Road Rage at it Best - Good Grief!

[Praxeas]

Just before noon, the victim's vehicle swerved and inadvertently ran the assailant's Nissan off the road in the westbound lanes of U.S. 78, near Bethel Road, according to Olive Branch Police Chief Art Heun.


Sounds like something caused the victims car to swerve...like another vehicle or something in the road way.

After being forced onto the road shoulder, the Nissan re-entered the road, passed another westbound driver at high speed, then pulled up next to the victim's car,

Speaking of idiot drivers....he possibly risked the lives of others not only by discharging a weapon on the freeway but speeding and passying other cars

[Mike Williamson]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

1) The natural inclination is to label the other shooter as the criminal. I am attempting to show that the other guy in a positive light-- for all we know he really a good guy who suffered a judgment lapse. But we are naturally inclined to not see him the shooter that way.

Bro, there was NO "other" shooter...there was THE shooter. Of course we look differently at the shooter than we do the person who most likely accidentally ran this guy off the road...

2) My basis for arguing that this idiot had malicious intent is the fact that he showed a lack of regard for the affects of his actions-- typical of other idiot drivers that don't consider how dangerous their driving is to the general public.

3) That's not the proper response for the shooter or for us.


Arresting and charging the shooter will no way bring justice to the idiot who caused all of this in the first place.

If the idiot driver had been driving drunk, would that change this situation at all for you guys?

Bro, there was NO "other" shooter...there was THE shooter. Of course we look differently at the shooter than we do the person who most likely accidentally ran this guy off the road...

You seem to be having a real problem differentiating between the seriousness of a traffic accident and an intentional shooting.

Had the guy been driving drunk and ran the idiot shooter off the road, it still wouldn't warrant shooting him...

I understand his anger...what I don't understand is your seeming justification of his irrational response to that anger.

Yes, locking him up will bring justice...Most definitely.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

How do we know it was inadvertent? Serious question.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Cindy,

The shooter acted irrational, but I can understand his anger.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Mike Williamson

Bro, there was NO "other" shooter...there was THE shooter. Of course we look differently at the shooter than we do the person who most likely accidentally ran this guy off the road...

You seem to be having a real problem differentiating between the seriousness of a traffic accident and an intentional shooting.

Had the guy been driving drunk and ran the idiot shooter off the road, it still wouldn't warrant shooting him...

I understand his anger...what I don't understand is your seeming justification of his irrational response to that anger.

Yes, locking him up will bring justice...Most definitely.

yeah I know, I mis typed-- I was thinking "shooter" and "other guy" when I wrote that.


I do not justify the shooter's actions.

I do state that if he is caught, the punishment that would be carried out by the courts (speculation) against this guy would not address the entire situation.

So it wouldn't be "fair", in the strictest sense of the word.

We want to lock this guy up for a long time, fine him a large amount of money when he was simply "reactive" in a bad situation.


There is a man in Texas who is "scot free" for shooting and killing someone who was breaking into his neighbors home. The burglar was leaving the property, the neighbors were not home, the emergency dispatchers told the guy to not shoot the burglar but he did it anyway-- killing the guy who was not even a threat to him.

His actions were praised.

The courts did not punish him at all.


Here you have a good man who was provoked, could have been severely injured or killed, he responds and because of Mississippi law, he could get some serious time in the slammer.

While the man who provoked the whole episode walks away "scot free".

If his actions were inadvertent, then why didn't he stop to make sure that his victim was alright?

Because he did not care.

He didn't call the cops or emergency personnel because he did not care.

He did what he did and we would have never heard about any of this, if his victim did not decide to shoot the idiot that didn't care about his actions that could have severely injured or killed an innocent man.

The idiot would have kept driving, as if nothing is wrong, only to cut someone off again, cause another accident and injure someone else.

"Justice", in the truest sense would not be served if the shooter in this case was tried in our court system.

[meBNme]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

1)
Arresting and charging the shooter will no way bring justice to the idiot who caused all of this in the first place.

Its not supposed to. That's crazy. If you want to bring charges against the swervy driver fine, I have no problem with that.
But NOT arresting and charging the shooter will not bring justice to idiot shooters either.

If the idiot driver had been driving drunk, would that change this situation at all for you guys?

Nope. I don't think anyone here is saying the driver was completely innocent. I certainly am not. But even if he were drunk, high, stoned out of his mind, and wearing women's lacy underwear on his head the shooter was still wrong in committing the criminal activity of shooting him.

The only way the shooter would have been justified in shooting would have been if the driver were shooting or waving a gun at HIM, physically, actively, repeatedly, purposefully TRYING TO run him off the road and leaving him no room to escape.

The guy made him swerve.

[Mike Williamson]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

yeah I know, I mis typed-- I was thinking "shooter" and "other guy" when I wrote that.


I do not justify the shooter's actions.

I do state that if he is caught, the punishment that would be carried out by the courts (speculation) against this guy would not address the entire situation.

So it wouldn't be "fair", in the strictest sense of the word.

We want to lock this guy up for a long time, fine him a large amount of money when he was simply "reactive" in a bad situation.

Yes, he was "reactive"...He SHOT a man over a traffic incident. If someone running him off the road is all it takes for him to shoot someone, he NEEDS to be locked up...You seem to think he was pushed into doing this....That it is somehow justified..

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

There is a man in Texas who is "scot free" for shooting and killing someone who was breaking into his neighbors home. The burglar was leaving the property, the neighbors were not home, the emergency dispatchers told the guy to not shoot the burglar but he did it anyway-- killing the guy who was not even a threat to him.

His actions were praised.

The courts did not punish him at all.

I've heard that clip. What's that got to do with a man shooting someone for a traffic incident? I had a guy slam on his brakes in front of me tonight on the way home from church and swerve to the shoulder because he apparently thought I had my brights on. I almost hit him, and then he turned his brights on after I went around him... Made me angry. Should I have shot him? I mean, he sure pushed me!

Apparently it's ok to hurt people if they push you.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Here you have a good man who was provoked, could have been severely injured or killed, he responds and because of Mississippi law, he could get some serious time in the slammer.

While the man who provoked the whole episode walks away "scot free".

If his actions were inadvertent, then why didn't he stop to make sure that his victim was alright?

Because he did not care.

You make this sound like the guy ran the other guy's car off the road, off a cliff, into the trees, or whatever...sounds more like the guy had to hit the shoulder to avoid hitting the "idiot" driver. His car certainly couldn't have been damaged much, if at all...He didn't have a problem catching up with the offender. I wouldn't have stopped either if there was no damage...You're assuming a lot with this incident.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

He didn't call the cops or emergency personnel because he did not care.

He did what he did and we would have never heard about any of this, if his victim did not decide to shoot the idiot that didn't care about his actions that could have severely injured or killed an innocent man.

The idiot would have kept driving, as if nothing is wrong, only to cut someone off again, cause another accident and injure someone else.

"Justice", in the truest sense would not be served if the shooter in this case was tried in our court system.

What makes you think this person would have ever run someone else off the road? You miss the point. One act was an accident. The other was intentional.