Case of "road rage" in Austin, TX brings "castle doctrine" into question.

[SteveM]

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/man-charged-in-shooting-during-mopac-road-rage-844356.html

A road-rage incident erupted on an Austin, Texas, freeway (known as "MoPac") when an aggressive driver tail-gated, cut-off, and swerved toward another driver, prompting the harassed driver to shoot at the aggressor, blowing the latter's tires. The shooter and the aggressor driver both face charges. The shooter contends the "castle doctrine," implied in Texas' self-defense laws, should protect him from prosecution.

I do not believe the shooter can use the castle doctrine for his defense. Once stopped, the shooter's safety was no longer an issue. If it were, the shooter would have to show how the aggressor-driver was then a threat. The shooter was reported to have a CCW. Unless there is more to this, this man's concealed-carry permit should be revoked, and he should face charges of attempted homicide.

[texastoast]

1. Idiot.

(It's my favorite word today.)

All he had to do was pull over and stop. If he's too stupid to think of that, he needs no gun.

[TPaine7]

39. He might not be as idiotic as you think.

Charlie Smith, 30 , was driving his girlfriend's 2008 Jeep south on MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) in North Austin on Monday night when a green Chevrolet S-10 pickup began to tailgate him in a construction zone, according to a police affidavit.

Smith said he tapped on his brakes to get the driver of the truck to back off, the affidavit said. When the truck continued to follow him closely, the affidavit says, Smith turned on his emergency flashers.

Smith told police that the pickup driver persisted in recklessly driving around his vehicle, tailing him, swerving in front of him and even toward him, forcing Smith to move the Jeep out of the way, according to the affidavit. The episode continued for about seven or eight miles, from the 3500 block of North MoPac to the 5000 block of South MoPac, the document says.

Driving in a construction zone, it may not be possible to pull over or stop. We don't know what was possible in this situation.

This guy might not be as stupid or as reckless as many are assuming.

[rrneck]

2. He's busted.

"Smith said he was aiming for the driver, but his shots hit the two right tires of the truck instead, "

Two hits on two separate targets eight feet apart? He hit what he was shooting at.

No CCW for you. Proceed directly to jail.

[spin]

3. The wise thing to do would have been to pull over ...

and call 911.

Had the aggressive driver approached Charlie Smith's borrowed vehicle with a weapon in his hands, self defense MIGHT have justified the use of his weapon. He would have been on the phone talking to the 911 dispatcher and relaying the details of the situation.

A co-worker of mine had a similar incident in Florida. While driving to work for the graveyard shift, he irritated another driver. They reached a stop light and the angry motorist pulled up behind my friend, left his vehicle and approached my co-workers car with a tire iron in his hand.

Unable to simply drive away, as there was a car in front and beside him and a deep ditch on his other side, my friend grabbed a 9mm pistol from his glove box. He laid his hand holding the pistol on his steering wheel. When the angry motorist approached he noticed the weapon and returned to his car.

The situation ended peacefully with no shots fired.

[SteveM]

6. Best thing to do is drive to the nearest LEO sub-station...

I had some blow hole tailgating me, cutting me off, etc. I drove to the Austin PD substation in South Austin, and walked in the door, making sure the aggressor-driver saw me. He drove off quickly after he saw what the place was all about!

[spin]

9. I agree. Unfortunately my friend was miles and miles away from

a substation. He lived far out in the country.

The stop light that he stopped at was the first indication of civilization. If there had been a store or gas station along the way, he might have stopped at it.

[county worker]

4. What's the point were we decide all this gun nuttiness has reached a tipping point?

I find it incredible that we are so blase about citizens shooting it out like it was the old west or something.

[SteveM]

8. Some corrections in order...

You use the term "gun nuttiness." What do you mean by this, in an era of low violent crime rates? What constitutes a "tipping point," other than the usual shrill pronouncements from the gun-control lobby?

Your remark "...we are so blase about citizens shooting it out..." is without substantiation. Who is blase? In the incident described, the shooter is charged with a felony. Were the police "blase?"

"...the old west or something." Something, indeed. The best estimates about the "Old West" (a mythology created by dime novels, motion pictures and T.V.) were that the actual violent crime rates were rather low, especially when compared with the "Old East," as in the cities of the Eastern seaboard.

In point of fact, you will find very few road-rage shootouts; much fewer than just a week's worth of T.V. crime drama.

[DonP]

10. Stop it damn it! You're messing up his meme.

You're not being fair.

Some folks are having a hard time accepting the word of the FBI, DoJ, CDC etc that violent crime is at a 25 year low ... in spite of record gun sales to citizens for 3 years and more states passing more liberal gun laws.

It just doesn't fit their pre conceived idea of their "articles of faith" that more guns = more crime and violence.

So, they find an anecdotal case or two and keep pretending like it's really a crime spree.

The truth is one crime is too damn many, but the reality is all the new gun sales haven't resulted in all the violence they and their close personal friends Dennis Hennigan and Paul Helmke predicted.

[county worker]

13. Why do you need a gun if crime is so low?

[shadowrider]

17. Did it ever occur to you that MAYBE crime is down because

bad guys don't want to die when attempting "armed robbery/burglary/rape/name the crime here" against what is SUPPOSED to be an easy, unarmed opponent?

[county worker]

18. Here's what I think.

There is coming a point in time when the trend will be away from concealed carry and such. Today it tends to be the right that has taken over the courts and have done away with certain gun laws.

I think society will want it to go the other way in the future. Gun violence will be the reason.

[DonP]

28. You can always hope I guess.

But it almost sounds like you might be disappointed if there is no coming blood bath.

Doesn't it feel kind of skanky to have to think that ... to get your ideal world of less guns, that crime and violence would have to go way up?

What if the crime rate stays low and even Illinois and Wisconsin finally pass CCW, or we finally get the national reciprocity for CCW. Would you settle for a more peaceful US, even with all those guns out here? That's what we actually have now and some folks here seem very dissatisfied with that anyway.

I guess an honest answer to that question would tell us whether their problem is actually with the guns or with not having someone to control others for you.

[PavePusher]

43. Except that as gun laws become less restrictive...

crime continues to trend downwards.

Hard to prove a direct correlation, but you can certainly say that more guns does not equal more crime.

[cleanhippie]

58. Heres what I think....that you really haven't thunk at all.

You made four assertions, the first three are baseless and easily refuted and the fourth, well, gun crime is at an all time low, so......



Maybe you should go back to thinking again.

[KansasVoter]

20. See, people to claim it on this forum. Thanks!!

[NewMoonTherian]

24. If you're counting...

Put me on the list as well.

[shadowrider]

25. Don't thank me yet. I support the NRA. Your opinion change?

[KansasVoter]

26. No, you claim more guns makes country safer. I wanted to hear a person say that!

[shadowrider]

29. And I said that where????????

[slackmaster]

36. KansasVoter pulled that one on me a few weeks ago

Same bullshit, different target.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. I guess the gun lobby is even more perfidious than we thought,...

...not only are they "holding Mexico hostage", they can cause posts on DU to disappear.

That must be the reason there is a notable lack of evidence behind some recent claims here in the Gungeon, amirite?

After all, none of our fellow DUers would indulge in spreading any faith-promoting rumors here.

That would be dishonest...

[east texas lib]

40. You only hear what you want to, evidently...

Looks like he just said more armed citizens would keep the criminals guessing as to the odds of success in their potential endeavors. The possibility of sudden death can give one pause, and that's as it should be. You pays your money ands you takes your chances.

[PavePusher]

44. No-one has said that. As you well know.

But it is pretty deffinitive that more guns does not equal more crime.

Facts suck, huh?

[Straw Man]

51. Wrong again...

You said this:

No, you claim more guns makes country safer. I wanted to hear a person say that!

Ah, but that's not what he said. He said this:

Hard to prove a direct correlation, but you can certainly say that more guns does not equal more crime.

Read carefully:

(A) "more guns makes country safer"
(B) "more guns does not equal more crime"

Statement (A) says that guns make the country safer. Statement (B) says that they don't make it more dangerous. These are not equivalent statements. Can you see how that works? Good. I knew that you could.

[cleanhippie]

59. Reading comprehension FAIL.. The poster stated MAYBE......

but you don't want to recognize that fact, do you?

[spin]

38. Most people don't...

I never recommend that everybody run out and buy firearms and get concealed weapons permits.

I do have a concealed weapons permit and carry. It's fair to ask why.

I have been shooting handguns for almost 40 years. I am proficient and experienced but far from a competitive shooter. If you compared my ability to a golfer, I would have a low handicap.

I did live in an area for many years that had an increasing crime rate. I started carrying a firearm in my car on the way to and from work. (I worked the graveyard shift). A co-worker and fellow shooter convinced me to get a carry license. His logic was that if I was stopped for speeding and was asked if I had any weapons in my vehicle, I could simply show my permit and continue on my way quicker. I have to admit that he was aware that I have a lead foot, but as a professional speeder, I rarely get stopped. Only two tickets for speeding in 48 years. Still, his argument caused me to take the time, expense and effort to get a carry permit.

One day at the range when things were slow, I was sitting around bullshitting with the range master. He asked if I carried. I replied, "Occasionally."

He then proceeded to ream my ass, "You have been granted by the state of Florida a privilege. The state gave you your license because it wants more people on the street that are trained enough to legally carry firearms. You are not a cop, nor are you expected to act like one, but you might find yourself in a situation where you might stop a crime because you ARE armed. You might save your life or the life of someone else. There is no way that you can predict the day or time that this might happen. I've watched you shoot and I know that you have the necessary skill. Now start carrying your weapon. I don't want to pick up the newspaper and find you got murdered or ended up in the hospital, especially if you weren't carry your weapon."

That argument also made sense, so now I carry. I practice situational awareness and don't go looking for trouble. I doubt that there will ever be a situation in which I have to draw my weapon and I sincerely hope there never will be one. Still, I spent the time and effort and the cash to get a concealed weapons permit. The weapon I carry is powerful enough for self defense but is so light that I hardly notice it. When I leave the house, I simply grab it in its pocket holster and drop it into my pants pocket.


S&W Model 642 airweight # 38 S&W Special +P

My daughter also has a concealed carry permit and is very proficient with it. I taught her how to shoot and she learned well. One time she defended herself with a large caliber revolver in our home in Tampa and stopped an intruder breaking into our home. She merely drew down on the intruder as he was forcing a sliding glass door open and he ran. No shots were fired.

Her concealed weapons permit came in handy when she recently attracted the attentions of a stalker. He was well aware of the fact that she was armed and never chose to physically attack her. Still, everywhere she went, he was following her. She wasn't terrified of him as she was armed, but he was a severe pain in the ass. After numerous violations of the restraining order, he spent several weekends in jail. It appears he learned a lesson as the stalking has stopped.

She also has a job that takes her into dangerous neighborhoods. She has an unusual ability to communicate with people and usually can talk her way out of bad situations. But if absolutey necessary, she can defend herself with her concealed weapon.

[rrneck]

47. Because if you're the one being assaulted the crime rate is 100%. nt

[cleanhippie]

57. Who are you to determine what anothers "need" is?

[AtheistCrusader]

63. To KEEP it that way, duh.

[SteveM]

15. Oh, shucks. That's what you get by being even-handed. nt

[county worker]

11. Fine

[spin]

14. This is an extremely rare incident.

Especially when it involves a person who has a concealed carry permit.

In Florida, you can carry a loaded firearm in your car without a permit (as long as it it securely encased, like in a glove box). Shootouts are rare even among untrained citizens who do not have a concealed weapons permit.

Those who oppose RKBA and concealed carry predicted that Florida would be known as the "Gunshine State" rather than the Sunshine State. They screamed that Florida would turn into the old west with shootouts at noon everyday.

It didn't happen.

Florida has issued 1,808,526 concealed weapons permits in the time period between October 1, 1987 to June 30, 2010, and currently 739,222 licenses are valid. In that period of almost 23 years, only 167 licenses have been revoked for a crime committed with a firearm after the license was issued. Many of the licenses revoked were caused by carrying a firearm in a prohibited area such as a school.

You can revealed the Florida Monthly Summary Report on concealed carry at:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

[PavePusher]

42. You do realize that one incident (yeah, yeah, there are others)...

out of 300 MILLION people doesn't produce a very risky stat, right?

When it gets as bad as lightning strikes, you'll have a talking point.

[cleanhippie]

56. Its the point when we can all talk about the issue without using the term "gun nut" in the argument.

And not a second before.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

5. This HAS to be gang related,

Nobody is that stupid, not even in Texas.

[shadowrider]

19. The facts ain't in and I'll reserve judgement

Many times seemingly unrelated people cross paths only to find out later it is gang related, or a love triangle etc.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Maybe he lives in his car.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. Castle Doctrine does not apply to this case.

Carrying a gun in a car is often confused with the Castle Doctrine.

Castle Doctrine applies to homes.

A different law allows guns to be carried in a car. Standard self-defense rules apply. This guy had no reason to start shooting and needs to be prosecuted. If he has a CHL, it needs to be permenantly pulled.

[spin]

16. Castle Doctrine laws often depend on the state.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

No attempt was made to enter Charlie Smith's car. I agree that he needs to be prosecuted and lose his license to carry.

[KansasVoter]

21. I'll admit I am surprised people here are not defending the shooter.

[slackmaster]

23. A lot of us have taken a self-defense course or three

Maybe taking one will enlighten you too.

[KansasVoter]

27. Apologize and we can talk more

[slackmaster]

30. I haven't done anything to you that merits an apology

:nuke:

[shadowrider]

31. Apologize for what?

[slackmaster]

33. KansasVoter is demanding that I apologize for writing something that I've never written

Typical dishonesty.

[shadowrider]

34. Ahhh yes

I said bad guys don't want to attack/rob/rape etc. someone who appears to be an innocent victim if they think they're armed, and he infers I said "more guns make the country safer", which I didn't say.

[slackmaster]

35. I think this tantrum is about me saying that KansasVoter has given "lots of money" to the NRA

Which I have never said.

[shadowrider]

37. Amazing how the anti's take "A", turn it into "B", then turn it into "C"

then attack us over their interpretation of B and C which have nothing to do with A.

[rrneck]

48. It's OK. Every post he makes

probably prompts somebody to join up.

[SteveM]

64. It's called Advanced Internet Logic.

[PavePusher]

45. Some of us are awaiting futher information. n/t

[cowman]

49. Defending the shooter?

For what? Being a dumbass? If the article is correct, thaen this idiot should lose his CCW and be prosecuted.

[slackmaster]

22. IMO it doesn't bring the Castle Doctrine into question

It looks to me like a clear case of unlawful use of deadly force.

[TPaine7]

32. A *possible* version of what happened.

1) The shooter was being harassed with a deadly weapon.

2) The shooter was driving in a constructions zone--where exiting or pulling over, as some have suggested, was not possible.

3) The shooter feared that the deadly weapon, the aggressive driver's vehicle, was going to cause him serious bodily injury or death.

4) The shooter shot the tires out in order to disable the deadly weapon.

5) The shooter shot the tires when he was sure of his targets--the tires--and what was beyond them--perhaps something like a highway divider.

6) The shooter lied to police about shooting at the driver for tactical reasons--he thought it would be more legally justifiable.

IF this is what happened--and I'm not saying or even implying that it is--the shooter might be justified.

[east texas lib]

46. He should have withdrawn from the fray, but...

If the shooter can convince a jury that that tail-gater man was in effect using his vehicle as a weapon and that shooter feared for his life he might walk. Crazier things have happened in Texas courts.

[benEzra]

50. The Castle Doctrine doesn't apply to this case at all.

The Castle Doctrine refers to the right to use potentially lethal force to stop an unlawful forced entry; most states have some sort of Castle Doctrine protection for your home, and some extend it to your car if someone is trying to carjack you.

Another driver being an idiot near you is not even remotely related to the Castle Doctrine.

[oneshooter]

52. Texas considers your vehicle to be an extension of your home.

That is why you can keep a concealed handgun in your vehicle with out a CHL.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[X_Digger]

53. Actually, that was the 2007 Motorist Protection Act

Section 46.02 (Amended).

That clarification was due to 2005's muddling of the 'traveling' statute.

[Euromutt]

54. People confuse Castle Doctrine with "Stand Your Ground" quite frequently

This sounds more like a "Stand Your Ground" situation.

[safeinOhio]

55. When he goes to court he can try tears.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100807/NEWS03/8070355/1322/Crying-forces-judge-to-halt-trial

As defense attorney Mitchell Ribitwer described in his opening statement to the 10 women and four men on the jury how Said stormed to Mintz's car, screaming and spitting on him, Mintz put his head down and began to sob.
Oakland County Circuit Judge Leo Bowman sent the jurors out of the courtroom and Mintz continued to cry, his shoulders shaking. He continued to cry after jurors were brought back in.
Prosecutors contend Mintz shot Said in a moment of fury after Said confronted him for repeatedly hitting the brakes on his car, forcing Said, in the car behind him, to also slam on his.
"Armed and angry is a bad combination," Assistant Prosecutor Ricardo Polanco said of Mintz. "And he was armed. And he was angry."


Read more: Crying forces judge to halt trial | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20100807/NEWS03/8070355/1322/Crying-forces-judge-to-halt-trial#ixzz0vv8EsGEX

[spin]

62. I became a far less aggressive driver when I started carrying a firearm ...

in my car. I no longer gave others the finger if they cut me off in traffic. I no longer tried to pass them and cut them off to return the favor.

When I got my carry permit, I also became more polite in public. I learned to walk away from a confrontation rather than take a stand and escalate the situation.

The last thing I would ever want to do is to have to use my weapon and I will do everything I can to avoid causing a problem.

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein

[Euromutt]

60. Watch for someone mischaracterizing this case as the road rager being the person armed

It's happened before on this very forum, Dog knows. A few weeks pass and some individual arguing against "shall issue" laws or even carrying in general will vaguely remember that there was some case involving "road rage" and a guy with a gun, and since it's common knowledge that gun owners are inherently mentally unstable (or so some people believe), will incorrectly assert that it was the armed individual who was suffering the "road rage."

We can debate whether, and in which specific circumstances, the use of lethal force is justified against someone who has allowed himself to succumb to road rage, but let's not assume that the guy with the gun is always the only one who bears blame.

[DissedByBush]

61. A car is a deadly weapon

Cars kill far more people than guns every year.