Road rage and gun play.

[Shellback]

Article discussing incident in detail here (http://www.wnct.com/story/21781289/carteret-county-deputies-looking-road-rage-shooting-suspect-and-family). Quick synopsis... Dude in SUV with wife and toddler decides to follow 2 "young punks" to their house and teach them a lesson. Dude punches young punk and starts to take an ass whippin' from young punks then wife decides to bring out a pistol. Multiple shots fired, video doesn't capture it all, but article states multiple rounds fired.


http://youtu.be/K2Rd72cf7b4

[SC_Dave]

Not smart, not smart at all...........

[JodyH]

Don't start none, won't be none.

His legal bill's would be very, very large had he shot one of them.
Jail time, very likely.
Any more on this (as in legal troubles for the dude)?

I'm saving this video for my CCW class, because I emphasize the importance of maintaining your status as the innocent victim and this video will make a great "what not to do" example.

[Jay Cunningham]

Wow, that was awful.

Guess it could have been worse.

[JV_]

When you start following someone, because you can't let it go (or whatever), you might have some serious issues. Call the police, let them handle it.

[JodyH]

He threw the first punch.
Two on one ass-kicking turns things somewhat in his favor due to disparity of force.
When he hits the ground the young guys back off, threat hasn't ended but appears to be subsiding considerably.
Wife enters the scene with a handgun, somewhat justified due to the two on one and him on the ground.
Young dudes take off, threat is over.
Dude doubles down on stupid and takes gun from wife and pops a few caps at the fleeing young guys.

= Throw him in jail and make an example out of him. Felony stupid deserves a felony conviction so he can never own another firearm.

My analysis of the situation.
:cool:


edit: the dude with the horizontal striped shirt and vertical striped pants, he deserves a beating for crimes against fashion.

edit 2: I saw some clinch work, and no spare magazine was required. :p

[JV_]

I'm willing to bet Child Protective Services is itching for a home visit too.

[orionz06]

Also speaks to being aware of the cars behind you as you head home.

[Le Français]

He threw the first punch. Two on one ass-kicking turns things somewhat in his favor due to disparity of force.


If he threw the first punch as it certainly seems, then (according to the laws in my area) the fact that they both attacked him immediately afterwords doesn't change the fact that he started the altercation, and is therefore not legally defending himself if he uses force. In order to a) start a fight, and b) legally defend himself against the people he attacked, he would have to first take substantial steps to disengage.

Edit: I'm a cop, not a lawyer. (Thank goodness.)

[JV_]

Doesn't his aggression start when he followed them home?

[TCinVA]

Starting a fight seriously complicates a self defense claim.

[Shellback]

The fact that the young guys backed off, rather than having a boot party on the guy when he was down, speaks volumes. The aggressor seemed pissed due to the fact that he got his ass handed to him when he thought he was gonna teach a couple young, skinny punks a lesson.

[ffhounddog]

I am going to say that the older fat man also put his own kids in danger for having road rage.

[Ed L]

I'm saving this video for my CCW class, because I emphasize the importance of maintaining your status as the innocent victim and this video will make a great "what not to do" example.

Exactly. The best way to maintain your status as an innocent victim is to try to avoid doing anything that has to potential to escalate or begin an escalation to violence. This includes doing things like following people in your car, getting out of your car to confront someone, etc. You want to be seen as having done nothing to innitiate or escalate a situation.

[idahojess]

Yep, looks like he started it, big time. Looks like a pretty stupid situation he created.

[Gun]

Sad fact, Taylor would have done the same had he no firearm in his vehicle. Taylor's aggressive behavior in this scene probably mirrors his aggressive behavior while driving, and maybe an overall aggressive nature.

The display of the firearm after the kids backed off, from what is evident in the video, will cause Taylor a lot of legal problems as there is no justification for his actions leading up to the display of the firearm. The kid defended himself, and even with the help from his friend, did so until the threat was dealt with, as in Taylor was put down with the same force that Taylor was using at the start of this confrontation. This seems to no different if one had to shoot until the threat stopped.

The other sad fact, Taylor most likely won't learn from this stupid act.

[David Armstrong]

If he threw the first punch as it certainly seems, then (according to the laws in my area) the fact that they both attacked him immediately afterwords doesn't change the fact that he started the altercation, and is therefore not legally defending himself if he uses force. In order to a) start a fight, and b) legally defend himself against the people he attacked, he would have to first take substantial steps to disengage.

Edit: I'm a cop, not a lawyer. (Thank goodness.)
Same with us. If you are the aggressor you give up any claim to self-defense.

[Jay Cunningham]

What's the story to how it got captured on video?

[Shellback]

What's the story to how it got captured on video?

3rd young punk :)

[JodyH]

Same with us. If you are the aggressor you give up any claim to self-defense.
Incorrect.
More difficult to articulate justification, but still possible.

[TGS]

I'm thinking of one of Tom Given's students, who he used in his "Lessons of the Street" DVD as an example of what not to do. He didn't like some guys at a gas station checking out his sweet car (apparently a very expensive one), so he told them off from afar.

He even tried to disengage peacefully by running away when they came after him for being mouthy. He ran across the street, and with disparity of force at hand and fearing for his life, he started shooting.

He went to jail. His actions were way, way more reasonable than this guy; he didn't even follow anyone, or even start physical altercation. AFAIK, you cannot claim self-defense when you are the one who starts trouble.

[JodyH]

There are no absolutes when it comes to justification of deadly force.

Let's add a couple of variable into the video shown.
Let's start at the point where "Fat Goatee" punches "Dude #1".
Dude #1 and Dude #2 jump out and start windmill punching on Goatee (just like in the video).
Goatee falls to ground (just like in the video).
Now let's alter reality.
Dude #1 starts kicking Goatee's head like a football while he's on the ground until he is on the verge of unconsciousness.
Dude #2 returns to truck and pulls a bat out from behind the seat and starts heading towards the now semi-conscious, unresisting Fat Goatee laying on the ground.
Goatee draws his handgun and shoots the advancing Dude #2.

It would be fairly straightforward justified use of deadly force, despite being the initial aggressor.

Just because you're the initial aggressor doesn't mean your life is now completely at the mercy of your intended "victim".
"Use of force 101" is you're only allowed to use enough force to stop the threat to life of grave bodily injury, anything done once the attack has been stopped is unjustified.
Once the "victim" sufficiently stopped the threat and then made the decision to take it to a whole other level of force, they are now switching roles and becoming the aggressor.
Being the initial aggressor means you have MUCH less gray area to work within, but justification can still be articulated under the right circumstances.

[TR675]

It is important to be conversant with the local laws of the jurisdiction you are residing in, traveling through, or visiting.

In Texas, the use of force (including deadly force) is not justified if "(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor. Tex. Penal Code sec. 9.31(b)(4).

So under this law, you can start a fight, try to quit the fight and then legally use force to defend yourself from the fight if the guy you punched doesn't quite trust that you really meant it. There is a lot of gray area here.

[David Armstrong]

Incorrect.
More difficult to articulate justification, but still possible.
Nope, not incorrect at all.
R.S. 14:21 Aggressor cannot claim self defense
A person who is the aggresssor or who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict.

Specific question: If you strike someone with your fist, and that person then responds by pulling a knife, can you shoot them in self-defense?
Answer: No. As the aggressor you are not entitled to claim self defense based on escalation of force until you have attempted in good faith to discontinue the conflict.

[JodyH]

Nope, not incorrect at all.
R.S. 14:21 Aggressor cannot claim self defense
A person who is the aggresssor or who brings on a difficulty cannot clain the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict.
Reading is fundamental.
"unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict."
Curling up into the fetal position to avoid being kicked in the vitals and ceasing all aggressive acts is a pretty good indicator of a "good faith withdrawal and desire to discontinue the conflict".

The aggressor can claim the right to self defense under certain circumstances.
So yes, you are still incorrect.

[Nephrology]

He threw the first punch.
Two on one ass-kicking turns things somewhat in his favor due to disparity of force.
When he hits the ground the young guys back off, threat hasn't ended but appears to be subsiding considerably.
Wife enters the scene with a handgun, somewhat justified due to the two on one and him on the ground.
Young dudes take off, threat is over.
Dude doubles down on stupid and takes gun from wife and pops a few caps at the fleeing young guys.

= Throw him in jail and make an example out of him. Felony stupid deserves a felony conviction so he can never own another firearm.

My analysis of the situation.
:cool:


edit: the dude with the horizontal striped shirt and vertical striped pants, he deserves a beating for crimes against fashion.

edit 2: I saw some clinch work, and no spare magazine was required. :p

I concur with this assessment. I think a few years in the pokey and losing his house to pay for legal bills might cool his heels a bit.

[D.S. Brown]

Based on the circumstances as depicted in the article, his primary concern was and should have been protection of his wife and child. The simplest way to do that was NOT to pursue a car that just cut him off. A reasonable person chalks it up to the world being populated by more than a few jerks, and drives on, making sure that wife and child were okay. Maybe reasonable person if they are fast and alert enough gets a license plate number, and a vehicle description, and calls 911 reporting a seriously reckless driver.

A concealed handgun licensee MUST have a morality based higher than his/her unarmed brethren. That means maintaining the quiet and alert professional at all times, and meeting out violence ONLY when no other resolution will solve the problem. This incident wasn't even close had the man not let his ego and emotion run riot. In his ego fueled rage he did the worst thing possible, and that was to compromise the safety of those I'm sure his ego was telling him he was protecting. What might have happened had these guys not been inclined to give up? What if they were armed and shot it out with the wife, and killed her, and proceeded to unmercifully pummel him to death, leaving his child alone and defenseless? Having these thoughts running through your head is NOT living in fear, it is prudent logic in said circumstances. This guy failed to use his best reasoning skills, and let his emotionally fueled ego to take control. He is really the one that put others in danger. All he had to do was keep his fragile ego in check, ignore being cut off, and keep him and his family safe. This guy is a fail!

Best,

Dave

[David Armstrong]

Reading is fundamental.
"unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict."
Curling up into the fetal position to avoid being kicked in the vitals and ceasing all aggressive acts is a pretty good indicator of a "good faith withdrawal and desire to discontinue the conflict".

The aggressor can claim the right to self defense under certain circumstances.
So yes, you are still incorrect.
Yes, Jody, reading IS fundamental. If one has withdrawn in good faith and is discontinuing the conflict he is now not the agressor. The other party is now the agresssor. Therefore, as I said and as the law says, agressors cannot claim the right of self defense. They have to stop being the aggressor if they want to claim self defense. It is sort of like when you play football. Just because you start on offense doesn't mean you are on offense from then on. Sometimes you will be on offense, sometimes you will be on defense. It is good to know the difference.

I always find it interesting how folks with little or no knowledge of another state's law somehow think they know more about that law than the lawyers and other assorted professionals that work in that state.:confused:

[okie john]

Fat Goatee Man is lucky that he went after a couple of guys who don't really know how to throw a punch. It might have have been far worse.


Okie John

[TR675]

I've seen multiple IRL videos where two unskilled, smaller and weaker attackers very effectively swarm and overwhelm a larger, stronger opponent. Nobody is good at doing two things at once, and it's even worse when you're taking incoming hits.

Now, at ECQC that did not hold true for me and LOKNLOD trying to put a beatdown on Prdator, but in our defense Prdator did, in fact, hulk out.

[NickA]

This one's ironic for me, since it was an incident with just this kind of a-hole, with my wife and daughter in the car, that led me to get my CHL and sign up for my first class.

[LOKNLOD]

The person that I feel was really put into a bad spot in the video was the wife. Aside from looking like she just stumbled out of a Charlie's Angels rerun, by doing what he did, the goatee guy left her in a situation where she had to make some tough choices and there was potential for that to have turned out a lot worse. If that had been a carload of genuine bad hombres, and they took hubby down, it could have been bad things for her.




Now, at ECQC that did not hold true for me and LOKNLOD trying to put a beatdown on Prdator, but in our defense Prdator did, in fact, hulk out.

Troof.

We looked like a couple of hyenas attacking a water buffalo. A mean, sweaty, well-trained water buffalo with a Glock and a clinch pick. :cool:

[Gun]

Same with us. If you are the aggressor you give up any claim to self-defense.

Incorrect.
More difficult to articulate justification, but still possible.

JodyH, David Armstrong’s statement is correct as stated. The aggressor has no right to a self defense claim, lethal or otherwise, since the actions are antithetical. Your point in your following posts have to do with when aggressor gives up, throws in the towel, then the rules change, but only if the law of the state allows it.

Please don’t make an argument by introducing an exempting factor, which does not apply to original definition.

[Chuck Whitlock]

JodyH, David Armstrong’s statement is correct as stated. The aggressor has no right to a self defense claim, lethal or otherwise, since the actions are antithetical. Your point in your following posts have to do with when aggressor gives up, throws in the towel, then the rules change, but only if the law of the state allows it.

Please don’t make an argument by introducing an exempting factor, which does not apply to original definition.

Also, Jody, bear in mind that LA law flows from Napoleonic Code, rather than English common law like much of the rest of the US.
IIRC, you got less time in the pokey for attempted murder than for robbery, so robbers just went ahead and shot their robbees.

(Those familiar with LA law please feel free to correct me if the info in my addled brain is incorrect/outdated)

[JodyH]

Deliberately obtuse and argumentative, that's the internet norm.

[David Armstrong]

Deliberately obtuse and argumentative, that's the internet norm.
Yet accurate as opposed to inaccurate.

[David Armstrong]

Also, Jody, bear in mind that LA law flows from Napoleonic Code, rather than English common law like much of the rest of the US.
IIRC, you got less time in the pokey for attempted murder than for robbery, so robbers just went ahead and shot their robbees.

(Those familiar with LA law please feel free to correct me if the info in my addled brain is incorrect/outdated)
You're correct, although today the differences are more in the civil law than criminal law. But even in criminal law sometimes something strange pops up, and the only explanation is "well, that's just the way it is in Louisiana.";)

[Gun]

Deliberately obtuse and argumentative, that's the internet norm.

Arguing a correction which is clearly an addendum seems deliberately obtuse.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Deliberately obtuse and argumentative, that's the internet norm.

Nothing so sinister.
Merely a decades-old random factoid from the dusty corner of my brain housing group that I thought was pertinent.

[Shellback]

Update here. (http://www.wcti12.com/news/Deputies-looking-for-couple-accused-of-road-rage/-/13530444/19448750/-/crv6mr/-/index.html) More details in the linked article.

At the Carteret County Courthouse, a judge told 40-year-old Bradley Turner that if convicted, he could spend up to four years in prison. In addition, he must not have any contact with the victims or their families, and must relinquish any firearms.

[TommyG]

Turner had prior arrests for assault and trespassing. What a surprise.