TexasCHLforum.com

After a car crash, the driver gets aggressive the other drive flees and is chased, gets sprayed with mace and then shoots the driver.

http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/06 ... with-mace/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is a lesson here for mace sprayers everywhere - new and old.

...I have bad asthma...spray me and get shot for sure...it's my life!!!

the younger guy is the one that should have been maced

no bill!

What a tragic story. Some guy caused a wreck and then attacked the other driver. If he survives, he should be arrested.

Sounds like a ok self defense shooting, tried to flee because he was in fear, agressor pruseded him, and attacked him. he then pulled his gun.

speedsix wrote:...I have bad asthma...spray me and get shot for sure...it's my life!!!

I don't have asthma, but I do have a strong aversion to getting maced by someone who is escalating a confrontation. What's next, he shoots me? He gets out of his car and whups me while I'm incapacitated? I might well feel threatened enough to draw and shoot too.

But.....and some may think this controversial.....I will say this: unless I had the "asthma defense," it might be pretty difficult for me to convince a grand jury that I was in fear for my life because of being sprayed. Not impossible, just difficult. The reason I say that is because pepper spray and teargas and things like that are marketed to the public as "less-than-lethal;" police forces are trained to use these products as a "less-than-lethal" alternative to shooting a suspect, and a prosecutor might try to convince the grand jury that this is common knowledge stuff, and that consequently responding with a firearm is not a justified use of deadly force, and ask the GJ to send the case to trial.

Mind you..... I don't agree with this interpretation, so please don't assume that I'm defending it. I'm just saying that I can see a prosecutor making this argument, and a GJ made up of people who do not necessarily share our mindset might easily swallow such an argument.

Of course it is bull. In the heat of the moment, when an agressor, who caused the original accident then pursues a person who is trying to flee the aggressor's intentions, then pepper sprays the victim upon catching up to him, any reasonable person (I just love the fact that Texas law includes that term) might draw the conclusion that the next step in the continuum is a butt-whoopin from which he will not be able to defend himself, having been incapacitated by the pepper spray. Like I said, I'd probably shoot too.

IF the report represents the true facts of the situation, I definitely agree that the agressor got what was coming to him. Hopefully, he'll pull through with a lesson learned the hard way. I have heard it said, "Don't mess with an old man (alas 42 isn't old to me anymore), he'll just shoot you". Guile, training -- Practice, Practice, and Practice some more -- and superior firepower ARE sometimes an ample substitute for youth and fitness, and some young bucks regrettably have to learn that the hard way.

The Annoyed Man wrote:But.....and some may think this controversial.....I will say this: unless I had the "asthma defense," it might be pretty difficult for me to convince a grand jury that I was in fear for my life because of being sprayed. Not impossible, just difficult. The reason I say that is because pepper spray and teargas and things like that are marketed to the public as "less-than-lethal;" police forces are trained to use these products as a "less-than-lethal" alternative to shooting a suspect, and a prosecutor might try to convince the grand jury that this is common knowledge stuff, and that consequently responding with a firearm is not a justified use of deadly force, and ask the GJ to send the case to trial.

I think that would be easily rebutted.

Tear gas is not regarded as lethal. However, it is regarded as incapacitating a person. If an armed person gets incapacitated, they are now at risk of getting shot with their own weapon, so getting maced is -- by definition -- an armed encounter as I am the armed person. If a police officer is OC sprayed by a BG, I guarantee you they will consider that justification to use deadly force. Look how many police officers have been shot with their own weapon over the years. It is a realistic concern.

Middle Age Russ wrote:IF the report represents the true facts of the situation, I definitely agree that the agressor got what was coming to him. Hopefully, he'll pull through with a lesson learned the hard way. I have heard it said, "Don't mess with an old man (alas 42 isn't old to me anymore), he'll just shoot you". Guile, training -- Practice, Practice, and Practice some more -- and superior firepower ARE sometimes an ample substitute for youth and fitness, and some young bucks regrettably have to learn that the hard way.

I don't see any old men in the article, just two young men.

Seriously, I think had they still been at the scene and the guy shot him with OC, then there may have been a question about whether he felt in fear for his life. But, if we have all of the facts from the story, with the YOUNGER of the two chasing him down, THEN spraying him, I feel this was a justified self defense situation.

Regarding tam's comment re 'less-than-lethal', I am scared of being tazed. I am on my third defib/pacemaker combo unit, and it does not take a lot of electricity to mess with the programming.

I would think the fact that the shooter tried to de-escalate by fleeing would count for him in the grand jury. Then you have the sprayer chasing the man, that also has to help the shooter. That said, I'm afraid the shooter will be in trouble just because so many people will not see that pepper spray/tear gas/mace is still very dangerous. It seems that becoming incapacitated is a very dangerous thing.

If the 24 y/o has a history of aggressive behavior, DA may not press charges against the shooter.

Carrying pepper spray came up during CHL class. Instructor stated, if one is going to carry the spray they should spray themselves first. Crazy right! His point, if used on someone, you could truthfully testify you were aware of the "nonlethal" effects of the spray.

Jumping Frog wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:But.....and some may think this controversial.....I will say this: unless I had the "asthma defense," it might be pretty difficult for me to convince a grand jury that I was in fear for my life because of being sprayed. Not impossible, just difficult. The reason I say that is because pepper spray and teargas and things like that are marketed to the public as "less-than-lethal;" police forces are trained to use these products as a "less-than-lethal" alternative to shooting a suspect, and a prosecutor might try to convince the grand jury that this is common knowledge stuff, and that consequently responding with a firearm is not a justified use of deadly force, and ask the GJ to send the case to trial.

I think that would be easily rebutted.

Tear gas is not regarded as lethal. However, it is regarded as incapacitating a person. If an armed person gets incapacitated, they are now at risk of getting shot with their own weapon, so getting maced is -- by definition -- an armed encounter as I am the armed person. If a police officer is OC sprayed by a BG, I guarantee you they will consider that justification to use deadly force. Look how many police officers have been shot with their own weapon over the years. It is a realistic concern.

I agree that it could be rebutted. All I'm saying is that I can see a potential for this kind of trouble for a shooter in this situation. But like I said, I would likely shoot if it were me.