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.

 

You are doing very well, counselor.

 

She had options as well. I would like to know if she could have driven off. I would like to know what he said, or did, that caused her to pull the trigger this time unlike last time when she only flashed her piece.

 

The fact that a child was in her car is a two-edged sword, as some jurors would not like her placing the child in harm's way by retaliating.

 

I think asking her to call 911 is a stretch.

 

Also, the fact that its in broad daylight with people watching really supports her fearful state of mind rather than detracting from it.

 

The point is, that these types of things are very fact-specific, and we should recognize the value that is INHERENT in the right to keep a weapon in our car, house, or even on our person, for self-defense, rather than removing that right and hoping for the best.

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

 

And , in certain situations, you in prison just as quickly.

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

 

 

I'm still here, though. Apparently, I'm doing something right.

 

Or...as a t-shirt I own says: "I'm here because it annoys you.".

And , in certain situations, you in prison just as quickly.

 

I'll take my chances with 12 jurors over 6 pall-bearers any day.

You are doing very well, counselor.

 

She had options as well. I would like to know if she could have driven off. I would like to know what he said, or did, that caused her to pull the trigger this time unlike last time when she only flashed her piece.

 

The fact that a child was in her car is a two-edged sword, as some jurors would not like her placing the child in harm's way by retaliating.

All of these are questions I have as well. I've only seen the video on TV, but from my very limited perspective, she had the opportunity to drive off. And, again, only hearing his words, it appears she never responded at all to his words as he approached, and that the window was only cracked, until she put it down further to shoot. From what I understood (again, taking into account they are his words, not hers), he couldn't have seen a weapon, and it's possible the first guy was presented the weapon in advance of the shot. That would have probably deterred him from approaching any further.

 

Why not just roll the window the rest of the way up? Isn't there a modicum of self control expected in that she try to ignore the situation? Especially since she had her child in the vehicle?

 

I think asking her to call 911 is a stretch.

Why? I assume because of the response time?

 

Also, the fact that its in broad daylight with people watching really supports her fearful state of mind rather than detracting from it.

And to me, it supports my suspicion that she has no regard for public safety, and her sense of "entitlement" to use the gun. Realistically, how long could this situation have gone on without her having the opportunity to leave. If at a stop light, it will turn green, and traffic will go....and she could have as well. In addition, a scream would have elicited the attention of other motorists or passersby, if she truly felt danger.

 

The point is, that these types of things are very fact-specific, and we should recognize the value that is INHERENT in the right to keep a weapon in our car, house, or even on our person, for self-defense, rather than removing that right and hoping for the best.

 

I agree, but I also think that the fight to ensure the right to bear arms is at times superceding the rights of those who choose not to.

 

I could argue that this is a health issue like the smoking bans. I mean, if non-smoker's rights to healthy air to breath (which is kind of ironic given the levels of pollution these days), then shouldn't people who don't carry guns have the right to expect to not be shot?

It sounds like maybe she's just a nut. Probably had the gun under the child's car seat. There are a lot of nuts packing heat.

 

If the facts as laid out are correct, I think it is safe to say that the hot-headed motorcyclist shouldn't have gotten off his ride and aproached the nut, and the nut shouldn't have shot the hothead. But this is America--the land of pistol-packing psychos and ignorant potheads and hotheads.

 

America has become the Home of the Crazed and Land of the Greed.

It sounds like maybe she's just a nut. Probably had the gun under the child's car seat. There are a lot of nuts packing heat.

 

If the facts as laid out are correct, I think it is safe to say that the hot-headed motorcyclist shouldn't have gotten off his ride and aproached the nut, and the nut shouldn't have shot the hothead. But this is America--the land of pistol-packing psychos and ignorant potheads and hotheads.

 

America has become the Home of the Crazed and Land of the Greed.

 

 

I believe the child was in the 8 or 9 year old range. I could be mistaken.

I believe the child was in the 8 or 9 year old range. I could be mistaken.

 

I see. Then she probably had the weapon in the child's book bag... Probably home school's the kid, too. Fine lesson she taught the young one that day.

And , in certain situations, you in prison just as quickly.

Not if they're threatening your life. As Hearsay said, better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

I see. Then she probably had the weapon in the child's book bag... Probably home school's the kid, too. Fine lesson she taught the young one that day.

You're definitely leading the thread in absurdity.

It sounds like maybe she's just a nut. Probably had the gun under the child's car seat. There are a lot of nuts packing heat.

 

If the facts as laid out are correct, I think it is safe to say that the hot-headed motorcyclist shouldn't have gotten off his ride and aproached the nut, and the nut shouldn't have shot the hothead. But this is America--the land of pistol-packing psychos and ignorant potheads and hotheads.

 

America has become the Home of the Crazed and Land of the Greed.

No offense, but you come off as someone with zero knowledge about guns and gun owners.

Originally Posted by Hearsay

I think asking her to call 911 is a stretch.

 

Why? I assume because of the response time?

As my avatar states, Police are only minutes away when seconds count.

A little ditty for all of our gun enthusiasts. Feel free to interlock arms with your fellow ballistic brethren at your next Guns R Fun party(Don't forget your face paint and camo' gear) and chant in unison:

 

Guns are neat, Guns are sweet

Guns the tool, what makes you cool.

Guns are fine, Guns are mine

Guns are things, that Jesus brings!

 

Guns for loonies, Guns for cons

Guns for Moonies, Guns for moms!

 

Guns are fun for everyone, buy them up by the ton.

Guns for me, Guns for you, Guns for nuts and children too!

Guns at home, Guns at work, Guns at play, Guns berserk!

 

Tons and tons of great big Guns,

Are tons and tons of great big fun!

 

I’ve got Guns up my nose ‘tween my ears and by my toes.

I’m no fool, I’m so cool, I take Guns to my school.

I take Guns in my car, to the store and to the bar.

I got Guns in a drawer, in my pocket and on the floor.

I got Guns on the wall, behind the toilet and in the hall.

 

I got guns in my bed, one is growing from my head!

Get a Gun and get it fast, Gun-Gun shoot-shoot is a blast!

 

 

 

[/url]

Rockmom just posted this in the other thread, but I think my question is more appropriate here.

 

Question, I can see the right to defend oneself as inherent. Now, the means by which one is able to do so is what's at debate. I don't believe that "guns" are an inherent right. It's a means by which one chooses to exercise the right, but not the inherent right in and of itself.

 

As the 2nd Amendment reads, and has just been affirmatively interpreted, citizens have a Constitutional right to own, carry, and use a firearm. Being that the primary purpose of having a gun is for defense, can the 2nd Amendment read as a Constitutional right to defend oneself?

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

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.

:thumb:

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.

:thumb:

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.

:thumb: ..........case closed.

I'll take my chances with 12 jurors over 6 pall-bearers any day.

Amen!

You're definitely leading the thread in absurdity.

:thumb:

Originally Posted by Hearsay

I think asking her to call 911 is a stretch.

 

As my avatar states, Police are only minutes away when seconds count.

 

I like the one that says......"I carry a gun bc a policeman would be too heavy". That is not a cut on our Police by the way, just that is just saying that if they would have the fastest response time in the worl, that sometimes...most of the time would be too late. Like Heasay points out, I'll take my chances with 12 jurors over 6 pal bearers.