Did I do the right thing? Or should I have used force?

I second what Pax and most of the others said: this was a win and you have nothing to be ashamed of making it home alive.

Two points to consider:

(1) You said: "I am in Wa state, not sure about any stand your ground laws here." I respectfully suggest that since you have made the decision to take on the (quite considerable) responsibility to carry a concealed firearm, it behooves you to learn as much as you can about the legal and moral issues that come with arming yourself. Massad Ayoob's 1980 book In the Gravest Extreme is a good place to start for a general discussion, but you also ought to educate yourself on the particulars of the laws related to self defense and firearms for Washington state.

(2) You didn't mention the make/model/year of the automobile you were driving. I know that every car I've owned since ~ 1998 had a function that automatically locked the doors once the car was underway (like once 5 or 10 MPH was reached.) You might want to check your owner's manual and see if your car has this function and if so, how to activate it.
 
When firearms are part of the equation, ego has to be on the back shelf. It's natural for you to question your action, but you did just fine. You and your vehicle got home undamaged. If you gave the police the license number and description of the other vehicle, those three drunks are probably having lots of regrets today.

As others have mentioned, it's a good idea to keep your doors locked, though. ;)
 
You weren't hurt badly, you're not in jail & you still have your gun. No one was shot & there will be no court date. You did just fine.:D
 
If you got out of it without having to use force or deadly force then you did well. The fact that you were easily able to get out of it without using force or deadly force is a very good indicator that it wasn't required which means, in most places that it wouldn't be justified.
...brandishing is a crime...
Click to expand...
Depends on where you are. In my state it's legal to draw/display a firearm to create the apprehension that you might use deadly force if required and it's legal to do so even in situations when deadly force is not legal. The situation must, however, warrant the use of force (a step down from deadly force) in order for the tactic to be legal.

I think there may be one other state that allows something similar.
 
Razorburn, you did well. You got home with only a fat lip. No, you're not a wimp.

If you had chosen to display (that's not brandishing) or use your weapon, you would have been justified. There was eminent danger (you were under attack), and there was disparity of force (3 against 1).

Your choice not to use your weapon has resulted in no questioning by police, no hearing loss, no ongoing investigation, no threat of lawsuit, etc. You have however, faced a life threatening event, and that's tough on the psyche. You might want to discuss it further with someone.

I do suggest you learn the laws of your state thoroughly.
 
Re stand your ground laws in WA state, to answer that question you could start with www.handgunlaw.us and follow the law links from there. I believe you'll find that WA never codified a duty to retreat, so the state has not needed to codify the right to stand (for the most part, stand-your-ground laws just nullify existing duty-to-retreat laws; they aren't the panacea people think they are, just erase some bad previous law). But I could be wrong, so look the law up for yourself.

You'll find the "Use of Force - When lawful" and "Homicide -- By other person -- When justifiable" headers in the RCWs at 9A.16 online at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx. Those don't address when you can stand your ground and when you can't, but they do speak to the factors that allow you to use deadly force in self defense. You'll also want to see WA's brandishing statute at 9.41.270 (note especially subsection 3C).

Of course, regardless of what you learn about standing your ground or retreating, you will still need to meet the basic common law requirements. You can find them laid out in Ayoob's Gravest Extreme. Or look online at www.useofforce.us or www.corneredcat.com/Legal/AOJ.aspx. The common law requirements are a little fuzzier (since they are concepts and principles rather than codified law), but they form the underlying justification for the legal use of force in all 50 states and have been used as the basic legal yardstick in various courts for an awful lot of years.

pax
 
You made it out alive and you aren't going to have to justify it to anybody else. That means you won in the long run. The only thing I would have done differently is back up sooner.

Usually it is just a good idea to end the situation with the minimum amount of violence. With violence no one truly wins. Even if all three of them ended up dead you wouldn't "win." You would have had the legal investigation, lawyer's fees, and possibly the mental burden of taking a life.

Sounds to me like you got away with much less damage just taking the punch.
 
Don't feel like a wimp man. You got away alive and got home to your family, that is what is important. Those 3 guys will get theirs eventually, what goes around comes around. Karma's a bitch.
 
I liked your post BillCA

Any time I discover someone is deliberatly following me, I hit the door lock button. Lock all your doors if you can. Extra time and security.
Click to expand...

It is good practice to lock your doors immediately upon pulling out of the driveway. I learned that in the 80's from my aunt who had some guy while she was leaving her nursing job try and open her backdoor. Nowadays most cars that are locked will open from the inside when you try and open them anyways(in case of some horrific accident leaving you trapped and locked in). Either way, I lock my car doors as I start my journey with or without the family due to security reasons.
 
This is what I believe he should have done the instant they started to get violent. It may have saved his fat lip.
Click to expand...

This line has been eating at me. Simple assault does not justify the use of lethal force. Brandishing a weapon is the last thing he should have done. Then, even if they got back in the car, they could call and report the man waving a gun at them. At that point he is stuck trying to justify waving a gun at three people. He is also stuck with his word against what ever lie the other guys decided to tell.

The only apropriate action was too back up. Unless they were trying to drag him from the car it was simple assault. Even with disparity of force all three men weren't hitting him or attempting to hit him.

What would the average cop thinking when he is arguing the other guys's story?

What would the average juror's first question be? I know what mine would be. Why didn't he attempt to back up. If the answer was anything besides, "the car was immobilized," it would be an up hill battle. Unless he was blocked in by another vehicle.
 
Glad that you made it home in one piece. Avoiding/deescalating/backing up was the best choice given the situation that you have outlined.

My concern would be:
stopped in front of me, trying to block me in the road between the median and the curb. Then 3 men got out and one opened my car door
Click to expand...

This is the point that you want to avoid if at all possible; someone physically at your door handle who may want to do you harm, and especially with the door being opened by them after a "road rage" incident. What if the "little guy" had a knife? Or a gun? He hit you with his fist. (There is a reason that when someone is pulled over by the police that they have them stay in the car.)

As pax pointed out, "You won." And I would guess that your situation awareness regarding this type of incident/road rage will be a bit more "refined"/prepared in the future; hopefully helping to completely avoid any serious confrontations in your future.

I have seen my share of road ragers; up here during the Winter, I often pass by them a couple of minutes later with their vehicles off the road, stuck in a snowbank.

The "boomerang principle" (what goes around comes around) - you just don't want to be near them when it happens; so a wide berth is a good idea.

Swallowing pride and then learning from life's experiences is not always easy, but it is pretty simple. Kudos to you for examining your experience and seeking and gaining some wisdom.
 
This line has been eating at me. Simple assault does not justify the use of lethal force. Brandishing a weapon is the last thing he should have done.
Click to expand...

At the moment you are being attacked by three men you aren't privy with the knowledge that its only going to be a fat lip. IMO if you cannot simply back out and escape you must prepare to defend yourself. Pulling and pointing your firearm at this point is both legal and the correct course of action if you are to maintain a proper defensive posture. Then if your cab is breeched the bad guys intent is clear.

Whats upsetting is how many of you guys cannot see that as easy as the bad guy stopped with a fat lip he could have continued and with help from his buddies. Yes Razorburn survived only slightly nicked. It's awesome that he was able to survive without pulling or firing his gun. Understand this however, he was lucky. He did multiple things wrong and survived despite it. Praising him only reinforces him and others to handle things wrong. I am glad all went well as we all are. I just hope if this goes down again Razor will handle it differently and in a manor that doesn't put him at the mercy of the bad guys.

This is precisely why having an understanding of the law is so important. Some say as important as having an understanding of how to respond tactically. The OP needs to upgrade both. I understand why he feels bad and its something only preparation will cure.
 
Of course, so would throwing the car into reverse since he wasn't blocked in. And "R" has the HUGE advantage of not having any moral/emotional and legal/civl issues to deal with later.
Click to expand...

Jad0110, I stated already that reverse was the first option. What you quoted was under the premise that escape was blocked. At this point preventing an attack is justification for pulling and pointing.

IMO if you are justified in shooting the last thing on your mind should be moral or legal issues. You are either justified or not. If you are justified then you are about to get gravely injured or killed if you don't shoot.
 
At the moment you are being attacked by three men you aren't privy with the knowledge that its only going to be a fat lip.
Click to expand...

One guy punched him. The other guy kicked his car. There was no three man attack. There were three men on the scene. There were three peopel getting out of the car. Only one became physically agressive with the driver himself. The imminent fear of death was not there.

Now he might have been in fear of serious bodily harm by the one guy. That is an argument that could be made. However, since the guy had only punched him it was still simple assault. In most states jumping from simple assault to lethal force is not allowed.

The first question asked would have been, what other form of force did he try? The next would have been did he try to handle the situation without escelating the level of violence. The answer would have been no in your scenario. The third question would be, did he have any other option besides lethal force? The answer is yes. He could have simply backed away. His car was fully functional.

That is the way it would be handled in most places. In a situation like the OP's shooting would be a real dicey situation. It would be a case of splitting hairs and the DA's leanings.

Brandishing the weapon might not get you in much trouble. The question is who calls the cops first. Then you have to answer the question, was lethal force necessary. If you pull a gun it pretty much says you're willing to use it. It isn't a talisman or a toy. When it comes out that means it is ready to go boom. If that isn't the legal option keep it in the holster. Otherwise you can be seen as escelating the situation or threatening. Then you still have legal issues.

IMO if you cannot simply back out and escape you must prepare to defend yourself.
Click to expand...

Well he could and did back out. His car worked just fine. He should have used it about to minutes earlier. However, he didn't. I think he knows better know.

Whats upsetting is how many of you guys cannot see that as easy as the bad guy stopped with a fat lip he could have continued and with help from his buddies.
Click to expand...

I understand that very well. I also understand that only one person attacked him. I understand that his car was functional and he had other options. I also work side by side with cops. I spend hours listening to cops ask questions and reading reports. I know what the line of questioning would have been. I know that most cops would (at the very least) have drug him in and put him in the little white room.

The fact is the bad guy stopped because the OP drove off. He stopped the attack without resorting to violence. That is a major win.

He did multiple things wrong and survived despite it. Praising him only reinforces him and others to handle things wrong.
Click to expand...

Multiple post say to lock the doors. They also say he should have backed up sooner. Nobody is reinforcing the behaviors that lead to a bad situation. We are saying that he handled the bad situation correctly. Nobody here believes he did everything right. I can think of a half dozen things he could have done differently.

The major ones have been covered. So, what we are saying is, "you handled the bad situation in the correct way. Learn from your mistakes so you don't end up there again."

This is precisely why having an understanding of the law is so important.
Click to expand...

This is why you and I will see this differently. We are from two different states. In my state (at least my local area) brandishing or shooting would have been a problem. On 12-1-11 the duty to retreat disappears. Then we have to wait for the DA's and the courts to catch up.

Different states with different laws and different histories. That means the way we handle things under those laws will be different.
 
We are saying that he handled the bad situation correctly.
Click to expand...

Nobody here believes he did everything right. I can think of a half dozen things he could have done differently.
Click to expand...

Then it wasn't handled correctly was it.

He is partly responsible for the bad situation. His unlocked door, not backing out, not producing his firearm when three guys begin an attack.

One guy punched him. The other guy kicked his car. There was no three man attack. There were three men on the scene. There were three peopel getting out of the car. Only one became physically agressive with the driver himself.
Click to expand...

LOL.

If you had been on the scene and three men had just cut you off after following you for awhile obviously aggravated, I'm sure you wouldn't be so cavalier in saying "only" one attacked.

Hopefully you understand just how quickly multiple attackers can kill or gravely injury you. Our privilege of hind site or knowing the end result of this encounter won't be available when it happens to us.
 
Brandishing the weapon might not get you in much trouble. The question is who calls the cops first. Then you have to answer the question, was lethal force necessary. If you pull a gun it pretty much says you're willing to use it. It isn't a talisman or a toy. When it comes out that means it is ready to go boom. If that isn't the legal option keep it in the holster. Otherwise you can be seen as escelating the situation or threatening. Then you still have legal issues.
Click to expand...

As noted above, brandishing isn't the same as pointing for self defense. I don't know of a State that would charge you if you pulled and pointed on these three guys in the OP's incident. As you know you need Ability, Opportunity, and Intent before you can use deadly force. Ability was satisfied by the sheer number of attackers. Opportunity was satisfied once they closed the distance. Intent was satisfied once the violence started. The OP could have locked the door temporarily eliminating opportunity. He could have reversed out permanently doing so. Still he had everything needed to shoot much less draw.

I'm not advocating shooting here BTW. I am advocating not allowing multiple someones to get on you when you have a means to stop it. It really isn't healthy. A fat lip was a blessing for sure.
 
Obviously hindsight is 20/20. In this case no one was seriously hurt, and the OP went home only with a split lip. As has been said "All is well that ends well." He is better off than if he had shot one of them.

But no one could have known whether the guys had guns or knives or any other weapon that could have been used to seriously injure or kill the OP. He did not know either. Three guys could pull one out of a car and beat him to death without any weapon except their fists and feet.

Since the question was asked, in my opinion he acted very unwisely and so concerned about the aftermath that he decided to take the risk of even death.
A couple of things stand out.
1. I suspect the OP was young as were his attacker. Often drivers see someone "zipping" around them a smart alec move, or a challenge. In retrospect that was a bad move, and he would have done better to not pass, but to call 911 on his cell. I think everyone has a cell and everyone has it ready except me.

2. Evidently he was able to reverse and leave after the initial attack, so why did he not do it and prevent the attack? Was his car so blocked that he could not move, and if so why did he allow the other car to block him?

As I have said, he should re-evaluate his need or desire to carry a weapon. If it is not going to be used to stop a deadly force threat then it is better left at home.

I think many would have done about the same, and many who think they are some kind of "sheepdog" would not do any better when the chips were down.

Learn from the experience, make an honest evaluation as to what you would or should do if such an incident happened again. Life goes on so don't dwell unnecessarily on it.

Regards,
Jerry
 
Any day when you don't have to shoot somebody is a good day.

You didn't have to shoot them, and you didn't. Retreating in this situation was the wise and prudent thing to do.
 
Then it wasn't handled correctly was it.

He is partly responsible for the bad situation. His unlocked door, not backing out, not producing his firearm when three guys begin an attack.
Click to expand...

He handled the confrontation properly. He created the bad situation. However, he handled the situation he created in the proper manner. My advice is that certain behaviors be modified to prevent him from ending up there again.

It is like any other mistake you make. Okay you made the mistake, did you fix the problem? If you did and everything turned out okay then you handled a bad situation well. The point is to learn so that you don't create the situation again.

LOL.

If you had been on the scene and three men had just cut you off after following you for awhile obviously aggravated, I'm sure you wouldn't be so cavalier in saying "only" one attacked.
Click to expand...

I would have called the cops about the driver when I seen him being a danger. I would have relayed the license plate information and direction of travel. Then I would have followed a short distance before finding an alternate route to my destination, if an alternative route was available.

I wouldn't have taken the chance of getting hit by the drunk driver. If no alternate was available I would have slowed down. I would have matched their speed from a distance.

I would have done a lot to avoid ever getting to the point I was cut off. If I was some how cut off I still know where the reverse gear is. If three guys try to hem in against the curb, they aren't coming to play bridge. I'm getting out of Dodge. Even if I draw there is no promise. If they are all armed I become a fish in a barell.

As noted above, brandishing isn't the same as pointing for self defense.
Click to expand...

Showing a gun in North Carolina can get you arrested for going armed to terrorize the public. It all depends on who calls 911. Pointing it can also get you charged with "assault by pointing a gun." There are multiple misdemeanor assault charges that can be filed if you point the gun.

A Carolina Panthers player was given a 60 day suspended sentence, one year probation, and community service for pointing a gun in a parking lot confrontation. According to his testimony and the the testimony of others he pulled it and held it behind his back. He was afraid the situation would escelate to the point he needed it. The gun swept the other group of people and it became assault.

If lethal force is not a legal option the gun better stay in the holster. At least that is the case in NC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top