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/
QuoteA 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."
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.
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.
Just ridiculous :(
murica
Crazy stuff, Florida figures in a lot of it.
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.
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.
that would have been both reckless and leaving the scene of an accident
both would have likely cost that SOB his license
They both belong behind bars.
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.
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?"
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
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..? :headscratch:
heres the breakdown, in brief:
Quote from: Asmodean on April 11, 2023, 01:43:18 PMThat'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.
QuoteCar 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.
QuoteCar 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.
QuoteCar 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.
QuoteI 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..? :headscratch:
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.
Oh! I gots me cars mixed up!
Not knowing the exact circumstances around the bottle throw, I'm hesitant to disregard it as a potentially-deadly attack. One, it could have been. It depends on the relative velocities of the vehicles and the bottle, its mass and ye olde physics. Two, as the "recipient" of the attack in that situation, could you have reasonably assumed that the object thrown was harmless, even if it indeed was? Perhaps more importantly, could you have reasonably feared death or serious injury to self or others? I suppose one argument could be that the bottle was thrown by that point, so the immediate danger passed with it, but I'm not sure how that argument would hold up in court..?
Having them cars sorted, I must say that there may be viable defence there - at least in my very non-expert opinion. (For instance, would giving someone the finger indeed constitute instigation? Seems like... Just something some people do, and if a reasonable person be the standard there... I don't see it. Throwing stuff, sure, but not that)
As for my argument with regards to the bottle, there are multiple potential angles there as well. For analogy, throwing a sponge at a guy juggling chain saws would be at least some sort of reckless, no?
EDIT: Just for clarity, I do think that it's a case of dangerous idiots in cars, who at the very least belong nowhere near the driver's seat, and probably ought to share a nice cell. Trying to look at the situation from a strictly legal perspective, however, renders my sensibilities irrelevant.
Within the last few days we have had two cases of "stand your ground" that is going to turn out badly for the person who did the shooting.
A young black kid was sent to pick up his sibling from a house that he had not previously visited. The intended house is on a numbered street but the young man mistook the address instruction and went to the number on an avenue. He rang the door bell innocently,the man who lived there thought he was in danger from, perish the thought, a black kid who is six feet tall.. He shot through the door and hit the kid two times, once in the head. Fortunately the kid lived but the shooter is in big trouble.
In another incident a 17 year old girl exited the store where she had shopped, approached what she thought was the car that her companion was driving. She opened the passenger side door of a similar car and realized her mistake. Embarrassed, she got into the correct car and the offended person in the wrong car shot the girl.
One other ocassion involved a driver who mistakenly pulled into the wrong driveway at night. Realizing that they had made a mistake, they backed out of the driveway just as the home owner let fly with a few shots. One of which killed a young woman in the car.
None of those were threatening to the shooters. The trigger happy, paranoid, dudes began shooting anyway. It is possible that each of the shooters actually believed that they were in danger, or so they will claim.
none of those were stand your ground cases, icarus, but the lawyers will try.it.
the cops often dont know what stand your ground is either.
all that stand your ground does is legally remove from you the duty to retreat-- it doesnt excuse any use of lethal force that is not justified by the legal requirements.
that fool who shot the kid through his locked door cant claim self defense, and when he stepped outside to shoot him again he became the attacker again. i dont see how he can get off, unless the prosecuting attorney is a moron.
these people are crazy.
Something to consider, stand your ground doesn't just apply to firearms. It relates to self defense which could well be with hands and feet. Say, someone attacks you and your response is to hit them, knocking them out and onto the asphalt in the dark alleyway you probably shouldn't have been walking down at night.
They suffer a traumatic brain injury due to the fall, and die - this happens more often than you may think. Are you now liable for a failure to retreat? You absolutely used deadly force, your attacker is dead. Were you required to run, and somehow calculate whether you could get away? If you then realized that you weren't going to escape could you then turn and face your attacker?
No, you were legally walking down an alley. Someone else chose to assault you. You can take your chances and run, or you can take your chances and stand but that's not a decision that needs to be made for you or a legal calculation that should be required to exercise a basic human right.
Shooting through a door or shooting at a car for a thrown bottle aren't reasonable responses to those actions. It would be the same if someone were killed by a knockout after asking for directions on a sidewalk. There's a set of circumstances to consider.
yes. the whole idea behind the real stand your ground law purpose is to help innocent people defend themselves. if two people are beating me with an jron bar in a dark parking garage, stand your hround allows me to defend myself with a deadly weapon witjout having to turn around and run for an exit. thats all.
.
Quote from: billy rubin on April 20, 2023, 11:06:48 PMyes. the whole idea behind the real stand your ground law purpose is to help innocent people defend themselves. if two people are beating me with an jron bar in a dark parking garage, stand your hround allows me to defend myself with a deadly weapon witjout having to turn around and run for an exit. thats all.
.
Ideally, it would allow you to be somewhat proactive as well. shooting attackers full of holes is all good and well, but if they have to literally have caved your skull in before you could try... But then, I suspect that would fall under "imminent danger," quite beside the obligation to retreat or lack thereof..?
you have to be in imminent danger first of all, before you can use lethal force anywhere
and it has to pass a reasonable test
i read so-called analyses of stand your ground by media "experts" all the time, and almost to a man tbey neglect to point out that you have to have to be in imminent danger before you can defend yourself at all, much less quibble about stand your ground
so if they are running at you hollering and waving the crowbar, you can shoot em before they get to you. if they satisfy all the other requirements too. thats an attack.
or if they are standing next to you in the subway, pull a knife, and say give me your wallet, you can shoot. thats a threat to your life and youre in imminent danger there too
but if theyre standing on the other train platform looking at you suspiciously, no. or if theyre on the other side of a locked gate and you see no weapo , no. and so on
Well... Yeah. Your "ground" would have to be in need of "standing" - otherwise, how is it different from murder?
I don't think you should have an overarching obligation to flee or try to diffuse a situation if you consider yourself to be in danger, but then, such consideration would have to be tested against the perspective of a reasonable person in similar situation. As such, I suppose I support the idea of stand your ground - but as a defensive mandate only. At the very least, as a response to physical aggression. It should be... How do I make this point well..? It should be more than an excuse for escalation.
heres an open and shut murder. the florida cops are being coy. there is no stand your ground defense here
A Black mother of 4 was shot and killed by a neighbor. Her family wants the woman who shot her arrested
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/us/florida-woman-aj-owens-fatally-shot-neighbor-feud/index.html
both the shooter and the victim were equally guilty of starting and continuing the altercation.
but tbe shooter was behind a locked door, facing an unarmed woman. no imminent danger. just dont open the door. call the police if youre afraid.
the victim was unarmed, so the force was not proportional. she was angry, but had no weapon.
the shooter had no duty to retreat, but had no right to shoot either.
there is no argument that these actions were reasonable except that its florida, and the shooter is white, while the victim was black.
were i a prosecuting attorney, i would charge manslaughter at the least.
stand your ground does not apply unless all the other boxes are checked first.
Woman arrested in connection with the shooting death of Black Florida mother who was killed after knocking on neighbor's door
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/07/us/ajike-aj-owens-florida-neighbor-shooting-wednesday/index.html
manslaughter.
Why is Australia an ally of America? Americans obviously play by a different set of rules to Australians.
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
Quote from: MarcusA on June 12, 2023, 06:02:29 PMWhy is Australia an ally of America? Americans obviously play by a different set of rules to Australians.
History, ah you don't do history, expediency then.
Or insurance, we pay our premiums and maybe they'll come when we claim.
I think it all comes down to fear of the yellow hordes.
Hopefully, somewhere in Florida, a group of lovely christians knocks on the wrong non christian's door, some shots ring out, lovely christians are no more. And everyone is happy, because, you know, hallowed ground and standing for it.
im rooting for an active shooter at the NRA convention
Oh the irony of the NRA banning guns from their congress!
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2023, 10:18:47 AMOh the irony of the NRA banning guns from their congress!
Bloody lefty liberal wimps, in my day we would have shot anyone trying to get in that didn't have a gun.
:rofl:
- In guns and God, we trust.
its unfortunate.
im against an armed society, but i carry a weapon
the irony is deep