TexasCHLforum.com

ok, lets go over what I said again...

-Truck "intentionally" tries to hit him (cannot be proven as he missed).
-Truck drives up and starts to turn around (gun unholstered in the off chance I have to use it as I think he may be coming at me)
-IF in fact the truck was coming at me AGAIN and there was NO way out I would shoot

Why would you shoot?
Because there is a 2+ ton vehicle coming at me...AGAIN...did I mention he almost hit me once and that he turned around and was coming back at me?

You would not be justified!

Sec. 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;

9.32 goes on to give more justification in this case but I think that covers it.

GreezyG wrote:If one believes that someone is trying to run them over then you should be in reasonable fear for life and limb. Any car can kill you. Honestly, I have the utmost sympathy for the disabled, my parents were social workers their whole careers. But if my life is threatened I will protect it. I'm not going to stop and evaluate the mental condition of the possible BG.

That standard might get you into serious trouble some day. The legal standard isn't what you believe, it is what the mythical "reasonable person" believes. Also, the thread hasn't been about someone trying to "run you over" while you're walking along the side walk or crossing the street --that's a different scenario. It has been about someone about to collide with you while you are in another vehicle.

However, take the pedestrian scenario....you're walking down the street, a vehicle is about to run into you, and to you it looks like on purpose. How do you justify shooting at that vehicle? You going to stand there, pull your gun, and shoot? How you going to sell that to a jury over just running out of the way? Or are you going to run out of the way shooting? Run out of the way and shoot from cover? Without even considering the possibility that the driver just had a stroke and isn't trying to run you over or there are children in the vehicle, how are you going to justify that to a jury?

Since you won't know the driver's intentions or condition until after you've shot, to justify your use of deadly force you're going to have to say it doesn't matter. To buy that the jury has to accept the legal theory that you can use deadly force against people with medical problems to prevent accidents. I don't know what the odds are of such an event being attempted murder versus an accident, but let's say they're 90% in favor of attempted murder. You think you're going to convince a jury that since there was a 90% chance the driver was deliberately trying to run you over you were justified in shooting at a vehicle that may have been driven by someone who had a heart attack and was occupied by children and that could veer off and kill some other innocent bystander (or kill an innocent an bystander by a ricochet or stray bullet?)

Again, just my opinion, but if you shoot someone under such circumstances, and it turns out the driver just had a stroke, I think you're going to prison.

VMI77 wrote:

GreezyG wrote:Again, just my opinion, but if you shoot someone under such circumstances, and it turns out the driver just had a stroke, I think you're going to prison.

Again, how can you KNOW that he had a stroke? You can't. All you know is that he is trying to run you over with his truck and according to 9.32 you are justified. What you have to be sure of is that there was no other escape route.

Fangs wrote:IANAL... and I'm glad some of you guys aren't either.

Important parts marked:

Sec. 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.

If someone's exhibiting all the signs of trying to crush me while they're driving a huge truck and I don't reasonably believe that I can escape without putting myself and my passengers at risk, then yes, I'm going to shoot them. I've had people try to run me off the road before and I've had friends who've died from car wrecks. If someone's medically incapable of driving then they should... hmm... NOT DRIVE.

That having been said, nothing good happens on the east side of I-35 in Austin.

I think you're missing a couple of key points:

1) the standard isn't what you reasonably believe, it's what a "reasonable person" believes. A given individual may not be a "reasonable person." The court will weigh some construct of what a reasonable person believes.

2) the statue says "to protect against the other's use ....of unlawful deadly force."

I don't think a driver suffering a heart attack or a stroke and running into you is the use of unlawful deadly force.

3) if the person is "medically incapable of driving" it might work in your favor, since he would be driving illegally, but strokes and heart attacks and other medical problems can come out of the blue --and it would still be an accident, since the driver didn't intend to have a stroke, or lose control of his vehicle, even if he was somehow medically incapable.

4) you can't tell when you shoot whether the driver is trying to murder you; you're making an assumption that contains a huge amount of uncertainty.

Again, just my opinion, but if you shoot someone under such circumstances, and it turns out the driver just had a stroke, I think you're going to prison.

Dead is dead no matter what your assailant's intentions or lack thereof.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

GreezyG wrote:Again, just my opinion, but if you shoot someone under such circumstances, and it turns out the driver just had a stroke, I think you're going to prison.

Again, how can you KNOW that he had a stroke? You can't. All you know is that he is trying to run you over with his truck and according to 9.32 you are justified. What you have to be sure of is that there was no other escape route.

I think maybe we seem to be disagreeing because you're looking at this more narrowly than I am. You're describing a situation where you're certain there is no escape and shooting someone is the only recourse. My problem is I just can't imagine a plausible scenario that fits those conditions, except maybe being trapped in an alley. And even then I think the situation is different if you're on foot or in a vehicle.

bdickens wrote:Dead is dead no matter what your assailant's intentions or lack thereof.

So, you think the law allows you to use deadly force to prevent an accident? Say you're standing on top of a building across from another building where construction is taking place, and you see someone about to move a load in way that from your vantage point you are certain will result in the load dropping on and killing people standing in a group down below: you call out, but with all the noise over there he can't hear you, and neither can the people down below --you think you can use deadly force to stop the guy from moving the load?

VMI77 wrote:

bdickens wrote:Dead is dead no matter what your assailant's intentions or lack thereof.

So, you think the law allows you to use deadly force to prevent an accident? Say you're standing on top of a building across from another building where construction is taking place, and you see someone about to move a load in way that from your vantage point you are certain will result in the load dropping on and killing people standing in a group down below: you call out, but with all the noise over there he can't hear you, and neither can the people down below --you think you can use deadly force to stop the guy from moving the load?

DIdn't see that one coming!

So, what, you're psychic and can instantly differentiate whether the guy fixing to run you over with his truck is trying to murder you or having a seziure?

VMI77 wrote:

bdickens wrote:Dead is dead no matter what your assailant's intentions or lack thereof.

So, you think the law allows you to use deadly force to prevent an accident? Say you're standing on top of a building across from another building where construction is taking place, and you see someone about to move a load in way that from your vantage point you are certain will result in the load dropping on and killing people standing in a group down below: you call out, but with all the noise over there he can't hear you, and neither can the people down below --you think you can use deadly force to stop the guy from moving the load?

Some people can really stretch the imagination in creating far-fetched hypothetical situations.

Hindsight is 20/20 but the law does not require us to be omniscient in the moment.

VMI77 wrote:

bdickens wrote:Dead is dead no matter what your assailant's intentions or lack thereof.

So, you think the law allows you to use deadly force to prevent an accident? Say you're standing on top of a building across from another building where construction is taking place, and you see someone about to move a load in way that from your vantage point you are certain will result in the load dropping on and killing people standing in a group down below: you call out, but with all the noise over there he can't hear you, and neither can the people down below --you think you can use deadly force to stop the guy from moving the load?

Now you are taking a very real scenario and turning it in to nothing but ridiculous what if's.

Lets say an very mentally ill man gets ahold of a gun and starts shooting people because its fun or its like in the video games or movies. All you see is him shooting people and enjoying it. Will you not shoot to defend yourself because he might be mentally ill and not know what is truly going on or will you shoot because you feel that he is threatening you and you are justified in not only the threat of force/deadly force but actually using it?

bdickens wrote:So, what, you're psychic and can instantly differentiate whether the guy fixing to run you over with his truck is trying to murder you or having a seziure?

Not only is he psychic but thinks everyone else needs to be too.

OK folks, keep the disucssions civil with no personal attacks or the thread will be locked.

I wish people went around thinking I was a psychic; I could get a 900 number and make a lot of money.

It's unreasonable to assume that someone who swerved almost entirely into your lane, and then turned around when they barely missed you means to do you harm? I think a reasonable man (and reasonable jury) would agree with me, because most stroke victims don't run you off the road, magically recover, and turn around to check on you.

Also, being in a stopped vehicle is in many ways worse than being on foot. For one, you're trapped, and in this instance, your vehicle is drastically smaller and less powerful... I doubt the OP could have easily gotten away unless he went Tokyo Drift on this guy, sliding under 18-wheelers and stuff. Those big trucks are pretty quick for their size, I've raced a few. I also don't think it's possible to get away from a determined attacker in a vehicle while sticking to the laws about signalling and "safe" speeds, thus putting you, your passengers, and everyone else on the road at risk.

I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not going to make excuses for people who don't need them, especially if I have friends in the car with me whose lives I'm responsible for. Too bad for everyone else in that idiot's truck, but if he cornered me they would be fair game.

Choose your friends wisely or you might get shot while they're trying to run people over.

EDIT: I also wanted to point out that I didn't understand the OP to be wishing he had his gun so he could shoot, as much as he felt like he was crippled in a way during a stressful situation if it came to that point. I have felt the same way when I was on crutches where I was painfully aware that I didn't have 100% of my resources available to me when a situation got uncomfortable. No, I wasn't about to kick anyone in the head just yet, though lacking the ability to do so effectively if needed really bothered me.