Scary Incident

[retrieverman]

A friend's wife caught me at church yesterday and proceeded to tell me about an incident her husband was in last week, and it got me to thinking about my reaction to the same situation.

My friend is an electrician and does mostly "mom and pop" jobs out in the country, and he got a call from an older lady that need his assistance. He wasn't able to get to the job until about 9:30 pm which was fine with the customer. He got lost on the way and stopped to call his wife for directions on a public county road when another vehicle pull up in front of him and blocks the road. The other driver gets out and walks up to his drivers side window and demands to know who he is, what he is doing there, and for my friend to give him his keys and cell phone. My friend tells him what is doing and declines to give up his keys or phone, and the other driver tries to take them. (As a side note, my friend's wife is on the phone and listening to the entire incident.) During the scuffle, the other driver gets the keys to my friend's truck and walks back to his truck, pulls out a shotgun, and walks back up to my friend and says "I bet you will give me that cell phone now". At this point, my friend gets extremely compliant. The man demands for my friend to get out of the truck and pushes him with the barrel of the gun to make him walk up the road. My friend asks where they are going, and the man says that he is taking him to the lady's house that my friend is supposed to work for and see if he is who he says he is. When they reach the house, the man stays on the ground and demands my friend to go up on the porch to knock on the door. When the lady comes to the door, the man asks her if she knows my friend, and she says that she does. The man then puts down my friend's cell phone on the porch steps and walks away without a word. My friend tell the lady that all his tools are in his truck, and that he has to walk back up the road to get them. He gets to his truck and realizes that the man didn't give him his keys back. A couple of minutes later, my friend sees truck lights coming toward him again, and it is the same man again. He pulls up beside my friend's truck and asks if these are his keys? My friend said, "they should be since you just took them from me". The man thows the keys into the window of my friend's truck and drives off. My friend calls his wife back and tells her he is OK and goes on to do the electrical job for the lady.

My friend just happens to be friends wit the sheriff and a couple of deputies, and his wife was telling this story to them at a softball game. The sheriff and deputies went ballistic for my friend not reporting the incident. Long story short, the man is being charged with felony kidnapping and even admitted in a tape recorded statement pretty much exactly what happened.

I have been playing this scenario over in my mind as to how I, as a CHL holder, would have handled it. Basically, I believe I would have killed the man when he approached me with the shotgun (which is exactly what the sheriff and deputies said they would have done if they were in my friend's position).

Keep in mind, this is a 100% true story that my friend told me last night when I called to check on him.

How would you have handled this?

[seamusTX]

Was there no opportunity to drive away when the other vehicle stopped? 'Cause that's what I would have done on a dark, lonely road.

When the aggressor demanded the man's cell phone and keys, he was committing robbery. Castle Doctrine gave the defender justification to use any level of force or deadly force to stop the robbery.

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

Of course, all of this is easy for me to say. If the aggressor had been the sheriff's cousin instead of the local vigilante lunatic, using deadly force against him could have turned out much differently.

- Jim

[marksiwel]

Did they find out why the man went crazy pants on your friend? Did he think he was protecting the older woman? Is he just a nutball?

I would have driven away when he came to my window.
If I saw him approaching with a shotgun, and I had the chance, I would have taken him out.
I cant believe your friend didnt call the cops right away.

[retrieverman]

The guy owns a tractor dealership in the nearest town and is a school board member, but he is a little nuts. He got in trouble a couple of years ago for putting a fence across the same county road because he had property on both sides of the road.

My friend is pretty laid back and didn't carry a gun in his truck (he does now!), and he had no idea what was about to happen when the guy pulled in front of him. Hindsight is 20/20, and yes, my friend admits that he could have backed up, but given what happened, the guy might have chased him or shot at him.

[timdsmith72]

He got lost on the way and stopped to call his wife for directions on a public county road when another vehicle pull up in front of him and blocks the road.

From the sound of this, I don't think driving away was an option. Maybe backing up? But on an unfamiliar country road in the dark... kinda risky I'm guessing.

It's easy to Monday morning quarterback but here's what I THINK I would do. Given the fact that he had already demanded my keys and my cell phone...Plus given the fact that he had already taken my keys more or less by force....When he went to his vehicle and started back toward me with a shotgun, I would have started sending him my ammo at ~1200 FPS.

[seamusTX]

Hindsight is 20/20, and yes, my friend admits that he could have backed up, but given what happened, the guy might have chased him or shot at him.

With the usual provision that you can't understand all the circumstances without being there, I would rather be driving away from someone who is trying to shoot me than standing still without cover.

- Jim

[A-R]

I have been playing this scenario over in my mind as to how I, as a CHL holder, would have handled it. Basically, I believe I would have killed the man when he approached me with the shotgun (which is exactly what the sheriff and deputies said they would have done if they were in my friend's position).

Keep in mind, this is a 100% true story that my friend told me last night when I called to check on him.

How would you have handled this?

* - above bold, underlined, red-colored emphasis added by me

I've been guilty of this slip of the tongue myself and was corrected by another well-meaning gun-rights advocate, so I'll attempt to do the same here. What the above highlighted line SHOULD say is:

"Basically, I believe I would have shot the man when he approached me with the shotgun."

May seem like splitting hairs, but by admitting that "killing" was your intention, you're basically admitting to murder (or so I've been told), depending on point of view of jurors etc. Best to remember, rehearse, and regurgitate "I shot to stop the threat" or, in answer to the classic DA question "So you wanted to kill this man who you say was attacking you?" ... "No sir, I wanted to stop the attack."

[marksiwel]

You "Oh I shot just shot at him

Cop or DA "Why did you shoot at him?

You "To Kill him

[shortysboy09]

Not very smart to use the word KILL. The word is STOP HIM from pointing the shotgun at you and shooting you.

[Keith B]

You "Oh I shot just shot at him

Cop or DA "Why did you shoot at him?

You "To Kill him

VERY wrong response. The others are correct. I NEVER will shoot anyone with the intention of killing them. I use my weapon only to stop the threat. If they happen to die from the injuries inflicted with the method I had to use to stop them from seriously injuring or killing me, then that was not my intention.

[shortysboy09]

I have been playing this scenario over in my mind as to how I, as a CHL holder, would have handled it. Basically, I believe I would have killed the man when he approached me with the shotgun (which is exactly what the sheriff and deputies said they would have done if they were in my friend's position).

Keep in mind, this is a 100% true story that my friend told me last night when I called to check on him.

How would you have handled this?

* - above bold, underlined, red-colored emphasis added by me

I've been guilty of this slip of the tongue myself and was corrected by another well-meaning gun-rights advocate, so I'll attempt to do the same here. What the above highlighted line SHOULD say is:

"Basically, I believe I would have shot the man when he approached me with the shotgun."

May seem like splitting hairs, but by admitting that "killing" was your intention, you're basically admitting to murder (or so I've been told), depending on point of view of jurors etc. Best to remember, rehearse, and regurgitate "I shot to stop the threat" or, in answer to the classic DA question "So you wanted to kill this man who you say was attacking you?" ... "No sir, I wanted to stop the attack."

I don't even know if "shot" is very good response. Seems like the DA could make a case that when you said "shot" you meant to kill him. Just seems to me that when you use shot your'e trying to seriously injure the other party. Stop takes on more of a, " I didn't want to do it, but had to because I felt threatened."

[A-R]

I don't even know if "shot" is very good response. Seems like the DA could make a case that when you said "shot" you meant to kill him. Just seems to me that when you use shot your'e trying to seriously injure the other party. Stop takes on more of a, " I didn't want to do it, but had to because I felt threatened."

I'll disagree with you a bit there. While I understand your point and agree it could happen that way, the word "shot" is much more innocuous than "kill". I do agree your construction "I didn't want to do it, but had to because I felt threatened" is better, but I was trying to stay with the original sentence structure used by the OP. If totally changing the sentence structure, simply repeating "I was attacked. I feared for my life. I had to stop the attack." is the best response, IMHO IANAL YMMV etc etc.

But back to the word "shot", you could have just as easily "shot" to wound the man to stop the attack. Going from "shot" to "murder" is a much longer and twisted stretch of logic than going from "kill" to "murder".

[A-R]

You "Oh I shot just shot at him

Cop or DA "Why did you shoot at him?

You "To Kill him

VERY wrong response. The others are correct. I NEVER will shoot anyone with the intention of killing them. I use my weapon only to stop the threat. If they happen to die from the injuries inflicted with the method I had to use to stop them from seriously injuring or killing me, then that was not my intention.

Exactly right. The only living creature I will ever shoot with intention to kill is a game animal, and then only so my family may live off the bounty of the animal's meat. While this is going way off topic, even in a war zone I personally think the proper response is "shoot to stop" "shoot to repel" "shoot to prevent" "shoot to protect" "shoot to defend" even "shoot to win (the war)". But I was never in the military, so I leave such determinations up to the experts when it comes to warfare.

[shortysboy09]

I don't even know if "shot" is very good response. Seems like the DA could make a case that when you said "shot" you meant to kill him. Just seems to me that when you use shot your'e trying to seriously injure the other party. Stop takes on more of a, " I didn't want to do it, but had to because I felt threatened."

I'll disagree with you a bit there. While I understand your point and agree it could happen that way, the word "shot" is much more innocuous than "kill". I do agree your construction "I didn't want to do it, but had to because I felt threatened" is better, but I was trying to stay with the original sentence structure used by the OP. If totally changing the sentence structure, simply repeating "I was attacked. I feared for my life. I had to stop the attack." is the best response, IMHO IANAL YMMV etc etc.

But back to the word "shot", you could have just as easily "shot" to wound the man to stop the attack. Going from "shot" to "murder" is a much longer and twisted stretch of logic than going from "kill" to "murder".

Your'e right, shot is a much much better word than kill. I also see where you were going with keeping the sentence structure intact to keep the OP's statement in perspective and point out the choice of words could have been better. If the prosecutor tried to tie "Shot" to "Kill" or "Murder" then he/she would be really reaching, but that doesn't mean they won't try it.

[seamusTX]

It's impossible to make a credible case that shooting someone is anything less than deadly force. The use of a firearm is built into the definition of aggravated assault.

The explanation that I prefer is "Send an ambulance and police. A man tried to kill me and I shot to stop him."

Hedging around phrases like "I didn't mean to kill him" is risky. Such phrases have been construed to mean that defender intended to fire a warning shot and hit the attacker by accident, making the incident aggravated assault or manslaughter.

There was an actual case of this sort in the past year or so, but I can't find it now.

As usual, IANAL. Make your own decisions.

- Jim