HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Man, 65, shoots motorcycl...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun May 27, 2012, 02:48 PM

Man, 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

194 replies, 21838 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 194 replies Author Time Post
Reply Man, 65, shoots motorcyclist in road rage incident (Original post)
proud2BlibKansan May 2012 OP
cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #1
proud2BlibKansan May 2012 #3
cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #6
Aerows May 2012 #11
WI_DEM May 2012 #63
sendero May 2012 #65
Clames May 2012 #77
X_Digger May 2012 #83
L0oniX May 2012 #126
4th law of robotics May 2012 #94
Kingofalldems May 2012 #116
4th law of robotics May 2012 #143
ZombieHorde May 2012 #2
FarPoint May 2012 #4
ManiacJoe May 2012 #108
oldernwiser May 2012 #122
L0oniX May 2012 #127
deutsey May 2012 #178
FarPoint May 2012 #164
Life Long Dem May 2012 #5
Ikonoklast May 2012 #9
Life Long Dem May 2012 #16
spin May 2012 #43
BiggJawn May 2012 #7
Robb May 2012 #10
Aerows May 2012 #12
Robb May 2012 #14
Aerows May 2012 #17
WriteWrong May 2012 #124
Union Scribe May 2012 #34
Robb May 2012 #40
Union Scribe May 2012 #41
Robb May 2012 #60
Union Scribe May 2012 #103
Robb May 2012 #109
Union Scribe May 2012 #114
Robb May 2012 #132
Union Scribe May 2012 #135
Robb May 2012 #138
treestar May 2012 #141
slackmaster May 2012 #71
Union Scribe May 2012 #105
baldguy May 2012 #115
PavePusher May 2012 #144
baldguy May 2012 #154
slackmaster May 2012 #171
X_Digger May 2012 #157
baldguy May 2012 #162
X_Digger May 2012 #173
hack89 May 2012 #163
slackmaster May 2012 #168
metalbot May 2012 #177
Fumesucker May 2012 #146
sarisataka May 2012 #150
baldguy May 2012 #152
PavePusher May 2012 #161
Fumesucker May 2012 #167
PavePusher May 2012 #183
slackmaster May 2012 #169
Fumesucker May 2012 #172
slackmaster May 2012 #174
Fumesucker May 2012 #175
slackmaster May 2012 #176
spin May 2012 #42
Robb May 2012 #61
aikoaiko May 2012 #75
Robb May 2012 #76
aikoaiko May 2012 #82
Fumesucker May 2012 #86
LACarMan May 2012 #179
spin May 2012 #91
Fumesucker May 2012 #110
spin May 2012 #119
X_Digger May 2012 #85
Incitatus May 2012 #118
nolabels May 2012 #166
oldernwiser May 2012 #125
L0oniX May 2012 #129
Aerows May 2012 #13
SWTORFanatic May 2012 #21
spin May 2012 #46
SWTORFanatic May 2012 #67
spin May 2012 #93
SWTORFanatic May 2012 #139
spin May 2012 #160
treestar May 2012 #84
L0oniX May 2012 #128
ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #8
BiggJawn May 2012 #90
ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #92
BiggJawn May 2012 #112
Broderick May 2012 #15
Life Long Dem May 2012 #18
Broderick May 2012 #19
hedgehog May 2012 #20
Broderick May 2012 #22
Life Long Dem May 2012 #27
Broderick May 2012 #31
Life Long Dem May 2012 #32
Broderick May 2012 #33
Union Scribe May 2012 #35
Broderick May 2012 #38
Kaleva May 2012 #44
Broderick May 2012 #50
Kaleva May 2012 #53
sarisataka May 2012 #45
cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #49
Broderick May 2012 #51
Broderick May 2012 #54
sarisataka May 2012 #55
Broderick May 2012 #185
sarisataka May 2012 #186
Broderick May 2012 #188
sarisataka May 2012 #189
Broderick May 2012 #190
sarisataka May 2012 #191
Broderick May 2012 #193
Marengo May 2012 #97
Clames May 2012 #80
treestar May 2012 #98
Union Scribe May 2012 #101
treestar May 2012 #106
Union Scribe May 2012 #107
treestar May 2012 #111
Broderick May 2012 #184
Life Long Dem May 2012 #123
Union Scribe May 2012 #130
treestar May 2012 #136
Scootaloo May 2012 #24
Life Long Dem May 2012 #28
spin May 2012 #47
L0oniX May 2012 #131
slackmaster May 2012 #70
lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #23
BiggJawn May 2012 #25
baldguy May 2012 #26
fascisthunter May 2012 #30
Skip Intro May 2012 #37
Honeycombe8 May 2012 #39
cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #48
Broderick May 2012 #52
baldguy May 2012 #62
Fumesucker May 2012 #64
baldguy May 2012 #74
aikoaiko May 2012 #78
baldguy May 2012 #79
aikoaiko May 2012 #81
Union Scribe May 2012 #102
baldguy May 2012 #117
Union Scribe May 2012 #120
baldguy May 2012 #134
ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #95
Marengo May 2012 #99
PavePusher May 2012 #148
fascisthunter May 2012 #29
hack89 May 2012 #36
Marrah_G May 2012 #56
sarisataka May 2012 #57
Union Scribe May 2012 #58
Marrah_G May 2012 #59
Marengo May 2012 #100
Marrah_G May 2012 #140
Marengo May 2012 #170
Marrah_G May 2012 #182
Marengo May 2012 #192
Union Scribe May 2012 #104
Marrah_G May 2012 #142
sarisataka May 2012 #145
treestar May 2012 #87
JVS May 2012 #159
4th law of robotics May 2012 #187
JonLP24 May 2012 #66
slackmaster May 2012 #69
JonLP24 May 2012 #72
slackmaster May 2012 #73
treestar May 2012 #88
treestar May 2012 #89
ProgressiveProfessor May 2012 #96
Robb May 2012 #113
L0oniX May 2012 #133
slackmaster May 2012 #68
spin May 2012 #121
L0oniX May 2012 #137
Fumesucker May 2012 #147
sarisataka May 2012 #149
Fumesucker May 2012 #151
sarisataka May 2012 #153
Fumesucker May 2012 #155
hack89 May 2012 #181
L0oniX May 2012 #156
Fumesucker May 2012 #158
Egalitarian Thug May 2012 #165
Javaman May 2012 #180
Name removed Jan 2014 #194

Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun May 27, 2012, 02:51 PM

1. "Motorcyclist Shot After Assaulting 65-Year-Old Man at Traffic Light" seems more accurate to me.

The road rage I read about in this incident was displayed by the motorcycle rider.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #1)

Sun May 27, 2012, 02:58 PM

3. That certainly seems to be the case here.

But it's hard to tell with so little details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #3)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:06 PM

6. OTOH I'd happily see the 65-year-old prosecuted if he were carrying the gun illegally.

To the fullest extent of the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #1)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:42 PM

11. Exactly.

Doesn't look like "road rage" to me, it looks like self defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #1)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:58 AM

63. funny how they try to push the blame on the motorist and not the cyclist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WI_DEM (Reply #63)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:09 AM

65. Here's a clue for you..

... 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #65)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:12 AM

77. Here's a better clue.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #65)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:42 AM

83. At a stop light, *after* the incident?!?

That's revenge, not defense.

derp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sendero (Reply #65)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:41 PM

126. You approve of taking the law into your own hands?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #1)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:55 PM

94. +1

 

This misleading headline was written intentionally to elicit outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #94)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:04 PM

116. And you know this how, Professor ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kingofalldems (Reply #116)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:02 PM

143. Because they left out key details

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun May 27, 2012, 02:53 PM

2. I disagree with the term "road rage" for this incident.

Seems to me the shooting happened because of the argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #2)

Sun May 27, 2012, 02:59 PM

4. I see your point.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #4)

Mon May 28, 2012, 03:06 PM

108. You misread the article.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #108)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:35 PM

122. Foolish thing to do in the 1st place

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldernwiser (Reply #122)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:43 PM

127. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldernwiser (Reply #122)

Tue May 29, 2012, 10:53 AM

178. Amen to that n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #108)

Tue May 29, 2012, 07:10 AM

164. Oh..... got it now....thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:02 PM

5. Just another thug

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #5)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:36 PM

9. Which one, the shooter or the assaulter?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #9)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:49 PM

16. The guy who cut off the wife needs glasses or needs to look out for motorcyclist

 

That's one thing in itself (as a motorcyclist), But after that, screw the wife being cut off and deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #9)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:02 AM

43. Perhaps, but does that give the motorcyclist the right to beat the crap ...

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:17 PM

7. "...and police said the motorcyclist assaulted the 65-year-old driver..."

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BiggJawn (Reply #7)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:40 PM

10. An armed man never gets the beating he deserves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #10)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:44 PM

12. An armed man

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #12)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:48 PM

14. Ah, thank goodness an eyewitness has stepped forward!

You were there, apparently?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #14)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:58 PM

17. No, obviously not

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #12)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:36 PM

124. Insurance companies call them "crashes" because they say there are no "accidents"

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #10)

Sun May 27, 2012, 10:50 PM

34. You think old men who cut people off should be beaten.

Noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #34)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:43 PM

40. You think motorists should kill whoever they please.

And if the car doesn't work, bring a gun to finish the job, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #40)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:50 PM

41. Yeah you seem to have a real grasp of the situation

I guess there's more than one eyewitness in this thread eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #41)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:34 AM

60. Your take is only slightly stupider than mine, in coming first.

Neither of us were there. You leapt to defend one side with, pun intended, extreme prejudice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #60)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:15 PM

103. Right, because basing a "take" on the report is stupid, while

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #103)

Mon May 28, 2012, 03:10 PM

109. I commend you for defending the shooter.

It is certainly more work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #109)

Mon May 28, 2012, 06:35 PM

114. I'm defending a realistic look at the reported facts

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #114)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:04 PM

132. Within which Union Scribe reveals bias.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #132)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:07 PM

135. Did the guy get shot outside that car or not?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #135)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:23 PM

138. Again, according to the shooter's statements to police.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #135)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:51 PM

141. But is that enough to use deadly force on him?

that's a legitimate question. It's not always right to shoot at someone, just because they are in your face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #40)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:31 AM

71. You think the 65-year-old motorist WANTED to kill the motorcyclist?

 

I think you are extrapolating a lot, Robb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #71)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:21 PM

105. He isn't the only one suggesting that, either.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #71)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:01 PM

115. Why was he carrying a gun if he didn't have the intention of killing someone?

And why did he take it out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #115)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:15 PM

144. Holy Shit.

 

Do you seriously think that everyone who carries a weapon for defense wants to use it?

WTF is wrong with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #144)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:57 PM

154. Yes, isn't it obvious that's the case?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to baldguy (Reply #115)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:25 PM

157. Do people who carry fire extinguishers in their cars intend on having fires?

Do you see how illogical your statement really is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #157)

Tue May 29, 2012, 05:47 AM

162. A gun is more akin to a match than a fire extinguisher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #162)

Tue May 29, 2012, 09:29 AM

173. That's not an answer, that's a dodge.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #115)

Tue May 29, 2012, 06:56 AM

163. His intention was to stop the threat to his life. Nothing more, nothing less.

that is what self defense means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #115)

Tue May 29, 2012, 08:47 AM

168. The only lawful purpose of carrying a gun is for self-defense

 

And why did he take it out?

Go back to the OP and read the story, baldguy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #115)

Tue May 29, 2012, 10:37 AM

177. Do you wear your seat belt with the intention of getting into an accident?

After all, if you aren't planning on getting into an accident, why would you need one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #71)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:22 PM

146. One of the points that pro gun people make constantly is this..

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #146)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:50 PM

150. Slight correction

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #146)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:52 PM

152. +1000

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #146)

Tue May 29, 2012, 12:50 AM

161. "center of mass" =/= "shoot to kill".

 

But hey, thanks for misinterpreting.

This has been explained many, many times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #161)

Tue May 29, 2012, 07:28 AM

167. Oh bullshit..

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #167)

Tue May 29, 2012, 06:05 PM

183. Your unfamiliarity with firearms and their capabilities in real life is obvious.

 

Unless you are carrying something in the 13mm/.50 cal + size for defense...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #146)

Tue May 29, 2012, 08:50 AM

169. No Fumesucker, you have it COMPLETELY wrong

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #169)

Tue May 29, 2012, 08:59 AM

172. In theory theory and practice are identical..

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..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #172)

Tue May 29, 2012, 09:37 AM

174. As I suggested previously, take a self-defense class

 

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #174)

Tue May 29, 2012, 09:49 AM

175. The class would be theory..

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #175)

Tue May 29, 2012, 10:22 AM

176. Doing something that you know is likely to kill someone is not the same as WANTING to kill someone

 

The class would be theory.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #10)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:56 PM

42. But often an armed man is able to stop the beating he didn't deserve...

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #42)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:41 AM

61. If an 18-year-old kid knocks your daughter off her bike into a ditch

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #61)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:55 AM

75. What else is different about your scenario and the actual story -- oh yes an actual physical assault


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #75)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:02 AM

76. A *reported* physical assault.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #76)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:25 AM

82. Yes, a reported physical assault.


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #82)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:45 AM

86. That's why the man left the scene of the shooting..

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

I can tell you from long experience as a rider on both bikes and motorbikes that eye contact is deadly, people will look right straight at you, make eye contact and then pull in front of you anyway. Don't trust eye contact.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #86)

Tue May 29, 2012, 11:05 AM

179. Target fixation? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #61)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:47 PM

91. Interesting scenario ...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #91)

Mon May 28, 2012, 03:12 PM

110. What if the 18 year old was physically disabled, a paraplegic for instance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #110)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:26 PM

119. In that case there would be a significant disparity between the two ...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #10)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:44 AM

85. Are you endorsing 'beatings' for traffic violations?

Who else 'deserves' 'beating'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #10)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:15 PM

118. An unarmed man never gets to beat an armed man.

You would think people would learn by now to not assault others. That idiot motorcyclist is lucky to be alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Incitatus (Reply #118)

Tue May 29, 2012, 07:14 AM

166. Busier than one legged man in an ass kickin contest

Perhaps he could give him a leg whip or something

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #10)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:37 PM

125. Having a loaded gun means never having to say you're sorry? :)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #10)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:47 PM

129. So the court system should give the old guy a beating?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BiggJawn (Reply #7)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:45 PM

13. Yep. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BiggJawn (Reply #7)

Sun May 27, 2012, 04:57 PM

21. Very possible gramps helped instigate the situation. Whatever happened to

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SWTORFanatic (Reply #21)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:19 AM

46. How many 65 year old boxers have you seen on TV?

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #46)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:18 AM

67. Doesn't matter, many don't know their limitations or instigate anyway. My

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"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SWTORFanatic (Reply #67)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:54 PM

93. Why would the guy hit her?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #93)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:36 PM

139. Nope, suburbs of Milwaukee, WI

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SWTORFanatic (Reply #139)

Tue May 29, 2012, 12:50 AM

160. I have encountered such people ...

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.











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BiggJawn (Reply #7)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:44 AM

84. There's no detail in the article about the assault

I'd rather hear about how that happened from both sides before concluding that a shooting was justified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BiggJawn (Reply #7)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:45 PM

128. It's not like the movies where you get to beat up people for any reason...

right or wrong. It's called assault and it gets you a record and jail time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:32 PM

8. Cagers imperil motorcyclists all the time

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #8)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:45 PM

90. That's why I quit riding.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BiggJawn (Reply #90)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:53 PM

92. Here in CA where we can legally lane split, the harassment is often overt and nasty

I am no longer riding cafe racers but Mr. Rebar remains a good friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #92)

Mon May 28, 2012, 03:15 PM

112. Never got into line dancing, and it's not legal here.

Hoosier cage pilots aren't known for their colouring book prowess. They have a hard time staying between the lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun May 27, 2012, 03:48 PM

15. Why did the 65 year old feel the compunction to argue with the motorcyclist?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #15)

Sun May 27, 2012, 04:00 PM

18. Hello?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #18)

Sun May 27, 2012, 04:08 PM

19. Like I said I wasn't there

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #19)

Sun May 27, 2012, 04:16 PM

20. You mean you didn't "stand your ground" with a total

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #20)

Sun May 27, 2012, 05:02 PM

22. Precisely

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #19)

Sun May 27, 2012, 10:14 PM

27. A lot of what ifs with a gun

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #27)

Sun May 27, 2012, 10:27 PM

31. Lol. I had a gas pedal to move if necessary.

But in that situation it was a last resort to escape. A gun would have just probably created a worse situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #31)

Sun May 27, 2012, 10:32 PM

32. Or ended the situation.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #32)

Sun May 27, 2012, 10:48 PM

33. I wouldn't want blood on my hands

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #33)

Sun May 27, 2012, 10:52 PM

35. You're comparing this guy to Zimmerman?

WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #35)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:11 PM

38. In a sense both were emboldened

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #38)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:07 AM

44. They were stopped at a red light...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #44)

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:53 AM

50. Ok

Glad you were there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #50)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:14 AM

53. That's what the news article said.

Where did you get your info that it was the 65 year old who was the emboldened one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #38)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:13 AM

45. say the gun was not present

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #45)

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:12 AM

49. Someone downthread would have said...

One more old man's cheek finds a fist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #45)

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:54 AM

51. Good grief

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #45)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:31 AM

54. I can no longer win the virtue of guns question

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #54)

Mon May 28, 2012, 03:10 AM

55. I am not looking to "win"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #55)

Tue May 29, 2012, 06:56 PM

185. It's not a knee jerk reaction

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #185)

Tue May 29, 2012, 07:25 PM

186. For myself

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #186)

Tue May 29, 2012, 07:47 PM

188. Great point

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #188)

Tue May 29, 2012, 08:42 PM

189. I agree, there are those

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'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #189)

Tue May 29, 2012, 09:00 PM

190. Fair enough

I appreciate the conversation and response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #190)

Tue May 29, 2012, 09:14 PM

191. It has been a pleasant conversation

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #191)

Tue May 29, 2012, 10:50 PM

193. Lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #54)

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:00 PM

97. No, it's not a question of "virtue", rather your attempt at mentalism

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #38)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:19 AM

80. Where are you getting "two deaths" from?

 

Come back when you've actually read the article in its entirety. Some useful details you seem to be lacking here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #35)

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:02 PM

98. The situations are very comparable

"compare" does not mean "assert to be identical to."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #98)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:10 PM

101. No, they aren't.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #101)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:28 PM

106. Yes they are also contrastable

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #106)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:36 PM

107. You're a little off track.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #107)

Mon May 28, 2012, 03:14 PM

111. They both involve self defense

or the claim to need to use deadly force in self defense. We're allowed to compare them and contrast them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #106)

Tue May 29, 2012, 06:53 PM

184. Thank you.

My point articulated. Was not an identical reference.

I just think carrying a gun can lead to violence because one is emboldened by it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #101)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:35 PM

123. "This guy shot someone who was assaulting him."

 

Funny, that's the same thing Zimmerman is saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #123)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:59 PM

130. And because of Zimmerman it can't ever really happen?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #130)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:08 PM

136. No. I'm saying we can compare the two incidents.

What's hard about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #18)

Sun May 27, 2012, 05:06 PM

24. "The old man should have done more than just blow him away"

What do you mean by that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #24)

Sun May 27, 2012, 10:18 PM

28. I mean he had a right to blow him away.

 

Nothing against motorcyclist in general, as I do not even know this guy, but can determine he is a bit out of control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #15)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:41 AM

47. I started legally carrying a handgun 15 years ago ...

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











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #47)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:00 PM

131. I carry and have found the same attitude change in myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Broderick (Reply #15)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:29 AM

70. That's a very creative interpretation of the events as described

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun May 27, 2012, 05:02 PM

23. I'm a bike rider. I avoid getting off my bike at the light to assault retirees.

It's a "don't get shot" strategy that so far has worked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #23)

Sun May 27, 2012, 05:32 PM

25. That always worked for me when I was riding.

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Sun May 27, 2012, 06:21 PM

26. One more gun finds its victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #26)

Sun May 27, 2012, 10:22 PM

30. nah.... gunz aren't killing, people are!



*When saying so we absolve human beings from being completely responsible... says the NRA puppets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #30)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:06 PM

37. well, guns don't pull their own triggers, do they? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #26)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:17 PM

39. One more man finds his victim?

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #26)

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:09 AM

48. One more spoon makes a child fat.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #48)

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:55 AM

52. Yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #48)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:49 AM

62. Except that only guns create the situations in which they can be used.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #62)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:05 AM

64. You are assuming the cut off was an accidental act..

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

I can tell you from long experience as a rider on both bikes and motorbikes that eye contact is deadly, people will look right straight at you, make eye contact and then pull in front of you anyway. Don't trust eye contact.



Edited for grammar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #64)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:16 AM

74. And that brings up the possibility that the old guy was looking for someone to shoot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #74)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:13 AM

78. And that brings up the possibility the wife conspired with the driver to kill her husband

Driving motorcycles emboldens people to drive recklessly and creates the situation of being cutoff.

I like this game imagining the most insane bullshit possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #78)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:18 AM

79. Typical brain-addled RW response: Blame the victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #79)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:23 AM

81. You don't really understand sarcasm, do you? Even with the :sarcasm:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #79)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:12 PM

102. Hint: you and the anti-self-defense brigade already are. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #102)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:06 PM

117. By your logic George Zimmerman is a victim too.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #117)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:29 PM

120. Cutting someone off is like hunting down and murdering a teenager?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #120)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:06 PM

134. If it was intentional, of course it is.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #62)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:55 PM

95. Cager logic at its best

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #62)

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:23 PM

99. What is a "gunner", who are the "gunners" you refer to, and can you provide proof that ALL...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #62)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:32 PM

148. Sorry, but guns don't "create" anything....

 

except, it seems, illogic and broad-brushing in the minds of haters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)


Response to fascisthunter (Reply #29)

Sun May 27, 2012, 11:06 PM

36. The gun owner didn't start the fight

he only ended it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2012, 03:21 AM

56. Imagine if every fistfight ended with someone being shot and killed

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #56)

Mon May 28, 2012, 03:23 AM

57. You found what I believe is the key point

What isn't easy is dealing with the aftermath of taking another person's life.


Teaching that is has the potential to do far more good than any amount of regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #56)

Mon May 28, 2012, 05:54 AM

58. Then maybe people shouldn't start fights

And, this wasn't two guys squaring off behind a bar, was it now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #58)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:40 AM

59. 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.

I am actually not against gun ownership. I am against carrying that gun around with you everywhere you go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #59)

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:27 PM

100. What is "normal" behavior for a person being assaulted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #100)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:50 PM

140. Driving away would be one.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #140)

Tue May 29, 2012, 08:52 AM

170. Sounds perfectly reasonable...from and to someone not currently under assault.

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marengo (Reply #170)

Tue May 29, 2012, 01:30 PM

182. This is a topic you and I likely will never agree on

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #182)

Tue May 29, 2012, 10:36 PM

192. You've intrigued my curiosity...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #59)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:17 PM

104. So as a society we should prefer

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #104)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:56 PM

142. So there was no other choice but to shoot?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #142)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:18 PM

145. So there was no other choice but to shoot?

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.

Pulling a trigger should be your very last choice, not the option you reach for first.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #56)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:48 AM

87. Exactly true. The whole mentality will lead to more shootings

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #56)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:11 PM

159. People wouldn't be so quick to assault others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #56)

Tue May 29, 2012, 07:32 PM

187. There would definitely be fewer fistfights.

 

And maybe we'd weed out people who couldn't control their anger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:12 AM

66. Some more details

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #66)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:28 AM

69. Given that the motorcyclist's wife was present it seems reasonable to get away from her

 

She might be armed and hostile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #69)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:44 AM

72. Perhaps

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #72)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:13 AM

73. Given that nobody was killed or even seriously injured, the story is quite forgettable

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #69)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:50 AM

88. Yes, I think it would be natural to run out of there

Though I might have done it without the shooting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #66)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:51 AM

89. Began to assault the driver

I still wonder of what they consisted. Reaching into the car? Opening the door and dragging the guy out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #89)

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:00 PM

96. That too has me puzzled

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #89)

Mon May 28, 2012, 03:16 PM

113. It seems in Missouri, intent to assault = assault.

Something of a rundown:

Assault in the First Degree
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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #89)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:05 PM

133. The Castile Doctrine would apply to that situation in Florida.

Same thing as an intruder entering your home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:26 AM

68. From the description of events in the brief article, it looks to me like a justifiable shooting

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #68)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:31 PM

121. The fact that he was drunk ...

probably helped him to survive.

Hopefully he learned a valuable lesson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:10 PM

137. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO BATTER OR ASSAULT ANYONE FOR ANY REASON!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #137)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:24 PM

147. On the other hand there are excellent reasons to shoot people..

Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #147)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:46 PM

149. Yes

To prevent death or serious bodily harm from an attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #149)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:50 PM

151. But that wouldn't be a good enough reason to hit someone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #151)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:53 PM

153. It would

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #153)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:07 PM

155. Thanks..

I was wondering if anyone else noticed the logical hole in the post I was replying to in the first place.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #155)

Tue May 29, 2012, 11:38 AM

181. I don't see the logical hole

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #147)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:16 PM

156. You need to quit sucking on fumes before it's too late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #156)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:32 PM

158. Aww.. Making fun of someone's name..

I haven't seen that since Junior High..

You're so cute.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2012, 07:10 AM

165. When assholes (almost) collide. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2012, 11:07 AM

180. Vehicular homicide. ooops! My bad.

sorry, I thought it said that the motorist shot the motorcycle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Original post)

Reply to this thread