A Vehicle as a means of self defense

[E4 No More]

33 minutes ago, TomInMN said:

So, breaching the passenger compartment constitutes carjacking. (I don't know if that's the case, but it seems plausible.) How does joint venture come into play here? If two or three people are breaking windows and standing on the side of the car, are you considered justified in running over a half dozen people in your (and your vehicle's) path as you escape?

Yes, in Tennessee the car is like your house.

[Randall53]

7 hours ago, Ronald_55 said:

I am confused... Are the guys in that video pulling them from the car not wearing Police labeled gear? I know this is just an example, but is it not the reverse of the situation? Though some context as to why this particular car was swarmed, windows smashed, and tires slashed would need to be in place to know what went on. 

My bad. I’m having to use my phone and having vision problems.  that wasn’t the video I meant to post. The one I meant to post was in NYC where protesters were up on the hoods of cars, beating the windshield out of vehicles and beating, kicking occupants In the head. 

Edited September 16, 2020 by Randall53

[Garufa]

54 minutes ago, TomInMN said:

So, breaching the passenger compartment constitutes carjacking. (I don't know if that's the case, but it seems plausible.) How does joint venture come into play here? If two or three people are breaking windows and standing on the side of the car, are you considered justified in running over a half dozen people in your (and your vehicle's) path as you escape?

If the people in front of your car are not assaulting you or your vehicle can you shoot them?  Kinda the same thing isn’t it...assault?

[Randall53]

31 minutes ago, Garufa said:

If the people in front of your car are not assaulting you or your vehicle can you shoot them?  Kinda the same thing isn’t it...assault?

If they’re blocking you to keep you in harms way, aren’t they aiding the attackers in their assault against you? 

[Garufa]

1 minute ago, Randall53 said:

If they’re blocking you to keep you in harms way, aren’t they aiding the attackers in their assault against you? 

Possibly, but I’m not a cop, lawyer, or prosecutor.

[Randall53]

I know what you mean. I’m not either. But according to the organization rep I was talking to they would help if this kind of disaster happened. Hopefully no one here has to go through it.

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, TomInMN said:

So, breaching the passenger compartment constitutes carjacking. (I don't know if that's the case, but it seems plausible.) How does joint venture come into play here? If two or three people are breaking windows and standing on the side of the car, are you considered justified in running over a half dozen people in your (and your vehicle's) path as you escape?

No. It just means you will do less prison time when you are convicted of running over others if they are innocent bystanders. Yes, Tennessee expanded the Castle Doctrine to your car. But that only means you have a presumption of innocence against the bad actors. It is a legal presumption and a DA can challenge it. It doesn’t create a free fire zone.

[TomInMN]

Couple scenarios:

1. Some bad folks are breaking into your house, obviously you don't get to shoot the clueless wonders passing by on the sidewalk. They're not culpable for the crime.

2. Couple guys are driving around and pull into a gas station so one can go in and buy cigarettes. He comes out having just robbed and killed the clerk, he gets in the car and they drive away. The other had no knowledge that happened and yet is still legally culpable.

So, back to our escaping a violent crowd scenario, can you run over people who were more or less minding their own business, since they're (purposely or not) contributing to someone breaching your car?

[chances R]

and that's why we have lawyers arguing both sides.  In the worse case scenerio, do what you have to do to get away.  You won't go to jail if you're dead.  The point is one should not shoot others just for damaging your car.  Once there is a reasonable fear of death or serious injury then it may be Self Defense.  It will be your attorney's job to make that case.

[Dirtshooter]

One has a choice carried by 6 or judged by 12, you pick.

[JunkiCosmonaut]

15 hours ago, chances R said:

There needs to be a law that makes for penalties to impede traffic with protests.  Also in this case, retribution for damages and court costs if acquitted.

Here is something I found on a search. I had thought I had heard that in the past something was passed to grant immunity from prosecution to drivers who hit protestors that are actively blocking a roadway. Maybe too for @TomInMN 's question; if you hit other protesters in an effort to escape an attack from attacking protestors this may grant you some immunity, or at least make your lawyer's job easier.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/23/tennessee-senate-passes-anti-protester-bill/99122244/

[DaveTN]

11 hours ago, TomInMN said:

Couple scenarios:

1. Some bad folks are breaking into your house, obviously you don't get to shoot the clueless wonders passing by on the sidewalk. They're not culpable for the crime.

2. Couple guys are driving around and pull into a gas station so one can go in and buy cigarettes. He comes out having just robbed and killed the clerk, he gets in the car and they drive away. The other had no knowledge that happened and yet is still legally culpable.

So, back to our escaping a violent crowd scenario, can you run over people who were more or less minding their own business, since they're (purposely or not) contributing to someone breaching your car?

The guy driving the car at the store isn’t guilty of anything. Not unless a jury believes beyond reasonable doubt that he had knowledge, either before the incident or helping in the getaway. I’m not sure what you want to charge him with that doesn’t require intent or state of mind?

Sure, you can run over the protestors. But if you injure innocent people you are likely to stand trial. It also depends on what the level of violence is and the level of participation of the people you run over. Like any deadly force incident it will depend on the facts of that particular incident.

If I was a juror in addition to it meeting all the elements for the use of deadly force, I would want to know why you were in the middle of a riot.

I’m not saying you can’t kill people posing a real threat to your life; have at it. But if you are trying to justify killing innocent people because others were threatening your life; you can’t. But a DA or a jury might.

Would I allow myself to be pulled from a car by an angry mob? No.

[Erik88]

Somewhat related. We had a woman shot in the face Friday night at 6:30 in a very popular part of Knoxville, where families go. It was an attempted car jacking in front of numerous people. They haven't caught the suspect and they wouldn't even tell us his race. Only that he had dreadlocks. Anyways, just goes to show you it can happen anywhere. This is an area my wife and I live about a mile from, and we frequent a few times every month. 

She attempted to get away in her car and it may have saved her life.

 

https://www.wate.com/news/top-stories/it-is-what-it-is-shooting-victim-shares-story-after-escaping-attempted-carjacking/

[E4 No More]

13 hours ago, DaveTN said:

No. It just means you will do less prison time when you are convicted of running over others if they are innocent bystanders. Yes, Tennessee expanded the Castle Doctrine to your car. But that only means you have a presumption of innocence against the bad actors. It is a legal presumption and a DA can challenge it. It doesn’t create a free fire zone.

The reference I am making is not making the area a "free-fire" zone. The reference is someone breaking their way into your car. That person can be shot just like if they were breaking into your home. That doesn't mean you can shoot everyone around the car.