quote:

Originally posted by XLT:
I have replayed the first shot over and over and can't tell if he was shot at first, just the way he ducts down like he is being shot at …

I noticed this too. HE thinks he was being shot at. I’m NOT saying he isn’t an idiot for engaging, brake checking, etc. Clearly the smart thing would be to stay the hell away, take an exit, disengage, etc. BUT, he does have something to work with as a defense. I’ll bet his story is that occupants in the other vehicle brandished a weapon, so he retrieved his, and when they pulled up next to him he thought he was under fire. I’m not sure if he shot before the water bottle hit his window, but if someone in that car was pointing a pistol at him he didn’t have to wait to be fired upon.

AGAIN, I’m NOT defending his behavior. I’m just pointing out some legal arguments to be made, as I don’t think this is a slam dunk for the prosecution as many of you do. I don’t think he’ll be going away for a long time as many of you do.

I'm with honestlou on this.

quote:

1) the actor would be justified in using deadly force to defend against an attack because the actor reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to protect the actor from the unlawful use of force; or 2) when the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to defend against illegal use of unlawful deadly force.

Behavior aside, if he thought he was being shot at, then he has a valid defense. I believe what I'm seeing him do in that video is a natural reaction. Pure instinct kicking in.

I suppose a jury will hear the entire story with testimony from both sides to get a better understanding of all of the events leading up to that moment. But putting on my Judge Judy hat, if two people start something and one gets the bad end of it, then let that be a lesson. Engaging in road rage and throwing water bottles at other cars isn't smart either. Don't start none, won't be none.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I believe what I'm seeing him do in that video is a natural reaction. Pure instinct kicking in.

What I see in that video is a coward who is using a firearm to remedy his actions which started this mess.

Watch in that second video how slowly he retrieves his pistol. Heavy traffic, but did he attempt to switch lanes? Did he get his phone ready to make an emergency call? No, he went right to his pistol as his first solution, and before there was any need to do so. Guys like this do not help their fellow gunowners in any way.

This guy probably has never won a fistfight in his life, and that's assuming he even had the courage to brace another man without using a weapon.

That idiot had been itching to shoot someone for a long time.

People like him give us all a total black eye

^^^ This is what I saw too, the shooter did nothing to deescalate the situation. He was, essentially, waiting for the other to pull up next him and give him a reason ("I thought he was shooting at me first") to unload his mag.

Also seems as though he was considering releasing the empty mag to reload? (I'm probably reading too much into his actions though)

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I'm with honestlou on this.

quote:

1) the actor would be justified in using deadly force to defend against an attack because the actor reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to protect the actor from the unlawful use of force; or 2) when the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to defend against illegal use of unlawful deadly force.

Behavior aside, if he thought he was being shot at, then he has a valid defense. I believe what I'm seeing him do in that video is a natural reaction. Pure instinct kicking in.

I suppose a jury will hear the entire story with testimony from both sides to get a better understanding of all of the events leading up to that moment. But putting on my Judge Judy hat, if two people start something and one gets the bad end of it, then let that be a lesson. Engaging in road rage and throwing water bottles at other cars isn't smart either. Don't start none, won't be none.

FWIW: An "imperfect" self-defense claim (simple, but unreasonable belief) isn't enough to justify the use of deadly force in a case like this. An offender could just as easily make such a claim because the other vehicle simply drove up alongside his, to do stupid stuff such as shouting epithets, using "inappropriate hand signals", or (as in this case) throwing a water bottle at his vehicle.

In Minneapolis, former police officer Mohamed Noor was properly convicted of MURDER after he unjustifiably shot a woman who'd call the police to report a suspicious situation, then approached the responding officers' vehicle to speak with them about it. You don't set the behavior aside if it's inappropriate given the totality of the circumstances. The vast majority of cops (including Noor's partner) wouldn't start blasting away at someone that unexpectedly approached their police car, and I hope/believe that the vast majority of lawfully armed citizens wouldn't start blasting away at another motorist as in this case. The word: Reasonable is key here, and while his attorney will no doubt claim his actions were reasonable, I believe the finder of fact (judge or jury) will reject it.

If you're concerned enough to carry a firearm in public for defensive purposes, you should be knowledgeable enough to know when lethal force is lawful and disciplined enough to refrain from using it "by pure instinct."

https://apnews.com/article/imm...46d0af73e46cee9902d0

I don't have a problem with him having his gun drawn. Cops have their weapons ready all the time when there's a potential threat. A driver operating a 1-2 ton vehicle with rear position and has displayed aggressive behavior is most definitely a threat.

Everything that happens after the gun is drawn is going to be tough to defend.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
Para, What I do or don't do in that regard is my business and no one else's.

Oh please.

If you were that concerned about being “the gray man” you wouldn’t have 16k posts on a gun forum; not to mention posts that discuss the type of holster you use when you carry.

get over yourself.

If you are going to toss something at a car in Miami then you best expect to see someone pull dey gat and pop off a mag.. Shit gets real down there, ain't no Tubbs and Crocket nearby gonna help yo ass....

No brains, no self control and was itching for a fight.
Dumbass and now he'll pay for it.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
That idiot had been itching to shoot someone for a long time.

People like him give us all a total black eye

Yeah seems he was predetermined to shoot regardless of what the other driver did.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
People like him give us all a total black eye

I disagree: He didn’t give me a black eye or give any of the other countless responsible gun owners a black eye any more than he gave all other drivers a black eye by his reckless driving. And if anyone were foolish enough to equate me with him because we both are gun owners, I would explain very clearly why that claim is diseased thinking.

If it seems like I’m overly sensitive to that common sentiment’s being expressed by a gun owner it’s because we are one of the few groups whose members are too willing to accept the blame for someone else’s acts. Others will continue to blame us all for the acts of an aberrant few, but we don’t have to do it to ourselves—or accept it when it’s assigned by others.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
People like him give us all a total black eye

I disagree: He didn’t give me a black eye or give any of the other countless responsible gun owners a black eye any more than he gave all other drivers a black eye by his reckless driving. And if anyone were foolish enough to equate me with him because we both are gun owners, I would explain very clearly why that claim is diseased thinking.

If it seems like I’m overly sensitive to that common sentiment’s being expressed by a gun owner it’s because we are one of the few groups whose members are too willing to accept the blame for someone else’s acts. Others will continue to blame us all for the acts of an aberrant few, but we don’t have to do it to ourselves—or accept it when it’s assigned by others.

sigfreund makes a lot of sense here. The "Mothers Demand" group in particular takes everything bad that's done with a gun and then tries to say that all gunowners are acting this way, or might act this way at some unpredictable point in the future when they "snap".

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
Para, What I do or don't do in that regard is my business and no one else's.

Oh please.

If you were that concerned about being “the gray man” you wouldn’t have 16k posts on a gun forum; not to mention posts that discuss the type of holster you use when you carry.

get over yourself.

LOL

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I'm with honestlou on this.

quote:

1) the actor would be justified in using deadly force to defend against an attack because the actor reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to protect the actor from the unlawful use of force; or 2) when the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to defend against illegal use of unlawful deadly force.

Behavior aside, if he thought he was being shot at, then he has a valid defense. I believe what I'm seeing him do in that video is a natural reaction. Pure instinct kicking in.

I suppose a jury will hear the entire story with testimony from both sides to get a better understanding of all of the events leading up to that moment. But putting on my Judge Judy hat, if two people start something and one gets the bad end of it, then let that be a lesson. Engaging in road rage and throwing water bottles at other cars isn't smart either. Don't start none, won't be none.

Quite a bit more gray than people might originally think, for both of the reasons described here. Cameras don’t always capture all of the action at the same time, or even the same frame rate, as a human actor would.

This cuts both ways. Force Science Institute has demonstrated that officers perceive less than the camera, so officers would not benefit from facts later revealed by analysis of the video; paradoxically, camera also manages to miss interpretation of events having different codecs for sound and video. And one of the most compelling examples shows a gunshot that was alleged to of occurred after a suspect had his hand raised, but forensic analysis of the film and comparison of light and sound difference based on distance between the officer and the suspect demonstrated that the shot occurred roughly a half second before the suspect raised his arms.

Honestlou has a good summary of the rule in most jurisdictions. The only change that I would make is that the events are viewed through the lens of a reasonable person without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Para also correctly notes that engaging in behavior likely to cause affray, or putting one in danger purposefully, undermines any claim that a reasonable person would face a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to himself or others. This is especially true when engaging in conduct that poses a threat to innocent bystanders. Pullicord’s example is an excellent one.

In this particular case, it would be difficult but not impossible for prosecutor to prove first-degree murder in the event that the alleged assailant was killed but I do think a second-degree murder charge but at least make it past preliminary hearing and likely get pled to voluntary manslaughter. Any death of an innocent bystander within likely fall under the felony murder rule in most jurisdictions. Old Rugged Cross has some good arguments that demonstrate why it’s not a slam dunk on first degree murder;

This guy would be extremely lucky to avoid prosecution for assault with a dangerous weapon, both against the alleged assailant and potential bystanders.

Either way, it sounds like nearly everybody in this thread agrees that this is terminally stupid and one should avoid putting himself in this situation as much as possible. I really like the “don’t start none won’t be none” mindset, especially in light of the political climate that might influence potential jurors or even prosecutors that might be in the crosshairs of pressure by PACs like Sigfruend mentioned.

He waited until the other car was even and then ambushed them. He could have slowed down and let them pass. His chance of successfully defending himself was non-existent. He will get a pass because he is special

quote:

Originally posted by oldbill123:
He will get a pass because he is special

How is he special?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by oldbill123:
He will get a pass because he is special

How is he special?

I’d say he has a great chance of demonstrating that he’s developmentally disabled. Or at least far below average intelligence… Picking a fight in a crowded area with a chance of injuring bystanders for a road rage incident certainly makes me question his capacity.

“Your Honor, I’m not stupid but I certainly know stupid when I see it.“

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
For anyone who thinks this was or could have been a righteous shoot and wonder how they would react in a similar situation, give some thought to tactics.

Even assuming that someone is actually shooting at you from another vehicle rather than just being a “thought,” is the best response to start firing wildly from inside one’s own vehicle? There are other, better responses, and the best is to try to maneuver one’s vehicle to get out of the line of fire. Even professional bodyguards are trained that as long as the vehicle is in motion, the driver’s responsibility is to drive.
Having a gun doesn’t always make exchanging shots the best idea, or even a very good one.

"Skinny pedal on the right." That was the first response to most questions in the vehicle defense class I took.

I guess I am getting accustomed to certain groups not being charged because of their upbringing