Just let 'em do it

Mike T. wrote:
> > Evening news addign something. It gets even stranger.
> >
> > After they caught up to the perp, he sideswiped daddies car then rammed
> > the daughters and pushed it 30 feet. At that point daddy pulled off
> > several rounds at him (no hits) but the perp is using that as the
> > excuse for the entire incident. Note that the rounds were fired after
> > (or during) his deadly assault on the girls. Okay, now THAT qualifies
> > as self defense providing he wasn't already departing when the rounds
> > were fired.
> >
> > Harry K
> >
>
> As I wrote before, this could easily be self-defense, if there wasn't a DUI
> charge involved. In other words, he had no right to be driving AT ALL, so
> he shouldn't have been in the situation where it would have been necessary
> to defend his own life.
>
> Oh, and if there wasn't a DUI charge involved, I'd STILL call this
> self-defense, even if he was attempting to escape before someone started
> shooting at him. After you're shot, it's too late to defend yourself.
> (DUH!!!) -Dave

Trying to understand that. No luck. Your definition of self defense
would end up with you in jail if you tried it. There was a DUI
involved (see the OP) but WTF does that have to do with whatever you
tried to write?

Harry K

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, Harry K wrote:
>
> > Okay, there were 5 stupid (very) people there that night, one of them
> > is dead. Why? Because they tried to confront the road rager. Did I
> > say they were stupid? It bears repeating.
>
> I don't see anything in this story related to 'just let them do it' as I
> relate it. Or are you implying that hunting someone down is somehow equal
> to not letting another driver push you off the road?

Not really, but it is an escalation of that. It is rather difficult to
draw a line and say where your JLTDI stance ends and stupidity begins.
I myself have stood my ground.

Harry K

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Harry K wrote:
>
> > Especially when it comes to road rage.
> >
> > Spokesman Review, Spokane, WA 01/02/06. www.spokesmanreview.com
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Driver faces murder charge.
> >
> > A 41 OA Athol, Idaho, woman was run over and killed Saturday in an
> > apparent case of road rage.
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> > My summary: Two teenage girls were being harrassed by Jonathan
> > Ellington (45), tailgating, passing reclessly etc. Girls stopped, perp
> > stopped, beat on windows threatened to kill them, left.
>
> Is threatening to kill - as here - an arrestable offence as in the UK ?
>
> Graham

Yes. The original charge would probably be Assault 4 (misdemeanor),
ramming with a vehicle raises that to assualt 1 (dangerous weapon)
(felony).

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > Pooh Bear wrote:
> > > N8N wrote:
> > >
> > > > John Gaquin wrote:
> > > > > "N8N" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind of like the passengers in that plane that went down in PA on 9/11.
> > > > > > I've never been so proud of my fellow countrymen as I was that day
> > > > > > because they stood up for what was right, even knowing that it would
> > > > > > cost them their lives.
> > > > >
> > > > > And well you should be proud of them, for they earned it. But puh-leeze!
> > > > > Do not equate those folks with the aforementioned participants. What you
> > > > > conveniently overlook is that the people on the 9/11 aircraft also knew that
> > > > > taking *no* action would cost them their lives - a circumstance not
> > > > > applicable to the traffic scenario described.
> > > >
> > > > This is where you're wrong. Taking no action may well cost someone
> > > > their life, if not necessarily the original person the driver harassed.
> > >
> > > Idle and pointless ( probably wrong ) speculation. Don't wind up the aready wound
> > > up idiot any more and let the Police do their job.
> > >
> > > Graham
> >
> > Relying on the police to keep you safe is a good way to not BE safe.
> > They're handy when they're around and you need them, but you can't
> > completely rely on them.
> >
> > nate
>
> Still waiting for you to show how confronting a road rager makes you
> safer.
>

Forces the a-hole to reevaluate the acceptability of his actions
polite society. Can also end up with a-hole in jail. I don't know
about you but if someone threatens to kill me in a credible manner
(and by the article that happened) I feel that it is my right to take
whatever steps I deem necessary to protect myself up until such time as
a-hole is in handcuffs.

nate

>> Oh, and if there wasn't a DUI charge involved, I'd STILL call this
>> self-defense, even if he was attempting to escape before someone started
>> shooting at him. After you're shot, it's too late to defend yourself.
>> (DUH!!!) -Dave
>
> Trying to understand that. No luck. Your definition of self defense
> would end up with you in jail if you tried it. There was a DUI
> involved (see the OP) but WTF does that have to do with whatever you
> tried to write?
>
> Harry K
>

OK, I'll simplify it a bit. You are NOT DRUNK, but involved in a road rage
incident. An entire family (also involved in the road rage incident)
surrounds you while you are trying to get your car out of the ditch. You
can get the car out of the ditch, but the angry family is trying to prevent
you from doing so. A man pulls a gun on you with obviously hostile
intentions. You reasonably believe that your life is in danger. Do you:

A) Sit there and wait for the man to shoot you DEAD? OR . . .
B) GET THE **** OUT OF THERE NOW!!! (even if that means running somebody
over and possibly killing him/her/them)

Or as I wrote before, if there was no DUI involved, this would clearly be a
case of self-defense. IF there was no DUI involved. But the DUI bit muddys
the waters slightly. You could probably still make a strong case for this
murder charge being justifiable homicide, or "self-defense". Sure he was
drunk, but he also reasonably believed that his life was in danger. So,
apart from the being drunk (which probably got him in the mess in the first
place) his actions in regard to killing the mother were almost perfectly
reasonable. It could be argued that the mother was part of a murder
conspiracy to kill the perp. That is, the mother blocked the perp in while
the father TRIED TO SHOOT HIM TO DEATH. Therefore running over the mother
to escape the people hell-bent on KILLING him was a reasonable action.

Put another way . . . I'd rather be (alive and on trial for murder) than (a
dead DUI road rager). Wouldn't you? -Dave

On 3 Jan 2006 14:38:50 -0800, "Harry K" >
wrote:

>Especially when it comes to road rage.
>
>Spokesman Review, Spokane, WA 01/02/06. www.spokesmanreview.com
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Driver faces murder charge.
>
>A 41 OA Athol, Idaho, woman was run over and killed Saturday in an
>apparent case of road rage.
>----------------------------------
>
>My summary: Two teenage girls were being harrassed by Jonathan
>Ellington (45), tailgating, passing reclessly etc. Girls stopped, perp
>stopped, beat on windows threatened to kill them, left. They called
>cops on cell, the called parents. Cop showed, parents showed, cop took
>statement and went lookign for perp. Girls and parents see perp go by
>and chase him, he runs into ditch, daddy tries to block him, he gets
>the 4x out of ditch and runs over momma who had gotten out of car. Cop
>finds perp at home a little ways away. He is in jail with charges of
>2nd degree murder, leaving scene of accident, DUI, probation violation
>(prior DUI).
>
>Okay, there were 5 stupid (very) people there that night, one of them
>is dead. Why? Because they tried to confront the road rager. Did I
>say they were stupid? It bears repeating.
>
>Harry K

Pretty fishy story here and all we're getting is one side of it. I'd
like to hear what the so-called perp has to say. This family that was
chasing him sound like a bunch of nuts and may have made up a lot of
this.

"Harry K" > wrote in
oups.com:

> Especially when it comes to road rage.
>
> Spokesman Review, Spokane, WA 01/02/06. www.spokesmanreview.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Driver faces murder charge.
>
> A 41 OA Athol, Idaho, woman was run over and killed Saturday in an
> apparent case of road rage.
> ----------------------------------
>
> My summary: Two teenage girls were being harrassed by Jonathan
> Ellington (45), tailgating, passing reclessly etc. Girls stopped, perp
> stopped, beat on windows threatened to kill them, left. They called
> cops on cell, the called parents. Cop showed, parents showed, cop took
> statement and went lookign for perp. Girls and parents see perp go by
> and chase him, he runs into ditch, daddy tries to block him, he gets
> the 4x out of ditch and runs over momma who had gotten out of car. Cop
> finds perp at home a little ways away. He is in jail with charges of
> 2nd degree murder, leaving scene of accident, DUI, probation violation
> (prior DUI).
>
> Okay, there were 5 stupid (very) people there that night, one of them
> is dead. Why? Because they tried to confront the road rager. Did I
> say they were stupid? It bears repeating.
>
> Harry K
>

Best procedure for a sighting of such a criminal would be to follow and
dial up the police and tell them your location,description of the suspect
vehicle,and direction he's headed.This has happened before,in a few bank
robberies,with great success.

This tragedy is because some untrained citizens tried to act like police.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Mike T." > wrote in
reenews.net:

>
> "Harry K" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Especially when it comes to road rage.
>>
>> Spokesman Review, Spokane, WA 01/02/06. www.spokesmanreview.com
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> Driver faces murder charge.
>>
>> A 41 OA Athol, Idaho, woman was run over and killed Saturday in an
>> apparent case of road rage.
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>> My summary: Two teenage girls were being harrassed by Jonathan
>> Ellington (45), tailgating, passing reclessly etc. Girls stopped,
>> perp stopped, beat on windows threatened to kill them, left. They
>> called cops on cell, the called parents. Cop showed, parents showed,
>> cop took statement and went lookign for perp. Girls and parents see
>> perp go by and chase him, he runs into ditch, daddy tries to block
>> him, he gets the 4x out of ditch and runs over momma who had gotten
>> out of car. Cop finds perp at home a little ways away. He is in
>> jail with charges of 2nd degree murder, leaving scene of accident,
>> DUI, probation violation (prior DUI).
>>
>
> Murder? You could almost pass this one off as self-defense, if there
> wasn't a DUI charge involved. Yes, aside from the DUI, this perp was
> very stupid. HOWEVER, at the point the whole family cornered him in
> the ditch, the perp very well could have believed that his life was
> threatened. In a similar circumstance, I might have driven out of the
> ditch, and driven away, regardless of how many human beings I had to
> drive OVER to get away. So I can see this being self-defense. But
> then, when you throw in the DUI? Yup, I think this is murder.
>
> I gotta wonder though . . . if the family got close enough to corner
> this guy in the ditch, why didn't they just get on the cell phone and
> tell the cops (WHO WERE ALREADY LOOKING FOR THE PERP) where the guy
> was? Wouldn't that be the obvious course of action? Follow at safe
> distance, relay location to cops on cell phone . . . everybody lives
> to sort it out in court later. But
> NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo . . . I guess that would make
> too much sense. -Dave
>
>
>

Uh,"self-defense" cannot be claimed when one is in the commission of a
crime,or fleeing from the commission of a crime.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

> Uh,"self-defense" cannot be claimed when one is in the commission of a
> crime,or fleeing from the commission of a crime.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net

Yes, I understand that. But what we have here is more than one incident,
coincidentally related:

1) Road rage incident, involving teenage girls and perp. Perp fled from
scene. Incident OVER

2) Illegal Vigilante incident, started by victim family from earlier
incident. During this incident, the NEW PERPS (the previous victims/
family) pull a gun and start shooting at the victim (who was the perp in the
earlier incident). At this point, the perp is now the victim of a violent
felonious assault which is likely to result in the victim's death. Now it
is indeed self-defense. When the guy was cornered by the family, AT THAT
POINT, he was neither in the commission of a crime, NOR was he fleeing from
the commission of a crime. He'd already fled from the crime a long time
ago. Maybe he wasn't smart enought to stay FAR AWAY from the crime scene,
but nobody involved in this mess was a mental giant, obviously.

The victims in the first incident had no right to corner the perp and then
try to kill him in the second incident. Follow him? Yes, they had a right
to do that, as long as they did not trespass on private property or break
any other laws in the process. Drop a dime on him? Yes, they had a right
to do that. Arrest him? NO, they had no right to do that, so their actions
in trying to apprehend him were unlawful. SHOOT HIM? NO, they had no right
to do that, so their actions in trying to kill him were unlawful.

In other words, the family with the teenage girls would have had no right to
claim self-defense, as they became the perps at a point in time before the
mother was killed. But the guy who killed the mother? He can and probably
should claim self-defense. He's got a really strong argument for
self-defense, other than the DUI part. -Dave

In article .com>, Harry K wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article .com>, Harry K wrote:
>>
>> > Okay, there were 5 stupid (very) people there that night, one of them
>> > is dead. Why? Because they tried to confront the road rager. Did I
>> > say they were stupid? It bears repeating.
>>
>> I don't see anything in this story related to 'just let them do it' as I
>> relate it. Or are you implying that hunting someone down is somehow equal
>> to not letting another driver push you off the road?
>
> Not really, but it is an escalation of that. It is rather difficult to
> draw a line and say where your JLTDI stance ends and stupidity begins.
> I myself have stood my ground.

It's very simple, in my case where holding my ground poses a credible
danger to the paint job of my vehicle. Most people do not pose a
credible threat.