Friends brother was shot! - Page 4

Friends brother was shot!

This is a discussion on Friends brother was shot! within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Billspider Kid was right. You have no right to assault someone in their vehicle. Kid was fearing for his life. Justified Not ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 75
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: Friends brother was shot!

  1. #46
    Distinguished Member Array INccwchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Billspider View Post
    Kid was right. You have no right to assault someone in their vehicle. Kid was fearing for his life. Justified
    Not justified, mutual combat. By pulling over instead of driving by the kid agreed to participate willingly in the shouting match and fight that ensued. Both parties guilty of battery on the brother, attempted murder/manslaughter on the boy, and both in the slammer.
    Bubbiesdad likes this.
    "The value you put on the lost will be determined by the sacrifice you are willing to make to seek them until they are found."


  2. #47
    Senior Member Array adric22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by alachner View Post
    Road rage never ends well. Sometimes it's just better to be cool and laugh about the other idiots on the road.
    Yep! My wife suffers from road-rage. Now, I don't mean in a violent way. But she will start screaming inside the car (as if the other driver can hear her, even though both vehicles have their windows rolled up) and will just get really upset when other drivers do dumb things, whether it be driving too slow and blocking the road, cutting her off, passing in a no passing zone, etc. Me, I take the whole thing far less seriously. Sometimes I roll my eyes or just make some kind nonchalant comment like "that was brilliant" and just go on with life. If a person is doing something really stupid, I'll try to keep my distance from them. I just don't understand how people can get so emotional and upset over it. Yes, we have jerks and morons with drivers licenses. Yes, I wish they weren't on the roads, but they are and nothing I can do to change it, so I'll just live with it and go on with life.
    "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -Plato

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Alude904 View Post
    I have a friend whos brother was recently shot. I thought I'd share the story and discuss what the outcome will be. So his brother was driving through a neighborhood hauling some stuff so he was going slow. He has done this once before and both times there was a kid (21yo) driving a sporty Acura behind him honking his horn and revving his engine. Probably lived in the neighborhood. Well this time my friends brother pulled over. The kid pulled over behind him. The two exchanged words and my friends brother reached through the window and hit the kid. He hit him supposedly twice. The kid then took out his gun and shot him once. I'm not sure what kind of gun it was but it was a fmj .40s&w round. Luckily, the bullet went right through his stomach and out his back half an inch from his spine. My friends buddy lived, spent four days in the hospital and was just recently released.

    Now I was told this story from my friend about his brother who I met only once. I am not sure if that's exactly how it happened but for the sake of debate let's say it's pretty close. As for the kid who had the gun, he now has a court date that is set.

    To start with, I say the kid with the gun was in the wrong. But I bet I know what he was really thinking. The kid was thinking about the castle doctrine so he felt he had the right to protect himself against a guy who was assaulting him through his window. However, where he went wrong is he could have easily avoided the situatio but instead decided to instigate an start a fight by pullin in behind the guys car instead of just going around. The kid was 21 years old so he just got his ccw and was being stupid about it. Now for my friends brother who got shot, do I think he deserved it? Maybe not but he shouldn't have assaulted the kid. Who knows what people are carrying. What do you guys think?
    This is a perfect example of what the much maligned "rule of retreat" is intended to avoid.

    Put simply, if you have the ability to not get into the conflict, you are expected to make all reasonable efforts to do so.
    That includes NOT pulling to the side of the road to confront someone for traffic induced rudeness.

    Further, this was stupid people doing stupid things in a stupid place. What stupid place...the roadside with the person you just had a RR incident with.

    I have no pitty for either party.

    Oh, and it's a good example of why you should take a firearm related first aid class & carry a trauma kit in your car with you.

    Having a kit full of quick clot gauze, gloves, bandages, duct tape and other things to prevent loss of blood isn't ever a bad thing.

  4. #49
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    This is a perfect example of what the much maligned "rule of retreat" is intended to avoid.

    Put simply, if you have the ability to not get into the conflict, you are expected to make all reasonable efforts to do so.
    That includes NOT pulling to the side of the road to confront someone for traffic induced rudeness.
    Ok, this I disagree with. If someone gets in my car at a red light and tells me to get out with a knife, I should be able to defend myself instead of give up my car. And if someone breaks into my house, I shouldn't have to leave through the back door. That's what the "stand your ground" law is designed to avoid.

    In this case, I don't think it applies because it would have been so EASY for the shooter here to just... push his foot down. The assailant WASN'T in the car with him, nor was he blocked in. Also, I still believe what I posted earlier; he lost his right to defend himself with deadly force when he pulled in behind the truck to (presumably) give the driver a piece of his mind. Just because you pick a fight and suddenly find that you're outmatched doesn't give you the right to shoot someone else.

    Of course, we only have ONE side of the story here... the whole picture might not look anything like the angle we have.
    TedBeau likes this.

  5. #50
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Ok, this I disagree with. If someone gets in my car at a red light and tells me to get out with a knife, I should be able to defend myself instead of give up my car. And if someone breaks into my house, I shouldn't have to leave through the back door. That's what the "stand your ground" law is designed to avoid.
    Your statement reflects a complete lack of understanding of the rule of retreat.

    Each of those situations you bring up are ones in which the threat has come to you, not ones in which the threat was seen and could have been avoided with complete safety.

    Pulling over to have a road rage incident means you are a participant, not a victim That's something the rule of retreat is designed to make sure you do not get the cover of self defense for.

  6. #51
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    Your statement reflects a complete lack of understanding of the rule of retreat.


    Pulling over to have a road rage incident means you are a participant, not a victim That's something the rule of retreat is designed to make sure you do not get the cover of self defense for.
    Ummm, your statement reflects a complete lack of understanding of MY statement. I'm saying that this is not a rule of retreat issue because the shooter here willfully stopped to participate in an altercation, and escalated it to a shooting when he found he didn't have the upper hand. In reality, he probably didn't expect to get punched for his actions, but he had to know that it wasn't going to be a discussion about football and beer.

  7. #52
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,452
    you're both meaning the same thing but approaching it in completely different manners
    you're both right!
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  8. #53
    Member Array Billspider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Holbrook, New York
    Posts
    148
    It seems we are getting off track. This case involves Florida Law. There is no "rule of retreat" in Florida Law.
    Concerning mutual combat, pulling over doesn't in itself prove that. If the kid had exited his vehicle and advanced toward the other combatant then I would agree.
    How do we know that the kid didn't pull over to verbally resolve the dispute or to help with the truck. The only overt criminal act was the assault, prior to the shooting.

  9. #54
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Billspider View Post
    It seems we are getting off track. This case involves Florida Law. There is no "rule of retreat" in Florida Law.
    Concerning mutual combat, pulling over doesn't in itself prove that. If the kid had exited his vehicle and advanced toward the other combatant then I would agree.
    How do we know that the kid didn't pull over to verbally resolve the dispute or to help with the truck. The only overt criminal act was the assault, prior to the shooting.
    Not off track, we were debating the purpose and affect of the stand your ground law versus the rule of retreat in other states related to this case. I think it's perfectly valid.

    I also still don't believe that 'stand your ground' applies here anyway. This wasn't a random assault, the shooter here was picking a fight. Like I said before, I doubt he expected it to turn into a physical altercation but he clearly wasn't stopping to talk about the weather.

  10. #55
    Member Array Billspider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Holbrook, New York
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Not off track, we were debating the purpose and affect of the stand your ground law versus the rule of retreat in other states related to this case. I think it's perfectly valid.

    I also still don't believe that 'stand your ground' applies here anyway. This wasn't a random assault, the shooter here was picking a fight. Like I said before, I doubt he expected it to turn into a physical altercation but he clearly wasn't stopping to talk about the weather.
    I wasn't debating anything.
    Florida Law states that once you cross the treshold of someones home or vehicle uninvited or in a violent manner you are commiting a felony that can be met with deadly physical force. It doesn't matter what this kid said he was protected by law as long as he didn't exit his car. Its the same law that protects you while you are in your home. You can shout all you want out your window but if someone tries to enter your home in a violent manner they are commiting a felony and are at risk of death.

    Whether I like or agree with this law doesn't change it or the outcome of breaking it.

  11. #56
    Senior Member Array adric22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Billspider View Post
    It seems we are getting off track. This case involves Florida Law. There is no "rule of retreat" in Florida Law.
    Concerning mutual combat, pulling over doesn't in itself prove that. If the kid had exited his vehicle and advanced toward the other combatant then I would agree.
    How do we know that the kid didn't pull over to verbally resolve the dispute or to help with the truck. The only overt criminal act was the assault, prior to the shooting.
    I have to agree with this. If I were on the Jury I'd probably say that there was no law being broken until the assault started. Regardless of the attitude of the shooter. However, this is one of those situations where I'd stand up for the shooter but I wouldn't recommend his behavior to other people. He should have avoided the confrontation, but even though he didn't I still think he was justified. Sort of goes back to the old "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" that we were taught in elementary school. Whoever starts the physical assault is the guilty party, even if the other guy was being a jerk. I'd like to use another word that was once commonly used for donkey, but I don't think that is allowed on the forum.
    "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -Plato

  12. #57
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Billspider View Post
    I wasn't debating anything.
    Florida Law states that once you cross the treshold of someones home or vehicle uninvited or in a violent manner you are commiting a felony that can be met with deadly physical force. It doesn't matter what this kid said he was protected by law as long as he didn't exit his car. Its the same law that protects you while you are in your home. You can shout all you want out your window but if someone tries to enter your home in a violent manner they are commiting a felony and are at risk of death.
    I was debating with MitchellCT, not you.

    So, in Florida, I can pull up to a biker bar in my Prius (If I could bring myself to buy a Prius), and shout comments about their sexuality until they came to my car, then pick them off until I ran out of ammo?

  13. #58
    Member Array Billspider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Holbrook, New York
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    I was debating with MitchellCT, not you.

    So, in Florida, I can pull up to a biker bar in my Prius (If I could bring myself to buy a Prius), and shout comments about their sexuality until they came to my car, then pick them off until I ran out of ammo?
    You would be just exercising your First Amendment Right to free speech.
    What would give them the right to invade your vehicle and assault you?
    In Florida as the law is written they would be in violation of the law and they would place themselves in mortal danger.
    I wouldn't suggest anyone do that.

  14. #59
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Not off track, we were debating the purpose and affect of the stand your ground law versus the rule of retreat in other states related to this case. I think it's perfectly valid.

    I also still don't believe that 'stand your ground' applies here anyway. This wasn't a random assault, the shooter here was picking a fight. Like I said before, I doubt he expected it to turn into a physical altercation but he clearly wasn't stopping to talk about the weather.
    I also agree that "stand your ground" doesn't apply here. What we have in this instance is the shooter created the entire event. The man in the truck was driving slowly because he was hauling a load of stuff (and assuming he was driving slowly because he didn't want to damage anything), but regardless of why he was driving slowly, just because he was driving under the speed limit does not mean he was doing anything wrong, and was not violating any traffic laws. (The only place I am aware of which have a minimum speed limit is on Interstate highways.

    Now the shooter, let his frustrations get the best of him and began harassing the man in front by continuing to follow him and honk his horn and acting like an impatient idiot. When the guy with the truck pulled over and exited the vehicle, should have been the first clue to the shooter that a conflict was going to ensue. At that point, instead of pulling around and driving away, which he clearly had the option to do, he continued to engage in a verbal argument! No doubt he was wanting to give the guy (who without question had the right to drive as slow as he felt necessary to be safe while hauling a load) a piece of his mind. The shooter willingly engaged in verbal argument, which he instigated by being an ass, when he continued to honk his horn and kept pursuing the men in the truck. Now, when he realized he bit off more than he could chew, and the guy he was mad at punched him a couple of times, he decides now it's time to shoot him and claim, "I was minding my own business and was just standing my ground!"

    Well, apparently the police and district attorney chose to see what most of everyone here sees. That self defense does not apply in this situation, and the so-called "stand your ground" law can not apply in this situation.

    Continuing to pursue, or ride on someones tail while continuing to honk your horn, then remaining on the scene after the guy stops (when there was a chance to leave), and then willingly participate in a verbal argument does not equate to complete innocence to the ensuing events.

    All "stand your ground laws" have the necessary component of being completely innocent of any crime or wrong doing. You can not be seen as provoking the incident, escalating the incident and then claim to be a completely innocent party to the events. It just doesn't work that way. It's a matter of the shooter possessing a level of "culpability" in the events leading up to the shooting.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  15. #60
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,452
    we all need to remember, the key words here are what is Florida law....all else is what-ifs and irrelevant law from other states

    for instance....if what was given by OP happened in Texas the kid in the car would most likely be charged since he stopped the car (and he was not helping the guy out with transporting his load or happened to be stopping at the house they were in front of)....he provoked the other guy (stoked the fire) and under Texas law him using deadly force would not be justified
    they would both be charged

    in Florida, it may be different
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

are expandable batons legal in georgia
,
expandable baton laws florida
,
immunity stand your ground law road rage 2011
,
mark whorton road rage oviedo, fl
,
matthew caselli death oviedo fl
,
matthew caselli oviedo
,
michael mcclarin orlando
,

michael mcclarin shot

,
road rage self defense shooting in oviedo florida
,
road rage seminole county shot
,
titusville fire inspector mark whorton
,

washington state baton laws

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors