Car Fu

[Bill Mattocks]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (or a cop) this is not legal advice. My opinion only.

When you are in your car, you are wearing bogu (armor). It is both a help and a hindrance with regard to self-defense.

Some folks have a belief that they are not allowed to intentionally hit someone with their car. While this is normally true, when we're talking about self-defense, it's just another deadly weapon. Like a gun or a knife. It can and will maim and kill other people. However, there is nothing in the self-defense laws that says you can't use it for legal self-defense against a deadly threat (in places and circumstances where deadly force is permitted in self-defense at all, that is).

A car is a dangerous place to be if you are approached by attackers. If a person or people manage to make it to your door, they can keep your door closed quite easily, denying you the ability to escape the vehicle. If they have a gun, well, you have heard the term 'like shooting fish in a barrel,' haven't you? You're the fish, in this case, and your car is the barrel.

If they block your car in, once again, you typically can't easily escape.

Therefore, do not allow this to happen to you.

Remember that your car is armor. It can trap you, but it can also protect you. You can use it as a battering ram. You can use it to escape at high speed.

My personal opinion is this: I would never allow an obviously-angry road-rage type driver to exit his vehicle and step up to my car door with me inside.

Exiting the vehicle puts me in a dangerous situation. Now I am going to have to fight mostly likely and I don't know if he has friends in his car, if he's armed, or if he was actually just planning to steal my car (a common tactic in Detroit, FYI). Staying in my car is equally dangerous, for reasons stated above.

Therefore, I am going to use my car to escape if I can. I will back up at high speed if possible, spin my car around, and drive in the opposite direction at a high rate of speed. What if a cop sees me? I hope a cop DOES see me!

I'll drive up on the curb. I will drive into the oncoming lane (if safely possible). I don't give a dang, this is a life-threatening situation and I am LEAVING.

And if I think I have no other choice to protect my life as well as the lives of anyone who might be in my vehicle, I will drive over the person who is approaching me in a threatening manner. I'll smush him between my car and his, I don't care.

Here's the thought-pattern behind this.

First, he has done something to convince me he's a road-rager and not someone who merely wants to tell me my taillight is out. Maybe he's been cutting me off, swerving at me, following me with his middle finger extended, etc, etc. In any case, I am fully aware of his hostile nature and intent.

Second, he has either followed me as I stopped or he has forced me to stop by cutting me off and slamming on his brakes. He has me cornered.

Third, he has exiting his vehicle and is advancing towards my car in a menacing manner. I don't know what he intends to do, but I am scared (in the legal sense) that he intends to kill me or do me great bodily harm. And it won't be hard to do - he could pull a gun and just murder me right there in the driver's seat, and I could do nothing to stop him. I could get out and run and he could shoot me before I got ten steps away.

Given the circumstances, I am in what the courts call "the reasonable person" description of fear of my life.

That allows me legally to defend myself, even using deadly force. Even before I have seen a gun. The law does not require you to get hit before you hit back. It doesn't require you to get shot at before you shoot back. It requires that a so-called 'reasonable person' would be in legitimate fear of their life. And that definition has been met.

I drop the car into gear, gun it, and escape if I can. Again, if there is no other way for me to leave, I'm going to drive right over that bastich.

Again, I am not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice. Read up on the laws of self-defense and use of deadly force in the location where you are; pay an attorney for advice if you are still unclear. This is my opinion only. But my advice is this - remember that your car is a weapon, and a legitimate one to use if you must in a self-defense situation.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Some folks have a belief that they are not allowed to intentionally hit someone with their car.

Car jacker comes to window, speed off. Give him some more options, try to chase a car down, try to hang on, or give up. I'm not saying that this is the universal but it's how my brain works. In terms of being shot, I rather have bullets hit the car first before it hits me, especially if the guy is going to shoot me anyway when I get out of the car. If I'm at a intersection with a stop light, I'm pretty sure he not eager to follow me into a busy intersection.

Please do not take this as "what to do" or how to defend against a carjacker.

 

[JR 137]

If you think you're a sitting duck by just being in the car, the seatbelt makes you so much more so.

Don't pull over for someone you don't know whom you aren't reasonably certain is law enforcement nor emergency services.

When I lived in Westchester County, NY, a friend of mine who was a corrections officer was telling me about a string of incidents involving people criminals getting the flashing lights that magnetically stick to the roof that you see in movies that undercover cops use. They were pulling people over and robbing them. The area had far more legitimate unmarked cars than the typical Caprices and Crown Victorias.

His advice was if an unmarked car is trying to pull you over, drive as if you don't know they're behind you and call 911. If it's legitimate, they should be able to tell you and confirm with the cop that you weren't intentionally evading. If not, you've got 911 on your side.

 

[JowGaWolf]

His advice was if an unmarked car is trying to pull you over, drive as if you don't know they're behind you and call 911. If it's legitimate, they should be able to tell you and confirm with the cop that you weren't intentionally evading. If not, you've got 911 on your side.

I like this and never even thought of it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If it's a real cop he'll do a Pitt maneuver and a felony hot stop. You will eat gravel.

 

[jks9199]

His advice was if an unmarked car is trying to pull you over, drive as if you don't know they're behind you and call 911. If it's legitimate, they should be able to tell you and confirm with the cop that you weren't intentionally evading. If not, you've got 911 on your side.

Yes -- and no. 911 on a cell phone (in the US) generally determines your location based on cell towers, and sends it to the appropriate dispatch center for that tower. All good... unless you're on the border of jurisdictions. If the tower is in one, and you're in another -- they won't know what's up, or it may take several minutes to figure things out. Or if it's the "right" dispatch center, but the cop trying to stop you is not part of that (where I work, you could easily have about 4 or 5 different agencies with different dispatch centers crossing wires... County won't know what I'm doing, my dispatch won't know what county's doing, airport or state or park or... all different. In fact -- the 911 call taker won't even automatically know what county officer is doing; all the calls go to 1 place, but they have 9 districts) That said -- my advice would be to slow down, pull to the side as far as safely possible (so that they can pass if that's their goal), indicate that you see the lights, and proceed to lit area while calling 911. First -- the law requires you to pull over and stop so that they can pass you if that's their goal. It's really annoying when drivers won't get out of your way when you're trying to get somewhere... Second -- it reduces the pucker factor for the cop; he isn't trying to figure out whether you're trying to run, clueless, or what... Third -- it gives the 911 center you're dealing with time to figure things out and get the right agencies patched in. If it's taking you long while to get there -- pull over. LOWER your window a inch or two -- and ask the officer to call for back up. I only know of one instance where an impersonator called for back up... and it didn't work out well for him!

Officers driving unmarked cars should be aware that drivers may not immediately recognize them as a police car, and be prepared for unusual reactions. You still have obligations under the law, as well, and the goal is to strike a reasonable balance.
.

 

[KangTsai]

Yeah, I think breaking a few toes here and there with a commercial miniature tank is a great option over getting shanked.

 

[Transk53]

I know a South African guy who was a cop in SA. So many episodes of car jacking that seems like an everyday occurrence. Scary stuff.

 

[oftheherd1]

Imho, there are too many variables in these types of incidents. And I think most people would look more closely at the use of a car as a weapon of self defense, than they would for other actions; that includes police, prosecutors, and jury members. I also think it would likely be put to a higher test. Not saying it should be, but I suspect it would.

As I said, to many variables possible in self defense situations. I hope I am never in such a situation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Imho, there are too many variables in these types of incidents. And I think most people would look more closely at the use of a car as a weapon of self defense, than they would for other actions; that includes police, prosecutors, and jury members. I also think it would likely be put to a higher test. Not saying it should be, but I suspect it would.

As I said, to many variables possible in self defense situations. I hope I am never in such a situation.

I don't know about the professionals (prosecutors, etc.), but I do think there's a different reaction by most people (read: jury members) to someone running someone over with their car. It feels like the person in the car is protected. It feels like they could get away. It feels like a very calculated and aggressive maneuver. Regardless of whether any of these feelings are appropriate, I think they tend to exist.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

One could say that I am less concerned about potential jury reaction than I am with preserving my life from a definable threat and in reasonable fear of my life.

One could also ensure they used terms like "I was just trying to get away" rather than "I intentionally drove over the bastard." Same net effect, but they play differently.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

One could say that I am less concerned about potential jury reaction than I am with preserving my life from a definable threat and in reasonable fear of my life.

One could also ensure they used terms like "I was just trying to get away" rather than "I intentionally drove over the bastard." Same net effect, but they play differently.

Agreed. I'll choose to deal with a jury over the undertaker any day.

As for the perception, I'm thinking how prejudicial a statement like "deliberately ran him over with a two-ton automobile" can be. It's like the difference between "shot him with a rifle" and "shot him with a military-style assault rifle". They're quite literally the same thing ("assault rifle" is a cosmetic description), but one is far more inflammatory.

Of course, those considerations, as you said, take a much lower priority than self-protection in the moment. It's just something for consideration of those who appear to imply they'd go for the "run them over" option as soon as it seemed remotely justified. I'm not saying I wouldn't do it - just that I'd want to have as clear a justification as if I were going to shoot them, and some of the posts I've seen lately seemed a bit...accelerator-happy.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Agreed. I'll choose to deal with a jury over the undertaker any day.

As for the perception, I'm thinking how prejudicial a statement like "deliberately ran him over with a two-ton automobile" can be. It's like the difference between "shot him with a rifle" and "shot him with a military-style assault rifle". They're quite literally the same thing ("assault rifle" is a cosmetic description), but one is far more inflammatory.

Of course, those considerations, as you said, take a much lower priority than self-protection in the moment. It's just something for consideration of those who appear to imply they'd go for the "run them over" option as soon as it seemed remotely justified. I'm not saying I wouldn't do it - just that I'd want to have as clear a justification as if I were going to shoot them, and some of the posts I've seen lately seemed a bit...accelerator-happy.

I understand. My point with this thread was not to be blood-thirsty, but to point out that people in a car have both a danger (being attacked whilst pinned inside) and an escape pod / weapon. Being afraid to drive away (including through yon bad guy if necessary) is something a person practicing self-defense should reconsider.

 

[Transk53]

I understand. My point with this thread was not to be blood-thirsty, but to point out that people in a car have both a danger (being attacked whilst pinned inside) and an escape pod / weapon. Being afraid to drive away (including through yon bad guy if necessary) is something a person practicing self-defense should reconsider.

Figured that would be natural response. Not no so much plough down the crim, but more put your foot down in a fight or flight response. Pretty sure that would be what I would if I drove. Could always stop and confront by parking up a little down the road. But I suppose if you have a 9mil pointed at your face, if the hardiest would probably bulk at the idea of fight at that point. Guess a car could be akin to a Roman Tortoise.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Figured that would be natural response. Not no so much plough down the crim, but more put your foot down in a fight or flight response. Pretty sure that would be what I would if I drove. Could always stop and confront by parking up a little down the road. But I suppose if you have a 9mil pointed at your face, if the hardiest would probably bulk at the idea of fight at that point. Guess a car could be akin to a Roman Tortoise.

I have, at times, spoken to martial artists who have odd notions about what the law requires of them in self-defense cases. People who seem to think they cannot do X technique or that they cannot use a weapon they happen to have in their hand at the time for otherwise lawful purposes (baseball bat, flashlight, stick, etc). They seem to think that even though the law allows them to defend themselves, they are somehow forbidden from clocking bad guy in the noggin with a metal flashlight, for example. Listen, if you're allowed to be where you are, to have the item you happen to have, and someone goes after you, you defend yourself. If that means hitting yon slag in the punkin' haid with a tire iron because you just happen to be changing a flat tire at the time, then so mote it be. You don't have to avoid using what could otherwise be used in your defense just because it's a 'deadly weapon', assuming you have the right to defend yourself using deadly force in the first place.

 

[Transk53]

I have, at times, spoken to martial artists who have odd notions about what the law requires of them in self-defense cases. People who seem to think they cannot do X technique or that they cannot use a weapon they happen to have in their hand at the time for otherwise lawful purposes (baseball bat, flashlight, stick, etc). They seem to think that even though the law allows them to defend themselves, they are somehow forbidden from clocking bad guy in the noggin with a metal flashlight, for example. Listen, if you're allowed to be where you are, to have the item you happen to have, and someone goes after you, you defend yourself. If that means hitting yon slag in the punkin' haid with a tire iron because you just happen to be changing a flat tire at the time, then so mote it be. You don't have to avoid using what could otherwise be used in your defense just because it's a 'deadly weapon', assuming you have the right to defend yourself using deadly force in the first place.

Yeah, as our dear old Geoffrey Boycott (English cricketer and ex captain) it's a sticky wicket. Heard it said that those big Maglites were made for a reason. Smash someone in the noggin, would be construed as a deadly strike. Smash them in the thigh and dislocate muscle probably wouldn't. Personally on the law I am not an expert, but sometimes situations I have been in, you get time to ascertain and judge to a certain extent. Car jacking I would imagine is a deadly encounter, and imagine haveing the opportunity to grab them, or slamming the car door in their face wouldn't be. Or would that be. Guess it would depend on having a decent brief, and judge with common sense.

 

[wingchun100]

I had a friend who was in his car and being threatened by a guy with a bat. The guy stood in his way, and it was the only exit from where he was. So he gunned it and hit the guy. It went to trial. Luckily, the jury was smart enough to realize if my friend hadn't gotten out of there, the guy would have beat him to death with the bat.

What can I say? Never bring a baseball bat to a car fight.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yeah, as our dear old Geoffrey Boycott (English cricketer and ex captain) it's a sticky wicket. Heard it said that those big Maglites were made for a reason. Smash someone in the noggin, would be construed as a deadly strike. Smash them in the thigh and dislocate muscle probably wouldn't. Personally on the law I am not an expert, but sometimes situations I have been in, you get time to ascertain and judge to a certain extent. Car jacking I would imagine is a deadly encounter, and imagine haveing the opportunity to grab them, or slamming the car door in their face wouldn't be. Or would that be. Guess it would depend on having a decent brief, and judge with common sense.

Again, I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. My opinion on this subject is based on my own experiences in law enforcement.

In general - very general - a person who is where they may legally be, doing what they may legally be doing (in other words, 'minding their own business') has the right to defend themselves against violence or the threat of violence.

Self-defense in general is broken into two categories - deadly force and other than deadly force. Typically, one employs deadly force with force multipliers such as a knife or a gun. Typically, the use of empty hands and feet is not considered deadly force (there have been cases where the use of feet was considered deadly force, so I do speak in general terms).

Some states in the US have a 'duty to retreat' if it is possible to do so, which is good advice in general anyway. Others have more of a 'stand your ground' law.

Either way, a person who is in fear of bodily harm typically has the right to defend themselves (assuming they cannot retreat safely in some states). The test is the so-called 'reasonable person' test. Would a hypothetical reasonable person be in fear of being injured by an attacker? If so, then self-defense using force is permitted.

Further, if a person is reasonably (again the 'reasonable person' test) would be in fear of their life or of great bodily harm, they may be permitted to defend themselves using lethal force.

That's pretty much it. Most laws don't get specific. You can defend yourself using non-deadly force in such situations where it is permitted, using whatever methods come to mind and you can actually employ. Gouge out an eye? Kick in the wedding tackle? Rip out hair? Punch in the snot-locker? Whatever works, my friend.

The same is true of deadly force. Most laws do not say "you may shoot them in a non-vital spot using a calibre bullet of less than blah blah blah," or anything of the sort. If you happen to (legally) be in possession of a gun, that's fine. A knife? Great? A hockey stick? No problem. A car? Yep. Can you bash their brains in with a gigantic ceramic vase in the shape of a Siamese cat? Well, if that's what you happen to have at hand, go for it.

The point here is that people tend to make rather simple things very complicated, because they presume that since it's the law, it must therefore be complicated. It's generally not.

When such events occur, the typical response is based on how it is perceived by the police who initially respond to the situation. If they see that a bad guy took a swing at you with a knife, and you, a law-abiding citizen who was legally where you were allowed to be, doing what you were legally allowed to do, chose to employ the chain saw you happened to be (legally) using to cut up firewood at the time and removed his limbs like a hot knife through butter, the chances are pretty good that they are not going to arrest you or write up a report indicating that you were a suspect. You're a victim.

Prosecuting attorneys don't spend their time looking for victims of crimes to turn into suspects. When the cops think something funny is going on or it's not quite a clear-cut case of self-defense, or there are conflicting stories that seem plausible, they may well instigate further investigation, which may turn into criminal charges down the road.

Part of the job of the victim, which many do not seem to be aware of, is to ensure that they do not disabuse anyone of the clear-cut understanding that they are indeed the victim.

The cop asks "Where you in fear of your life?"

Victim: "Nah, I knew I could kick that punk's face in. I've trained for 20 years and could not wait to finally use my skills."

Probably the wrong answer.

Victim: "Yes, I was afraid he was going to hit me when he raised his fists and said ''I am going to hit you'' so I defended myself as a last resort since I could not escape."

Much better response.

What actually happened? That's between the victim and his Creator. The victim should not lie - but the victim should understand that victims have rights, and people looking to test their skills do not.

Clear?

This is really not difficult stuff. People make it difficult. Why, I do not know.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I had a friend who was in his car and being threatened by a guy with a bat. The guy stood in his way, and it was the only exit from where he was. So he gunned it and hit the guy. It went to trial. Luckily, the jury was smart enough to realize if my friend hadn't gotten out of there, the guy would have beat him to death with the bat.

What can I say? Never bring a baseball bat to a car fight.

I can't say what the circumstances were surrounding your friend's situation. Sorry he had to go to trail (was it civil or criminal?) and glad he prevailed in court.

To the law, a car is a deadly weapon. No different strictly speaking than a gun or a knife. If you can legally defend yourself in a given situation with deadly force, you can use a car if that's the situation you find yourself in, in my opinion.

However, there is nothing that stops you from being sued in civil court in most circumstances (certain 'Castle Laws' provide civil immunity too, but most of those mean in your home, not in your car).

That's something I like to remind people of from time to time. You can be in the right - you can still be sued. You may win, but it will cost you lots of time and money. Nothing to be done for that, it's how the law works.

 

[Transk53]

Again, I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. My opinion on this subject is based on my own experiences in law enforcement.

In general - very general - a person who is where they may legally be, doing what they may legally be doing (in other words, 'minding their own business') has the right to defend themselves against violence or the threat of violence.

Self-defense in general is broken into two categories - deadly force and other than deadly force. Typically, one employs deadly force with force multipliers such as a knife or a gun. Typically, the use of empty hands and feet is not considered deadly force (there have been cases where the use of feet was considered deadly force, so I do speak in general terms).

Some states in the US have a 'duty to retreat' if it is possible to do so, which is good advice in general anyway. Others have more of a 'stand your ground' law.

Either way, a person who is in fear of bodily harm typically has the right to defend themselves (assuming they cannot retreat safely in some states). The test is the so-called 'reasonable person' test. Would a hypothetical reasonable person be in fear of being injured by an attacker? If so, then self-defense using force is permitted.

Further, if a person is reasonably (again the 'reasonable person' test) would be in fear of their life or of great bodily harm, they may be permitted to defend themselves using lethal force.

That's pretty much it. Most laws don't get specific. You can defend yourself using non-deadly force in such situations where it is permitted, using whatever methods come to mind and you can actually employ. Gouge out an eye? Kick in the wedding tackle? Rip out hair? Punch in the snot-locker? Whatever works, my friend.

The same is true of deadly force. Most laws do not say "you may shoot them in a non-vital spot using a calibre bullet of less than blah blah blah," or anything of the sort. If you happen to (legally) be in possession of a gun, that's fine. A knife? Great? A hockey stick? No problem. A car? Yep. Can you bash their brains in with a gigantic ceramic vase in the shape of a Siamese cat? Well, if that's what you happen to have at hand, go for it.

The point here is that people tend to make rather simple things very complicated, because they presume that since it's the law, it must therefore be complicated. It's generally not.

When such events occur, the typical response is based on how it is perceived by the police who initially respond to the situation. If they see that a bad guy took a swing at you with a knife, and you, a law-abiding citizen who was legally where you were allowed to be, doing what you were legally allowed to do, chose to employ the chain saw you happened to be (legally) using to cut up firewood at the time and removed his limbs like a hot knife through butter, the chances are pretty good that they are not going to arrest you or write up a report indicating that you were a suspect. You're a victim.

Prosecuting attorneys don't spend their time looking for victims of crimes to turn into suspects. When the cops think something funny is going on or it's not quite a clear-cut case of self-defense, or there are conflicting stories that seem plausible, they may well instigate further investigation, which may turn into criminal charges down the road.

Part of the job of the victim, which many do not seem to be aware of, is to ensure that they do not disabuse anyone of the clear-cut understanding that they are indeed the victim.

The cop asks "Where you in fear of your life?"

Victim: "Nah, I knew I could kick that punk's face in. I've trained for 20 years and could not wait to finally use my skills."

Probably the wrong answer.

Victim: "Yes, I was afraid he was going to hit me when he raised his fists and said ''I am going to hit you'' so I defended myself as a last resort since I could not escape."

Much better response.

What actually happened? That's between the victim and his Creator. The victim should not lie - but the victim should understand that victims have rights, and people looking to test their skills do not.

Clear?

This is really not difficult stuff. People make it difficult. Why, I do not know.

Yeah, that is pretty clear. Why people make it difficult I don't know either, but I could imagine that great many people have never even punched a person in the face. Perhaps there is a mentality that dictates that rather than actually punching, it's the visceral feeling of the after affect that drives humans to not doing what they could do, or even should do.