"You never know if the person if the car might have a gun," Swingle said. "Just keep your cool."
Castle law is a beautiful thing.
"You never know if the person if the car might have a gun," Swingle said. "Just keep your cool."
Castle law is a beautiful thing.
Let's say that it was the grandfather's fault; the gramps assaulted the motorcyclist with a deadly weapon: the car. Would the biker be protected under the castle law if he shot the old man?
In reply to rotard:
Absolutely. His burden to prove, though.
rotard wrote: Let's say that it was the grandfather's fault; the gramps assaulted the motorcyclist with a deadly weapon: the car. Would the biker be protected under the castle law if he shot the old man?
It kinda depends. If the grandpa just cut the motorcyclist off, I don't think he would have a case. Because assault implies intent. Punching someone has pretty clear intent to do harm. Cutting someone off doesn't. So the motorcyclist would have to some how prove the old man intended to hurt him by cutting him off.
Castle law is a wonderful thing.
Based on my experiences with old people on the road, I'll venture a guess that it was the old guy's fault. Beyond that, though, he's lucky he didn't get curbstomped. Poor shot placement and a weak round isn't a good combination. Actually, they should make you take your concealed weapons test on a regular basis once you're over a certain age, similar to what they do with driver's licenses in some states.
In reply to Drewsifer:
.. But YOU get to stand your ground! 
Why didn't the old man just drive away rather letting it get to the point where he shot someone?
Dead criminals dont re-offend. I wish MD was sane about allowing people to defend them self.
ThePhranc wrote: Dead criminals dont re-offend. I wish MD was sane about allowing people to defend them self.
Eh, I think a good old-fashioned fist fight would have been more appropriate in this and many other situations. The old man should have driven off. In any event, he wasn't in any real danger, since he got punched once, then was able to shoot. If the biker had meant him serious harm, he would have received a continuous assault, without having a chance to draw his weapon and fire.
in before the lock!
93EXCivic wrote: Why didn't the old man just drive away rather letting it get to the point where he shot someone?
The other day, I was working the shop and heard ties screeching. Look out and there was a car running from an suv. Suv get involved, so I called the police. Don't know what happened, but the point is, the car was attempting to get away, which is why I called the police.
I'm assuming an experienced cyclist can outmaneuver an old man in a car (once again assuming) with no performance driving experience.
Before you can know what you would do, you have to know the full circumstances.
Had a guy a fee months back wave me in for a fight. I kept driving, because I'm not going to fight, buts also I was armed and knew it would end badly.
Darwin loses this round - all the tards survive.
In reply to rotard:
Getting punched once is getting punched too many times and constitutes a real danger.
rotard wrote: If the biker had meant him serious harm, he would have received a continuous assault, without having a chance to draw his weapon and fire.
Think about that real hard.
N Sperlo wrote:93EXCivic wrote: Why didn't the old man just drive away rather letting it get to the point where he shot someone?The other day, I was working the shop and heard ties screeching. Look out and there was a car running from an suv. Suv get involved, so I called the police. Don't know what happened, but the point is, the car was attempting to get away, which is why I called the police. I'm assuming an experienced cyclist can outmaneuver an old man in a car (once again assuming) with no performance driving experience.
Yes. But if the motorcyclist begins to follow then it is time to pull out the piece. It seems from reading that article that driver did little to stop the situation from escalating. Don't get me wrong I am in favor of being able to defend yourself but it just sounds a little ridiculous in this case.
Also if I saw someone pull a piece every time that they got punched there would be a lot of dead people from sporting events.
Yeah, I think the "shoot the guy because I got punched" reaction is a little too quick of an escalation. It's the flip side to the "zero tolerance" rules in schools that I don't think any of us like. So if you ever lose your temper you're now okay with being shot? I've never punched a stranger but I've done some serious gesturing in the middle of red mist causing incidents on the bike. And I'm a pretty calm guy.
From the article, it sounds like gramps was in the right as far as the traffic incident goes. But that's not always obvious in the immediate aftermath. Yes the biker shouldn't have punched the guy but I also don't think the death penalty is appropriate in that scenario.. It's a complicated issue.
Lots of assumptions here. I am 66, in good physical condition and have martial arts training. If you try to punch me, I might just break your arm. In any case, the best course of action is always to avoid the confrontaion if possible.
dculberson wrote: It's a complicated issue.
I believe this is what lead to the conclusion along with the fact that the attorney general is very pro-gun-rights along with the governor. Also, when you don't come to this conclusion, all castle law and legal carrier shootings bedtime much more complicated. I don't think any other conclusion can be come to on our behalf other than that the issue is complicated.
I dunno. I have been in a couple of situations as a motorcyclist where the adrenaline from some dumbass move has made my blood boil. I guess it's the 'fight or flight' response. In one instance, it ended with me punching the dumb broad's door glass. Of course that was many moons ago and I'm allegedly wiser now.
I can also see if I had my wife and grandkid in the car and some nutcase comes punching in the window at me, well I'm going to defend not just myself but them as well and that could get real ugly. Best thing for both parties to do in this case was to keep on going.
N Sperlo wrote:rotard wrote: If the biker had meant him serious harm, he would have received a continuous assault, without having a chance to draw his weapon and fire.Think about that real hard.
Think about what real hard? They both escalated the situation and were both behaving stupidly. If only one of them had kept a level head, this situation would have never happened. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Since the old man decided to stick around, he should have drawn his weapon while the biker was approaching his car, and told him to leave. Instead, he decided to get punched first. At this point, he was pretty much at the mercy of the biker. So, not only did the old man have an anger problem, he was also making poor tactical decisions. Bravo.
I drive I-95 in Miami. I do not carry. I will defend myself with my right foot firmly on the floor. Way too many wackos here with guns. Harder to hit a moving target
rotard wrote: Since the old man decided to stick around, he should have drawn his weapon while the biker was approaching his car, and told him to leave. Instead, he decided to get punched first. At this point, he was pretty much at the mercy of the biker. So, not only did the old man have an anger problem, he was also making poor tactical decisions. Bravo.
Thats brandishing, and a felony.
Shooter violated several of my (self-enforced) rules of sidearm usage.
Had a chance to disarm the situation and not only failed to do so, but may have escalated the situation instead.
Failed to eliminate the threat. If the threat had been a legitimately bad dude (or a wacko with a gun), shooter and his family could be in much worse shape than they are.
Could have kept driving. Could have been less confrontational after he stopped. Coulda shoulda woulda.
I hope I never use my sidearm outside of practice.
In reply to JohnInKansas:
Ditto. Those are the rules the teaches in my shop try to teach, but number one should be follow the law. 
Of course. Those numbers aren't representative of the order of my personal guidelines, just the order that I saw shooter's violations of my guidelines.
You'll need to log in to post.
