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?
Husband And Wife Arrested After Pulling A Gun In Road Rage Fight
- Thread starter stumpers
- Start date
- Status
kentucky_Dave
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 182
...deleted
Last edited:
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
member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 115
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.
http://www.wnct.com/story/21781289/...looking-road-rage-shooting-suspect-and-family
http://www.wnct.com/story/21781289/...looking-road-rage-shooting-suspect-and-family
Last edited:
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.
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.
Bill_Shelton said:
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:
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.
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:
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.
Last edited:
Bill_Shelton
member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 115
Here's a review of the 911 tape of the incident.
http://www.wnct.com/video?clipId=8712420&autostart=true
http://www.wnct.com/video?clipId=8712420&autostart=true
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.
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
member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2011
- Messages
- 115
How do you know that? Please elaborate.
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.
So details of what we don't see may similarly be less than clearly reported.
Certaindeaf
member
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
Member
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
Member
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.
Last edited:
Thank you, that sounds right.
Certaindeaf
member
Since they all seem to be white, I really don't see the media carrying this too far.
WinThePennant
Member
Figures - I half expected that it happened in North Carolina (I live in NC). State is filled with hotheads like Turner.
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.
Last edited:
GP100man
Member
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.
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.
Still, she could've been charged. You cannot use lethal force to defend an aggressor in NC.
Last edited:
Certaindeaf
member
I wonder if they were coming home from church.. sure seemed pretty fancily dressed.
Inebriated
Member
Yeah, but they drive Civics or trucks loaded with chrome.
They're pretty easy to spot.
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.
Last edited:
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
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.
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.
- Status
