Parking lot incident

[Wildalaska]

No one disputes road rage is an assault, where is the citation that allows one to threaten or utilize deadly physical force against a road rager absent normal self defense standards?

WildorwereyouengedinhyperboleAlaska TM

 

[Kyo]

assault is assault. there is no special thing that says "if you road rage I can shoot you" point is Cali and other states have equalized it as assault. so, when SD applies to assault, this is included in assault.
that is what happened. Guy came out to bang on window. Assault. Legal self defense allowed. When do you determine if assault is life threatening?

 

[Wildalaska]

When do you determine if assault is life threatening?

When it crosses the line to the imminent use of deadly physical force against you, objectively and subjectively.

The OP was not in imminent danger of having deadly physical force used against him and therefore had no business in threatening the use of deadly physical force. His actions were irresponsible (on the facts given) and he lucked out in not being prosecuted.

WildyoucarryagunyouassumetheriskofmakingaboobooandifonepersonlearnswhatnottodofromthisdebateIaccomplishedsomethingAlaska TM

PS...you (generically) aren't safe because of your gun. your gun is as dangerous to you as to the person who threatens you. your weapon is your brain.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Reading is your friend.

The Florida Department of Agriculture, which issues concealed carry permits in Florida has a lot of good info here:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

I posted this link in this thread already, but I think it's important information, so here it is again. Please do read it. Here is the most relevant info for those who won't bother to click on the link:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

Q. What if I point my handgun at someone but don't use it?

A. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.

Example: In a 1987 case, a woman refused to pay an automobile mechanic who she thought did a poor job repairing her car. They argued about it, and the mechanic removed the radiator hose from the car so she couldn't drive it away. She reached into her purse, pulled out an unloaded gun, and threatened to kill the mechanic if he touched her car again. The mechanic grabbed the gun and called the police.

The woman was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to serve a mandatory three-year prison term. The fact that the gun was not loaded was irrelevant. Even though she was the mother of three dependent children and had no prior criminal record, the statute does not allow for parole. Her only recourse was to seek clemency from the Governor.

Here for your reading pleasure is the summary of that Florida State web page, cut and pasted. Bolds and underlines are mine to emphasize what is most relevant to our discussion.

Summary

1. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument, even if it isn't loaded or you never intend to use it

2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.

Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured;
Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.
3. The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman or a "good samaritan."

4. Never carry your concealed weapon into any place where the statute prohibits carrying it.

This is not a complete summary of all the statutes and court opinions on the use of deadly force. Because the concealed weapons statute specifies that concealed weapons are to be used for lawful self-defense, we have not attempted to summarize the body of law on lawful defense of property. This information is not intended as legal advice. Every self-defense case has its own unique set of facts, and it is unwise to try to predict how a particular case would be decided. It is clear, however, that the law protects people who keep their tempers under control and use deadly force only as a last resort.

The Florida law reads "reasonably believe" and that doesn't mean one can just say "Eeek. I'm scared. Bang." It means would a reasonable person in that situation have cause to believe they were in imminent peril of loss of life or great physical harm.

This incident never went to grand jury or trial, and we certainly won't be deciding it here on The Firing Line. I believe the lesson to be taken to heart here, no matter what our personal opinion of the actions taken in this specific situation, is that if a bunch of pro-gun folks on a web forum can't agree on a relatively simple issue (was the OP justified in drawing his pistol) what would have happened had this actually gone to trial with twelve strangers who may not be gun enthusiasts deciding the issue?

Learn the law. Follow the law. Don't depend on what you hear from a friend or see on a web forum. Or pay the consequences for breaking the law.

 

[Wildalaska]

It is clear, however, that the law protects people who keep their tempers under control and use deadly force only as a last resort.

Last clear chance boys and girls, last clear chance. Aint just the perps life on the line, it be yours to.

Word. G.

WildhomestyleAlaska TM

 

[cracked91]

Wrong thread

 

[scottaschultz]

Save your breath cracked91. I made a similar comment and was pretty much ignored. People here don't want to hear things like that. People on these forums don't really post things looking for advice. All they are really looking for is someone to confirm that they made the correct decision. If you disagree with what they did, then clearly you didn't fully understand the circumstances or appreciate the OP's situation.

As much as Microgunner insists it is not the case, this whole incident is over a parking space. My advice was to just drive around and let this nut case in the truck go by. He was obviously agitated and in a bigger hurry to get into the store than the OP. In the time it would have taken to drive around, that would have:
a) given the person more time to load up their car
b) allowed the OP to position himself better so as not to block the aisle
c) find a different handicapped space
Doing any one of those three things would have avoided this situation.

I am glad to see the comments from the Florida website. Something I have also said here that people don't like to hear is the fact that having a gun can indeed affect the way some people react to a situation. Having a gun is supposed to empower you. Empower you to know that you can protect your life or that of someone else in the event you find yourself in imminent danger. Obviously it also empowers people to do dumb things as well.

Yes, this was over a parking spot. While Microgunner is certainly entitled to park in A handicapped spot, it was because of his insistance over having that particular spot and refusing to move to let this other guy go by that contributed to this situation. Yeah, the guy in the truck was highly agitated, but what do most rational people do when confronted with someone like that? My vote would be to avoid the situation.

I have been going to Wal-Mart for probably close to 30 years. For 10 of those years, I drove vehicles with handicapped plates and not once have I ever had to pull a gun over a parking space... ever!

Scott

 

[Sixer]

Well... I would have pulled the trigger on that fool. If he looked like a dirty hippy... I would have pulled it twice.

eta.... THUMP THUMP THUMP.... BANG!

 

[eclipsetactical]

Put Your War Face On

I think getting a bigger gun might help too as far as scare factor. Also when you point it at them put your war face on like you aren't playing. Refer to picture below.....This lady points a gun at me I am running for cover and so would any man in thier right mind.

 

[OldMarksman]

By my count there are about twenty replies on here that support the OP's action. One poster said he "might have shot the guy."

Almost all of these were posted before Dr. Strangelove's Post #144.

I strongly recommend that everyone go back and read it slowly and carefully.

Here's a "Cliff Notes" version.

Originally Posted by Florida Dept of AG website
Summary

1. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument, even if it isn't loaded or you never intend to use it

2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.

Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured; Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force; If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.
3. The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman or a "good samaritan."

....

This is not a complete summary of all the statutes and court opinions on the use of deadly force. Because the concealed weapons statute specifies that concealed weapons are to be used for lawful self-defense, we have not attempted to summarize the body of law on lawful defense of property. This information is not intended as legal advice. Every self-defense case has its own unique set of facts, and it is unwise to try to predict how a particular case would be decided. It is clear, however, that the law protects people who keep their tempers under control and use deadly force only as a last resort.

.....

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Laws vary by state, but it isn't a good idea for any lay person, untrained in legal theory, unaware of how each statute fits into the context of the entire body of law, and not knowledgeable of the case law, to try to ascertain the limits of how one might justify the use of deadly force.

 

[eclipsetactical]

I still stick by my stance

After the dude getting out of the car and beating on the window and telling the OP that he was going to hurt him "reasonable belief" could be derived that the OP could get seriously injured or worse. Giving him the right to pull the gun in self defense.

Really this whole post is an opinion thing because none of us that I know are lawyers in FL. Correct me if I am wrong. I always heard opinions are like a-holes, everyone's got one.

Also think we have heard plenty of opinions from each side and we should wrap this thread up. It was a very good discussion though, everyone involved for the most part made some very good points on both sides.

So I applaud everyone for expressing thier veiws, its great when you get a group of people together that all have different points of veiw. Gives you the ability to look at things from a perspective that maybe you do not have. That is what a post like this is all about is learning. I for one learned a lot from all the posters so it was a winning situation for me.

Thanks Guys and Gals,
Ben

 

[Wildalaska]

Also think we have heard plenty of opinions from each side and we should wrap this thread up. It was a very good discussion though, everyone involved for the most part made some very good points on both sides.

Nobody who believes the OP had the "right" to pull his gun has made a good point.

Those of you who think that pulling ones firearm in this scenario is a good idea do so in the future at your own risk. My best suggestion for you is to stop buying ammo for a year and put the money onto an account for legal fees.

Sooner or later you will be using it.

Last clear chance boys and girls, last clear chance. Maybe CCws for men should come with estrogen pills

WildtonedowntheaggressionabitAlaska TM

 

[OldMarksman]

After the dude getting out of the car and beating on the window and telling the OP that he was going to hurt him "reasonable belief" could be derived that the OP could get seriously injured or worse. Giving him the right to pull the gun in self defense.

Lay opinion: I seriously doubt it.

...reasonable belief that the OP "could get" seriously injured or worse?--the mere possibility does not constitute imminent peril.

Telling the OP that he was going to hurt him?--verbal threat, doesn't cut it.

Beating on the window? Was that simply to give emphasis to the verbal threat, or was the guy "in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering...the occupied vehicle"? (Florida statutes, 776.013). The charging authority, grand jury, and/or trial court jury would have to believe that it was the latter.

Would reasonable people conclude that beating on a car window constitutes unlawfully and forcefully entering the car? I wouldn't.

 

[OldMarksman]

Those of you who think that pulling ones firearm in this scenario is a good idea do so in the future at your own risk.

My thoughts exactly...

My best suggestion for you is to stop buying ammo for a year and put the money onto an account for legal fees. Sooner or later you will be using it.

Ken, what do you think about the idea of consulting a local, experienced trial attorney with actual knowledge of the deadly force laws and case law now?

A couple of hours of consultation might be a good investment.

 

[Kyo]

Those who don't believe that the window should be broken first. That is a risk for you to take.

 

[noelf2]

Nobody who believes the OP had the "right" to pull his gun has made a good point.

That's your opinion, and is shared by those who think as you do. Lots of us don't share that opinion. Does that make us wrong? Does it make you wrong? None of us are qualified to make that judgment, no matter much smarter we think we are than others. We all appreciate the right to self defense, and I think we will all have to make the decision of when to draw, or when not to draw, based on the circumstances we find ourselves in. I, like most others here, hope I'm never in a situation where I feel I have to draw my gun. But if I am in that situation, there are two things that I'm happy about. 1. I know my state laws. 2. You are in Alaska and wouldn't be on the jury.

NOamitheonlyonethatinsntimpressedbythisELF2

 

[OldMarksman]

Those who don't believe that the window should be broken first. That is a risk for you to take.

?

You've lost me.

Florida law, and that what counts here, seems to provide a presumption (rebuttable, of course) that a reasonable fear of imminent peril exists if a forceful and unlawful entry is "in process." What have the courts said about what that means? I do not know, and I sure would not want to be the one to find out.

I would sure hate to try to answer questions from a prosecutor about why it was reasonable for anyone to think that someone banging on my window was in the process of breaking in.

But again, someone else may have travelled that road. Of course, unless there has been an appellate ruling on the subject, the result might well not be the same the next time.

 

[IZZY]

(NW pilgrim) Pretty amazing the guy did not back off when looking down the barrel of a gun.

That is my #2 concern with a Kill-Tech...small guns get no respect.

My #1 concern is in using it...( eg will it "stop" the fight/ attacker, and will it work under SD conditions).

Next time report this to the Security detail in the store, even with a bigger gun, I would not want to go through hell over a parking spot.

At least get an all steel MK9, walther PPS, or a Glock 30.

 

[Wildalaska]

Does that make us wrong?

Yes.

The OP was not in fear of imminent serious pyhsical injury. The OP risked arrest. The OP escalated the situation. The OP acted foolishly in this scenario.

None of us are qualified to make that judgment, no matter much smarter we think we are than others.

No. Any body who knows his state law and knows how the Court system works as well as the principles of justification and the use of deadly physical force are qualified to make that judgement. Thats why there are "instructors" (FWIW) out there.

Ken, what do you think about the idea of consulting a local, experienced trial attorney with actual knowledge of the deadly force laws and case law now?

A couple of hours of consultation might be a good investment.

It should probably be mandatory.

WildlearnfromitAlaska TM

 

[TailGator]

The OP was not in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

Are you certain of that, WA? He has enough of a disability to get a handicapped parking pass, and there was a man acting irrationally, shouting threats and beating on his car window, physically attacking his car even though not (yet) his person, while he was blocked from escaping fore and aft. It seems like a pretty dicey situation to me - I'm not sure that whatever amount of fear he felt was irrational. That fear is contained in the parenthetical word. If his fear is found to be "reasonable" your succeeding sentences don't hold up. We all know that going to court has its own risks, but I wouldn't bet the mortgage money that OP would lose in a Florida court. (This from a lifelong Florida resident who has his CCW permit, read the laws and rules, and reviewed them again today.)

And to those who are trying to make a case that OP was being a jerk about a parking place: please read his posts again. He was showing some courtesy to the older lady at the same time he was waiting on a space for himself. There was room for the other guy to go around him until the old lady backed out, but the other driver chose not to do so until they were both blocked by the woman's attempts to back out. In other words, by the time it was clear that a dangerous situation had developed, the opportunity to escape it was gone. The rage exhibited by the other driver is simply not justified. Who goes to the parking lot of Wal-Mart (or a mall or a movie theater) and expects everyone to just get out of the way and give them the best spot available. If you criticize OP for not passing by the space, do you go around the same parking lot until you find an already cleared spot with no one near it and no one behind you who might want it? The guy beating on the window is the one who is a threat to peace and order, not a guy minding his own business waiting on a parking spot. I rather imagine that Microgunner felt a little impatience waiting on the old lady to load her car and back out, but he dealt with it much more appropriately. He probably erred in pointing the gun rather than keeping it ready at his side, but let's not demonize the guy.