TexasCHLforum.com

That does suck that his phone went dead. We all forget that just 15 years ago most people in their cars had no ability to call the police and had to shift for themselves. I am so sorry and I wish the best for you.

Whenever I'm in my car my phone is plugged into a charger and connected to the car audio system through BT. If ever in such a situation I would simply ask Siri to call 911. I also doubt that any raised monster car would have the mobility or the gearing to keep up with a well maintained car with a reasonable acceleration capability.
I believe your brothers situation was almost completely avoidable.
How?
1. Preparedness - your brother was on a stretch of interstate with sparce traffic. Given the info we have it is reasonable to assume that he had the advantage in acceleration and maneuverability. I am a strong proponent of tatical defensive driving training. Even if your brother was at a disadvantage, even the most basic training should have allowed him to escape the situation. Always make sure that every piece of equipment that you depend upon is well maintained and functional. This includes your weapon, your automobile, and your means of communication. If your brother had connected his phone to a charger when he got into his car his phone who have been operational when it was needed most.
2. Awareness - The first sign of aggression is the time to react and take defensive action.
3. Deescalation - In a road rage situation it is imperative that you do not engage the individual. Your brothers one finger salute threw gasoline on the fire. Most of these situation defuse themselves by simply ignoring the individual wanting attention.
4. Communication - not only should your brother have been the first to call 911, the call should have been placed long before he pulled his weapon and before he even thought about texting anyone.

Hind sight is 20/20, but in most situations you will avoid the horns by simply refusing to mess with the bull. I do hope that your brother's situation is quickly resolved and he along with others learn from his mistakes.
As far "this little community sticking together"...not sure how that applies.

This story and the story of the 70-year old man who was run off the road, both serve as sobering reminders that any time you defend yourself with a gun (whether that means shooting, displaying, or merely mentioning it), you should be prepared for the bad guy to try to "flip the script" and paint you as the perpetrator. And it might stick, because after all, you are the "man with the gun". The burden may be on you to prove your actions were defensive, not offensive. This actually happened recently to someone I know. He had been in a domestic dispute (non-violent) and his wife had left their house. A while later, her father/brothers/etc. showed up to confront him. Feeling a bit afraid, he locks the door to the house and tells them to go away. They won't take no for an answer. They pound on the door and start trying to bust it down. He informs them that he does have a gun, and that if they come through the locked door into his house, he will shoot. In the meantime he calls 911. Eventually the cops show up, and you can probably guess what happened. The cops talk to the guys outside, who falsely state that my friend (still inside his house) "started waving his gun around and threatening us with it." The police ask him to step outside his house, but he cannot even open the door because it has been damaged by the guys trying to kick it in. So the police have him exit through a window, where he is promptly arrested for "felony pointing of a firearm". The good ol' boys who tried to kick in his door kindly offer to pay the landlord for the damage, and they are free to go.

Thankfully, some text messages were later recovered from his wife's phone, with the in-laws basically admitting that no, my friend did not wave his gun around or make threats. With this, the DA declined to pursue the charges any further. But he shouldn't have had to spend even one day in jail. In fact, the men who attempted to forcibly enter his house should have been arrested. That seems like a no-brainer to me.

I guess the question is what to do in situations like this so police realize that you are in fact the victim and not the aggressor. My friend actually was the one to call 911. I agree that this will help more often than not, but in his case it didn't.

Lawyer up, hopefully he can plea for a lesser charge. 1(bro) vs 2 (other guys) testimony may only work if the driver has a history of road rage, or there is another witness backing up your bro. Hopefully he did not admit to the officer displaying his weapon. Another lesson here, don't "snitch" on yourself! A typical officer's take on road rage before retaliating is to disengage by either slowing down and allowing separation, pulling over or off the road, and certainly reporting the incident immediately. Sounds like this went on for 10 - 20 mins? That's 5-10 exits.

A prosecutor may approach stating that if brother felt the monster truck was a lethal weapon at point of stopping and reversing, why did he have to seek consult when he felt harassed initially. Lawyer up, hopefully it is a "compassionate" municipality and bro can plea down.

On a racetrack, sure he could've outmanuevered them.

jmra wrote: ...As far "this little community sticking together"...not sure how that applies.

Good thinking, jmra.

I can assure you that it does not apply when a member of "this little community" abuses his, or her, privilege -- yes, "privilege" --to be a member of this community. There could be no better case for terminating the privilege for everyone.

Jim

if my wife is driving it is

I do not understand how a vehicle can be a deadly weapon if there was no intent to use it as such. That means that if a vehicle is small you're pretty safe against killing someone accidentally so large vehicles should be outlawed.

igc48 wrote:I do not understand how a vehicle can be a deadly weapon if there was no intent to use it as such. That means that if a vehicle is small you're pretty safe against killing someone accidentally so large vehicles should be outlawed.

Is a loaded handgun a deadly weapon if there is no intent to use it as such?

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

igc48 wrote:I do not understand how a vehicle can be a deadly weapon if there was no intent to use it as such. That means that if a vehicle is small you're pretty safe against killing someone accidentally so large vehicles should be outlawed.

Is a loaded handgun a deadly weapon if there is no intent to use it as such?

Jim

True enough Jim, but many things can be used as deadly weapons. A gun's intended use is clear. An automobile's intended use is not as a deadly weapon. It certainly can be, though, just look at the response of the police when someone points their car at them.

A car can be a deadly weapon even if the intent was not to use it that way. A gun is always a deadly weapon. Penal Code section 1.07 defines terms and says:

(17) "Deadly weapon" means:
(A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or
(B) anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

So a firearm is always a deadly weapon, even if it is a North American Arms .22 revolver that would fit inside you belt buckle and would have a sting about as bad as a bee. And a car is a deadly weapon if it is used that way, whether the intent was to do so or not (note the manner of its use clause).

The car part comes in as a weapon without any intent to use it as a weapon when someone is charged under the intoxication assault and intoxication manslaughter laws. There was no intent, but the manner of the use of the car was as a weapon, and it was clearly capable of causing serious bodily injury.

srothstein wrote:A car can be a deadly weapon even if the intent was not to use it that way. A gun is always a deadly weapon. Penal Code section 1.07 defines terms and says:

(17) "Deadly weapon" means:
(A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or
(B) anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

So a firearm is always a deadly weapon, even if it is a North American Arms .22 revolver that would fit inside you belt buckle and would have a sting about as bad as a bee. And a car is a deadly weapon if it is used that way, whether the intent was to do so or not (note the manner of its use clause).

The car part comes in as a weapon without any intent to use it as a weapon when someone is charged under the intoxication assault and intoxication manslaughter laws. There was no intent, but the manner of the use of the car was as a weapon, and it was clearly capable of causing serious bodily injury.

Isn't that what I said?

Although it's a vehicle most of the time it can be a deadly weapon. With Honda's deadly air bags, Toyota's sticky accelerators and Gm's faulty ignition switches, I'd stay out from in front of them all, running or not!:-) The question surrounding a pedestrian in the road way is an interesting one. A person on foot is suppose to be given the right of way, but you're not entitled to nor can you demand it. I don't know what situation where lethal force would be justified, but I am sure there are some instances where it might. Circumstances leading up to the event would play a major role in that. I don't think you can make make a comparison of a citizen and a police officer either and assume you can make the same decisions regarding your safety as he can. The police officer belongs there, you don't.

Hand me the shotgun slugs, the zombies are arising again!







(Zombie threads, that is )