Posted on 07/21/2024 6:36:22 AM PDT by DallasBiff
INDIANAPOLIS — a 29-year-old man was kiIIed following a road rage incident captured on a witness’s cell phone.
The incident was deemed self-defense and the shooter was released without being arrəsted.
(Excerpt) Read more at x.com ...
After reading your nitpicking pettifoggery, I amend the pledge.
As a juror, I will not find anyone civilly liable for taking out the trash.
Brandished a gun, other driver is certainly justified...
This guy sadly played a stupid game and paid the ultimate price for it.
If you feel you need to brandish a gun to do what you are going to do, you probably should not do it.
So the guy who filmed the incident was shot and killed this morning at a gas station in Indianapolis....?
Very interesting. I can tell you, as a man who carries a pistol daily, my gun would have been in my hands with the safety off (1911) as the man approached my truck with a gun in his hands. The difference, I believe I would have thrown down on him before he got anywhere close to my door. He’d be the one having to make a very quick decision.
Yep. He was some sort of anti-gun, anti-violence radical. Got popped at a service station the very next day.
I’m going to toss in a caveat. I’ve only been able to find one mention of the videoing-witness being killed the next day, and that was in the Twitter report I posted. The anti- violence guy was named Ron Gee and all of the articles about his death never mentioned him being the witness at the road rage shooting. Apparently, Ron Gee was a well-liked person.
“I believe I would have thrown down on him before he got anywhere close to my door.”
Brandishing for protection is still always a questioning act as the law paints it with blurred vision. If you drop him, you never gave him a chance to display aggression. So was he intending aggression? For you, it would be obvious just like the person in the vehicle in this one. And that’s where the question lies. I never said I liked or dislike the required response to approach. But the law is very explicit. If the person is not an aggressor, and he is shot, they will go after the shooter. And from what we’ve seen in this one, there wasn’t enough to display a need for force up to that point. And the responsibility for proof there was would be up to the shooter’s lawyers as we got a dead guy laying there and someone has to be exonerated for the death rather than prove it was needed.
wy69.
“As a juror, I will not find anyone civilly liable for taking out the trash”
Vigilanties are not always right. A lot of people in the old west were hung for things they did not do by vigilianties.
“After reading your nitpicking pettifoggery..”
You didn’t read what I said. I said it was interesing because it is easily determined that by the law and the possibility of a wrongful death suit. And my opinion as to whether what I said was “pettifogery” or fact is part of the equation. But you add a good question here to assist me, which one was the trash? The one who carried a gun to a car in anger that there is no proof he was going to use? Or was it the guy that shot him through the window that did? And that’s where the court case comes in. You are making assumptions you don’t have the proof of. I’m making observation of what we’ve actually seen on the tape. I’m not making any determination that says one way or the other is wrong or right and you’ve judged the dead guy trash and called my entries a quarrel about petty points. Those petty points will be very discernable in court. And the final say as to blame for the death. And that’s the law, not me.
wy69
“As a juror, I will not find anyone civilly liable for taking out the trash”
Vigilanties are not always right. A lot of people in the old west were hung for things they did not do by vigilianties.
“After reading your nitpicking pettifoggery..”
You didn’t read what I said. I said it was interesing because it is easily determined that by the law and the possibility of a wrongful death suit. And my opinion as to whether what I said was “pettifogery” or fact is part of the equation. But you add a good question here to assist me, which one was the trash? The one who carried a gun to a car in anger that there is no proof he was going to use? Or was it the guy that shot him through the window that did? And that’s where the court case comes in. You are making assumptions you don’t have the proof of. I’m making observation of what we’ve actually seen on the tape. I’m not making any determination that says one way or the other is wrong or right and you’ve judged the dead guy trash and called my entries a quarrel about petty points. Those petty points will be very discernable in court. And the final say as to blame for the death. And that’s the law, not me.
wy69
You damn yourself with your own words. You want to nitpick a self-defense incident millisecond by millisecond. I have only contempt for the people who do that.
As a JUROR (which I have been multiple times), I will not convict anyone of any crime, nor will I find him civilly liable, for taking out the trash.
And yes, since you mistakenly think otherwise, I have read your comments on this and similar threads. I did read what you wrote. I find it contemptible.
Do I make myself clear?
“Do I make myself clear?”
About as clear as saying you are a juror taking an oath of non-partiality, yet you prejudge people you haven’t ever even seen.
And that ain’t very clear. You call your professed future actions of harm acceptable while saying my open thoughts waiting for all the evidence and court decisions is contemptable. Don’t waste my time trying to hammer me with an opinion already prejudged.
wy69
In the state of North Carolina, an unholstered weapon is a display of aggression AND intent to use Deadly Force.
“In the state of North Carolina, an unholstered weapon is a display of aggression AND intent to use Deadly Force.”
North Carolyna loaw § 14‑34. Assaulting by pointing gun.
If any person shall point any gun or pistol at any person, either in fun or otherwise, whether such gun or pistol be loaded or not loaded, he shall be guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor.
But it required pointing a gun to be even a misdemeaner. Can you find the law where it says just displaying it in public is unlawful. That would violate the 2nd amendment. It has yet to be determined at any time during that sequence the outside guy pointed the weapon.
wy69
I just moved up here from ‘Bama and was forced to sit through a 12 hour course of instruction which included range proficiency. The instructors made it pretty clear that if you unholstered in NC, that was definitely intent to use Deadly Force and you would be arrested. I went to Tri-Angle Shooting Academy. I’ll dig through the course books to see if I can find the info though. Not tonight because we’re watch the Opening Ceremonies, but tomorrow. Great conversation BTW.
“...see if I can find the info though...”
Thank you. There are a lot of twists on this case. To me it seems like having a gun in possession while not aiming it or threatenting to, which he had plenty of time to do as he could have openned fire getting out of his vehicle, didn’t seem like he wanted to use it but to let the other driver in the vehicle know he had it for protection. And the guy in the vehicle that actually fired the shot must have had his unholstered, also, since it took so little time for it to be used.
In defence of the outside guy, I can’t count the number of times cops walking up to a car for a traffic violation have been shot with their piece holstered. So both sides were in question in my mind. And the only shot came from inside the vehicle.
In a criminal case it is beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case it is the preponderence of the evidence which is defined as proving that something is more likely than not. And we only had one shooter. Like I said, it might get interesting if it comes to wrongful death suit.
wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.