By: Shawn Vincent

If someone hits your parked car and pushes it three houses down the street, they might not be in full control of their faculties. When the defender in this case confronted a reckless driver, he shouldn’t have assumed the aggressor would be acting rationally. The confrontation turned violent, and the shooter is now facing charges. 

Esquivel Case Brief

A man driving a Toyota Tundra in San Antonio, Texas struck a parked Toyota Carolla. The force of the impact pushed the Carolla three houses down. The Corolla’s owner, 33-year-old San Gabriel Esquivel Jr., went outside to investigate and confronted the Tundra’s driver. The confrontation escalated, and Esquivel claims the Tundra driver reached for a weapon. Esquivel shot the Tundra driver three times—once in the stomach and twice in the arm. The Tundra owner survived the shooting. Police determined the use of deadly force was not justified, leading to charges against Esquivel.

 

Lessons for Armed Defenders

 

Don’t assume the aggressor is rational (Lesson #10): Esquivel seemingly assumed that the Tundra driver would act in a logical, controlled manner after being confronted. However, people involved in high-stress situations, especially those who may be intoxicated, injured, or emotionally distressed, do not always respond predictably. Instead of assuming the Tundra driver would comply or respond calmly, the Corolla owner should have prepared for an unpredictable reaction and prioritized de-escalation or withdrawal.

 

Don’t leave a place of safety to confront a threat (Lesson #8): Few people will fault Esquivel for going outside to address the driver who just plowed into his Carolla, although if he had considered that the driver might have been under the influence, he could have jotted down the tag information, stayed inside, and called 911. Even after confronting the driver, once Esquivel realized the man wasn’t being cooperative, he could have returned to his home and called authorities.  

 

The belief of imminent harm or death must be reasonable (Lesson #3): Police told reporters that Esquivel was “…claiming that the driver of the Tundra was reaching for a weapon, and we did recover two weapons at the scene.” However, there is no solid evidence that the Tundra driver was actually going for a weapon or got his hands on the weapon. Criminal defense lawyer Don West says that, in the context of self-defense, the term “imminent” means “right now.” It means the threat is happening, not that it is about to happen. It is possible that Esquivel shot moments before that threat was truly imminent. 

 

Don’t stand your ground (Lesson #12): Texas is a stand-your-ground state, which means a defender does not have a legal duty to retreat before resorting to deadly force–but that doesn’t mean retreating isn’t a good idea. When Esquivel suspected the driver was reaching for a weapon, instead of shooting, he could have retreated behind the truck where it would have been difficult for the seated driver to aim. If the driver got out of the vehicle with a weapon, his ability and intent would have been clear, and the shooting would have been more clearly justified.

 

Don’t get emotionally hijacked (Lesson #9): The confrontation followed an upsetting situation—the Corolla owner found his car severely damaged. It is possible that anger, frustration, or fear played a role in his decision to escalate the situation rather than de-escalate. Many people make poor decisions in high-stress moments, but self-defense law requires a measured and justified response to a legitimate threat, not an emotional reaction to a frustrating situation.

 

The contents of this article are for general educational purposes and do not constitute legal advice. The goal of Armed Defender’s Dilemma is to share lessons from high-profile self-defense cases to help armed defenders make better self-defense decisions. Shawn Vincent is a paid contributor for CCW Safe.