A California couple is detailing the terrifying turn of events when a tow truck tried to tow them while driving through downtown San Francisco earlier this week.
“Castle Doctrine” is the presumption that a person attempting to unlawfully enter your home poses a credible, criminal, imminent, deadly threat to any occupant, justifying a forceful response by, or on behalf of the occupants.
In most states, “Castle Doctrine” extends to one’s car as well as their home. Further, hooking an occupied car could be considered carjacking and kidnapping, both of which justify a forceful response by or on behalf of the occupants of the vehicle.
In most states, the occupants of the car and/or any bystanders would be justified in stopping this tow truck driver at gunpoint, or with gunfire.
“Problematic” is an individual attacking you with a tow truck.
Individuals realizing that their lives are forfeit should they decide to attack is not at all problematic. Their subsequent decision to not engage in that attack is the exact opposite of problematic: that voluntary decision not to become a violent criminal is the best solution possible. There is no crime when the would-be criminal decides against perpetrating it.
“Problematic” is looking at people who stop such attacks and believing their defensive force to be a bigger problem than the attack itself. That attitude, in the mind of a would-be criminal, leads them to a different decision.
I am not discussing morality here. I am describing the laws regulating the use of force in self defense and defense of others. I am discussing some of the legal principles of self defense and defense of others.
Legally, if the article is an accurate reflection of the circumstances, the driver of this tow truck established all the criteria necessary for an individual to shoot him until his criminal threat had ended.
I don’t mean to suggest that shooting him is the preferred solution. Rather, I am trying to suggest that the tow truck driver was either unaware of or unconcerned with that possibility as he engaged in his attack. Had he been aware of or concerned about that possibility, he would not likely have engaged in such egregious behavior.
He’s not stealing the car. That would merely be a property crime, and you can’t use lethal force in defense of property. (You can use less than lethal force, though, and if the attacker escalates from property crime to crime of violence, additional force would be justified.)
No, because the car is occupied, it’s not a property crime, but a crime of violence. And again, in many states, Castle Doctrine extends to one’s occupied vehicle as well as their home: any deliberate attack on the occupied car is presumed to be a violent attack on the occupants.
Sonds like they need to carjack the wrong person that can beat their ass legally.
“Castle Doctrine” is the presumption that a person attempting to unlawfully enter your home poses a credible, criminal, imminent, deadly threat to any occupant, justifying a forceful response by, or on behalf of the occupants.
In most states, “Castle Doctrine” extends to one’s car as well as their home. Further, hooking an occupied car could be considered carjacking and kidnapping, both of which justify a forceful response by or on behalf of the occupants of the vehicle.
In most states, the occupants of the car and/or any bystanders would be justified in stopping this tow truck driver at gunpoint, or with gunfire.
Idk, thats very problematic.
“Problematic” is an individual attacking you with a tow truck.
Individuals realizing that their lives are forfeit should they decide to attack is not at all problematic. Their subsequent decision to not engage in that attack is the exact opposite of problematic: that voluntary decision not to become a violent criminal is the best solution possible. There is no crime when the would-be criminal decides against perpetrating it.
“Problematic” is looking at people who stop such attacks and believing their defensive force to be a bigger problem than the attack itself. That attitude, in the mind of a would-be criminal, leads them to a different decision.
Im 100% with you on a moral basis, but legally…
I am not discussing morality here. I am describing the laws regulating the use of force in self defense and defense of others. I am discussing some of the legal principles of self defense and defense of others.
Legally, if the article is an accurate reflection of the circumstances, the driver of this tow truck established all the criteria necessary for an individual to shoot him until his criminal threat had ended.
I don’t mean to suggest that shooting him is the preferred solution. Rather, I am trying to suggest that the tow truck driver was either unaware of or unconcerned with that possibility as he engaged in his attack. Had he been aware of or concerned about that possibility, he would not likely have engaged in such egregious behavior.
Is there a example case where someone shot a tow truck guy for stealing the car?
He’s not stealing the car. That would merely be a property crime, and you can’t use lethal force in defense of property. (You can use less than lethal force, though, and if the attacker escalates from property crime to crime of violence, additional force would be justified.)
No, because the car is occupied, it’s not a property crime, but a crime of violence. And again, in many states, Castle Doctrine extends to one’s occupied vehicle as well as their home: any deliberate attack on the occupied car is presumed to be a violent attack on the occupants.
When you frame it as kidnapping its definitely true, but the question is if the court sees it like that.
This is Cali, all bets are off.