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 .
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."
 
Absolutely wrong.

He attacked them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lcpiper said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You can only see the guy take what looks like a swing
Click to expand...

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.
 
IMO, based just on what I observed in the video and read in the article, the couple were the aggressors, they were criminally in the wrong; the woman because she escalated the danger by bringing a handgun to her husband who was at the time engaged in a criminal assault.

It's idiots like this who put the great majority--the lawful gun owners--cast in a bad light. They make things harder and fule efforts to attack our legitimate rights. I hope they get the book throw at them with prejudice.
 
In self defense one is not required to wait and see if the threat really means it. Threats don't get the benefit of the doubt. That's a foolish standard to impose on anyone.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. While you're not legally obligated to 'absorb the first blow' before you're justified in acting in self-defense, you also have to be mindful as to whether your actions are going to make you the "aggressor" in the eyes of the law.

If someone comes up and takes a swing at you but misses, you're probably okay at that point to defend yourself - you don't have to wait for him to actually hit you. But if someone comes up to you yelling angrily, you're probably not justified in punching him in the mouth at that point, unless he's voicing a credible threat of doing you harm right then and there.
 
If they are aggressively in my face yelling I am not waiting to see if they pull a weapon next. I am going to protect myself.

Acts of aggression are credible threats.
 
You can't see everything nor can you hear anything. How is it not possible that he was actually threatened first.

I am just saying that you can't tell, just by that video, that the older guy was absolutely beyond any shade of a doubt unjustified in his actions.

People keep harping on the guy following them for 40 minutes. But there is nothing said about what else might have been happening during those 40 minutes.

All you do know is what you see on the video, and some of what the reporter has been told.

I am only saying there is more then just what we have seen, and we can't be sure that we are even seeing what we think we are seeing.
 
If they are aggressivley in my face yelling I am not waiting to see if they pull a weapon next. I am going to protect myself.
Click to expand...

And depending on your idea of "protecting yourself", you may end up on the wrong side of the law and pay dearly for it.

It's your choice, obviously, but always remember that your notion of what's "right, just and fair" may not always align with the law.
 
lcpiper said:
You can't see everything nor can you hear anything. How is it not possible that he was actually threatened first.

I am just saying that you can't tell, just by that video, that the older guy was absolutely beyond any shade of a doubt unjustified in his actions.

People keep harping on the guy following them for 40 minutes. But there is nothing said about what else might have been happening during those 40 minutes.

All you do know is what you see on the video, and some of what the reporter has been told.

I am only saying there is more then just what we have seen, and we can't be sure that we are even seeing what we think we are seeing.
Click to expand...

It's the totality of the situation.

He followed THEM.

He was out of the situation and CAME BACK.

They, the kids in the truck, were on the phone with 911.

HE approached THEM.

HE made the first physically aggressive move.

THEY were in their vehicle and HE closed the distance and attacked.

There is NOTHING to suggest that the kids were aggressive and EVERY bit of available evidence suggests that HE was the aggressor and the kids were scared.

It makes ZERO difference what else happened in those 40 minutes. Even if there was actual violence, it had ended and is no longer relevant to "defense", which is moot anyway, since no one is claiming any physical contact prior to when he punched the kid in the truck. We know what DIDN'T happen. The kids didn't attack him. They didn't follow him. They didn't get out of the situation and come back. I don't care what ANYBODY "said". You can't attack people for words. It matters what they DID. He was clearly not scared, he voluntarily inserted himself back into a situation. That alone makes him the aggressor.

Just the simple fact that they called 911 gives them instant and substantial credibility. Victims call the police. Attackers rarely do.

I simply can not imagine and other reasonable conclusions.
 
ScottRiqui said:
And depending on your idea of "protecting yourself", you may end up on the wrong side of the law and pay dearly for it.

It's your choice, obviously, but always remember that your notion of what's "right, just and fair" may not always align with the law.
Click to expand...

Of course.
There is a spectrum of behavior that falls under the concept of "self defense."
Every situation will have its own variables. I do have enough trust in my knowledge of the law of my state and my ability to intuit a situation to respond in a legally defensible manner.
 
Brian you must have researched more info then just what is available from the link because much of what you assert isn't even suggested in the article.

It doesn't matter, if he goes to court he'll have his day.
 
North Carolina actually differentiates between defending one's self and defending another. The devil's in the details here, and possibly how the different parties will attempt to interpret the law.

But the law states that an individual may not use deadly force to halt an attack on another unless the person being assaulted is down and unable to defend themselves. But considering that the wife in this situation did not actually use "deadly force" , she will likely avoid the self defense issue entirely. However, NC does have something referred to as 'assault by pointing'. So my guess is that she will probably be convicted of assault.

The rest of the matter is difficult to speculate on. The bottom line is that regardless of the law, the man should not have pursued the younger drivers. As law abiding armed citizens, basic common sense dictates that we avoid violent confrontations if at all possible.

If he did indeed intentionally pursue the other individuals, he will be found guilty. Of what, I don't know. NC law requires that he stand down if his safety or that of his his family is not under immediate threat.
 
Clear case of "Gun-dependent Pride Restoration" therapy.

Mr Angry was busy being a macho tough guy. He then ceased being a macho tough guy when he was handed his behind, partly thanks to frantic windmilling by one of the teens.

So, logically, he decided that shooting at someone was the best means of getting back in Alpha position.

Would be pretty pathetic if it weren't so dangerous. He could have ended up with life without parole, or worse because some bloke made him brake on a public road...:rolleyes:

I bet if it had been a woman driver he would have settled for red-in-the-face screaming of obscenities out of the window.

I come across so many like that where I live: all to ready to think with their testosterone, rather than their brains...

One thing puzzles me:
Who was filming and why didn't they even shake the camera when he appeared pointing a gun a mere 45 degrees and 3 yards off from their position?

This is a genuine incident, I presume...
 
Last edited:
the 911 call was later after the guy left and then CAME back and shot out the truck window. everything I saw on the vid points to them (the guy and his wife being in the wrong.)

but then I'm just an arm chair lawyer. lol
 
I'll bet that the verdict comes down to the real life experiences of the jurors. If only one juror has ever been "baited" by aggressive younger drivers, then there is a good chance that that juror would not vote to convict the older guy (especially if the younger driver's actions nearly resulted in a high speed wreck for the juror). And how is it that if one young guy was actually punched that the second young guy immediately gets to enter a fight - a fight that the older guy was immediately losing? That being said, I do agree that following a driver (who may have upset you) for purposes of confrontation is a foolish thing to do. As others have said, "What if the two younger guys had a firearm of their own?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top