In Odum v. State, 220 Ga. App. 263 (469 S.E.2d 394) (1996) Odum was convicted of driving as an habitual violator after he allowed his son, too young to drive, to drive the car while he was a passenger. As Odum, his son, and his nephew, also too young to drive, approached a roadblock, the two young men got out of the car, and Odum proceeded to the roadblock. He argued that, as a matter of law, he was justified in doing so. This argument was rejected because Odum's own actions had put him in the situation where the choice arose. In Tarvestad v. State, 261 Ga. 605 (409 S.E.2d 513) (1991), the husband, convicted of being an habitual violator, had orally requested the charge on justification where he had been driving his pregnant wife, in labor and unable to drive, to the doctor. No other options for Tarvestad were suggested by the evidence.