|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
View Poll Results: Road rage or was the gun used for SD | |||
Road rage | 33 | 91.67% | |
Self defense | 3 | 8.33% | |
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 27, 2013, 01:57 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Posts: 990
|
Lawful use of a gun?
Just watched this on foxnews, they had one lawyer for each point of view.
I definitely believe the adult was wrong in the situation, first off he follows them for 40 minutes after they cut him off in traffic, throws the first punch then gets his rear end walloped by the two teens. Now the aggressor certainly became the weaker of the two sides. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2950918.html |
March 27, 2013, 02:20 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,649
|
Saw it too, adult is quite clearly in the wrong every step of the way, I hope he fries.
__________________
Sgt. of Marines, 5th Award Expert Rifle, 237/250 Expert Pistol, 382/400. D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! If you start a thread, be active in it. Don't leave us hanging. OEF 2011 Sangin, Afg. Molon Labe |
March 27, 2013, 03:45 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2013
Location: Lenhartsville, PA
Posts: 164
|
At first the gun was used for self-defense. He really had no idea when those kids were going to end the well-deserved butt-kicking he was getting. But they soon stopped and then he decided to shoot up their truck just in case they weren't fully aware of how angry he was. That was the road rage part.
|
March 27, 2013, 03:49 PM | #4 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Not only initiated but had untold numbers of opportunities to disengage before anything came remotely close to violence or self defense on either side. He was the instigator and the first to be physically violent. Once he was physically violent, the kids had the right to defend themselves and each other until he was no longer a threat. The kids were defending themselves, if anything. The shooter is 100% wrong in every step of the way.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; March 27, 2013 at 03:55 PM. |
|
March 27, 2013, 03:50 PM | #5 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
Even if they had started it, and had thrown the first punch, which I understand they did not, as soon as they disengaged, the threat is ended. Anything after that is assault with a deadly weapon on his part, and not self defense. |
|
March 27, 2013, 03:52 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
I think the "road rage" might have come in a bit earlier, when the suspect followed the other drivers and then assaulted one of them. I think he's going to be (rightfully, IMO) determined to be the "aggressor" right from the start.
EDIT - Scooped by Brian....again. |
March 27, 2013, 03:54 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
So, what about the wife being charged? She may not have agreed with her husband chasing the truck and only produced the gun once it was clear he was taking a beating. Could the case be made that she was only responding to protect her husband?
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
March 27, 2013, 03:58 PM | #8 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
I'm not sure about NC law, where this is alleged to have happened, but under Arkansas law, the dude with the gun would be in trouble:
1) Assault; 2) Battery; 3) Terroristic threatening; 4) Aggravated Assault; 5) Aggravated Battery. That's just what I see from that little clip.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
March 27, 2013, 03:58 PM | #9 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
March 27, 2013, 04:02 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Quote:
It looks like he punched the driver, but what if he didn't? They were all over him pretty viciously. They only stopped when the woman came out with the gun. She shouldn't have given it to the guy, he was certainly going to be in a worked up state at this point. She should have just run them off to end the fight. He was wrong in firing it but after the way they jumped on him it would be hard to see him use any restraint. Even if he did hit the driver, their response was over the top because he didn't continue to attack him. Being the aggressor and hitting someone certainly means he is guilty of Battery, but it isn't an open door to retaliate in this manner. It's only self defense if the attack continues, it didn't. Two wrongs .... If they just angered him, that's one thing, if they actually nearly caused a terrible accident, he wasn't wrong to follow and talk with them about it when they finally stopped. Foolish perhaps, but not wrong. Anyway ... even with video it isn't that easy to say more then he shouldn't have pulled that trigger.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
|
March 27, 2013, 05:19 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 1, 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 284
|
If you have a CCW permit, and are carrying a firearm, you cannot let stupid people get under your skin. It's just not worth it. Even if a jury finds the adult shooter not guilty, it's still going to cost him thousands of dollars in legal fees; perhaps tens of thousands.
If a couple of young punks cut me off on the highway, so be it. If they were driving recklessly, perhaps impaired by drugs/alcohol, I may call 911 and report it, but I am not going to chase after them. Now if someone runs me off the road into a ditch, and then starts approaching, with a baseball bat, that's another matter. |
March 27, 2013, 06:02 PM | #12 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
He attacked them. Their response is self-defense. They had stopped and backed off. They did not continue to pummel him. They reasonably ended the threat and stopped attacking. He responds with a gun. He initiated the attack, he is the aggressor. The aggressor can't decide that he doesn't like victims who fight back and then decide to escalate the attack. If you punch someone and they punch back, can you attack them with a knife? If the aggressor draws a knife and the defender draws a gun, is the aggressor LAWFULLY "defending" himself if he also draws a gun? I'm amazed that this is even a question. The guy with the gun over-reacted from the very beginning of this situation. He followed those kids for 40 MINUTES. 40 MINUTES! Over a perceived TRAFFIC VIOLATION! Then he went past them and CAME BACK! Then he ATTACKED the driver. The driver and his friend defended the driver. Remember, self defense is defense of others too. If a mugger attacks someone and the victim's friends come and help him, can the mugger start shooting people and claim self defense? Insanity!
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
March 27, 2013, 06:08 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 17, 2013
Location: Lenhartsville, PA
Posts: 164
|
Quote:
|
|
March 27, 2013, 06:10 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Quote:
|
|
March 27, 2013, 06:15 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 6,575
|
When you're carrying - LEAVE YOUR MACHO AT HOME !!
This case may very well be one of "they deserved each other"
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver ! |
March 27, 2013, 06:18 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Quote:
|
|
March 28, 2013, 09:40 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 1,196
|
More ammunition for the anti-gun crowd.
|
March 28, 2013, 01:50 PM | #18 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Driver 1 (the aggressor who followed Driver 2 for 40 minutes) is, quite frankly, lucky that Driver 2 wasn't carrying! D2 would have had a decent SD argument. Think about it: some guy follows them for 40 minutes, blocks them in, and reaches in to punch him while he's still in the truck . . .
Once D1 got his beating, though . . . win, lose or draw, the threat was gone. Time to stop the shootin'. I don't think I agree with charging the wife with anything. I haven't watched the video since yesterday (& I've slept since then), but as I recall, she didn't come out and draw until after her darling hubby had taken his beating. At that point, I think she's got a reasonable "defense of others" argument (at least under AR law, don't know about NC).
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
March 28, 2013, 02:18 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
March 28, 2013, 02:26 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,315
|
It would go much better for her if she had retained the firearm. As soon as she passed it to him it's escalation. I bet they are both done as to ever legally owning a firearm goes.
|
March 28, 2013, 02:29 PM | #21 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Hard to say without going to look at the NC statutes, which I don't really have time to do today. It's likely to hinge on whether a particular statute says "knowingly," or something like "knowing or having reasonable cause to know."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
March 28, 2013, 04:19 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Quote:
Before you tell me I am absolutely wrong make sure you can prove your absolutely right.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
|
March 28, 2013, 04:38 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
If someone fired a gun at you and missed, I think you'd feel entitled to shoot back in self-defense right then, rather than waiting until you'd been struck by a bullet.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
March 28, 2013, 04:53 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Vanya I didn't say missed, and what is important is that everyone assumes from the video that he struck the driver but you can't actually see what happened. You can only see the guy take what looks like a swing. And for most here that seems to be proof enough.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
March 28, 2013, 04:59 PM | #25 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
There's always some level of assumption, but there's "I assume we were put on earth by aliens" assumptions and there's "I assume the sun will rise tomorrow." assumptions. I simply can not imagine any reasonable assumptions that he did not intend and did not in fact actually commit assault. I've watched the video, several times. I'd have to be the attackers defense attorney to make any other argument with a straight face. And, it is "proof" enough. This isn't a court. He is LEGALLY "innocent until proven guilty". That's not the standard for reasonable discussion.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|