When is it OK to shoot this guy?

[Cruentus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F4YCXDydFA&feature=related

This is a serious question.

Some of you have seen this already. I am curious about the use of force issue here when the enraged dentist forces himself into the other man's vehicle. Now, in this circumstance, he got out and yelled at the man to move the vehicle.

But, a vehicle is a deadly weapon. If someone is trying to hit you with their vehicle, you can reasonably use deadly force to stop that person.

This dentist was unarmed. But he was clearly enraged and unpredictable. There is no reasonable expectation that he wouldn't have used that vehicle as a weapon when he first got in (maybe kicked it in reverse or in drive, smash another vehicle or person, etc.). The dentist forcing himself behind someone elses vehicle is akin to him trying to grab a gun or a knife, really.

So, at what point in a circumstance like this would it be justifiable to pull your firearm to stop the use of a deadly weapon (in this case, a vehicle)?

 

[MA-Caver]

In that(particular) case, use of deadly force wouldn't have been justified unless the dentist actually moved his vehicle towards someone with clear intent to hit them with it. Instead he got out of his own vehicle and essentially threw his weight around. Dunno what the initial problem was but the Mercedes driving individual was clearly not in control of himself and thus was physically abusing others around him. No, he didn't like being filmed but so what? Pushing down the "sister" was another assault charge but he didn't continue his assault on her and again deadly force wasn't needed or warranted.
Bad thing was that the brother (initial rage victim) struck the dentist when the attack on his "sister" was finished. This is another assault charge which should be levied against him, not the dentist.
The officers interceded and defused the situation admirably and without needing to draw their weapons as they saw there was no threat to life as well.

You have to quickly assess the situation correctly. In the heat of the moment this is difficult to do and you sometimes can only go moment by moment. Trying to anticipate one's actions is futile I think. The dentist was wrong in shoving the woman when she was speaking to him. It wasn't clear what she said and she might have said something offensive to him (racial slur maybe??) that caused his anger to escalate to where he shoved her down. This does not make it okay by any means but escalation usually takes two parties.

There was not just ONE wrong person in that video.

But no, shooting this guy when there was no clear evident threat to life wouldn't been justified. Had he pulled a weapon then yeah of course... but only, ONLY after clear warnings to cease and desist have been made. You cannot arbitrarily just draw your weapon, haul off and shoot someone ala Indiana Jones, in the street without clear warning first. Even most police officers are required to do this.

 

[Cruentus]

But no, shooting this guy when there was no clear evident threat to life wouldn't been justified. Had he pulled a weapon then yeah of course... but only, ONLY after clear warnings to cease and desist have been made. You cannot arbitrarily just draw your weapon, haul off and shoot someone ala Indiana Jones, in the street without clear warning first. Even most police officers are required to do this.

You are seeing the situation in hind site, and from a video camera.

Picture that you are parked, waiting to pick someone up. And some screaming, enraged individual decides to approach your vehcile, rip you out from behind the wheel, and start to get in your vehicle.

Is he demonstrating, the intent of committing extreme violence? He definatily has the ability and opportunity as soon as he gets behind that wheel. So really, intent is the make or break to justify a shooting.

This just isn't that black and white...

I know I personally would fight him without the use of a firearm because he is initially unarmed, and would only pull my weapon if the situation changed. But that doesn't mean that you wouldn't be justified in shooting someone pulling you aside and getting behind your wheel...

 

[kaizasosei]

of course he started the pushing, but they escalated some in my opinion.

this is a perfect example of how difficult it is for people to deal with physical force.
the dentist really was quite aggressive however in pushing the guy away-even pushing him away from the car the other party was suposed to get into at the start. the woman however really chose the wrong course of action, which was to push the guy. but then again, by getting knocked down by his onehanded(yet forceful) push, that really put him in a bad enough light that he even showed no resistance when getting arrested.-
the other party was the first to start punching, he just happened to be in the often more advantageous position of being the defender of his own rights of personal space etc.
i dont think it's ok to shoot anyone. i would consider the experience of this incident as a lesson learnt for everyone.

j

 

[MA-Caver]

You are seeing the situation in hind site, and from a video camera.

Picture that you are parked, waiting to pick someone up. And some screaming, enraged individual decides to approach your vehcile, rip you out from behind the wheel, and start to get in your vehicle.

Is he demonstrating, the intent of committing extreme violence? He definatily has the ability and opportunity as soon as he gets behind that wheel. So really, intent is the make or break to justify a shooting.

This just isn't that black and white...

I know I personally would fight him without the use of a firearm because he is initially unarmed, and would only pull my weapon if the situation changed. But that doesn't mean that you wouldn't be justified in shooting someone pulling you aside and getting behind your wheel...

True, hindsight... however; the driver of the vehicle was already OUT of the car, standing in the door well and was subsequently pushed out of the way... a push is not a pull (it's still assault). But getting into the car with obvious intent to drive it where he wanted it... out of his own car's path.. could be considered theft, or at least attempted theft... even if he meant to drive it only 30-40 feet.
I agree that I would've fought back from him; touching me, touching my car and getting into it. But I still don't see warranted use of a firearm or weapon at that point. As you say if it continued and turned out that HE had a weapon... then yes, of course.

Wondering what the LEO's here think about it?

 

[kaizasosei]

seems to me that if that guy started punching, people may be in need of surgery. not to mention what he could do to you molars with a drill or hooklike tool if he managed actually to gain entrance into your mouth.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I'm not an LEO and I am not a lawyer but in NYS (other states may be different) it appears you can't shoot him, or at least that is my interpretation of this

From - New York State Law

"Deadly physical force" means physical force which, under the
circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death
or other serious physical injury.

S 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally.
3. A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common
carrier of passengers, or a person acting under his direction, may use
physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it
necessary to maintain order, but he may use deadly physical force only
when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious
physical injury.

S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to
use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not
use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety
as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;
except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is:
(i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or
robbery; or
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the
use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.

S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and
in defense of a person in the course of burglary
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or
attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon
such premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than
deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for
such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force in order to prevent
or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as
prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or
attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.

S 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.

1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or
attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to
prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes
to have committed an offense, may use physical force when and to the
extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect the arrest,
or to prevent the escape from custody, or to defend himself or a third
person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of
physical force; except that he may use deadly physical force for such
purposes only when he reasonably believes that:
(a) The offense committed by such person was:
(i) a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or
attempted use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a
person; or
(ii) kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the
first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
(b) The offense committed or attempted by such person was a felony and
that, in the course of resisting arrest therefor or attempting to escape
from custody, such person is armed with a firearm or deadly weapon; or
(c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the
arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is
necessary to defend the police officer or peace officer or another
person from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of deadly physical force.
2. The fact that a police officer or a peace officer is justified in
using deadly physical force under circumstances prescribed in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of subdivision one does not constitute justification for
reckless conduct by such police officer or peace officer amounting to an
offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not
seeking to arrest or retain in custody.
3. A person who has been directed by a police officer or a peace
officer to assist such police officer or peace officer to effect an
arrest or to prevent an escape from custody may use physical force,
other than deadly physical force, when and to the extent that he
reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out such police
officer`s or peace officer`s direction, unless he knows that the arrest
or prospective arrest is not or was not authorized and he may use deadly
physical force under such circumstances when:
(a) He reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a
third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent
use of deadly physical force; or
(b) He is directed or authorized by such police officer or peace
officer to use deadly physical force unless he knows that the police
officer or peace officer himself is not authorized to use deadly
physical force under the circumstances.
4. A private person acting on his own account may use physical force,
other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the
extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an
arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he
reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has
committed such offense; and he may use deadly physical force for such
purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes
to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
sodomy and who is in immediate flight therefrom.
5. A guard, police officer or peace officer who is charged with the
duty of guarding prisoners in a detention facility, as that term is
defined in section 205.00, or while in transit to or from a detention
facility, may use physical force when and to the extent that he
reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent the escape of a
prisoner from a detention facility or from custody while in transit
thereto or therefrom.

 

[thardey]

If it was me, I saw no reason to shoot the guy, and in hindsight, I would hate myself for having done it.

It also goes to show what stupid things people will get in a fight over. Why didn't he just move the car? Obviously he had the ability to move it. It seemed like a pride issue, for everybody involved.

I know that I would have a hard time not punching the guy if he shoved my sister to the ground, though. As the driver got out of the car, the dentist was still facing the sister. He only backed up and turned towards the driver when he was attacked. The driver couldn't see his sister behind the car, nor would he be able to tell if she had been punched, or shoved, or what.

Of course, it also goes to show how fast self-defense can turn into a separate act of assault, depending on different people's point of view.

 

[kaizasosei]

no doubt. acting up like that is what get people shot all the time.
i can think of countless places where his aggression would have gotten him shot pretty quick.
but i personally have a hard time accepting that option as a martial artist.
if someone uses guns or knives on me, i guess i might also end up escalating the level of violence, but generally i try to stay human and am confident in my ability to communicate as well as my rights as a human being.
so if someone would have shot him in the situation i could see it happening. sure seemed like a bully, but wasnt actually a robber.-even if he may be charged with theft.

j

 

[Doc_Jude]

Justification of deadly force (you never shoot to wound) requires Ability, Opportunity, and Manifest Jeopardy on the part of the assaulting party, and Preclusion on the victim's part. When both parties are in cars and out of their cars at relatively the same time, the parameters aren't met.
Outside of the car, however, the disparity in size would perhaps justify the drawing of a weapon, whether gun/knife/bat, as a deterrent. That little guy probably couldn't have handled the big guy if he had con't the assault upon the female, some kind of weapon would have been required to stop the assault, if there was no assistance available. Assistance was present, however, and they all seemed to get the point of who was in the wrong.

Nope, no justifiable use of deadly force.

 

[Archangel M]

The cameraman appears to be talking to officers nearby and theres a squad car right there in one shot, I wonder what took them so long to take control of this guy?

What was a camera crew doing there in the first place?

 

[kaizasosei]

good point . maybe he's already a famous bully.??

 

[Archangel M]

This explains it http://wcbstv.com/local/dentist.parking.rage.2.564640.html

 

[Sukerkin]

Generally, I would say that it's a prime example of why we shouldn't pack millions of us in close proximity to each other.

We're still a tribal animal and thus happiest in small communities. Mound us togther and stress us and this is the sort of thing you get i.e. intelligent, educated people behaving in unfathomably aggressive ways.

 

[Doc_Jude]

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - Agent K, Men In Black

 

[Cruentus]

Let's look at this a different way; take this issue out of the picture, and just consider that your parked behind the wheel in your car, and someone opens your unlocked door and starts trying to pull you out, screaming obscenities and acting enraged. However, no weapon is present.

Do you have the right to shoot that person?

I say that if you are unable to fight him off, at the moment he gets behind the wheel, if he has demonstrated that he has intent to gravely harm someone with the vehicle, then I say that yes, deadly force is justified. The ability and opportunity becomes present once in the vehicle, it is just "intent" that needs to be demonstrated at this point (which can be subjective, and where disagreements would occur). Secondary arguments might occur regarding opportunity if the vehicle is blocked in, or if it isn't evident that he could easily pull out and harm someone with the vehicle.

You would not be able to use deadly force until "ability to do grave bodily harm" becomes present. If the person has a weapon or is much larger and more powerful then you (and trying to beat on you to get into the vehicle) then ability may be present. Otherwise, ability does not really present itself at that moment of the assault until he is actually in the vehicle and trying to drive off.

That's what I think, anyway. I would like to hear some LE and attorney opinion on this too. I don't disagree with anyones answers here, incidentally; I just believe that this isn't as black and white of an issue as people might want to think...

 

[Rich Parsons]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F4YCXDydFA&feature=related

This is a serious question.

Some of you have seen this already. I am curious about the use of force issue here when the enraged dentist forces himself into the other man's vehicle. Now, in this circumstance, he got out and yelled at the man to move the vehicle.

But, a vehicle is a deadly weapon. If someone is trying to hit you with their vehicle, you can reasonably use deadly force to stop that person.

This dentist was unarmed. But he was clearly enraged and unpredictable. There is no reasonable expectation that he wouldn't have used that vehicle as a weapon when he first got in (maybe kicked it in reverse or in drive, smash another vehicle or person, etc.). The dentist forcing himself behind someone elses vehicle is akin to him trying to grab a gun or a knife, really.

So, at what point in a circumstance like this would it be justifiable to pull your firearm to stop the use of a deadly weapon (in this case, a vehicle)?

It would have been a non issue for me. At 7 seconds into the tape when he moved that close I would be yelling to back up. At 8 seconds into the tape when he touched me I would have touched him back. Not knowing his state or intention I would most likely stuck a finger or thumb into his eye and then grabbed him from behind and dragged him away from my car.

But that is me.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Let's look at this a different way; take this issue out of the picture, and just consider that your parked behind the wheel in your car, and someone opens your unlocked door and starts trying to pull you out, screaming obscenities and acting enraged. However, no weapon is present.

Do you have the right to shoot that person?

I say that if you are unable to fight him off, at the moment he gets behind the wheel, if he has demonstrated that he has intent to gravely harm someone with the vehicle, then I say that yes, deadly force is justified. The ability and opportunity becomes present once in the vehicle, it is just "intent" that needs to be demonstrated at this point (which can be subjective, and where disagreements would occur). Secondary arguments might occur regarding opportunity if the vehicle is blocked in, or if it isn't evident that he could easily pull out and harm someone with the vehicle.

You would not be able to use deadly force until "ability to do grave bodily harm" becomes present. If the person has a weapon or is much larger and more powerful then you (and trying to beat on you to get into the vehicle) then ability may be present. Otherwise, ability does not really present itself at that moment of the assault until he is actually in the vehicle and trying to drive off.

That's what I think, anyway. I would like to hear some LE and attorney opinion on this too. I don't disagree with anyones answers here, incidentally; I just believe that this isn't as black and white of an issue as people might want to think...

Maybe yes maybe no, I am thinking in NYS no. But then if you did it would then be up to the court to decide.

 

[Cruentus]

Maybe yes maybe no, I am thinking in NYS no. But then if you did it would then be up to the court to decide.

I agree with you on this; that it will ultimately come down to how good is your attorney and how understanding is the court system to your situation as to whether or not it is justified.

A "grand theft auto" style jacking where the jacker is unarmed leaves a big gray area regarding use-of-force and what is or is not appropriate. For me, I hope it never happens of course; and if it does I just hope I react in a manner that is appropriate...

As to NYC:

S 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally.
3. A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common
carrier of passengers, or a person acting under his direction, may use
physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it
necessary to maintain order, but he may use deadly physical force only
when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious
physical injury.

See, depending on the circumstance it would be REASONABLE to assume that an irate person who forces himself behind the wheel of your vehicle could cause death or serious injury to those around him. A car, under a given circumstance, is considered a deadly weapon. THis is why police are justified to shoot if someone backs up or moves a car towards them in a threatening manner.

It will come down to reasonableness based on your perceived intent of the assailant. I just think it might be a difficult road for you if you do use deadly force in this situation, so one better be sure...

 

[Archangel M]

It all comes down down to articulation. If I drag you out of your car and hop in and drive off and you shoot me in the back of the head, you used deadly force to protect property, which outside of a residential burglary or arson attempt is a no no in most penal law. If I drag you out and you catch your arm in the seat belt and I drive off dragging you, thats a whole different kettle o fish. How you argue the point that you [being a reasonable man] felt your life was in danger is what matters. In this case here I dont see it.


I believe that the "victim type" is important here too. A woman with a kid in the back could probably get away with capping the guy. A male who is involved in a road rage incident, no so likely.