Originally Posted by Ponch
I have to wonder why he had the door unlocked. Most cars I know of auto lock when the car is first under way. The thing is, in NYC, deadly force laws aren't like they are in Texas, AZ or most sane states, so even if he was armed and used it, they might charge him.
It's very likely that Range Rover didn't have automatic door locks or they may not have been configured to lock automatically. However, that's really reaching deep in this issue. Whether the doors were locked or not is not relative to the fact that the driver was being attacked.
Also note the fact that I said "had that been me". Another fact: had that been me, I would NOT have been in Manhattan, NY.
I appreciate you pointing out the deadly force laws in NYC, Ponch. However, EVEN in NYC - he can not be convicted under use of deadly force laws.
New York State Laws:
Penal Part 1 Title C – Defenses: Article 35 - Defense of Justification
35.00 - Justification; a defense.
35.05 - Justification; generally.
35.10 - Justification; use of physical force generally.
35.15 - Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
35.20 - Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
35.25 - Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief.
35.27 - Justification; use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited.
35.30 - Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.
Lastly, I make it a point to avoid any place that I can't protect myself and my family. NYC is so high on my list it's not funny - and for more reason than that.....
Definition added: N.Y. PEN. LAW § 35.05 : NY Code - Section 35.05: Justification; generally:
Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article
defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would
otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:
1. Such conduct is required or authorized by law or by a judicial
decree, or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise
of his official powers, duties or functions; or
2. Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an
imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a
situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and
which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of
intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such
injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought
to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue. The
necessity and justifiability of such conduct may not rest upon
considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the
statute, either in its general application or with respect to its
application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. Whenever
evidence relating to the defense of justification under this subdivision
is offered by the defendant, the court shall rule as a matter of law
whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established,
constitute a defense.