A road rage incident I saw; could the victim have legally pulled a gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's unlawful to pull a gun on someone who is raging.

The road rage incident ended when the driver in the right lane drove off leaving the rager looking like an idiot. It takes two to play the stupid road rage game, if one driver refuses to play the game usually ends.
 
JohnKSa said:
The thing is, the light turned green, and the victim drove off.. immediately ending the situation. Had that not happened, we don't know where the aggressor would have gone.
Click to expand...
He could have made the right, even if the light hadn't changed. Pulling a gun on someone without proper justification is not legal. Turning right on red is legal.

It's important to not get into the mode of thinking that because a gun is available, other simple solutions don't need to be explored.
Click to expand...
But he wasn't going right, he was waiting to go straight.

I was initially leaning toward agreeing with those early in this thread who said "No threat ... no gun." Then I sat back and thought about me as a driver. In the situation described, I think I WOULD have at least put my hand on my gun and prepared to draw, or possibly even drawn but not "brandished." I think too many of the responses offered so far have been Monday morning quarterbacking. We have to remember that the law for the use of lethal force in most states is based on the perception of the victim. If he believes he is in danger of death or severe bodily harm, he is allowed to employ lethal force. It isn't supposed to matter if the witness across the street or down the block didn't see any overt threat.

I guess all states now allow right on red (after slowing down to 60 MPH, the way it seems to work). My state does. And rarely do I make it two weeks without someone behind me -- when I'm at a red light intending to go straight -- honking at me because they want to make the right turn. But I haven't (yet) had anyone get out of their car and come up to my door to yell at me. If that were to happen, I would feel threatened. Normal, sane people don't do that. So I think placing a hand on the gun in preparation for an assault beyond verbal would be both justified and sensible. I think surreptitiously drawing the gun in preparation for an assault beyond verbal would be both justified and sensible.

It hadn't gotten to the point of shooting the other driver -- yet. But if the first driver isn't "brandishing" the gun, then he's not using it in an attempt to intimidate the irrational driver behind him, so IMHO the Boy Scout motto applies: Be prepared.
 
But he wasn't going right, he was waiting to go straight.
Click to expand...
I understand that. But the very minor inconvenience of having to make a few additional turns isn't worth risking an armed confrontation.

Put another way, if you're so alarmed that you feel the need to introduce a gun into the situation, what rationale could there possibly be to stick around to see what happens when you can just leave.

If you end up having to explain what happened, this is not a good scenario:
"Why did you draw your gun?"
"Because the man's behavior was alarming and I thought he might be a threat."
"Why didn't you drive away from the threat if you were alarmed?"​

At this point, your answer had better be that you couldn't drive away, accompanied by a reasonable explanation of why that was true. I don't like the idea of trying convince people that the desire not to turn right was a compelling reason to sit there with a gun in my hand waiting to see just how bad things would get before the light changed.

Even if you have to run the light (safely, of course), it still seems like a good option vs. having to draw and then possibly shoot.
"No threat ... no gun."
Click to expand...
In this case it wouldn't rise to the level of an actual threat until he's within contact distance. But there was a potential threat--which is why LEAVING is such a great option. Why draw your gun and sit there, waiting to see if a genuine threat to life and limb will develop, if you can just push down on the accelerator and leave it all behind?
 
With a raging maniac at your window you cannot check traffic to make a right turn safely. You are more likely to turn in to the path of oncoming vehicles and cause a traffic accident that will injure or kill you or others.
 
If he believes he is in danger of death or severe bodily harm, he is allowed to employ lethal force
Click to expand...

No. His belief must also be objectively reasonable. So, he must be able to show ability, opportunity, intent and preclusion/jeopardy. The danger must also be imminent.

Feeling threatened doesn't cut it. In this case, even if we assume the man has the ability to cause great bodily harm or death, how would you demonstrate opportunity and intent to a jury? How would you explain he was an imminent threat as you were inside a vehicle?
 
With a raging maniac at your window...
Click to expand...
If you sit there long enough to let the guy approach to contact distance then that could limit your available options.
You are more likely to turn in to the path of oncoming vehicles and cause a traffic accident that will injure or kill you or others.
Click to expand...
That's the good thing about the deadly force laws. They usually don't require you to take an unsafe option to escape danger. Obviously it wouldn't make sense to risk death to avoid a brandishing charge.

The thing to keep in mind is that if you pull your gun and end up being charged, then you will be asked questions. If you can explain why you couldn't get away, and it is a reasonable explanation given the circumstances (e.g. There was fast moving traffic and he got to my window before I could drive away.), then things should go well. If the explanation doesn't make sense or doesn't seem reasonable (e.g. I drew my gun and waited for him to approach the car without even checking to see if I could leave the scene safely.) then things will not go well.
 
Windows up, doors locked, hand on gun but not showing / brandishing. Wait until it's clear / legal to proceed, then go about my merry way.

We all have bad days, maybe not as bad as this guy at that time, but I take that into consideration.
 
Where is it unlawful to pull a gun if you feel threatened by someone who is raging?
Click to expand...
In all but a handful of states, it is unlawful to pull a gun unless you have an objective basis for a reasonable belief that is immediately necessary to do so to defend yourself against an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

"Imminent threat" means that the defender is faced with someone who has the ability and the opportunity to commit the act then and there, and that there is reason to believe that he will do so.

Immediately necessary means that there is no safe alternative.

"Feeling threatened" would, by itself, meet none of the criteria--and all of them must be met.
 
WW2 said:
With a raging maniac at your window you cannot check traffic to make a right turn safely. You are more likely to turn in to the path of oncoming vehicles and cause a traffic accident that will injure or kill you or others.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent point.
 
The man should've pulled away before the rager got to his window. Straight, turn right, whatever. It would be crazy to pull your gun because someone is yelling at you.

What if he wasn't fazed by the sight of your gun? Are you going to shoot him now?

And what if your round(s) either miss or go through the rager and into another car, either the one sitting next to yours or into oncoming traffic? Is that okay because you felt threatened by some guy standing outside your window yelling at you?

Btw, if you think it is okay, maybe you shouldn't have access to a gun.
 
WW2 said:
With a raging maniac at your window you cannot check traffic to make a right turn safely.
Click to expand...
So someone yelling at you outside your car is going to cause you to be completely incapacitated and incapable of driving safely? Me, I'm pretty sure I could still make a safe right turn in that situation. I've faced far worse situations than a guy yelling at me when I was in an enclosed vehicle.

If a guy yelling at you outside your vehicle is so disturbing that you can't function as a driver, you shouldn't be driving a car in the first place.

And if a guy yelling at you outside your vehicle is so upsetting that your first move is to draw your gun, you shouldn't be carrying a firearm.
 
Last edited:
I would not draw my gun. If i thought i was in imminent danger my first action would be to escape before i would ever consider shooting. Im in an enclosed car, press the gas pedal and make a right turn. If it was impossible for me to drive out of the situation, roll up window and lock doors. I would probably have my hand on the gun ready to deploy.
 
A good read. Mr. Smalley has a better perspective than most of us what can happen in a road rage situation that is allowed to escalate into a fullblown confrontation.
 
JohnKSa said:
In this case it wouldn't rise to the level of an actual threat until he's within contact distance. But there was a potential threat--which is why LEAVING is such a great option. Why draw your gun and sit there, waiting to see if a genuine threat to life and limb will develop, if you can just push down on the accelerator and leave it all behind?
Click to expand...
That's in the perception of the Monday morning quarterback. 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. How do you know what "contact distance" is? The Tueller Drill demonstrates that 21 feet is too close when you're a uniformed patrol officer who is expecting the attack. The idiot was probably already within 21 feet when he got out of his car. How close is too close if you are strapped in with a seat belt and your gun is trapped under the belt? How do you know the road rager doesn't have a gun?

I think the opening post asked a two-pronged question. First, is it wise to draw your gun? Second, is it legal to draw your gun? The two questions may well have different answers. Especially in a "no duty to retreat" state, it is probably legal to draw your gun if you feel threatened by the other driver's actions. 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.

I think the answer is clear that you are not required to make the turn, and that you are legally allowed to make your firearm ready for use.

Then we get to the more nuanced determination of whether it's "better" to make the turn and unass the area of operations. Maybe that is "better." 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?
 
Then you call the police and let them deal with him. Or you drive to the nearest police station/substation and again let them deal with him.
 
That's in the perception of the Monday morning quarterback.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Five essential criteria for claiming self defense; innocence, imminence, avoidance, proportionality, and reasonableness. All five must be met simultaneously.

I don't think the driver can claim self defense if he draw his gun. He would probably be charged with assault, or worse if he fired the weapon.

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
Back up slowly till my hitch is through his radiator, by that time the light should be green and he's not going to follow me very far......

It sounds like the driver made a good choice. He waited until it was safe to proceed, then left thereby ending the confrontation. I'll take a few dents in my door over a month in a courtroom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top