dumb-ass self defense in america, a case study

[billy rubin]

this just happened in florida. stupid stupid stupid.

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/florida-man-charged-in-stupid-road-rage-shooting-that-wounded-both-shooters-daughters/

A man is facing charges after two girls were shot and injured when their fathers were involved in a road-rage confrontation on a highway in Florida.

William Hale was charged with three counts of attempted second-degree murder, three counts of aggravated assault and one count of shooting into a vehicle, online court records show. Hale is scheduled to be arraigned on April 20, records show.


Charges were dropped against a second man arrested in the case, records show. The charges were dropped under the Stand Your Ground law for self-defense, Jacksonville, Florida, station news4jax reported.

In announcing the arrests in October, Nassau County Sheriff Bill Leeper said in a news conference, "Sometimes we see people acting stupid and doing dumb things out on the highway.

"They sometimes let their emotions get the best of them, and they don't really think about the consequences of their actions or what could happen as a result of their stupidity."

Officials said the shooting went down after 6 p.m. on Oct. 8 when Hale, in a Dodge Ram, drove alongside the second driver, in a Nissan Murano, rolled down a window, and began shouting at the driver to pull over, authorities said.

A witness called 911, reporting a black Ram pickup truck with five occupants and a gray Murano with three occupants involved in a road-rage incident, the sheriff said. A 911 caller described it as a "cat-and-mouse game," the sheriff said. The two were brake-checking, getting in front of each other and hitting the brakes.

The witness said both drivers were driving so erratically that he called 911 because he thought something bad would happen, the sheriff said.

At some point, Hale got up alongside the Murano, rolled his passenger window down, and began shouting at the driver to pull over, the sheriff said.

The front passenger of the Murano put her arm out the passenger window and flipped her middle finger, the sheriff said.

A plastic water bottle was thrown from the Ram into the Murano.

The Murano driver then grabbed his 45-caliber semi-automatic handgun and fired one shot at Hale's truck, police said. The bullet entered the pickup truck's right-side rear passenger door and struck a 5-year-old girl in the right leg.

That driver, the sheriff said, said he fired his weapon "to get out of the whole situation."

The sheriff said Hale heard a loud "Pow!" but didn't think anything of it until everyone started freaking out in the back seat.

Then Hale realized his daughter was shot.

As the Murano was leaving, Hale sped up to get closer to the Murano and began firing several shots from his Glock 9 mm semi-automatic handgun out of the driver's window. Hale fired seven or eight rounds, the sheriff said.

At least three bullets struck the Murano. One of the bullets went through the rear of the vehicle and hit a 14-year-old girl in the back, collapsing her lung.

As both vehicles were speeding north on US-1, they saw a police patrol car and stopped. The drivers got out, arguing and fighting with each other.

Sign up for the Law&Crime Daily Newsletter for more breaking news and updates
The deputy broke up the fight and called paramedics, who took both juveniles to a hospital.

The two men were arrested.

"Now, what is scarier than one crazy driver with a gun — two crazy drivers with a gun," the sheriff said. "Thankfully, no one was killed in this incident, but it could have very easily turned out that way because two people were acting stupid."

[billy rubin]

pay attention :

William Hale was charged with three counts of attempted second-degree murder, three counts of aggravated assault and one count of shooting into a vehicle, online court records show. Hale is scheduled to be arraigned on April 20, records show.

Charges were dropped against a second man arrested in the case, records show. The charges were dropped under the Stand Your Ground law for self-defense, Jacksonville, Florida, station news4jax reported.

here's wat happened.

1. road rage, apparently mutual participation. brake checking.

2. second car flipped hall the bird. you brits call it a Vs up

3. hall's car threw a water bottle into murano car.

4. murano driver shot into hall's car, one round, hitting kid.

5. hall chased murano driver, shot into carmultiple times, hitting kid.

6. everybody arrested.

7. charges dropped against murano driver, on grounds of stand your ground.

8. charges made against hall: attempted murder, aggravated assault, shooting into a vehicle.

[billy rubin]

in america, there are five things that have to happen before you can justify lethal force in self-defense, which is what first moron hall could not claim, and the second moron murano driver got away with.

bruce, correct me here if i am wrong, please. in order to justify lethal force in self defense:

1 you must be in imminent danger of death or severe injury.

2. you cannot be the instigator f the altercation

3. you must use no more than proportional force

4. sometimes, not always, you must retreat if you can

5. all of your responses above must be "reasonable."

in this stupid interaction, both parties were instigating the original altercation, until murano driver fired a shot. that first shot was aggravated assault and attempted murder, and shooting into a vehicle. murano driver should not have walked on that. both participants lose on instigating a conflict.

but hall chased the second car and shot into it. hall was not in imminent danger-- he could have stopped his car and called the cops. by chasing second car, he gave up his right to claim self defense by becoming the instigator of a continuing conflict. murano driver  was running away-- he can still be cited as instigator and is responsible for that first gunshot, but not the subsequent ones. murano wins, hall loses.

hall had thrown a water bottle, murano driver fired a gun. this is not proportional force, so hall had to be threatening with his car for murano driver to be justified n shooting a gun at hall. murano should hav e lost, hall could have won.

murano driver retreated, and hall pursued. murano wins, hall loses.

reasonable? i dn t think so. murano loses, hall loses.

the second car fired the first shot. unless hall was using his car as a weapn to attack second car, that was attempted murder by murano driver. if hall had pulled over and called the cops, he would be free, and murano driver would be gaoled.

but hall pursued. this became a second altercation of which hall was the instigator. murano driver was running away, making this a completely separate event from the first one where murano driver shot into halls car.

hall is clearly guilty of instigating a deadly confrontation, in which he was not in immanent danger, did not attempt to retreat, and was not reasonable. he is toast.

but what about the first shot, fired by murano driver into hall's car, hitting his daughter?

murano driver got off under stand your ground. but this is important--- stand your ground only protects you if 1, 2, 3, and  4 above are satisfied. so based on that first shot, was murano driver justified in getting off under stand your ground?

1. imminent danger? only if hall was using his car as a deadly weaopn. no indication that he was doing that.

2. instigated the altercation? both were guilty, and it therefore became a case of mutually agreed upon combat, which negates innocence by not starting the altercation.

3. proportional force? shooting with a gun is only proportional if hall was using his car as a deadly weapon. was he? i dont see it.

4. duty to retreat? here is where stand your ground applies. in your house, and often in your car, you have no duty to retreat if you are not committing a crime and have a right to be where you are. so murano driver was within rights.

5. reasonable? dunno. everybody here was unreasonable.

so . . .

in my opinion, both parties here are dangerous morons. hall deserves to be crucified for chasing second car and shooting into it. but murano driver got off under stand your ground, and i dont see that as justified.

in florida, people claim stand your ground as justification every time they pull a trigger, and it sometimes stands, and sometimes doesnt.

prediction: hall will go to gaol based on second and subsequent shots fired. murano driver may stil have charges filed based on that first shot.

nobody here will walk if murano driver comes back under scrutiny. he did not have a stand your ground justification to shoot that first round.

[Tank]

Just ridiculous

[billy rubin]

murica

[Dark Lightning]

Crazy stuff, Florida figures in a lot of it.

[jumbojak]

If someone is brake checking you, stop the car. Even better, let them get in front to brake check and then turn off after they pass a turn.

[Icarus]

There are a few drivers, well more than a few, out there who are homicidal. 

Many years ago I had a worn out old six cylinder Chevrolet El Camino. I was driving across Interstate Four on my way home from a business trip in Tampa. I passed a weigh station somewhere along the way. A weigh station is a pull off the highway ramp that leads to weight scales for big rigs. Big rigs were often overweight and the state punished the offenders when they were found overweight.

As I passed the weigh station a big 18 wheeler pulled out speedily, with apparent serious urgency. I was in the right lane and the truck overtook me and began to tailgate my poor little El Camino. I tried to go faster in order to give the trucker some space. No luck there. My worn out little car could go 70, maybe 75 MPH, and no more . I had the damned peddle floored trying to escape the aggressive big truck dude, His rig was faster than mine and he actually bumped into the back of my little imitation pickup truck.  He backed off a little bit and I managed to escape. I escaped because the angry big truck guy gave me about two seconds to pull off the pavement at 70 mph onto the grassy area on my right side. That was a scary risk that I was forced to take.

That son of a bitch was traveling way past 80 MPH when he disappeared into the distance and I was trying not to mess my pants in fear. Had I tried to brake check him I would be writing this from my grave. 

My wild guess was that he was an independent trucker who had been busted before and he was uncontrollably angry for having to roll through the scales again.

That was the long ago times when I phones were only a fantasy from a Dick Tracy comic strip. I did call Florida Highway Patrol when I could get to a land phone. Too late for them to take any action.

Hooray I survived and lived to tell the tale.

[billy rubin]

that would have been both reckless and leaving the scene of an accident

both would have likely cost that SOB his license

[Dark Lightning]

They both belong behind bars.

[billy rubin]

this happened in october, abd this recent news article says the chargesc were dropped against the murano driver. so there has been plenty ofvtime for the DA to bring charges if it was the cops who let him go.

[Asmodean]

Does stand your ground defence apply if rather than not-retreating/running away from a potentially-lethal situation, you [here: the party that makes the stand your ground argument] actively give chase?

I must admit, I somewhat struggle to understand the workings of stand your ground, as it appears to be... Very situationally applied. Is there a legal definition of "your ground," which you then may "stand?"

[billy rubin]

you connot chase at any time, because then you cease being a victim, and become an attacker. unless you have the reasonable knowledge that your attcker has not actually broken off the attack, and is instead looking for a better place to shoot you from, maybe, or is running for a weapon, or is about to attack somebody else, and so on.

in general, you can never legally shoot at someone who is running away. this includes cops, who do it all the time.

tbe legal definition of stand your ground is no more than that it nullifies your duty to retreat as a requirement for you to claim self defense, if you are not committing a crime and if you have a right to be where you are.  for example, in a strict duty to retreat state, if i am attcked in a grocery store, i cannot claim self defense if there is a hallway behind me that i can run into. i can only shoot back if the door at the end is locked, and i have become trapped. if i am a burglar in your house, i cannot claim stand your ground to defend myself if you shoot at me.

in a stand your ground state, i do not have to flee into the deadend hallway first. i can defend myself from where i am or from where i percieve to be a better place.

stand your ground applies only to duty to retreat. no other self defense requirements are loosened

[Asmodean]

That's what I thought, so in this here case...

Two cars, yes? In motion, one would assume..?

Car one assaults-with-a-deadly-weapon car 2 (The bottle throw)

Car 2 fires upon car 1, hitting an occupant

Car 1 chases after (or some such) car 2 while blasting upon it with firearms, hitting an occupant.

Car 2 gets its ass arrested, while car 1 walks because stand your ground..?

I mean... Personally, I can see how being thrown a bottle at at speed constitutes an assault with deadly force, but then, should not the behaviour of car 2 be justified(-ish) in a stand your ground sort of defence rather than that of car 1, which, or so I would argue, continued the deadly part of the assault, which it instigated, rather than respond to it?

I feel like I may be misunderstanding something..?

[billy rubin]

heres the breakdown, in brief:

That's what I thought, so in this here case...

Two cars, yes? In motion, one would assume..?

Car one assaults-with-a-deadly-weapon car 2 (The bottle throw)

the bottle throw would qualify alone as instigation, but it would be hard to argue it was deadly force. so car one gives up right to claim self defense here because they threw the bottle. but car two gave car one the finger first, so car two is equally guilty of instigation.

Car 2 fires upon car 1, hitting an occupant

deadly force, no imminent danger, non proportional respnose, could have retreated or tried to, shooting someone who threw a water bottle is probably not reasonable. car two started a deadly interaction when they could have just driven away.

Car 1 chases after (or some such) car 2 while blasting upon it with firearms, hitting an occupant.

car one should have stopped and called police as car two fled. driver of car two would have been guilty. by chasing car two, car one started a new and separate conflict in which car one was guilty and car two was innocent.

Car 2 gets its ass arrested, while car 1 walks because stand your ground..?

no. it was car one who got arrested, and car two who got away with attempted murder.

car one pursued and is aggressor in second interaction. again, he would have gotten off if he had stopped and called the police. but he attacked car two with deadly force. he was no longer in imminent danger, he was guilty of starting this separate altercation, his force was proportional, but he did not retreat or act reasonably. car two is innocent in second encounter, but first encounter doesnt go away, or shouldnt.

I mean... Personally, I can see how being thrown a bottle at at speed constitutes an assault with deadly force, but then, should not the behaviour of car 2 be justified(-ish) in a stand your ground sort of defence rather than that of car 1, which, or so I would argue, continued the deadly part of the assault, which it instigated, rather than respond to it?

I feel like I may be misunderstanding something..?

car two was guilty of first shot and should have been prosecuted. tbere is no stand your ground defense justified here using a gun against a water bottle when he was not in danger, was equally guilty of starting/continuing the fight, was not acting proportionally,  and was not reasonable. car two could have shot back during second encounter and would have gotten off.

car one loses because he could not claim self defense at all, much less stand your ground self defense. car two was driving away and not standing its ground either.

some lawyer used a stand your ground defense for second car and tbe judge let him get away with it and should not have. the pretrial meetings should have excluded any self defense argument made by the second car. this was a fuck up by everybody, but second car got away with attempted murder.