Road Rage Shooting in Houston

[JALLEN]

In one of the video's, assuming it was the truck the young man was driving, was damaged not in rear but in the front, wrinkled hood, etc. It is hard to say what the "fender bender" consisted of. It didn't much look like a rear-ender.

[ddurkof]

Falstaff:
To die is to be a counterfeit, for he is but the counterfeit of
a man who hath not the life of a man; but to counterfeit dying,
when a man thereby liveth, is to be no counterfeit, but the true
and perfect image of life indeed. The better part of valor is
discretion, in the which better part I have sav'd my life.
Henry The Fourth, Part 1 Act 5, scene 4, 115–121

Two real lessons here: Don't take traffic infractions personally. There are jerks out there who drive like idiots. Take great lengths to avoid meeting them. When you make the split second decision to use deadly force, there will be people debating if you were correct or not. Few things in life are black and white, and are mostly shades of gray.

In less than a few seconds this woman made a decision, good or bad, that will effect her the rest of her life. Consider it the next time some one does something stupid in traffic: Is any confrontation worth the possible outcome?

[Jumping Frog]

... looks like she shot through the window. in my option unless he made entry into the vehicle she was never in danger! Just because someone beats on your car does not mean immanent death or dismemberment

This is an extraordinarily naive statement.

Forget about a clueless reporter looking like an idiot on Youtube.

If you ask anyone who has ever served as a volunteer firearm or EMT if someone who knows what they are doing can get through a car window, the response will be a person can get through a car window and start choking you or striking blows to the head in under 2 seconds. If someone has their handgun holstered on their right hip under the seatbelt, you could be in legitimate fear of death or serious bodily injury before you even have a change to draw your handgun.

I'll leave all the other arguing about provocation, road manners, "who said what when to whom" alone as it is pure speculation. But someone beating on your window presenting a legitimate threat is not pure speculation, it is a simple fact.

[E.Marquez]

But someone beating on your window presenting a legitimate threat is not pure speculation, it is a simple fact.

And deserves to get shot in order to stop the threat.... and that FACT is relevant no matter who is in the car, man, woman or child.

I can hold my own, wither that by flight or fight, even at 47 years and all of 5'6".... But if Im seated in a steel cage with no ability to maneuver to a position of advantage.. and Im presented with the threat as described above.. I will choose to stop the threat in the manner which i have at hand.

[barstoolguru]

I am not going to address anyone in general but wanted to bring up some points:

someone mention Disparity of force; she is a big girl, not crippled not underweight, not old so I fail to see why her being a "woman" qualifies her for that definition !

She was a willing combatant in a game of road warrior; at no time did she ever try and get away (by her own words).

She had a gun and an attitude that she wasn't going to back down

Why wasn't she arrested: I am sure the pastor and lawyer at the scene painted a picture of her being a model citizen and it was all a big misunderstanding? Not to mention her lawyer claiming "she was in fear for her life" who knows how many times.

Did he break the window? No one saw it but her! Witness one said he was 15-20 ft away and heard nothing. Witness two which we heard nothing from BUT what he told the parents and that was their son made no threats to her

Looks to me she shot through the window, I pointed it out at three different places.

Was there some anger on both people; sure they were going down the road cutting each other off. So why is it he is the only on in the wrong? Because she is a woman; Here is a study that says woman are more prone to road rage. Woman is quicker to use a car as a weapon.
http://blog.esurance.com/women-more-prone-to-road-rage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (major ins co study)

We don't know who started it all we know is it is a share blame for the accident (the way the cops will see it and the insurance co, been there done that and have a tee shirt) all we know is he approached her and she felt threatened (public gas station with other around). Is that justification to shoot and kill another?

[VMI77]

The only problem I have with your scenario is the hint of a suggestion that his reaction to her is reasonable. It simply isn't. If an adult man in this day and age is so clueless he doesn't understand the reasons for a woman to act the way you propose in your scenario, then he is dangerously stupid. And aside from the issue of a lone female dealing with two men, and aside from bump and rob events, chasing after someone then pounding on their window is not a justified or intelligent reaction. I had a guy run into me in Austin and then take off.....I didn't chase after him....I wrote down his license plate number and filed a report with the police.

Go back and read the last article posted about the parents grieving and it adds a lot to what DID happen. They bumped and then PULLED into the gas station so the accident just accrued. She was out there doing the white line mumbo with him; She helped instigate it and then she claims self defense!!!

Yeah, I'm sure the grieving parents will add a lot of objective comments. Based solely on the information in the media, which is all we know, she fled or ran away --whatever term you want to use-- to a public place, called 911, remained in her car, and did not threaten or attack the driver or passenger of the truck. The driver of the truck followed, chased her --again, whatever word you want to use-- got out of his truck in a rage and pounded on her window, thus threatening her. You can pretend otherwise all you want, but following a woman in a truck with two men and hitting on her window in a rage is a threat --it is INTENDED to intimidate, at a minimum. He was a "big man" because he was pounding on the window of a young woman, whom he no doubt did not fear in the least. You think he would have acted in the same way and pounded on the window of some 6'4" muscled up and tatted gang banger? If he did, then he'd do it looking for a fight, because anyone in his right mind knows that is what would happen. Pounding on this woman's window, whether he broke it or not, wasn't to hand her a bouquet of flowers --it was deliberate intimidation and had the sole intended purpose of forcing the woman to respond to him either by rolling down her window or exiting the car....both of which would have been stupid moves for her under the circumstances.

The police have a 911 recording, they took witness statements, and they watched a video of the incident. THEY LET HER GO WITHOUT ARRESTING HER. I don't know if you have it out for this particular woman, or you've got a chip on your shoulder about women in general. I don't really care either way; it doesn't change the reality, which is that a lone woman is vulnerable, very vulnerable, in a confrontation with one man, let alone the potential threat of two men. A man who either doesn't understand this, or doesn't care, and acts like a fool, as this guy apparently did, gets no special consideration for his ignorance or malice, which is, quite frankly, inexcusable. Not only did he have no business approaching a woman this way, his actions were pretty stupid under any circumstances, since he had no way of knowing what kind of person was in the vehicle he approached threateningly and pounded on. In the old days, he might have been beaten by one of the men nearby merely for his treatment of a woman. If I walked into a parking lot and found a man treating my wife like he did that young woman I'd be approaching with one hand on my gun.

Edited for clarity.

You have been studying TAM's posts and technique.

Nicely done!

If someone was doing that to my wife though I would probably have the gun drawn.

Anygunanywhere

I'm often struck by the fact that where we share a given perspective, TAM expresses himself on the subject better than I do.

[Frankie]

Scott, 23, told deputies she and Ables had been cutting each other off.

all she had to do was let him go but she chose to fight because SHE HAD A GUN AND NO ONE WAS GOING TO PUSH HER AROUND

with some of this.

She did not deescalate, she escalated the encounter, bBy her own admittance. If she did actively participate in aggressive driving, as her statement says, she escalated what very well could have been a nonevent and certainly a nonviolent event. If he was instigating with wreak less driving, she could have been on the phone with 911 prior to the accident and kept on driving away from him while giving information to 911.
I don’t have all the facts so I’m on the fence but, if she was actively participating in aggressive behavior by cutting him off, she was as much an aggressor and he was and probably looking for a fight. I will stop short of saying her CHL gave her the confidence to engage in such behavior but I would be very interested in knowing a few more facts. One being, how long she has had her CHL? Not to mention the 911 tapes and surveillance video from the gas station.

Edited to fix my poor grammar.

[anygunanywhere]

all we know is he approached her and she felt threatened (public gas station with other around). Is that justification to shoot and kill another?

People have been beaten to death while others stood around and watched. All it takes is one well placed punch. Just because the event occurs in a public place with others around does not make it safe. Are you going to base your survival on whether or not someone is going to come to your aid or whether or not you can take a punch?

You need to be introduced to the real world.

Anygunanywhere

[VMI77]

I am not going to address anyone in general but wanted to bring up some points:

someone mention Disparity of force; she is a big girl, not crippled not underweight, not old so I fail to see why her being a "woman" qualifies her for that definition !

She was a willing combatant in a game of road warrior; at no time did she ever try and get away (by her own words).

She had a gun and an attitude that she wasn't going to back down

Why wasn't she arrested: I am sure the pastor and lawyer at the scene painted a picture of her being a model citizen and it was all a big misunderstanding? Not to mention her lawyer claiming "she was in fear for her life" who knows how many times.

Did he break the window? No one saw it but her! Witness one said he was 15-20 ft away and heard nothing. Witness two which we heard nothing from BUT what he told the parents and that was their son made no threats to her

Looks to me she shot through the window, I pointed it out at three different places.

Was there some anger on both people; sure they were going down the road cutting each other off. So why is it he is the only on in the wrong? Because she is a woman; Here is a study that says woman are more prone to road rage. Woman is quicker to use a car as a weapon.
http://blog.esurance.com/women-more-prone-to-road-rage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (major ins co study)

We don't know who started it all we know is it is a share blame for the accident (the way the cops will see it and the insurance co, been there done that and have a tee shirt) all we know is he approached her and she felt threatened (public gas station with other around). Is that justification to shoot and kill another?

You've obviously got a problem with women....raked over the coals in a bad divorce perhaps? If so, I'm sorry for you, but you appear to let your disdain for women affect your objectivity. Like it or not, and inspite of all feminist nonsense to the contrary, men and women are different. The physical disparity between men in women is measurable and indisputable. There are also a good several centuries of social norms regarding the treatment of women, though some of those norms have eroded in today's America. So, absolutely, yes, one of the factors that should and will be taken into consideration is disparity of force. Women can and should be able to employ deadly force under conditions where the law may not allow men to do so, simply because they are women.

If this guy who got shot had acted as a man instead of a fool and a bully he'd still be alive. There was absolutely nothing to be gained for him by pounding on someone's car window, and reasonable odds of something to lose. As I see it, a man had two ways to handle the situation (other than letting it go). 1. He could have stayed in his truck and let her come to him.....apparently he either did not have the patience for this, or his ego wouldn't allow it; or, 2. He could have exited his truck....stayed some distance from her vehicle, and by some non-threatening gesture, such as pretending to write down information (indicating he wanted to exchange information) and perhaps a pointing gesture signaling her to meet inside the store, given her some assurance that he wasn't hostile.

Nothing that has been reported justifies his actions.....NOTHING.

[barstoolguru]

all we know is he approached her and she felt threatened (public gas station with other around). Is that justification to shoot and kill another?

People have been beaten to death while others stood around and watched. All it takes is one well placed punch. Just because the event occurs in a public place with others around does not make it safe. Are you going to base your survival on whether or not someone is going to come to your aid or whether or not you can take a punch?

You need to be introduced to the real world.

Anygunanywhere

So any time someone has a disagreement with another it is justified to shoot them because they might hit you?

[Keith B]

all we know is he approached her and she felt threatened (public gas station with other around). Is that justification to shoot and kill another?

People have been beaten to death while others stood around and watched. All it takes is one well placed punch. Just because the event occurs in a public place with others around does not make it safe. Are you going to base your survival on whether or not someone is going to come to your aid or whether or not you can take a punch?

You need to be introduced to the real world.

Anygunanywhere

So any time someone has a disagreement with another it is justified to shoot them because they might hit you?

If the threat of the punch constitutes the potential that they could do serious bodily harm or cause death, yes.

[VMI77]

Scott, 23, told deputies she and Ables had been cutting each other off.

all she had to do was let him go but she chose to fight because SHE HAD A GUN AND NO ONE WAS GOING TO PUSH HER AROUND

with some of this.

She did not deescalate, she escalated the encounter, bBy her own admittance. If she did actively participate in aggressive driving, as her statement says, she escalated what very well could have been a nonevent and certainly a nonviolent event. If he was instigating with wreak less driving, she could have been on the phone with 911 prior to the accident and kept on driving away from him while giving information to 911.
I don’t have all the facts so I’m on the fence but, if she was actively participating in aggressive behavior by cutting him off, she was as much an aggressor and he was and probably looking for a fight. I will stop short of saying her CHL gave her the confidence to engage in such behavior but I would be very interested in knowing a few more facts. One being, how long she has had her CHL? Not to mention the 911 tapes and surveillance video from the gas station.

Edited to fix my poor grammar.

You guys touting this line about the gun giving her bravado are saying exactly what the liberals say when they attack the right to carry. SHE DID DE-ESCALATE. She pulled away into a public place and remained in her car on the phone. He followed, exited his vehicle, and pounded on her window --a stupid and confrontational act no matter whose car he was pounding on.

Also, this idea that she provoked an attack also suggests that a normal response to aggressive or inconsiderate driving is a physical attack. Acting like a jerk is not the same kind of provocative behavior as, say, laughing at someone, telling them their wife is a whore and they're a gutless wimp who is not man enough to defend himself, much less his wife. That kind of provocation is personal and a deliberate demeaning or belittlement. Rude driving is not --and any such feelings that arise from it are self-inflicted and solely in the mind and ego of the person. While it may irritate me that someone cuts me off in traffic, it's not a personal attack.

[anygunanywhere]

all we know is he approached her and she felt threatened (public gas station with other around). Is that justification to shoot and kill another?

People have been beaten to death while others stood around and watched. All it takes is one well placed punch. Just because the event occurs in a public place with others around does not make it safe. Are you going to base your survival on whether or not someone is going to come to your aid or whether or not you can take a punch?

You need to be introduced to the real world.

Anygunanywhere

So any time someone has a disagreement with another it is justified to shoot them because they might hit you?

Using absolute examples does not prove your argument. As Keith pointed out, in this instance, yes she was justified.

If you want to apply absolute examples to something, you are free to do so in your own world. Barstoolguru, you must never defend yourself no mater what the circumstances.

Anygunanywhere

[barstoolguru]

You've obviously got a problem with women....it hard to keep an open mind and on the subject if you stoop to personal attacks. I have no problem with woman what I do have is a problem with this woman and the way she is justifying taking a life

The physical disparity between men in women is measurable and indisputable…. So if gang banger comes up to you and starts to whip your butt you are going to take it BECAUSE she is a woman? Do I really need to list names of gun fighters, boxing, karate champs and not to mention killers that are all woman and what about equal rights; are they only equal when it beneficial to the woman? I always thought is a court of law everyone is equal but now you are saying different!

He could have stayed in his truck and let her come to him….. Really? Is there a law that says he has to? By law he has to ID himself and trade info and cops don't come out to fender benders anymore.
When you choose to do battle with another you lose the right to claim “I was frail and weak” and she chose to. She had a gun and she was flexing her “GUN MUSCLES”. Like I said over and over she chose to stay and fight so don’t complain when you get a bloody nose

[anygunanywhere]

You've obviously got a problem with women....it hard to keep an open mind and on the subject if you stoop to personal attacks. I have no problem with woman what I do have is a problem with this woman and the way she is justifying taking a life

The physical disparity between men in women is measurable and indisputable…. So if gang banger comes up to you and starts to whip your butt you are going to take it BECAUSE she is a woman? Do I really need to list names of gun fighters, boxing, karate champs and not to mention killers that are all woman and what about equal rights; are they only equal when it beneficial to the woman? I always thought is a court of law everyone is equal but now you are saying different!

He could have stayed in his truck and let her come to him….. Really? Is there a law that says he has to? By law he has to ID himself and trade info and cops don't come out to fender benders anymore.
When you choose to do battle with another you lose the right to claim “I was frail and weak” and she chose to. She had a gun and she was flexing her “GUN MUSSELS”. Like I said over and over she chose to stay and fight so don’t complain when you get a bloody nose

I wonder how those gun mussels go with a garlic white wine reduction.

Anygunanywhere