TexasCHLforum.com

Lambda Force wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Excaliber wrote: Driver 1 accidentally swerved into an adjoining lane while trying to do something while driving that should have been done when safely stopped somewhere. While not good, this is very significantly different from reckless driving, which is usually understood to be deliberately driving in a way that endangers self and/or others as a pattern of behavior over time and distance.

Careless is still reckless.

In common speech, yes. Under the law, no.

Careless isn't a mental state that makes an act prosecutable. Reckless, a higher standard, is.

Under Texas Penal Code Section 6.03(c) the culpable mental state of "reckless" is defined this way:

A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect
to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his
conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or
the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree
that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard
of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the
circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

IANAL, but I see a significant difference here.

If she wasn't aware of the substantial risk created by driving without looking at the road, she shouldn't have a license.

If everyone who has ever looked away from the road for a moment to take care of something happening inside the car had his or her license revoked, traffic would be light indeed.

Keep in mind she did not cause a wreck. We don't know how far she strayed out of her lane, or even if she strayed over the lane markings. The guy who shot at her may simply have taken offense at her drifting in his direction.

As you may have gathered by now, I'm not a big fan of focusing on trying to hang the victim of a life threatening felony for some perceived imperfection that in no way justifies what was done to him or her.

gringo pistolero wrote:

Excaliber wrote:Driver 1 accidentally swerved into an adjoining lane while trying to do something while driving that should have been done when safely stopped somewhere. While not good, this is very significantly different from reckless driving, which is usually understood to be deliberately driving in a way that endangers self and/or others as a pattern of behavior over time and distance.

That's true, but if she caused a fatal crash then he would have been as dead as if she did it intentionally.

I'm not defending the road rager, who should be punished, but I'm also not excusing her negligent or reckless driving.

There's no question that she messed up a little, and there was no crash.

He messed up a lot. There's definitely a bullet hole where there shouldn't be one.

A small unintentional error doesn't justify the use of deadly force, and there's a clear disparity in severity between the two mistakes.

C-dub wrote:

Excaliber wrote: Driver 1 accidentally swerved into an adjoining lane while trying to do something while driving that should have been done when safely stopped somewhere. While not good, this is very significantly different from reckless driving, which is usually understood to be deliberately driving in a way that endangers self and/or others as a pattern of behavior over time and distance.

Careless is still reckless.

In common speech, yes. Under the law, no.

Careless isn't a mental state that makes an act prosecutable. Reckless, a higher standard, is.

Under Texas Penal Code Section 6.03(c) the culpable mental state of "reckless" is defined this way:

A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect
to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his
conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or
the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree
that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard
of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the
circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

IANAL, but I see a significant difference here.

tomtexan wrote:Maybe she will go to a CHL class now and apply for her license to protect herself from such violence.

If you think this encounter was bad, consider what a high speed rolling shootout between 2 idiots on a busy highway would look like.....

speedsix wrote:...we weren't told whether or not he has a CHL...I hope not...but his MPA days may soon be over, too...as they need to be...
...as to the story...typical hyping every detail "...now driving blind..." etc. ad nauseum...gotta get those ratings...she did a stupid thing...but the gun shouldn't have entered his mind...much less been in his hand...

After this, there probably won't be a gun in his house either......

jimlongley wrote:So, by her own testimony, she was driving recklessly, but she presents it as an "All I did:"

What I really want to know is how she measured the distance from the bullet to her head, and how she knew it was a piece of the bullet that grazed her.

Yes the idiot that shot at her needs to be punished, but it still makes me wonder.

I don't see any real mysteries here.

Driver 1 accidentally swerved into an adjoining lane while trying to do something while driving that should have been done when safely stopped somewhere. While not good, this is very significantly different from reckless driving, which is usually understood to be deliberately driving in a way that endangers self and/or others as a pattern of behavior over time and distance.

If there's anybody here who hasn't slipped over the lane markings while doing something other than driving and avoided collision only through another driver's alertness and evasive action, please raise your hand.

My hand couldn't go up either.

In any case, even deliberate reckless driving would not justify the action taken here by Driver 2.

The likely way Driver 1 came to know she was grazed by a bullet fragment was that the police told her what it was when they recovered it during the investigation.