Road rage shooting - both drivers claim self-defense

From what I've read...

... I would put much more blame on the 40yo.

One poster indicated he google-satellite-mapped what he thinks to be the intersection where the 21yo exited his vehicle, and that if it was the right intersection, then it's very possible the 21yo's Mustang was physically blocked in by the truck.

If that were the case, I wonder if everybody would be saying, "stay in the car."

The reason I ask that is because I've always been taught that if a vehicle is immobilized, it's the LAST place you want to be for a confrontation. You lose all mobility, and make a sitting target; meanwhile, your driver's door and window won't stop most rounds.

So, if the Mustang was actually blocked, then exiting the car may not have been "aggression" on the part of the 21yo, but a precaution. Same with his display of a weapon.

Also, the initial write-up indicated that the 21yo's "brake check" was caused by him slowing to allow another car to make a turn, not a "brake check" in the sense of flipping an automotive bird at the 40yo.

Those statements and assumptions could have been wrong, in which case I'd say they both screwed up, but I'd still assign more blame to the 40yo. But if those statements and assumptions were accurate, I'd accept a self-defense claim from the decedent, had he survived.
 
Ben Towe said:
Did he have the movie SWAT playing continually on his big screen?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking Training Day.

Reporter News timeline said:
Molina asks David, "What are you thinking?"
Click to expand...

Sounds like the only adult involved.

As to the rest, peetzakilla pretty much covered the waterfront.
 
My point was that the 21 year will be used as a specific example of bad behavior in an upcoming debate that would extend carry rights to a situation with such young folk.

The 40 year old could be used as an example of stupid CHLs in general. However, current legislation isn't affecting them.

Who's to blame wasn't my focus, rather it was the PR aspects.
 
What I still can't understand is why the other guy was not detained.

Im going to be really disappointed if this guy gets let off the hook.
 
When someone aggressively tailgates me, I calmly pull over to the side of the road and let them pass. I don't look at them as they pass and simply wait for them to achieve distance. As a rule, I never tailgate, no matter how slow the person in front of me is going. These two simply procedures assure that I will never run into idiots like these. And after 300,000 miles under my belt, I never have. Defensive driving is just another form of self defense.
 
You can choose to drive off in any direction, or you can decide to take cover inside of your vehicle if you are being fired upon.
Click to expand...
You think that staying in a car, offers great cover if you are being shot at? You think you can always drive off in any direction? What about being in traffic or in a tunnel or on a bridge or in an enclosed parking lot with limited space. If your car is boxed in and you cannot drive off do you think you should remain in the vehicle if someone is shooting at you? Think of how limited are your options if you remain in the car. Think of what poor cover much, if not most, of a car provides.

Try setting up car doors at a range and shoot at them with even a pea shooter round like 9mm. See what happens, maybe you will change your mind. While you are in the vehicle, hoping a guy shooting at you from outside keeps hitting the engine block, bear in mind that once he walks around to the side and starts shooting through the doors, you no longer have cover from a wide variety of rounds. If there are 2 guys shooting at you and they flank the car, what are you going to do to improve your chances of survival then remembering your car is boxed in or maybe that they just put 10 rounds into your engine block and it is not running. Of course, if some jerk jumps out of his car and tries to shoot you and your car is not boxed in, well then maybe you can escape or maybe even run down the threat but to choose staying in your vehicle to use it as cover in a gunfight, not if there chance I can get out of it without being shot first.

In the particular incident in question though, it would have been much better if they had both remained in their vehicles. It would also have been better if they had exhibited calmness and if both had driven courteously. It would also have been better to just give one another the finger and drive away if they had to get mad at one another.

All the best,
Glenn B
 
What I still can't understand is why the other guy was not detained.

Im going to be really disappointed if this guy gets let off the hook.
Click to expand...
Because there probably is much more to this story and the police are aware of it and you are not and they based their decision to let him walk based up what they know.

All the best,
GB
 
Both drivers in the wrong ... this is classic road rage, and the death of the motorist could have obviously been avoided if both men had simply driven away instead of pulling the macho man routine ... guns are there to help you solve life-threatening situations, not to blow away somebody who offended you in traffic ...
 
You think that staying in a car, offers great cover
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have said "most of the time" rather than "anytime". Most of the time, staying in your car is going to be the right tactical move. Most times when folks get out of their cars it's simply to puff their chests and start fights. I really don't think too many armed folks are going to actually find themselves boxed in to the point that it is advantageous to leave their vehicle. My vehicle is a Jeep with 4wd and good sized tires - I'm going to be able to go over just about anything, other than other cars to get away. If I was driving a Prius....well, that might be completely different.:D
 
I think if that situation had played out for me, I would not be the first one out of the car. I would have driven off and called 911. If the other driver pursued me after that, I would prepare for the worst.

If you have a chance to defuse the situation and don't, I would not think the court would smile at you.

Either way, a life is lost and another life pretty much hosed.

Not good.

Geetarman:D
 
I don't know, I see things a little different than most posters. From the meager info we have- and it is really meager- I think the whole stupid string of incidents would have come to nothing tragic if the 21 YO had not brandished the gun.

With that, I am not taking away any of the 40 YO's stupidity and provoking. But it was the 21 YO who unnecessarily escalated things to guns.

I think the defendant's lawyers will claim he acted in self defense both in the ramming of the mustang and in the shooting, as he was panic-stricken by the sight of the gun. And long shot as it is, they might get away with it.
 
micromontenegro said:
I think the defendant's lawyers will claim he acted in self defense both in the ramming of the mustang and in the shooting, as he was panic-stricken by the sight of the gun. And long shot as it is, they might get away with it.
Click to expand...


I'm sure the lawyers will try something like that but if the facts come out to be even REMOTELY close to what we have so far that will never fly.

There is no way that ramming a vehicle that is behind you at a light, stationary, with all associated persons inside is self defense unless their actually SHOOTING at you.


The descriptions of the 21yr old by his own family is quite telling.... "fearless and lived on the edge". What kind of person does that bring to mind? My opinion, that's the loving family's way of saying he never backed down and was aggressive and adversarial.... because that's the typical behavior of people I've known that have been described that way.

I suspect that descriptions of the shooter would be similar. Hot head meets hot head. One ends up dead.

Don't be a hot head. Don't hang out with people who are hotheads.
 
Good advice about the hotheads. Sometimes though, you do not realize who the hothead is.

Case in point, the band I am in was playing one Sunday in church, and one of the parishioners went to take communion. He printed and the bass player saw it.

After that service, he came up to me and asked what I thought about someone carrying in church. He was HOT!

I explained to him that the person in question, is a serving deputy sheriff.

He came to church from work and did not have a large enough shirt to adequately shield the weapon.

Just like a faucet, the anger was turned off. I have NEVER seen a person get so angry, so fast in my life. Those kinds of folks are all around us and you just don't know who they are. What is worse, you do not know what will set them off.

Geetarman:D
 
Read the articles if you're going to comment. The OP's account is a little confused.

I don't see a legitimate basis to the SD claim by the shooter. This seems like a straight-up murder. The fact that the victim had brandished a firearm before disengaging the initial encounter doesn't allow the perpetrator to then pursue and trap the victim in order shoot him in the head, in the course of 'self defense'. It not even apparent that the victim had his gun in hand when exiting his vehicle the second time. I'm guessing that the initial brandishing incident is what has muddied the waters, enabling an SD claim.
 
I don't know, I see things a little different than most posters. From the meager info we have- and it is really meager- I think the whole stupid string of incidents would have come to nothing tragic if the 21 YO had not brandished the gun.

With that, I am not taking away any of the 40 YO's stupidity and provoking. But it was the 21 YO who unnecessarily escalated things to guns.

I think the defendant's lawyers will claim he acted in self defense both in the ramming of the mustang and in the shooting, as he was panic-stricken by the sight of the gun. And long shot as it is, they might get away with it.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I think the truck driver was stupid for getting out and yelling at at the guy in the mustang, but the 21 year old seems to have completely overreacted by getting out and threatening the guy with a gun. He wasn't being shot at, he was being yelled at, and he should have stayed in the car and called 911.

As for whether the 40 year old gets away with it, I suspect it will depend what the situation looks like when all the facts are known. For instance, was truck blocked in by traffic? How did he appear react to having a gun pointed at him? Did it enrage him further or did he appear to be afraid for his life?
 
geetarman said:
Good advice about the hotheads. Sometimes though, you do not realize who the hothead is.
Click to expand...

This is true... they will eventually show their true colors though. It's not so much an "angry" thing, it's hot headed ACTION you need to avoid.

The guy that was upset about the gun in church. I can understand the anger, but if he had gone over and got "all up in his face", I'd be worried. Those are the people I avoid.

If you can't express anger without vitriol and aggression, I don't want to be around you.

If you can't walk (or drive) away from people who have anger problems and instead allow yourself to be drawn in, I don't want to be around you.

PARTICULARLY, if you are any of those things and think you should carry a gun, I DEFINITELY don't want to be ANYWHERE around you.
 
Too much testosterone and not enough common sense.

If each had taken a step back, it would not have happened.

I am on the lookout for aggressive drivers all the time. I let them pass.

Much better for them to be in front than behind.

Geetarman:D
 
According to this online report, the Abilene Police department's incident report lists the charge as "First Degree Murder."

The above link also contains several links to additional stories about the shooting. Based on a short read, the shooting appears to be just as senseless and pointless as the initial story makes it sound. From the comments, it sounds like the police chief is caught between the local news and a prominent local family and decided to punt to the Grand Jury.

According to the victim's girlfriend, after the shooting Driver A ""looked at me and told me, 'Next time, learn not to pull a gun on someone' and smiled,"

I'm waiting to see what kind of case his lawyer puts up; but I'd expect the Grand Jury to return an indictment on this one.

Also appears that Driver A may have a criminal history after all - the truck is registered to a man named Christopher North, 44yrs old. Police have not confirmed if this is the same man who was driving the truck; but North has a history of drunken driving arrests (has interlock device installed) and was arrested (subsequently no-billed by the grand jury) for aggravated assault in Kaufman County in 2007.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top