I've of mixed feelings on this.

 

Should the woman have sat and watched as the man approached her and waited for him to produce a weapon? If she had would she hav had time to defend herself?

 

I've got to tell you with the loons that appear to be out and about these days if someone got off of a vehicle like that and approaced me I would be scared to death and would be looking for someway to defend myself. IMVHO as soon as the man started approaching her he was threatening her and she was justified in defending herself. I know my opinion has no legal standing but that's just the way I see it. It is not in dispute that the man approached her, While it may have been over the top I don't think the woman should be charged and the man has no one to blame but himself. He should never have gotten off of his motorcycle and approahed her.

 

I kind of agree with what you are saying to a point. Would not showing the gun to the oncoming threat been sufficient? Was the threat severe enough to pull the trigger? Did she give a warning for him to "back off" or did she just pull and fire based on his oncoming presence?

The man had neither attempted to enter the car nor damage it. Just the site of the gun should have been enough to get him to back off. Pulling the trigger was was unnecessary.

My question is, if she were tailgating him as he asserts, isn't that as dangerous to him as her gun is to him? IMO, she has "threatened" his life in more ways than one, and if the kid (and/or she) kicked him after shooting him, that's a third. IMVHO, there seems to be more than enough evidence (at least on the surface) that she had no regard for this man whatsoever. The scariest part....she didn't even know him!

If the kid kicked the man after he was shot then the kid should have been charged with assault. That's inexcusable.

 

If the man felt threatened because she was tailgating him then surely he had other options then to approach her. How about pulling off and letting her pass? There's little doubt in my mind that the man approached the woman with the intent to intimidate her. Again shooting him may have been over the top but in this day and age, with the loons that are out there, I see someone coming at me after exiting a vehicle, I'm assuming the worst. Since I don't own a gun I won't shoot but you had better believe I will swing anything I can get my hands on and I carry a 4D Mag Light in my vehicle.

The man had neither attempted to enter the car nor damage it. Just the site of the gun should have been enough to get him to back off. Pulling the trigger was was unnecessary.

 

I tend to agree with you, based on what I have heard.

With the allegations flying from both sides it will be interesting to see how this all plays out in court.

If the kid kicked the man after he was shot then the kid should have been charged with assault. That's inexcusable.

 

If the man felt threatened because she was tailgating him then surely he had other options then to approach her. How about pulling off and letting her pass? There's little doubt in my mind that the man approached the woman with the intent to intimidate her. Again shooting him may have been over the top but in this day and age, with the loons that are out there, I see someone coming at me after exiting a vehicle, I'm assuming the worst. Since I don't own a gun I won't shoot but you had better believe I will swing anything I can get my hands on and I carry a 4D Mag Light in my vehicle.

 

On the other hand, she had other options than to shoot him, right? She could have rolled up her windows, locked the door and laid on the horn. It appears she could have pulled into the adjacent Thornton's station.

 

IMO, her tailgating was meant to intimidate him. He chooses to approach her, does he not have that right? Had he shot her while she was tailgating him, would you have considered her tactics of tailgating intimidation? Or would you be accusing him of recklessness?

On the other hand, she had other options than to shoot him, right? She could have rolled up her windows, locked the door and laid on the horn. It appears she could have pulled into the adjacent Thornton's station.

 

IMO, her tailgating was meant to intimidate him. He chooses to approach her, does he not have that right? Had he shot her while she was tailgating him, would you have considered her tactics of tailgating intimidation? Or would you be accusing him of recklessness?

Not accordiing to the Danica Patrick haters.

I've of mixed feelings on this.

 

Should the woman have sat and watched as the man approached her and waited for him to produce a weapon? If she had would she hav had time to defend herself?

 

I've got to tell you with the loons that appear to be out and about these days if someone got off of a vehicle like that and approaced me I would be scared to death and would be looking for someway to defend myself. IMVHO as soon as the man started approaching her he was threatening her and she was justified in defending herself. I know my opinion has no legal standing but that's just the way I see it. It is not in dispute that the man approached her, While it may have been over the top I don't think the woman should be charged and the man has no one to blame but himself. He should never have gotten off of his motorcycle and approahed her.

Wondering what you meant by the part above? Maybe I am reading it wrong. Are you that someone that rides a motorcycle has to be scary and dangerous..."got off of a vehicle like that"...or are you just saying in general that if someone got off of or out of their vehicle like he did?

I do not know the full facts of what happen but if I were on a motorcylce and someone in a car continued to ride my butt I would want to some how let them know to stop. I am not saying he should have walked up to her car like that but from what I have read, and again I may not know all the facts, she was not justified in shooting him. If she showed the gun and told him to back off and he didn't then that is different story as well.

Wondering what you meant by the part above? Maybe I am reading it wrong. Are you that someone that rides a motorcycle has to be scary and dangerous..."got off of a vehicle like that"...or are you just saying in general that if someone got off of or out of their vehicle like he did?

 

The latter.

I think a lot in this case is going to depend upon the words of the motorcycle driver and his cause for getting off of his cycle.

 

After reflection, the indictment here was probably appropriate, the function of the grand jury is merely to determine if there was probable cause to believe a crime may have occurred; the self-defense arguments beyond a reasonable doubt will be decided by the petit jury. The system is working correctly in this case.

The latter.

That's what I figured, just didn't read it right the first time.

I think a lot in this case is going to depend upon the words of the motorcycle driver and his cause for getting off of his cycle.

 

After reflection, the indictment here was probably appropriate, the function of the grand jury is merely to determine if there was probable cause to believe a crime may have occurred; the self-defense arguments beyond a reasonable doubt will be decided by the petit jury. The system is working correctly in this case.

Agreed, I will be interrested in finding out what was said by he and she after he got off his bike.