Was reading http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/2011/october/333509/Arrest-made-in-USF-student-armed-robbery about a university student who was sitting in their car and got robbed. I'm quite curious if that person put their car in reverse then backed up then put it into drive mowing down one of the assailants if this would be classified as "Self-Defense." Or would the person be charged with attempted murder or some such trumped up charge.

*Note: Not getting into politics here just wondering about self-defense and what some states and/or countries consider legal defense of one's well being.*

It's not really self defence if you have the option of just driving away is it?

If they had a gun, I would consider it self defense.

I don't know. If you are young, well spoken, good looking and up for a jury trial? Maybe so.

I would personally consider running them over giving them what they deserve......

However as Exorince points out if you have the option to drive away a court would probably find you guilty because running them over wasn't the only option

Yep. It's pretty common for jurisdictions to require you to flee if possible. Since you're in a car, fleeing is legally preferable to intentionally running over your assailants. However, if your car was in a confined space, like so:


I_______ I
I _______ I
I _______ I
````````````````````````````

And the assailant was blocking the only exit from that space, you could probably get away with hitting the assailant with your car as part of forcing your way out. (but you could only justify running them over to the extent that it gets you away from them. No driving over them multiple times or anything like that)

Another reason I ask this question is i've watched several cop shows and read articles where people used cars as "Weapons" being charged with attempted murder of an officer of the law. It was this incident that got me curious about it and with the increase in crime lately my mind just wonders about what is considered "legal" self defense. You definitely bring up a good point Darth where a person may not be able to purposefully run them down when they can escape. However if they are blocking your car to an extent pointing a gun at you heck I would hope the court agrees it to be self defense.

Sadly with the ambulance chasers we got in FL it would still get turned into an attempted murder charge. :/

It depends on the area it happens in, I would assume. In some places it's not even legal to shoot someone if they walk into your house and try to rob you.

There was a CSI:LV episode which featured this. It was ruled self-defense, though that was only a show.

for self defense i was under the impression that you could only use equal or lesser force to deal with your assailant, since your life was in danger of being ended, the assailant was making no attempt to flee, and was still being aggressive (probably much better ways to phrase that) i would say that you would get away with it...unless you back up over them

Here in England you are allowed to use http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957587.... supposedly

In the united states, it varies by state. In maryland, home defense is a poorly articulated aspect of state law, really defined by court cases more than anything. In other states, the duty to retreat is not only suspended in the home but the home owner has authorization to use deadly force in order to stop or prevent violent incursions.

Yeah, in most places, you're legally only allowed to use force as self defense if there's no other option of escape, which had been mentioned.

Though you being in Florida is an interesting case, because there exists in Florida the idea of "stand your ground," in which case fleeing or attempting to flee isn't necessary for using a "Self Defense" defense, but your use of force better damn well be within reason, for example, shooting someone in the face if he tries to pick a fight with you at the bar is NOT okay.

Though the car example may be a little trickier. If he had a gun, and was blocking the only means of escape, then I think that'd be a strong enough case if you hit him to get away. Backing up and re-running the guy over, however, would be overkill and NOT okay, obviously.

Well what if you feared that the person might try and take your life so you argued that immobilizing them would be your best chance at safety?

Even worse is they will go after eveything you own, even if it totals more than any damages caused by you. My mom got into a mild accident and they went after everything and lost (thank god)

Which to me seems reasonable enough

Some people think certain states go too far with it. For example, in one jurisdiction, you may need to issue a verbal (or other kind of) warning before you could deploy deadly force, and only if the assailant ignores the warning. (no shooting in the back) In other states, you don't need to issue a warning at all, and can open fire the moment conditions for deadly force use are met.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a blanket law across all states so that everyone know exactly what the law is, seeing as how it is 1 country? It seems there could be some confusion to an outsider like myself?

Sorry for my ignorance maybe it isn't as confusing as it seems

That would make sense to me as well, but for that to happen I believe we'd have to get a constitutional amendment passed, which doesn't usually happen for just anything.

Remember, the U.S isn't a unitary system, but a federal one. The concept of Dual sovereignty applies to murder. So, if I kill my neighbor, Maryland has jurisdiction, but if I commit a crime that involves, say, crossing state lines, or I kill in a federal gov. building, then the federal government has jurisdiction.

That's not self defence that's stupidity. Anyone who uses a car to run over a cop with intent, get's the 21 gun salute they deserve .

Yea, you would think but the states like to have their own laws. I believe here we can use deadly force anywhere on our property if the intruder has the means to deadly force such as a gun.

As for using a car as self defense. I would imagine like previously said just drive away, now, if someone was trying to pull away and the assailant drew a weapon I would see it justified to hit them if you could.

It's just if I think of Englands counties being split up to have their own laws like your states do that would lead to alot of problems. I suppose because America has had the system for a long time you have become used to it.

A key thing to remember: The original 13 colonies(the first states) founded America. As such, many aspects of our national government reflect compromises made in order to get all our ducks lined up.

Know what you mean i'm so sick of this "Gary" guy seen on TV he's a dang chiropractor that bilks insurance companies then once the person is bled dry they are turned away.

Have to say this is definitely interesting and yes in FL we do have 2 laws on the books. One is the "Stand Your Ground" law where it says you have a right to be in a place if you are there lawfully *loosely translated* and if you are there lawfully you have a right to defend yourself from bodily harm. Second law is the "Castle Law" which talks about self-defense in one's own home. One thing that makes the SYG so skeptical is when a person is prosecuted under it because they took it to the extreme. One example was where a store owner was charged with attempted murder after he defended himself from an armed attack then came back "executing" the person on the ground.

Using a car might constitute itself as "Excessive Force" however as noted in other post you have to question what to do. If a person is pointing a gun at you standing infront of your car do you mow them down or put it into reverse trying to run away? Some of the criminals out there are getting more sophisticated where they are blocking people in so they can't do anything except go through a person. One of the things i've heard about out there is a "Swoop and Squat" or something where 2 people fake car accidents by having 1 behind you then 1 infront of you. Can just imagine a criminal gang using that tactic on a person to rob them like they did in San Francisco with that diamond heist a while back.


Also guys please try to keep it off the political tract don't want to get the thread derailed and shut down.