- Messages
- 620
- Reactions
- 549
IF a person acts irrationally (and road rage is exactly that- irrational) uses their vehicle to physically stop you, and approaches yourvehicle in an aggressive manner, they have already given you good cause to believe they intend to hurt you.
...
As for robbers, a robbery (as opposed to a burglary) is confronting the victim directly. A robber is making an explicit threat of violence: give me what I want or I will hurt/kill you. The RCWs explicitly acknowledge your option to use deadly force in defense of your life, but also to prevent serious bodily harm. ORS have similar wording and intent. A robbery can go wrong in an instant even if the victim complies, and the line between physical and deadly force is not that clear until it haas alredy been crossed.
This is well argued and I'd support those choices. Mugging or road rage do suggest an intent to hurt, and I'd take your side as a jury member. This is legally sound.
That said, I follow Clint Smith's gunfighting rule #1: "if there is any way possible to avoid a gunfight, do it." To me, in this scenario, showing my gun is more likely to spark a gun fight than prevent one. It's an ultimatum to the road rager: "Go away or I'll shoot". Before, he may have planned on lecturing me or kicking my car. Now, he's in self-defense mode, and (if armed) thinking about shooting me. Or he may now feel compelled to shoot, to avoid losing face.
Anyway, anyone who repels a mugging or road rager with their CHL has my support. It's just not my choice.