Road rage results in gun shots/arrest...

I'm assuming that since the man wasn't charged with possession of an unlicensed firearm, this is just another example of a law abiding citizen going off the deep end using a licensed firearm. Fortunately this time no one was killed.

 

Law abiding ?? Lol.. How many laws did he break in 5 minutes ....

 

I have to disagree CC. In my opinion the man (Turner) was the one who escalated this incident from the very beginning. He should never have followed the teens onto private property (home), then approached the truck and thrown the first punch. Not to mention pulling a handgun and firing several shots after the two boys had walked away.

What he could have easily done, was stop on the street and phoned the police, if he felt like being cut off on the highway was so severe.

Better yet, he should have simply blown the incident off.


I'm sure after all his court fines/punishment is over. He'll wish he'd acted differently.


...not to mention looking like a fool AND getting his ass kicked, which is plastered everywhere.

 

Every single thing this guy did was wrong. He needs to do time. Not really sure why the wife is arrested.

If indeed he fired at the occupied vehicle, attempted murder... pre-meditated... (*)(*)(*)(*) him.

 

He threw one punch, I dont condone BTW, and backed off. Two guys jumped out of the truck. Only one had a punch thrown at him. Then they proceded to beat the crap out of him.
Now legally at that point both those guys are on the hook for battery.
We could not see from the vid if the guys punch landed, we can see for sure both the the other guys landing kicks and punches.
Now, I call all 4 a bunch of dumbasses.
But once we get the legal involved after the gun deal, I think you will see that he was "less wrong" than the other two.
He also had every right to use his weapon to detain the two in the other truck.

 

A good shoot would have been if the other guys in the car shot him as he was aggressively approaching the vehicle. Once his hand entered the vehicle and/or attempted to remove the people in their occupied vehicle, the occupants were OK to shoot. Their reaction with force to him attempting to remove them from occupied vehicle was appropriate and justified.

Notice they stopped when he was no longer a threat and on the ground. This is an example of justified force.

 

Only if it had been the driver getting out and throwing punches. Not the passenger. Passenger was not punched or punched at, there was no weapon at that time.

 

Then they would be the ones in jail.

- - - Updated - - -

His wife handed him the gun. He didn't pull it from his waistline.

 

He backed off because teenagers started flying out of the cab like a clown car.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)! You are allowed to change your position to give yourself advantage or remove disadvantage from an assault being waged on you. If you are trapped in a box when someone is trying to attack you, you can get out and proceed to whoopin. Absolutely.

You can see the transfer of momentum as he strikes something solid, as can you hear it.

I honestly hope you do not carry. You do not understand things.


On the other hand... I do not see this weapon fire. I think that noise is the rear door slamming shut hard, the operator having seen the weapon.

 

Occupied vehicles get special treatment in many/most states as they are treated like your home and fall under castle doctrine. So, no they wouldn't.

 

Yes they would go to jail....well, at least the shooter would. One punch does not rise to the level where deadly force is justified.

 

I dont know why he backed off, but he did. And at that point neither had a reason to engage him. Especially the passenger. Driver? Maybe get a way with it. Maybe.
But the clown car reference is good, I like that.
Yes I do carry, but I also dont get my panties all in a bunch about a traffic incident either. I have been cut off, ran off, ran into, side swiped, rear ended, on fire so many times I dont hardly notice any more.

- - - Updated - - -

Come to Florida, mon. Punch'en can very well lead to choot'en.

 

In North Carolina and some 24+ other states your occupied vehicle is treated the same as your house, castle doctrine extends specifically by law to your occupied vehicle.

So if somebody is trying to forcefully enter you can shoot, exactly the same as if somebody is trying to forcefully enter your residence. Once the man's hand entered the vehicle and/or attempted to remove the people in their occupied vehicle, the occupants were OK to shoot.

 

Thank you for cementing my point.

 

Yep, this goes for Texas as well.

Look at this video of a gas station attendant shooting a man who punched him in the face. BTW, no charges were filed.

[video=youtube;FndhcUJbThU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FndhcUJbThU[/video]

 

His "backing off" is less than a quarter of a second while people jump out. Your "theory" is wrong. He chased them down and assaulted him. There is NO reason to believe he would stop without being stopped.

 

I don't think you follow...

What do you believe the percentage is of law abiding individuals who legally obtain a weapon, vs law abiding individuals who illegally obtain a weapon?

 

I want some of whatever you are on .

 

I"m not in possession of those figures so I really cannot comment. My point was that even legally purchased guns are used at times to commit crimes.

 

I understand your point. The point being made is that we have the right to bear arms... to restrict that right will leave arms in the hands of those who obtain them for the purpose of illegal behavior... as opposed to the rare random law breaking idiot illustrated here who obtains one because they create situations like this and it would be nice to have a gun when things go wrong like this...

 

A little more information has come to light in this incident. Apparently one round fired by Turner (after he returned a second time and started firing), also struck an "occupied" home/house. This could perhaps make the situation worse for him, as far as additional charges.

Also, in an arraignment yesterday, he was ordered not to be in possessing of a weapon, anywhere other than his home.

Here is a link alluding to the "occupied" home being struck by gunfire ...

http://www.carolinacoastonline.com/news_times/news/article_57d60558-96ea-11e2-ad0d-001a4bcf887a.html


For me, his actions clearly demonstrate he lacks ability to exercise sound judgement and restraint of his emotions/anger. Definitely not responsible enough to be traveling around in public with a deadly weapon.

 

He "may" have assaulted the driver. We didnt see him actually hit him. He did nothing to the passenger. Passenger had no legal reason to leave the vehicle and lay a hand on him.
But he from the get go should not have chased them down.

- - - Updated - - -

[

 

He was in the wrong, unless he had a government-issued badge. Then, it would have been an issue for department discipline, and a little bit of paid time off.

 

I understand your meaning BHK. I don't disagree.

It's an unfortunate and very distasteful reality, far too often.


Although not as ridiculous (still potentially very dangerous) as the story in the OP, below is a link to a recent incident you may find interesting...

http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/03/23/north-carolina-deputy-rehired-days-after-resigning-over-road-rage-incident/

 

HaHaHa The left lane is for passing. If your not passing get over!!!