TexasCHLforum.com

This is an excellent analysis (IMHO).

I only want to reiterate that the problem is knowing what really happened at the beginning of the incident. Only God knows. Each party has a witness, but their testimony would be unreliable even with the best of intentions.

A finding of guilt in a criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Each piece of evidence or witness testimony can be impeached. Sometimes it's just not worth using the county's resources to bother.

- Jim

I don't know the answer to that.

Let's use an absurd example: A steps on B's toe, possibly intentionally, possibly by accident. B kicks A. A punches B. At some point one of them uses deadly force. This happens all the time in "clubs."

Regardless of who started it, either could have backed away with nothing more than a bruised ego or toe at worst.

After the injury or use of deadly force, the DA gets to decide, and the the defendant's fate is in the hands of a jury of unknown intelligence, education, or prejudices. You can see the disagreement about such cases in this forum. Imagine how bad it could be with 12 people chosen at random, some of whom think anyone who chooses to carry is a "gun nut."

- Jim

Spitting on a person is at a minimum assault.

If party A spits on party B, it's done. B can't stop it by slapping A or anything else. From that point further action is escalation and revenge.

The problem with understanding this case from news reports is knowing what really happened, versus the he said-he said aspect. Anyone who has raised kids knows about "He started it." One or the other party may have been more in the wrong, but the DA can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

In my opinion, stuff happens when you're driving. Sometimes it's purely accidental. Sometimes it's momentary inattention not amounting to negligence.

If no one gets hurt, mature adults shrug and continue on their way. Immature people shout, make gestures, stop, argue, fight, and shoot at each other.

- Jim

P.S.: There is always more than one side to the story. The man who was shot wanted the grand jury to consider charges against the man who shot him. This was a day or two after the incident. The DA restated that the shooter was justified.

The biker admits to "slapping" the shooter in reaction to being spat upon.

Under Missouri law the shooter could be sued.

http://fox2now.com/2012/06/12/road-rage ... rand-jury/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In any case, giving driving lessons to strangers on the road is never a good idea.

- Jim

If the guy who was punched and shot the biker didn't want to press an assault charge, the DA doesn't have much of a case to take to the grand jury. Charges like assault (other than domestic) require a complainant.

Maybe they just figured the guy who was shot already got the lesson.

Sometimes we think of an arrest as being the end of the case. It isn't. If there is a criminal trial it can go on for years. The victim/complainant may be called many times to testify. Some people want to avoid that.

The shooter clearly had castle doctrine justification and should not be charged.

Also with these smaller town, you don't know who knows or is related to whom. A lot of conflicts get buried out of the view of the public.

- Jim