Well good news is that since it is a Ferrari and not my usual car, my daughter isn’t in a car seat in the back so it’s not as bad as it could be. That said, the attacker did break a window and has me half out of the car despite the seat belt. This means the attacker is strong. They also have whatever tool they used to break the window so they are armed. By breaking the window and attempting a carjacking in public with lots of witnesses, they have demonstrated intent to do whatever is necessary to get what they want. Motive and means to cause death or serious injury check. There’s probably a disparity in size/strength as well.
First thing is that I need to get some distance as the attacker has a hold of me. While I have a tool to cut the seat belt and break the windshield it is in the center console (if there is one in the car). This means I’ll have to rely on the knife I keep in my pocket and start going to town on the arm(s) trying to pull me out. Good news is that if they’re using both arms, they don’t have a weapon in hand. Once they let go, pull myself back inside and hit the horn to get everyone’s attention. While doing this, also do a quick scan to assess the situation. Is the light green? Are there additional attackers? If I can, get the car in gear and GTFO, hit the emergency call button once I start moving. If there are others or they haven’t been dissuaded, now would be the time to go to my firearm provided I have an opening. I have no place to retreat, there is disparity in force and by not withdrawing, they intend to do me harm.
Doing this instead of changing the original post to invalidate responses that you don’t like is the way to go.
One comment I would make on the original scenario is that many newer cars have an anti trap feature that automatically rolls the windows back down if they sense something caught in them as they roll up. I would never drive in an urban area with my windows down or doors unlocked. This is like hanging out a take me first sign.
Should have started with better situational awareness. I don’t pull up close enough to the vehicle in front of me, that I couldn’t move. Also, I’m in a truck. Short of a much bigger truck, gratuitous use of the skinny pedal, would still provide me enough forward momentum, to at least catch the assailant off guard. If he has no weapon, I’m not going for mine. I don’t want mine discharged in the struggle, possibly hitting me or the others in the truck.
Thanks, George. BTW I only made the car a Ferrari to emphasize the attackers’ motivation not the victims’ motivation to use deadly force, a point lost to most. Yours is a well-thought-out reply and appreciated. Not sure I could or would have time to go through the many response iterations in real-time, better to contemplate here. The switch from “Hey this guy is stealing my car” to “Hey I’m in fear for my life” is very subjective as you said. A roadmap to GTFO might have a detour to deadly force.
How is the vehicle being a Ferrari make the property crime different? If it is a property crime, regardless of a “cheap” car or an “expensive” one, you still cannot use lethal force, though in some states that is still legal. Once the perp creates a situtation where your life is threatened, or likely great bodily harm, then you can legally use lethal force to mitigate the likelihood of your being injured or killed. Property value has no basis in this.
Yes, and I replied that if it is a property crime, that one is not typically justified in using lethal force, with the exception of a few states. Again, value of property is not a basis for use of lethal force. So what is it that you do not understand about my posts on use of force?
This entire thread would make interesting fodder for any enterprising Prosecutor or probably give a defense attorney headaches. Suggesting that a permit holder use deadly force in any State in the Country for a property crime and actually trying to sell that point on a public forum isn’t very wise.
Should someone here involved in this discussion (including myself) ever have to use force to defend themselves (not the taking of property), these forum threads are fair game for any Prosecutor. Be careful what you espouse here and might I also suggest that a couple of community members here learn to swallow their pride and seek out a certified USCCA Instructor and get some training. Because for the life of me, some of of the suggestions are so way off base that the advice being given is detrimental to other people reading it.
No one has suggested use of lethal force to defend against a property crime. We have all stated one should use Situational Awareness, and seek to avoid or de-escalate any conflict as best as one is able. Use of lethal force is typically justified for when one’s life is endangered or likely gross bodily harm.
It is only your disingenuous claim that we are seeking to harm others. Re-read my first reply to you. You keep trying to make this into a use of lethal force for stealing a vehicle if it is an expensive vehicle. How many times does it take for you to understand that value of the property has ZERO basis in use of lethal force?
However, we are not seeking violence nor to harm anyone, but to defend family and self from harm. Typically the best defense is to not get into the situation to begin with. Keeping one’s windows closed, leaving room to maneuver, and being aware of one’s enviroment, are helpful in avoiding the bad situation. It may not always be possible to avoid, but more likely than not, it does.
This reminds me of a comic’s joke about him not being misogynist. He said he had done the same act for five shows in a row. After the fifth show he got his first complain about the content of some of his jokes in his act. He said, apparently it is true you need to repeat yourself five times before a woman listens to you. He then said, this is just an act. This not real, it is not who I am. These are just jokes. If you do not like them, don’t come to my show.
Funny thing (to me anyway) @Dave17, is that my post wasn’t directed at you in any way. To the contrary, your take on this entire otherwise farcical scenario has been in my opinion, one of the more reasonable ones.
Regardless of who your posts were directed to, you did not send PMs, you posted on this forum. We all have a right to reply, though you did direct your last posts to me. I do not believe carjacking is funny, and no one ever suggested lethal force in defense of property. If you are real, you need to delete or amend your post as that is an out-right lie, and maligns us all.
@Dave17 please cite where exactly I suggested that carjacking is “funny”. I stated that the OP’s scenario (and in particular how he kept changing it) was “farcical”. Farcical and funny are two different things by definition.
Wow! If you look up over your head you will see the point flying by!! WHICH IS the perp is so committed to taking the property that he would ostensibly inflict bodily harm. At what point in your decision-making process does the event turn from a property crime to life and death.
I would expect better reading comprehension from an instructor. @Dave73 did you know Cheech and Chong. I don’t care about the car, it is insured and I have more than one.
Yes, I am aware of that. Apparently you did not look at the meaning of the word farce, nor have read any of Shakespeare’s works. I am quite sure that a satirical comedy is meant to be funny.
farce noun
Definition of farce (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : a savory stuffing :FORCEMEAT
2 : a light dramatic composition marked by broadly satirical comedy and improbable plot
3 : the broad humor characteristic of farce
4 : an empty or patently ridiculous act, proceeding, or situation the trial became a farce
" He reaches into the car and demands your car. Car in front and behind nowhere to go. You refuse to relinquish the vehicle. The thug punches you and again demands the car."
Question here. If my reading skills are on par I believe the thug has his hands on you, has punched you, and has not backed off. I believe this puts it completely out of the “property crime” area, regardless of his demand for your vehicle. Without the situation being changed can anyone point out why that is not the case?
And you failed to understand my posts. I covered that already, where I stated once the situation devolved where one’s life is endangered or gross bodily harm is likely, then one is legally justified in using lethal force.
I do care about my car, and I had my first new one stolen as a young adult. I discussed that on this thread. However, again, one is not typically justified in use of lethal force for a property crime. You appear to be the one suffering from reading comprehension issues. You malign yourself when using projection to attempt to insult others.
You appear to be trolling for someone to agree with you on using lethal force for a property crime, but as you have seen repeatedly, as peaceable citizens, we do not believe in harming others. We seek only to avoid or de-escalate conflicts, and will only use lethal force as it is intended to be used - as a last resort to defend self and family against the threat of loss of life or gross bodily harm.
