Yet another reason to ban assault weapons

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2993280
Your synopsis is BS. Displaying a gun and pointing it at someone are two different things. I was taught right, never point any gun at anything you don't plan on shooting. And for the record the "kids" were probably late teens to early 20's, we ain't talking high schoolers here.
In any one of those stories does it mention the background of the person with the gun? You act like having the relaxed carry law causes all those incidents. There are a lot of shootings from cars in California where it is illegal to carry loaded in a car unless you have a permit and the piece is locked up. Obviously it is the people with the criminal tendencies causing the problems there. You cant lay the shootings in Arizona or anywhere else at the feet of people with concealed carry permits without having proof the shooter had a permit. People who ave a habit of breaking the law don't generally give a rats ashcan about gun regulations.
That doesn't mean someone with a permit has never done something stupid with their gun. There are people with a drivers license that do stupid things behind the wheel. Does that mean we should revoke everyone's license for the greater good?
I'm sorry reefraff, but your rationale and reasoning for displaying your gun in that scenario is skewed and illogical. You try and justify the actions of these nuts that instigated these road rage incidents by saying they didn't have proper background checks. HELLO? What did I say about requiring psychological exams before allowing someone to buy a gun? And you just posted stating that idea was crazy. So which way is it? And please stop with the car analogy. We've been through that one already. Just admit it. Your actions against those individuals was incorrect. You had no business doing what you did. If a policeman would've been on the scene, you would've been arrested (i.e. the video of the road rager in the cop car). Don't believe me? OK, I don't see anyone else that's posted in this thread backing up your actions. So ask oscardeuce, strdbe, journey, or any of the others. Looking at reefraff's actions against these idiots chasing him in the car -- Was he justified waving his gun at them? Would he have been arrested if a cop were called onto the scene? After reading the multiple articles I posted about road rage incidents with weapons, I can't see how anyone could agree with you.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2993357
I'm sorry reefraff, but your rationale and reasoning for displaying your gun in that scenario is skewed and illogical. You try and justify the actions of these nuts that instigated these road rage incidents by saying they didn't have proper background checks. HELLO? What did I say about requiring psychological exams before allowing someone to buy a gun? And you just posted stating that idea was crazy. So which way is it? And please stop with the car analogy. We've been through that one already. Just admit it. Your actions against those individuals was incorrect. You had no business doing what you did. If a policeman would've been on the scene, you would've been arrested (i.e. the video of the road rager in the cop car). Don't believe me? OK, I don't see anyone else that's posted in this thread backing up your actions. So ask oscardeuce, strdbe, journey, or any of the others. Looking at reefraff's actions against these idiots chasing him in the car -- Was he justified waving his gun at them? Would he have been arrested if a cop were called onto the scene? After reading the multiple articles I posted about road rage incidents with weapons, I can't see how anyone could agree with you.
LOL! When you have to skew some facts and simply make up others to attempt to defend your position it's time for you to reconsider the position. First you are trying to paint a picture of me pointing a loaded gun at a car load of innocent high school kids, not what happened. Then you say I am trying to defend the actions of those shooters in the stories, didn't happen either, not one of them.
I CORRECTLY stated that concealed carry permits or laws making it allowable for law abiding citizens to keep a loaded gun in their car had no identifiable connection to any of those so-called road rage shootings. You don't think the criminal histories, if any, of the shooters is relevant? That right there speaks volumes about your foggy logic. If a guy has a rap sheet 10 pages long do you honestly think a law prohibiting carrying a loaded gun in a car is going to keep them from doing it?
As for my situation again you are really grasping at straws. Had a cop been in the area I wouldn't have needed to do anything. When the car started weaving over into my lane and driving up against the lane line shadowing my speed when I was obviously trying to avoid them they would have been pulled over on the spot. Problem solved.
Those road rage incidents you linked demonstrated you should never underestimate what someone might do. In your mind I should have just hoped the guy in the back who was doing a lot of the screaming just happened to be looking under the seat for a pencil. Thats fine, you go ahead and be a victim. I used the tools available to be to resolve the situation before things had a chance to escalate any further. Had we stopped at the red light next to each other and any of them gotten out of the car there would have been a shooting, period. If I hadn't been armed I would have had been left to the hope that the people who had just intentionally came at me with their car would have been content to just sit there and keep yelling.
In about 18 years of driving with a gun in the car I had to display it that one time. It isn't like the gun comes out any time I have an altercation on the road.
As for the psychological background checks give me a break. You don't suppose someone prone to irrational behavior might do something irrational like ignoring a gun law do you? If you are going to require a psychological exam to buy a gun you better require them before people can get a drivers license or have kids.

 

[1journeyman]

I'd still like links to articles actually referring to CWHs getting hurt or killed Bionic.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2993473
I'd still like links to articles actually referring to CWHs getting hurt or killed Bionic.
Go away journey. You bring absolutely no value to the discussion. I provided articles about incidents with guns on the road that you claimed you couldn't find. Now you want me to produce articles about CWH's getting shot. LOOK IT UP YOURSELF. Answer my question. After reading reeraff's encounter with these 'hooligans', do you feel he was justified in pulling out his weapon and waving it around with the intent of using it? Do you think a police officer would have arrested, or at least ticketed him for the offense?

 

[bionicarm]

What facts am I skewing? YOU BROKE THE LAW, CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!

I don't care you're allowed to carry your loaded gun in your car. The action you took was illegal. Somebody swerving at your car and riding close to you does NOT give you the authority to point or shoot a weapon at them. Read any or all the examples of road rage I posted. Show me one where the cops did nothing to the individual with the gun. You then go on to say if any of them would have stepped out of their vehicle at at red light, you'd have no qualms about shooting them. Were you going to wait until they came at you with a deadly weapon, or the intent to hurt you, or were you just going to start unloading as soon as they got out? You are unbelievable with your skewed logic.
Were you carrying a cell phone at the time? If so, did you think to call 911 and report what was going on? I was involved in a road rage incident similar to yours. Some guy cut me off on the freeway, and I blew my horn at him and flipped him off. Next thing you know, he's locking his brakes up in front of me. He then proceeds to do pretty much what your bunch did, following close and weaving towards my car. I picked up my cell phone, called 911, told the operator where I was at. I described the vehicle and gave her the license plate number. I kept driving, trying to ignore him, hoping the moron didn't have a gun like you and start shooting at me. Lucky for me, there was a cop in the general vacinity. All of a sudden, I see police lights come on. He motioned both of us to the emergency lane. He got out, told the other driver to stay in his car, then he came and talked to me. I told him exactly what happened. Since I was the one who called 911, I assume he believed my story. He excused me, I drove off and left the two of them behind. Don't have a clue what happened to the other guy. That's how you diffuse a situation like that.
How do you know any of those road ragers didn't have CWP's? Where did it state that? Just because you have a license to carry, you're devoid of ever committing an act like that? What sheltered planet do you live on? Jesus, you claim to be this big law abiding gun owner, and you were ready and prepared to start firing at a bunch of unarmed individuals in a car. And the sad part is, you don't even want to recognize what you did was wrong.
What kind of logic about psychological exams is that? You even justified my position with your response. Your example is EXACTLY why exams of this type should be administered to people before allowing them to buy guns. This allows you to keep 'someone prone to irrational behavior that might do something irrational like ignoring a gun law' from having the ability to purchase a gun legally. They want to find a way to buy a gun illegally? Nothing to stop them there. But at least those types of gun purchases aren't on virtually every street corner in America like gun shops are.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2993528
What facts am I skewing? .....
Let's start with this one:
Originally Posted by bionicarm
.... We've had similar scenarios like yours recently in San Antonio. Most of them ended with the CWH getting shot or killed. ....
I asked for links to back up this claim, you posted 8 links (1 not even in Texas), none of which in any way mentioned Conceal and Carry.
That's the problem with discussions with you Bionic. You make things up, then resort to personal attacks and insults when you are called on it. Then you try to alter the conversation just like in your previous post to me.
I was very clear in the type of article I was asking for you to post. Yet you're trying to act like I asked you to post articles involving crimes committed with crimes.
Again, all I am asking is for you to back up your claims with "several" articles since you claim their have been several incidents in the SA area where "most" of the CWHs have ended up dead.
No personal attacks, no deflections, no changing the subject; Just back up your claims with some facts.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2993528
What facts am I skewing? YOU BROKE THE LAW, CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!

I don't care you're allowed to carry your loaded gun in your car. The action you took was illegal. Somebody swerving at your car and riding close to you does NOT give you the authority to point or shoot a weapon at them. Read any or all the examples of road rage I posted. Show me one where the cops did nothing to the individual with the gun. You then go on to say if any of them would have stepped out of their vehicle at at red light, you'd have no qualms about shooting them. Were you going to wait until they came at you with a deadly weapon, or the intent to hurt you, or were you just going to start unloading as soon as they got out? You are unbelievable with your skewed logic.
Since I was the one who called 911, I assume he believed my story. He excused me, I drove off and left the two of them behind. Don't have a clue what happened to the other guy. That's how you diffuse a situation like that.
How do you know any of those road ragers didn't have CWP's? Where did it state that? Just because you have a license to carry, you're devoid of ever committing an act like that? What sheltered planet do you live on? Jesus, you claim to be this big law abiding gun owner, and you were ready and prepared to start firing at a bunch of unarmed individuals in a car. And the sad part is, you don't even want to recognize what you did was wrong.
What kind of logic about psychological exams is that? You even justified my position with your response. Your example is EXACTLY why exams of this type should be administered to people before allowing them to buy guns. This allows you to keep 'someone prone to irrational behavior that might do something irrational like ignoring a gun law' from having the ability to purchase a gun legally. They want to find a way to buy a gun illegally? Nothing to stop them there. But at least those types of gun purchases aren't on virtually every street corner in America like gun shops are.
What law did I break? You seem to be getting a bit irrational here. You keep saying I pointed the gun at them, like I said didn't happen. reason being is pointing a gun at a person is aggravated assault in most states AND I was taught never point a gun at anything you aren't planning on shooting. But all that aside if I wanted to shoot the guy I would have let him hit me and just done it. The whole reason for displaying the gun was to not let the situation get to the point where I would have to choose between shooting someone or becoming a victim. There were five guys in that car. Had they gotten out of their car at the light and came at me you damned right they would have gotten shot. Had I owned a cell phone at the time (93) I would have called 911 and still did exactly what I did. In hindsight what my friend said about reporting the incident made perfect sense.
I already posted the Arizona statutes regarding acceptable use of deadly force. Attempting to use your vehicle as a weapon is considered assault with a deadly weapon. If you don't believe me look it up. Had that guy came all the way over and hit my car I guarantee you I would have been shooting and at least in the state of AZ it would have been legal. Gun legally in my possession, a reasonable person would consider being intentionally rammed with a car to be a life threatening situation and the statute allows not just the threat but the use of deadly force in that situation. Once that guy slammed on the brakes when he saw the gun my right to use deadly force ended. Even though he provoked the incident he made an obvious attempt to diffuse it (Just as I did before)
So do you think people should have to have a Physiological exam before speaking or exercising any other of their constitutionally guaranteed rights? I honestly wouldn't have a problem with people having to answer questions about gun safety issues before buying one but requiring a psychological exam isn't practical. You going to require one every time a gun is bought? That would get a little expensive wouldn't it.
You are the one trying to tie those road rage incidents to CWP's or laws allowing people to carry a gun in their car. There is nothing in those stories that indicates they were otherwise law abiding people who snapped. You seem to think use of deadly force by a citizen is never warranted yet one of the stories was about a guy who chased down an unsuccessful car jacker and shot him. In that case the DA was considering whether or not to charge the guy with anything. To me that should have been cut and dry and the guy should have been prosecuted yet the DA had to consider it. If it was never acceptable to use deadly force what was there to consider?
So tell me this, If you are sitting in your car and someone tries to pull you out would you have the right to defend yourself?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2993729
What law did I break? You seem to be getting a bit irrational here. You keep saying I pointed the gun at them, like I said didn't happen. reason being is pointing a gun at a person is aggravated assault in most states AND I was taught never point a gun at anything you aren't planning on shooting. But all that aside if I wanted to shoot the guy I would have let him hit me and just done it. The whole reason for displaying the gun was to not let the situation get to the point where I would have to choose between shooting someone or becoming a victim. There were five guys in that car. Had they gotten out of their car at the light and came at me you damned right they would have gotten shot. Had I owned a cell phone at the time (93) I would have called 911 and still did exactly what I did. In hindsight what my friend said about reporting the incident made perfect sense.
I already posted the Arizona statutes regarding acceptable use of deadly force. Attempting to use your vehicle as a weapon is considered assault with a deadly weapon. If you don't believe me look it up. Had that guy came all the way over and hit my car I guarantee you I would have been shooting and at least in the state of AZ it would have been legal. Gun legally in my possession, a reasonable person would consider being intentionally rammed with a car to be a life threatening situation and the statute allows not just the threat but the use of deadly force in that situation. Once that guy slammed on the brakes when he saw the gun my right to use deadly force ended. Even though he provoked the incident he made an obvious attempt to diffuse it (Just as I did before)
So do you think people should have to have a Physiological exam before speaking or exercising any other of their constitutionally guaranteed rights? I honestly wouldn't have a problem with people having to answer questions about gun safety issues before buying one but requiring a psychological exam isn't practical. You going to require one every time a gun is bought? That would get a little expensive wouldn't it.
You are the one trying to tie those road rage incidents to CWP's or laws allowing people to carry a gun in their car. There is nothing in those stories that indicates they were otherwise law abiding people who snapped. You seem to think use of deadly force by a citizen is never warranted yet one of the stories was about a guy who chased down an unsuccessful car jacker and shot him. In that case the DA was considering whether or not to charge the guy with anything. To me that should have been cut and dry and the guy should have been prosecuted yet the DA had to consider it. If it was never acceptable to use deadly force what was there to consider?
So tell me this, If you are sitting in your car and someone tries to pull you out would you have the right to defend yourself?
It's pointless arguing with you about this anymore. You feel your were justified, and no matter what I say, you'll never be convinced or admit what you did was wrong. If you display a gun, you are showing the intent of using it. You don't have to point it at anyone. It's still considered a crime. Now in bassackwards Arizona, it's a normal occurrance, and probably only a misdemeanor. I wasn't trying to tie anyone to road rage incidences. You go bragging how you warded off some personal attack on you (in your mind) by waving, holding up, whatever you did with your gun at these kids in the car. I just showed you what can occur when someone like you that carries a gun in their car and a gun is involved. There is a myriad of examples of how people carrying guns in their car get into road rage incidences, and someone gets shot or killed. The perpetrator could be a law abiding citizen like you

, a hardened criminal, or even a person with a CWP. The fact of the matter is they happen.
What's worth more - making someone paying an extra $100 to get qualified and have a psychological exam to insure they have mental capacity to own a gun, or someone's life?
Of course if I was being carjacked, or someone was yanking me out of my car, I'd have the right to defend myself. But I don't go around trying to get in any situation where that can occur. It's called driving responsibly and knowing your surroundings. I actually carry a can of mace, and I share a Tazer Gun with my wife. The portable mace is on my keychain, and the tazer normally sits right in my console next to my right hand. I won't be able to kill someone like you, but I'll disable them enough to where they wish I shot them. I also have a small aluminum bat -- just in case.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2993550
Let's start with this one:
I asked for links to back up this claim, you posted 8 links (1 not even in Texas), none of which in any way mentioned Conceal and Carry.
That's the problem with discussions with you Bionic. You make things up, then resort to personal attacks and insults when you are called on it. Then you try to alter the conversation just like in your previous post to me.
I was very clear in the type of article I was asking for you to post. Yet you're trying to act like I asked you to post articles involving crimes committed with crimes.
Again, all I am asking is for you to back up your claims with "several" articles since you claim their have been several incidents in the SA area where "most" of the CWHs have ended up dead.
No personal attacks, no deflections, no changing the subject; Just back up your claims with some facts.

You don't give up do you. Prove to me that in any of those assaults, none of the perpertrators who shot the other driver WASN'T a CWH? Most news articles don't post the police reports with them. The gunman could be some hardened criminal, a perfectly normal law abiding citizen, or even a CWH. The article doesn't say. The problem with you is you like to read every single syllable someone posts, and if they don't back up their claim SPECIFICALLY verbatim as to what they say in their statement, you go into this attack mode. The 'similar scenarios' I was referring to was road rage incidents. Whether they were a CWH or not, I can't confirm. YOU GOT ME!!! YOU HAPPY!!! EVERYONE HAIL JOURNEY. HE CAUGHT ME FABRICATING ANOTHER STORY AGAIN. None of the stories I posted were 'made up'. Someone was either shot or murdered by SOMEONE who had a gun in their car. You even want to split hairs about one not even being in Texas. Like I told you, I read the local newspaper, and look at all the local TV online sites. I don't always pay attention where the crimes occur. Believe it or not, but the local news media in the 10th largest city in the country does occassionally write about other places in the world besides little 'ole San Antone.

You still haven't answered my question -- Was reefraff justified taking the action he did, and would you consider it a crime?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2993798
It's pointless arguing with you about this anymore. You feel your were justified, and no matter what I say, you'll never be convinced or admit what you did was wrong. If you display a gun, you are showing the intent of using it. You don't have to point it at anyone. It's still considered a crime. Now in bassackwards Arizona, it's a normal occurrance, and probably only a misdemeanor. I wasn't trying to tie anyone to road rage incidences. You go bragging how you warded off some personal attack on you (in your mind) by waving, holding up, whatever you did with your gun at these kids in the car. I just showed you what can occur when someone like you that carries a gun in their car and a gun is involved. There is a myriad of examples of how people carrying guns in their car get into road rage incidences, and someone gets shot or killed. The perpetrator could be a law abiding citizen like you

, a hardened criminal, or even a person with a CWP. The fact of the matter is they happen.
What's worth more - making someone paying an extra $100 to get qualified and have a psychological exam to insure they have mental capacity to own a gun, or someone's life?
Of course if I was being carjacked, or someone was yanking me out of my car, I'd have the right to defend myself. But I don't go around trying to get in any situation where that can occur. It's called driving responsibly and knowing your surroundings. I actually carry a can of mace, and I share a Tazer Gun with my wife. The portable mace is on my keychain, and the tazer normally sits right in my console next to my right hand. I won't be able to kill someone like you, but I'll disable them enough to where they wish I shot them. I also have a small aluminum bat -- just in case.
But mental health in many cases is a moving target. Are you going to require a exam every time a person buys a gun or make them renew it every year? Kind of pointless to only require it once. It still does nothing but inconvenience law abiding folk.
And why would I admit to doing something wrong when I plainly didn't. Here are the statute again
13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability
A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
You don't think having someone intentionally driving their car into your lane after making threats and doing what they could to stay along side of you amounts to aggravated assault? Simply pointing a gun at someone without provocation is activated assault. I dare say taking actions which would lead a reasonable person to believe you were going to ram them with your car easily falls under the category of aggravated assault. If someone walks up to your car with a bat and opens the door are you going to wait until they hit you with it before tazing or spraying them? Of course not because a reasonable person could conclude the guy was about to assault you.
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.
D. This section is not limited to the use or threatened use of physical or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.

 

[bionicarm]

You are taking what YOU presume is a threat. The problem is, the police may not look at it that way. Just because someone is weaving at your car, and coming close to your lane, doesn't necessarily mean that they are physically threatening you. Reread Section A that you posted. It states that you can use physical or deadly force if A) someone is committing arson against your property, B) burglar or rob your property, C) kidnap you or someone you know, D) try to commit manslaughter or first or second degree murder, or E) commit sexual assualt or child molestation. So exactly which of these pertains to someone driving their car towards you, yet not actually hitting you?
Look, I understand completely where you're coming from. As I stated before, I've been in a similar situation just like this. But as stupid as it sounds, you are not allowed to show intent to use a deadly weapon in this situation unless there is physical contact. Meaning, if those idiots swerved and even grazed your vehicle, you'd have the right to use physical force to protect yourself. But unless they actually hit you, or as you said, "got out of their car at a stop light and tried to open your car door" (i.e making contact with your personal property), you can't threaten to shoot them. I'm telling you, if a cop were to witness your provocation, and had the ability to intervene when the altercation was occuring, they would have most likely sited the car load of kids with reckless driving and road rage (here in San Antonio, road rage is a form of moving violation offense. In some situations, it can even be listed as a felony, I BELIEVE - don't want journey making more assumptions and calling me a liar because I didn't show proof of this.

) But I guarantee they wouldn't have let you walk away scott free if those kids would have told the cop that they saw you pointing a gun at them. For that matter, if they did hit you, they could say they did so because they saw you were pointing a gun at them, and they were using their vehicle to protect THEMSELVES from your use of deadly force. The only reason they hit you was to avoid getting shot. See how easily things can get turned against you in situations like this when you throw a gun into the mix?
As far as someone walking up to my car with any weapon - as soon as they touch my personal property (i.e. open my car door), I have the right to use any legal force to protect myself. In the State of Arizona, apparently that means a loaded weapon in my car. Here in Texas? It's my baseball bat, mace, or Tazer. Unless I have a Texas CWP, I can't have a loaded gun in my car. I can have my gun with me, but the ammo has to be more than 3 feet from the proximity of my weapon (here I go assuming again journey. Want me to look it up? Or I guess I can reference strdbe's post, right?) But don't go assuming that if you do decide to come through Texas and intend on assaulting someone. The Good Ole' Boys here still 'pack' the same way as you, even though it's not considered legal.

 

[acrylics]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2994331
But as stupid as it sounds, you are not allowed to show intent to use a deadly weapon in this situation unless there is physical contact. .
Not quite true. If you take a swing at me, I still have the right to defend myself whether you made contact or not. If you drive at me, it can be considered assault w/ a deadly weapon, you don't have to hit me for me to reasonably think you were trying to. This is kinda grey but can go either way depending on various factors. I don't know Texas law well enough to comment on that part of it.
A few years ago, I've was jumped by 7 people at once, 7 on 1 is considered deadly force and I was well within my rights to use same to defend myself. I considered it my right, and the lead investigating officer agreed.
Look, no one can comment on what RR did because no one else was there. No good LEO will comment because they'd have to see it happen to make that call.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2994331
You are taking what YOU presume is a threat. The problem is, the police may not look at it that way. Just because someone is weaving at your car, and coming close to your lane, doesn't necessarily mean that they are physically threatening you. Reread Section A that you posted. It states that you can use physical or deadly force if A) someone is committing arson against your property, B) burglar or rob your property, C) kidnap you or someone you know, D) try to commit manslaughter or first or second degree murder, or E) commit sexual assualt or child molestation. So exactly which of these pertains to someone driving their car towards you, yet not actually hitting you?
Look, I understand completely where you're coming from. As I stated before, I've been in a similar situation just like this. But as stupid as it sounds, you are not allowed to show intent to use a deadly weapon in this situation unless there is physical contact. Meaning, if those idiots swerved and even grazed your vehicle, you'd have the right to use physical force to protect yourself. But unless they actually hit you, or as you said, "got out of their car at a stop light and tried to open your car door" (i.e making contact with your personal property), you can't threaten to shoot them. I'm telling you, if a cop were to witness your provocation, and had the ability to intervene when the altercation was occuring, they would have most likely sited the car load of kids with reckless driving and road rage (here in San Antonio, road rage is a form of moving violation offense. In some situations, it can even be listed as a felony, I BELIEVE - don't want journey making more assumptions and calling me a liar because I didn't show proof of this.

) But I guarantee they wouldn't have let you walk away scott free if those kids would have told the cop that they saw you pointing a gun at them. For that matter, if they did hit you, they could say they did so because they saw you were pointing a gun at them, and they were using their vehicle to protect THEMSELVES from your use of deadly force. The only reason they hit you was to avoid getting shot. See how easily things can get turned against you in situations like this when you throw a gun into the mix?
.
I really don't know where you are getting your information from or what you are basing your opinion on but I have discussed these issues at length with a few different law enforcement officers and even a federal prosecutor, federal marshal too. One of the law enforcement guy is or was the Sheriff (Not a deputy) of a wyoming county, Another was a deputy in Orange country California with the third being the guy in Arizona. I have a really good idea of what is allowed based on a variety of opinions, Not to mention talking with the wife's co workers, She spent 20 years working at a large Montana law firm.
My opinion isn't based on some whack job website or blowhard down at the local bar. The provision in Arizona law you quoted above included aggravated assault which you conveniently left off the list of acceptable cases where deadly force can be used. You absolutly do not have to wait until there is physical contact before using deadly force.
Here's the thing, you are allowed to use deadly force if a reasonable person could conclude you were facing an imminent threat of physical harm (among other things). Someone approaching you saying they were going to kill you isn't rubber stamp justification to use a weapon against them. However, if it were Chuck Norris, or some gorilla looking steroid dumpster a reasonable person could conclude they would have the ability to make good on the threat. Same rule applies if they have something that could be used as a weapon or if it was more than one person. It's not illegal to possess a baseball bat but it is illegal to threaten someone with it. In this case the guys in the car made verbal threats, thwarted my attempt to diffuse the situation and then made an aggressive move at me. I am highly confident that even if a prosecutor were to attempt to prosecute me I would have no problem convincing a jury there was an improper threat made against me. Intentionally ramming a car or trying to run down someone wit your car is commonly prosecuted as assault with a deadly weapon.
Heck, one of your shooting examples was a guy who scared a guy off who was trying to carjack his mother. The perp took off and this guy chased him down and shot him. The guy hadn't been successful in taking the car and the story didn't mention the mother being harmed so you couldn't make the case he was a fleeing felon. despite all of that the DA was considering whether on not to charge the guy who shot the jacker. I would have bet money that would be a slam dunk prosecution.
Look at the Joe Horn case in Texas, he was justified in using deadly force to protect a neighbors property.

 

[reefraff]

For all you Texans it appears the law was changed in 2005 and clarified in 2007.
You can legally carry the gun in your car as long as it is NOT IN PLAIN SIGHT. Sounds like the law was a real mess down there before the revision. You could carry if you were "traveling" but that left the meaning of traveling so vague some police departments just told officers to arrest those with guns and let the prosecutors sort it out.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs...l/HB01815F.htm
Looks like you can carry it concealed on your person as long as you are going to of from your car.
*** Do your own homework before throwing the pistol in your truck.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2994388
Not quite true. If you take a swing at me, I still have the right to defend myself whether you made contact or not. If you drive at me, it can be considered assault w/ a deadly weapon, you don't have to hit me for me to reasonably think you were trying to. This is kinda grey but can go either way depending on various factors. I don't know Texas law well enough to comment on that part of it.
A few years ago, I've was jumped by 7 people at once, 7 on 1 is considered deadly force and I was well within my rights to use same to defend myself. I considered it my right, and the lead investigating officer agreed.
Look, no one can comment on what RR did because no one else was there. No good LEO will comment because they'd have to see it happen to make that call.

Reefraff, read the statute again. It says aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
This is what that section of 13-1204 states:
13-1204. Aggravated assault; classification; definition
A. A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as prescribed by section 13-1203 under any of the following circumstances:
1. If the person causes serious physical injury to another.
2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
So I guess you're going to call their vehicle a 'dangerous instrument'? OK, I'm sure a lawyer could get you off an assault with deadly weapon charge using that one. However, that vague definition could be virtually anything. If you had actually shot at the guys, then you would have been guilty under the same statute.
The only point I'm trying to make with his scenario is you are asking for major legal trouble when you brandish a weapon during a road rage inicident. Reefraff appears to have had every justification for doing what he did, based on his depiction of the event. But there lies the problem. The authorities wouldn't have just listened to his side of the story. Reefraff is making all these assertions about how they taunted him, they swerved at him, he did whatever he could to diffuse the situation... Sorry, just reading his comments in this thread, and the myriad of other threads he posts in, he would in no stretch of the imagination be consisdered a passive individual. I imagine there was a little more 'give and take' in this situation that he's not telling us. You can justify your actions for needing to use your gun all you want to, but when a gun gets put into the mix in situations like this, it ends up doing more harm than good.
I still say he was very lucky it didn't turn more deadly. Considering the lax gun laws Arizona has in regards to carrying weapons in the car, I'm amazed those kids DIDN'T have one. After reefraff lifted his up, they appeared to have backed off and got away from him. After they backed off, I imagine he lowered his weapon and put it back in his holster. But if they'd had a gun, I imagine they would've pulled back up along side him again, and when he looked over, he would've seen a barrel pointing at him. He would have never had the opportunity to pull his weapon back up, or even aim it at them before they unloaded on him. So in that scenario, he would've been the victim of deadly force, not them.

 

[acrylics]

Using a weapon at any time is asking for legal problems, let me make that point clear. Whether you are licensed or not, in defense or not, you potentially face legal issues from either the law or a civil suit or both. This is understood.
But to say how it would go in any other way is pure conjecture on your part and mine, this is one of the reasons why I can't comment on it. It happened, I'm glad no one was injured. One could easily make the arguments go either way, but it happened the way it did, and that's that. Anything else is pure conjecture and fruitless.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2995448
So I guess you're going to call their vehicle a 'dangerous instrument'? OK, I'm sure a lawyer could get you off an assault with deadly weapon charge using that one. However, that vague definition could be virtually anything.
Vehicles are often used as weapons, at least in the eyes of the law so not far-fetched by any means.
If you had actually shot at the guys, then you would have been guilty under the same statute.
Was this directed at me? If so, you're mistaken. You are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself from eminent threat of death or great bodily harm (in my state) and being jumped by 7 was considered to be worthy of the use of deadly force.

 

[hairycanary]

Originally Posted by jp30338
http:///forum/post/2983683
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/...bama_shootings

I have 1 good reason to slap you right now.. And I would if I could in the name of our great constitution..
Take pride in the freedom's that your country has!! Move if you don't like it here!
We are Americans! We fight for our freedoms and you want to just take them away because of some parolee?? Move to china dude.. Or Australia.. You cant have a gun at all there.. Only criminals have guns in Australia.. Which is EXACTLY what happens when you illegalize ANYTHING here!

 

[hairycanary]

http://cbs5.com/local/antioch.homele....2.884681.html
hurry up, lets ban ice picks too!

 

[blayz77]

there is a lot i dont know about laws and politics. but one thing i dont understand is why the laws on certain things like gun control or most laws in general have to be different from state to state.
i believe in like arizona and texas, forgive me if im wrong but if someone carjacks you. you have every right to "shoot" that person. i for one totaly agree with this. laws like this should be country wide.
but not just in carjacking, i believe that if someone commits a crime especially with making an atempt on someones life. the person getting picked on should have every right to defend themselves by any means possible. and if that results in the attackers death then so be it.
sadly the law does not always agree and depending on where you live like "california" like me the laws are all fooked up. there has been cases where someone has broken into a house, got hurt, sued the home owner and won, and the home owner lost his house to pay for it. that is such crap its a shame that criminals can pull stuff like that.
in some countries if you steal something you lose your hand.. thats the kind of justice that should be employed

im also a guy who likes the idea of an eye for an eye. there are always exceptions to every rule but i would bet if you lost a hand for stealing or say a bonified criminal gunman who shot and killed some people and his justice was to be shot and killed (provided he was guilty and in the wrong like bank robbery or shooting cops)
sorry for the rant but some things just dont make sense to me like all those people on death row.. if you in death row because you shot a bunch of people.. why does our justice system see it fit to keep them in jail forever.. they should be taken out the same way there victims were before they even got to death row.. just my opinion though be it wrong or right.
everyone should have the right to own a gun and be able to use it to defend ones life. its my personal belief that if everyone in america was carrying a gun people would think twice about doing something..

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2994331
You are taking what YOU presume is a threat. The problem is, the police may not look at it that way. Just because someone is weaving at your car, and coming close to your lane, doesn't necessarily mean that they are physically threatening you. Reread Section A that you posted. It states that you can use physical or deadly force if A) someone is committing arson against your property, B) burglar or rob your property, C) kidnap you or someone you know, D) try to commit manslaughter or first or second degree murder, or E) commit sexual assualt or child molestation. So exactly which of these pertains to someone driving their car towards you, yet not actually hitting you?
You answer your own question:
Driving a car AT someone= "trying to commit manslaughter or first or second degree murder."
I still have not seen your answer to my question.