Florida Concealed Carry banner
41 - 57 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,082 Posts
What about driving away?
i find some of the responses here very interesting....in almost every instance of destruction of property and threats to the health of others have seen large unruly crowds hell bent on doing whatever they felt like doing with zero regard for the law...

stepping out of a vehicle to challenge one person who is backed by a crowd of law breaking ruffians is most likely a suicide mission...we have seen video of persons beaten into a blithering pulp for expressing verbal disagreement with the mobs in the streets...

the only semi-successful encounter we witnessed via television was a man, threatened in vehicle, who used a firearm to take down an aggressor, leave his vehicle and find law enforcement...the gunshot dispersed the crowd immediately along with the threat he posed walking away from the blocked vehicle armed...

using the vehicle as a weapon is my first thought...i dont care who you are...somoeone pouring gasoline on your vehicle, especially in a riot situation, is an easily deduced precurser to lighting it up...i cant even imagine a jury who wouldnt believe that...using your vehicle as a weapon to take the perp down would be a prudent and more than likely effective means to ending the immediate threat...

driving away may be not possible as many think, as these situations were usually very crowd intensive....in the event it was a person in an area that allowed escape, i would think it prudent to do so...but not before causing great injury to the person attempting to harm you, as it would make apprehension and identification much easier for police...i have a real problem with just letting people get away with ****....

in short...i think anyone who does not believe someone pouring gasoline on an occupied vehicle has the intent of great bodily harm to its occupants is naive beyond belief...i dont care if they arent carrying a lighter or a source of ignition...they arent trying to remove a tough grease spot...they are trying to hurt you and deserve whatever fate you choose for them...

please, with the passive responses...along with "we'll see where it goes from there"...they are intent on harm...act accordingly or suffer the consequences....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,234 Posts
i find some of the responses here very interesting....in almost every instance of destruction of property and threats to the health of others have seen large unruly crowds hell bent on doing whatever they felt like doing with zero regard for the law...

stepping out of a vehicle to challenge one person who is backed by a crowd of law breaking ruffians is most likely a suicide mission...we have seen video of persons beaten into a blithering pulp for expressing verbal disagreement with the mobs in the streets...

the only semi-successful encounter we witnessed via television was a man, threatened in vehicle, who used a firearm to take down an aggressor, leave his vehicle and find law enforcement...the gunshot dispersed the crowd immediately along with the threat he posed walking away from the blocked vehicle armed...

using the vehicle as a weapon is my first thought...i dont care who you are...somoeone pouring gasoline on your vehicle, especially in a riot situation, is an easily deduced precurser to lighting it up...i cant even imagine a jury who wouldnt believe that...using your vehicle as a weapon to take the perp down would be a prudent and more than likely effective means to ending the immediate threat...

driving away may be not possible as many think, as these situations were usually very crowd intensive....in the event it was a person in an area that allowed escape, i would think it prudent to do so...but not before causing great injury to the person attempting to harm you, as it would make apprehension and identification much easier for police...i have a real problem with just letting people get away with ****....

in short...i think anyone who does not believe someone pouring gasoline on an occupied vehicle has the intent of great bodily harm to its occupants is naive beyond belief...i dont care if they arent carrying a lighter or a source of ignition...they arent trying to remove a tough grease spot...they are trying to hurt you and deserve whatever fate you choose for them...

please, with the passive responses...along with "we'll see where it goes from there"...they are intent on harm...act accordingly or suffer the consequences....
My first thought is to drive away if at all possible. If at ALL possible, which includes ignoring "speed bumps."

But, yeah... he's not washing the car. Ignition IS next. Only a very naive person would "wait and see." Any reasonable person would assume the intent is to "light that beotch up." We've seen it many times in the "mostly peaceful protests." Would you wait to see if a "protester" was going to pull the trigger of a gun he's pointing at you? Or would you wait to verify if it's "loaded?"

Pointing a gun at you is reasonably interpreted as intent to shoot you. Pouring gas on your car is the EXACT same thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,335 Posts
My first thought is to drive away if at all possible. If at ALL possible, which includes ignoring "speed bumps."

But, yeah... he's not washing the car. Ignition IS next. Only a very naive person would "wait and see." Any reasonable person would assume the intent is to "light that beotch up." We've seen it many times in the "mostly peaceful protests." Would you wait to see if a "protester" was going to pull the trigger of a gun he's pointing at you? Or would you wait to verify if it's "loaded?"

Pointing a gun at you is reasonably interpreted as intent to shoot you. Pouring gas on your car is the EXACT same thing.
I think some sheeple will wait to see how good his aim is, after a few rounds are fired!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,726 Posts
I’m not sure why we are on page 3 of a debate saying again “they could drive away“when that’s what they did, it averted a potential tragedy, it was an available option to a reasonable person and they did the right thing under the circumstances.

The OP posed the question of whether it was appropriate to use lethal force if somebody poured gas on your van. Obviously, during the analysis of what to do, the officers took the easily available alternative of driving away. The guy with the gas can walked off to the drivers right after he poured the gas for a few seconds. When they drove away they removed the threat and they didn’t have to kill anybody. That was the prudent way to handle the situation. My experience tells me that lethal force in that situation would have been a career ending and potentially arrestable offense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,195 Posts
I’m not sure why we are on page 3 of a debate saying again “they could drive away“when that’s what they did, it averted a potential tragedy, it was an available option to a reasonable person and they did the right thing under the circumstances.

The OP posed the question of whether it was appropriate to use lethal force if somebody poured gas on your van. Obviously, during the analysis of what to do, the officers took the easily available alternative of driving away. The guy with the gas can walked off to the drivers right after he poured the gas for a few seconds. When they drove away they removed the threat and they didn’t have to kill anybody. That was the prudent way to handle the situation. My experience tells me that lethal force in that situation would have been a career ending and potentially arrestable offense.
I find nothing prudent in allowing an individual who would deliberately set fire to an occupied vehicle to continue drawing breath. The prudent thing is to eliminate such individuals from society at every possible opportunity.

Now, whether or not that's the legal thing to do is another matter entirely. But the notion that someone pouring gasoline on an occupied vehicle is not a defacto deadly threat is absurdly naive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,726 Posts
I understand your feelings, we all have that I for an eye tooth for tooth thing in the back of our mind. On one level I guess one may think it was prudent to follow this guy and shoot him when nobody is looking. Of course that would wind you up in jail.

A Police officers job is not to eliminate individuals from society, it’s to deal with a threat with the least amount of force necessary. I believe I would’ve done exactly the same as they did by driving away. I can imagine being in the hot seat in trial with a prosecutor asking you “why didn’t you just drive away, there’s nothing blocking you?”Or if you were smart and refused to testify, you would have to hear that argument to the jury.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55,434 Posts
But is it an imminent threat without a visible ignition source? I understand there's implied intent to cause grave bodily harm or death [ pouring gas on the vehicle ] but then we have the means, motive and opportunity to contend with where the law is concerned.

It would become imminent when I saw an ignition source produced. By then, I'm out of the vehicle.

You drive off through a crowd that is blocking your path, use a few as speed bumps as was suggested by another. What's to prevent some other turd in the crowd from using an ignition source as you "slowly" try to escape the area surrounded by an angry mob?

As we saw a few examples of people driving through crowds during last summers riots on highways, and then being found and arrested for same act of trying to escape that crowd of rioters, what's the consensus of the members then? One isn't guaranteed exiting that scenario unscathed by any means. Might be worth a try, but then you've still got flammables that can catch fire at any moment where any ignition source under the hood could see the vehicle catch fire.

Exiting the vehicle into an angry mob isn't the brightest idea, but trying to extricate oneself cleanly through a crowd that's blocking the exit path is also going to be problematic and potentially lead to your arrest for mowing people down with the vehicle.

Tough call, but my first instinct is to alight before someone lights up the vehicle with an ignition source. just gonna have to wing it once outside the vehicle. Or if driving away, there's still a lot peril involved.

Pick your poison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,726 Posts
There’s always lots of could have, should have, would have but these officers did the right thing in the circumstances they faced. They actually prevented the threat from being lethal and imminent. It’s totally different from someone standing in front of the van and pointing a pistol at the driver, in that circumstance they would unquestionably be justified in using lethal force. If they were unable to move the vehicle with gas poured on it, that would likely call for a different response.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,082 Posts
There’s always lots of could have, should have, would have but these officers did the right thing in the circumstances they faced. They actually prevented the threat from being lethal and imminent. It’s totally different from someone standing in front of the van and pointing a pistol at the driver, in that circumstance they would unquestionably be justified in using lethal force. If they were unable to move the vehicle with gas poured on it, that would likely call for a different response.
In the situation presented your point is valid and appreciated...but as an act that could and has happened under many circumstances, there may not be an easy way out...

Love the comments about speed bumps...but...avoiding the threat by running over non threats would leave me wondering more about legalities of that type of lethal force...

I do not have to see an ignition source to be in imminent danger...I am riding in a more than capable ignition source...

Motive...means...opportunity. 3 boxes checked...I will decide the 4th box...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,234 Posts
Love the comments about speed bumps...but...avoiding the threat by running over non threats would leave me wondering more about legalities of that type of lethal force.
If they are blocking my escape in order to entrap me (such that my vehicle can be ignited), they are hardly "non-threats."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,726 Posts
In the situation presented your point is valid and appreciated...but as an act that could and has happened under many circumstances, there may not be an easy way out...

Love the comments about speed bumps...but...avoiding the threat by running over non threats would leave me wondering more about legalities of that type of lethal force...

I do not have to see an ignition source to be in imminent danger...I am riding in a more than capable ignition source...

Motive...means...opportunity. 3 boxes checked...I will decide the 4th box...
I agree. People just standing there in the area in front of your vehicle are of course non-threats unless they are menacing you or intentionally blocking you in some way. I agree with you then running over those people would cause you more trouble than you could imagine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,335 Posts
I agree. People just standing there in the area in front of your vehicle are of course non-threats unless they are menacing you or intentionally blocking you in some way. I agree with you then running over those people would cause you more trouble than you could imagine.
What we need is a giant bug-zapper installed on the front bumper !!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,082 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,082 Posts
If they are blocking my escape in order to entrap me (such that my vehicle can be ignited), they are hardly "non-threats."
if that's the case, they are part of the attack on you and your vehicle...i was referencing more toward a crowd in the way as in protesters who aren't part of the attack...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,234 Posts
if that's the case, they are part of the attack on you and your vehicle...i was referencing more toward a crowd in the way as in protesters who aren't part of the attack...
OK... Yeah... I'm referring to "protestors" who are facing you, at the front of the car.... watching the gasoline being poured on the car and impeding your escape.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,082 Posts
OK... Yeah... I'm referring to "protestors" who are facing you, at the front of the car.... watching the gasoline being poured on the car and impeding your escape.
i shouldnt admit it out loud...but that almost makes me smile...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick McC.

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,335 Posts
I want to get back to the DeSantis ruling** which removes the liability if you run over a "protester" (I would argue "rioter") when said person is in the middle of Interstate 95, or blocking an access ramp.
People can freely assemble all they want - I'm 100% in favor of that.
But do it in a safe place, and try not to overly inconvenience others.

But today's protesters (rioters) don't want to peaceably assemble.
They want to be in your face.
Well, there ought to be a price to pay for that option.

** enforcement of which was recently handed an injunction by some activist judge (my opinion, based on scant facts about the judge).
 
41 - 57 of 57 Posts
Top