That's in the perception of the Monday morning quarterback.
Actually it's about asking why one would choose a potentially complicated solution when a very simple one is available. Besides, the topic was brought up specifically for the purpose of reviewing the situation and circumstances and making assessments. i.e. Monday morning quarterbacking is the whole point of the thread.
As Frank Ettin has explained many times, the "reasonable man test" is whether or not a hypothetical man would have felt he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury under the same circumstances.
Yup. If you can, with a small motion of one foot, safely vacate the area, leaving the rager standing in the road looking stupid then a reasonable man would take that option over pulling a gun and sitting there waiting to see how bad things will actually get.
Said another way, a reasonable person is unlikely to feel he's in "danger of death or serious bodily injury" if he can leave the scene safely, rapidly, and with virtually no effort.
The Tueller Drill demonstrates that 21 feet is too close when you're a uniformed patrol officer who is expecting the attack.
An attack by someone wielding a contact weapon, in particular a knife.
Specifically when the defender is on foot. Not in/protected by a vehicle.
Specifically in the context of not being free to leave (LEOs don't generally have the option to leave a scene anytime things start to look like they might get ugly).
And besides, one of the most important lessons learned of the Tueller Drill is that you shouldn't stand still and rely on your gunhandling skills to bail you out. Get off the X and force the assailant to adjust which complicates their attack and slows their progress somewhat, giving you additional time to react. Or better yet, just get out of there completely if that option is open. A person with a contact weapon is no threat if they can't catch you.
I have to believe that Tueller would have a stroke if he found out that someone was using his drill to argue for not getting away from potential danger in favor of remaining stationary and pulling a gun using the rationale that they "aren't required to" leave.
Especially in a "no duty to retreat" state, you probably are not required to make the right turn to escape, because you have every right to be in the straight ahead lane, waiting to go straight ahead.
Sure, you can sit there and wait for a deadly threat to develop and then pull your gun and try to shoot your way out of it. But how is that consistent with your other arguments that try to show how much danger the driver is in?
It seems you're arguing both sides of the argument. On the one hand, you're trying to make it sound like the guy is in serious danger of death/bodily injury which justifies drawing a gun, and on the other hand you're trying to make it sound like it's a good idea to sit there in the face of this danger when leaving is an easy option. I don't see how to reconcile those two arguments. Either things are really dangerous which would make leaving a GREAT idea, or they're not really dangerous in which case staying would make sense but pulling a gun really wouldn't.
Of course, the idiot wanted to make that same right turn, so there's every possibility that if he's angry enough he'll be right on your bumper within a quarter of a mile. Then what?
I was assuming that the person would resume their normal route at the first opportunity by making a left, a left and a right, rather than continuing to go straight in a direction they didn't want to go.