PDA

View Full Version : Road rage death by strangling


MLeake
March 7, 2012, 10:10 PM
This was reported in the Kansas City Star, but apparently the Star's crime scene reporter got his facts mixed up, as the Star reported that the aggressor had died.

It appears from the original article that the aggressor was the killer. (Edit: DNS found an article that indicates the aggressor was the one who died.)

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/Houston-Road-Rage-Leads-to-Choking-Death-030612

In any case, a minor fender-bender resulted in a physical scuffle that turned deadly; a husband and father was killed in front of his wife and kids. (Edit: Based on the article DNS found, the husband and father was put in a position where he killed somebody in front of his wife and kids, though it appears his intent was to stop and detain his attacker.)

The article doesn't say why the decedant opted to get out of his vehicle and fight the road rager. Obviously, it was not a good decision. (Edit: The aggressor apparently was the decedant; not sure why the victim got out of his vehicle. Hopefully his intent was to de-escalate, not to engage in mutual combat.)

Lessons learned:

1) As we already knew, one does not need a firearm in order to kill another human; people kill people.

2) While there are instances where getting out of a vehicle is a good idea (such as when the aggressor has a firearm or a contact weapon capable of penetrating the vehicle, and one can't just drive off), it may be best to stay in a locked vehicle when dealing with an unarmed road rager.

3) Call 911 early, at the first indication that the other guy might be a road rager.

(Edit: 4) Read multiple articles, when articles conflict, to avoid false assumptions...)

Since the defender died, it's not clear whether he would have been accused of accepting mutual combat, and losing his right to self-defense by engaging, if he had lived and the attacker had died. That would be something to consider, too.

(Edit: Since the defender apparently lived, it will be interesting to see what the police and DA determine.)

biohazurd
March 8, 2012, 12:09 AM
That is horrible. I feel sorry for his family who had to witness this. Ill pray for them.

BarryLee
March 8, 2012, 12:21 AM
Not really enough context to say what could have been done differently. Apparently the victim had hit the assailant, so I suppose he got out of his car to deal with the accident aftermath. I guess he had no idea it would escalate the way it did.

4V50 Gary
March 8, 2012, 01:31 AM
Miss Manner had no say in this altercation. Folks are losing it so easily today.

Double Naught Spy
March 8, 2012, 01:39 AM
3) Call 911 early, at the first indication that the other guy might be a road rager.

He did, or rather told his wife to do so after the other drivre threatened his life. The attack had started by then.

Despite calling 911 early nobody arrived in time to save the aggressor.

http://www.khou.com/home/HPD-Man-killed-in-road-rage-incident-along-Gulf-Freeway--141536003.html

Pond, James Pond
March 8, 2012, 01:47 AM
What a horrible story.

Road rage, for me, is one of the most unpleasant sides to modern living.

It is not just the remit of thugs, anti-social hot-heads and petty criminals: it's everyone.
The innocuous guy, the well dressed young woman: they get behind the wheel of their car, and even the most legal, well-executed manoeuvre is considered an assault on their pride...

I get it all the ****ing time, here, when I'm on my bike.

Someone trying to run you off the road solely because my bike went faster than his car from the lights is both pitiful and alarming.

Would possibly be my biggest motivator to start carrying.

NWPilgrim
March 8, 2012, 05:29 AM
The story DNS linked to sounds as if the agressor is the one who died. The guy in the Tahoe rear-ended the younger guy with family in an Explorer. They get out and Tahoe man verbally threatens younger guy and younger guy walks back to car the Tahoe man starts beating on him. Young family man responds to beating by getting Tahoe man around the neck and holding him until police arrive. Tahoe man has trouble breathing and dies on way to hospital.

Sounds like self defense according to the end of the article.

youngunz4life
March 8, 2012, 06:02 AM
even when you are in the right and/or in very heated situations, you must try to remain calm. I am sorry to hear of the family's loss of their Dad and husband.

BlueTrain
March 8, 2012, 09:16 AM
I've seen a few drivers I'd like to strangle. It's a wonder it doesn't happen more often.

KC Rob
March 8, 2012, 09:31 AM
Sounds like SD to me:

Investigators said a 42-year-old man, who was driving a Tahoe, had rear-ended an Explorer driven by a 28-year-old man on the northbound service road.

Both men exited their vehicles after the crash, and police said the elder man verbally threatened the 28-year-old.

As the younger man retreated to his car and asked his wife to call 911, police said the older man started punching the 28-year-old, causing him to fall to the ground.

The 28-year-old said the older man kept punching him, but he managed to get the 42-year-old in a headlock.

He held him in the headlock until officers arrived.

As police tried to separate the men, they noticed the 42-year-old was having trouble breathing.

He was taken to the hospital via ground ambulance, where he died.

You guys are getting the story backwards, the husband didn't die, the assailant did.

Pbearperry
March 8, 2012, 09:34 AM
We have to get those hands off of the streets.

Spats McGee
March 8, 2012, 10:21 AM
Horrible story, but it makes a good example why "taking a beating like a man" (as referenced in another thread) is a bad idea. Even an unarmed man can kill another grown man.

TailGator
March 8, 2012, 11:33 AM
So the older guy rear-ends the younger guy, then threatens him, punches him to the ground, and the younger guy grapples with him and holds on until police arrive.

It is easy to sit at our keyboards and say that the younger guy shouldn't have gotten out of the car, but I think it is pretty normal to get out and check the damage, and highly unusual to have the other person start an attack. By all accounts I read, this was a pretty minor fender bender.

Grabbing an assailant and hanging on until help arrives so you don't continue to be pummeled seems to me to be a pretty mild response to an aggressor. If some evidence comes forwards that the younger guy new and deliberately applied a hold that interrupted breathing or blood supply to the head, I am willing to reconsider this point.

So the dead guy very likely caused an accident (since he was the one who rear-ended the other guy), attacked the other driver physically after verbally threatening him, and the defender responded with a minimum of force necessary to stop the attack. Yet the family is saying what a great guy he was, how he would never have done what several witnesses actually saw him do, and they want the man who defended himself as best he could with his bare hands charged with murder.

http://www.khou.com/news/Family-Defends-Man-Killed-in-Road-Rage-Fist-Fight-141824643.html

Sheesh.

DasGuy
March 8, 2012, 12:17 PM
If the articles above are true, I think it's a clear cut case of self defense.

It seems the families in all of these kinds of stories have the same responses. "My little Jimmy is a perfect person and would never hurt a fly, let alone shoot 5 random people. I don't care if there's video footage of it and the police arrested him in the act. It ain't true!"

MLeake
March 8, 2012, 12:20 PM
So it appears the KC Star was correct, and the Fox station was wrong...

One of those days, and thanks to DNS for finding the Houston article.

Onward Allusion
March 8, 2012, 12:49 PM
Stupid. One life gone and a bunch of other lives ruined.

We're hairless apes in clothing who pretend to be civilize most of the time. I guess the only thing that can be learned from the situation is to not get out of your car and just phone the accident in if it's obvious that the other party is in a bad state of mind. The problem is that even if everyone has a level head at the beginning it still can escalate into stupidity in a heartbeat.

Double Naught Spy
March 8, 2012, 03:18 PM
Stupid. One life gone and a bunch of other lives ruined.

As I am not a believer that the life of an evil person is sacred, I am not bothered by the one life gone aspect. If he is willing to beat you for running into you, then just imagine what he would be willing to do if you ran into him. That sort of person is a danger to all of us. The fact that he died will doling out his aggression over a petty matter likely means that others in the future won't suffer at his hand. That type of person is just plain scary.

The other folks' lives are not ruined or certainly don't have to be. They may have changed, but not necessarily for the worst. I am sure the wife who called 911 can feel very secure in knowing that her husband is capable of protecting them. The little girl has now seen her daddy attacked by a much larger man and been victorious. There is a lot to be said for such a piece of mind. What I don't get is why the wife didn't try to help her husband.

Yes, people can kill or do serious bodily injury with their bare hands. The very first CHL shooting in Texas was just such a case, also road rage. The CHL holder was severely beaten by the aggressor while still in his car after being trapped in traffic. The initial round of beating broke bones in his face and caused permanent eye damage. He did not shoot the aggressor until the guy came back and started to do it again, but the CHL holder shot him once in the chest.

The really sad thing there is that the story told by the CHL holder and the story told by the passenger in the aggressor's vehicle both jived together and yet despite clearly being self defense, he was arrested.

If the articles above are true, I think it's a clear cut case of self defense.

Sure, but the questioning for justification may come up as to whether the force used justified it being lethal, despite whether or not the hero meant for it to be so. I don't think anyone is doubting that the hero was acting in self defense and that he feared releasing the guy would result in the guy beating him further. For all we know, he was probably threatening the guy while he was being held.

Back in the nineties and early naughties, lots of police departments barred a type of chokehold used to control physically violent individuals until they could be cuffed. It was used primarily when suspects were fighting with officers and was a way that an officer could subdue a suspect into unconsciousness by himself and then be able to cuff the suspect. The idea was that after the suspect was unconscious, the hold would be released, breathing would resume, and the suspect would wake up in cuffs, none-the-worse for wear, only a bunch of the ended up dead for a variety of reasons ranging from health issues, complications of illegal drugs, too much force applied, or applied for too long. While not all headlocks are chokeholds, some can be or can turn into being chokeholds as the person being held squirms to escape.

So as you would expect, the family of the aggressor just cannot imagine that he was the problem of the incident, despite statesments to the contrary from the people he rearended and other witnesses who saw the situation unfold.
http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/03/family-defends-driver-killed-in-road-rage-fight/
It is a good thing that Welton was not a violent person as his family claims. Can you just imagine how violent he would be if he got mad? The family is certainly sure that this wasn't the deceased's fault, none of it.

Look at the size of the aggressor in the above link and the size of the hero in this one. How is that for a disparity of force?
http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/03/man-said-he-acted-in-self-defense-in-fatal-road-rage-incident/

Darling's own kid was screaming, "Daddy is going to die!" Of course, daddy didn't. and there are apparently a number of witnesses who stated that Welton was the aggressor and pressed on his attack even as Darling retreated.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/Road-rage-death-There-was-no-stopping-the-guy/-/1735978/9236944/-/111jbiu/-/

From the sounds of things so far, Darling will get no-billed by the grand jury. All they need to believe is that Darling feared for his life or serious bodily injury and that he feared that if he released his hold, Welton would resume the unprovoked violent attack that was witnessed by several people.

Onward Allusion
March 8, 2012, 03:44 PM
As I am not a believer that the life of an evil person is sacred,

I'm not saying that the guy who defended himself and place the other in a choke hold was stupid. I was referring to the situation. The situation was stupid. Over what, a little fender bender?

As for the dead guy being an evil person, I don't agree. Tell me that you'd never got ticked off at the other guy on the road. In another time/place, both of those guys would have exchanged insurance info and went about their way.

Strictly based on the story, the dead guy screwed up by letting a minor issue get blown out of proportion. I can almost guarantee that almost everyone here has let that happen at least once in their lives - letting a small thing get blown out of proportion.

GlockedNLoded32
March 8, 2012, 04:36 PM
Updated information from local news station KHOU channel 11 on road rage incident that left one man dead

http://www.khou.com/news/Family-Defends-Man-Killed-in-Road-Rage-Fist-Fight-141824643.html

BlackFeather
March 8, 2012, 04:38 PM
I was recently caught up in some road rage that wasn't caused by me. I was a passenger in the back seat. The driver of the other car was on the phone and almost hit us. The passenger in the front of our car flipped him off, and he got ******. He started yelling and cussing, as is usual. He blamed us, then the driver of our car, being the idiot he is, called out "people like you deserve to be shot". Well, I don't blame the other guy for getting angry at that point, but he climbed out of his truck and walked up to our car. The windows went up, and they were yelling back and forth. By this time I had my hand on my seatbelt and he hadn't seen me yet. About the time he noticed me his demeanor changed a bit, he wasn't cussing at just an older male and a woman, there was now a younger male in the back who was remaining silent and watching him.

That's when the driver of our vehicle noticed the open container in the truck, and called the guy a drunk for having a beer while driving. That definitely ended it for him, and he left.

Had the man begun trying to break a window, we would have been unable to drive out. At that point I think I would have asked the guy to get back in his truck and deescalate the situation. But if I had to get out, I definitely would not have felt it necessary to choke the man, much less hold him until police got there. I don't see why the man in the OP had to do this. Maybe he doesn't have the training I do, but there are MANY more less lethal ways to hold someone. It doesn't seem right to me.

In this, I don't see either as malign or bad, but I see many poor choices. Calling one or the other "evil" or a "bad guy" is just wrong. You know little to nothing about them and yet judge them? Hmm...

Double Naught Spy
March 8, 2012, 10:10 PM
In this, I don't see either as malign or bad, but I see many poor choices. Calling one or the other "evil" or a "bad guy" is just wrong.

No, I am pretty sure that the acts described quality Welton accurately at the time of the event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil

Poor choices? He didn't just make poor choices. A poor choice of actions on Welton's part might be to yell and scream at Darling, cuss, making Darling's little girl cry because of the tiraid, be uncooperative with Darling in resolving the fender bender, etc. He apparently did all those things, but in doing those, he threatened Darling with serious bodily harm and then attempted to execute his threats fully, taking advantage of his superior size to try to exact some satisfaction out of Darling for having the audacity to let Welton crash into him.

The notion of "poor choices' was ancient history by the time Welton has beat Darling to the ground and was continuing to press his violent attack.

Maybe you think is it the good people of planet Earth that violently assault others without justification? Maybe you think Welton was trying to help Darling in some way as a good guy by beating him as he did?

Based on the current information available, at the time of the incident, Welton was doing evil and he was the bad guy. This isn't confirmed by just Darling, his wife, and his child, but by several other witnesses. There is no moral or legal justification for Welton's violent attack on Darling.

Onward Allusion
March 8, 2012, 11:27 PM
^^^
Getting road rage and starting a fist fight does not equate evil. It equates stupidity. Getting road rage and taking a gun out to kill the other guy is evil. Huge difference.

Going back to the story, I can almost guarantee that something else transpired prior to the incident, whether 30 seconds before, a minute before, or a mile up the road.

I have personally experienced on many occasions where some people will absolutely refuse to let anyone into their lane even though traffic is moving at a snail's pace. I'm guessing a game of chicken was played and they bumped. People just don't get into a minor fender bender and start fighting without something happening immediately prior.

shooter_john
March 8, 2012, 11:38 PM
I'd don't see any problems with the survivor's actions at all. By all accounts, the aggressor started the trouble, escalated the trouble, and didn't give in until he didn't any air. I hate it for his family, but he was the sole reason for his own demise unless something very significant is missing from the stories that I read. I don't think for a minute that the other guy was trying to kill him, but what else was he to do since the aggressor was still trying to fight?

I've gotten ticked off at people on the road PLENTY of times... But I have NEVER yelled at, flipped off, threatened, or ASSAULTED any of them, epsecially their innocent passengers or family members. Eventually I learned that getting mad at drivers only ruins MY day, so I don't let it bother with it any more, and I am much happier as I commute around day to day. If you threaten my wife or my kids, "Katy bar the door" is all I have to say.

BlackFeather
March 9, 2012, 12:16 AM
I don't think for a minute that the other guy was trying to kill him, but what else was he to do since the aggressor was still trying to fight?

If someone was choking you, would you be able to stop your panic? I'm sure he stopped fighting, but when the panic set in he started again. Hard to tell the difference, isn't it?

No, I am pretty sure that the acts described quality Welton accurately at the time of the event.

I can get philosophical with this, but I won't. A man in anger isn't inherently evil, he didn't leave the house with the intention to be an evil man that day. He got angry, lost his control, and acted like a kid throwing a tantrum. If you have never been angry and wanted to hit someone, you're lying. I understand control, and I'm sure he did too, but everyone slips. He didn't deserve to die for it. Maybe get kicked on down the road and learn a lesson, but certainly not death.

Young.Gun.612
March 9, 2012, 01:02 AM
You say you're sure he stopped fighting and then started to panic? How do you KNOW that to be the case? I've seen people continue to make threats from a disadvantaged position. I wouldn't be surprised if the aggressor continued to make threats of violence the entire time. If he caused the accident, then escalated the violence, it doesn't sound out of character that he kept it up even in the headlock.

He may not qualify as "evil". But definitely dangerous. The kind of dangerous that society is better off without.

dyl
March 9, 2012, 01:17 AM
Let's ask ourselves this:

When is a fist fight not "just" a fist fight anymore?
- because beatings stop after the opponent falls unconscious, right?
- because surely he/she would stop choking you after you stop moving, right?
- because if it started with fists, it'll stay with fists right?

When it comes to "fist fights" and "beatings" I'm convinced there is an assumption made by many. To their credit that's because most posters here are headed towards being more responsible, not less. I may be an extremist here but I feel too many things could go "wrong" in a fist fight to dismiss them as low risk/non-fatal as they are often stated as being on forums.

It may be similar to how we have to remember our ideal "gun battle" will probably not happen the nice and neat way we'd like. No one imagines gouged eyes or crushed tracheas (especially not after we've fallen unconscious - that's barbaric!). We expect to always wake up after we've lost consciousness.

But something tells me that if the story is true that the attacker did not have a clear idea of boundaries or he did but willfully charged across them. He already ditched the norms. Would he stop punching if he'd managed to "teach the guy a lesson? How long was the lesson going to be?" If he'd successfully knocked the defender unconscious with his very first blow would his anger be so quickly satiated? How else could he vent his anger? (wife and kids?)

We can't know if a "street fight" is fatal- neither before nor during the fight. Only in retrospect - which also encourages the thought of "see? no one died". And even afterwards there's the risk of death hours later from head trauma, then infections of skin/bone/dental work. And as for evil (see previous posts) it depends on what you believe to determine the definition. Do you live by "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else I can do whatever?" Biblical perspective says we've all done evil and would hold starting a fist fight or firefight due to road rage both sins. Quite possibly a "how dare you" attitude too.

I'll throw in a perspective on this evil person discussion too (sorry mods, don't know if off topic): I don't think people are inherently evil. We commit evil thoughts and actions though. It's like a chemical addiction. Sometimes we want to quit, sometimes we are happily (sadly) addicted, the more you partake the higher the frequency (I'm thinking anger and tantrums here), you can choose to share it with others or intervene, and you can bet it affects all parts of our life.

shooter_john
March 9, 2012, 07:07 AM
If someone was choking you, would you be able to stop your panic? I'm sure he stopped fighting, but when the panic set in he started again. Hard to tell the difference, isn't it?


The survivor had tried to do nothing but de-escalate/ end the situation... Why should I assume that suddenly he decided that "hey you know what, I'm going to go ahead and kill this guy."

I'm all ears as to how your "sure" he stopped fighting, other than going unconscious. I can think of a couple of nearly universal ways to "say uncle" or tap out... Granted this wasn't a fair fight, but I still believe that the survivor intentions were much more innocent than the aggressor's.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 9, 2012, 09:53 AM
Look at the size of the aggressor in the above link and the size of the hero in this one. How is that for a disparity of force?

Wow, if you had told me that 28yr old was the guy who choked out the 42yr old, I'd never have believed it. That is a big disparity in size. I'm guessing the 28yr old has some background in empty hand skills (high school wrestling?) to be able to pull that off.

Furminator
March 9, 2012, 09:57 AM
If the information that's coming out about this incident is true, then the guy who died got what he was asking for. The fact of the matter is that there are men out there who use their size advantage to intimidate people smaller than them. They get used to it, they get off on it. They're arrogant, but sometimes the stars are in the right alignment and they get their just reward.

This reminds me of something that happened about 10 years ago when I was living in Seattle. There was a college athlete, probably intoxicated, who was walking down a city street kicking people as hard as he could in the rear. Just random people that he did not even know. He ripped open a car door (I don't know why) and the fellow sitting in the car, not knowing what the hell was going on, used his legally carried handgun and shot the kid, who eventually died. The shooting was ruled justified.

brickeyee
March 9, 2012, 11:42 AM
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

ScottRiqui
March 9, 2012, 12:27 PM
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Just wanted to let you know I'm stealing that! :D

TexasJustice7
March 9, 2012, 02:56 PM
Furminator: If the information that's coming out about this incident is true, then the guy who died got what he was asking for. The fact of the matter is that there are men out there who use their size advantage to intimidate people smaller than them. They get used to it, they get off on it. They're arrogant, but sometimes the stars are in the right alignment and they get their just reward.

This reminds me of something that happened about 10 years ago when I was living in Seattle. There was a college athlete, probably intoxicated, who was walking down a city street kicking people as hard as he could in the rear. Just random people that he did not even know. He ripped open a car door (I don't know why) and the fellow sitting in the car, not knowing what the hell was going on, used his legally carried handgun and shot the kid, who eventually died. The shooting was ruled justified.

I am pretty good size, but I am old. A blow to my stomach might kill me because of some documented medical problems I have. So in an encounter I will use deadly force before I will allow someone to attack me with their fists.
It helps that I live in Texas where we do not have to be assaulted first. And if we are assaulted first, nobody can guarantee that they won't take my guns from be and use them on me. I would try to walk away from a confrontation regardless, but if someone thinks they going to get a free bite, there are no free bites.

TailGator
March 9, 2012, 03:16 PM
Getting road rage and starting a fist fight does not equate evil. It equates stupidity. Getting road rage and taking a gun out to kill the other guy is evil. Huge difference.

We don't need to look past this story to prove that fist fights can be fatal. I don't see it as a "huge difference" that one is willing to beat someone to death and the other supposedly more evil person is willing to shoot someone to death. Resorting to violence without justification seems inherently evil to my simple mind.

farmerboy
March 9, 2012, 03:53 PM
agways be armed when you can, avoid any and all conflicts when possible even when its a guy 5'0" and 195#s. a little guy with a gun and you with nothing can still make a bad day for you. and dont think you can call 911 and the cops will be there in 30 seconds and fix all your problems! More like 45 minutes here and take care of whats already happened. Most of all use your head and be calm but defend yourself, family, friends and others. Call 911 asap but do anything and everything you need to do to take care of the situation.

Double Naught Spy
March 9, 2012, 05:58 PM
I can get philosophical with this, but I won't. A man in anger isn't inherently evil, he didn't leave the house with the intention to be an evil man that day. He got angry, lost his control, and acted like a kid throwing a tantrum. If you have never been angry and wanted to hit someone, you're lying. I understand control, and I'm sure he did too, but everyone slips. He didn't deserve to die for it.

He didn't deserve to die for it? Well gosh, he should have thought of that before trying to harm somebody much smaller than he was, huh? The ironic thing was he undoubtedly thought Darling an easy target. Darling didn't deserve to be attacked by the person who crashed into him from behind, did he?

What Welton did or did not deserve out of life changed markedly when he violent attacked Darling, beating him to the ground, and continuing to press on the assault. He could have stopped at any time from before making the first threat, throwing the first punch, but he didn't.

A sampling of the internet, lots of people engaged in criminal acts and threatening or using force and/or lethal force to attempt to cause serious bodily harm or death all have believers that say that the deceased didn't deserve to die. Committing criminal acts involving such violence and the threat of violence and lethal force is a very high risk endeavor. Those engaging in those activities may not 'deserve' to die for them as you suggest, but voluntarily give up what they deserve when they commit their violent acts.

Getting road rage and starting a fist fight does not equate evil. It equates stupidity. Getting road rage and taking a gun out to kill the other guy is evil. Huge difference.

Yep, the difference is huge. The difference is that if you are the one attempting to do serious bodily harm to another person illegaly and get caught or killed in the event, you or your loved ones explain it away as having attempted to do something stupid. When you are the intended viction, the person apparently trying to alter your anatomy or cease your life is evil or is doing evil.

Resorting to violence without justification seems inherently evil to my simple mind.
It certainly isn't the act of goodness, is it? Welton was not performing the role of a good samaritan trying to help out Darling and his family after he crashed into to them, was he? So yeah, violence without justification certainly does seem evil, especially if you are the one the violence is directed towards.

Double Naught Spy
March 9, 2012, 11:08 PM
It seems that headlocks are all the rage of late, though I am not sure they are necessarily the right tool for all situations...
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/national/good-samaritan-puts-bank-robber-in-a-headlock-20100910

Here, the robber also died and no charges were filed...
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/High-School-Wrestlers-Headlock-Robber-Death-Gian-Davis-Prosecutors-138978054.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1132134/War-veteran-83-armed-robber-headlock-men-half-age-stood-by.html

Check out the guy in the wheelchair doing a headlock takedown and then other samaritans uses it as well...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71VCOWw-Zvg

Stevie-Ray
March 9, 2012, 11:29 PM
Seems to me a bully was shown the door. Yes, it's too bad the door was to the hereafter, but he made that choice, not the other guy. I might have done the same thing just trying to get the guy to quit. I seriously doubt he meant to kill him. Not so sure, OTOH, the decedent wasn't going for at least great bodily harm.