General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMan, 65, shoots motorcyclist in road rage incident
ST. LOUIS | O'Fallon police said a 65-year-old man traveling with his wife and grandson shot a motorcyclist during a road rage incident.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the motorcyclist became upset with the man for cutting off his wife, who was driving a separate motorcycle on Interstate 70 on Saturday.
Police said the 49-year-old motorcyclist and the grandfather exited the highway and the male motorcyclist walked up to the grandfather's car at a red light. The two men argued, and police said the motorcyclist assaulted the 65-year-old driver, who pulled out a semi-automatic pistol and shot the motorcyclist once in the upper chest.
Police said the motorcyclist was hospitalized, but his injury doesn't appear life-threatening. They didn't release the names of the people involved.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/27/3629851/man-65-shoots-motorcyclist-in.html#storylink=cpy
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)The road rage I read about in this incident was displayed by the motorcycle rider.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)But it's hard to tell with so little details.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)To the fullest extent of the law.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Doesn't look like "road rage" to me, it looks like self defense.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts)... if you are riding a motorcycle A CAR DRIVEN BY AN IDIOT IS A DEADLY WEAPON.
The man might have well had JUST CAUSE to KICK THE IDIOTS ASS.
Clames
(2,038 posts)If you are riding a motorcycle YOU ARE THE MOST DEFENSIVE DRIVER ON THE ROAD. I'm always extra cautious around motorcyclists, not because of my driving habits, but because of their's.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)That's revenge, not defense.
derp.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)This misleading headline was written intentionally to elicit outrage.
Kingofalldems
(38,314 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)that completely changed the impression the reader would get.
If it wasn't intentional then it was a remarkable coincidence.
Headline: wealthy individual removes strangers foot, police refuse to investigate.
-response: OUTRAGE!
Actual article: a doctor was forced to amputate a diabetic mans foot following years of neglect and gangrene.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Seems to me the shooting happened because of the argument.
FarPoint
(12,178 posts)They both pulled over to discuss a traffic situation/event. In hindsight...looks like there was no harm done by the 65 year old who cut off the wife on her bike. Driving incidents happen without malice....
It is sad that this shooting happened.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The car driver had stopped at a red light. The motorcycle rider wrongly decided this was a good place for an "discussion" about an event in the past.
oldernwiser
(52 posts)Just what did the motorcyclist hope to accomplish by having this "discussion" in the 1st place? If I felt the need to discuss other people's poor driving habits every time I was cut off or nearly run off the road, I'd NEVER get to where I was going.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)FarPoint
(12,178 posts)Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Clueless older man who cuts off other vehicular traffic without looking what he's doing, or the angry man whose wife was cut off?
I see neither here are blameless.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)That's one thing in itself (as a motorcyclist), But after that, screw the wife being cut off and deal with it.
spin
(17,493 posts)out of the clueless older man?
If the motorcyclist decides to severely injure the old fart, does the old fart have the right of self defense?
edited to add
After rereading your post I think we both agree.
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)Well, there you go. You put your hands on another person, don't be surprised if you learn a lesson about bringing just fists to a gunfight.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)that gets assaulted because he accidentally cut off another person's wife in traffic, then gets assaulted doesn't get the beating he doesn't deserve. We all make mistakes in traffic.
Robb
(39,665 posts)You were there, apparently?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Just looking at the facts as we know them and offering my opinion. We don't have anything else but the facts as we know them, and since this is a discussion board, we are discussing them and offering our opinions.
WriteWrong
(85 posts)Pretty much every time two vehicles collide, AT LEAST one person, probably more, has broken the law.
Nevertheless, walking up to a stranger in a car and assaulting them is kind of begging for something awful to happen.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Noted.
Robb
(39,665 posts)And if the car doesn't work, bring a gun to finish the job, eh?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)I guess there's more than one eyewitness in this thread eh?
Robb
(39,665 posts)Neither of us were there. You leapt to defend one side with, pun intended, extreme prejudice.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)wishing beatings upon old people is less stupid. I think you'd have a hard time coming up with a good point if you crashed into a needle factory.
Robb
(39,665 posts)It is certainly more work.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)as opposed to the speculation and mindreading going on with posters who can't admit to themselves that someone may have used a gun appropriately.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Amusingly, it appears it's one we share; I agree too many on DU don't believe there is ever an appropriate use of a firearm.
But the shooter's story just isn't believable. And that's what we're getting: only the shooter's story.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Because he had no business being there, perpetuating/starting an incident. He wasn't returning a wallet. And of course I have a bias, of drawing conclusions from a report instead of inventing scenarios for which no evidence exists.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Do you think there's any possibility the 65-year-old shooter might have overestimated the threat? Because it's made quite clear that his tale was spun to carefully demonize the rider out with his wife.
Who is he describing? This guy?
Or this?
treestar
(82,383 posts)that's a legitimate question. It's not always right to shoot at someone, just because they are in your face.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)I think you are extrapolating a lot, Robb.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Apparently it goes like this: the old guy wakes up in the morning, looks at himself in the mirror holding the gun, smiling crookedly. Then he suggests to his wife they take a drive, and she begins laughing because she knows what he means. Then they prowl the streets looking for victims, cutting people off at every opportunity, trying to provoke a road rage incident so he can scream "Do ya feel lucky, punk?" and shoot some poor and completely innocent guy baited into assaulting him at a red light.
Shit, they probably do that every week.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And why did he take it out?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Do you seriously think that everyone who carries a weapon for defense wants to use it?
WTF is wrong with you?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)It certainly is to anyone whose mind hasn't been poisoned by RW NRA propaganda. If you carry a gun be ready to use it. If you pull it out be ready to shoot. If you shoot then you shoot to kill.
Too many people who carry a gun look for ways to use it.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Do you see how illogical your statement really is?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I can understand why you avoided it, but it still stands.
Object made available to deal with a rare but potentially deadly situation != intending to have such a situation.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that is what self defense means.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Go back to the OP and read the story, baldguy.
metalbot
(1,058 posts)After all, if you aren't planning on getting into an accident, why would you need one?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)If you shoot then shoot to kill, no warning shots, no shooting to wound, put it in the center of mass.
So yes, we can assume that if the shooter fired his weapon then he intended to kill the motorcyclist.
sarisataka
(18,145 posts)It is not shoot to kill, but shoot to stop. As soon as the aggression is neutralized there is no further need to shoot.
Warning shots are negligent, shooting to wound is either the stuff of movies or a sign deadly force was not needed, center of mass gives the greatest likelihood of a hit and the greatest likelihood of causing enough shock to a body to stop them before there is fatal damage.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)If you carry a gun be ready to use it. If you pull it out be ready to shoot. If you shoot then you shoot to kill.
And too many people who carry a gun look for ways to use it.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)But hey, thanks for misinterpreting.
This has been explained many, many times.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You blow a dinner plate sized chunk out the back side of someone's center of mass then it's your intention to kill them.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Unless you are carrying something in the 13mm/.50 cal + size for defense...?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)You shoot to STOP. Aiming at center of mass provides the highest likelihood of making an attacker STOP.
Shooting to KILL means you have malice aforethought.
Take a self-defense class. Even an empty-hand discipline will teach you that in order to stay on the right side of the law you do not act with intent to kill. When you have to use force you use sufficient force to stop the threat, and you cease using force when the threat has been neutralized.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)In practice they are not..
If you shoot someone in the center of mass you're trying to kill them because that is the reasonably expected result of doing so..
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)If you are unfortunate enough to be forced to use deadly force to defend yourself and are fortunate enough to win that fight, your state of mind at the time you decided to use force can have a large impact on the second fight. People who use deadly force are often charged with a crime. Sometimes they are exonerated, sometimes not.
The last thing you want to say to a police officer after you have fatally shot someone is "I decided I had to kill him."
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)And as I mentioned, theory and practice differ in practice.
The only way you can be absolutely certain someone isn't going to harm you is if they are pining for the fjords, dead in other words.
You can wink wink, nudge nudge it all you want and I know that's what's happening in the classes but the reasonable expectation of shooting someone in the center of mass with a firearm is that they will die. No, not everyone who is shot that way dies but enough do that the expectation of that result is entirely reasonable.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)A good self-defense class teaches what the applicable laws mean, how they are applied in real life, and how to think and behave in ways that keep you in compliance. It's no longer theory when the handcuffs are placed on your wrists.
spin
(17,493 posts)I would also mention that if you seriously believe that you have the right to beat the crap out of some fool who does something stupid and almost causes you to be in an accident, you might have an anger management problem.
If you are a young person in good physical condition and decide to attack an elderly individual over a traffic incident, be aware that 49 out of 50 states in our country allow honest individuals some form of concealed carry. A high percentage of old farts have such licenses.
If you decide to punch out an elderly person over a traffic incident and he has a legal handgun on his person, he may decide that he has a good reason to fear that you intend to put him in a hospital for an extended period or time or even six feet under. If so, he may simply shoot you to stop your attack. Since you are much younger and stronger, the legal system may feel that while you were unarmed there was a significant disparity in force and ability between you and the older individual.
A wise man once said to never start a fight with an old man as he might simply kill you.
Robb
(39,665 posts)...and you run up to his car to get a good look at his face, he can shoot you dead for fear you wanted to beat him up. I suspect there would be fewer defending the kid.
A wise man also said there's no fool like an old fool.
aikoaiko
(34,113 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)Reported by the guy who shot someone, I'd add. The guy who ran to the cops to be sure to get his story in before the guy who was shot in the upper chest did.
aikoaiko
(34,113 posts)Granted the investigation continues, but the article doesn't say who said the male biker assault the driver. The wife could have substantiated the driver's story.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)So they could get their story straight.
Not saying that's what actually happened but as long as we're playing what-if it's a plausible scenario.
I've had plenty of car drivers look right straight at me on a bike, make eye contact and then move into my path anyway, I've posted about it before on DU. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the man saw the wife on her motorcycle and moved over to cut her off despite that.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=371857
LACarMan
(45 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)A 65 year old man who is unarmed attacks an 18 year old male who is legally armed.
First before the 18 year old could use any form of self defense the 65 year old would have to attack him. A reasonable man standing in the shoes of the 18 year old would not fear for his life because a person ran up to his car to just look at him.
Even if the older fellow opened the door and pulled the 18 year old out of the vehicle, I would imagine that the legal system would feel that there was not such a significant disparity in force to justify the use of lethal self defense.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)individuals and a jury would probably agree that the actions of the younger person was reasonable.
Of course I should point out that I am not an attorney nor do I wish to play one on DU.
State laws differ and it may be far easier to use disparity of force as an argument in some but very difficult in others.
I did find this article informative.
Disparity of Force
Written by K.L. Jamison, ESQ on January 6, 2012
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that size alone could constitute physical force
***snip***
Deadly force cannot be used unless the victim is in fear of deadly force. This usually requires the presence of a weapon. However, sometimes a significant disparity in the strength or fighting ability between the parties is accepted as a substitute weapon.
Disparity in size has been part of every disparity of force case since David and Goliath. Wrestling and boxing have weight classes in order to prevent the larger contenders having undue advantage.
The factors establishing a disparity of force include:
Age
Overwhelming size
Overwhelming strength
Force of numbers
Advanced skill in unarmed combat
***snip***
Normally the citizen claiming disparity of force will have been attacked by larger or more numerous foes. Most men are bigger, stronger, and more vicious than most women. Given the facts of biology, women are justified in the use of hazardous force in circumstances men would not be. Persons with physical disabilities or significantly older than their attacker or who are attacked by a group may also make this argument.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-columns/its-just-the-law/disparity-of-force
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Who else 'deserves' 'beating'?
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)You would think people would learn by now to not assault others. That idiot motorcyclist is lucky to be alive.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Perhaps he could give him a leg whip or something
oldernwiser
(52 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)SWTORFanatic
(385 posts)fist fight if you feel like it, drive away if you don't.
It is quite possible gramps may have been stuck in traffic and needed to use his gun - it's also possible he helped instigate the situation and pulled his gun when things got a little too "hot".
IMHO the former is obviously justified but the latter is NOT right.
spin
(17,493 posts)Or 65 year old tennis players who win tournaments in tennis? How many 65 year old golfers are capable of giving Tiger Woods a serious challenge in a golf tournament even considering the fact that he is no longer the golfer he once was?
Could it be that after a certain age an individual is no longer the athlete he was in his younger days?
Can the average 65 year old guy take on a physically fit person in his 30s or 40s and hold his own?
Let me tell you from my own personal experience that getting older sucks. I'm almost 67 and at one time I was one tough SOB. Now, while I consider myself no pushover, I do realize my limitations.
SWTORFanatic
(385 posts)partner's 55 year old, 5'3 inch mother is the biggest road rage queen in the world. About 10 years ago she got out of the car, got a 20 or 30 something year old guy out of his car, and told him "HIT ME, COME ON"
spin
(17,493 posts)She's just a feisty older lady and posed no real threat to the younger male.
I have to ask if she is from New York City.
SWTORFanatic
(385 posts)As for why hit her... I wasn't there for that particular incident, but my partner HATES driving with her mother. She flips people off, chases them down at 100 mph (yes 100 mph in a minivan), cuts them off and brake checks them, forces them almost off the road or into a guard rail, etc... does things far more dangerous than a punch.
If someone almost ran me off the road (LITERALLY) I'd want to deck them too, even if they were twice my age. But since I'm an athletic 31 year old 6'2 inch woman, if I socked someone 55+ years old (even after they almost ran me off the road and after they asked for it) and I got shot they'd probably consider me the sole instigator.
I'm not saying that's what happened in this case but I can see something like that happening.
spin
(17,493 posts)Once when my ex was driving she irritated another driver. She chased us down and proceeded to insult us and call us rednecks.
I laughed and explained that both of us were from Ohio. I also mentioned that if she actually looked at me she would realize that I lacked a tan. I worked graveyard shift and rarely went out in the sun as I slept during the daytime hours. I was basically a vampire not a redneck.
I suspect that this confused the hell out of her and the situation ended peacefully.
This was fortunate as both my wife and myself had training in jujitsu and had the angry woman attacked my ex, she would have regretted her decision. I would have been able to simply stand by and be a witness as my ex was quite capable of handling the assault.
I should add that despite the fact that we are divorced, my ex and myself are still friends.
It would be wise for any person who suffers from a road rage problem to seek help for anger management.
Basically a traffic incident no matter how serious does not warrant violence.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I'd rather hear about how that happened from both sides before concluding that a shooting was justified.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)right or wrong. It's called assault and it gets you a record and jail time.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)I will give them some verbal grief if the opportunity presents itself, though I never dismount to do it.
In my younger days, I would take out mirrors or side panels if I thought it warranted. I was considerably more stupid then.
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)Rush hour through downtown Indianapolis... Incredible!
The first time I wiped a mirror off the side of a car I was amazed how flimsy they were. Wonder *I* didn't get shot, eh?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)I am no longer riding cafe racers but Mr. Rebar remains a good friend.
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)Hoosier cage pilots aren't known for their colouring book prowess. They have a hard time staying between the lines.
Broderick
(4,578 posts)Oh, he was carrying a gun. Had he not had that on his person, I doubt he would have interacted with the upset man. Sometimes the tools we carry that can do bodily harm give us the feeling we are ten foot tall and bullet proof.
Then again, I was not there. Maybe the motorcyclist was drunk and hostile. Was the cutting off of the motorcyclist's wife a mistake or a perceived cut off? I was not there.
Carrying a gun sometimes leads to violence perhaps?
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Who confronted who first? The old man should have done more than just blow him away. There are dangers to riding bikes on the street, and that is other cars. If a motorcyclist is not aware of this then they should never be riding a bike.
Broderick
(4,578 posts)But really I do believe we get the feeling we can handle hostile situations when armed. Had he not been armed would the confrontation have ensued. I was approached by a hostile guy once after I inadvertently cut him off. He jumped out of his car. Came running back to my car. He was likely 6 foot 5 and rippled, maybe even to a point of obvious steroids or a professional wrestler. I quickly rolled up the window. He banged his hand on the top of my car and asked me to "step the fuck out of the car fucker". I might not have rolled up the window had I felt ten foot tall and bullet proof with a gun on my person. I looked forward and ignored him. He hit the top of my car again and walked back to his car as the light turned green. Flipped me off going back. I handled it appropriately I think. Why infuse more vitriol into a potentially dangerous scene? Then again, I understand how a gun might have made me feel "safe" but who knows if I would have hit the mark or I could consider what if he wrestled it away from me and I got shot. I diffused it by not feeding it.
Just my opinion.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)stranger who was obviously angry? Why, if you had, one or both of you might have ended up in jail, the hospital or worse, but honor would have been upheld!
Broderick
(4,578 posts)And Sarcasm always has a bit of "truth" melding in, but really you were very truthful in all your words as far as I see it. Good wrap up.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)But no what ifs, if he smashed your window and dragged you out of the car without a gun. I never was in a position like that. Maybe being a guy and 6' 2" is a deterrent from most guys but if it wasn't I'd be carrying a gun I think. Just saying.
Broderick
(4,578 posts)But in that situation it was a last resort to escape. A gun would have just probably created a worse situation.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Broderick
(4,578 posts)We forget stand your ground and Zimmerman. Assaulted perhaps but he shot and killed a young man. Provoked possibly by following the young guy. Big and bold with his firearm. How is that different??? Had he not carried a gun would he have provoked Travon? Had this 65 year old not had a gun would he have declined engagement in an argument???
Sometimes I seriously wonder about some here at du. It's like the gun group is taking over.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)WTF?
Broderick
(4,578 posts)By carrying a firearm and in the end violence and death happens.
There is a correlation here whether you see it and if you put aside political expediency and you look at political consequence of law instead. What good is it for folks to carry guns around in cars, in pockets, and holsters? In these two cases, two deaths.
Just my thoughts and I think the gun rights folks are getting emboldened here. Wonder why? Had this 65 year old not engaged and moved on would the gun be necessary. Likely not. But having it potentially made him big bold and youthful in his britches. Hope he's happy he shot someone and some say he didn't shoot this guy enough. Would Zimmerman have targeted his prey with a fist? He needed a gun to be big and bold.
The irony is lost in political gobsmacking.
Kaleva
(36,093 posts)The motorcyclist got off his bike, walked up to the car, got into an argument with the 65 year old and then assaulted him. It appears to me that the motorcyclists was the emboldened one. Might have thought he could teach the senior citizen a lesson.
Glad you were there.
Kaleva
(36,093 posts)Where did you get your info that it was the 65 year old who was the emboldened one?
sarisataka
(18,145 posts)and the motorcyclist beat the older man into a hospital.
What would your comment be then? Would it make the older man morally superior to have broken bones?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)One more old man's cheek finds a fist.
Broderick
(4,578 posts)Broderick
(4,578 posts)Here. I surrender. The gun right advocates win. I guess it's a futile battle here. Rather not fight about it. I would never advocate the removal of all guns. I think most times it's a behavior change emboldened by firearms that leads to tragedy. Jmo.
sarisataka
(18,145 posts)I am just challenging the path you were taking... if the gun was not there....
Yes people who carry can make stupid decisions. Some who carry start to think they are more than just average Joe/Jane and need a reality check.
But sometimes the armed person stops or prevents an injustice.
We do not know why he did not just drive off. Traffic may have had him blocked or maybe he was an ornery old guy who wasn't going to back down from a young'un giving him lip. No matter, once the assault started, by the motorcyclist per the article, that was a game changer.
If the older man used his gun as a threat, either by showing or verbally threatening, then HE was at fault.
Too often I see the knee jerk reaction that the gun carrier somehow escalated the situation overconfident by being armed. One famous case in progress certainly looks that way and the jury will decide. But that is one case and not really typical at that.
Broderick
(4,578 posts)I related a personal experience. Had I carried a gun; would I be tempted to confront the pissed off person?? I think there is that possibility. One can feel much more virulent if they have an ultimate "quick" solution.
sarisataka
(18,145 posts)I am less tempted to confront anyone while I'm carrying. Having lethal force at hand requires a person to take that "is this really that important" moment.
Anyone who Carries and thinks they have a quick solution to everyday problems needs to unload that gun, properly lock it and the ammo then immediately find a class on self defense.
Broderick
(4,578 posts)Is there that distinct possibility, putting yourself and your behavior aside for a moment, that carrying a firearm gives into virulent behavior one would not otherwise undertake? I personally think so. I "contrasted" as someone eloquently said, the position of Zimmerman with this 65 year old. I postulated that neither situation would have resulted in deadly force being used if the gun wasn't present. I am not at all equating this to someone breaking into a home for instance, with the intent to do bodily harm and someone defending themselves.
I am equating it to situation confrontations, that likely would not have existed to the ends, had the means not been available and in hand.
sarisataka
(18,145 posts)who will go where angels fear to tread, or at least somewhere they wouldn't normally go while armed.
The litmus test is would I do if armed/unarmed? The answer needs to be yes to both
In Z's case I try to keep an open mind. I do not believe it is SYG and have since day 1 said he should go to trial. IMO knowing he was armed I believe worked as you indicate. He felt a little safer and did something he might not normally do.
In the above case it is not as clear. There are too many unanswered questions... could the older man have driven off, did he get out of his vehicle, did he even lean out to vehemently return his opinion to the motorcyclist... to judge what role the gun played.
If it was a case of a sudden assault shooting could be an entirely justifiable action. If there was warning or a lead up, then there may have been overconfidence brought on by having an 'ace in the hole'
Broderick
(4,578 posts)I appreciate the conversation and response.
sarisataka
(18,145 posts)and civil exchange of ideas and opinions.
Hmmm, I think i need to slither back to the Gungeon and sharpen my claws
Have a good, safe evening
Broderick
(4,578 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)As you didn't witness the incident or claim to know the individuals involved, on what do you base your judgment of their states of mind?
Clames
(2,038 posts)Come back when you've actually read the article in its entirety. Some useful details you seem to be lacking here.
treestar
(82,383 posts)"compare" does not mean "assert to be identical to."
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Zimmerman wanted to play cop and hunted down and killed a young man who did nothing. This guy shot someone who was assaulting him. How are the situations comparable?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Again, their having contrasts doesn't mean they can't be compared for similarities too. Comparing and contrasting exists, it is not that we can't talk about two incidents together unless they are identical.
The similarities has to do with when a reasonable person should feel they have enough reason to use deadly force, a weapon. That does not mean we have to come to the same conclusion for both cases. We could think one had enough reason and the other didn't due to the differences. But that doesn't mean it's not the same issue. We couldn't have a legal system at all if we always had to find in favor of one side due to a rigid interpretation.
It's like all those threads where we have no choice apparently but to believe the police are always in the wrong and protestors never are. Someone wants to impose a single standard on us - the protestor is always right and the cop is always wrong. The shooter is always right (in self defense) and the one shot always in the wrong, or vice versa depending on the one who would put that rigid either/or standard upon us.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)This thread isn't about the police and protestors. And who is this "someone" who is telling us all self defense shootings are in the right? All very nebulous and unfounded. As for semantics games, just don't. We all know that you can compare a table leg to a tennis ball if you want, but the actual word comparable includes the presumption that what is being compared is close enough to make such comparison rational. And tossing Zimmerman and an old guy getting assaulted is not rational.
treestar
(82,383 posts)or the claim to need to use deadly force in self defense. We're allowed to compare them and contrast them.
Broderick
(4,578 posts)My point articulated. Was not an identical reference.
I just think carrying a gun can lead to violence because one is emboldened by it.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Funny, that's the same thing Zimmerman is saying.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Are you really going to whip out that bogeyman every time someone defends themself? This poor innocent victim got off his bike and started the confrontation that got him shot. Doesn't sound a lot like the Martin case to me, but then I'm not so politically invested in discrediting an elderly man that I can't read an article.
treestar
(82,383 posts)What's hard about that?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)What do you mean by that?
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Nothing against motorcyclist in general, as I do not even know this guy, but can determine he is a bit out of control.
spin
(17,493 posts)I became a much more polite driver.
I've talked to many others who have concealed weapons permits and they have also agreed that they became far less aggressive drivers.
Before I started carrying a gun I was willing to get in a fist fight if I felt it was justified. Now I will walk away from a heated argument even if it makes me look like a coward.
Those who oppose the concealed carry of firearms suggest that carrying a handgun makes a person far more aggressive but the statistics on concealed carry tend to show that this may be a totally false assertion. The same people often said that allowing concealed carry in the many states that have allowed it would lead to a "return to the Wild West with shoot outs at every intersection and at high noon on Main Street." It never happened.
The OP says that an incident happened in traffic and quite possibly the older individual was at fault. Even good drivers can make serious mistakes. Does that mean that the old fart deserved a beating?
Obviously we don't know all the details but the report does say that the motorcyclist assaulted the older individual.
Let's assume that the report is accurate. Let's even go so far as to say that the older individual was not apologetic and instead was argumentative. Does that give the motorcyclist the right to assault him?
What excuse can you offer for the motorcyclist? He was not armed. Why was he so aggressive? Is it perfectly O.K. for him to be aggressive but totally wrong for the older individual to defend himself?
edited to add comment
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's a "don't get shot" strategy that so far has worked.
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)I extended that beyond retirees. Never know when the guy you're gonna yell at is still pissed because his girl left him for a Biker, y'know...
baldguy
(36,649 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)*When saying so we absolve human beings from being completely responsible... says the NRA puppets.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It was a man who did the shooting, so maybe we should outlaw men? If we outlaw men, there will be a lot less violence and few incidents of gun fatalities. Problem solved!
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)One more car makes a police officer write a traffic ticket.
One more razor blade finds a wrist.
One more needle finds a vein.
One more turdy finds my eye... dropped by a birdy in the sky.
One more internet discussion forum finds a clueless person to post on it.
I could do this all night.
Broderick
(4,578 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Just look at the story in the OP: All the gunners think it was OK for the old guy to cut people off & endanger those around him - because he was carrying a gun. You think it's the bikers fault for getting shot because he took offense to having his & his wife's lives being threatened by the old guy's poor driving skills.
I have no doubt that if the situation was reversed, if the biker had the gun & the old guy was shot that you'd be claiming that the old guy deserved it.
Carrying a gun makes a person believe they can do anything they want without any consequences, because if anyone fucks with them they can just shoot the fucker. Such is not the behavior of civilized people.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I wouldn't assume that at all, a surprising number of car drivers will deliberately cut off a motorcycle because the motorcycle is not a physical threat to them at all.
I've seen it probably hundreds of times, people will actually make eye contact with a rider such as myself and then go ahead and pull out or move over anyway..
And I'm not saying this just because of this particular incident, I've said it before on DU..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=371857
Edited for grammar.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)aikoaiko
(34,113 posts)Driving motorcycles emboldens people to drive recklessly and creates the situation of being cutoff.
I like this game imagining the most insane bullshit possible.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)aikoaiko
(34,113 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Hint: He's not. The person who instigates the confrontation (in this case by cutting off the biker) isn't the victim - he's the perpetrator and would be charged with a crime in a civilized society.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)And Trayvon Martin is like a hyper-aggressive cyclist who goes after an old guy who cut him off?
Even I'm impressed by the ignorance of trying to tie these cases together, that's some damned wild stretching.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And you'll note that this is exactly the possibility this sub-thread is discussing.
And characterizing the biker as "hyper-aggressive" is prejudicial and bigoted. He wasn't planning ahead to kill someone (just in case) like the old guy was when he decided to carry a gun.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)of them believe as you state: "think it was OK for the old guy to cut people off & endanger those around him - because he was carrying a gun."
I'm looking for proof in the form of statements from all the individuals you identify.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)except, it seems, illogic and broad-brushing in the minds of haters.
Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)
Post removed
hack89
(39,171 posts)he only ended it.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)It's a disturbing thought, but one we have to ponder in a society with stand your ground laws and in many places, very unregulated gun ownership.
It's very easy to pull out that weapon in the heat of the moment. What isn't easy is dealing with the aftermath of taking another person's life.
sarisataka
(18,145 posts)Teaching that is has the potential to do far more good than any amount of regulations.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)And, this wasn't two guys squaring off behind a bar, was it now?
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)and using that gun has consequences that effect many people and can never be undone.
I am actually not against gun ownership. I am against carrying that gun around with you everywhere you go.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)A gun often gives a false sense of security. "stand your ground" is a good example.
My son's sensei always taught them that the best way to win a fight is to not be there.
Without a gun, perhaps that man would have driven away or at the very least, rolled up his windows, locked his doors and beeped his horn.
Was the aggressor wrong? Absolutely. Does he need to be dead? I think probably that could have been avoided.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Assault is not a normal condition most experience in the course of their day. That being said, it is extremely difficult to establish what behavioral responses should be considered normal in these rare circumstances.
"A gun often gives a false sense of security"
How do you know this? Do you have cites or stats to back this up?
"stand your ground" is a good example. "
No, it isn't. SYG doesn't necessitate the use of a firearm.
"Without a gun, perhaps that man would have driven away or at the very least, rolled up his windows, locked his doors and beeped his horn."
And perhaps he could have been beaten to death.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)And that's okay. Message boards would be boring if we all agreed on everything.
answers to your questions:
1) This is not a term paper or a thesis, I don't have a bibliography for you and nor am I willing to go write one. This is my opinion formed from my own experiences as a human being.
2) In my opinion, it's easier to stand your ground if you know you have a gun and finding an alternative way to get away from the situation is less imperative.
3) In my opinion in most (not all) cases there is an alternative to beaten to death or killing another human being.
P.S. let's try to not let this conversation get personal and nasty.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)What experiences have you had which lead you to this conclusion:
"The point is that the presence of a gun makes people behave in ways they would not normally and using that gun has consequences that effect many people and can never be undone."
At any rate, I agree the best outcome is to escape without harm to any party involved. But, for those circumstances in which this is impossible, I'd rather be armed than not. Speaking for myself, the choice to carry a concealed weapon is one made from my experiences as a human being.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)road ragers beating up motorists, presumably as long as its not you or someone you love, for the sake of your feeling good about the story not ending in a shooting.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Could he have not driven away? locked his doors, rolled up the windows, called for help, blared the horn?
It's alot easier to "stand your ground" when you have a gun to back you up. The problem is that once that trigger is pulled there is no putting the bullet back into the gun, there are no do overs. A man is dead, he may have kids or a wife/husband left behind, he will never be punished for his bad behavior. He will never have the opportunity to try and make amends. He is simply dead.
Pulling a trigger should be your very last choice, not the option you reach for first.
sarisataka
(18,145 posts)We don't know.
Maybe the assault was the motorcyclist reached in and grabbed the driver's throat... That would seriously reduce the above options.
But we do not have enough information.
From our safe happy homes we tend to choose the image that fits our prejudices.
The pro-control side always assumes there was another option and merely carrying a gun means the person is just looking for a chance to use it. If that was true the wild-west doomsday predictions would have come true years ago.
The pro gun people tend to believe most civilian shootings are justified. One point to note however is it is usually the pro gun side will call for the rule of law if the shooting is questionable. The pro control side more often assumes guilt because the person carried a gun.
With that logic there could never be a justified shooting because that presence of a gun fatally poisons the situation.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And people aren't realizing that the shooter may have taken care of that moment but still has to live the rest of his life with having shot someone. That's being overlooked entirely.
JVS
(61,935 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)And maybe we'd weed out people who couldn't control their anger.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)O'Fallon, MO (KMOV.com) -- One man was shot after a road rage dispute ended with gunfire on Interstate 70 in O'Fallon, Missouri Saturday afternoon.
According to police, a 65-year-old man driving a car allegedly cut-off a motorcycle, driven by a woman, on westbound 1-70 at 1:45 p.m. The car then pulled off the interstate at Bryan Road, followed by the woman as well as her 49-year-old husband on a separate motorcycle.
All three people were stopped at a signal on Bryan Road when the male motorcyclist got off his bike, approached the car and allegedly exchanged words with driver. According to reports, the motorcyclist began to physically assault the 65-year-old man.
The man then pulled out a semi-automatic weapon and shot the motorcyclist once in the chest and fled the scene.
http://www.kmov.com/home/Breaking-Shooting--154530415.html
Odd he fled the scene but the article did note he turned himself shortly after. They're still investigating so curious to see what comes up.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)She might be armed and hostile.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Even though someone flees doesn't mean the shooting wasn't justified - trying to make that clear.
But something like what you say requires more details. Someone might be armed and hostile after a collision but can't flee until they become armed and hostile. Though there wasn't an accident and I'm not sure fleeing after a shooting is illegal. But when I say details, what did she do after the shooting? Did she flee herself to the sounds of gunfire which is a normal reaction? She may have been armed and hostile but the man is the one with the gun after all so she may not be to avoid getting shot.
Personally I have no judgments so far and waiting for investigation to continue. Though, I'll probably forget all about this story when it gets to that point.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Though I might have done it without the shooting
treestar
(82,383 posts)I still wonder of what they consisted. Reaching into the car? Opening the door and dragging the guy out?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Its actually a binary thing...he was assaulted or was not. Another question is if there also was battery. In CA the two are different crimes.
When I am riding and a confrontation occurs, I always stay on the bike unless the cager is already out of their car.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Something of a rundown:
Missouri Revised Statutes Section 565.050 defines assault in the first degree if a person attempts to kill, actually and intentionally causes serious injury or attempts to cause serious injury. If a victim suffers serious injury, the crime is a Class A felony punishable by 10 to 30 years in prison, depending upon the severity of the injury and the convict's previous criminal record. When there is no serious injury, the assault charge is a Class B felony. If the suspect is convicted, he faces five to 15 years in prison.
Assault in the Second Degree
Under Section 565.060 of Missouri Revised Statutes, second-degree assault occurs in Missouri if the person: (1) uses a deadly weapon and attempts to cause or actually causes any injury, (2) acts recklessly and causes any injury, (3) acts in "the heat of passion" and causes or attempts to cause serious injury, (4) recklessly fires a gun, causing injury to another person, or (5) causes injury while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Second-degree assault is a Class C felony in Missouri, punishable by no more than 7 years in prison.
Assault in the Third Degree
A person can be convicted of third-degree assault in Missouri if: (1) the person negligently causes any injury with a deadly weapon, (2) the person recklessly causes or attempts to cause any physical injury, (3) the person causes a victim to believe that she is at risk of being injured, (4) the person acts recklessly, creating the risk of death or serious injury, (5) the person physically touches the victim in a way that is "offensive or provocative," or (6) the person physically touches an incapacitated person. As set forth in Missouri Revised Statutes Section 565.070, a person who committed an act as defined in (3) or (4) is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine. Conduct set forth in all other sections is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by 15 days in jail and a $300 fine. When person has multiple assault convictions, the offense is a Class D felony with a sentence of up to four years.
Defenses to Assault
A person charged with assault can claim self-defense. If he can prove that "a reasonable person" in his situation would have feared for his safety, his conduct in committing assault is permissible. He is permitted to act with reasonable force to prevent his own impending injury.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Same thing as an intruder entering your home.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The motorcyclist got off of his ride, walked up to a vehicle that was stopped at a red light, and assaulted the driver who in turn defended himself by shooting the attacker.
Something similar happened to me once, except I hadn't cut anyone off in traffic. It was in the parking lot of Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego. An obviously drunk person from a tailgate party decided he didn't like me, so he came up to the driver's side of my small car and tried to grab me by the neck.
I grabbed one of his arms and held it tightly as I drove off. He managed to stay on his feet until I shifted into second gear. I could see him rolling over and over in my rear-view mirror as I sped off.
He survived my use of potentially deadly force.
spin
(17,493 posts)probably helped him to survive.
Hopefully he learned a valuable lesson.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)The sooner this f*cked up society learns this the better. This is not the damned movies! This should be well taught in school. Hitting anyone for any reason is wrong! People need to stop thinking it is ok to hit others.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Right?
sarisataka
(18,145 posts)To prevent death or serious bodily harm from an attack.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)sarisataka
(18,145 posts)If less than lethal force can end an attack that is always the second choice. The first of course is to avoid the situation entirely.
When all else fails, or is not an option then lethal force may be employed.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I was wondering if anyone else noticed the logical hole in the post I was replying to in the first place.
hack89
(39,171 posts)so I am morally obligated to get into a fist fight with someone who attacks me instead of shooting him? I have never been in a fistfight my entire life - I don't know how to deliver a perfectly calibrated beat down that stops his aggression while not endangering his life. What if he is a better fighter and all I do is anger him to the point that he severely beats me or even kills me?
Why do I have to gamble with my life to ensure the safety of the person who attacked me?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I haven't seen that since Junior High..
You're so cute.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Javaman
(62,394 posts)sorry, I thought it said that the motorist shot the motorcycle.
Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed