Didn't follow the case, but I am surprised he got acquitted.
This is a discussion on The jury acquits NY dentist in Road Rage shooting within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Trial of 'Gun Happy' dentist ends in 'Not Guilty verdict Road rage trial: Jury acquits Wayne Tover in 2010 west Boca shooting - Sun Sentinel ...
Trial of 'Gun Happy' dentist ends in 'Not Guilty verdict
Road rage trial: Jury acquits Wayne Tover in 2010 west Boca shooting - Sun Sentinel
One angry dentist
He shot up a car full of teens
Summary: A teenage girl honks at retired dentist, he pulls up next to the car with 4 teenagers, and unloads his 357 magnum. He claimed 'Stand your ground', but the judge didn't buy it. It's 30 years for this clown.
Alexandra Nisallo, then 18, was driving with three friends to the Publix on Glades Road near State Road 7. While driving east on Glades Road, they said a silver Cadillac convertible driven by Tover stopped abruptly. Nisallo slammed on her brakes and beeped her horn, according to the report.
At the intersection of Glades and Diego roads, they came to a red light and Tover stopped next to them, pulled out a gun and began shooting.
Appellate ruling: Court on Wednesday rejects bid by Wayne Tover of Delray Beach to use Stand Your Ground law to avoid prosecution on road rage-related charges - Sun Sentinel[/QUOTE]
It was an extreme case of road rage — starting with a honking horn, flashing lights and angry words, and ending with four quick shots from an older driver's revolver.
But a Palm Beach County jury on Friday sided with gun-toting retiree Wayne Tover's claim of self-defense for the Sept. 18, 2010 confrontation in West Boca.
A two-week trial ended with the jury of four women and two men agreeing that the 66-year-old former dentist from West Delray was protecting himself when he fired his licensed pistol into a car occupied by four young people.
The shooting left one person with bullet wounds that were not life-threatening, and another passenger with cuts from shattered glass. Prosecutor Aaron Papero argued it was an inexcusable act of violence, but the jurors delivered a not guilty verdict on the four felony counts.
Didn't follow the case, but I am surprised he got acquitted.
"If you make something idiot proof, someone will make a better idiot."
Has to be more to this than I am seeing
I have not been following this case but just going by the information provided in the links Tover deserves to have been convicted instead.
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
"Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."
Not 100% sure this is a win for "our side", really (and as others have stated I'm going solely by what was in the linked articles... so there may be more to the story.)
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
Sad sad verdict - my guess is the make up of the jury. South Florida is Nut-City.
To me it is obvious that the majority of the story is being blown off by the summary writers. If the facts were as stated there is no way he gets off. NO WAY!
I call bologna on the writer/s. It sounds like they got their facts from one of the teenagers mothers. I am more than suggesting that there is a high probability that the Sun Sentinal has an editorial position against gun owners.
Last edited by SIXTO; September 29th, 2013 at 09:43 AM.
Typos are for the entertainment of the reader. Don't let it go to your head
I would have a hard time buying that a jury found this guy not guilty if what is reported is actually what happened. The media makes it sound like they argued and the old dentist went all Doc Holiday on a car load of kids ( sorry couldnt resist the Doc Holiday thing)) for no apparent reason than they smarted off.
More to it than that. And yeah its a win for us Id say if we knew what the jury knew.
" It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales
^This has some merit^^^^^
If the jury were elderly people, that may have accounted for the decision.
I don't think he was justified for shooting the car up.
Just his choice of words would have me skeptical.
He was coming out of the car all Dukes of hazard stuff, so I didn't hesitate to squeeze off a few rounds.
Almost like he looks at it like it was his civic duty to put the kids in their place or something.
I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."
M&Pc .357SIG, 2340Sigpro .357SIG
The rotten fishy smell to the way this was written is very strong! What are the actual facts? A Grand Jury is often not filled with idiots, unlike a civil or criminal jury, that the lawyers and DA have a chance to pick the stupidest people they think will vote for their side.
If you ever get a chance to sit on a standing Grand Jury, do so. It is refreshing.
I doubt there is 'more to the story'. There was no mention of baseball bats, or any weapons. The kids beeped, the old fart got out of his car, the kids took off, and he followed them, and pulled up next to them. He shot them up and just left, he didn't even call 911.
He would have shot them the first time (he got out of his car), but they speed off. As far as media bias, this story made page three, and one short article.
Must be something else to it maybe.I guess it can be according to who the ones involved are. A LEO friend of mine was telling me one of his friends on the highway patrol charged a man with brandishing in a road rage incident back on July 4th weekend.The man involved never shot at anyone,but he pointed a gun at another driver.
Originally Posted by From the article
No mention of weaponry. No pointing out specifically that folks were both still inside the separate cars. No indication of whether "trying" to exit the window was absolutely and positively unmistakable as an impending attack that wasn't being thwarted any longer by the car's door/window. No indication of whether that alleged assailant was armed in any way, beyond anger and attempts to exit the window.
Hm. I'd have to see what the jury saw, to know any better than they.
You'd think that would be a slam dunk for the prosecution. But maybe he put on a terrible case and the defense did a good job?Tover told the detectives. "I didn't hesitate to squeeze off a few rounds."
* following a car and catching up to them and pulling along side at a traffic light is not the act of a 'scared person'.
* shooting into a car full of people, at least half of whom were innocent is not a sane or defensible act
* shooting a person instead of driving away when that's an option is not defensible as a good shoot
* saying what he said (see quote above) is not the comments a scared person who was in fear for their life would say.
* the attackers inflicted no wounds, did not get out of their car, didn't throw anything, didn't make deadly threats (apparently).
So what gives this guy the right to follow and shoot someone? Nothing. The answer has to be the prosecution just royally screwed up. The jury got the wrong instructions, weren't told the law, weren't shown the details correctly, liked the defense atty and didn't like the prosecution.