lol douche BMW driver is a douche.

[Onslaught]

The only state I'm aware you can defend property is Texas- most places you can't defend property.

That's dumb. I like my property more then most people. Including ones I'm related to.

[JWC]

Honestly, I wouldn't wait to see if he is going to hit me or the car.  I'd assume he's going to hit me and I would defend against him.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Reverse 180's come in handy. I probably would have pulled one of those.

[SVT_Power]

Either way tho that guy was a complete ass- and - his driving skills were completely horrible.  No wonder someone in a Mazda could keep up. 

In the vid description, it says the MS3 is running Direzza Z1's. Very good summer performance tires.   

[SVT666]

That's what I have on my SVT.  Yes, very good summer tires.

[SVT_Power]

That's what I have on my SVT.  Yes, very good summer tires.

My buddy got 'em for his 3er. I haven't driven it myself but from a quick highway on/off ramp run, it seemed pretty good.

[r0tor]

lolz... 2 related stories to this driving "my shitbox"...

1)  Tough guy in a 5er behind me try to tailgate me through the twisties spun out and I watched in my rear view mirror as he bounced off of a guard rail.  Never saw him again... He was the third person to wipe out already trying to tailgate me.  I see trying to tailgate me as a Darwinian Test.

2) One day I saw a punk kid driving like an ass weaving in and out of traffic behind me.  I decided when it was my turn to get cutoff, I downshifted to 3rd and blew past his Mitsu Eclipse.  He then tailgated me severely, paced me by driving along side in the oncoming traffic lane, pulled in front and then pulled the ebrake, then got out of the car.  I sat there with my window up, and my hand between my head and the window with my middle finger extended.  He said some crap and started to walk away, at which point I dropped the clutch and made him jump out of the way...

[r0tor]

In the vid description, it says the MS3 is running Direzza Z1's. Very good summer performance tires.   

Star spec (auto-x compound).. extremely good tires

[565]

Star spec (auto-x compound).. extremely good tires

Yeah I wanted to get a set of Star Specs for the Supra, which would probably give it as much grip or more than the Z06, and they were pretty reasonably priced (unlike the tires for the Z06).  But none of the local shops had it in stock, and I figured I'd be regretting it once it came time to replace them after 15k miles.  Ended up getting some long lasting all seasons instead.

[SVT_Power]

you have a z06 AND a supra?

[GoCougs]

Sorry that's never ever ever ever ever.....ever.... ever going to fly when you're behind the wheel of a running car on a two lane road. 
That's also not gonna fly in any court anywhere unless you can cite some kind of thing- anything- that would show why it would be relevant- at all.  You have windows- you have door locks- you have a gas pedal= use them.
As I said- you get out of the car and you become the aggressor.  Saying you have the "right" to be in the middle of the road extending a verbal confrontation after you were given the opportunity to end it by simply driving away- to physically defend yourself when and where there was no outward threat is a huge gargantuan stretch of that case law as it pertains to this situation.  Castle doctrine would have zero relativety to this case unless you a)live in your car  b) live on the road- since it only pertains to your home.    AS for standing your ground- you would have to prove that getting out of your car and escallating the confrontation from verbal only to physical was required in some form to defend yourself.  I can't even see how that could be an allowed defense in this case since you were really never in any imminent danger as the video suggests.


I just watched it again twice and noticed that he never makes any statements of threat or which could be conceived as threat.  He is "looming" however and you could make a case that you felt endangered0 but I still feel you'ld have a very difficult time making the case that you had to get out of your car to defend yourself stick.

Who said anything about getting out the car??? Also, stand-your-ground does not apply only to castle doctrine/personal residence; if I have a right to be there (public road) I have no duty to retreat to avoid a confrontation (of course the operative point here is that there is nowhere to retreat to.)

"Using the gas pedal" = driving into the ditch on the right, hitting his car, hitting him, driving off the cliff on the left, or reversing in the lane possibly smacking into someone else coming around the corner.

He implicitly imprisons and then commits assault. Can't justify shooting the guy, running him over, or even getting out of the car, but a purely defensive measure of pepper spray is absolutely warranted. Why? There is simply no other choice but to prevent what looks like imminent battery.

If the situation were different, if there was a place to drive to, that is probably what I would do.

[Morris Minor]

What an unpleasant, rude, ill-bred lout. The MS3 driver dealt with the situation well.

[565]

you have a z06 AND a supra?

It's not a MKIV or anything, it's an old 87 MKIII Turbo, it was my first car and a hand me down from my father.  It was the car I drove through highschool and college.  The Z06 was supposed to replace it after the Supra developed rod knock, but my father and I ended up rebuilding the engine anyway.  It's got too much sentimental value now to let go. 

[rohan]

Who said anything about getting out the car??? Also, stand-your-ground does not apply only to castle doctrine/personal residence; if I have a right to be there (public road) I have no duty to retreat to avoid a confrontation (of course the operative point here is that there is nowhere to retreat to.)

"Using the gas pedal" = driving into the ditch on the right, hitting his car, hitting him, driving off the cliff on the left, or reversing in the lane possibly smacking into someone else coming around the corner.

He implicitly imprisons and then commits assault. Can't justify shooting the guy, running him over, or even getting out of the car, but a purely defensive measure of pepper spray is absolutely warranted. Why? There is simply no other choice but to prevent what looks like imminent battery.

If the situation were different, if there was a place to drive to, that is probably what I would do.

The actual wording of the law seems to be at odds with your layman's interpretation. 

[GoCougs]

The actual wording of the law seems to be at odds with your layman's interpretation. 

The law itself I would agree, however check out those two links to recent WA court cases affirming stand-your-ground interpretation of it: "...persons acting in self-defense have no duty to retreat when assaulted in a place they have a right to be..."

[rohan]

Ok lets look at the case you linked- the person who was assaulted was put in a position where he was a) standing outside his car when the confrontation began  b) the aggressor was standing between the victim and the Vs car.  Neither of these things apply to this scenario in this thread.  To invoke this case law is a major stretch and would easily be rebuked by the defense/judge.  I can't even see where a judge would agree to inform the jury in a case like this since- as I've pointed out- you're in a car and the guy is on foot.  Sorry- the math just doesn't add up here and I'ld be surprised if any prosecutor would disagree with me.  You're automatically mobile in a car- which means you can easily escape.  And since there's no direct evidence that there was assault or immediate threat of assualt your argument isn't vaild and has no standing.

[MaxPower]

cougs you're wrong.  rohan is right--he knows his law! 

[GoCougs]

Ok lets look at the case you linked- the person who was assaulted was put in a position where he was a) standing outside his car when the confrontation began  b) the aggressor was standing between the victim and the Vs car.  Neither of these things apply to this scenario in this thread.  To invoke this case law is a major stretch and would easily be rebuked by the defense/judge.  I can't even see where a judge would agree to inform the jury in a case like this since- as I've pointed out- you're in a car and the guy is on foot.  Sorry- the math just doesn't add up here and I'ld be surprised if any prosecutor would disagree with me.  You're automatically mobile in a car- which means you can easily escape.  And since there's no direct evidence that there was assault or immediate threat of assualt your argument isn't vaild and has no standing.

The stand-your-ground interepresenation is not predicated that future situations must exactly mach the instance in that particular case: "...persons acting in self-defense have no duty to retreat when assaulted in a place they have a right to be..." stands alone on its own merit.

You're not mobile in this instance as pointed ad nasuem and it was a textbook definition of simple assault: "intentionally and voluntarily causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact."

Yes, the occupant is in a car, but glass isn't all that tough - it can be broken by hand, and then the occupant would have to defend against glass and then possibly a weapon and/or a fist. No thanks. You block me, threaten me, move on me, and then get into close proximity of me, IMO the law is on my side in ruining your day. Even if not, I will still ruin your day.

[SVT666]

The stand-your-ground interepresenation is not predicated that future situations must exactly mach the instance in that particular case: "...persons acting in self-defense have no duty to retreat when assaulted in a place they have a right to be..." stands alone on its own merit.

You're not mobile in this instance as pointed ad nasuem and it was a textbook definition of simple assault: "intentionally and voluntarily causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact."

Yes, the occupant is in a car, but glass isn't all that tough - it can be broken by hand, and then the occupant would have to defend against glass and then possibly a weapon and/or a fist. No thanks. You block me, threaten me, move on me, and then get into close proximity of me, IMO the law is on my side in ruining your day. Even if not, I will still ruin your day.

Give it up dude.  You're wrong.  Admit it.

[MaxPower]

The stand-your-ground interepresenation is not predicated that future situations must exactly mach the instance in that particular case: "...persons acting in self-defense have no duty to retreat when assaulted in a place they have a right to be..." stands alone on its own merit.

You're not mobile in this instance as pointed ad nasuem and it was a textbook definition of simple assault: "intentionally and voluntarily causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact."

Yes, the occupant is in a car, but glass isn't all that tough - it can be broken by hand, and then the occupant would have to defend against glass and then possibly a weapon and/or a fist. No thanks. You block me, threaten me, move on me, and then get into close proximity of me, IMO the law is on my side in ruining your day. Even if not, I will still ruin your day.

The only thing that would ruin my day is your incredible display of legal misunderstanding.  It's really bad.  

[GoCougs]

cougs you're wrong.  rohan is right--he knows his law!  

The only thing that would ruin my day is your incredible display of legal misunderstanding.  It's really bad.  

IMO, you two are heavily vested in that particular side of the law. My attorney, who also is a civil defense attorney, teaches classes and covers these types of scenarios in his classes. I'll bet my interpretation based upon his classes against what rohan has stated, and that which you apparently endorse.

Had the BMW driver not done all three of those things; blocking, threatening, approaching; then yes, I'd agree had the MS3 driver responded with some sort of force, he would be in trouble. Either way, if it does ultimately turn out to be outside the law the law is immoral law as much of it is.

[MaxPower]

IMO, you two are heavily vested in that particular side of the law. My attorney, who also is a civil defense attorney, teaches classes and covers these types of scenarios in his classes. I'll bet my interpretation based upon his classes against what rohan has stated, and that which you apparently endorse.

Had the BMW driver not done all three of those things; blocking, threatening, approaching; then yes, I'd agree had the MS3 driver responded with some sort of force, he would be in trouble. Either way, if it does ultimately turn out to be outside the law the law is immoral law as much of it is.

Your attorney should know the law then, which includes exceptions.  Conditional words and acts (such as turning and leaving as one threatens the other) negate immanence.  So under a civil scheme (which is how I was analyzing it from the get-go) one of the elements you have to prove is already in jeopardy.  Oh shit.

[GoCougs]

Your attorney should know the law then, which includes exceptions.  Conditional words and acts (such as turning and leaving as one threatens the other) negate immanence.  So under a civil scheme (which is how I was analyzing it from the get-go) one of the elements you have to prove is already in jeopardy.  Oh shit.

One can threaten not using words. IMO, the average person viewing that tape would interpret the entire incident once he exited his car as likely precursor to a physical confrontation even sans the verbal threat; most certainly after he came right up to the MS3. The explicit threat was issued off-screen but in my opinion was done BEFORE he turned around to go back to his car.

[cawimmer430]

I do that a lot to when I am driving on a windy road with my sisters BMW 118i. Driving a BMW gives me this special power over people and the right to act like this. 

[MaxPower]

One can threaten not using words. IMO, the average person viewing that tape would interpret the entire incident once he exited his car as likely precursor to a physical confrontation even sans the verbal threat; most certainly after he came right up to the MS3. The explicit threat was issued off-screen but in my opinion was done BEFORE he turned around to go back to his car.

Don't know what to tell you.  Actually, I do - send it to a jury.  They come out with wonderfully incongruous results every day.

[Tave]

Your attorney should know the law then, which includes exceptions.  Conditional words and acts (such as turning and leaving as one threatens the other) negate immanence.  So under a civil scheme (which is how I was analyzing it from the get-go) one of the elements you have to prove is already in jeopardy.  Oh shit.

The case Cougs is building his argument on is a criminal assault case. I assumed they were talking about whether he'd have a solid defense if the guy went to the police and pressed charges.

[GoCougs]

Yes, criminal defense not a tort.

Per my attorney's classes you can build a defense immediately after the confrontation; be the first to call 911. When calling 911 ask for an ambulance FIRST and then request LE. Do not give any details whatsoever to 911 other than there's been a confrontation. After the 911 call write down if possible what happened. And of course, if/when LE shows up do NOT discuss any details whatsoever.

[Minpin]

Your attorney sounds like Saul Goodman.

[MaxPower]

The case Cougs is building his argument on is a criminal assault case. I assumed they were talking about whether he'd have a solid defense if the guy went to the police and pressed charges.

Yeah, I thought rohan dispensed with any doubt that criminal liability existed so I was going down the only other route.  And I've been watching Barbri tort lectures for the past week, so it's flowing through my blood right now.

[hotrodalex]

Honestly, I wouldn't wait to see if he is going to hit me or the car.  I'd assume he's going to hit me and I would defend against him.

Exactly. If someone stops in the middle of the road, gets out and starts walking towards my car, I'm gonna get ready to throw down. I'm not gonna wait for them to throw the first punch (or pull a weapon) before protecting myself. His actions were blatantly aggressive and a threat to the MS3 driver. That is justification enough in my eyes.