Road rage leads to shooting in Round Rock

[gthaustex]

I heard this story on the way home today. The newscaster said the shooter had a CHL. I don't see anything about that in the stories. It actually happened last night according to the Statesman.

http://www.kvue.com/news/Road-Rage-lead ... 67691.html

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/loca ... ent/nYM34/

I really, really hope it's not true. We don't need any bad publicity for CHL holders. If it isn't true, I don't appreciate the newscaster publicly stating so on the radio. They need to get their facts straight before going on the air.

[Mx217]

Good, he should be charged. No reason to pull your car over to invite a physical confrontation. Sad part is if this numbskull did have a chl, I bet he thought he was fully justified in his actions.

[baldeagle]

Good, he should be charged. No reason to pull your car over to invite a physical confrontation. Sad part is if this numbskull did have a chl, I bet he thought he was fully justified in his actions.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions here. It's clear from the reporting that the other party started the confrontation. Whether he followed the shooter's car into the parking lot or not isn't reported. Once they got in the parking lot, the other party exited his vehicle and approached the shooter's vehicle. There's ample reason, then, to think that the other party did follow the shooter into the parking lot rather than the other way around. The only questionable part that I see on the part of the shooter is why he shot the other man. The report doesn't say the other party was threatening him. Given what else we know from the report, it's not outside the realm of possibility that he was threatening the shooter in some way that made him feel it was necessary to use deadly force.

Only time will tell.

There's no mention of a CHL in either story.

[mojo84]

I didn't see where it said the shooter has a chl. Also, didn't the shooter get pushed back in to his car by the other guy using the car door? What was the aggressor saying? Was he threading? Did the shooter fear for his life. Again, lots odd questions that need answering.

[texanjoker]

I didn't see where it said the shooter has a chl. Also, didn't the shooter get pushed back in to his car by the other guy using the car door? What was the aggressor saying? Was he threading? Did the shooter fear for his life. Again, lots odd questions that need answering.

Those are the questions the police would be asking before they made the arrest. RR is a good dept and I would bet they did a good investigation before making any decisions. This will be costly for the shooter.. 40 k is a lot of bail. Even with a bond, 10% is a lot of money to loose. Then he will have legal fees, probably get sued by the other guy. Road rages are bad and usually escalate with both sides acting the fool.

[Jumping Frog]

I remember my CHL Instructor saying (half tongue-in-cheek, half serious) that Texas Law Enforcement will often use the "does he need arrestin'" litmus test. If the perpetrator needs arrestin', then bring him in and let the DA sort it out.

The person who got shot apparently was exerting force on the door of the car. Whether that was to push the other guy into the vehicle or whether it was push him out of the way and take control of the door prior to entry would be a matter of interpretation I would expect. I'll tell you, if I am trying to open my car door and someone else grabs my door, I would believe that they were taking control of my door to be able to enter my car.

Anyway, TPC 9.32 says in part:

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

So Bettan gets mad, throws his soft drink and hits the other car, follows him into the parking lot, gets out of his car and grabs the other person's car door.

Then Gambles shoots Bettan.

Go ahead and put me on the jury. I see which direction I would lean. . .

[Keith B]

I remember my CHL Instructor saying (half tongue-in-cheek, half serious) that Texas Law Enforcement will often use the "does he need arrestin'" litmus test. If the perpetrator needs arrestin', then bring him in and let the DA sort it out.

The person who got shot apparently was exerting force on the door of the car. Whether that was to push the other guy into the vehicle or whether it was push him out of the way and take control of the door prior to entry would be a matter of interpretation I would expect. I'll tell you, if I am trying to open my car door and someone else grabs my door, I would believe that they were taking control of my door to be able to enter my car.

Anyway, TPC 9.32 says in part:

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

So Bettan gets mad, throws his soft drink and hits the other car, follows him into the parking lot, gets out of his car and grabs the other person's car door.

Then Gambles shoots Bettan.

Go ahead and put me on the jury. I see which direction I would lean. . .

Gambles got out of his car and shot Bettan. That is the part we don't know clearly. Did the guy shove him back into the car, then turns and walk off and Gambles gets out and goes over to him and shoots him? We need a little more info.

[RottenApple]

Gambles got out of his car and shot Bettan. That is the part we don't know clearly. Did the guy shove him back into the car, then turns and walk off and Gambles gets out and goes over to him and shoots him? We need a little more info.

As usual, the "news" story is pretty anemic on details. There's way too much we don't know to make a judgement call one way or another.

[texanjoker]

The bottom line is that if you use your weapon you need to be prepared to have an attorney present when questioned.

[Panda]

The bottom line is that if you use your weapon you need to be prepared to have an attorney present when questioned.

Don't answer questions without your attorney present.

[rp_photo]

The comments about .40 being "too much gun" are disturbing.

[Jumping Frog]

Gambles got out of his car and shot Bettan. That is the part we don't know clearly. Did the guy shove him back into the car, then turns and walk off and Gambles gets out and goes over to him and shoots him? We need a little more info.

Good point, I overlooked Gambles exiting the car.

[SQLGeek]

The comments about .40 being "too much gun" are disturbing.

I take those with the same grain of salt as people that think .45s are magic man stoppers and that the good guys should just shoot to wound.