Would you have pulled/used your sidearm in this situation? - Page 3

View Poll Results: Would you have pulled/used your firearm in this case?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    28 75.68%
  • No

    5 13.51%
  • Undecided

    4 10.81%
  • I don't carry firearms.

    0 0%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50

Thread: Would you have pulled/used your sidearm in this situation?

  1. Had the lunatic gained entry into my vehicle cabin, he would have been stopped. Luckily, he fell off the hood when the driver slammed it into reverse, before the nutjob finished breaking-out the windshield. Dash cam, excellent idea. If he had a gun drawn before he broke the windshield out, he would have been stopped as well.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    When he was on the hood, he no longer was armed with the vehicle (therefore unarmed), and if you watched the video the man that was on the hood, was not the driver, therefore he was never armed with that vehicle..

    If you are suggesting you should start shooting at the moving vehicle, I would take umbrage with that too.

    This victim in the video, IMO, did everything right. He tried to remove himself from the situation at every turn and did it successfully. If at some point he could not remove himself from the situation, my opinion may change. However, that didn't happen, therefore this would just be conjecture.

    And reread my post... I never said an unarmed man isn't dangerous. I will say that if my vehicle is running, and I'm in it, and there is an unarmed man punching my vehicle, I will hit the gas pedal and leave like this driver did. I would not pull my weapon on him. The only time I will ever pull my weapon is when I'm prepared to use it. This situation did not, IMO, deserve killing the man on the hood.

    I also don't think just displaying a firearm is a bright idea... again, if you pull a firearm, be prepared to pull that trigger. Had this gentleman shot the other guy, I believe he would be the one going to jail.


    And again, isn't this Australia?
    The question asked was a hypothetical, so the location is immaterial. You'd answer as if you were here, not in Australia.
    .
    The video shows and mentions a woman in the passenger seat while the vehicle was in motion, so the man was the driver, despite the fact that he apparently exited via the passenger side once. Or maybe they were both aggressors.
    .
    As for waiting until he's actually in the act of harming or killing you before drawing your gun, I'll be smart and draw mine before he gets his hands on me. You're welcome to wait until it's probably too late if you want to. You don't wait until a threat is within striking distance until having your gun at the ready unless you're a fool. And being prepared to fire your gun when you pull it doesn't mean that firing it is required every time you bring it out. If you refuse to draw your gun in all circumstances until it's time to fire, there's a high probability you'll get yourself killed.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  4. Rhino, I only saw him exit the right side of the vehicle, which is the driver's side. Was there a time when he was in the passenger side (left) of the vehicle? I must have missed that.

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    While I generally don't comment on hypothetical situations this one is noteworthy.
    .
    First, this is Australia and the poor guy has no gun to save him so he keeps doing everything he can to avoid the confrontation. He makes numerous attempts to retreat, to avoid and get help via cell phone. He did everything he could. But had this continued at some point he may have lost this fight.
    .
    If I were in Australia I would have run him down in self-defense. Without hesitation. In America I probably would also have used my car instead of a gun. I think this guy would have continued his attack despite the presence of a gun. Using the car may have been easier considering all the complications in a legal proceeding about gun use, defensive shootings and such. His life is definitely in danger. Exercising considerable force is justified. And it's a lot easier to claim you ran him over as collateral damage while trying to get away, especially if one had a gun and didn't use it... much easier to believe the claim of not wanting to hurt him.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  6. #25
    What a ******* nut job! I see no other option but to defend yourself.
    If it doesn't fit, FORCE it! If it breaks then it needed to be replaced anyway.


  7. #26
    This incident happened in a country that has taken away people's firearms. There, I would have run over this idiot the second time he got out of his "ute".
    If it happened to me, here in Texas, I would have drawn and fired to stop him - cold. I would not have endangered myself or others on the highway, by trying to evade this fool. And I'm too old and not healthy enough to fight anymore, and I will - absolutely - protect myself and my wife.
    Stop, Drop, and Roll won't work in Hell.
    The truth about the former Republic of the United States of America:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Ioz...ayer_embedded#

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Outlaw View Post
    I agree....I'm also wondering what really set that dude off to such a boiling point?
    As Judge Judy says all the time "if something just does not make any sense, it probably is not true". The idea that this truck guy just picked him out for some kind of "payback" just does not make sense. From what I understand the truck guy has since turned himself in, which tells me that he has a story to tell--won't make much difference, IMO, whatever he says happened before all this started. If he had "attempted to enter my car thru my windshield and cause me imminent danger to my life, I would have shot him point blank until he fell off my car"---Castle Doctrine in South Carolina. Now in Australia things are different SINCE THEY CONFISCATED ALL FIREARMS.

  9. #28
    For sure I would have pulled on the guy when he was charging, gotten out of the car, used the door as a shield and drawn down on him. Bad guy was obviously in a full rage. Wouldn't shoot unless he got "too close"...whatever that turned out to be. Main thing is why wasn't this settled at the first impact? Victim was a former LEO, one would think he'd have better sense. All the driving was unnecessary if the victim was armed. Just would have had to get out of his truck and hole up somewhere with his firearm.
    The charging big guy in a rage is a classic example of what caliber would you choose to defend yourself in this situation. Better hit him in the eye if its a mouse gun.

  10. #29
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,837

    Would you have pulled/used your sidearm in this situation?

    The man with the road rage was the driver. This happened in either the UK or, as I believe, Australia.
    Guns are not an option for either country as they have been legislated away a long time ago.
    Unless the man being pursued was an active on duty cop even he would not have had his sidearm with him during the event.
    This is what you can look forward to if they manage to get our guns. Violent and aggressive behavior with little means of defending yourself.

    ETA: I would have shot him long before he jumped on my hood. This man endangered dozens of commuters trying to evade this loon.
    16 rounds of 175grn Critical Duty would have put an end to this nonsense, that is if it happened here in the US.

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlesMorrison View Post
    The man with the road rage was the driver. This happened in either the UK or, as I believe, Australia.
    Guns are not an option for either country as they have been legislated away a long time ago.
    Unless the man being pursued was an active on duty cop even he would not have had his sidearm with him during the event.
    This is what you can look forward to if they manage to get our guns. Violent and aggressive behavior with little means of defending yourself.

    ETA: I would have shot him long before he jumped on my hood. This man endangered dozens of commuters trying to evade this loon.
    16 rounds of 175grn Critical Duty would have put an end to this nonsense, that is if it happened here in the US.
    I believe you are correct--the victim of this road rager would not have had a gun. If I did not have a gun I would most definitely used my car and made road kill out of him. My question is if there are not firearms what are the conditions, if they exist, as to a presumption of imminent danger--if you presume that, what can you do? I would assume your only choice is to use your most expedient method of defense--your car.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast