Four unarmed men

[ccw9mm]

So, you're going to shoot and kill the only one of the 4 who is not an immediate threat ...

You're saying the driver somehow isn't actively playing a part in the immediate kidnapping I'm witnessing, that being driven away from the scene isn't a deadly threat?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[chuck brick]

You and your wife are walking through a quiet residential neighborhood, getting some exercise after a late lunch. A van approaches from behind and slows down next to you as you walk. Four men jump out of the van, chasing down the two of you as you attempt to evade them. The men grab your wife and begin to drag her back to the van. All four men are unarmed. What do you do?

Assume you are armed with your favorite pistol, but have no
less-than-lethal means of self defense (oc spray, etc.)

They would have to climb over me to get to her. There's no running, only backing off - a little. Running would serve no purpose unless you're both Olympic track athletes.
Disparity of Force/Disparity of Numbers is sufficient justification under the law to initiate Lethal Force (even if it weren't, that's my wife).
When the chase began, it already was (not "became") assault.
So, to answer: "BangBangBangBangBangBangBangBang(16+1), (re-load); dial 9-1-1 - I need EMS and the police, here's been a shooting...."

[ReaperVelle]

I start to shoot at each one until they;

1. Are dead

2. They release my wife and retreat

3. Police arrive

+10

[mi2az]

Always remember, all 12 jurist have to agree with the PA.

[SleepingZ]

If they come after me and mine wifey, I will be spreading the love. I just hope that day I have my XD with the extra mag to do the spreading.


Z

[bigiceman]

Only running will be to get behind a convenient obstacle to have between us. After that, anyone that wants to come closer to the man with the gun has made a mistake they won't repeat.

If they get the wife in hand, there will be well placed rounds. The old middle-aged spread will help out too. It will take all four of their considered efforts to "run" off with the wife. I will have some slow-moving, hard-sweating bad guys to shoot at my leasure.

[Jcabin]

Matt,

With all due respect, you are wrong. If that person is in the van waiting for them to pull her in he is just as guilty, legally, as they are and he is my best way to keep them there. If you are in commission of a crime with a buddy and they kill someone by law you are guilty of murder.

Correct, in PA, that is third degree murder for the van driver.

[TN_Mike]

You and your wife are walking through a quiet residential neighborhood, getting some exercise after a late lunch. A van approaches from behind and slows down next to you as you walk. Four men jump out of the van, chasing down the two of you as you attempt to evade them. The men grab your wife and begin to drag her back to the van. All four men are unarmed. What do you do?

Assume you are armed with your favorite pistol, but have no
less-than-lethal means of self defense (oc spray, etc.)

I shoot all 4 of them.

1. I am in fear for my wife's life.

2. Disparity of force comes in to play as I am out numbered 4 to 1

[Ron]

Let's say you are being robbed at gunpoint by to assailants - one has a gun, one is standing behind him acting as his lookout. You use deadly force to protect yourself from the one with the gun (also known as the actual threat). While the accomplice is certainly criminally culpable in this act (and will probably face murder charges in the death of his accomplice if he dies), you cannot shoot and kill the lookout as well.

Same thing applies here.

Matt

Matt, I don't think that your analogy holds.

In the first scenario the criminal act is armed robbery, and the the guy attempting to rob you at gunpoint is the immediate threat. I agree that once you take out the guy with the gun then the threat to you of being robbed at gunpoint is over and you could not lawfully shoot the lookout accomplice.

But in the OP's scenario, the criminal act is the attempted abduction of your wife by forcing her into a van. Once she is in the van, then the threat to her life not only continues but is much greater, and the driver is a key factor in that threat.

I believe that one would be making a serious mistake, and increasing the risk to your wife, by not attempting, if possible, to take out the driver.

[MattInFla]

Matt, I don't think that your analogy holds.

In the first scenario the criminal act is armed robbery, and the the guy attempting to rob you at gunpoint is the immediate threat. I agree that once you take out the guy with the gun then the threat to you of being robbed at gunpoint is over and you could not lawfully shoot the lookout accomplice.

But in the OP's scenario, the criminal act is the attempted abduction of your wife by forcing her into a van. Once she is in the van, then the threat to her life not only continues but is much greater, and the driver is a key factor in that threat.

I believe that one would be making a serious mistake, and increasing the risk to your wife, by not attempting, if possible, to take out the driver.

If she's actually in the van, I think you have a point.

But as presented, the assailants are trying to drag her to the van. She's not in it yet.

Apparently, some folks think the driver is more of a threat than the assailants who are immediately assaulting her.

I don't see it, and I seriously doubt the prosecutor / jury will see it that way either.

It's analogous to happening on a bank robbery. You see 3 robbers in the bank, and the getaway driver sitting in the car out front. I just don't see justification in walking up and shooting the getaway driver.

Matt

[Rugergirl]

In the original scenario nothing is said about the driver. Is he still in the van or is he one of the four who jumped out?

[Jcabin]

YOU BETTER LEARN TO SHOOT THROUGH WINDOWS PEOPLE.

sorry for the caps but most people are under the misconception that shooting through a front windshield is going to be easy as cake. WRONG.

The way the glass is angled the bullet generally travels upwards by a few inches. ie, you aim at the head, the bullet generally goes up above the guys head and back behind him or through the roof.

if you're aiming for a head shot, try aiming at shoulder level, or neck, this should effectively counter the windows inherent bullet bending attributes.

[mcp1810]

Matt,
I think shooting the van driver question requires an intimate knowledge of your particular jurisdictions laws on use of force. Under the Texas penal code the driver is an active participant in an attempted aggravated kidnapping. I can use deadly force against him to prevent that. In fact, it could be argued that he should be the first target. If I hypothetically shoot and disable two of the men that exited the van, and the other two manage to get my wife in the vehicle, they are as good as gone. I am now faced with a moving target at increasing range and unless they leave all the doors open I can't see inside the vehicle to know where my wife is.
If on the other hand I were to shoot the driver first. we have a couple of scenarios now.
1) driver does not like getting shot at and bugs out leaving his buddies behind.
2) shots take effect and regrettably kill the driver.
a) vehicle is in gear and starts rolling away, leaving the rest of us behind.
b) vehicle was in park and there is now a dead body that must be removed from the drivers seat before they can drive away.

Now the other four bad guys have a choice. They can cut and run, or they can continue knowing that their get away has been severely compromised. If they choose to continue they have a bunch of negatives on them now. Gunfire is not common in my neighborhood so they can expect that police are being called and will be responding. Their vehicle, if it has bullet holes in it, is not going to "blend" in this area. And of course I have not stopped shooting at them unless they have disengaged or I no longer have a safe shot.

And of course they have to figure all of this out in under ten seconds.

[ccw9mm]

Apparently, some folks think the driver is more of a threat than the assailants who are immediately assaulting her.

No, not more of a threat. But a gang of four (or five) with one at the wheel isn't going to accomplish the same thing if their ability to escape is eliminated. In that sense, the driver is just as much a part of the ganged-up threat as each other member.

[Rugergirl]

Shoot through the window?
No thanks, if I'm faced with 4 men trying to kidnap me or another member of my family I think I'll shoot them first.
Anyone in that van? An unknown that hasn't been addressed, given more info from the OP, I'll answer.