Young woman shoots Texas man in road rage incident - Page 5

Young woman shoots Texas man in road rage incident

This is a discussion on Young woman shoots Texas man in road rage incident within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by suntzu Since you put my name in bold in the post you replied to I assume you were trying to get my ...

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 158
Like Tree152Likes

Thread: Young woman shoots Texas man in road rage incident

  1. #61
    Ex Member Array F350's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountain High in Colorado
    Posts
    1,706
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Since you put my name in bold in the post you replied to I assume you were trying to get my attention. I made it perfectly clear that the state of mind of the person matters and that their actions are dictated by that. I am fully aware that some folks might fear for their lives while others do not in identical situations. I do not know how more clear I can be on that,
    Negative suntzu I just hit "Reply With Quote" button and that is the way it was in the original, I didn't mean any offense.

    I found the SCOTUS reference...


    In l921, the Supreme Court decided that a person facing a deadly
    attack may use lethal force in his self-defense, adding: "Detached
    reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."
    (Brown v United States 256 US 335)
    Bark'n, Bad Bob, Spirit51 and 1 others like this.


  2. #62
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    6,005
    Quote Originally Posted by F350 View Post
    Negative suntzu I just hit "Reply With Quote" button and that is the way it was in the original, I didn't mean any offense.

    I found the SCOTUS reference...


    In l921, the Supreme Court decided that a person facing a deadly
    attack may use lethal force in his self-defense, adding: "Detached
    reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."
    (Brown v United States 256 US 335)
    I humbly apologize sir.....this time LOL Sorry about that
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  3. #63
    Member Array CPanther95's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    237
    I'd bet a cup of coffee that the lawyer saw the shattered window and just incorporated that part of the story into what the girl told her. Or it's possible the girl saw the shattered window after shooting and her mind just filled in the blanks that it occurred during the guys assault on the car. But it doesn't really look like I'd imagine it would from a punch - but I've never broken a side window with my hands before.

    It doesn't change the justification, but I sure wouldn't want to be stressing that as a significant part of the case if it was possible that video evidence may show that the shattering occurred with the gunshot.

  4. #64
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by ConcealedinPA View Post
    Just curious, does anyone think they would have a different opinion about this story had it been a male (victim)? Just a thought. Some people do tend to make things more justifiable when it comes to female victims. From what i gathered from this story, I believe it was a "good shoot." Just a thought.
    In my state, "Castle Doctrine" extends to any vehicle you're in, a tent or RV, hotel/motel room, or place of employment. Forced entry into any of those locations, it is assumed a to be a lethal threat and deadly force is appropriate and lawful.

    As I said in my earlier post, "When the glass breaks, if it hasn't occurred to me to drive off by then, I'm shooting him!" To me, gender doesn't play an issue. I have no problem with a man shooting an intruder in a similar circumstance.

    Anyone who exhibits such poor self control and a complete lack of maturity as to start beating and kicking your car and busting out windows to "get a piece of your butt," over a minor fender bender better tread lightly, because in my state, they just may get shot too!
    Spirit51 and Ghost1958 like this.
    -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."

  5. #65
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,874
    feeling intimidated, does not equate to "fear" of great bodily harm or death.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  6. #66
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    feeling intimidated, does not equate to "fear" of great bodily harm or death.
    True... that would be standing outside my car calling me a "punk, wussy, idiot" which is definitely on intimidating side of the equation.

    However, kicking in the side of my car door, breaking my window and making forcible attempts to get at me and drag me out of my car does raise the level of concern from merely being intimidated, to being in fear of great bodily harm or possible death from some "out of control" road rager.

    His actions are placing me in jeopardy and demonstrating his intent, and breaching the security of my locked car door with his bare hands affords him both, the opportunity and ability.

    As I stated earlier, once he breaks my window, he's getting shot.
    -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."

  7. #67
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    However, kicking in the side of my car door, breaking my window and making forcible attempts to get at me and drag me out of my car does raise the level of concern from merely being intimidated, to being in fear of great bodily harm or possible death from some "out of control" road rager.

    His actions are placing me in jeopardy and demonstrating his intent, and breaching the security of my locked car door with his bare hands affords him both, the opportunity and ability.

    As I stated earlier, once he breaks my window, he's getting shot.
    You didn't look at the window in the video did you ....... you couldn't stick a hand thru that window if your life depended on it. It is not like any window I've ever seen that was punched or hit and broken, but it sure reminds me of a lot of them that I've seen bullets pass through. I'm not convinced he broke any window, and think there are some "holes" in this story.

    There is also no way he grabbed anyone or attempted to thru that side window.

    Save a life, put the dang car in drive and drive off.... or keep driving in circles in the parking lot until he drops with exhaustion from chasing the car.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  8. #68
    Member Array linuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    Save a life, put the dang car in drive and drive off.... or keep driving in circles in the parking lot until he drops with exhaustion from chasing the car.
    There is no requirement in the state of Texas to do that. It shouldn't matter legally if you could have driven away, as there is no legal requirement to attempt a retreat. The ONLY thing that it should effect is your own mind after the fact, NO legal thing should arise from you choosing to stay and not run.

    "Stand your ground" means you don't have to if you don't want to, not "You should if you can to avoid prosecution".



    But I agree, the damage to the window looks more like a shot than a punch.
    Ghost1958 likes this.

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    I'm thinking the passenger in the truck was the "bag man"....

    CPanther95 likes this.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  10. #70
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    After looking at the window again,it does look like it was shattered by a bullet,My first impression was the glass was completely broken out which in side windows they usually shatter into a million pieces,Anger management could have prevented this.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  11. #71
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    You didn't look at the window in the video did you ....... you couldn't stick a hand thru that window if your life depended on it. It is not like any window I've ever seen that was punched or hit and broken, but it sure reminds me of a lot of them that I've seen bullets pass through. I'm not convinced he broke any window, and think there are some "holes" in this story.

    There is also no way he grabbed anyone or attempted to thru that side window.

    Save a life, put the dang car in drive and drive off.... or keep driving in circles in the parking lot until he drops with exhaustion from chasing the car.
    Whether the accounts in this particular story is true and accurate or not, is not my primary concern. Obviously, if the window wasn't shattered by the suspect, it may fundamentally change things. The investigation will will either confirm the shooters description of events or disprove them.

    My posts and response are based on the assumption that the story (or any similar situation) is as described, and would apply in any situation where a nut job attempts to forcibly remove you from your vehicle and breaches the barrier of the locked doors.

    In a case where a minor fender bender so enrages a person who demonstrates no self control, and proceeds to flip out and go into a fit of rage, and then proceeds to batter your car in an attempt to forcibly remove you from your car is by definition, placing you in jeopardy. If he breaches the window, he has just provided ability and opportunity to the equation which clearly places the event in the category of being a lethal threat.

    As I also said, if I have the presence of mind to drive off, I'm obviously going to do that. However, the law does not maintain the requirement that a person must have that "presence of mind" and run down a list of viable options in the face of a deadly threat.

    For whatever reason, a person may not even think of driving off as an option. And then again, driving off physically may not be an option because of any number of reasons, not the least of which is their escape may be blocked. Also, in the heat of the excitement, the car may have died, and the person may not be able to get it started while in a heightened state of fear. They may have flooded the car in a panic, or they may still have the transmission in the "Drive" position, and not in "Neutral or Park." In that case, it will not start just by turning the key.

    My point is that it doesn't matter so much how we got there... But once the security of your car has been breached by force (breaking out a window), it has now become a deadly threat whereas, you have been placed in jeopardy by their actions, and the person now has the ability and opportunity to kill or cripple you. Deadly force is now considered a justified means of defending yourself.
    MrsHB and Spirit51 like this.
    -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."

  12. #72
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,886
    I have posted the relevant statute earlier in the thread. But just to reiterate, they don't have to actually gain entrance into your vehicle, home or place of business in Texas. So whether or not you could get a hand or arm or pinky for that matter through the window doesn't matter.

    If they are attempting to enter with force, your vehicle in this case, it is presumed reasonable to use deadly force. So if he was banging on the door/window, whatever and reached for the door handle to open the door, that is all that matters in this case.

    Would have, could have, should have makes no difference either. She was justified based on our laws.
    Ghost1958 likes this.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  13. #73
    Member Array GHFLRLTD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    241

    Let Me Get This Straight....

    nedrgr21 -

    Let me get this straight.

    • She stops in a public place a considerable distance from his vehicle. It is my understanding of vehicular accident rules that if there is an accident, you need to stop and deal with, at least, the insurance issues.
    • The enraged driver leaves his vehicle, goes to hers, and starts pounding in the window, attempting to get the door open and get inside.
    • She stops the threat to her life and limb.


    In your world view, she should have just keep going to somewhere, even though that might have been breaking the law. You seem to think that she could have avoided the confrontation that she did not initiate, and this is the ONLY solution possible. It is her fault that he got out of his vehicle and attacked her, I assume.

    Florida law is not the same as Texas. However there are two rules that apply in this case.

    1. You Have to Know Where the Bright Line to Act Is. At what point can you legally stop the threat.


    You must know at what point under what circumstances deadly force is appropriate. This is not something you can figure out at the time, you must have internalized it before it the event starts, much like what you do when you drive your car on ice, for example. You must automatically and immediately know when the line is crossed.

    The woman clearly did.


    3. There can be NO hesitation as soon as the opportunity/shot is cleared tactically after the Bright Line has been and remains crossed. As John Bernard Books - John Wayne's character in his last movie The Shootist stated - You Must Be WILLING.


    "It isn't always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull a trigger. I won't."

    You can not be looking for wiggle room or a gray area here. The threat exists, and needs to be stopped. Looking for a Third Middle Compromise Solution leads to hesitation, which will lead to you not dealing with your responsibilities in a timely manner. It is you - not the person or persons presenting the threat - that you are responsible for.


    She passed this test also.


    I will only fault her for not thinking things through and getting her mind prepared in advance of the event for the aftermath.
    George H. Foster
    Orlando, Florida

  14. #74
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,874
    Quote Originally Posted by linuss View Post
    There is no requirement in the state of Texas to do that. It shouldn't matter legally if you could have driven away, as there is no legal requirement to attempt a retreat. The ONLY thing that it should effect is your own mind after the fact, NO legal thing should arise from you choosing to stay and not run.

    "Stand your ground" means you don't have to if you don't want to, not "You should if you can to avoid prosecution".



    But I agree, the damage to the window looks more like a shot than a punch.
    Who was talking about what's legal or not, I wasn't. It's also about what's smart or not. However, I'm betting she will end up with a lot of legal problems, because I don't think she's telling it like it really is or was.... her story isn't fitting some of the things ... like the side window.... that she stated.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  15. #75
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    I have posted the relevant statute earlier in the thread. But just to reiterate, they don't have to actually gain entrance into your vehicle, home or place of business in Texas. So whether or not you could get a hand or arm or pinky for that matter through the window doesn't matter.

    If they are attempting to enter with force, your vehicle in this case, it is presumed reasonable to use deadly force. So if he was banging on the door/window, whatever and reached for the door handle to open the door, that is all that matters in this case.

    Would have, could have, should have makes no difference either. She was justified based on our laws.
    I agree, and it is pretty much the same thing in Missouri.

    However, as my own personal threshold, I prefer to wait until someone actually breaches the barrier. For example, if someone is pounding my front door at my house, I'm not just going to blindly shoot through the door, even though it may be technically legal to do. I just have a thing about actually being able to see and visually identify the threat before I shoot someone. Also I want there to be evidence of maximum possible damage to my structure to bolster the fact that was in fact, a forced entry into my home.

    In the case of my car, I would prefer to have the physical evidence show that they physically broke out my windows in order to get at me before I shoot them. It is also helpful if they were kicking huge dents into the car door or tried to rip the door handle off. Again, it just provides more physical evidence they were out of control and intended to do me great bodily harm.

    A person attempting kick down my door or break out my car window definitely points to me being placed in jeopardy. And when that physical barrier is actually breached, they now have opportunity and ability to do great bodily harm. It is at that point, all three components of a deadly threat exists at the same moment in time. If I were to shoot someone kicking in my front door before the door is actually breached... I am definitely in jeopardy, but it could be argued that until the door is busted open, they didn't have the opportunity or ability to do great bodily harm.

    Again, these are just my personal parameters. It is possible, I may be legally justified in using lethal force at an earlier opportunity, but I tend to want to reserve it for when there is no other recourse.

    And again, in the case of a road rage incident, of course I'm going to drive away, if it's possible and I have the presence of mind to do so. However, if for whatever reason, it doesn't occur to me to try and drive away, it's not required by law to do so.
    -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."

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Sponsored 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

girl shoots man in texas
,
houston woman shoots man
,

houston woman shoots man 6 times

,
houston woman shoots man road rage
,
lady shoots man in road rage
,

texas woman shoots man 6 times

,
woman shoots man 6 times
,

woman shoots man 6 times houston tx

,

woman shoots man after car accident

,

woman shoots man houston tx

,
woman shoots man in road rage
,

woman shoots man in texas

Click on a term to search for related topics.