I remember that. It was also used with a car alarm, I could definitely imagine someone getting sued over it if it was legal in the US.
I would definitely put the pedal to the metal. I don't care if there's someone in front of the car, they're just screwed.
In eos' case, I would have drove around trying to hit the frat boys. That's just asking for an ass whooping, and going up against a ton of metal is a bad idea.
In eos' case, I would have drove around trying to hit the frat boys. That's just asking for an ass whooping, and going up against a ton of metal is a bad idea.
I wasn't there, so I can't say how threatening the students were, but that guy must have had a terrible lawyer. He was in the road, and the students ran up to his car and started pounding/rocking his car, he drove away, and he's in trouble? Idiots who run up to a vehicle on the road can probably ****** expect to get hit, and if they don't understand that they shouldn't be allowed in public without professional supervision.
In most jurisdictions you are allowed to use deadly force only if the threat to your life is immediate (i.e. at this very moment). This is a very high standard to establish.
I dont think the mob scenario OP mentioned would qualify but I think more details are needed (i.e. is the mob after you specifically or is the car being overturned just a passing act)
It's hard to establish imminent danger if the rioters are only breaking glass.
It's a little more plausible if they are overturning vehicles, but even that shouldn't kill most people.
******, if someone's breaking the glass on my car or TURNING MY VEHICLE UPSIDE DOWN I would consider that imminent danger, because they obviously don't give a rat's ass if you get hurt or not. For all they know, you have a baby in there, or small children, or an elderly grandmother.
"Danger, DAAANGEEEER Will Robinson."
Do you live in Columbus, OH? Cuz this could be a valid question this weekend. Although they usually stick to the empty cars.
To be clear, I believe in the right to self-defense - in this thread's case, the right to use lethal force (vehicle) in response to a potentially lethal threat. At the time of the collision, the driver feared for his life (as he testified) and responded accordingly.
Boston is well-known for sports-related riots, regardless of whether its teams win or lose. The combination of many colleges and crazy (read Red Sox) fans is a volatile combination. There was a riot following the Red Sox's loss to the Yankees in Game 7 of the 2003 AL Division Series, 4-5 months before the incident in question. Several parked cars were flipped along Boylston, garbage cans were set on fire, and many cars had their sideview mirrors and windows broken. As I recall, there were no serious injuries or deaths, just a good amount of property damage.
The driver made a series of decisions leading up to the incident (these points are according to what I remember, anyone interested can chase down details):
- He parked his vehicle in a bad location. IIRC, the collision happened very near his original parking space. Google Maps Symphony Road Boston - the center of the 2003 riot had been Boylston near Mass Ave.
- He watched the Super Bowl at a bar and had a drink or two. He was fully aware that the game was happening.
- He chose to attempt to drive his vehicle out - it's very likely that the streets were already crowded as he returned to his vehicle.
- He chose not to abandon his vehicle when he encountered the students.
I'm not saying that the driver should have made a calm, rational decision that the students most likely would not beat him if he exited the vehicle and then take that risk. He should have realized that driving through a riot is sort of like pointing a firearm - don't point it at anything you're not willing to destroy.
I don't claim that the victim or the other revelers were entirely without fault. They made their own decisions to take part in a potentially dangerous situation (the celebration at large as well as the events leading up to the collision).
I think the Red Sox's World Series win in 2004 was the worst Boston sports riot by quite a margin. Watch Curse Reversed (top row) here: http://www.digave.com/videos/
I hate riots. If i ever see one, couple of 2 liters, a shitload of screws and nails, some water and some dry ice. Then watch those retards get hurt. They're causing mass chaos in the streets destroying everything from cars, businesses, and just interrupting normal people's life. If you're gonna drink and party, leave it in the bars and homes.
Yeah, it was pretty bad. It was live on the news until 3am or maybe later.
I hate how mobs work. Everybody goes crazy doing the stupidest things just because they're in a huge group. Damaging property, climbing on anything and everything, setting fires to trash , taunting the police.. It seems like the average IQ drops for every extra person.
It was great that the Red Sox won, but sad to see what happened as a result.
OrganizedChaos
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2002
- 4,524
- 0
- 0
No, the threshold is; would twelve peers say you believed the threat to your life was immediate. You don't actually have to be in jeopardy, but a jury must decide that a reasonable person with your knowledge & experiences in your situation would have believed themselves to be in jeopardy. Very important distinctions in that.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Facebook
Twitter