Road rage shooting - both drivers claim self-defense

According to the Abilene Reporter-News, the driver of the pick-up truck is James Christopher North and he was indicted on a first-degree murder charge by the grand jury.

North (Driver A) is alleging that David (Driver B) fired the first shot in the confrontation and is claiming self-defense; but hasn't been real clear about where in the timeline it happened. Obviously, if it happened after North rammed the Mustang into opposing traffic, it is likely that even David firing first won't be enough to claim self-defense under Texas law.
 
"Yes he should have, but he would have been exposing himself to the risk of being shot in the back by a man who was pointing a gun at him seconds before. Ramming the car was wrong, but not completely unreasonable considering the Mustang drivers actions. "

My thoughts exactly. If I was in that position, I would be mighty scared. Would positively not want a gun wielding wacko trailing me.

Of course, I would have never gotten into the verbal fight, getting out of the car thing in the first place, so that is a moot point.
 
Ben, do you have ANY proof of the above statement? A road test showing an off-the-floor truck beating a Mustang V8 or Viper or Corvette in ANY kind of speed test? It's ridiculous. Diesel engines in trucks are designed for torque, not horsepower; they're made to haul heavy objects, not drag race sports cars ...
Click to expand...
Not off-the-floor, but I'll bet Ben was referring to the crazy HP and tqe figures prevalent in today's diesel jockeys with fairly non-descript trucks. Doesn't take much tweaking and diesels love nitrous and mechanical power-adders. Here's a sample where the top truck made 956 HP and over 1600 pound feet of torque. Probably never know if the guy in the story has done something like this.
Dynos

Edit: Sorry for off-topic, I see Ben has replied.
 
The dead guy didn't have gun shot residue on his hands. Did someone mention that?
Click to expand...
Is there some special significance to that? I have not read all of the previous posts, but have read a lot of them, so maybe something changed in what was claimed by the shooter and missed it. Has the shooter now claimed the other guy shot at him? If not, I fail to see any importance to the lack of gun powder residue on the dead man.

In general the person who points a gun at you, whom you then shoot before he can fire, is unlikely to have such residue on him (unless it was close range and is from your gun).

Mind you, I am not trying to justify, in any fashion, the actions of the shooter or the deceased - and am not trying to say the guy who got shot was still pointing, or for a second time was pointing, a gun at the shooter at the time of the shot. I am just wondering why lack of residue on the deceased would be significant in this particular case.

All the best,
GB
 
Lack of self control has ruined many a person. It is better to swallow pride than to go through what this guy is going to go through even if he is found not guilty, which I doubt.
Jerry
 
Very unfortunate

Road rages are not joke! There are people out there who drives like nobody else pay taxes except them. This is very unfortunate that it came to this but we can all learn some lessons from this tragic incident.

If you are cut off, let it go
Don't pull a gun to intimidate.
Don't cut people off without apologizing.
If you have a firearm don't escalate the situation. (Both did)
Don't put your car in reverse and run people over.
Even though there are jerks, angry, druggies and people who can't drive, we still have to share the road.
Even though, I feel like sometimes slapping some drivers on the road, I don't.
Things can change quickly.
Don't get out of the car for arguement sake.
Don't be the judge, the persecutor and the police

Try to be calm and alert especially when you are carrying.
These are the lessons I have learned.

But I hope the Chevrolet Pickup driver gets life “if” he truly did cut the mustang driver off and argued as well. If you do something wrong just apologize and don’t be macho about it. When he put his car in reverse and rammed the mustang he became the aggressor therefore cannot claim self-defense. This doesn't imply that the mustang driver was not as fault as well. IMHO
 
Ton trucks with diesel engines can approach 10,000 pounds
Click to expand...

LOL. I ran one over the scales Saturday was less than 6000 lbs, a 92 chevy one ton 6.2liter turbo diesel 4x4 .. :) my 3/4 chevy 4x4 is like 5700 lbs.
 
MLeak said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very good points. I was wondering the same things.

Also, we don’t know exactly how bad the 21 year old was being tailgated or harassed prior to arriving at that stoplight. In order for him exit his vehicle with a firearm I would assume that he wasn’t “just being tailgated.”

A pickup truck can be a very dangerous weapon and is much more capable of inflicting damage than any small arm is capable of.

In one of the articles I also read that when the 21 year old got back into his vehicle he instructed his girlfriend to call the police. Somehow I don’t think the driver of the mustang was the aggressor here.

I am not condoning anyone’s actions, just adding to the discussion.
 
Road rage is a perplexing thing to me. In that people, who would never say boo in most any other situation, feel free to act aggressively in their vehicles. I suppose they feel safe in there.

Thanks to my defensive driving skills, I rarely encounter, or anger, the prone to road rage drivers. When I do, I try to ignore them and let them go on their way. If they don't go on their way, that is another story... However, rest assured I would handle the situation in a calm, logical manner.

These stories should serve as a warning to all. Never escalate the situation, never respond with anger and aggression of your own. With only a little effort you can forget the idiot who flipped you off. Forgetting a murder charge, or your family forgetting your death won't be so easy.
 
James Christopher North the truck driver began the February 2011 confrontation by pulling around the Mustang and stopping in front of it, getting out to yell at Austin David.

Unless there was a great disparity in physical size between the two drivers, I can not see a justification for Austin David to show a handgun. Only if Austin David was much much smaller than James Christopher North, would there be some justification for David to show a gun.

As to the claim of self-defense for James Christopher North arrested for killing David, I would think that he gave up that defense when he rammed the smaller car instead of leaving the scene. Then he compounded his fault when he chose to get out of his truck again, this time with a gun to continue the fight instead of leaving and shot Austin David in the head.

It seems James Christopher North has been charged with MURDER as defined below Sec. 19.02.(1).

Perhaps North's attorney will try during the penalty phase of trial to "raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause." to get the penalty down to a second degree felony if North is convicted at trial. However, "Adequate Cause" as defined below does not seem to fit the facts that have been reported in this thread.

CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Sec. 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.

(b) Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.

Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:

(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.

(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top