This column focuses on demystifying legal defense issues so members better understand what they may face if they use force to defend themselves or their families. Defense against road rage is the subject of this month’s Attorney Question of the Month in which we asked our Affiliated attorneys the following:
Here’s the scenario:
A man, let’s call him Steve, driving on a freeway is aggressively tailgated, then almost forced off the road by a driver who pulls his pickup and trailer up even with Steve and into his lane. In this road rage incident, Steve’s front facing dashboard camera records Steve steering onto the paved shoulder, but then steering into and intentionally striking the other vehicle out of fear he is being forced into the ditch and where he may be killed. This raises the question below--
In your state, would the courts consider an argument of self defense if, in response to a road rage attempt to force you off the road, you steered your vehicle into the initial aggressor’s?
Timothy A. Forshey
Timothy A. Forshey, P.C.
1650 North First Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-495-6511
http://tforsheylaw.com/
As with most everything in the law, the answer here is “it depends.” In short, in my home state of Arizona (and, for that matter, in every other state and in most nations) one can legally use lethal force “when one reasonably believes one is in imminent fear for one’s life.” Here, if the success of the attempt to force you off the road would likely be fatal, then resisting that attempt should be legal. I know at least one jury agreed with me.
Several years ago I had a client who was driving his vehicle with his infant daughter in a car seat in the back of his vehicle. As he lawfully exited the freeway via a 40 feet tall elevated offramp, a bus driver (operating an otherwise empty bus, thankfully) realized he was in the wrong lane and that he needed to be in the lane occupied by my client’s small car. As we have all experienced with large trucks/buses, he simply started into my client’s lane, assuming that the smaller vehicle would give ground out of fear of being (forgive the use of Latin here) smushed. When my client unexpectedly failed to yield, the bus actually started smashing into my client’s vehicle. Rather than simply “steering into the aggressor” as in our hypothetical here, my client fired three 10mm rounds from his Glock 20 through the bus’s windshield, two of which hit the bus driver in the face. Thankfully, the bus driver survived, albeit with a severely altered profile. The evidence clearly showed that the bus driver was the “aggressor.” The first trial was declared a mistrial due to a hung jury, but the second jury acquitted my client.
Lest anyone think this was a “victory,” let me point out that my client (who spent four months in jail pending my efforts to get his bond reduced), as well as his parents, lost essentially everything they owned before the dust finally settled two years later. My client’s girlfriend also left him with the infant daughter in question. My client (who calls me every year on the anniversary of the shooting) has gained 100 pounds and been unemployed ever since. The “victory” was devastating. Maybe simply allowing the bus driver to take the lane in the first place would have been a better idea. My client could have made that choice. The law did not require him to (“stand your ground”), but he could have yielded had he been willing to swallow his angst. I always suggest in such cases of appropriate restraint that you immediately thereafter offer up a quick prayer that the other person awakens tomorrow with a hemorrhoid the size of a volleyball – and let it go.
The moral of the story is that responding with lethal force should never JUST be “justifiable.” It should be justifiable AND UNAVOIDABLE. When you ask “can I legally shoot this person (or attempt to run THEM off the road instead) if they are doing X to me,” you are missing the point. You must believe, nay, you must KNOW, that your failure to do so will result in your death. Then, it becomes your lawyer’s job to get the jury to agree that they would have reached the same conclusion.
Craig R. Johnson
Craig Johnson Law, PLLC
2500 N. University Ave., Provo, UT 84604
801-458-2285
https://craigjohnsonlaw.com/
Absolutely! In Utah, it specifically excepts those that:
“...initially provokes the use of force against another individual with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the other individual...”
Other than that scenario, Steve is justified in taking these drastic measures to avoid his own serious bodily injury or death.
See: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/title76/chapter2/76-2-s402.html
Don Hammond
Criminal Defense Heroes, P.C.
1327 Post Ave, Suite K, Torrance, CA 90501
323-529-3660
https://www.donhammondlaw.com/
I would not expect that to be a good defense. I think the obvious answer is that the “victim” should stop his vehicle, creating distance from the aggressor vehicle and thereby defusing the situation. Any aggressive reaction such as steering into the other vehicle will escalate the situation and lead to a “he said/he said” situation regarding who was the initial aggressor. Proving who initiated the aggression will be very difficult, time consuming, and expensive.
This can all be avoided by stopping the chain of aggression. Once Steve is on the shoulder and the other driver is continuing down the road, there is no continuing threat to human life to justify using force in self defense.
Robert E Calesaric
Calesaric Law
35 S Park Place, Ste. 150, Newark, OH 43055
740-973-6800
https://www.calesariclaw.com
You definitely have a self defense claim. In fact, in Ohio we now have a form of a stand your ground law.
__________
Thank you, affiliated attorneys, for sharing your experience and knowledge. Members, please return next month when we will explore a new question.