Self Defense in a Car

In My Humble Opinion
1

I was watching a video on dashcam videos and a few showed people being attacked. One was where the road was blocked by a van and two guys got out and started chasing the car with baseball bats. There was one with a woman in front of a car and following as it reversed running as necessary and a few others were someone will step into the road in an attempt to get the car to stop. A common theme was that going in reverse did not necessarily lead to escape as reverse is fairly slow and most people do not know how to drive backwards in a curvy one-lane road.

So here is the question on self-defense with a car: if I feel my life is in danger can I legally hit someone with my car if they are blocking me in? Would it make a difference if I drive straight ahead and the idiot thinks his body will stop my 2 tons of metal OR do I need to avoid it and swerve and if he jumps in front of me oh well. Does the presence of a weapon matter or is it sufficient that they try to chase me as I attempt to escape? Is there any application of Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine when it comes to you in a car being attacked?

2

Don’t have the energy to look up relevant stuff on most of your post (although I think the answers might be interesting) but I do know that some “castle law” and “stand your ground” jurisdictions do regard your car as part of your “castle” and thus are covered by the same laws. Except most of us can’t drive the building we live in over the body of someone attacking us.

I’m sure that if you did hit/run over someone with your car there would be an investigation, but I also think it likely that if the front of your car was full of bullet holes use of your car to defend yourself, including using it in a lethal manner, would hold up in court.

The devil is in the details when it comes to self-defense and defending yourself in court afterwards.

3

I am not a lawyer so take these opinions with all of the value you paid for them. I assume you are referring to US law; other countries have wildly differing laws with regard to self-defense and use of force, as well as interpretations of what comprises an imminent threat.

You are going to have a very difficult time justifying the act of striking an unarmed pedestrian with a vehicle as any form of self-defense; not only are you inside of a rigid structure that a person could not punch or kick through to injure you, you have the ability to move much faster (even driving in reverse gear) than a pursuing person could follow. If someone is deliberately obstructing your movement to the point that you could not maneuver around you this is technically “unlawful confinement” (in some jurisdictions it may actually meet the legal definition of kidnapping or abduction) and you may use reasonable means to escape; if you have good reason to believe that you are under threat (the person obstructing the vehicle has a weapon, there are multiple people threatening to break into or disable the vehicle, et cetera) that could be a possible justification although the bar for that is going to be pretty high.

Although so-called “Stand Your Ground” laws (essentially eliminating the ‘duty to retreat’ wherever a defender is in public or private) are often viewed from the perspective of self-defense with a firearm they more generally apply to self-defense against imminent threat by any means. They vary from state to state and tend to be problematic in more expansive interpretations because it is possible for multiple parties to interpret their actions as justified in terms of standing one’s ground against threat, obviating the obligation to seek de-escalation or escape. The use of deadly force against a pedestrian (which striking someone with a moving vehicle almost certainly qualifies anywhere) even under such laws is still a high bar because in absence of a firearm or a heavy bashing weapon it is difficult to see how someone standing outside of a car can present an imminent threat; however, I have confidence that Florida can find a way to make this work because Florida.

“Castle Doctrine” is a somewhat more restricted view that you have no duty to retreat within your domicile or temporary residence (e.g. a hotel room); in essence, you can use necessary force against someone who just enters your space and whom you believe poses an imminent threat. Although there are specific laws labeled as “Castle Doctrine” intended to protect a defender against legal and possibly civil liability it more generally refers to the philosophy of law that varies widely across states with regard to the threshold for using deadly force in defense of property and life. All states recognize a fundamental right to self-defense against an imminent and potentially lethal threat in the home, but some states (primarily Eastern states) specify a duty to retreat and require a defender to establish that they had no reasonable means to escape even within their own home. Middle and Western states generally accept that if someone has entered your house (or in some cases just trespassed on property) without permission you have the right to use ‘reasonable force’ to remove them even if they do not pose an imminent threat under the thesis that if someone has already violated the sanctity of private property they can be assumed to pose a threat. In extreme cases (Louisiana and Texas come to mind but I’m sure there are others) the law explicitly allows for the use of lethal force even if a trespasser or intruder does not pose an imminent threat. However, unless someone is blocking you from leaving your garage or driveway I don’t think you could apply a “Castle Doctrine” philosophy to hitting someone with your car.

As a practical matter, hitting someone with a passenger car is a poor practice; not only do they tend to damage bodywork but striking someone at any forward speed will tend to pitch them up and into the windshield, and while you would think a body would bounce off of a windshield they often punch right through, resulting in a body half-embedded and lacerated if not fully removed skin, which is…gross. It is also the case that striking someone crouching or laying at high speed can actually cause a vehicle to go airborne or roll. Even just nudging someone with a car at slow speed can dent bumpers and fenders. Insurance tends to frown on this kind of activity and may try to deny your claim against an ‘uninsured pedestrian’ or up your rates for ‘careless mayhem’. Frankly, if you think you are likely to encounter this problem with any frequency I would recommend a model with a special package for dealing with this particular kind of road hazard.. Make sure to read the manual, and remember, “Unsafe driving will void the warranty.”

Stranger

4

Many of these videos are from countries where carjacking is endemic and people are wary of situations where they can be blocked in. Running over the carjackers is pretty common, and my guess is that it would be defensible in court if it ever gets to that.

5

@Stranger_On_A_Train 's post is good, but very long. So here’s a shorter post that may not add anything to it:

If you hit a pedestrian with your car you will likely be investigated, and there’s a good chance a jury will have to make a judgement call. They will do so in the framework of the laws on the state in which you hit the guy. State laws vary widely, especially with regard to your duty to retreat.

If you can find an option that doesn’t involve hitting anyone with a moving vehicle, it’s almost certainly better than hitting someone, for any number if reasons, including your legal liability, the damage to your car and finances, and the damage to your sensibilities and soul. But if you deem that hitting someone is the only possible way to avoid death or other serious damage to yourself, it’s probably worth the consequences.

6

Just claim it was an accident. “Officer, he got out of his car in traffic trying to retrieve his baseball bat, and I guess he didn’t look and ran right in front of me. I couldn’t stop! [sob]”

7

I would just add to the above that there are also potentially severe non-legal consequences in such situations. Because even if you’ve correctly assessed that the guy you’re hitting was going to harm you, it’s possible that he was only intending a relatively low-level harm. And once you hit the guy, then if you don’t completely incapacitate him and/or if he has sympathetic buddies around, then it’s likely that you will be a lot more harmed than whatever the original intention was. May or may not be worth the risk, depending on your assessment, but that needs to be part of the equation.

8

And keep in mind that self defense goes both ways. If someone is trying to hit you with their car, then you’d probably have the right to shoot them.

9

Try not to run over (or shoot!!) any Hell’s Angels; you could precipitate “severe non-legal consequences”

10

Are you sure about that? I am less comfortable than you in making predictions that may affect my life.

11

“I was in fear for my life.”

“I thought he had a gun.”

Tried and true :wink:

12

An additional OMFG on this issue. Your auto insurance, which, you know, you might depend on to cover some of those pesky claims against you or indemnify the threatening person you hit (or god forbid, you hit people that weren’t directly threatening you) explicitly doesn’t cover intentional acts. So all the damage done to the threatening party, other persons, other property, and your own car are 100% out of your pocket.

Also answering on an insurance basis - this is pretty much by definition an admission of reckless driving leading to death. If you can’t stop and hit a pedestrian under almost anything other than they’re in a restricted area (like elevated highway) it’s going to be your fault, and while your insurance would pay out unlike the example above, it’ll get you dropped by like 80-90% of the major carriers. So once you get your suspended license back (6-12 months as probable minimum) you’ll probably be uninsurable or ruinously expensive for 3-5 years.

Better than being dead, yes. And would I think super clearly in such circumstances as described in the OP? Probably not. But worth considering for the hypothetical.

13

I am less comfortable than you about constantly ‘just asking questions’ of the Pinniped variety.

Stranger

14

Moderating:

Accusations of trolling are not allowed outside the pit. Don’t do this again.

15

Which in the US may not even get you a ticket. Sad as it is, driving is so privileged that acts which would get you arrested on the spot if you’re not in a vehicle are hand-waved away to such a degree that even a slap on the wrist is deemed too punitive.

16

@jjakucyk is correct, although IMHO it varies depending on how GOOD an actor you are and/or how sympathetic the cop is.

The insurance companies do not always care about the ticket from the accident, they care about the damages. So (depending GREATLY on state) you can have minor AAF (generally $500 or less which, really, never happens unless you chose not to repair), major AAF with no injuries, AAF with injuries, or AAF with death. [ Sorry, AAF was coding at my old place for At-Fault-Accident ]

All tickets gained at the time of the accident were coded as a single incident, with the only the most serious applied (again, state specific) so often the ticket was incidental to property damage only accidents.

Okay, enough of both of our hijacks.

In the years I was an adjuster, I only had -ONE- verifiable loss that we denied due to intentional acts. Thankfully it was zero injuries (claimed at least) in which a husband/spouse on a policy were going through a bad divorce (still both on same policy at the time though :roll_eyes: ) and the spouse deliberately drove the husbands newish (2 years) SUV into a tree.

That was 30-40k in damages to the car, and another 10ish k in costs from ambulance coming to the scene, towing, and on and on and on.

And they (presumably the spouse, but since the divorce wasn’t final who knows) were out of pocket for all of it. And that was -minor- compared to a vehicular homicide, because you’ll be adding all the injury, legal costs, medical life-saving-attempt costs, pain and suffering . . .

Just don’t unless you are certain of your own risk.

17

I’ve already made the firm decision that, if someone does that to me, he’s going to get the biggest (and final) surprise of his life.

18

And that is exactly the sort of thing you don’t ever want to say in public. Or on the internet where it’s forever. Kinda like the bumper stickers that say “Nothing in my truck is worth your life” with a picture of a pistol, you’re telling your future jury that you planned in advance to take the law into your own hands. Perhaps quite unjustifiably.

It’s OK(-ish) to think that way in advance. Just don’t say so in advance.

And if somebody does ever need running over, be sure to swerve at the end at least a little. Don’t forget your modern car is recording everything your’re doing, or not doing, in those final few seconds. Not audio or video (yet), but everything else needed to reconstruct the vehicle’s path and your control inputs.

19

I’m just saying in advance that I will defend myself by doing whatever I have to do if necessary. The only option is to stop, and you are then a victim. I hear you, though. It’s sad that, in this society, we are at the point where intended victims have to be careful about going to jail.

20

I too don’t intend to be a victim if that can be reasonably avoided. But I’m also well aware that in our society of people who mostly care about other people and who mostly will never face a crisis themselves, every crisis decision of any nature will be second guessed by various people, and agencies, that do not necesarily have your/my best interests at heart.

As the story about the Range Rover in NY cited above indicates, you can be placed in a no-win situation. Or at least a no-low-cost-exit situation. With very little time in which to decide which cost you’re willing to bear.