He has a weapon !
You just proved my point! NO, it's NOT your right to use whatever force is needed, etc. You obviously don't know **** about the law. In public, which is what a highway is, if you are in a life threatening situation, you have a responsibility to do everything in your power to ESCAPE the situation FIRST. It's only when you have NO POSSIBLE way to "escape", that you have a right to defend yourself with a firearm. Had you have chased down the moron who flashed his gun at you/OP and killed him, YOU would have been completely in the wrong.
THIS is one thing that scares the f*ck outta me. Any ill informed, uneducated idiot can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon and think that it's OK to gun down someone who looks at him the wrong way. I reiterate: un-freakin-believable!
HKSkully, do us ALL a favor and take a firearms safety course and learn when it is legally OK to use deadly force against an attacker. It could save someone's life and keep you out of lock-up for the rest of yours.
THIS is one thing that scares the f*ck outta me. Any ill informed, uneducated idiot can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon and think that it's OK to gun down someone who looks at him the wrong way. I reiterate: un-freakin-believable!
HKSkully, do us ALL a favor and take a firearms safety course and learn when it is legally OK to use deadly force against an attacker. It could save someone's life and keep you out of lock-up for the rest of yours.
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 406
From: Connecticut
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,499
Likes: 3,717
From: Santa Klaus County, Cali
You just proved my point! NO, it's NOT your right to use whatever force is needed, etc. You obviously don't know **** about the law. In public, which is what a highway is, if you are in a life threatening situation, you have a responsibility to do everything in your power to ESCAPE the situation FIRST. It's only when you have NO POSSIBLE way to "escape", that you have a right to defend yourself with a firearm. Had you have chased down the moron who flashed his gun at you/OP and killed him, YOU would have been completely in the wrong.
California Penal Code 197 states; Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
So the use of deadly force may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that -
(a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime;
(b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and
(c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
Have to say that it would suck to have to try and escape first because I have never seen anyone out run a bullet. Doesn't imply that if you duck he misses you can necessarily chase him down and whack him. They can be a lot of mitigating circumstance once the immediate threat is passed. Sometime being a very good victim/witness who is alive is a much better scenario than being Ronny Rambo.
Last edited by panz4ever; Nov 18, 2011 at 11:39 AM.
Road Warrior
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 8
From: Louisiana
This whole thread is useless dick pounding , until each and every responder has been face to face with the same circumstances no one can say what they will do or can do . Seen my share of brave talkers **** down their pants leg when it got real all of a sudden and the quite never noticed little guy got real busy being a hero so save all the I would have done this typing you might chip a nail or something .
Outstanding HDF Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,979
Likes: 57
From: PA
Not sure how it is in your state (haven't looked at your laws and do not claim to know about them), but in Kali there is nothing that requires a person to try to Escape the situation FIRST
California Penal Code 197 states; Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
So the use of deadly force may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that -
(a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime;
(b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and
(c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
California Penal Code 197 states; Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
So the use of deadly force may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that -
(a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime;
(b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and
(c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
Last edited by AnotherBlackSG; Nov 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM.
Club Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 66,125
Likes: 51,446
From: Niles Canyon Ca.
[QUOTE=AnotherBlackSG;9054756]Uh... that's all well and good however, NONE of it applies to the situation that OP described and several others said would have ended differently, had they been carrying. I don't care where you live, it is ILLEGAL to chase down and fire on a motorist who points a gun at you. Come on Man, use common sense here![/QUOTE]
If that where the case 3/4 of the justifications people use to carry a gun in the first place just became useless and we can't have that now can we ?
There are legitimate reasons for some to carry on some occasions the rest of time it's just an ego prop nothing else .
If that where the case 3/4 of the justifications people use to carry a gun in the first place just became useless and we can't have that now can we ?
There are legitimate reasons for some to carry on some occasions the rest of time it's just an ego prop nothing else .
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,499
Likes: 3,717
From: Santa Klaus County, Cali
Uh... that's all well and good however, NONE of it applies to the situation that OP described and several others said would have ended differently, had they been carrying. I don't care where you live, it is ILLEGAL to chase down and fire on a motorist who points a gun at you. Come on Man, use common sense here!
Which is why I added this.....(in case you overlooked it...)
Doesn't imply that if you duck he misses you can necessarily chase him down and whack him. They can be a lot of mitigating circumstance once the immediate threat is passed. Sometime being a very good victim/witness who is alive is a much better scenario than being Ronny Rambo.
Guess I should have added that just because he points a piece at you doesn't mean you necessarily get a free shot at him. Its a lot about timing, circumstances and a whole of other things. And ya also have to factor in that this guy is in a moving vehicle. A moving car can cause a lot of collateral damage.
Did a quick read and saw less than 1/2 dozen indicated they might have/would have put some "Bullets Down Broadway". Seems the majority agree with a basic idea of living to fight another day and even added thoughts about getting vehicle license number, vehicle/driver description and reporting the incident to the local authorities.
Last edited by panz4ever; Nov 18, 2011 at 02:41 PM.
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Verdad Gallardo
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
