Tense moment at Houston Trayvon protest

[EEllis]

It does not meet the definition of self defense.

Even after someone made physical contact with her?

Personally, I would consider a breaching of the vehicle or any attempt to remove me to be the point where shooting was justified, assuming that I didn't do anything to invite contact as that lady did.

Honestly while I'm all for driving around these idiots and think everyone who went on the freeway should of been arrested, the woman rolled down her window and stuck her head out to yell at the crowd. One person may have made contact but by the time that happened they were already past. If she had been sitting back there would have been no chance at contact and I saw no real effort made by anyone to "breach" anything.

[Jumping Frog]

I suggest you view the video. I doubt seriously it would have been justifiable self defense. Not to mention that you wouldn't have had nearly enough bullets to survive.

Shooting would have been idiotic in the context of the video. It was also stupid -- probably liberal guilt -- for the women to come to a stop, roll down the window, and try to explain themselves.

My child on the way to the hospital? I am on the horn, flashing brights, and the car is moving, always moving. If they do not get out of the way, they are getting run over. Not stopping for anyone or any reason.

You are nitpicking shooting but stating you would run people over?

Odd.

Anygunanywhere

It is a question of who is impacted (pardon the pun) by the use of force.

Remember, my objective is to get my kid to the hospital. If someone chooses to stand in front of my car while it is approaching with lights and horn, then they self-selected to get hit. The innocent bystander 25 yards to my left doesn't get hurt.

However, if I pull out a gun and start shooting, who do you shoot at? The specific person pulling on your door handle? Why would I open my window to do that? Just pull a Crazy Uncle Joe Biden and shoot it off into the air? Spray it into the crowd? What if one of my bullets hits a bystander 3/4 of a mile away? There are all kinds of practical problems with shooting that do not apply to simply driving ahead to my destination.

As far as being an effective self defense weapon, my 5,000 lb vehicle moving slowly packs one heck of a lot of ft.-lbs. Certainly far superior to any handgun round.

Edited to correct intent: "moving slowly".

[GrillKing]

It does not meet the definition of self defense.

Even after someone made physical contact with her?

Personally, I would consider a breaching of the vehicle or any attempt to remove me to be the point where shooting was justified, assuming that I didn't do anything to invite contact as that lady did.

Two words - Reginald Denny.

[EEllis]

Remember, my objective is to get my kid to the hospital. If someone chooses to stand in front of my car while it is approaching with lights and horn, then they self-selected to get hit. The innocent bystander 25 yards to my left doesn't get hurt.

You realize that while you may feel that you have a sound moral basis for that decision, you do not have any legal basis to justify hitting someone right?

[Skiprr]

May I strongly remind everyone of Forum Rule #4:

4. No posting of messages promoting illegal conduct.

The Hatfields thought the McCoys were in the wrong, and the McCoys thought the Hatfields were in the wrong.

Nothing good came of it because neither family ever followed the letter of the law.

There will be no posts on this Forum promoting, advocating, or implying any illegal conduct whatsoever.

[Jumping Frog]

Remember, my objective is to get my kid to the hospital. If someone chooses to stand in front of my car while it is approaching with lights and horn, then they self-selected to get hit. The innocent bystander 25 yards to my left doesn't get hurt.

You realize that while you may feel that you have a sound moral basis for that decision, you do not have any legal basis to justify hitting someone right?

Well, first with a tip of the hat to the moderator, I am certainly not wanting to advocate performing an illegal act.

You raise an interesting question that warrants further discussion.

Assuming:
1. I reasonably believe my child is facing a life-threatening ("fear of death or serious bodily injury") emergency where immediate medical care is needed .
2. Protesters are illegally blocking a public roadway.
3. I am giving ample notice by blowing the horn, flashing my lights, and proceeding at a slow pace forward, expecting (needing) people to move out of my way.
4. Said people choose to deliberately to get hit instead of simply stepping aside.

Given the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury with a proximate cause being their illegal acts, couldn't one argue T.P.C. §9.22 NECESSITY applies?

The mental picture I have is a car being surrounded by a an angry mob, screaming, pounding on the hood, roof, doors, etc. as someone pulls slowly through. I am not trying to paint a picture of someone going 30 mph and plowing through a crowd.

Don't get me wrong, I am under no illusion that such actions would not create a public firestorm that could make the TM-GZ saga look like an obscure event. Trying to argue necessity would be a difficult and expensive process. But if the life our your child is saved . . . .?

Comment?

[Cedar Park Dad]

I suggest you view the video. I doubt seriously it would have been justifiable self defense. Not to mention that you wouldn't have had nearly enough bullets to survive.

Shooting would have been idiotic in the context of the video. It was also stupid -- probably liberal guilt -- for the women to come to a stop, roll down the window, and try to explain themselves.

My child on the way to the hospital? I am on the horn, flashing brights, and the car is moving, always moving. If they do not get out of the way, they are getting run over. Not stopping for anyone or any reason.

You are nitpicking shooting but stating you would run people over?

Odd.

Anygunanywhere

It is a question of who is impacted (pardon the pun) by the use of force.

Remember, my objective is to get my kid to the hospital. If someone chooses to stand in front of my car while it is approaching with lights and horn, then they self-selected to get hit. The innocent bystander 25 yards to my left doesn't get hurt.

However, if I pull out a gun and start shooting, who do you shoot at? The specific person pulling on your door handle? Why would I open my window to do that? Just pull a Crazy Uncle Joe Biden and shoot it off into the air? Spray it into the crowd? What if one of my bullets hits a bystander 3/4 of a mile away? There are all kinds of practical problems with shooting that do not apply to simply driving ahead to my destination.

As far as being an effective self defense weapon, my 5,000 lb vehicle going 10 mph packs one heck of a lot of ft.-lbs. Certainly far superior to any handgun round.

Further, A slow move through the "traffic" is unlikely to cause injury, and frankly they can't stop your vehicle.

[The Annoyed Man]

Not advocating doing something illegal, but if it were my child, in that scenario, I wouldn't even lose sleep over it.

Look at it this way: it is normally illegal for you to shoot someone, but self-defense is a defense to prosecution. Those same laws allow you to use deadly force in defense of a third party. If an out of control mob is threatening A) your life, and B) the life of your dying child, there isn't a court in the land that would convict you. Furthermore, there isn't a DA in the land who would try to prosecute it if he had any intentions of running for reelection.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Not advocating doing something illegal, but if it were my child, in that scenario, I wouldn't even lose sleep over it.
Furthermore, there isn't a DA in the land who would try to prosecute it if he had any intentions of running for reelection.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one boyo. It depends on where they are. I know a City of Austin DA would probably try. if their constituents ARE the protesters, you're in trouble.

[mamabearCali]

I think a video camera ( to document what is happening) is appropriate. I also think a horn and a constantly moving vehicle going slowly fits the reasonable man sniff test. You have to get to the hospital. You have the right of way. They are illegally restricting you ability to get your child to the hospital. Moving slowly allows them to get out of the way. If someone jumps on your hood that was not your fault.

For heaven sake do not open your window. Shooting people......only if they breech the car. That is what I would do.

[EEllis]

The mental picture I have is a car being surrounded by a an angry mob, screaming, pounding on the hood, roof, doors, etc. as someone pulls slowly through. I am not trying to paint a picture of someone going 30 mph and plowing through a crowd.

Don't get me wrong, I am under no illusion that such actions would not create a public firestorm that could make the TM-GZ saga look like an obscure event. Trying to argue necessity would be a difficult and expensive process. But if the life our your child is saved . . . .?

Comment?

But the scenario now is different from what you originally posed, basicly you seem to be asking is if there isn't some scenario where it is legal. I'm not sure there is. It would seem to me to be a jury nullification issue. I don't think you could really argue that the law allows it just try and work the jury so they don't care and let you off anyway.

[EEllis]

I think a video camera ( to document what is happening) is appropriate. I also think a horn and a constantly moving vehicle going slowly fits the reasonable man sniff test. You have to get to the hospital. You have the right of way. They are illegally restricting you ability to get your child to the hospital. Moving slowly allows them to get out of the way. If someone jumps on your hood that was not your fault.

For heaven sake do not open your window. Shooting people......only if they breech the car. That is what I would do.

I think part of the issue would be that in a heightened emotional state you would perceive things as , well MORE, than they might actually be, so the camera wouldn't help and could hurt. Look at the incident that spawned these comments. The ladies are sure they were surrounded with people banging and trying to open doors when it was only two people making a half hearted effort and one who made grab for grandma maybe, instead of the beating they thought she got. I'm sure they were honest but the camera didn't show what they thought it would.

[chasfm11]

Not advocating doing something illegal, but if it were my child, in that scenario, I wouldn't even lose sleep over it.

Look at it this way: it is normally illegal for you to shoot someone, but self-defense is a defense to prosecution. Those same laws allow you to use deadly force in defense of a third party. If an out of control mob is threatening A) your life, and B) the life of your dying child, there isn't a court in the land that would convict you. Furthermore, there isn't a DA in the land who would try to prosecute it if he had any intentions of running for reelection.

I no longer share this part of your expectation. Somehow, under the leadership of our current DOJ, our country has progressed to extra-legal. We dismiss laws and their enforcement and we create laws to enforce where there were none.

For me, the trip to the hospital with a sick child and trying to do so with an angry, protesting mob in the real life equivalent of the Kobayashi Maru. All the choices are bad so it is simply a matter of picking the least bad alternative. Almost anything that ends up in violence is going to scuttle the original mission of getting the child to medical care. With avoidance no longer being an option, a laser like focus on the desired outcome, dismissing all distractions seems like that least bad alternative. There will be no reasoning with the crowd so trying to tell them about a sick child is useless. Sitting still and being over-run also seems like a really bad choice. Like facing an assailant with a weapon, there is nothing to help determine the exact point where a life threatening situation will begin.

I find it interesting that the confrontation took place along side the highway. Any reasonable person would assume that "retreat" from the potential threat had already taken place just by being there. Any reasonable person would assess a 25-1 ratio of possible assailants to victims would be a show of overwhelming force, particularly if the victims are all women and children. But we are past reasonable assessments of almost everything that happens. It is one thing to dismiss facts in an argument. It is wholly another to dismiss facts in a physical confrontation but that is where we are.

[Jumping Frog]

The mental picture I have is a car being surrounded by a an angry mob, screaming, pounding on the hood, roof, doors, etc. as someone pulls slowly through. I am not trying to paint a picture of someone going 30 mph and plowing through a crowd.

Don't get me wrong, I am under no illusion that such actions would not create a public firestorm that could make the TM-GZ saga look like an obscure event. Trying to argue necessity would be a difficult and expensive process. But if the life our your child is saved . . . .?

Comment?

But the scenario now is different from what you originally posed, basicly you seem to be asking is if there isn't some scenario where it is legal. I'm not sure there is. It would seem to me to be a jury nullification issue. I don't think you could really argue that the law allows it just try and work the jury so they don't care and let you off anyway.

No, I haven't changed the scenario, in that I have never advocated plowing through a crowd at 30 mph. However, I have further elaborated on the mental picture that I have held all along. A car surrounded by a mob slowly pushing through without stopping.

I see you didn't comment one way or the other on the necessity defense. So you are basically saying jury nullification is the only avenue?

[Cedar Park Dad]

A car slowly pushing through a mob with a sick child is going to be looked upon much more favorably by authorities then:
1. Someone flying through
2. Someone opening up (on camnera mind you) on a crowd.

What exactly would the charge be for the slow push approach? I know what it would be for #1 and #2 and would use those as a last resort.