GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-17-2012, 14:55   #1
NH Trucker
Needs coffee...
 
NH Trucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,176
Hit And Run Driver Brings Knife To A Gunfight

Seems the driver made a few mistakes.




http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/h...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.
NH Trucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 15:19   #2
badge315
Senior Member
 
badge315's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Middleburg, FL
Posts: 3,699
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.
__________________
"I am the sum of all evil...yet many still seek me out; a green jewel they must possess. But see how I destroy their lives."

- The Loc-Nar
badge315 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 15:22   #3
RonS
Senior Member
 
RonS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Oh, USA
Posts: 10,172
Hope plastic surgery can fix him up he has mimimal trouble with the law, criminal and civil.
__________________
Decent law abiding people must fear criminals and the law while criminals have nothing to fear.
RonS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 15:26   #4
Hailstorm
Boom Shacka
 
Hailstorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canton Mi
Posts: 5,569


I just have one problem with this. The one problem is that only one round was spent.
__________________
Practice Random acts of Kindness
Hailstorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 15:29   #5
NH Trucker
Needs coffee...
 
NH Trucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by badge315 View Post
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.

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.
NH Trucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 15:37   #6
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,155


We should setup an internet fund to pay for the homeowner's medical bills and send him to DisneyWorld.
gwalchmai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 17:01   #7
Detectorist
Senior Member
 
Detectorist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Robertsville, MO
Posts: 7,557
The guy with the gun initiated the confrontation. Just saying.
__________________
NASM-Certified Personal Trainer

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place. George Bernard Shaw
Detectorist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 17:11   #8
badge315
Senior Member
 
badge315's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Middleburg, FL
Posts: 3,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detectorist View Post
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.
__________________
"I am the sum of all evil...yet many still seek me out; a green jewel they must possess. But see how I destroy their lives."

- The Loc-Nar
badge315 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 17:15   #9
TK-421
Senior Member
 
TK-421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Trucker View Post
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.
TK-421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2012, 17:19   #10
M&P Shooter
Metal Member
 
M&P Shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: PA
Posts: 10,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by badge315 View Post
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
__________________
I walk through the valley of the shadow of death but it's cool because my Glock 23 is loaded with 180gr HST!
M&P Shooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 01:04   #11
Detectorist
Senior Member
 
Detectorist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Robertsville, MO
Posts: 7,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by badge315 View Post
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.
__________________
NASM-Certified Personal Trainer

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place. George Bernard Shaw
Detectorist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 03:17   #12
NEOH212
Diesel Girl
 
NEOH212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North East Ohio
Posts: 8,801
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.
__________________
When we do hit it we hit it out of the park and send it over to China as quickly as possible to cheapen it and sell it.
NEOH212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 03:19   #13
NEOH212
Diesel Girl
 
NEOH212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North East Ohio
Posts: 8,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detectorist View Post
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.
__________________
When we do hit it we hit it out of the park and send it over to China as quickly as possible to cheapen it and sell it.
NEOH212 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 04:48   #14
Psychman
NRA Life Member
 
Psychman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 6,347
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.
__________________
NRA Life Member

NCOWS
Hey, I just love guns.
Psychman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 07:19   #15
Eurodriver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychman View Post
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.
Eurodriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 07:38   #16
mgs
Always Carrying
 
mgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: cogan station, pa, usa
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hailstorm View Post
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.

Last edited by mgs; 10-18-2012 at 07:45..
mgs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 07:50   #17
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by Detectorist View Post
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
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 07:51   #18
mgs
Always Carrying
 
mgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: cogan station, pa, usa
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detectorist View Post
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.
mgs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 07:54   #19
Gallium
CLM Number 182
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Gallium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 47,557


Quote:
Originally Posted by mgs View Post
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...
Gallium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 08:00   #20
mgs
Always Carrying
 
mgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: cogan station, pa, usa
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallium View Post
(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!
mgs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 08:01   #21
Mayhem like Me
Semper Paratus
 
Mayhem like Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 15,152
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Detectorist View Post
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...
__________________
How do you establish intent?
Well when a naked man is chasing a woman down an alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he's not collecting for the red cross...Inspector H. Callahan
Mayhem like Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 08:05   #22
M&P15T
Beard One
 
M&P15T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Arlington, VA.
Posts: 9,122
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.
__________________
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (519 BC 430 BC) Power should only be given to those that want it least.
M&P15T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 08:15   #23
Psychman
NRA Life Member
 
Psychman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 6,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallium View Post
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!
__________________
NRA Life Member

NCOWS
Hey, I just love guns.
Psychman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 08:18   #24
droidfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: All over, United States.
Posts: 1,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgs View Post
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?
droidfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2012, 08:27   #25
mgs
Always Carrying
 
mgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: cogan station, pa, usa
Posts: 3,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by droidfire View Post
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!
mgs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:27.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 692
207 Members
485 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42