Road rage shooting - both drivers claim self-defense

Why either of them got out of the care while being armed is STUPID!!!!! If one would have kept on driving there would not have been a problem. IDIOTS!
 
I haven't read the entire thread, just the first page and the timeline link, but it looks like this will be a slam dunk 2nd degree murder or in the very least aggravated manslaughter conviction. The creep in the pickup aggressed first, cut off the car, showed a gun, pushed the pickup into the other car and then shot the guy when he got out of his car which he probably could have got away with self defense only if he hadn't died first. The pickup guy should go to jail for a VERY long time.

Just goes to show that you can't really interact with anyone in any aggressive manner whatsoever anymore. Just too many nuts out there looking for a fight. Tapping on the breaks used to be a way to get someone to back off when tailgating, better now just to pull over and let the creep go by or get out of his way some how. I see the creep in the pickup as the overwhelming aggressor. The guy in the mustang failed to recognize the situation and should have assumed a defensive position for him and his girlfriend, or simply got out of there as soon as he saw the guy with a gun. Anything you can do to de-escalate a situation is best even if not easy to do. What a silly reason to die and even sillier to go to jail. Not sure what year his mustang is, but it should have been able to outrun any pickup truck while they are calling the cops.
 
Ive been reading this and concur with most to say mustang guy should never have showed the guy his gun but the pickup guy didnt have to race around and stop in front of somebody then get out hollering. A pickup truck IS a deadly weapon expecialy when used in a malicious fashion such as this against the driver in a vehicle about three times smaller than the pickup. personaly if he had deliberately rammed into me with mother/kids in the car in this way he would be shot right then. Id make my case of self defense to the courts on those grounds sans the whole getting out of the car shouting/gun show thing.
 
KTXS in Abilene is covering the murder trial on a day-by-day basis. It is a good read for those interested in the legal aftermath of a shooting; though most of the entries are fairly brief:

Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5 (Prosecution Rests )
Day 6 Prosecution manages to exclude police dashboard video statement by shooter as hearsay.
Day 7 - Defense moves for mistrial. Judge denies. Recess until Friday.

As of Day 5, the testimony from the prosecution appears to be very similar to what was reported. Starting with Day 6, North's story is being told. North claims he was just trying to make a right hand turn from the left lane into a cigar shop when the Mustang came roaring up.
 
Last edited:
So far, the testimony from the prosecution appears to be very similar to what was reported.
Click to expand...

Yes. IIRC initially there was some question as to whether Austin David, the victim, had his gun in hand when he exited the Mustang for the second time. And it appears that he did. This may help North with his self defense claim, though I doubt that it's going to exonerate him. But it does establish that David had the means both times that he emerged from the Mustang to confront North.

In a lot of ways, David brought this on himself. Not that Norths actions were justified, but things likely wouldn't have gone down the same way if David hadn't tried to intimidate North with a firearm.
 
I guess the thing that dissapoints me about this whole thing is that gun-control advocates always claim that if people are allowed to carry we'll go back to the days of the wild wild west - with shootouts in the streets.

This case certainly seems to be a poster child for that.
 
Casimer said:
This may help North with his self defense claim, though I doubt that it's going to exonerate him. But it does establish that David had the means both times that he emerged from the Mustang to confront North.
Click to expand...

Well, I am skeptical it will help much. Even if David wasn't justified in brandishing the weapon in the first encounter, after an angry guy rams his pickup in reverse and pushes you over a median into oncoming traffic, I'd expect anyone who has access to a firearm to have one in their hand.

How about that closing testimony today from witness Shari Cook? She apparently thanked North for shooting David afterwards saying that the way David was driving would have killed somebody if it hadn't been stopped. Somehow I don't think Ms. Cook has a good grasp on acceptable use of force.

However, it looks like David was at least somewhat aggressive. Another bystander remarked he was preparing to tackle David since he knew he had a gun after the first confrontation and was surprised when David got shot in the head. One more possibility to keep in mind when getting involved in third party situations I guess...
 
Day 8 - Independent test finds no traces of marijuana in David's system (shootee). Second witness testifies shootee was driving dangerously. Recess until Monday.
Day 9 - Doctor testifies to details of lack of canabanoids out of presence of jury. Defense Rests. Closing arguments begin tomorrow morning.
Day 10. Closing arguments and jury deliberation. Defense tries to get photo admitted showing David pointing a gun at North during first altercation. Denied.

Based on what I've read, it looks like the only new information that North's defense raised is that David was driving dangerously prior to their first altercation.
 
Last edited:
As the "Day 10" link details, Christopher North was found guilty of murder after 3 hours deliberation by the jury. The defense set up several issues for appeal and presumably he will attempt to appeal that verdict.
 
Both were wrong, Sounds like Driver A should go to jail though, he comitted assault with a deadly weapon(his truck) on Driver B. Before his actions, no force had been used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top