I'm putting this in P&R because my thoughts have less to do with the actual incident, as they do to the illustration that the "rights" of individuals who do not choose to own or carry a gun are trampled upon by some who do choose to.

 

Recently, in New Albany, IN, a woman shot a motorcyclist at a stop light. Here's her side of the story:

 

The motorcyclist was reckless, and at the stoplight, he got off his bike and approached her vehicle in what she deemed a threatening manner. So, with her young son in the vehicle, she shot the motorcyclist, then called 911 to report it. It's on videotpae.

 

The cyclist survived and yesterday told his side of the story:

 

The woman was driving agressively, endangering him, as a motorcyclist. At the stop light, he decided to use the opportunity to approach her and tell her how her driving endangered motorcyclists. He was unarmed. He spent the last week or so in the hospital, after being shot in the chest.

 

Interesting details about this woman:

 

In March, she called 911 to report a similar incident. A postal truck was tailgaiting her. When the driver approached her vehicle at a stop, she pulled a gun on him. She did not shoot him. The 911 call records her as saying that the man would have harmed her if she hadn't pulled the gun on him. Again, the other driver was unarmed.

 

At some point this spring, she was at a YMCA basketball game, and was involved in an altercation with another spectator, during which she pushed the other spectator. Granted, she didn't pull a gun. However, it is a display of agressive behavior. No calls to the police on this one.

 

She has hired an attorney, immediately after the shooting. Her attorney maintains that her previous agressive behavior at the ballgame is completely irrelevant. And, I can see where he says that.

 

The woman has not been charged with anything in the shooting, at this point. But, the case is still under investigation.

 

My problem is this: Yes, she had a CC permit. Yes, she is a legal gun owner. However, this woman is clearly not level-headed enough to own a gun, IMO. But, anger issues most likely wouldn't land her on the mentally unstable list, where she would be denied a license or permit.

 

At this point her CC permit is being challenged by the local authorities, and no charges have been filed. But, she can still carry her gun, drive on the road, and whenever she get's mad, is still able to pull out her gun, and potentially shoot someone.

 

There may be more that comes to light, as the guy that was shot is only recently recovered enough to talk to police. But, given this is the 2nd incident, and that there seems to be at least a modicum of cupability on her partin the traffic issues, and neither motorist that approached her vehicle was armed, it makes my blood boil that there's no concern for the unarmed...only that we must protect the right to bear arms.

RM, this is a case of the public pre-judging a situation based upon media reports. There is a whole other side to this that the defense attorney, who is an intelligent young man, won't reveal unless it becomes necessary. However, the police department is already trying this case in the media. All I need do is refer you to the Duke lacrosse rape case to remind you of the dangers of pre-judgment.

 

I have one fact and one fact alone that is relevant. What, in the name of the Good Lord, is that guy doing EXITING HIS MOTORCYCLE and approaching her at an intersection in live traffic? Having a friendly little chat? Offering her corrective driving tips? No, he was P.O.'d and was going to give her a piece of his mind.

 

According to the Kentucky Trial Court Review, there were 411 incidents of traffic-related assaults in Metro Jefferson over the last 18 months. One of our more prominent Bardstown citizens was in downtown Louisville 2 years ago and a 'window-washer' reached through his open window at a stoplight with a concealed knife and stabbed him 16 times. He lived. Ask him if he wished he had his concealed carry.

 

It is PRECISELY the New Albany situation that the 2nd Amendment becomes important. We don't know who means us harm and who doesn't, but the quick flash of a pistol, defensively (as in the lady's situation the year before) deters a lot more crime than the police ever solve.

 

We simply do not have time to stop and ask questions.

So, should our Second Amendment rights be taken away because the system allows a few crazy people to carry weapons? Does it sound like this woman might carry a gun with or without a permit - and if not a gun a knife or machete?

 

For every anecdote that you can find where a CC permittee uses a firearm inappropriately, you can find many more where a gun was used to thwart a crime or save a life. Compare crime rates in areas having gun bans to communities that do not infringe upon an American citizen's right to bear arms - Washington, DC, or Chicago, for example.

RM, this is a case of the public pre-judging a situation based upon media reports. There is a whole other side to this that the defense attorney, who is an intelligent young man, won't reveal unless it becomes necessary. However, the police department is already trying this case in the media. All I need do is refer you to the Duke lacrosse rape case to remind you of the dangers of pre-judgment.

 

I have one fact and one fact alone that is relevant. What, in the name of the Good Lord, is that guy doing EXITING HIS MOTORCYCLE and approaching her at an intersection in live traffic? Having a friendly little chat? Offering her corrective driving tips? No, he was P.O.'d and was going to give her a piece of his mind.

 

According to the Kentucky Trial Court Review, there were 411 incidents of traffic-related assaults in Metro Jefferson over the last 18 months. One of our more prominent Bardstown citizens was in downtown Louisville 2 years ago and a 'window-washer' reached through his open window at a stoplight with a concealed knife and stabbed him 16 times. He lived. Ask him if he wished he had his concealed carry.

 

It is PRECISELY the New Albany situation that the 2nd Amendment becomes important. We don't know who means us harm and who doesn't, but the quick flash of a pistol, defensively (as in the lady's situation the year before) deters a lot more crime than the police ever solve.

 

We simply do not have time to stop and ask questions.

 

Shoot first, ask questions later? Seriously? THAT is an acceptable mentality?

 

You've got to be kidding me?! That's insane. As a person who chooses to no carry a weapon, I think that I should have the reasonable right to assume that I'm able to approach a stranger and not be shot, even in anger!

Well, if I may play devils advocate for a minute.

How was she to know if they were armed or not just because they didn't have weapon in hand in the heat of the moment? It's a judgment call. Don't approach someone in what can be perceived as a threatening manner and there likely wouldn't be an altercation.

 

How do we know the motorcyclist is telling the truth?

 

Why is it she has "anger issues" because she was involved in an altercation with another spectator and was fearful of someone approaching her in a threatening manner?

 

Now, all that being said, you may be completely right about her, but that's up to the courts to decide.

Shoot first, ask questions later? Seriously? THAT is an acceptable mentality?

 

You've got to be kidding me?! That's insane. As a person who chooses to no carry a weapon, I think that I should have the reasonable right to assume that I'm able to approach a stranger and not be shot, even in anger!

Don't approach someone in a threatening manner and no one gets shot.

So, should our Second Amendment rights be taken away because the system allows a few crazy people to carry weapons? Does it sound like this woman might carry a gun with or without a permit - and if not a gun a knife or machete?

 

For every anecdote that you can find where a CC permittee uses a firearm inappropriately, you can find many more where a gun was used to thwart a crime or save a life. Compare crime rates in areas having gun bans to communities that do not infringe upon an American citizen's right to bear arms - Washington, DC, or Chicago, for example.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Shoot first, ask questions later? Seriously? THAT is an acceptable mentality?

 

You've got to be kidding me?! That's insane. As a person who chooses to no carry a weapon, I think that I should have the reasonable right to assume that I'm able to approach a stranger and not be shot, even in anger!

I also do not carry a weapon. However, the fact that many people do exercise their Second Amendment rights make it less likely that somebody is going to break into our homes or assault us on the highway.

Shoot first, ask questions later? Seriously? THAT is an acceptable mentality?

 

You've got to be kidding me?! That's insane. As a person who chooses to no carry a weapon, I think that I should have the reasonable right to assume that I'm able to approach a stranger and not be shot, even in anger!

 

You assume that you have the right to get off your motorcyle, in anger, and approach someone's car window at an intersection in live traffic?! That's insane! That's the type of stuff we see on those "World's Craziest Video" programs.

 

I specifically used the word "defensively," in my post.

There is the argument in this particular case that she was the one endangering him as a motorist. If that turns out to be true, would he not be justified in his anger, and justified in approaching her? Would the fact that he approached her, after feeling endangered, alter his "defense" in this? He did not approach her with a weapon, concealed or in plain view.

There is the argument in this particular case that she was the one endangering him as a motorist. If that turns out to be true, would he not be justified in his anger, and justified in approaching her? Would the fact that he approached her, after feeling endangered, alter his "defense" in this? He did not approach her with a weapon, concealed or in plain view.

No, he should have gotten the plate number and let the police handle it. Again, how was she to know if he had a weapon or not? Don't you think the fact that he's a man and she's a woman make it threatening in and of itself?

There is the argument in this particular case that she was the one endangering him as a motorist. If that turns out to be true, would he not be justified in his anger, and justified in approaching her? Would the fact that he approached her, after feeling endangered, alter his "defense" in this? He did not approach her with a weapon, concealed or in plain view.

 

Let me turn prosecutor for a moment. She endangers him with road-rage type driving. His options are:

 

a) do nothing

b) call 911 and report his license plate

c) get angry, get off his motorcycle in live traffic, and further provoke the situation

 

Once he got off his motorcycle and walked up to her window in anger, he went from being the victim to the aggressor.

 

The standard then shifts to her to determine whether what she felt was subjectively (not objectively!) reasonable. Her past experiences and insecurities, the fact there was a child in the car, the fact she had no way of knowing whether he was armed, all come in to play.

There is the argument in this particular case that she was the one endangering him as a motorist. If that turns out to be true, would he not be justified in his anger, and justified in approaching her? Would the fact that he approached her, after feeling endangered, alter his "defense" in this? He did not approach her with a weapon, concealed or in plain view.

 

How did she know if he had a"concealed weapon" or not, you are talking after the fact. This is the type of situation that calls for protecting yourself.

This is the civilian equivalent of John Murtha saying all those Marines were guilty before the facts were in. Let the system run its course and then let the facts be the judge.

In addition 6 of the 7 Marines have been found innocent or the charges dropped, with 1 case pending.

Let me turn prosecutor for a moment. She endangers him with road-rage type driving. His options are:

 

a) do nothing

b) call 911 and report his license plate

c) get angry, get off his motorcycle in live traffic, and further provoke the situation

 

Once he got off his motorcycle and walked up to her window in anger, he went from being the victim to the aggressor.

 

The standard then shifts to her to determine whether what she felt was subjectively (not objectively!) reasonable. Her past experiences and insecurities, the fact there was a child in the car, the fact she had no way of knowing whether he was armed, all come in to play.

 

 

Conceded.

 

Now, if she felt endangered, she had the same opportunities.

 

She could have called to report that he was driving recklessly

She could have rolled up her window and refused to engage him

She could have called 911 to report he was approaching her

 

Given the incident was in full daylight, in a busy area (it appears there's a gas station or similar in the scened), with plenty of witnesses, I don't see her perception of danger. Had this happened at night, or in a less busy area, I might see her argument.

 

In short, I gather your theory is that it's his own fault for getting off his bike.

 

You are also willing to not take into consideration her previous encounter with a motorist who approached her.

 

My questions are about her obvious willingness to freely pull out a weapon, and sense of "entitlement" to use it.

 

I'm not a shoot first and ask questions later person. It's absolutely no defnese to me.

 

As to her in general, I am simply skeptical that she she is blameless in her driving. If I were on a jury, and her previous incident were allowed to be entered into court, I'd be questioning that this "poor, innocent woman" were somehow the victim of two incidents where others were completely cupable in driving recklessly, and she'd done nothing.

I'm not a shoot first and ask questions later person. It's absolutely no defnese to me.

That kind of thinking in certain situations can land you in the graveyard very quickly.