Road Rage Shooting in Houston

[E.Marquez]

Again, still you ignore the information as presented; insert your personal alternate reality to justify how the victim is wrong and guilty.

What I would ask is, form your opinion based on THE FACTS as presented,, as that is all any of us know,,, they may be proved to be wrong later, or partially so,, but for now, that’s all there is.

Based on what is known at this time, your position and opinion are not supported or justified.

If you still feel differently, using the facts known at this time,, not your guessing, not your personal beliefs, just what has been reported.. support your position.

Thanks

She rear ended him and by law you have to stop and trade info so he couldn't have keep on going or he would have been in violation of the law. Since he was the one that got rear ended in this little game I bet he was mad.

I have not ever seen where it said she rear-ended him. Damage shown in videos looks like it is to the front of his truck, so maybe he hit her? No matter, he was the one in a rage because he got out and started pounding on HER car, games or not. If you and I are playing a game of swap the leader in traffic and you get out and start pounding on my car, bust my window and try to enter with me inside you will also potentially get shot.

A woman on her way to work fatally shot another motorist she said attacked her after a minor collision in northwest Harris County, officials said.
Crystal Scott, 23, pulled into a Shell station on Perry near west FM 1960 about 7:20 a.m. Monday with the intention of exchanging insurance information with the other driver, officials said.

They stopped (by law) did he break her window or did the bullet fired from inside the vehicle do it. Was there disparage; only after the accident (she wasn't frail, crippled, or sickly) all of a sudden she was a helpless victim of a crazed man (that she incited)

Was there a crime committed by the shooter...yes…road rage; then the law says you can't claim self-defense. Would she have gotten arrested if your lawyer and pastor wasn't there...very good chance she would have but the cops are not going to try and quote law with a lawyer when she is there quoting law and I am sure the cameras didn't hurt.

I am all for people defending themselves but not in this case. She had a gun and she was not backing down. One thing we was taught in class and that was to be the adult and work to resolve things before they get like this but she must have missed that part

[E.Marquez]

They stopped (by law)

OK

did he break her window or did the bullet fired from inside the vehicle do it.

Again facts as reported say he broke the window in a rage.. so let’s just form our discussion with what has been reported, not make stuff up to support a different conclusion.

Was there disparage; only after the accident (she wasn't frail, crippled, or sickly) all of a sudden she was a helpless victim of a crazed man (that she incited)

Again, you add to or change and twist what has been reported to fit a conclusion you have already come to.

Was there a crime committed by the shooter...yes…road rage;

No such information reported supports that conclusion.

then the law says you can't claim self-defense.

As you have been shown with the law quoted several times now,,, your statement is false..

Would she have gotten arrested if your lawyer and pastor wasn't there...very good chance she would have but the cops are not going to try and quote law with a lawyer when she is there quoting law and I am sure the cameras didn't hurt.

Still nothing but your bias and personal guesses at what should have, might have happened... The facts as reported do not support your position.

I am all for people defending themselves but not in this case. She had a gun and she was not backing down. One thing we was taught in class and that was to be the adult and work to resolve things before they get like this but she must have missed that part

The part missed is your understanding of what the law states or what you were taught in the class. or both.

Even though the facts as reported do not support your position, I'll concede the point for the sake of conversation..
Let’s say a jury, DA, or Judge does agree with your personal opinion that the lady was guilty of being an attacker and that she had some part in provoking the attack on her person...

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;
By LEAVING the road way where the "attack" happened, by calling the police, by remaining in her car, the FACTS as reported clearly show her in compliance with PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE shown above.

[barstoolguru]

Doesn't say she rear-ended him. Doesn't say she was in a rage (playing vehicle leap-frog can be non-rage). And I would be scared if I stopped and some guy starts beating on my car and tried to open the door to get at me.

and we know by her statement that she was involved in a road rage

What constitutes road rage? The U.S. News report notes: "Any type of deliberate, unsafe behavior counts--tailgating, changing lanes erratically, illegally passing other drivers, and even gesturing and shouting." "Road rage is driving under the influence of impaired emotions," Leon James, who teaches traffic psychology at the University of Hawaii, told U.S. News. "It's triggered by mental assumptions we're making about other drivers--like assuming someone is doing something on purpose to bother you, because they're inconsiderate."

http://autos.aol.com/article/road-rage- ... olice-say/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

she never said nothing but her lawyer and pastor sure did a lot of talking

The pickup truck driver went berserk, her pastor said

That's when things got violent, Letitia Quinones, the woman's lawyer, said

one of the witnesses said

"If he would have been banging on the window and yelling, I would have heard it because it was right there," he said. "Nothing drew my attention. Nothing drew my attention and I was 15-20 feet from there. What drew my was the gunshot

."

witness two claims:

Ables' family tells us the passenger riding with him in his vehicle told them Ables never threatened Scott.

this was never mention by the pastor or the lawyer but for some reason it made the paper, sounds like someone pumping up the story.

People claiming to be relatives of the woman said she called them and told them that when she and the man stopped at the gas station, the man got out of his vehicle and started kicking her car.

the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably

And where can we say this happened; before or after she rear ended him. Fact is if she would have slowed down or pulled off somewhere he most likely would have keep on going BUT she didn't

[Mike1951]

Doesn't say she rear-ended him. Doesn't say she was in a rage (playing vehicle leap-frog can be non-rage). And I would be scared if I stopped and some guy starts beating on my car and tried to open the door to get at me.

In this case you have made your mind up she is guilty. You don't know any more about the event than anyone else on here, you just want to push your unfounded opinion. I am with all the others on here that say let the experts figure it out. Your speculation that she was the one at fault is just that, speculation, so it needs to be dropped until the Grand Jury hears the case or the prosecutor decides the evidence warrants not sending it to the GJ.

I gave up on logic and reason on page three!

Should the video and 911 completely vindicate her, I don't expect him to change his tune.

[barstoolguru]

.

I gave up on logic and reason on page three!

Should the video and 911 completely vindicate her, I don't expect him to change his tune.

I am sorry you and so many others take this as just another page on an internet board and call it justified. Laws are created to help people defend themselves but never meant for something as simple as a road rage incident. Being a truck driver for many years I seen these things happen and they seem to work themselves out. Say she didn't have a gun then what would have happened; would she have been beaten to death in the parking lot? Or maybe she just gets punched in the nose and the cops show up and he gets arrested BUT for a man to lose his life because she was "scared" or "feared for her life". Did he have a weapon; NO, but she did and because of that she limited her options to one!

what is scary here is the fact that people are saying that every time someone gets into a heated argument it’s OK to shoot someone because "I was in fear of bodily harm" well if that is the case shut up! What scares me is the message that will be sent out if she gets acquitted. so maybe I am not the only one that needs to change

[anygunanywhere]

.

I gave up on logic and reason on page three!

Should the video and 911 completely vindicate her, I don't expect him to change his tune.

I am sorry you and so many others take this as just another page on an internet board and call it justified. Laws are created to help people defend themselves but never meant for something as simple as a road rage incident. Being a truck driver for many years I seen these things happen and they seem to work themselves out. Say she didn't have a gun then what would have happened; would she have been beaten to death in the parking lot? Or maybe she just gets punched in the nose and the cops show up and he gets arrested BUT for a man to lose his life because she was "scared" or "feared for her life". Did he have a weapon; NO, but she did and because of that she limited her options to one!

what is scary here is the fact that people are saying that every time someone gets into a heated argument it’s OK to shoot someone because "I was in fear of bodily harm" well if that is the case shut up! What scares me is the message that will be sent out if she gets acquitted. so maybe I am not the only one that needs to change

No one here has said that. You have.

Anygunanywhere

[Keith B]

.

I gave up on logic and reason on page three!

Should the video and 911 completely vindicate her, I don't expect him to change his tune.

I am sorry you and so many others take this as just another page on an internet board and call it justified. Laws are created to help people defend themselves but never meant for something as simple as a road rage incident. Being a truck driver for many years I seen these things happen and they seem to work themselves out. Say she didn't have a gun then what would have happened; would she have been beaten to death in the parking lot? Or maybe she just gets punched in the nose and the cops show up and he gets arrested BUT for a man to lose his life because she was "scared" or "feared for her life". Did he have a weapon; NO, but she did and because of that she limited her options to one!

what is scary here is the fact that people are saying that every time someone gets into a heated argument it’s OK to shoot someone because "I was in fear of bodily harm" well if that is the case shut up! What scares me is the message that will be sent out if she gets acquitted. so maybe I am not the only one that needs to change

I never said she was justified, and don't think anyone else is claiming she is. We are just saying to wait and let the DA and Grand Jury determine if she was justified or not, not a bar stool expert.

[baldeagle]

I Have had mutable run in's with 911 and the law and if you think being the first to call 911 is a plus think again. The law is the law and if this guy had a voice there like she did; she would have got arrested but because she had a mouth piece there confusing the police she got an away with a trip to jail. She escaped the jail for now but the wheels of justice turn slow in cases like this

You don't think much of the police if you think they can be that easily confused.

Mistakes are made every day and I don't care to open that can of worms. Fact is when you have a lawyer on the shooting site I feel that it will taint the chain of thought. Let’s face it; it is done every day in court so why a shooting is site any different.

Will you make a written promise here on the forum to never call a lawyer should you be involved in a shooting incident?

[barstoolguru]

Will you make a written promise here on the forum to never call a lawyer should you be involved in a shooting incident?

They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they kept only one; they promised to take our land, and they did
~red cloud

[tomtexan]

I am sorry you and so many others take this as just another page on an internet board and call it justified. Laws are created to help people defend themselves but never meant for something as simple as a road rage incident. Being a truck driver for many years I seen these things happen and they seem to work themselves out. Say she didn't have a gun then what would have happened; would she have been beaten to death in the parking lot? Or maybe she just gets punched in the nose and the cops show up and he gets arrested BUT for a man to lose his life because she was "scared" or "feared for her life". Did he have a weapon; NO, but she did and because of that she limited her options to one!

Did she know whether or not he had a weapon? NO, a chance she was not willing to wait and find out. She did what she thought she had to do to preserve her life.

barstoolguru, do you get the feeling you are mostly alone on your rampant thoughts?

[VoiceofReason]

Will you make a written promise here on the forum to never call a lawyer should you be involved in a shooting incident?

They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they kept only one; they promised to take our land, and they did
~red cloud

Uhhh I think he has gone bye bye folks.

barstoolguru,
When I got my renewal I signed up for [Pre-paid legal service]. It provides a lawyer should you have to use your gun. Whether or not you pull the trigger.

It tells you on the card to call 911 then call them on a 24 hour number that would be answered by a lawyer.

Any one that would talk to the police in a situation like this without a lawyer is not too smart. I have seen some detectives work (live first hand) that were good at what they do. You may say something that is completely innocent to you but it can be twisted and come back to bite you. You can talk your way into jail if you talk to the police without a lawyer even if you are innocent.

By the way, what did those companies that you drove for tell you to do if you had an accident?

[barstoolguru]

Uhhh I think he has gone bye bye folks

Still here and still believe in the American way of justice but when the masses are against me; it’s time to keep quiet. I made my points; the nice thing about this situation is we have 5 different articles (posted) and many more if you want to look them up so there is a lot of basic info.

Sometimes I have to agree with others that have made mentions of things BUT backed off their beliefs for fear of being strung up by others. I like to think this is a discussion and sometimes things get heated but that is understandable BUT there is no gain here, there will never be a winner. I would love to discuss it and have but for fear of getting banned I see no choice but to fold

lots of good points where brought up and I enjoyed everyone but....

By the way, what did those companies that you drove for tell you to do if you had an accident?

I owned my own co and folded it for personal reasons but had my fare share of accidents and seen more road rage that you can think

[baldeagle]

Will you make a written promise here on the forum to never call a lawyer should you be involved in a shooting incident?

They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they kept only one; they promised to take our land, and they did
~red cloud

IOW no. Just what I thought. It's OK for you, but not for her.

[barstoolguru]

Will you make a written promise here on the forum to never call a lawyer should you be involved in a shooting incident?

They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they kept only one; they promised to take our land, and they did
~red cloud

IOW no. Just what I thought. It's OK for you, but not for her.

I never said NOT TO CALL a lawyer but when the lawyer in on the scene it would be hard(er) to get a clear picture of what happen. After all, their job is to bend the law in their clients favor.
Fact here is a SINGLE mom (maybe she was abused by her husband) gets into a confrontation with a man (road rage) and because SHE rear ended him. Then she shoots him because she was in fear for her life which is fine if the circumstances where different but she instigated it and the cry’s victim; that I have a problem with.
Was he wrong; sure but was he wrong to the point of being killed for it? After all she had other options but only exercised one. She had a gun and she wasn’t backing down

[E.Marquez]

Fact here is a SINGLE mom (maybe she was abused by her husband)

Maybe she was an alien, but that too is not reported, and not a factor in the discussion, except in your version.

gets into a confrontation with a man (road rage)

So far the only road rage that has been reported is from the man who attacked her... the rest of it your just making up with persaonl assumptions and bias

and because SHE rear ended him.

So you looked at the physical evidence, read what has been reported, and that is your honest opinion of what happened?

Then she shoots him because she was in fear for her life which is fine

Good, you have a fair assessment based on the facts presented so far.

if the circumstances where different but she instigated it[/quite]
Not what the report states, and you still ignore the law as written, that clearly states one does not lose the right to self defence even if you started the event, as long as you departed, left, stopped the behavior. Seems you just do not grasp that part of the law...

I have a problem.

Understood

Was he wrong; sure but was he wrong to the point of being killed for it?

We don't know based on what has been provided, nor do you... The Police investigators on sight seem to think so, and they had more time, and knowledge of the event then you or I... so for now, that is the opinion that matters most.

A Grand Jury may be asked to look at all the available evidence and they will decided to concur with the police investigation, or send it to trial.. Time will tell.