Road rage leads to gun pulled, motorcycle run over

[middlefinger]

.

The big stink made by the National FELON League over the last several weeks was propelled by the acquittal of cop for shooting a drug-dealing felon that had attempted to run him down with car and got his ass killed because of it


.

[GunLawyer001]

Nobody (here) would argue that the majority of people saving themselves represent indefensible abuses of carrying. This case is *not* whether the majority of people saving themselves are indefensible abuses of carrying. We can grant that assumption. At the same time, we should ask the question of this case is: "Did *this* motorcyclist, given the circumstances of *this* particular situation, act in a way that would place him in the category of successful and justified displays of a firearm, or is this a case that belongs in the category of indefensible abuses of a firearm"? I believe that's what the OP is asking.

Again, empirical evidence is useful; in fact, a few PAFOA members have repeatedly asserted that you never pull a gun unless you're definitely going to shoot. Which is why the majority of defensive uses being "displays" is relevant, and why they are wrong to declare that drawing a gun is only useful because you have to do that before you pull the trigger.

The short news article I linked I'm sure doesn't tell us everything but from what is there it's hard for me to say how I would have handled it. My gut says, don't pull a firearm you're carrying unless you absolutely need to and if you plan to use it. I've never thought about carrying my gun just to point it at someone. The rider wasn't charged with anything yet, maybe the police thought it was a justified use of his firearm?

[knight0334]

PA law allows use of force in self defense, and deadly force if faced with certain more violent acts. Pulling and aiming a gun is NOT "deadly force", it is just mere force, with the threat of "deadly force", until the trigger is pulled.

PA defines "deadly force" as:

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 501
§ 501. Definitions

“Deadly force.” Force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.


One must also consider the events that lead up to the present situation, and what could possibly transpire. Did the perp's action in the very recent past have the potential of serious bodily injury, and/or could the immediate future have a similar event? We all have read about road rage folks going postal, so the future is a high possibility - which probably justifies the defensive display of a firearm.

The only thing the motorcyclist did wrong was to stop with the cager and say something, which lead up to the exiting of the vehicle of the perp. Sometimes you are best off not saying shit to other people.

This notion that you don't pull a gun until you need to shoot is bullshit. If you are in need of having to pull a gun, it is already too late to avoid having to use deadly force. While waiting until that time is "more legal", there are times when defensive displays avoid the legally harsher outcome of homicide.

And think about it for a moment, cops pull their guns on perps countless times daily and do not shoot. The gun is a compliance tool just as much as a defensive tool. And believe it or not, cops do have a stricter set of laws governing when they can discharge a firearm than us regular folks. (See the Tennessee v Gardner SCOTUS case)

[Mr_Gixxer]

Thank you knight0334 for that response. Point was very well made.

[raxar]

Yeah, but the guy was riding a motorcycle, that means he was in the wrong.

[PAcarrier]

The driver used a 4000 pound weapon to try and kill the rider, and when that didn't work he punched him in the head (even a low speed wreck can kill). He was certainly justified to clear leather while trying to prevent further injury to himself.

That was my thought exactly. There had already been an attempt on his life with the vehicle. What's to stop the driver from getting back in and running him over?

[allenr]

I think presenting the gun was justifiable. The aggressor was guilty of assault and battery and assaualt by motor vehicle. He displayed his evil intent when he exited the car and punched the cycle driver. My understanding is that drawing a gun in shuch a case is justified because it is a clear attempt to defend. Drawing a gun to scare someone can be criminal unless there is a reasonable basis for doing so. Getting punched in the head seems like a reason to try and scare someone off.

As Gunlawyer001 pointed out that many attacks are thwarted by drawing a gun. The goal in self defense is to stop the attack. If you can do that by psychological pressure it is better than shooting the aggressor. My own research into when you can and cannot draw led me to believe that the psychological stop is common.

I had an incident last year in which two guys were screaming at a woman and her little girl, both of whom were cowering and crying and paleading to be let alone. I went over saw the woman was a Muslim and the men were hurling racial epitaphs at her. I asked them to stop. The bigger one was .about 6’2” and weighted probably 200+ pounds. He told me to F... off and leave. I asked again. He told me that if I didn’t leave he was going to beat the shit out of me. I am 5’10” and 160 lbs and 74 years old at the time. I took two steps back to eliminate being punched, and I drew my 9mm. I did not have to say a word. The two of them ran off.

A bystander had called the police. Where I live the PSP patrols as we have no local force. Two PSP cars were on the scene in a couple minutes. The troopers questions me, the woman, and the witness who had called. They knew I had pulled a gun because I told them. One of them said that if I ever had to do that kind of thing again I should back up a couple more steps to give more time to take the shot if an an attack started. He was right. I keep that in mind. Neither officer questioned the legitimacy of my actions. Later. PSP detective called me to get a statement. I gave him the details and asked him directly if I was in legal jeopardy for drawing a gun on a person. He told me that I was not because it was obvious that I was facing a threat that could have resulted in severe bodily harm or worse. Fortunately nothing like that has happened since.

[RenoV8]

The motorcyclist showed a lot of restraint in not popping the dolt. His actions were a clear cut case of defensive use. Just because he didn't pull the trigger, does not mean his actions were unjustified.

I bet the stupid driver will think twice next time he is in a similar situation.

[sota]

More and more I see motorcyclists with cameras on their helmets. I think that's a great idea. Sad that it's needed, but great that they are. I'm also going to re-double my efforts to figure out how to more often wear this body camera I bought a while back.

[free]

Not sure where to put this, mods move if need be.

http://www.chillicothegazette.com/st...ver/716215001/



Here's my question. Was the motorcycle rider justified in pulling his gun and using it in the way he did?

Of course. The had just been assaulted by a deadly weapon (driver intentionally rammed him, causing him to crash), then had been assaulted again by the driver when he hit him in the head, and the driver was making his attention clear that he was looking to engage in additional assaults (trying to get him to fight).

As far as I am concerned, the motorcyclist was justified in shooting the driver dead.

That said, pulling up next to driver and tell him to use his turn signals was a dumbass move. What did he think that would accomplish?