Similar to above. It seems (to me) that since the driver was in possession of clear deadly force capability, he has a higher responsibly to defuse the situation if possible (which it seems like he was able to and didn't).
Similar to above. It seems (to me) that since the driver was in possession of clear deadly force capability, he has a higher responsibly to defuse the situation if possible (which it seems like he was able to and didn't).
rotard wrote: Since the old man decided to stick around, he should have drawn his weapon while the biker was approaching his car, and told him to leave. Instead, he decided to get punched first. At this point, he was pretty much at the mercy of the biker. So, not only did the old man have an anger problem, he was also making poor tactical decisions. Bravo.
He shouldn't have yelled at the other guy, and he shouldn't have stopped.
The way I figure it about road rage is chances are you're never going to see that other person again, so why bother risking your life? Drive on and forget about it.
In reply to aircooled:
You're right, but he was not obligated to by law. Its interesting to me to see who sides with law and others with common sense. The common sense on this board is exemplary, but law doesn't allow much room for common sense in these matters, leaving issues black and white. I side with the law, but don't agree with the way he acted. I still side strongly with castle law and think it should be implemented across the states.
Sure, the law doesn't side with common sense 100% of the time, but in this case the common sense approach also would have been just as lawful as what happened. Leaving the scene would have been okay since there wasn't an accident.
I also think castle law tends to be a good thing, though some implementations can be worse than others.
In most cases, I think law solid be based off of common sense. Unfortunately common sense tends to differ person to person. I wonder how purple would act if they made every bad decision the shooter made up until the point the shot was fired. At that point you've already berkeleyed up enough. Us the punch endangering your life enough to shoot? Is that roll of deadly blow punches imminent?
Thats the way I tend to look at this situation. There old man had already proven himself ignorant. If I made the same decisions that night, would I have made that shot as well? I'm not too sure.
What a ridiculous situation. Getting cut off (or thinking you got cut off) is in no way any reason to pull over and get into a physical confrontation with someone. The world is chock full of crazy people and this incident proves it. Why did the grandfather pull over? And he seems to have been spoiling for a fight by pulling his gun out of the glove box. Why did the motorcyclist feel it was okay to pull over, approach another driver and end up punching him? The whole thing never should have occurred.
dyintorace wrote: What a ridiculous situation. Getting cut off (or thinking you got cut off) is in no way any reason to pull over and get into a physical confrontation with someone. The world is chock full of crazy people and this incident proves it. Why did the grandfather pull over? And he seems to have been spoiling for a fight by pulling his gun out of the glove box. Why did the motorcyclist feel it was okay to pull over, approach another driver and end up punching him? The whole thing never should have occurred.
Agreed. Jackasses acting like jackasses. There is nothing to applaud here on either side.
Yeah, not impressed. There are certainly situations where you need to do what is necessary to protect yourself, sitting there and letting someone punch you doesnt fit though. No matter what, my first reaction in that type of situation would be to drive away.
Keep in mind that getting cut off by a car if you're on a motorcycle can (and often does) get you killed. Tempers might flare a bit. I know mine would if I thought somebody almost killed me.
Old guy should've driven away. He had his grandson in the car. That right there is enough reason (for me at least) to keep going.
Now if the guy on the bike had chased him down, at that point in time things might be a bit different.
If someone does me wrong I want them to acknowledge they've done something wrong.
The problem with our society is that we've got a great way of just shrugging things off and forgetting about things.
When I'm riding on my bicycle and someone practically runs me off the road, I want to be damn sure they knew they almost killed me. I hope they feel bad about it and I hope the next time they see a cyclist, or pedestrian, or motorcycle, or driver, that they understand that there those are PEOPLE and not just inanimate objects.
The mutual escalation could have sent this the other way for the shooter. Lots of bad judgment on display here.
N Sperlo wrote: Thats brandishing, and a felony.
That's exhibit actually (57.030.1.(4)), and it is specifically allowed for a person engaged in the lawful act of defence (57.030.5).
In reply to foxtrapper:
Pulling a firearm on someone approaching you without a weapon is not an act if defense, but a threat.
Early in thread, Rotard said:
rotard wrote: If the biker had meant him serious harm, he would have received a continuous assault, without having a chance to draw his weapon and fire.
Later in thread, Rotard said:
rotard wrote: Since the old man decided to stick around, he should have drawn his weapon while the biker was approaching his car, and told him to leave.
Read the article. The weapon was drawn during the approach. I have no idea what words were exchanged.
author of news story said: When the male motorcyclist approached the grandfather's car on foot, the grandfather took his semiautomatic .380-caliber handgun out of his glove box and placed it in his lap, Banas said. They continued arguing, and the grandfather said the motorcyclist spit at him and he may have spit back. After that, the motorcyclist punched the grandfather in the face, and the grandfather then fired one shot at the motorcyclist, Banas said. Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/no-charges-in-o-fallon-mo-road-rage-shooting/article_9b2c5fb9-bd12-52e4-8616-24ebc7929cc3.html#ixzz1xgH8GqYq
N Sperlo wrote: In reply to foxtrapper: Pulling a firearm on someone approaching you without a weapon is not an act if defense, but a threat.
Read the law before you reply.
In reply to foxtrapper:
I've been searching Missouri laws and statutes for both of those to no avail. Please send link.
From my understanding of Missouri law, a reasonable person must think their life (including permanent damage, rape, out kidnapping) or property is in immediate danger in order to exhibit a firearm. I'm still saying its brandishing at that point.
In reply to JoeyM:
Had time to withdraw a concealed firearm. Apparently did not have time to roll up the windows, lock the doors, or drive away.
Jeremy Clarkson-measuring.
Jeremy Clarkson was instated as a censor word, wasn't it?
That's the problem with "understanding" laws, it usually doesn't jive with what the law actually states. Same with regulations, ordinaces, zoning codes, etc. One usually does best to drop the "understanding" and actually read the real language. If you're ever charged, you will be prosecuted for the actual real law, not an "understanding".
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap571.htm
You'll also want to read chapter 563. It has a strong bearing on your assertion that "pulling a firearm on someone approaching you without a weapon is not an act if defense, but a threat".
Salanis wrote: In reply to JoeyM: Had time to withdraw a concealed firearm. Apparently did not have time to roll up the windows, lock the doors, or drive away.
Not disagreeing.
I wasn't there, don't know what happened. Maybe when the vehicles cut each other off, there was an impact/scrape. In that case, he could have been stopped with the windows down to exchange contact info, and afraid to leave for fear of a hit-and-run charge.
In reply to foxtrapper:
Just spoke with my partner who did over 20 years as a state officer. He confirmed that if the man in the car pulled his weapon on the biker before he encroached there space of the vehicle he would be charged with brandishing and armed criminal action. I'm reading the laws, but feel you are misunderstanding there situation or the law.
Freakin ridiculous that you can shoot someone but you can't prove to them that you will shoot them before shooting them.
"I will shoot you with the invisible gun I've got, don't tempt me!"
PHeller wrote: Freakin ridiculous that you can shoot someone but you can't prove to them that you will shoot them before shooting them. "I will shoot you with the invisible gun I've got, don't tempt me!"
If he were approaching with a weapon (knife, bat, pipe, tie iron, etc.) he would have every right to draw on him. Since he wasn't a threat until he punched/encroached on his space (i.e. Car or "castle"), he couldn't draw on him. Thats the simplified version.
Hint: don’t road rage ANYWHERE. Many, many people are idiots. Some people are armed, legally and otherwise. There is overlap there, so there are, in fact, truly dangerous armed idiots out there running around. Road rage is a great way to get somebody hurt over something completely inconsequential. Rant over.
N Sperlo wrote:PHeller wrote: Freakin ridiculous that you can shoot someone but you can't prove to them that you will shoot them before shooting them. "I will shoot you with the invisible gun I've got, don't tempt me!"If he were approaching with a weapon (knife, bat, pipe, tie iron, etc.) he would have every right to draw on him. Since he wasn't a threat until he punched/encroached on his space (i.e. Car or "castle"), he couldn't draw on him. Thats the simplified version.
That's my understanding, too. The reason why he placed the gun on his lap was that he was hoping it would be noticed (without him making an obvious effort to display it) and the person would back down. In I believe I've heard that in FL, brandishing is considered to be aggravated assault, even if the gun is not loaded.
BTW, a minor quibble about terminology....most people reserve the term "castle doctrine" to what happens in your home
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
(I know many states extend your rights to cover the car, but that's still not your "castle"....I agree with the concept of what you were saying, but suspect that there's an alternate term.)
You'll need to log in to post.
