And with kids in the car? Go berserker.
This may actually be the most harrowing video I’ve ever seen. It made me anxious watching it to the point of being slightly nauseous.
hey @battlefieldtrip you happen to know when Will Petty is doing VCQB in Texas next? asking for a friend pic.twitter.com/wfjVFPzfiy
— Valk @ boomer RTS games (@einherjarvalk) June 26, 2020
According to a news source, a woman thought this man had stolen her car and people joined trying to stop the victim.
Seriously people: Doors locked and if surrounded by hostiles, your car is a bullet weighing several thousands grains. Use accordingly.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. See the Active Response Training blog.
Ellifritz is the real thing and has the best advice here.
What are you talking about? What blog? What is wrong? Who got it wrong? Why? What’s an ellifritz?
This reminds me of Robert Avrech’s outstanding article “Jew without a gun”. Worth reading again. http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun-25-years-ago-the-la-riots/
I’ve been looking for that article for a long time. Thanks for posting it.
Active Response Training blog: http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/ and Greg Ellifritz.
It’s worth checking out.
Could you point to something specific about what’s “wrong”?
Yeah, I’m drawing a blank here. I subscribe to Ellifritz, but nothing comes to mind that this is “wrong” (and I’m not going to waste time trying to find it).
I wonder what would have been the results of drug testing everyone outside the car? I used to know people that did stupid shit like that woman when high, and that is why I used to know them.
How many people steal a car while they have their children with them?
Someone following me on a motorbike? Really, really bad idea.
Gramps is twice lucky he is still alive and unhurt.
Now you know why I will not get involved, other than maybe calling the police to report and being the best witness I can be. Gramps should have done the same. If my family is with me, my priority will be getting them as far away from any drama as fast as I possibly can.
The woman in the beginning looks like meth is one of her basic food groups.
I agree with rd. Picture this: A woman is standing there screaming that the man over there just (stole my car, kidnapped those kids, raped me) and you, Mr Concealed Carry, are standing there with your legally carried pistol. You intervene, and it turns out afterwards that the entire thing was a fabrication.
This is why I have decided that I do not get involved in defending anyone other than myself and my family. I don’t care if a man wearing a hockey mask and waving a bloody machete is standing in the doorway of my neighbor’s house, I am not doing anything other than take pictures and call the cops.
and honestly, if that hockey mask wearing maniac is not of my skin color, I may not even be calling the cops, lest I be accused of racism for calling in on someone not of my race.
100% correct there Divemedic. Your mission is to get yourself and those you love home alive and well.
How, exactly, does getting involved in an altercation a stranger is having promote that mission? It does not.
Forget the legal issues, forget everything else. If you are not directly involved, do not get involved in any way.
We need a SYG for cars. If you are on a street where you are legally allowed to be and your vehicle is being assaulted and a person or people are blocking your exit, you shoukd have every right to run over whomever is in front of you to make your escape.
Florida Statutes 776.013:
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
But with that comes the HUGE caveat that you have to prove forceful entry or attempt.
Last 3 words…
Indiana Code 35-41-3-2
(d) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
Broken glass inside the vehicle, the first seven assailants will be unhappily surprised.
Unless I find an opportunity to GTFODodge. In which case, AMF!
Here in Ohio a guy was able to use castle doctrine defense when his window was rolled down. He was fortunate that the attack was caught on a security camera, but a good dashcam could solve that issue.
Minor math quibble: A car is a bullet weighing several million grains.
1 pound = 7,000 grains
1 car ~ 3,000 pounds
Thus, one car ~ 21,000,000 grains.
And a legal thought (insert “IANAL” caveat here): Do we need a specific “VSYG” clause?
Put another way: Does SYG even apply if you’re in a vehicle accosted by violent people on the street? SYG merely removes the requirement to attempt to retreat, which in turn only applies if retreat can be performed “in complete safety”. Your car is your shield; if you have to leave your car to retreat, it cannot be done in complete safety. Ergo, SYG doesn’t apply.
But remaining in your car also makes you a sitting duck. Your bodily movements are extremely limited in such a confined space. Therefore, if the doors or windows are breached, you cannot retreat in complete safety, and SYG doesn’t apply.
Recognizing all that, the only reasonable way to exit a dangerous situation in a vehicle without the risk of injury is to drive on, which is considered a use-of-force by some, but is also the only way to retreat in complete safety. So assuming you’re not aiming your car to hit as many people as possible, are you using force in self-defense, or retreating from a violent situation, or using the minimum amount of force possible to effect a safe retreat?
I would think a good attorney could make the claim for any of those (again, assuming you’re not trying to run people over).
Quibble accepted 🙂
In most states with castle doctrine, it already includes your car.
If you stopped to avoid hitting someone, and your car is attacked, you qualify — you’re lawfully present, did your best to avoid harm, and are now under attack. Plow through and call the police ASAP, if for no other reason to be the first to get your side to them.
There was that video from Oklahoma (I think) where the mob tried to open a guy’s horse trailer, and their pepper spray was getting to his horses. He pulled off, dragging one of the mob. A short distance down the road he pulled over to talk to the police — and they closed and latched his horse trailer and sent him on his way.
NH speaks of retreat not being required when you’re in a place you are entitled to be, which seems to include cars. But it also says that retreat applies only when it can be done “in complete safety”, just the words you mentioned. And indeed it is obvious that someone in a car cannot do so, therefore retreat is not applicable.
That’s just horrifying.
Thought 1: “Check the license plate, you idiot!”
Thought 2: Why are you still there?
That’s why my wife drives a Tahoe, big heavy piece of metal, good ground clearance. Stomp on the gas and go, if some asshole is on the hood get to about 40 or more and hit the brakes. Don’t stop, or don’t stay stopped. Run over anything or anyone in the way.
I have a dash cam with both front and rear cameras. It records as long as the ignition is on.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EX8ATKK
7000 grains to a pound