The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 27, 2013, 01:57 PM   #1
RamItOne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Posts: 983
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
__________________
M&P- the other dark meat

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...rtant/DJyvnHz0
RamItOne is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 02:20 PM   #2
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,003
Saw it too, adult is quite clearly in the wrong every step of the way, I hope he fries.
__________________
NCO of Marines, 3rd Award Expert Rifle, 236 KD Range
D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! OEF 21JUN-20SEP2011
REV. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Tucker 1371 is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 03:45 PM   #3
cvc944
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.
cvc944 is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 03:49 PM   #4
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvc944
At first the gun was used for self-defense.
No it wasn't. He initiated the confrontation.

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.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; March 27, 2013 at 03:55 PM.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 03:50 PM   #5
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,821
Quote:
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.
I concur.

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.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 03:52 PM   #6
ScottRiqui
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.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 03:54 PM   #7
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,743
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
BarryLee is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 03:58 PM   #8
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,091
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.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 03:58 PM   #9
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryLee
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?
Yeah... the case I'd make would be "Aiding and Abetting".
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 04:02 PM   #10
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
well-deserved butt-kicking he was getting.
I am not entirely sure about the well deserved part.

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
lcpiper is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 05:19 PM   #11
Rifleman1952
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 1, 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
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.
Rifleman1952 is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 06:02 PM   #12
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcpiper
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 ....
Absolutely wrong.

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!
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 06:08 PM   #13
cvc944
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2013
Location: Lenhartsville, PA
Posts: 164
Quote:
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?
Good question. I can't blame her for trying to save her husband's bacon. I just hope she isn't charged as an accomplice and suffers as a result of his stupidity. She didn't appear to be very happy to be involved in the whole thing, and did have kids in the car to think about.
cvc944 is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 06:10 PM   #14
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
Good question. I can't blame her for trying to save her husband's bacon. I just hope she isn't charged as an accomplice and suffers as a result of his stupidity. She didn't appear to be very happy to be involved in the whole thing, and did have kids in the car to think about.
From the article, it sounds like she's facing two assault charges for pointing the gun at the truck occupants.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 06:15 PM   #15
mete
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 5,386
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 !
mete is offline  
Old March 27, 2013, 06:18 PM   #16
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
When you're carrying - LEAVE YOUR MACHO AT HOME !!

This case may very well be one of "they deserved each other"
True - since I started carrying years ago, my constant question has evolved from "Am I in the right?" to "Can I avoid court entirely?"
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 09:40 AM   #17
dajowi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 977
More ammunition for the anti-gun crowd.
dajowi is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 01:50 PM   #18
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,091
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).
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 02:18 PM   #19
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
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 agree, up to a point. One can't be 100% sure from the video, but from the sudden way the two younger men disengaged, I inferred that they probably did so on seeing the wife with the gun. So what she did up to that point was reasonable. But can she be held responsible in any way for what her husband did after she handed him the gun? I have no idea.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 02:26 PM   #20
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,128
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.
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 02:29 PM   #21
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,091
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."
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 04:19 PM   #22
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
Absolutely wrong.

He attacked them.
Like I said, it does "look like the dude punched the driver", but you can't be sure from that video, he might have hit the seat rest and never touched the kid.

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
lcpiper is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 04:38 PM   #23
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcpiper
Like I said, it does "look like the dude punched the driver", but you can't be sure from that video, he might have hit the seat rest and never touched the kid.
Why do you think it would make a difference if he swung at the driver and missed? Even if he meant to miss the young man, that's still assault (the threat of violence) in most places. The two young men then defended themselves with force of the same kind they were threatened with, and continued until the threat was stopped (the man was on the ground) -- they then disengaged.

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.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 04:53 PM   #24
lcpiper
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
lcpiper is offline  
Old March 28, 2013, 04:59 PM   #25
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
You can only see the guy take what looks like a swing
and if it IS a swing, it is enough and if it looks like a swing... what else would it be?

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.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13679 seconds with 10 queries