Yeah, shooting from a car would be less than ideal. Which is why I wouldn't be shooting from my car, especially when I wasn't being threatened with a weapon. The guy who was shot and killed didn't have a gun....just so ya know. Agree on the situation just being silly in retrospect. Pay attention while driving, merge properly, and if in doubt, let the other guy 'win' if necessary. No one dying or getting shot is the best outcome in that scenario.
That’s really good info and background, thank you!
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals appears to disagree with you. See my link above, I even highlighted it.
Stand Your Ground was never intended to protect or apply to someone who:
A) Intentionally pulls partially out of the travel lane and stops their vehicle in the road behind another vehicle during a road rage incident
B) Intentionally gets out of said vehicle to confront another driver who has gotten out of their vehicle
C) Intentionally engages in a verbal and physical altercation with another driver
D) Intentionally draws a handgun and shoots another driver after, allegedly, being subjected to a single punch that, according to medical documents, resulted in no detectable injury
The judge’s comments about escape were directed to all those points. Kottka was essentially in the wrong as soon as he stopped his car, in the road, and got out with the intent to engage in an argument with another motorist. He had no “right” to be there and voided his right to self defense.
Stand your ground isn’t a catch all “if I’m scared I can shoot you”. You still have a duty to avoid confrontation if possible….in the sense that you can’t willingly inject yourself into a bad situation and then claim self defense after the fact.
A) Intentionally pulls partially out of the travel lane and stops their vehicle in the road behind another vehicle during a road rage incident
B) Intentionally gets out of said vehicle to confront another driver who has gotten out of their vehicle
C) Intentionally engages in a verbal and physical altercation with another driver
D) Intentionally draws a handgun and shoots another driver after, allegedly, being subjected to a single punch that, according to medical documents, resulted in no detectable injury
The judge’s comments about escape were directed to all those points. Kottka was essentially in the wrong as soon as he stopped his car, in the road, and got out with the intent to engage in an argument with another motorist. He had no “right” to be there and voided his right to self defense.
Stand your ground isn’t a catch all “if I’m scared I can shoot you”. You still have a duty to avoid confrontation if possible….in the sense that you can’t willingly inject yourself into a bad situation and then claim self defense after the fact.
Last edited:
Yes, but that decision was based on that case and its merits, and every case has its own merits and circumstances. Laws don't tend to be absolute, or shouldn't be in my belief, but I'm not an attorney, J just stayed at a Holiday Inn. So a different case, different evidence/situation may not have the same result. Whether the guy has a weapon or not, if he grabs a kid, or someone walking up to the car, or does something to indicate he's going to do great bodily harm to that person, and a person removes themselves from the car to prevent that, it falls under SYG. I honestly hate discussing legal stuff because if any one thing changes, you're looking at a whole different ball game. When dealing with self defense, everything is a presumption that can be overturned by evidence, and when dealing with the law, you're dealing with opinion. Granted, the Judge's or Judges', DA/AG's and/or juries' opinion is what ultimately matters in the end. Either way, its not a situation I ever want to be in. Whether someone is right or wrong in a situation like that, ultimately, no one wins in the long run. The legal battle, sleepless nights, PTSD, trauma, loss of quality of life are horrible. That said, a person should always do what they need to do to make it home safe at night, thats a given, but I wouldnt say that anyone walks away from an SDA situation a "winner".
I agree, he made himself the aggressor, so the assumption of self defense is not valid as the presumption is overturned by evidence.
And yes, SYG is not a catch all. Every SDA instructor should be emphasizing the point that the deployment of a weapon is a last resort, and you should never inject yourself into a situation that doesnt involve you (or family member, friend, acquantince, etc) unless absolutely necessary because you dont know the circumstances. Two instances in point that come to mind. OCPD responded to a shots fired call around the corner from my office. They arrive on scene to a man in the street with a gun, take him down at gun point. Guy was a convenience store owner who was just robbed and chased the hold up man out of the store firing gun shots. So they caught the victim, but were operating with what they knew, shots fired, man with a gun. No one had called the robbery in at that point. Another one is a guy held a man at gun point who was involved in a physical altercation with a female. Turns out the female had a VPO placed against her by the man, her ex, and she was hell-bent on killing him, if she couldnt have him, no one could.
That's the thing I LOVE about the legal "stuff" -- that case law takes into account the INDIVIDUAL circumstances of any given situation when applying "the law", but it is only one portion of the things that affect a jury -- or as in this case -- the judge's ruling. It is like "the law" is a living, breathing, and sometimes eating, creature.
Discussing legal issues and the application of case law, the presence (or absence) of any precedent, and common law is a fascinating "hobby". Well, at least for me.
That's the thing I LOVE about the legal "stuff" -- that case law takes into account the INDIVIDUAL circumstances of any given situation when applying "the law", but it is only one portion of the things that affect a jury -- or as in this case -- the judge's ruling. It is like "the law" is a living, breathing, and sometimes eating, creature.
Discussing legal issues and the application of case law, the presence (or absence) of any precedent, and common law is a fascinating "hobby". Well, at least for me.
OK, that part I do enjoy or I wouldnt keep responding lol but the people who get stuck on the one thing and think its an absolute that applies to everything is the part I hate. Their response is always but but but, and just talk themselves in a circle thinking in absolutes and black and white. The what ifs, and how those individual things can change or redirect and be applied such as changing one word I find to be interesting and can enjoy an intellectual discussion among peers like the one we've all had. I agree about it being a living thing. I describe it, well most things really, as organic, always changing and evolving based on the 'environment'. I do enjoy trying to decipher and interpret law, and how one word, or the context in which a word is used can absolutely change the outcome. By word of law is something I enjoy pointing out when people try to interpret something. I have to deal with it when dealing with laws and policies at work. There are very specific statutes and policies we have to follow, and its easy to shut down or change the direction of a request or project when I point this out. It's all opinion, inference, assumption, and application ultimateIy that has to have a logic reason, not just because (I) this says so and therefore it must be so. I actually considered, and still do, going back to school and getting my law degree since the kids have gotten older.
ETA, this case will probably set new precedent and case law. Reminds me of Jerome Ersland. Had Jerome not chased the kid out, and come back to finish the job (or ran his mouth) he would have probably walked with justified self defense. If this guy had stayed in the car, and the victim tried to open the door, attacked him through the window, he would be at home with none of this hanging over him. Lot of bad decisions made. Sometimes you just have to "lose" to win and walk away.
Last edited:
So, you said the NRA took Mark Kottka's case? Just following up on that claim.
Similar threads
