And what if you’re a woman weighing a buck ten, pinned in your car while a 300 pound gorrilla is pounding on your car and breaks your window. Instead of a “beat down” he proceeds to choke her until she can’t breath. This scenario has happened. Would that woman reason to fear for her life?
With the zillion possible scenarios you can’t say never because (irony coming) you just never know!
I weigh about that much. If I were in my car I would drive away.
I would not shoot them. I can say never because I know better. I wouldn’t do it. I don’t wanna be in jinx with the law. I do not wanna be questioned. I don’t want my possession taken away. I do not wanna go to court. I don’t wanna live with regret the rest of my life because I killed someone.
If he runs after me I would just keep driving til I got to a police department or a sitting police car.
There’s a vibe on the street nowadays. If a fully qualified police officer can go to jail because they shoot. Or be in trouble because he tazed someone. What’s the average citizen gonna be faced with?
Of course I’d be afraid and worried if some idiot approached me screaming and yelling in a threatening manner.
I’m normally of a calm quiet demeanor. I think my non-reactive countenance might de-escalate the problem. I don’t know.
But I wouldn’t shoot them. Never. I do know that.
Some one else’s MMV.
(I carry pepper spray as well)
Yeah, de-escalate if you can, always. In a lot of the dashcam videos I’ve seen, there was an opportunity to drive away, or reverse away, but the victim just didn’t take it and instead sat there or tried yelling back at the rager, or something like that.
Driving away does carry a risk of potentially escalating the incident further by fuelling the rage, or driving into a dead end street etc, but it’s already a non-zero risk situation; there is not likely to be a completely zero-risk exit.
We don’t have defensive weapons where I live, so I would lock the doors if possible, and try to drive away to somewhere safer, which would be a police station, or at least a very public place, ideally not anywhere that it becomes necessary to stop.
The other thing to note is that in a lot of the dashcam video cases, there were steps that could have been taken to de-escalate the situation way before it turned into a thing where an angry person climbs out of a car and starts stomping toward you and punching on the glass. Most of them could just be avoided by Ashley Neal’s standard advice: Yield and turn it into a non-incident.
It doesn’t matter if you think you have right of way, even if you are right about that; just don’t get into a tussle with someone who strenuously begs to differ.
ETA: to answer the actual question, it’s the same as any other situation; you can use ‘reasonable force’ to defend yourself, but a court will probably be involved in the decision on whether it was reasonable.
So here’s the problem. We’re not on the same page because it appears you did not read the scenario I presented:
This happens quite a bit in these cases. The victim cannot pull forward because there is another car in the space in front of them. The rager is parked behind them in the drive lane. The rager jumps out of their car and runs up to the victims vehicle before they even know what’s going on.
The police chief here took it a two further. He confiscated guns whenever he could (especially domestic violence calls). He then sold the guns. He also sold ammunition purchased by the town for police training.
That exact thing happened to me once. I pulled into a crowded parking lot, spent a few minutes getting some stuff together and step out. A car pulls up and stops directly behind mine, blocking any escape, and a guy gets out and starts yelling at me . Fortunately, he was content to just yell and drive off.
This doesn’t account that in 2024 there’s a chance that you will get shot and not just punched.
The answers to these questions are very dependent on the facts and jurisdiction.
I agree. As an aside “road rage” is a colloquial description rather than a legal term. Like any case involving purported self defense, a court is going to apply the laws of that jurisdiction to the specific facts. Call the incident “road rage” if you’d like, but usual rules (of that jurisdiction) will apply; it’s the details that will matter.
That said, there are a few considerations that may be specific to self defense in road rage incidents and therefore responsive to the @Saint_Cad’s questions (with the usual caveat that IAAL but not your lawyer, this is not legal advice, YMMV, etc.):
Many jurisdictions limit the invocation of self defense in cases where the “defender” initiated or escalated the altercation. So if the “defender” got into a tit for tat with the road rager (assailant), a court might find self defense was not justified. For example, assailant cuts you off. You honk at them. They start brake checking. You flash lights, then change lanes and speed past them, then cut them off in return. Situation escalates to assailant blocking your escape and beating on your window. There are several facts in that pattern that could constitute escalations by the “defender.” This is a compelling reason why the best course is to ignore idiot drivers. Don’t escalate, both for practical and legal reasons.
“Reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death” and “reasonable force” are the general standards for self defense and it’s a fact intensive analysis. So, for example, if a 240 lb. meathead blocks @Beckdawrek from driving away, then proceeds to beat on her window with his fists, she’s likely got a pretty strong argument that she had a reasonable fear and use of a firearm constituted reasonable force. OTOH, if the defender is comparable in size and strength to the assailant, perhaps less so.
Rules vary by jurisdiction on the duty to retreat within or without one’s home (or lack thereof, sometimes known as the Castle Doctrine and “stand your ground” laws, respectively) and the extension of those doctrines to motor vehicles. This is something that one would need to research in their state.
I strongly agree with not reacting and generally agree that use of force, especially deadly force, in self defense should be a last resort. However, your dichotomy assumes perfect foresight. A beat down could lead to serious or fatal injuries and there’s little way to know how far it will go at the outset. Could just be a bloody nose. Could be a lot worse.
When I was taught to shoot there are things I was told:
Never brandish your gun threateningly.
Never point it at anything you’re not prepared to shoot.
Never try to shoot at a rampaging beast because you think it will stop them.
Never pull the trigger unless you’re prepared to deal with the consequences.
I can say with confidence I will not shoot a human being.
I have killed things…I do not like it. It’s not pleasant or joyful in any way.
A road rager will just have to do what he’s gonna do if I can’t remove myself or calm the situation down. It will be on them. Not me.
I don’t like a person has to even think about the legality of it. Just don’t do it.
I was taught, oh about 7 or 8 yo… violence only begats violence.
I respect that point of view.
Keep in mind that this is in FQ, and the question is about what is legal and not legal in response to a road rager.
What you should do is a matter of opinion, and that is an IMHO topic, not FQ. Please focus on things that you have legal knowledge of and can cite.
Understood.
I think OP has gotten some pretty good answers. The bottom line is, check the self-defense laws in your state.
But that’s your choice. You should not be telling others that they don’t have certain options as though it were fact.
And beyond that, know the “flavor” of your community, especially when it comes to prosecutions.
I’m in Wisconsin. I know how the criminal justice system works here. If I had to use force against a road rager I’d rather have to do it in Waukesha or Washington County than, say, Milwaukee or Dane County.
A big part of the ‘Castle Doctrine’ formal or informally defined, is the idea that you don’t need to retreat if attacked in your home. This makes some sense, people can reasonably feel their home is the safest place they can be and there is no better place to retreat to. It gets more complicated than that or course. But I would expect it should apply wherever one lives.
I’m reminded of the scene in Last Action Hero where movie character Schwarznegger escapes into the real world. He attempts to break a car window by punching it, then dances away waving his fist and yelling “that hurts!”. The window is unharmed.
Of course, yes you can break a window like that with a sharp or solid object.
I’m curious about people’s opinion on this road-rager shooting. No blood that I could see and AFAIK non-fatal. Justified or not?
According to text in the comments, the guy who got shot made the first aggressive move, by cutting in front of the shooter. But the (eventual) shooter’s retaliation escalated things, by clipping the shootee’s front end.
I believe the shooting was justified–when two guys are in your face threatening you, you are not obligated to get maimed (or worse).
But if the shooter had ignored being cut off, nothing would have happened. So he shares some responsibility.
One thing I don’t recall seeing mentioned is “disparity of force”. In other words a 80 year old overweight male is attacked for cutting someone off in traffic. The attacker is a 25 year old buff male. The 80 year old could get off for shooting the 25 year old while the opposite might not sit as well with the jury.
Theres not enough information available to make a decision either way.
For one thing, we have no way of knowing what happened previously down the road. Some road rage incidents are mutual, both parties being guilty of something. Then there is the concept of “fighting words” where a party acts in such a way to provoke a response but then loses the privilege of claiming self defense. In some states this is actually law by statute.