Hit And Run Driver Brings Knife To A Gunfight [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Hit And Run Driver Brings Knife To A Gunfight


NH Trucker
10-17-2012, 14:55
Seems the driver made a few mistakes.




http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/homeowner-duels-with-hit-and-run-driver




Unfortunately, the homeowner is going to have a nasty scar. But at least he's alive because he had the sense to have a gun and to use it when it was needed.

badge315
10-17-2012, 15:19
Police don't know if the driver was drunk or high. Blood testing was a problem because he lost so much at the scene.

I'm sorry, but that just made me LOL.:rofl:

RonS
10-17-2012, 15:22
Hope plastic surgery can fix him up he has mimimal trouble with the law, criminal and civil.

Hailstorm
10-17-2012, 15:26
I just have one problem with this. The one problem is that only one round was spent.

NH Trucker
10-17-2012, 15:29
Police don't know if the driver was drunk or high. Blood testing was a problem because he lost so much at the scene.

I'm sorry, but that just made me LOL.:rofl:


I was just confused by that statement in the article. Why would they have a problem testing the guy's blood? Sounds like there would have been plenty on the ground. All they would need is a sponge. :whistling:

gwalchmai
10-17-2012, 15:37
We should setup an internet fund to pay for the homeowner's medical bills and send him to DisneyWorld.

Detectorist
10-17-2012, 17:01
The guy with the gun initiated the confrontation. Just saying.

badge315
10-17-2012, 17:11
The guy with the gun initiated the confrontation. Just saying.

True...but so what? There's nothing illegal or immoral about confronting a jerk who just crashed into your car and is attempting to flee.

TK-421
10-17-2012, 17:15
I was just confused by that statement in the article. Why would they have a problem testing the guy's blood? Sounds like there would have been plenty on the ground. All they would need is a sponge. :whistling:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

M&P Shooter
10-17-2012, 17:19
Police don't know if the driver was drunk or high. Blood testing was a problem because he lost so much at the scene.

Reminds me of a song:whistling:
Guns N' Roses - Live And Let Die - YouTube

Detectorist
10-18-2012, 01:04
True...but so what? There's nothing illegal or immoral about confronting a jerk who just crashed into your car and is attempting to flee.

In general, if one initiates a confrontation, one can not then claim self defense.

I don't know the particulars of this one though.

NEOH212
10-18-2012, 03:17
Most of the time I agree that someone shouldn't take the law into their own hands but the police are usually get there long after things go down and all they can do is take a report and say sorry about your luck.

I'm glad the homeowner wasn't hurt and the perp got owned. I see nothing wrong with what the homeowner did. The jerk that got shot caused the whole thing. Maybe if he acted in a civilized manner, called the police and said he hit someones vehicle and wanted a officer to respond to take a report, this wouldn't have happened.

As far as I'm concerned, el-jerko caused it all and he brought it onto himself.

No sympathy here except for the homeowner.

NEOH212
10-18-2012, 03:19
In general, if one initiates a confrontation, one can not then claim self defense.

I don't know the particulars of this one though.

And that's exactly why the law needs to change. That's just plain wrong in situations like this.

I'm not saying the law should allow people to start a fight and shoot someone but there are instances just like this one where there at least need to be exceptions to the law.

Psychman
10-18-2012, 04:48
Guy hits homeowners vehicle and tries to get away.
Homeowner confronts driver about damage done to his vehicle.
Driver pulls knife and slices face of homeowner.
Homeowner fearing for his life shoots driver to stop the threat.
Homeowner is 67 and driver is 33.
This should be a no brainer for a grand jury or prosecutor.

Eurodriver
10-18-2012, 07:19
Guy hits homeowners vehicle and tries to get away.
Homeowner confronts driver about damage done to his vehicle.
Driver pulls knife and slices face of homeowner.
Homeowner fearing for his life shoots driver to stop the threat.
Homeowner is 67 and driver is 33.
This should be a no brainer for a grand jury or prosecutor.

"should".

Unfortunately, he was being a "vigilante" depending on you ask. :upeyes:

mgs
10-18-2012, 07:38
I just have one problem with this. The one problem is that only one round was spent.

Spot on! A direct quote from LE to me. "The only reason to fire one shot is that your/my gun jammed. We are taught to fire multiple shots as needed to end a threat of deadly force". One shot is as much trouble as 6 or maybe 17.

Gallium
10-18-2012, 07:50
The guy with the gun initiated the confrontation. Just saying.


Assuming the content, timeline and perspectives of the article are 100% correct (and it hardly ever is).


1. Young adult male crashes into vehicle of homeowner
2. Homeowner goes out to investigate, sees his new vehicle has been hit. It is established that he is the 1st, and so far only victim
3. Sees who he (correctly) assumes is the crasher attempting to flee, and in turn attempts to stop the crasher from leaving - actions which are completely legal AND REASONABLE in every state in the union. He has not used any level of force except for verbal commands to require compliance. The article did not say he pointed the gun at this time, or that he stood in the path of the vehicle, or that he made ANY physical contact with the perpetrator.
4. Crasher slashes the face of the homeowner - the only real actual victim so far is now a victim x 2.
5. Homeowner shoots victim once (great self restraint?), stopping the threat against his mortality.

I am sorry Detectorist, based on the information in the article, there is no data there to substantiate your assertion. There is also no logic to how you could have possibly arrived at the conclusion as quoted above. What you have expressed is simply warped, wishful thinking, even for NY, MA, CA or any of the horrid anti-gun, thug cuddling states.

The homeowner did not initiate anything. Look up the general and legal definitions of the word. None of us are lawfully required to retreat if someone else has damaged our property.

--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o

In fact, with regards to automobiles, MOST STATES have a mechanism in place for two or more parties to exchange information without the involvement of law enforcement, and many states make it a criminal affair (misdemeanor or felony) to leave the scene of a motor vehicle accident ("hit and run" laws). There are only three states (or four, IIRC) where fleeing from a fatality at a hit and run is not a felony.

Here is a compendium on hit and run laws for all of the states.

http://www.deadlyroads.com/state-laws.html

- G

mgs
10-18-2012, 07:51
The guy with the gun initiated the confrontation. Just saying.

He's allowed if his property is involved. It did not say he approached the truck driver with his gun drawn. He defended himself after the knife was put into play. You can question anyone in public about anything as long as you don't detain them or hold them at gunpoint....that is called reckless endangerment.

Gallium
10-18-2012, 07:54
He's allowed if his property is involved. It did not say he approached the truck driver with his gun drawn. He defended himself after the knife was put into play. You can question anyone in public about anything as long as you don't detain them or hold them at gunpoint....that is called reckless endangerment.

(Part bolded...) it depends on the state, but yes, it can be, among other things reckless endangerment. I suspect you are not going to get much traction from Detectorist. His position was wrong to start off with, illogical and un-defendable.

Who the hell would post crap like that? It does not add up...

mgs
10-18-2012, 08:00
(Part bolded...) it depends on the state, but yes, it can be, among other things reckless endangerment. I suspect you are not going to get much traction from Detectorist. His position was wrong to start off with, illogical and un-defendable.

Who the hell would post crap like that? It does not add up...

Got it....in PA your vehicle is an extention of your home so you can even stand your ground there!

Mayhem like Me
10-18-2012, 08:01
In general, if one initiates a confrontation, one can not then claim self defense.

I don't know the particulars of this one though.

You are incorrect..

and not even in the ballpark for the first part.

your last line is correct.


Ther is no "general rule" all cases are judged on the specific facts known AT THE TIME force was used...

M&P15T
10-18-2012, 08:05
I see a common flaw in some people's thought process in this situation, and the Trayvon Martin shooting.

It seems difficult for most to comprehend that it's not illegal to confront someone. Confronting someone is not illegal, but slashing someone's face, or bashing their head on the concrete after jumping them from behind, is. And deadly use of force is then o.k. to use.

We're turning into a society of whimps, where everyone is afraid to confront others because they think it's somehow illegal.

Psychman
10-18-2012, 08:15
Assuming the content, timeline and perspectives of the article are 100% correct (and it hardly ever is).


1. Young adult male crashes into vehicle of homeowner
2. Homeowner goes out to investigate, sees his new vehicle has been hit. It is established that he is the 1st, and so far only victim
3. Sees who he (correctly) assumes is the crasher attempting to flee, and in turn attempts to stop the crasher from leaving - actions which are completely legal AND REASONABLE in every state in the union. He has not used any level of force except for verbal commands to require compliance. The article did not say he pointed the gun at this time, or that he stood in the path of the vehicle, or that he made ANY physical contact with the perpetrator.
4. Crasher slashes the face of the homeowner - the only real actual victim so far is now a victim x 2.
5. Homeowner shoots victim once (great self restraint?), stopping the threat against his mortality.

I am sorry Detectorist, based on the information in the article, there is no data there to substantiate your assertion. There is also no logic to how you could have possibly arrived at the conclusion as quoted above. What you have expressed is simply warped, wishful thinking, even for NY, MA, CA or any of the horrid anti-gun, thug cuddling states.

The homeowner did not initiate anything. Look up the general and legal definitions of the word. None of us are lawfully required to retreat if someone else has damaged our property.

--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o--o

In fact, with regards to automobiles, MOST STATES have a mechanism in place for two or more parties to exchange information without the involvement of law enforcement, and many states make it a criminal affair (misdemeanor or felony) to leave the scene of a motor vehicle accident ("hit and run" laws). There are only three states (or four, IIRC) where fleeing from a fatality at a hit and run is not a felony.

Here is a compendium on hit and run laws for all of the states.

http://www.deadlyroads.com/state-laws.html

- G


Thanks for expanding on my list. Good job!

droidfire
10-18-2012, 08:18
One shot is as much trouble as 6 or maybe 17.

Not even close.

Each bullet you release becomes your responsibility. Each round increases the chances of unintended consequences.

If shot 16 ricochets into some kids face, then maybe that one is more trouble then the 15 before it?

mgs
10-18-2012, 08:27
Not even close.

Each bullet you release becomes your responsibility. Each round increases the chances of unintended consequences.

If shot 16 ricochets into some kids face, then maybe that one is more trouble then the 15 before it?

That is true....just ask NYPD and all the bystanders that got shot!

SpectreRider
10-18-2012, 09:28
"It's a little extreme to shoot somebody, but it's extreme to slice somebody's face too," said Judith Lovato who works in the area.

What exactly do you suppose she thinks is the correct response to an assault with a deadly weapon?

390ish
10-18-2012, 10:14
Its New Mexico, no telling what will happen.