Firing at a fleeing individual is attempted murder. The context only matters during sentencing.

I am fairly sure this was a setup on the part of the driver. He thought if he could harass the BF of his ex-GF enough, the current BF would lash out.

So the current BF lashed out and the driver just happened to have his cell phone ready to video, and he had a convenient but untruthful reason for parking there.

The shooter took the bait, and now is in legal trouble. I had a scumbag try this on my once, he obtain a TRO on me using a phony proof of service. After the SO deputy served me with the court order, I was able to reverse the TRO before the scumbag entrapped me.

Those scumbags often are not working and much free time to dream up ways of entrapping their adversary.

quote:

I am fairly sure this was a setup on the part of the driver.

That is very possible. Who would calmly sit there and record while being threatened like that? Unfortunately, the shooter should not have shot at him. By driving away, any threat there may have been was over at that point.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Ah... The S&W Smegma. Because only a lunatic would own one.

(The driver's actually lucky that this asshole was wielding a Sigma, otherwise he might have actually hit him.)

But, but, but, it's $200 cheaper than a Glock.

quote:

Originally posted by tleo205:

quote:

I am fairly sure this was a setup on the part of the driver.

That is very possible. Who would calmly sit there and record while being threatened like that? Unfortunately, the shooter should not have shot at him. By driving away, any threat there may have been was over at that point.

That plan could’ve backfired quite spectacularly had the guy actually capped his ass in the noggin!

[QUOTE
I completely understand and respect private property, but some of these rural property owners are completely ready to use force, including deadly force, to enforce their property rights, and we who spend time recreating in remote areas best keep that in mind.[/QUOTE]

I thought no one owned the waterway so as long as you were in the river and not on the bank you should have been good to go. That guy was a jerk and any object thrown from several feet up could have caused serious injury or death so you may have been justified to use deadly force. You demonstrated excellent restraint in not drawing you pistol.

quote:

Originally posted by calugo:
[QUOTE
I completely understand and respect private property, but some of these rural property owners are completely ready to use force, including deadly force, to enforce their property rights, and we who spend time recreating in remote areas best keep that in mind.

I thought no one owned the waterway so as long as you were in the river and not on the bank you should have been good to go. That guy was a jerk and any object thrown from several feet up could have caused serious injury or death so you may have been justified to use deadly force. You demonstrated excellent restraint in not drawing you pistol.[/QUOTE]

As it was explained to me years ago, as long as your feet weren't touching land, either the dry shore banks or river bottom, then a person was allowed to traverse a stretch of privately owned river. This is what allows white water rafters/ kayakers to float on public water through stretches of private water.

When moving along rivers, as an angler, there are circumstances in which it is best to be wading in the river, but at other times, partly in a desire not to spook fish and also due to river hazards, when it makes better sense to walk on dry banks along the river edge. So, to be clear, there were times when I was walking the banks rather than wading. At the time of the rock throwing, I was well into the water, but apparently on private land.

I didn't realize it when the first rock was thrown, but after the last rock was thrown and the man shouted "how's the fishing now?", I then realized that his intent may be to ruin my fishing, rather than intent to harm/ kill me, although I still question how much control he had in determining where the rocks landed or whether they would hit me.

I really need to take the time to research the specifics of state law re:traversing public water through private land.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
Modern Day Savage, that almost sounds like a scene from Deliverance. Does a private property owner also own the river? I thought rivers were public. Not the banks, but the river itself.

I'm glad it was not a scene from Deliverance...otherwise, I can assure you I would've both drawn and fired my revolver.

As I mentioned, based on how state law was explained to me probably 20+ years ago, was that the river water is public, however the dry banks of private land were private, and, although it appeared to be a "gray area" legally speaking, in stretches of private land along the water to include the river bottom...therefore rafters/ kayakers can legally float/ drift through, however anglers wading while their feet touching river bottom, may be trespassing on private land... however, I really do need to make the time to research and verify state law on this subject.

Our posts crossed on the wire, so I deleted mine.

Interesting that the law may hinge on touching the bottom. I’d always assumed that rivers were public, much like the way wildlife on your property still belongs to the people, not you. But I guess you can’t hunt on private property without permission either.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
Our posts crossed on the wire, so I deleted mine.

Interesting that the law may hinge on touching the bottom. I’d always assumed that rivers were public, much like the way wildlife on your property still belongs to the people, not you. But I guess you can’t hunt on private property without permission either.

If my understanding is correct, I believe that the private property owner retains mineral rights on the river bottom, so, for instance, if a person panning for gold started panning on public land and then moved onto private land along the river, they wouldn't be able to conduct panning activities or retain any gold from the portion of the river bottom adjacent to the private property, without first having permission from the property owner.

However, considering the circumstances of the incident in the OP, I personally believe that the act of turning around in a private property owner's driveway, by itself, to be a fairly minor transgression. It's the other circumstances, including previous threats and past associations, coupled with the driveway turnaround that elevate this incident.

https://www.9news.com/article/...68-af71-8d133a6e6349

CEO brandishes firearm at couple who mistakenly pull into his driveway. Charges filed: 2 felony menacing, and 3 misdemeanors, according to the article. In this case, the couple followed their GPS to the wrong house, while looking for a wedding party. Their presence in the driveway tripped a sensor. They backed out and left, but the CEO chased them in his truck, cut them off, and drew a handgun...and despite his initial denying he brandished the weapon, was caught on cell camera with it in his hand.

It's a driveway. Not Cheyenne Mountain.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
https://www.9news.com/article/...68-af71-8d133a6e6349

CEO brandishes firearm at couple who mistakenly pull into his driveway. Charges filed: 2 felony menacing, and 3 misdemeanors, according to the article. In this case, the couple followed their GPS to the wrong house, while looking for a wedding party. Their presence in the driveway tripped a sensor. They backed out and left, but the CEO chased them in his truck, cut them off, and drew a handgun...and despite his initial denying he brandished the weapon, was caught on cell camera with it in his hand.

It's a driveway. Not Cheyenne Mountain.

Well, that will cost him.

quote:

They backed out and left, but the CEO chased them in his truck, cut them off, and drew a handgun..

Crazy mofo deserves the book thrown at him.

I sense a lawsuit or maybe two against Apple. Reckless endangerment or some such from one. 'Negligent mapping' from the other.

quote:

In this case, the couple followed their GPS to the wrong house

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

They backed out and left, but the CEO chased them in his truck, cut them off, and drew a handgun..

Crazy mofo deserves the book thrown at him.

There was no threat, no confrontation; he chased them, and after pursuing, brandished a firearm and threatened. He may have thrown the book at himself, particularly after lying to police about it. He maintained his lie until confronted with photos.

When one has deep pockets, it behooves one not to endanger them with anger or stupidity.

I cant help but wonder if the conditions we have now in our society contribute to these type of events.
Lots of people are scared, angry and on edge. The ones that were minimally under control in the best of times are now set to go off with the merest trigger.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
There was no threat, no confrontation; he chased them, and after pursuing, brandished a firearm and threatened. He may have thrown the book at himself, particularly after lying to police about it. He maintained his lie until confronted with photos.

He's actually lucky he didn't chase and harass the wrong person and end up dead over absolutely nothing. Common sense appears not to be very common anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
.........He may have thrown the book at himself, particularly after lying to police about it. He maintained his lie until confronted with photos.

.......

Honest question.... How would lying to the police get him into more trouble? They are not feds, and he wasn't under oath, so how does it matter in the eyes of the law???

I realize it's a dumb thing to do, but does this really get him into more trouble?

It's no crime to lie to the cops.

Obstruction of justice I think