Lawful use of a gun?

Road rage or was the gun used for SD

  • Road rage

    Votes: 33 91.7%

  • Self defense

    Votes: 3 8.3%
  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
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 said:
At first the gun was used for self-defense.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. :D
 
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?
 
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.
 
BarryLee said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yeah... the case I'd make would be "Aiding and Abetting".
 
well-deserved butt-kicking he was getting.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
lcpiper said:
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 ....
Click to expand...

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!
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

From the article, it sounds like she's facing two assault charges for pointing the gun at the truck occupants.
 
When you're carrying - LEAVE YOUR MACHO AT HOME !!

This case may very well be one of "they deserved each other"
 
When you're carrying - LEAVE YOUR MACHO AT HOME !!

This case may very well be one of "they deserved each other"
Click to expand...

True - since I started carrying years ago, my constant question has evolved from "Am I in the right?" to "Can I avoid court entirely?"
 
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).
 
Spats said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top