loose noose
Member
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.
Husband And Wife Arrested After Pulling A Gun In Road Rage Fight
- Thread starter stumpers
- Start date
- Status
MtnCreek
Member
Do what you have to do to live. Just expect to spend some time in jail if you assault someone.
Arkansas Paul
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
phillipduran
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2012
- Messages
- 34
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.
(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
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2012
- Messages
- 34
You're right. I'm basing my opinion on Nevada law from a few years back.
Arkansas Paul
Member
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
Member
I'm not a lawyer or expert on Nevada law, but here are some statutes:
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
Last edited:
WardenWolf
member
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
Member
phillipduran said:
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.
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? 
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,087
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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
Member
Agreed. That's a special kind of stupid.
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.
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.
Last edited:
mgmorden
Member
In my experience 3/4's of the male population under 25 dress like that.
Lets not generalize, particularly when you're painting with such a broad brush.
JRH6856
Member
In what segment of the population do you find the most reckless drivers?In my experience 3/4's of the male population under 25 dress like that.
Dave Workman
Member
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.
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.
- Status
