Are you allowed to get of your car and beat the shit of a man attacking you and your car with a bicycle ? Could I just pull out a gun and shoot him as soon as the window smashed ?
Most States prohibit using a gun to combat a less-deadly weapon.
A bicycle is obviously less dangerous of a weapon than a gun.
So, no, you wouldn't have a right to shoot him in 99% of cases.
At this point, however, and also depending on the State, you do have a right to detain him through citizen's arrest and call the police for them to process him. It's all on camera. A police officer right then and there with the video in hand has the authority to book him in a heartbeat.
He could get assault with a deadly weapon, because vehicles (bicycle sometimes included) count as deadly weapons.
Other than that, he could get battery and assault. Because he committed battery and assault and attempted theft of the megaphone.
He's in for a lot, actually, if they file charges. If he had been a tad more violent they could put out a warrant for his arrest. Typically, they would anyways, but as busy and lazy people have been, I doubt they are gonna put forth the effort to do that.
At the very least, the owners of the vehicle have every right to file charges in a civil court to demand he pay for damages.
You've got this all wrong fren. there is no "less dangerous of a weapon" rule in any red state. ALL that matters is whether the weapon is capable of doing serious bodily harm - which a bicycle certainly is. Once this single determining factor is satisfied, lethal force is in fact legal.
Reference Kyle Rittenhouse case- he shot a kid who hit him with a skateboard and the Jury determined it was self defense. He also shot an unarmed man who simply tried to grab his gun. Self Defense.
The person in this instance is attacking the vehicle, not the passenger. At least, it can be argued as such.
It's indeterminate that the intended target was the passenger, so arguing self-defense (requiring a reasonable sense of threat to one's life) is essentially bunk. It's actually easier to argue the assailant was attacking the vehicle because most of his strikes were on the side of the van further away from the passenger. On top of that, as soon as the assailant did significant damage to the van he did back off. It's too easy to claim that his intent was to attack the vehicle, not the passenger.
So, we now only have a question of defense of personal property.
In which case, a gun would not be a suitable defensive weapon for the property in question.
If someone were to attack my backpack with a knife, for example, shooting them for the destruction of my property would be an unreasonable response.
If they turn the knife on me, however, then things can change. Even so, some States still will not offer lenience when pulling a gun on someone with a knife unless you can offer some reason to believe they intended to use the knife on you to take your life. They could just be posturing, in which case you are obligated to try and diffuse the situation before pulling your own weapon.
Then, if they do continue their assault, and you pull the gun it is advisable to tell them you are feeling threatened and they must back off or you will shoot -- in some cases even before you aim the gun directly at them. Just showing them the gun would be the first step, and even then some States will say you haven't a right to do so.
I'm not saying I agree with the law, just that in this particular case, just pulling a gun would in almost all States be a bad idea. All I've said above is essential for a lawful defense. Otherwise, it would be grounds for a jury to decide, which you don't want to happen in the first place.
Are you allowed to get of your car and beat the shit of a man attacking you and your car with a bicycle ? Could I just pull out a gun and shoot him as soon as the window smashed ?
Asking for a fren.
Most States prohibit using a gun to combat a less-deadly weapon.
A bicycle is obviously less dangerous of a weapon than a gun.
So, no, you wouldn't have a right to shoot him in 99% of cases.
At this point, however, and also depending on the State, you do have a right to detain him through citizen's arrest and call the police for them to process him. It's all on camera. A police officer right then and there with the video in hand has the authority to book him in a heartbeat.
He could get assault with a deadly weapon, because vehicles (bicycle sometimes included) count as deadly weapons.
Other than that, he could get battery and assault. Because he committed battery and assault and attempted theft of the megaphone.
He's in for a lot, actually, if they file charges. If he had been a tad more violent they could put out a warrant for his arrest. Typically, they would anyways, but as busy and lazy people have been, I doubt they are gonna put forth the effort to do that.
At the very least, the owners of the vehicle have every right to file charges in a civil court to demand he pay for damages.
You've got this all wrong fren. there is no "less dangerous of a weapon" rule in any red state. ALL that matters is whether the weapon is capable of doing serious bodily harm - which a bicycle certainly is. Once this single determining factor is satisfied, lethal force is in fact legal.
Reference Kyle Rittenhouse case- he shot a kid who hit him with a skateboard and the Jury determined it was self defense. He also shot an unarmed man who simply tried to grab his gun. Self Defense.
The person in this instance is attacking the vehicle, not the passenger. At least, it can be argued as such.
It's indeterminate that the intended target was the passenger, so arguing self-defense (requiring a reasonable sense of threat to one's life) is essentially bunk. It's actually easier to argue the assailant was attacking the vehicle because most of his strikes were on the side of the van further away from the passenger. On top of that, as soon as the assailant did significant damage to the van he did back off. It's too easy to claim that his intent was to attack the vehicle, not the passenger.
So, we now only have a question of defense of personal property.
In which case, a gun would not be a suitable defensive weapon for the property in question.
If someone were to attack my backpack with a knife, for example, shooting them for the destruction of my property would be an unreasonable response.
If they turn the knife on me, however, then things can change. Even so, some States still will not offer lenience when pulling a gun on someone with a knife unless you can offer some reason to believe they intended to use the knife on you to take your life. They could just be posturing, in which case you are obligated to try and diffuse the situation before pulling your own weapon.
Then, if they do continue their assault, and you pull the gun it is advisable to tell them you are feeling threatened and they must back off or you will shoot -- in some cases even before you aim the gun directly at them. Just showing them the gun would be the first step, and even then some States will say you haven't a right to do so.
I'm not saying I agree with the law, just that in this particular case, just pulling a gun would in almost all States be a bad idea. All I've said above is essential for a lawful defense. Otherwise, it would be grounds for a jury to decide, which you don't want to happen in the first place.
Thats stupid, the vehicle was between the idiot and his target. You should be an ambulance chaser.
the first time the bike came against the window its an attack on the person, not vehicle.