you need to understand the law or you are going to do something dumb
read chapter #2 http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/interne...rms/chl-16.pdf
August 2nd, 2012 09:13 AM
do you have power windows? i had a drunk assault me once in similar circumstances. i grabbed his wrist with one hand and rolled his elbow up in the window. i just twisted his arm around backwards as hard as i could. i didn't have a gun at the time, it was like 12 years ago. almost broke his arm.
August 2nd, 2012 09:14 AM
Depends on the situation. With an impaired drunk who's not strong enough to complete the task, likely not. The mere fact of a hands-on situation isn't sufficient, according to the statutes in most states. The risk is there, sure, but until there's reasonable belief of loss, it's generally not held to be sufficient.
Originally Posted by taseal
Still, nobody has to suffer through a beating. It's just that it can become difficult to get everyone to see that a "mere beating" rose to the level of credible threat to life.
The devil's in the details.
And, lest we all forget: the "reasonable man" standards mean that others get to judge our actions. It's not merely what we believe, it's what our peers will believe was reasonable that matters.
August 2nd, 2012 09:21 AM
Texas law treats a situation like this as if he had kicked in your front door and was choking you (castle doctrine applying to vehicle.) Would've been a clean shoot in my opinion. I also think if I had OC spray close I still would've shot... He's too close, he's invaded your vehicle, and his hands on your throat... He's passed OC engagement zone and found himself square in the new orifice zone. The only reason he stopped attempting to kill you (I don't know any other reason one would choke someone,) was because he realized he was about to meet his maker himself.
Also to those who say probably a clean shoot but expensive fight to prove it... This is a very dangerous train of thought in my opinion. If someone is trying to kill you perhaps one should be thinking how expensive the funeral your loved ones are about to have to pay for is vs possible legal expenses.
To the OP: I would call your actions dang near textbook. You perceived a threat, you drew (as did the buddy) the threat withdrew and each of you had presence of mind not to fire. The only difference (in my armchair quarterback opinion) in what I would've done... I would have drawn and shot immediately. A man with his hands on my throat is past the point of getting options. Take this as I mean it.... You did VERY well and I'm not sure I would have ACTUALLY done any better when some one had there hands on my throat.
August 2nd, 2012 11:35 AM
Sounds like you did well, the bad guy is lucky to be alive!
Search tags for this page
cadmio antonio lopez, joshua bernard rinken and jimmy dan smith
crossbreed supertuck driving
failure to pay at fast food drive in ok
fight 2008 drive thru
force necessary to crush the windpipe
how to be a good drive thru op fast food
justification a drive thru fastfood
justification of drive thru fastfood
reading comprehension on fast food drive thru
survivalforum.com how to keep a vehicle from m driving into your house
us soldier attacked at fast food drive through florida
what is the speaker called at drive through fast food places
Click on a term to search for related topics.