Looks Like He's Having a REALLY Bad Hair Day

I don't know what it is but lately there have been a spat of videos online of people who are just freaking the freak out!

If I didn't know better, I'd say the guys who manufactured COVID are at it again and have manugactured a crazy driver gene geared to cause crazy drivers to just flip out at the slightest things.

Take the guy whose video I was watching the other day.

Seems the driver of a Mercedes Benz slammed on his breaks for whatever reason in front of a Truck, got out of his car with gun in hand, walks back to Truck driver and starts treatening Truck and his wife with gun in hand - all the while you can hear Truck driver saying to wife, "Should I shoot him?!"

Now, that's a short version and Benz got arrested for a number of crimes not the least of which would be armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.

The bigger question is would Truck driver be justified in defending himself (and his wife) had he shot the Benz driver?

In most states, a person may use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent:

• Imminent death, or

• Imminent serious bodily injury, or

• In some states, certain forcible felonies (armed robbery, aggravated assault, carjacking, etc.).

The key words are:

• Imminent (happening right now)

• Reasonable belief (what an ordinary person in that position would believe)

As it is applied under this set of facts, imminent threat exists where a person:

• Exits a vehicle

• Approaches another occupied vehicle

• Is armed with a firearm (or, I suspect, anthing that can be used as a weapon)

• Points or waves that firearm

• Reaches inside the vehicle

• Attempts to seize property

• Demands occupants exit the vehicle

That is typically treated as an armed felony in progress (e.g., aggravated assault, attempted armed robbery, carjacking).

A gun present + aggressive advancement + reaching into an occupied vehicle is generally strong evidence of an imminent deadly threat.

While there might be an imminent threat present, is the Truck driver still within his rights to defend himself (and his wife)?

Under general U.S. self-defense law deadly force is justified if:

• You reasonably believe

• You face imminent death or serious bodily harm

• You are not the initial aggressor

This standard was articulated in cases like Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989) which explains that reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a reasonable person under the circumstances — not with hindsight.

Now, here's where things get dicey.  See, there are two schools of thought:  Retreat or No Retreat.  

The duty to retreat is a legal rule that says: Before using deadly force in self-defense, a person must retreat if they can do so safely.

Key elements of this Duty to Retreat:

• It only applies to deadly force.

• It only applies if retreat can be done with complete safety.

• It does not require reckless escape.

• It does not apply if you are inside your own home (under traditional castle doctrine).

Historically, this rule was developed in 19th-century American common law.

A well-known articulation appears in Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921) in which Justice Holmes wrote: “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.”  That case softened strict retreat requirements and emphasized reasonableness.

Currently, the following states adhere to a Duty to Retreat:

• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Hawaii
• Maine
• Maryland (common law)
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• Nebraska
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New York
• North Dakota (modified; limited duty)
• Rhode Island
• Vermont (common law duty)
• Wisconsin 

On the other hand are those states that adhere to the Castle Doctrine (or no duty to retreat aka "stand your ground").  

Under Castle Doctrine laws:

• There is typically no duty to retreat.

• An armed unlawful intrusion into an occupied space often creates a legal presumption that the occupant reasonably feared death or serious injury.

For example:

• Utah has statutory provisions allowing deadly force when a person reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury, and it includes occupied vehicles in its habitation protections.

Following are the states that follow the Castle (or stand your ground) doctrine:

• Alabama

• Alaska

• Arizona

• Arkansas

• Florida

• Georgia

• Idaho

• Indiana

• Kansas

• Kentucky

• Louisiana

• Mississippi

• Missouri

• Montana

• Nevada

• New Mexico

• North Carolina

• Ohio

• Oklahoma

• South Carolina

• South Dakota

• Tennessee

• Texas

• Utah

• Virginia

• Washington

• West Virginia

• Wyoming

and, as it turns out, many of these states extend the Castle Doctrine to occupied vehicles.

So, back to our scenario, would shooting be legally justified?

Potentially yes — if the truck driver:

• Reasonably believed the BMW driver was about to shoot,

• Or believed he or his wife were about to be forcibly removed or harmed,

• And the threat was immediate.

A prosecutor in such a case would analyze:

• Was the gun pointed directly?

• Was the Benz driver within shooting distance?

• Was he reaching into the cab?

• Did he attempt to disarm or drag someone out?

• Could the truck driver safely retreat (if duty-to-retreat state)?

• Was deadly force proportional at that moment?

So, the fact that most every question could be answered in the affirmative, I'd think Truck driver is well within his rights to protect himself and his wife. 

HOWEVER, and playing devil's advocate here, what could make a self defense shooting be illegal?

Deadly force could become unlawful if:

• The Benz driver was retreating.

• The gun was not pointed at truck driver or his wife AND threat had ended.

• The truck driver fired after the immediate danger passed.

• The truck driver escalated unnecessarily.

Timing matters enormously. Self-defense hinges on immediacy.

So, the realistic legal outcome of this situation (because every situation has a whole different set of facts), in many jurisdictions, a grand jury would likely consider this a strong self-defense case — especially if:

• The incident was recorded.

• Benz driver clearly brandished the gun.

• Benz driver initiated the confrontation.

• Benz driver physically invaded the truck.

But remember: even clearly justified self-defense shootings are often investigated, and arrest is possible pending review.

So, short answer, under typical U.S. self-defense law:

Yes, the truck driver could legally be justified in using deadly force in this scenario — if he reasonably believed he or his wife were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.

The presence of:

• A firearm

• Aggressive approach

• Attempted intrusion into an occupied vehicle

• Demands to exit

…all strongly support that claim.

Bottom line, if you're gonna go all crazy and slam on your breaks and scream obscenities at all other drivers, leave your gun in your car because you never know who else it armed and ready to defend themselves.