Self defense ......or not?

[litewavve]

So, the car couldn't outrun a dump truck? Guess Mad Max the dump truck driver dropped a serious big block in that thing with some NO2...

No way self defense.

It was in the onset of rush hours. The average speed was 30 miles/hour on highway, much slower near entrances. It probably started when the Jaguar driver did not allow the truck to merge before him.

[TFOGGER]

Tenets of self defense as justification: Clear and immediate danger, which is subject to opinion in this case, as there was clear escalation on both sides, and no evidence of any attempt to defuse the situation. The truck driver had already demonstrated that he was willing and able to act violently, so the driver of the Jag has that going for him, even after they came to a stop.

The other criteria for self defense involves a reasonable expectation to flee if it is safe, as castle doctrine does not extend to protecting your lane position on the Interstate(something drivers on I-25 should be reminded of). The Jag driver was under no obligation to yield right of way to the truck driver, but the entire situation could have been avoided had he done so. Driving aggressively would fall under the category of provocation, and would seem to strip him of any reasonable self defense claim.

Besides, marksmanship that bad SHOULD be criminal.....

I say that justice is served by putting both of these hotheads in the clink.

I

[SA Friday]

I've traveled in rush hour traffic in London, Seoul, San Fran, Sacramento, Denver, Cinnci, DC, and Madrid. If you are moving at 30, there's room to get over and away for a Jag. Probably not the dump truck.

No way self defense.

[litewavve]

I've traveled in rush hour traffic in London, Seoul, San Fran, Sacramento, Denver, Cinnci, DC, and Madrid. If you are moving at 30, there's room to get over and away for a Jag. Probably not the dump truck.

No way self defense.

Since there was a child on board, there is no question that the young father should de-escalate and disengage.

But if there was no child on board, don't you have the right to stand your ground even at the risk of escalation? I don't mean that it is a wise thing to do. But wisdom can't be expected from all people all the time.

[Irving]

But if there was no child on board, don't you have the right to stand your ground even at the risk of escalation?

In traffic? No. Every driver has the explicit duty to do everything in their power to make traffic flow smoothly and most importantly, avoid causing an accident. The Jag driver doesn't necessarily have any duty to let the truck merge, but he DOES have a duty to avoid auto accidents and that puts them both at fault. However, if I got assigned this claim I would put the dump truck driver at 100% fault since he was the one changing lanes. I might toy with the idea that the Jag driver had the last possible chance to avoid collision, but probably not.

[TFOGGER]

Since there was a child on board, there is no question that the young father should de-escalate and disengage.

But if there was no child on board, don't you have the right to stand your ground even at the risk of escalation? I don't mean that it is a wise thing to do. But wisdom can't be expected from all people all the time.

There's a definite line between "standing your ground" and deliberate provocation. This asshat tap danced right across it. I stand by my earlier comment that both of these idiots belong in the clink.

[SA Friday]

But if there was no child on board, don't you have the right to stand your ground even at the risk of escalation?

Not really, no. If you have an option that de-esclates the stuation, you have to attempt that avenue of resolution first unless you can prove that attempting that avenue would put your life in greater danger.

i.e.: You are standing on a bridge and a guy is coming at you 40 yards away with a knife. You can run down the street, jump over the bridge side, or stand and fight. If you jump over the side, you get seriously hurt or die. If you run down the street, you could escape. You stand and fight, one or both gets hurts or dies. If you draw your gun and shoot him, a case could be made you disregarded an avenue of de-esclation. If you run down the street and he's catching you, now you turn - draw - and shoot him. There is no case against you.

Same situation but the guy has a gun. running down the street would put you in jeopardy of getting shot in the back. There is no case against you if you drew and shot him.

These are hypatheticals and very general in nature, but I've had more than one conversation like this with a prosecutor when we were trying to figure out if charges were going to be brought against a subject of one of my investigations. You never hurt yourself legally when you can show you attempted other options to de-exclate a violent confrontation. It negates proof of mens rea of the crime.

[funkfool]

Once the threat is over/gone - you must not re-engage.

The truck driver pulled away into traffic.

Then:

The car driver then followed after the dump truck.

You become the aggressor.
Call the authorities, report and be safe with your child.