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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
This is Cali, all bets are off.