[roalho]

Real Scenario, but it happened to my brother, not myself. My brother is an Eagle Scout, works for the state, long time CC permit holder and is cool as a cucumber, head wise.

Early 90's, he's driving his ragtop Jeep on I-84 somewhere near Boise, ID. Along comes a BMW full of punks, presumably minors in a parents car, and they are being belligerent. Motioning out the windows, veering at my bro's jeep, getting ahead and brake-checking him, punks out just to be punks. Remember, they're travelling at highway speed.

After a couple miles of this, he's feeling very uncomfortable with the situation and draws his .40 cal H&K USP, and points it at them as they come up along side.

WHAM! They slam on the brakes, and he never sees them again.

My opinion is he handeled it well and properly, considering the circumstances. I don't know if he called the police and reported his drawing a weapon, I'll have to ask him next time we talk.

So...What do you think? Was this an appropriate time to draw?

 

[Rugergirl]

Hmm, depending on Idaho law the could be considered "brandishing", not good.
Worse yet if the punks had called 911 telling them of a motorist pointing a gun at them, and not admitting their part in the encounter.
If it were me I may have unholstered and placed the firearm in easy reach but I doubt if I would have shown the weapon at that point.
Highway speeds in a rag top 4x4 can be more dangerous than the average vehicle but, I'm still not sure I would have pointed a gun at them. I probably would have called 911, reported what was going on and the location, along with letting them know I was legally armed.

 

[miklcolt45]

My opinion is that he is lucky the punks didn't call the cops and have him spend years in jail.

This topic has been discussed pretty often. On the highway at night and alone is pretty much a nightmare scenario. He said-she said, but you're the nutcase (or your brother) waving the gun around.

Today, it is pretty easy. Get on the cell (everyone should have one, no excuses...even deactivated ones can call 911) and report it, and do everything you can to evade such idiots. They'll get you killed or incarcerated, neither of which is on my bucket list.

 

[varob]

Depending on where they were. If a rural area, may have been justified.

If near an exit, maybe could have pulled off

Early 90's, probably no cell phones back then. Or limited service.

 

[roalho]

I think I found the current brandishing code in Idaho:

"Every person who, not in necessary self-defense, in the presence of two (2) or more persons, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon in a rude, angry and threatening manner, or who, in any manner, unlawfully uses the same, in any fight or quarrel, is guilty of a misdemeanor. ~ I.C. §18-3303"

So I guess the arguable point would be whether or not it was "necessary self defense"?

And yeah, rural southern Idaho, early 90's, cell phone was probably not an option.

He certainly felt is was necessary at the time, I'm sure.

 

[searcher 45]

Secondhand judgment call are next to worthless. If he has one hand active on phone and eyes on phone trying to dial with nun cases tagging him he may not of survived what could have happened next.

I have seen a number of road rage cases of late. It happens quick and is very intense for a short time. I can understand why a person would go to personal defense mode when threatened with nut case drivers. At high speed crashes and possible death is only a few seconds away and your life to some degree is in the hands of some nut case playing tag and brake check. Point is there may not be time to call 911 or even get out of the way of a nut case, and showing them possible use of force may be the only thing that stops them. I am not saying it is the correct thing to do but I am saying that it may be the only option in those few seconds or minutes of high speed super stress.

If you can get a plate number call in after it is over an report. If you have second person with you have them call in and report. In a case of road rage or just nut case drivers I dough they would try to get victim plate number unless they are looking for a way to get insurance money from victim. IMO YMMV

 

[Cycler]

So...What do you think? Was this an appropriate time to draw?

Absolutely not. Where was the imminent threat to life or limb? Stuff like that gives CC a bad name.

He should have slammed on the brakes 5 minutes before that to get the heck out of there. If that didn't shake them, call the cops and tell them what's going on.

BTW, if real, this video is kind of funny (if it's real). He should have called the cops first and shouldn't have been flipping them off or talking to them at all but other than that, pretty good.

City Slicker Pulls Gun - Funny Videos, Funny Video Clips, Funny Movies, Viral Videos

 

[roalho]

Absolutely not. Where was the imminent threat to life or limb?

snip

A vehicle is considered a deadly weapon, no? He was being singled out and harrassed with a deadly weapon. Seems pretty obvious to me. Stopping could have been a mistake too, as the assailants could have stopped as well, and then what?

 

[Cycler]

A vehicle is considered a deadly weapon, no? He was being singled out and harrassed with a deadly weapon. Seems pretty obvious to me. Stopping could have been a mistake too, as the assailants could have stopped as well, and then what?

Doesn't seem obvious to me at all and I doubt a jury would see it that way. He was definitely being harassed, but I don't see the situation as escalated to a degree to require deadly force. I would only draw if I was prepared to shoot right after drawing.

I think in any situation where brandishing stops the threat, before you draw, you need to know in your mind if it would be a "good shoot" if you had pulled the trigger. If it wouldn't have been, you could get popped for aggravated assault.

In reality, there's probably a little more leeway for incidents where you draw but don't shoot but I firmly believe that's the mindset you should have: only draw if you're prepared to shoot at that instant. If you're not prepared to shoot, don't draw.

That said, I don't think you should automatically commit to shooting during the draw phase of the attack. If things change while you're drawing e.g. attacker sees the draw and runs away, you don't necessarily have to shoot.

 

[roalho]

Knowing my bro, I'm sure he was prepared to shoot. He would not have drawn if he wasn't feeling very threatened at the time. Heresay, I know, but growing up when and where we did, with a father who's an avid hunter and a mother involved in LE, we KNEW the serious nature of guns and had had it drilled into us from day one that you don't ever point a gun unless you're serious about using it.

I'm being careful not to fall into a "defending my brother" mode with this discussion, and keeping an open mind, but I still truly feel he was justified, at least based on his version of the story. Again, heresay, I know.

To me, it's a no brainer that the carload of aggressors, probably with the "pack mentality" thing going full throttle, had all ready committed vehicular assault (a felony, I think), and seemed eager and willing to prolong the encounter, perhaps even escalate it.

I do respect your opinion, however, I just don't happen to share it at the moment.

 

[Cycler]

So let me ask you this: what do you think the outcome would have been had the driver of the beemer not seen the gun and your brother shot one of the passengers?

 

[BlueNinjaGo]

He should have pulled to the side of the road for a minute or two and let them be on their way.

Worst case scenerio? They stop as well. Maybe get out of their vehicle and approach his.

At least THEN he would have more of a right to use deadly force... (I'm not a lawyer or LEO though...)

But in TX the castle doctrine applies to our vehicles... so I would pull over and let them leave... and if they tried to attack me then I'd defend myself...

 

[bwhunter65]

I agree with bluenija pull over or get off at an exit at least this way if they come back you are on better grounds to defend yourself.

 

[roalho]

So let me ask you this: what do you think the outcome would have been had the driver of the beemer not seen the gun and your brother shot one of the passengers?

Troublesome, no doubt. I'm starting to smell what you guys are cooking. Still though, my brother was in their sights first, in a manner of speaking.

 

[PastorPack]

Given the circumstances, I'd suggest two possible alternatives.

First, show the gun, but don't point it at them, that might give him a little bit of defense if it went to court on brandishing.

Second. There is no way a Jeep can outrun a BMW, but it can go places the BMW cannot, so I say slow down, give them the chance to desist, but if they persevere, might be time for some off-roading!

 

[SAYATC]

I don't think pointing it at them was necessary, but showing them that he meant business by showing them the gun was probably a very good deterrent as knowing some of my peers wouldn't take anything seriously until there was a gun in the picture.

FYI the city slicker video is a fake.

 

[RETSUPT99]

The firearm surprise should have been saved for last. He was safe inside his vehicle...he could have exited (if one was near), or pulled over to stop on the side of the road to see if the punks kept going.
I would not have shown my sidearm while driving next to some 'marooon' teens.
Whenever possible he should have reported the incident with a plate number and vehicle ID.

 

[Cycler]

FYI the city slicker video is a fake.

I had a suspicion it was....too bad.

 

[rolyat63]

He should have called the law if no phone drive toward the nearest LEA or public place with people and call the law. If they try make an attempt to actually endanger him, then present, ready to fire if necessary. When it is "necessary" is a judgement call that both the "GG" and the jury (most likely) will have to decide what is. If it comes to that he better be able to articualte and show how he was in fear for his life and convince a jury how a "reasonable" person would have had that fear. Again the jury will define "reasonable" person.

I had a cell then('90); a brick and only $750.00 and not cluttered with all of those pesky features and cameras and interwebs. Roaming was invented back then, Ouch, roaming was ugly.

Depending on where they were. If a rural area, may have been justified.

If near an exit, maybe could have pulled off

Early 90's, probably no cell phones back then. Or limited service.

 

[kccad]

This is an interesting discussion. I reserve judgment on your brother, because it was a different time with regards to cell phone tech, and a road rage situation can deteriorate quickly into a deadly encounter. Personally, I would not try to shoot from a moving vehicle, especially if I am also trying to drive it. But then, I have never been in a situation where I have been on a highway in a rural area with my safety/life being threatened by another driver using a vehicle in a deadly manner. Being out there alone, nearest LEO miles away, no cell phone, and a possible life or death situation happening right now....I don't know if the average person....sitting in their comfortable chair in front of a computer and not in a high profile vehicle that is easier to roll over.....could say that their survival instinct wouldn't kick in and they would do whatever they thought was necessary to stop the threat.

Fast forward to 2009. Road rage seems to be more common now. There are so many variables I don't know if there is one set strategy that can cover them all. I think it's best to come up with an individual plan to handle whatever routes you may be taking for the day. In a more populated area, I think you have more non-lethal options available to you as opposed to a rural area.

This did get me to thinking (uh-oh) about the various discussions we have had about Castle Doctrines and having to defend yourself while sitting inside a vehicle. I guess what I am trying to say is....where is the line in a situation like this? It's definitely not a constant when you include one's perception of the event unfolding in front of them vs. what witnesses and a jury might think.

A hypothetical scenario. Let's say you are driving in your vehicle and encounter a car full of punks who are acting aggressively towards you. You may try to outrun them, but what if that doesn't work? You're on the phone to 911, but the situation is deteriorating fast, so you decide to pull over to avoid a life threatening accident and they decide to pull over by you. They all get out of their vehicle and start advancing towards you. The police won't get there in time, and you have to make a split second decision. You could try to drive away again, but you may end up stopped again with them advancing towards you. At any time one or more of them could pull out a firearm and start shooting at you.

Castle Doctrines protect you while inside your vehicle, but I think that most of us would agree that trying to defend ourselves and our families while pinned inside a vehicle is not strategically wise, nor does it offer effective cover. Yet, if we get out of our car, could that be considered a sign of aggression? So, do we chance staying in our car with the hope that they won't suddenly pull firearms and shoot us, or do we get out and lose the protection of the Castle Doctrine and put our fate in the hands of witnesses and a jury of our peers?

What say you, folks?