Husband And Wife Arrested After Pulling A Gun In Road Rage Fight


PDA






stumpers
March 27, 2013, 12:00 PM
Has anyone seen this yet?

Thoughts?

http://autos.aol.com/article/husband-and-wife-arrested-after-pulling-a-gun-in-road-rage-fight/?ncid=webmail14

If you enjoyed reading about "Husband And Wife Arrested After Pulling A Gun In Road Rage Fight" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sam1911
March 27, 2013, 12:07 PM
Another example of how restraint and a humble heart (or cool head, at least) can keep you out of a WORLD of trouble.

"Mutual combatants" tend to have a hard time sustaining a self-defense case.

stumpers
March 27, 2013, 12:13 PM
Clearly a poor choice by the husband and wife. I wonder what happened prior to the scene we can see, but from what we see the husband definitely seems like a mutual combatant...who manages to lose a fistfight rather quickly.

Arkansas Paul
March 27, 2013, 12:14 PM
Well usually I would say that someone getting beat up by two people should be justified in pulling a weapon. Disparity of force and all that.
However, in this instance, he is the one who initiated the conflict by approaching their vehicle. Sorry. You can't start a fight and then claim self defense.

sota
March 27, 2013, 12:14 PM
TTAG had a good writeup about that incident as well.

alsaqr
March 27, 2013, 12:14 PM
No surprise here. The guy broke bad and hit the young driver. Then he proceeded to get his rear kicked. Things went down hill fast when the gun came into play.

phillipduran
March 27, 2013, 12:23 PM
"You can't start a fight then claim self defense"

Yes you can. You never lose your right to self defense even in a fight you start.

I start arguing and shove a guy, he pulls out a knife and lunges at me, I shoot him. Justified shooting. You don't have to lay down your life because you initiated a non life threading fight. The person who elevates to lethal force without cause is the one who is wrong.

MtnCreek
March 27, 2013, 12:26 PM
non life threading fight

This isn't bottom hall in 8th grade. When men fight, it may end with one of them dead.

phillipduran
March 27, 2013, 12:27 PM
And to add, it can be justifiable to shoot an unarmed attacker in a fist fight if the attacker pins you to the ground and starts smashing your head or kicking you in the head etc. In some situations, fists and feet become lethal weapons and you are justified in using lethal force to protect yourself.

Your best option though is to de-escalate and walk away from the conflict.

johnandersonoutdoors
March 27, 2013, 12:27 PM
I understand when we say that the man was a mutual combatant or even started the fight and therefore cannot claim using a weapon in self defense. But what if the young fighters had started smashing his head multiple times with a tire iron which could prove fatal? Can the legality change based on how the fight progresses?

Either way you won't catch me in this situation. Last summer in the Kroger parking lot 4 young punks in their car yelled at me while I was in my car. We were driver side to driver side going in opposite directions right past the front entrance of the store. Windows down as the weather was nice and they called me a mother f redneck (I guess because I have a pickup?). I had just come back from the range and had my pistol on the passenger seat. They didn't know who they were dealing with which made the comment pretty stupid on their part, but the only reaction they got from me was a smile and a wave :)

mljdeckard
March 27, 2013, 12:27 PM
Phillip, I STRONGLY suggest you consult an attorney in this matter. If you are the aggressor, it is very difficult to say that your self-defense was justified. Even when you WITHDRAW, it is a tough sell.

Grassman
March 27, 2013, 12:30 PM
Probably wish they had a do over on that situation. It was incredibly stupid all around.

JRH6856
March 27, 2013, 12:30 PM
"You can't start a fight then claim self defense"

Yes you can. You never lose your right to self defense even in a fight you start.

I start arguing and shove a guy, he pulls out a knife and lunges at me, I shoot him. Justified shooting. You don't have to lay down your life because you initiated a non life threading fight. The person who elevates to lethal force without cause is the one who is wrong.
Good luck with that in court. :rolleyes:

You start arguing. You shove the guy. That is assault and you are the aggressor. He defends himself. You do not have the right to "defend" yourself against his defense against your initial assault.

JustinJ
March 27, 2013, 12:31 PM
I think, would have to check, that TX has some odd statute that essentially says if one party of mutual combat trys to cease fighting and the other then presents a potentially deadly threat lethal force is justified. I'm not positive about this and didn't make a point of remembering the statute as i would not enter in mutual combat in the first place.

phillipduran
March 27, 2013, 12:32 PM
non life threading fight
This isn't bottom hall in 8th grade. When men fight, it may end with one of them dead

I agree. I can easily see a normal fistfight leading to a knockout which is then followed by lethal force against you while you are passed out. Should you be able to use firearms to defend yourself against an attacker when you think you may suffer additional harm? That's a tough one. I'm not entirely sure.

1KPerDay
March 27, 2013, 12:32 PM
I start arguing and shove a guy, he pulls out a knife and lunges at me, I shoot him. Justified shooting. You don't have to lay down your life because you initiated a non life threading fight. The person who elevates to lethal force without cause is the one who is wrong.
Enjoy your prison stay.:uhoh:

stonecutter2
March 27, 2013, 12:33 PM
No surprise here. The guy broke bad and hit the young driver. Then he proceeded to get his rear kicked. Things went down hill fast when the gun came into play.
Pretty much. Nothing much to discuss here. The guy shouldn't have instigated in the first place. Always a foolish decision to exit your vehicle to do something like this.

The second mistake was made by his wife. Not necessarily to have produced a firearm to stop her husband from being pummeled (he was really getting whooped, and to be honest he started it by punching). It's fine that she feared for his life, or whatever. Her mistake was that she GAVE the GUN to her husband, who obviously at that point had proven he was not in the right frame of mind.

Both of these people show they're not capable of being responsible while carrying a firearm. So hopefully they're treated as such by the courts.

phillipduran
March 27, 2013, 12:36 PM
Phillip, I STRONGLY suggest you consult an attorney in this matter. If you are the aggressor, it is very difficult to say that your self-defense was justified. Even when you WITHDRAW, it is a tough sell.

I did. This was from a lawyer in a 2 day CCW course. The example he used was a fist fight, you fall down, guy jumps on you hits you, grabs a nearby brick and lifts it to smash your head. You're justified to shoot to save your life even if you punched or pushed the guy first.

You'll be criminally innocent. Civil court will likely roast your for starting a fight while carrying a gun.

stumpers
March 27, 2013, 12:36 PM
I start arguing and shove a guy, he pulls out a knife and lunges at me, I shoot him. Justified shooting.

Not typically justified in the minds of police, DAs, judges...or any jury I would be on.

Aggressive people do lose their "right" to "self defense", because is isn't defense, it's offense. No one has the right to physically assault someone, start losing and claim to be the defender.

So, if someone carjacks me and I defend myself with deadly force, does the carjacker have the "right" to use deadly force in return? I say no.

Arkansas Paul
March 27, 2013, 12:38 PM
You never lose your right to self defense even in a fight you start.

You certainly do lose your right to self defense if you start the fight in Arkansas.

2010 Arkansas Code
Title 5 - Criminal Offenses
Subtitle 1 - General Provisions
Chapter 2 - Principles of Criminal Liability
Subchapter 6 - Justification

5-2-606. Use of physical force in defense of a person.

(a)(1) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person to defend himself or herself or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and the person may use a degree of force that he or she reasonably believes to be necessary.

(2) However, the person may not use deadly physical force except as provided in 5-2-607.

(b) A person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:

(1) With purpose to cause physical injury or death to the other person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by the other person;

(2)(A) The person is the initial aggressor.

stonecutter2
March 27, 2013, 12:39 PM
Probably wish they had a do over on that situation. It was incredibly stupid all around.
Honestly I fail to see how the young driver and his passenger acted stupidly. Some guy comes to your car, starts pounding on you. You just going to sit there? Watch your friend get pounded on? Whether or not they "ran him off the road" is not proven, it is purely an allegation by the obviously aggressive initiator. Even so, let's say they "ran him off the road" - who hasn't missed someone in their blind spot?

The only stupidity i see here is the guy not letting it go - no one hurt, nothing damaged - let it go. Instead he walked up to a truck and started punching a guy. Then his wife produced a gun and gave it to her husband who'd just been knocked silly. That is the only true stupidity I see here.

MtnCreek
March 27, 2013, 12:40 PM
Should you be able to use firearms to defend yourself against an attacker when you think you may suffer additional harm?

Let's say I decide I'm going to kick the mess out of someone. That someone starts wearing me out, so I pull a knife. Being outdone, he grabs a 5 ft dogwood. Then I pull a pistol. See where I'm going with this?

This someone does not know my intentions; all he knows is I'm attacking him. I don't want to be standing over a dead guy trying to explain to the cops that I only wanted to break his nose...

Fighting for fun or to make a point was (sometimes) fun in high school, but not the way to act in the real world.

buck460XVR
March 27, 2013, 12:42 PM
"You can't start a fight then claim self defense"

Yes you can. You never lose your right to self defense even in a fight you start.

I start arguing and shove a guy, he pulls out a knife and lunges at me, I shoot him. Justified shooting. You don't have to lay down your life because you initiated a non life threading fight. The person who elevates to lethal force without cause is the one who is wrong.


Using the same justification the guy with the knife could spill your guts on the grounds and claim the same thing. That he was justified using deadly force because he was in fear for his life. The minute you shoved him, it became an assault. If there are witnesses to the fact you initiated the argument and then were the one to escalate it to a physical confrontation, you will have a tough time claiming self defense. While one can initiate a verbal confrontation and then defend themselves with deadly force when confronted physically(in some states), you initiate the physical violence and you are no longer the victim. I believe this is the argument for the prosecution in the Trevor Martin case and Zimmerman's fate depends on who the jury decides initiated the violence.

phillipduran
March 27, 2013, 12:44 PM
You start arguing. You shove the guy. That is assault and you are the aggressor. He defends himself. You do not have the right to "defend" yourself against his defense against your initial assault.

You have the right to defend yourself if someone else elevates the conflict to lethal force.

I am not at all saying I punch him, he punches me, I shoot him.

I'm saying I punch him, he punches me, I punch again, he pulls knife and lunges, I shoot him.

You don't lose your right to defend your life even in a fist fight you start. Check the laws on this. Do some research.

You shouldn't start a fistfight in the first place but if you do, are you saying you lay down your right to protect yourself from being killed? The person who is in the wrong would be the one to first brings lethal force against the other without their life being in danger.

Arkansas Paul
March 27, 2013, 12:45 PM
deleted

loose noose
March 27, 2013, 12:46 PM
No way was he justified in shooting, after all the subjects had allready began leaving, and the threat was actually over. Pure stupidity, no matter how you look at it.

MtnCreek
March 27, 2013, 12:48 PM
You shouldn't start a fistfight in the first place but if you do, are you saying you lay down your right to protect yourself from being killed?

Do what you have to do to live. Just expect to spend some time in jail if you assault someone.

BP Hunter
March 27, 2013, 12:52 PM
Simple...just walk away. If the punk cuts you off on the road, just walk away...

Arkansas Paul
March 27, 2013, 01:01 PM
You don't lose your right to defend your life even in a fist fight you start. Check the laws on this. Do some research.

I did. And I posted it.
Now, the code that I posted is only pertinent to Arkansas.
The fact is, you can't make blanket statements about self defense laws. Each state is different. We should have learned that when the Trayvon Martin case was all the rage and the stand your ground laws were being debated.
Saying that certain things are allowed and certain things aren't is just not accurate because the laws are not universal. Some states have a castle doctrine and some don't. Some have a duty to retreat and some don't.
And interesting note on Arkansas' duty to retreat laws. You don't have a duty to retreat in your own home or property, UNLESS you were the initial aggressor. Then you do.

c4v3man
March 27, 2013, 01:10 PM
Honestly I fail to see how the young driver and his passenger acted stupidly. Some guy comes to your car, starts pounding on you. You just going to sit there? Watch your friend get pounded on? Whether or not they "ran him off the road" is not proven, it is purely an allegation by the obviously aggressive initiator. Even so, let's say they "ran him off the road" - who hasn't missed someone in their blind spot?

Considering the kids outward appearance they're presenting and the fact that they were already recording the incident expecting "something good" it wouldn't surprise me if they made a reckless pass that nearly did cause an accident.

That being said, as a motorcyclist that gets "missed" from time to time despite proper lane positioning, you simply thank God you weren't hit, maybe honk at them to know they messed up (in case they actually didn't see you), and move on with your life. Following them and yelling at them isn't going to accomplish anything... some people are just reckless and truly don't care about anyone else.

Secondly, it seemed like the wife was looking at the gun like she didn't know how to use it. That in and of itself is a very dangerous situation since it could have easily been taken from her and used against them both.

Mr Turner deserves what he has coming in court, regardless of what happened before the camera got turned on.

phillipduran
March 27, 2013, 01:11 PM
Here is the rest of the Arkansas code.

(B) However, the initial aggressor's use of physical force upon another person is justifiable if:

(i) The initial aggressor in good faith withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her purpose to withdraw from the encounter; and

(ii) The other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or

(3) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.

Once the other guy brings lethal force into the fight, if you back up and say you're done, fights over and try to walk away, and he pursues you, it looks to me like you would be within the law. I stress looks like. Physical vs deadly force might be very relevant wordage in that part of the law.

X-Rap
March 27, 2013, 01:12 PM
I've yet to see a Stand Your Ground Law that protected an aggressor unless perhaps he fully disengaged from a fight he started and withdrew and then was persued by the victim who was using disproportionate force in pursuing.
Still wouldn't want to be him. Laws are different from state to state but going armed after the fact is almost universally frowned on I would bet.

phillipduran
March 27, 2013, 01:15 PM
The fact is, you can't make blanket statements about self defense laws. Each state is different.

You're right. I'm basing my opinion on Nevada law from a few years back.

Arkansas Paul
March 27, 2013, 01:20 PM
The fact is, if you start a fight and end up killing someone, you're gonna have a tough row to hoe when you get to court. There's no way I would fist fight while carrying (or any other time if there was any possible alternative), let alone start one myself. This jackass started the fight and a weapon was brought into play when it became obvious that he bit off more than he could chew.

waterhouse
March 27, 2013, 01:47 PM
I'm basing my opinion on Nevada law from a few years back.

I'm not a lawyer or expert on Nevada law, but here are some statutes:

NRS 200.120  “Justifiable homicide” defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.

1.  Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

2.  A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

(a) Is not the original aggressor;

(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and

(c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

[1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518; 2011, 265)


NRS 200.200  Killing in self-defense.  If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:

1.  The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save the person’s own life, or to prevent the person from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and

2.  The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

[1911 C&P § 137; RL § 6402; NCL § 10084]

It appears to me that, if you are the aggressor (In your example, you start a fight and then shove and assault someone), you can't use the justifiable homicide statute. For you to use the Killing in Self Defense statute, you would have to show that "really, and in good faith, you endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given."

In other words, if you assault someone with your hands, and they pull a knife to defend themselves, you had better be able to prove that in good faith you tried to stop fighting and walk away before you shoot the guy with the knife. If it happens quickly and dynamically, as fights tend to do, you may be in a heap of legal trouble.

All of this can be avoided by simply keeping your hands to yourself, like we all learned in kindergarten.

mljdeckard
March 27, 2013, 01:50 PM
Philip, either they told you wrong, or you heard it wrong. And your original statement did not indicate withdrawal from mutual combat.

Even if you did withdraw from mutual combat, you are still going to have to convince the DA through your statement, and those of any witnesses, that you weren't just as much to blame as the other guy.

Cosmoline
March 27, 2013, 01:56 PM
You don't lose your right to defend your life even in a fist fight you start. Check the laws on this. Do some research.

See Nevada above. Here's Texas as another example:

http://www.texasgunlaws.org/chap9.htm

Note the key provisions on "provoking." There are some exceptions in some states. Defending a homestead under the applicable conditions perhaps. But the majority of self defense codes forbid the defense if you provoked the encounter in the first place. In some circumstances you can reclaim your right by backing out of the melee entirely. So for example if you punch A and A draws a blade, if you immediately back off and make it clear (esp to witnesses) that you are out of the fight and give up, A's continued pursuit of you with the blade could revive your right to use deadly force. MAYBE. But it's dicey. And incredibly stupid.

DO NOT START FIGHTS IF YOU ARE CARRYING! If you do, you deserve whatever the law throws at you. You MUST back down from mean words, insults and challenges to your manhood.

WardenWolf
March 27, 2013, 01:59 PM
The person who takes it beyond "just words" is the assailant and in the wrong. Always. End of story. If you push someone or otherwise begin physically assaulting and the other person believes you may be intent on doing them harm, they have a right to pull a weapon to defend themselves. You have NO right to escalate it further by pulling your own. Period. End of story. At that point you've already screwed up and are going to jail, probably for a felony. Unless the person comes after you with intent to kill after you surrender (and thus becomes the aggressor), you've lost all right to self-defense.

JRH6856
March 27, 2013, 01:59 PM
You shouldn't start a fistfight in the first place but if you do, are you saying you lay down your right to protect yourself from being killed? The person who is in the wrong would be the one to first brings lethal force against the other without their life being in danger.

That is exactly what I am saying. At least here in Texas. If I initiate an altercation in a public place, I am the aggressor and not the defender. An aggressor has no right to claim self defense. If I clearly indicate that I wish to withdraw from the altercation and am not allowed to do so because the other party continues his actions, he becomes the aggressor and I can then defend myself. (There is exception is under the Castle Doctrine.)

As noted, laws are different in each state and the devil is always in the details, but it appears that Nevada law is similar to Texas on this. Perhaps you misunderstood what you were told.

kwguy
March 27, 2013, 02:05 PM
If someone cut me off, especially if it was a couple of teenagers either driving like idiots because they weren't paying attention, or just because they were acting like idiotic teenagers, I would feel pretty silly following them around. What did that guy think he was going to do when he caught up to them? Teach them a lesson? Punch them out and not expect some kind of retaliation? Welcome to reality. How'd that work out? :rolleyes:

buck460XVR
March 27, 2013, 02:19 PM
Philip, either they told you wrong, or you heard it wrong.


I have a good friend in Nevada that has claimed for years that the lawyer in his CWC class told them that shooting at a distance of 12 feet or less was in self defense, any more than that and it was murder regardless of the scenario. Even in the case of a home invasion. He is always eager to bring this fact up anytime the discussion of SD/HD comes up, even tho researching the Nevada laws makes no mention of it. Everytime I suggest it might just be a simple rule of thumb and not a specific law, he swears they pounded the point of it being the law into them, over the duration of the class. I have yet to ever hear of this from anybody but him, but I wasn't there during his class, so whether he is right, was told wrongly or heard it wrong....... I don't know. I think the same applies here.

mljdeckard
March 27, 2013, 02:28 PM
One of the reasons I became an instructor was because of all of the bad info I was hearing from people who had recently taken the classes. I got some bad instruction from my instructor, a former cop, in 1995. But I think most of the time, the instruction is overcomplicated in the wording, and people take away different meanings from it.

stonecutter2
March 27, 2013, 02:33 PM
Considering the kids outward appearance they're presenting and the fact that they were already recording the incident expecting "something good" it wouldn't surprise me if they made a reckless pass that nearly did cause an accident.

That being said, as a motorcyclist that gets "missed" from time to time despite proper lane positioning, you simply thank God you weren't hit, maybe honk at them to know they F'd up (in case they actually didn't see you), and move on with your life. Following them and yelling at them isn't going to accomplish anything... some people are just reckless and truly don't care about anyone else.

Secondly, it seemed like the wife was looking at the gun like she didn't know how to use it. That in and of itself is a very dangerous situation since it could have easily been taken from her and used against them both.

Mr Turner deserves what he has coming in court, regardless of what happened before the camera got turned on.
They could be wearing anything they like, that is irrelevant to the incident and to the content of their character. And they were filming because some obviously irate guy was rushing their vehicle. I'd film not because "something good" was about to happen, but quite possibly something bad - and I'd want to document the incident. I would absolutely have start filming were I a passenger. The video starts with the guy at their door. it's not like it starts at the moment of them "cutting him off" or who knows what happened.

JustinJ
March 27, 2013, 02:54 PM
We can debate whether or not the wife was legally justified in brandishing the gun to begin with but anybody who thinks the man was justified in firing in the manner he did, while no threat present as the kids were retreating, has no business owning or carrying a gun.

c4v3man
March 27, 2013, 02:59 PM
They could be wearing anything they like, that is irrelevant to the incident and to the content of their character.

In my experience a large portion of reckless drivers do in fact dress like that. While there are exceptions to the rule, cultures tend to influence dress code, behavior, etc including how well you drive. Your experience may differ as may your opinion, but that does nothing to disprove my observation based on my experiences in my locale. I've ridden across the 48 states in the continental US, and it hardly seems limited to my locale either...

Arkansas Paul
March 27, 2013, 03:01 PM
anybody who thinks the man was justified in firing in the manner he did, while no threat present as the kids were retreating, has no business owning or carrying a gun.

Agreed. That's a special kind of stupid.

Zoogster
March 27, 2013, 03:11 PM
The situation was serious, and could have been life threatening.
Two men attack him as a team.
That was a potential life and death situation, and a clear disparity of force.


However he initiated the fight, struck or swung at the driver, and so is a mutual combatant.
That means things will not go well for him.
You don't get to go attacking people and then pull a gun when you don't like the outcome.
His use of the firearm will be seen more as escalation of a mutual combatant situation than self defense.

The shot was also fired after they were leaving. Though to be fair clear thinking after getting your head knocked around a few times and your adrenaline high is more challenging than figuring out exactly what should have been done while watching it in a video.
However irregardless it is still a situation he started by battering someone else, so it removes the need to even try to give benefit of the doubt when he decided to also fire a shot.
Bloody and dazed he then made the right decision to finally walk away from the situation he started and not go even further.


By throwing a punch at the driver the husband who shot the gun screwed himself.
The wife seeing two men beating her husband and emerging with a firearm was probably a wise move. That was a dangerous situation, he was being beat by two young guys at once, demonstrated no potential in the fight and was clearly helpless, and he had just taken a blow to the face and went down on the asphalt.
Life and death situations happen that fast, and they just needed to keep kicking or punching him to lay him out for good. A few stomps or kicks while he was down was all that would seperate that from a situation that is over if the attackers stop, and skull/brain injuries, coma, or death, if they choose to continue. A matter of seconds between just having taken a beating and much more.
Multiple people beating on someone is a disparity of force, and when the individual goes down it is certainly a life and death situation if they continue. It is hard to know if they would have continued because at that moment they saw someone else emerge from the truck entering the situation, noticed they had a gun, and decided to leave immediately.


It is hard to know what was in the wife's head. If she knew he would or was likely to initiate a violent confrontation based on his prior behavior or personality or statements and not merely confront the driver then that would put her in the wrong as well.
In that situation a good woman would have tried to discourage the man from getting into trouble. One that is trouble may not or could actually encourage it.

The husband thought he was going to swing on one young man he was upset with. His violent action resulted in him getting attacked by two young men instead. Not what he expected.
That resulted in a situation with his wife and him charged with felony assault with a firearm.
Not what they expected.
Choosing violent courses of action to resolve disputes often results in unintended consequences.

mgmorden
March 27, 2013, 03:11 PM
In my experience a large portion of reckless drivers do in fact dress like that.

In my experience 3/4's of the male population under 25 dress like that. :rolleyes: Lets not generalize, particularly when you're painting with such a broad brush.

JRH6856
March 27, 2013, 03:13 PM
In my experience 3/4's of the male population under 25 dress like that. :rolleyes: Lets not generalize, particularly when you're painting with such a broad brush.
In what segment of the population do you find the most reckless drivers?

Dave Workman
March 27, 2013, 03:18 PM
Great discussion!

I got an e-mail from a pal of mine who used to be in the news biz, asking me if I'd seen the video.

I've seen it about a half-dozen times already! Yikes.

But IMHO, it appears the two twerps may have initiated some ill will, but the guy who got thumped CLEARLY was in the wrong for approaching them and getting into a fight.

Someone else pointed out that this was captured on video. Seems kind of odd, doesn't it, that this thing was captured on video, from before punches were actually thrown?

Not trying to justify the older' guy's actions or that of his wife, but it strikes me as just a bit peculiar.

Arkansas Paul
March 27, 2013, 03:21 PM
Wow. I just got to where I could watch the video.
That guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. Something else he better worry about is, from the looks of those guys, they may not have even been 18. Now I'm sure they were, or the article would likely mention it, but you can't tell by looking. He could have had assaulting a minor as well had that been the case.
And wow. I bet he thinks twice before swinging at a teenage kid again. I'm not sure he could have handled one of them. They beat the crap out of that guy. I don't feel sorry for him though. Who knows what was said before, but he was the one who initiated the violence.

JRH6856
March 27, 2013, 03:22 PM
When the kids stopped and the couple stopped as well, it was pretty easy to guess something was about to happen and start the video rolling.

X-JaVeN-X
March 27, 2013, 03:24 PM
You have the right to defend yourself if someone else elevates the conflict to lethal force.

I disagree. My CCW instructor said the same. If you initiate the physical confrontation, then you're going to have a hard time proving self defense in court. He didn't say that you couldn't, but he strongly recommended that you do NOT be the one that initiates the conflict.

You say that you have the right to defend yourself if the other person elevates it to lethal force...If you start hitting them first, THEY are the ones defending and if they're getting beat up and afraid for their life, then THEY are the ones that have the right to "escalate" it to lethal force. You can't start a fight, start whooping on somebody, and then when they go to defend them selves with a knife/gun, pull your own gun and think you are now in the right to shoot them...at least not legally. Obviously you can make that choice to do so, and in the face of death, one would probably do so. However, be ready to spend some prison time. At the end of the day, the whole "escalation" starts when it goes from arguing to physical contact (assault). The person that initiates that is the one responsible for any escalation.

buck460XVR
March 27, 2013, 03:33 PM
In my experience a large portion of reckless drivers do in fact dress like that.

That still does not prove the kids were driving reckless. You are assuming they are reckless drivers on account of the way they dressed. Kinda like saying all folks wearing hoodies are crooks because some crooks wear hoodies.





Someone else pointed out that this was captured on video. Seems kind of odd, doesn't it, that this thing was captured on video, from before punches were actually thrown?

Not trying to justify the older' guy's actions or that of his wife, but it strikes me as just a bit peculiar.

Todays teens have their cell phones out and in use all the time. They are quite adept in capturing video of virtually anything and the phones themselves are capable of great video. The video did not start until the husband was already at the truck. Who knows how long and what methods he used to get the kids to pull over. Even if the couple was baited to a confrontation, throwing the punches and shooting the gun was a choice the husband made.......a poor choice.

MagnumDweeb
March 27, 2013, 03:37 PM
People keep bringing up the fact that the video recording was strange. So lets see someone follows you till you park and your pretty sure a violent encounter is impossible where you plan to act innocently, you are not going to start recording the incident. Please, I'm working on get a personal cam for just these instances. I have pissed off deadbeat dads follow me into parking lots at courthouses trying to talk to me and don't much care for when i tell them to send me an email. I always go straight to my car and lock the door immediately as I had one joker try to open my door from the driver's side. Mystically he stopped after four attempts while he was yelling as I had to get out my nav unit that happened be on top of my Rossi 462 and I asked him to make a better decision. He did and now he's paying child support and my attorney's fees for having to enforce the order of child support.

Now if the situation went bad and I had forgotten to lock the door and he opened the door pulling me out while threatening me with severe arm and I pulled my truck gun and shot him, and didn't kill him, he could lie and say that I got out of the truck and shot him while a video would show me demanding to be let go while he is trying to forcibly and violently pull me out of a vehicle. A video any jury could see and find likely that I acted reasonably. Pictures are worth a thousand words, videos can mean acquittals.

Max K
March 27, 2013, 03:41 PM
Was the husband really the aggressor? The part that was not on the video, the "running off the road", can vary from careless driving all the way up to murder. We are assuming here that it was insignificant, more like careless driving, and that it therefore does not count as the initial aggression in this case. But there is a possibility that the "running off the road" was in fact the initial aggression, maybe even in the legal sense.

If that's how it was, then the subsequent actions that lead to the fistfight can be seen in a different light: the husband walking up to the teen driver and showing aggression like a dog showing his teeth: this could be seen as a subconscious attempt to evaluate the threat (and possible continuing threat), translated like this: "did you really try to run me & my wife off the cliff back there, or are you just some kids who are acting stupid?" To which the teenager might have responded by making faces or otherwise being disrespectful. Hmm. I think I just found the weakness in my own argument: no matter what the teen driver does after the fact, it can't be used to evaluate the original threat. Only the initial "running off the road" can be used for that (but it's not on the video).

al123
March 27, 2013, 03:42 PM
Looked like the 'old guy' started the fight; he left his truck then approached the younger men's vehicle. IMO, he's the aggressor and an idiot.

Were the other guys jerks for cutting him off? Maybe, but if a fight started every time one got cutoff, most people would never get to their destination.

Pilot
March 27, 2013, 03:44 PM
The husband was NOT the only aggressor, and may not be the prime aggressor, but he was the only aggressor to use a gun, and that is a deal breaker. And yes, pulling a gun out or just pointing one is "using" a gun, and illegal unless justified by life threatening force and actions.

The guy allowed his ego to control a situation which should never have started in the first place. When you carry a gun, you leave your ego at the door when it comes to these things. Best to do that anyway even if unarmed.

PabloJ
March 27, 2013, 03:59 PM
From the video Bradley Turner escalated the situation by throwing the first punch. Firing the weapon was not necessary either.

Zoogster
March 27, 2013, 04:02 PM
And while I wrote the earlier post from the perspective of the shooter and his wife, since this is a gun forum, it is also hard to fault the young men past a point based only on what is in this video.
The guy who is probably twice the size of the driver chooses to come start an argument and then punch him while he is in his vehicle.
One could assume that the young man being attacked could have been hurt.


If a larger man came along and started attacking my friend I would feel obligated to come to his aid by attacking that larger man and putting the odds back on my friend's side. I would not sit by as another larger presumably stronger individual pummels a friend that was not provoking a fight.

However for the same reason I avoid macho environments, bars, clubs, and friends that initiate conflict or can't walk away from some insults.
I grew up in an environment where you always confronted any disrespect head on, so I understand the whole macho thing.
Now I am a wiser adult and choose to surround myself with cool headed people. Otherwise they will get you into serious situations that can quickly and unexpectedly become life altering, which could have been avoided.
People that can handle themselves in a serious situation and come to your aid, but will do all they can to avoid creating a bad situation, are the best to be in a bad situation with. A balance only some attain.




In this situation the young men could have been more at fault than is apparent. From the perspective of the shooter they could have posed a lethal threat attacking him as a team. He was clearly incapable of even doing some moderate damage in the fight he initiated against the two of them.
He was helpless and at thier mercy.
However since he started it by throwing a punch at another man sitting in his truck he is a mutual combatant, or the aggressor.
Using a gun as a mutual combatant often ends poorly.
Gang members that really were defending themselves go to prison all the time over it even when they would have been killed had they not chosen to use or threaten with lethal force.
By creating a violent confrontation where you actually throw an initial blow that then results in a need for a firearm on your behalf you are not going to be determined justified in court.

Yes I know the law actually says otherwise in some places, but those are really rare circumstances when it actually is applied.
In California if you try to stop fighting and voice that you can regain your right to self defense, under the wording of the law.
But in reality how the law is applied by those with discretion, you never really do.
Unless you ran down the street, tried to get away, and they kept chasing you, or you put a door between you and they forced it open or broke it down, or otherwise make a clear effort to come after you while you are doing all you can to avoid them or get away, it rarely comes into play in reality.
If you are being stomped on or go unconscious someone else may make a valid claim of defending a third party on your behalf, but not you defending yourself.
Once a mutual combatant it is very difficult to avoid the consequences of being a mutual combatant if you then pull a weapon to defend yourself irregardless of what the law technically says.
Because the shooter is the aggressor or a mutual combatant even if he did face a potentially lethal threat he is in trouble.

Certaindeaf
March 27, 2013, 04:05 PM
That dumb ass could sure take a punch though. well, not really..

Arkansas Paul
March 27, 2013, 04:14 PM
Was the husband really the aggressor?

He got out of his vehicle, went to theirs and punched the kid. I would say that makes him the aggressor. Whether or not words were exchanged is irrelevant. He is the one who became violent first.

If that's how it was, then the subsequent actions that lead to the fistfight can be seen in a different light: the husband walking up to the teen driver and showing aggression like a dog showing his teeth: this could be seen as a subconscious attempt to evaluate the threat (and possible continuing threat), translated like this: "did you really try to run me & my wife off the cliff back there, or are you just some kids who are acting stupid?" To which the teenager might have responded by making faces or otherwise being disrespectful.

Yeah, we don't punch kids in the face for making faces and being disrespectful, no matter how bad we want to sometimes. We shake our heads, mutter "Damn kids" and get on with our life.

The husband was NOT the only aggressor, and may not be the prime aggressor, but he was the only aggressor to use a gun, and that is a deal breaker.

I still think the deal breaker was when he walked up to the guys truck and punched him. Violence is never okay unless you yourself are in physical danger. That's not how grown men solve their problems. We're not in Jr. High school anymore.

PabloJ
March 27, 2013, 04:14 PM
Has anyone seen this yet?

Thoughts?

http://autos.aol.com/article/husband-and-wife-arrested-after-pulling-a-gun-in-road-rage-fight/?ncid=webmail14
He escalated the situation by throwing the FIRST punch. Discharging the firearm was his second mistake. While his allegations might be true he handled entire situation very poorly.

Arkansas Paul
March 27, 2013, 04:15 PM
That dumb ass could sure take a punch though. well, not really..

That's funny. They messed that guy up. The judge should tell him if he screws up again the court system is going to sick those kids back on him. :evil:

HorseSoldier
March 27, 2013, 05:48 PM
If that's how it was, then the subsequent actions that lead to the fistfight can be seen in a different light: the husband walking up to the teen driver and showing aggression like a dog showing his teeth: this could be seen as a subconscious attempt to evaluate the threat (and possible continuing threat), translated like this: "did you really try to run me & my wife off the cliff back there, or are you just some kids who are acting stupid?" To which the teenager might have responded by making faces or otherwise being disrespectful.

Confronting the other driver in a manner deliberately selected to place him in fear for his immediate safety ("like a dog showing his teeth") is already a criminal act -- misdemeanor assault.

I don't see any grounds to defend or justify the married idjits in this story. They initiated a violent encounter, and then introduced a gun into the situation. The weapon is discharged in some chimp-like threat display after the violent encounter has terminated. This is broadly a pattern of behavior indicating poor impulse control and/or flawed decision making skills, either of which, in itself, suggests these people are not suited to concealed carry of a firearm.

A lot of people will get bent out of shape about this, but I'd see the best outcome to this situation would be a felony conviction for a fear assault involving a deadly weapon (if there's a corresponding statute in that jurisdiction to Alaska state laws) and consequent banning of the husband and wife from possessing a firearm. That seems preferable to having to worry about the next situation these idiots get themselves in where they demonstrate levels of personal responsibility and thinking on par with poorly behaved juveniles.

Pilot
March 27, 2013, 05:52 PM
I still think the deal breaker was when he walked up to the guys truck and punched him. Violence is never okay unless you yourself are in physical danger. That's not how grown men solve their problems. We're not in Jr. High school anymore.


Totally agree. My point was that both parties were being physical, but you are correct physical violence is NOT OK either, and is also illegal unless in self defense.

3 MEN AND A BOAT
March 27, 2013, 06:42 PM
Been lurking a while, thought I'd go ahead and add my $0.02
Does anyone else notice that it looks like the man followed them home, their in a driveway. I'd start filming to if someone pulled up behind me clearly irate. I don't see how he has any legal leg to stand on, his suggestion that they ran him off the road is pointless once they were past his vehicle and he had regained control of the vehicle that danger is gone and at that point if a response was needed, report their reckless driving to police, do not follow them home, start a fight, loose a fight, then fire a gun.
I especially feel it was stupid to bring his wife and child to this confrontation.

Lex Luthier
March 27, 2013, 06:49 PM
Jackazzes will be jackazzes. Those young men may or may have not perpetrated the alleged careless driving, but being older and experienced means being wiser and letting those little b!@#$%%ds wreck themselves.

thump_rrr
March 27, 2013, 07:49 PM
Great discussion!

I got an e-mail from a pal of mine who used to be in the news biz, asking me if I'd seen the video.

I've seen it about a half-dozen times already! Yikes.

But IMHO, it appears the two twerps may have initiated some ill will, but the guy who got thumped CLEARLY was in the wrong for approaching them and getting into a fight.

Someone else pointed out that this was captured on video. Seems kind of odd, doesn't it, that this thing was captured on video, from before punches were actually thrown?

Not trying to justify the older' guy's actions or that of his wife, but it strikes me as just a bit peculiar.
What is so odd?
If I was being followed and the person was getting out of his vehicle approaching mine I would want one of my passengers to video tape it.

Bill_Shelton
March 27, 2013, 08:30 PM
This Bradley Turner is a fool. First, he approaches a truck and assaults an unknown kid. When he loses the resulting fight, he then fires shots into the kid's pickup truck. He deserves to get his wrists slapped.

As far as Ms Turner is concerned, I understand why she displayed the gun, but she should not have given it to her husband - who had already shown a pattern of stupidity. Had I been her, I would have told Bradley Turner to shut up and get back into the car. Then, I'd have put the gun away and went over and APOLOGIZED to those kids for Bradley Turner's behavoir. I would have told them that Bradley was usually an ok guy but a was acting fool that day and that when he cooled down he would call them and also APOLOGIZE.

Had the Turners APOLOGIZED...it probably would have ended up very different.

thump_rrr
March 27, 2013, 08:57 PM
Bradley Turner is sporting a nice shiner in his mug shot photo.
http://tulolb-744392546.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com/ImageProcessor?image=http%3a%2f%2fassets.nydailynews.com%2fpolopoly_fs%2f1.1299532!img%2fhttpImage%2fimage.jpg_gen%2fderivatives%2flandscape_635%2froadrage27n-7-web.jpg&width=320

chrisTx
March 27, 2013, 09:12 PM
He could have put his ego down and probably not even pulled over. The whole issue with carrying a gun is that YOU know that the possibility of deadly force always exists. With that knowledge, you should be a little more prudent in your decision making.

Averageman
March 27, 2013, 09:27 PM
If you have that bad a temper you don't need to be carrying a gun.
and

You can split these hairs any way you care to, but he got out of the truck to fight. He very well could have been following those boys and caught them on a dead end, it looks like it to me.
If I had a lap top in my vehicle, yes I would have turned the camera on for my own defense if this goes to court.
Mr. Turner is bigger than either one of these two Young Men, after that first punch was thrown the boys had every right to do what they did.
I certainly wouldn't have wanted to wait (or expect my Son to wait) for Mr. Turner to throw another punch at the Second Young Man.

Secondly, it seemed like the wife was looking at the gun like she didn't know how to use it. That in and of itself is a very dangerous situation since it could have easily been taken from her and used against them both.

Had these Young Men a gun, I do believe they would have been justified in Shooting Mrs Turner when she came around the truck gun in hand.

Mr Turner deserves what he has coming in court, regardless of what happened before the camera got turned on.
Some things you that make you angry anre just best left alone

gym
March 27, 2013, 09:40 PM
This is turning into a debate on the use of force. It doesn't apply here because he "the jerk who pulled the gun" initiated the attack, and fired at the 2 guys ""he attacked. It could apply if a person was in reasonable fear of losing their life, weather justly or not. It would be up to a court to decide if it had come to that, thank God it didn't. Even though he took it to another level when he took the gun from his girlfriend, the law says if you feel your life is threatened, you can use lethal force. But after a court saw that tape he would never have won that bet. If they beat him past the point of consciousness and she came out with gun in hand told them to stop, she would have been justified, had they continued, as his life would have been in danger at that point.
That's how I see it, he screwed up big time, and I will be shocked if he doesn't get at least a year or two, "if he has a clean record", I doubt if he gets house arrest or anything other than time.
Even brandishing would have been illegal, let alone firing at someone. Possibly attempted murder.
It's going to cost him every penny he has. Never get into a fight if you can walk away, people don't know what can go wrong, heart attacks, broken necks, etc. it's a stupid thing to do.

ACP
March 27, 2013, 09:45 PM
Molon labe, blah blah blah

Hope you enjoyed your 2nd Amendment right while you had it. Idiot.

Max K
March 27, 2013, 09:54 PM
What if the teens really did deliberately run him off the road, in a manner that could reasonably be expected to cause serious injury or death? I don' t think that's what happened here, but what if it did? Would that then become the initial aggression in the legal sense?

kentucky_Dave
March 27, 2013, 09:54 PM
...deleted

REDMASTA
March 27, 2013, 09:56 PM
Guy was an idiot got his ass handed to him, what did he think was going to happen?

The only thing he should have been hitting was the treadmill.

gearhead
March 27, 2013, 09:57 PM
What if the teens really did deliberately run him off the road, in a manner that could reasonably be expected to cause serious injury or death? I don' t think that's what happened here, but what if it did? Would that then become the initial aggression in the legal sense?
I don't see how it applies. Even if some action on the road rose to the threshold of vehicular assault (VERY doubtful), the threat had ended before the situation was escalated. Even with no duty to retreat there is ALWAYS a duty to not pursue. That's vigilanteism.

Bill_Shelton
March 27, 2013, 09:59 PM
Wow! It looks like Bradley Turner screwed up worse than I thought! It appears Bradley Turner followed that kid to his house and went up his driveway. After he got beat up, he left, and then drove back and started shooting. Looks like Bradley Turner will go to prison.


The man facing charges in what Carteret County deputies are calling a violent case of road rage is due in court Wednesday.

On Sunday, William Berry, 20, called 911 after he and his friend, Nathan Brotzman, 21, fought a man they say followed him home for miles. Berry's friend caught the brawl and shooting on cell phone video.

In the 911 call released Tuesday, Berry described how he and Brotzman ran into the house, fearing for their lives, after deputies say 40-year-old Bradley Taylor pulled a gun on them.

"He actually left, pulled the gun on us, pointed at us, and pulled the trigger, but it clicked. He drove away, came back, and we ran in the house and he fired shots in the yard and now he's just kind of driving by back and forth," Berry told the dispatcher.

Deputies say Turner pointed a gun at Berry and Brotzman, and opening fire on Berry's car, shattering the back window, and damaging a neighbor's house.

The dispatcher asked Berry why Turner was mad at him. Berry responded by saying that Turner had accused him of trying to run him off the road.

"I changed lanes, like going around another car, then changed back. The next thing I know, he was like right up next to me, rolling his window down, like pointing down, like ‘I'm going to kick your a--!'," said Berry.

Turner and his wife, 30-year-old Christy Turner, are facing multiple assault charges.

Bradley Turner's first court appearance is Wednesday morning. 9 On Your Side is at the courthouse and will keep you updated on what happens in court.

[URL="http://www.wnct.com/story/21781289/carteret-county-deputies-looking-road-rage-shooting-suspect-and-family"]

Prophet
March 27, 2013, 10:02 PM
Turner initiates violent confrontation + defensive response that continued only until Turner no longer presented a threat = bad shoot, which is what appears to have happened.

Turner initiates violent confrontation + defensive response that continues even after Turner no longer presented a threat = good (but legally and morally sticky) shoot, which does not appear to have happened.

That's how I'm seeing it. Remember that if you continue to shoot someone after they no longer constitute a threat that you can be charged with murder. Mr. Turner got himself into this crappy situation either way and deserves whatever the justice system doles out to him (likely loss of firearms ownership, anger management classes, some time in the slammer or all three). I'm sure the anti's use stuff like this as fodder for their infomercials.

Zoogster
March 27, 2013, 10:12 PM
Bill_Shelton said: Wow! It looks like Bradley Turner screwed up worse than I thought! It appears Bradley Turner followed that kid to his house and went up his driveway. After he got beat up, he left, and then drove back and started shooting. Looks like Bradley Turner will go to prison.

And I would say that is merely what the media which often get things wrong said, or is if correct is reporting that the dispatcher was told, from the people that have reason to be biased or make him look worse when they called 911 after being in the fight and beating him up.

If you actually watch the video the gun was fired after the confrontation before anyone left or there was any driving. That clearly clashes with the report right there. So either the media is wrong in reporting the facts, or the individual calling dispatch embelished the story or got details wrong.


What he did still puts him in the wrong in a serious situation.


Prophet said:

Turner initiates violent confrontation + defensive response that continues even after Turner no longer presented a threat = good (but legally and morally sticky) shoot, which does not appear to have happened.

Not in real life. Under the law sometimes yes, in real life in a quick incident that turns to deadly force without all the movie pauses and one liners and time to change your mind, the initial aggressor or mutual combatant still goes down for the results even if not using force may have resulted in serious injury or death for them.
Criminals and gang members deal with it all the time.
If you walk up and punch someone in the head while they are sitting down like in this situation, and then end up in a situation seconds later that requires deadly force to defend yourself as a result of your actions, you are legally screwed.

Bill_Shelton
March 27, 2013, 10:14 PM
Here's a review of the 911 tape of the incident.

http://www.wnct.com/video?clipId=8712420&autostart=true

Zoogster
March 27, 2013, 10:30 PM
Wow that additional 911 report does sound really bad.

But do keep perspective on who was doing the reporting. Likely one of the two young men that did the attacking, perhaps feeling guilty of doing some wrong themselves.
Some of what they reported was clearly wrong, whether they got specifics less than accurate as a result of adrenaline or perception, or they were intentionally saying untrue things combined with some facts.

As a result it is hard to say whether he came back and did more shooting or was driving back and forth as said.

Thier report about him pulling a gun, a click, etc is not accurate for example. The wife clearly came out with the gun, one of the young men saw it and made a verbal comment about it to the other and they took off. The gun was given to the man, it was fired.
So just based on what we know from the video and the statement from the individual we know the facts reported don't add up entirely with what we saw in the video.
So things beyond what is covered by the video must be viewed under the same light. Partial truths or various inaccuracies, the extent of which are unknown.

Bill_Shelton
March 27, 2013, 10:42 PM
Some of what they reported was clearly wrong, whether they got specifics less than accurate as a result of adrenaline or perception, or they were intentionally saying untrue things combined with some facts.

How do you know that? Please elaborate.

Zoogster
March 27, 2013, 10:44 PM
Because if you watch the video in the OP and compare it to the report, various details of things we can clearly see covered by the video footage are incorrectly reported.
So details of what we don't see may similarly be less than clearly reported.

Certaindeaf
March 27, 2013, 10:58 PM
Because if you watch the video in the OP and compare it to the report, various details of things we can clearly see covered by the video footage are incorrectly reported.
So details of what we don't see may similarly be less than clearly reported.
I don't think it's clear at all. To me, in the video, after his wife presents him the pistol, I see no shot/shooting. I hear what's perhaps a door slamming.

WinThePennant
March 27, 2013, 11:01 PM
I did. This was from a lawyer in a 2 day CCW course. The example he used was a fist fight, you fall down, guy jumps on you hits you, grabs a nearby brick and lifts it to smash your head. You're justified to shoot to save your life even if you punched or pushed the guy first.

You'll be criminally innocent. Civil court will likely roast your for starting a fight while carrying a gun.
And, that lawyer was WRONG.

If you start a fight, then you'd better run if you start getting your ass kicked. Losing a fight you started is NEVER a defense.

TAKtical
March 27, 2013, 11:07 PM
Hopefully they are both charged with felonies so they can no longer own firearms. Im tired of anti's making us all out to be psychos like these two. Be the bigger man and ignore teenagers that drive like idiots. Hes lucky they didnt have a gun.

Max K
March 27, 2013, 11:08 PM
I don't see how it applies. Even if some action on the road rose to the threshold of vehicular assault (VERY doubtful), the threat had ended before the situation was escalated. Even with no duty to retreat there is ALWAYS a duty to not pursue. That's vigilanteism.Thank you, that sounds right.

Certaindeaf
March 27, 2013, 11:09 PM
Since they all seem to be white, I really don't see the media carrying this too far.

WinThePennant
March 27, 2013, 11:20 PM
Figures - I half expected that it happened in North Carolina (I live in NC). State is filled with hotheads like Turner.

Zoogster
March 27, 2013, 11:38 PM
I don't think it's clear at all. To me, in the video, after his wife presents him the pistol, I see no shot/shooting. I hear what's perhaps a door slamming.

Okay I went and watched it a second time. I was not planning to spend too much time analyzing it, but obviously I needed to.


That does appear to be some sort of noise from the cab of the truck. I thought the audio and video were out of sync as often happens and it was the gun being fired.
Which has me wonder if he really did try to fire it, though I didn't search for the reported click in the video if it would even be audible from in the cab.

Perhaps all that kept him from murder was an unloaded pistol which he had to return to his truck to load.
Which would reduce the slight credibility he retained by walking away bloody dazed and with a gun in his hand instead of taking it even further.


Following people home and then punching them in thier vehicle is never a smart course of action.
Trying to shoot people after getting beat up for it would be even worse.
Returning and doing shooting, well that goes really far.










As for being upset with idiot or dangerous drivers. Well that is reasonable. After all you are more likely to die in a car accident than most other preventable accidents in life. People doing foolish things on the road pose a greater risk to you than armed criminals or other risks.
In fact some years in various places it tops the charts as the leading cause of death in various locations or counties.
But you don't follow someone home and attack them. That has bad consequences.

GP100man
March 27, 2013, 11:49 PM
The whole thing should`ve ended when the wife exposed she had a weapon & the younger fellers were retreating .

The husband was not in a state of mind to reasonably react with the situation at the time he aquired the weapon & he over reacted, resulting in a criminal act.

TarDevil
March 28, 2013, 12:27 AM
The whole thing should`ve ended when the wife exposed she had a weapon & the younger fellers were retreating .

Still, she could've been charged. You cannot use lethal force to defend an aggressor in NC.

Certaindeaf
March 28, 2013, 12:39 AM
I wonder if they were coming home from church.. sure seemed pretty fancily dressed.

Inebriated
March 28, 2013, 12:43 AM
Figures - I half expected that it happened in North Carolina (I live in NC). State is filled with hotheads like Turner.

Yeah, but they drive Civics or trucks loaded with chrome.

They're pretty easy to spot.

Prophet
March 28, 2013, 10:16 AM
Not in real life. Under the law sometimes yes

Exactly, which is why I said "legally and morally sticky". Any case that would favor Turner's actions in such a situation would be based entirely on the legal technicality that unnecessarily excessive force was used after Turner no longer presented a threat. But that does not seem to have been the situation so I guess it's kind of a moot point.

edit; oh yeah. I was operating under the assumption that the loud sound in the video was the firearm being discharged. Carry on.

buck460XVR
March 28, 2013, 11:17 AM
Still, she could've been charged. You cannot use lethal force to defend an aggressor on NC.


I dunno, I think that is grasping for straws. Her husband could have been seen as retreating as he did retreat back in the direction of his vehicle while being beat. He was being attacked by persons other than the one he initiated the contact with. She legally then in that case use deadly force if she is in fear of her husbands life. The only crime I really see is if there was a shot fired after the kids retreated. A good defense lawyer would claim the defendant was only doing what the Vice President told Americans to do......shoot a few shots off into the air to scare away the threat.

gym
March 28, 2013, 11:57 AM
He's toast. In this climate shooting at 2 unarmed men after you start the fight, he is screwed, attempted murder. For all the reasons I gave before. You can't point a gun at someone and pull the trigger in this country without consequences, when they are the victims not the perpetrator. The guy should have counted to 100 and gone home. Dumb ass just screwed up his life, over what, trying to be a tough guy. I can show you where all the tough guys I ever met ended up. Either dead, or in jail.

Iron bottom
March 28, 2013, 12:23 PM
I saw on TV that the wife handed him a gun with no magazine. He left and came back to do the shooting.

Arkansas Paul
March 28, 2013, 12:36 PM
I've posted a few time here already, but I still can't make myself understand how a 30 year old man would make the decision to follow a couple of guys home, walk up to their vehicle and hit them.
I understand anger. There was a time in my life when I might would have fought when it wasn't necessary, but I was a freakin teenager. Now, I'm 32 and it would take an awful lot to get me to swing at someone. I wouldn't do it just because I was angry or because someone insulted me or was rude to me.
I just don't understand adults who have the mindset that initiating violence is a viable option.

R.W.Dale
March 28, 2013, 01:44 PM
I've posted a few time here already, but I still can't make myself understand how a 30 year old man would make the decision to follow a couple of guys home, walk up to their vehicle and hit them.
I understand anger. There was a time in my life when I might would have fought when it wasn't necessary, but I was a freakin teenager. Now, I'm 32 and it would take an awful lot to get me to swing at someone. I wouldn't do it just because I was angry or because someone insulted me or was rude to me.
I just don't understand adults who have the mindset that initiating violence is a viable option.

I've long had a theory that's only been affirmed the older I've gotten that explains these types. I firmly believe that a certain percentage of the population is no more self aware than a cat or dog that go throughout their entire lives merely reacting to outside stimuli through pure emotion with absolutely no higher thought process or reasoning taking place.




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

TarDevil
March 28, 2013, 01:56 PM
I dunno, I think that is grasping for straws. Her husband could have been seen as retreating as he did retreat back in the direction of his vehicle while being beat. He was being attacked by persons other than the one he initiated the contact with. She legally then in that case use deadly force if she is in fear of her husbands life. The only crime I really see is if there was a shot fired after the kids retreated. A good defense lawyer would claim the defendant was only doing what the Vice President told Americans to do......shoot a few shots off into the air to scare away the threat.

We spent an inordinate amount of time discussing this, for some of the reasons you pose. Bottom line from from instructor, who got the bottom line from a common friend who is the assistant DA in my area (I'll follow up with him next time we're having dinner)... you cannot defend the aggressor with deadly force. If you happen upon a fight already in progress and you decide to intervene, you roll the dice as to who perpetrated the fight.

Claude Clay
March 28, 2013, 02:08 PM
absolute moron...starts a fight and than the wife hands him a jail sentence. had he waved her off they may ( just may) not have ended up in jail--where they belong.

X-JaVeN-X
March 28, 2013, 02:52 PM
I don't know if this has been mentioned in the thread so far...but just to add what I heard on my local news. The guy followed those kids for 40 minutes before they arrived home (the video is shot in the kids' driveway). If they really did try to run him off the road, he should have called the police. If it was just a stupid "didn't check my blind spot" moment by the kids, then 40 minutes is plenty of time to cool off and let it go...

Certaindeaf
March 28, 2013, 03:20 PM
How 'bout a Pez dispensor shaped like a gun.. that's loaded with chill-pills.

gym
March 28, 2013, 07:50 PM
If he followed them for 40 minutes and then shot at them again, then forget what I said, that's premeditated ,or attempted murder in the first degree. He could be in jail for a long time.
An attempt to commit first degree murder while armed with a firearm is a Class X felony for which 15 years shall be added to the term of imprisonment imposed by the court;
http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/attempted-murder/

gc70
March 29, 2013, 04:18 AM
If they really did try to run him off the road, he should have called the police.

Yes, what about the Turners' 911 call? Reckless driving warrants a call to the police. And even following an aggressive driver a bit -while on the phone with 911- would have been justified to try to get a license number. Beyond that, things don't look good for the Turners.

Sadly, smart was in short supply in the Turner household that day.

thump_rrr
March 29, 2013, 05:38 AM
It appears that he has an idiot for a lawyer.
The threat no longer exists 40 minutes after the fact.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/03/27/unbelievable-video-couple-facing-charges-after-allegedly-threatening-men-with-a-gun-in-road-rage-incident/

Defense Attorney David Wohl pointed out that from Turner’s perspective, the teens tried to run him off the road. “If he reasonably perceives that the kids are assaulting him, his wife, and his small child with a deadly weapon, then he can use deadly force in response.”

JRH6856
March 29, 2013, 06:11 AM
How are they trying to run him off the road when they are stopped in their own driveway? :banghead:

HorseSoldier
March 29, 2013, 06:51 AM
Hopefully the DA won't plead the thing down below a felony conviction so the Turners won't have to worry about where guns fit into their halting attempts to exist in the world.

Carl N. Brown
March 29, 2013, 07:25 AM
The linked story is by AOL Autos Staff "Husband And Wife Arrested After Pulling A Gun In Road Rage Fight: Bradley Turner and his wife Christy of La Grange, N.C., are facing charges" 26 Mar 2013.

It includes video and AOL includes the warning: "Warning: Video contains foul language and fighting." The video was shot by someone in the back of the truck.

1. Turner walked up to the parked truck and accused the driver of trying to run him off the road.

If you are not run off the road, you avoid them, report the vehicle and bad driver (if they are a serial bad driver, the police will have multiple complaints and BOLO Be On the Look Out); why would you confront someone if you think they deliberately tried to run you off the road? I remember my Uncle Remus: Brer Rabbit was a fool for kicking the tar baby for dissing him (a trap set by Brer Fox). Road ragers I have read about and a few I have met look for stuff to rage about and are spoiling for a fight (and are often the worst drivers on the road). As someone who has been called for jury duty, which is a pain in the derriere, I would not be kindly disposed toward someone who inserts himself in a potential bad avoidable situation. I like to drive defensively, as tho' I am hauling a load of med-evac through a sky of kamikazes in an unarmed C47; trouble avoidance even if I have a sidearm, trouble avoidance especially when I have a sidearm.

2. The driver and passenger lept out of the vehicle and started beating Turner.

Disparity of numbers: two young men versus an unarmed man equals reasonable fear of severe bodily harm, if not possible death. That is why you avoid situations with multiple stupid people, like punks in a truck. Unless you are punk yourself.

3. The fight stops when the wife came out of the car gun in hand. The truck driver and passengers disperse.

At this point successful self-defense. I would get into the car and extricate myself from a bad situation I put myself into.

4. Wife hands gun to hubby, hubby fires a shot.

Stuck on stupid like most road ragers I have head about. If the attacker(s) runs away, justification for use of further force is gone. Thus saith the Attorney General tape in the class on self defense law required by the state of Tenenssee for a Handgun Carry Permit. Firing a shot at an attacker who is fleeing from the sight of your gun crosses the line from self-defense into criminal behavior: the victim-offender can then return fire if they can get to a gun.

5. The witnesses said the shooting continued after the video ends.

Uh. A witness in the truck was video taping the incident. What is this, some kinda MTV Jackass prank gone horribly wrong? "Hey, let's have some fun with some old fart on the road today and videotape it for laffs and giggles."

A pox on both houses.

kwguy
March 29, 2013, 08:10 AM
Sounds like there were a total of 5 teenage clowns involved in that whole thing.

vito
March 29, 2013, 09:21 AM
And never start a fight with an old man. He won't fight you, he'll just kill you.

Carl N. Brown
March 29, 2013, 09:31 AM
The guy should have counted to 100 and gone home.

Right. He had forty minutes to cool off. Sounds like, like most road ragers, he used the forty minutes to work up a bigger rage. And like most road rage types, he's probably pulled in front of other people in his blind spot and thought nothing of it.

I'll play Soup Nazi from Seinfeld, and say, No sympathy for him.

CZguy
March 29, 2013, 10:38 AM
What ever happened to just muttering "danged idiots" and just driving on.

Arkansas Paul
March 29, 2013, 10:41 AM
What ever happened to just muttering "danged idiots" and just driving on.

Exactly. I do that at least twice a day.

jaxbeach904
March 29, 2013, 10:59 AM
1. Those boys are lucky he didnt shoot them 2. He seemed pretty cocky confronting a truck full of young guys all by his lonesome, could it be because he was carrying??? My 1911 is never coming out in the open unless its life or death. Why shoot somebody unless it is absolutely necessary? I carry everywhere but I would NEVER instigate ANYTHING because I know I am armed, and as such, I look to avoid any potential conflict at all costs.

JustinJ
March 29, 2013, 11:05 AM
I've long had a theory that's only been affirmed the older I've gotten that explains these types. I firmly believe that a certain percentage of the population is no more self aware than a cat or dog that go throughout their entire lives merely reacting to outside stimuli through pure emotion with absolutely no higher thought process or reasoning taking place.

My dog is deeply offended as he generally shows much better discretion than the yahoo in this story.

Robert
March 29, 2013, 11:26 AM
We are going round in circles at this point. We can revisit this when more solid information is available.

If you enjoyed reading about "Husband And Wife Arrested After Pulling A Gun In Road Rage Fight" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!