Your road rage stories? How do you handle it.
- Thread starter ks123
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Maverick44
Youngest old man on TGT.
I did an image search for that, and the second image to pop up was this forum's logo. I think we're permanently associated with that now.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Gay...1eXMAhWl64MKHU1oCNYQ_AUIBygB&biw=1366&bih=635
Here's your turtle.
An example of what not to do.
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/17/houston-road-rage-incident-devolves-into-all-out-brawl/
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/17/houston-road-rage-incident-devolves-into-all-out-brawl/
Heck, that is an every day thing in Houston.
That is a tortoise.I did an image search for that, and the second image to pop up was this forum's logo. I think we're permanently associated with that now.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Gay...1eXMAhWl64MKHU1oCNYQ_AUIBygB&biw=1366&bih=635
Here's your turtle.
Maverick44
Youngest old man on TGT.
So after reading some of this thread, OP is at fault for a gesture and if the other guy ran him off road it would have been his fault, legally even? Interesting.
I see a fine line between being mature and a coward in some of these posts. I'm not advocating road rage or OP's actions specifically, but to say that because he flipped a guy off he's the only at fault party is a stretch.
No one other than OP has, in their adult life apparently, made a negative gesture or comment to another motorist, ever? No one has ever waived their hands in a WTF manner or said **** off?
Sometimes you can not avoid the will of another to do harm, no matter your actions. Isn't that why we carry guns in the first place?
One can attempt to de-escalate a situation and make it worse. There's no predicting crazy.
I've seen people just look at someone the wrong way with that being enough to set them off. Should I not make eye contact and head my head when another motorist looks in my direction?
High horses hurt more when you fall off them.
Sent from some where out there.
I see a fine line between being mature and a coward in some of these posts. I'm not advocating road rage or OP's actions specifically, but to say that because he flipped a guy off he's the only at fault party is a stretch.
No one other than OP has, in their adult life apparently, made a negative gesture or comment to another motorist, ever? No one has ever waived their hands in a WTF manner or said **** off?
Sometimes you can not avoid the will of another to do harm, no matter your actions. Isn't that why we carry guns in the first place?
One can attempt to de-escalate a situation and make it worse. There's no predicting crazy.
I've seen people just look at someone the wrong way with that being enough to set them off. Should I not make eye contact and head my head when another motorist looks in my direction?
High horses hurt more when you fall off them.
Sent from some where out there.
BigTexasOne
Support gun control! Hit what you aim at!
When I was a kid, learning to drive, my father taught me something that has stuck with me ever since. And now that I'm old and road rage has become an issue it seems even more appropriate. He wants said to me : you can't teach another person about driving if they are in another car. You can't reason with them and you can't explain your side to them , so don't try, just get out of their way and let them crash or kill someone else.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
zincwarrior
TGT Addict
I don't believe anyone has posted that but I could be wrong.
Maverick44
Youngest old man on TGT.
No one has defended the other guy's actions. He's a jackass period. The OP though instigated that entire exchange because of his immature actions. That's where he's at fault, and that's why he would be in big trouble if the exchange had turned deadly.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
I strongly suspect the OP is enjoying a huge laugh at the response he's gotten.
Mostly, because I think what he posted didn't happen.
He set up the whole thing, then sat back and waited for the emotionally outraged to start in with their bluster.
By now he's probably eaten a whole container of Orville Redenbacher laughing and hooting the whole time.
Suckers!
Mostly, because I think what he posted didn't happen.
He set up the whole thing, then sat back and waited for the emotionally outraged to start in with their bluster.
By now he's probably eaten a whole container of Orville Redenbacher laughing and hooting the whole time.
Suckers!
Maverick44
Youngest old man on TGT.
Looking at some of his other posts, I would tend to agree. It was still a good discussion on what NOT to do on the road.
I think it was covered on page 6 or page 8 how I was shocked how everyone seems to have a "holier than thou" attitude and how this forum is full of the most zen, non-conflict people in the world.
That is absolutely amazing advice, 100% serious
Still not 100% sure about the legalities of giving someone the finger and them running you off the road and killing you or you having to kill them (because they tried to kill you).
But im somewhat sure that the whole trend in this thread of "if you gave someone the finger and they ran you off the road and attempted to kill you" and you killed them, it would no longer be "defending yourself" because you instigated it, is somewhat a stretch. as I said before, I know my middle finger is very harmful to someones feelings but I dont believe a sufficient response is trying to kill me with your 2000 pound vehicle
I have spend many of an entertained night before or after work/gym/etc reading this thread but the way I wrote it down is 100% the way I perceived the event
And it was kettlecorn, incase you were wondering lol
2 things.
#1 I will whole heartedly concede that the entire event was stupid and childish and possibly avoidable
#2 The most valuable thing I learned from this entire thread and event? Never give a statement to ANYONE without your lawyer present. Why? Because this thread has taught me that not everyone perceives things the way you do
Maverick44
Youngest old man on TGT.
And this is why you would most likely be going to jail had things turned deadly and you shot the guy. It was avoidable. You purposely didn't avoid it. The jury would not look at that fact very kindly.
I seem to remember a case were a verbal argument ended up a self defense situation where the provocateur started getting his ass kicked, used his weapon, and was not convicted.
If any one thinks that words or a non life threatening gesture is grounds for losing self defense status, then would you assume that if someone said "I'm gonna kill you." with no other physical advancement and you shot them, you wouldn't be convicted. Hey, it's because "He started it!" right?
Texas has a version of the "stand your ground" law, yes? So the "it was avoidable you go to jail" argument doesn't apply?
There's a difference between stupid and illegal.
Sent from some where out there.
If any one thinks that words or a non life threatening gesture is grounds for losing self defense status, then would you assume that if someone said "I'm gonna kill you." with no other physical advancement and you shot them, you wouldn't be convicted. Hey, it's because "He started it!" right?
Texas has a version of the "stand your ground" law, yes? So the "it was avoidable you go to jail" argument doesn't apply?
There's a difference between stupid and illegal.
Sent from some where out there.
Maverick44
Youngest old man on TGT.
Texas Penal Code
§ 9.31
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b),a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-31.html#sthash.NyTq2uc3.dpuf
§ 9.31
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b),a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-31.html#sthash.NyTq2uc3.dpuf
Staff online
-
robertc1024Moderator
Members online
- boomgoesthedynamite
- AKM47
- ZX9RCAM
- Big Green
- rl96ss
- Mic
- Dred
- robertc1024
- cleysath
- Darkpriest667
- TipBledsoe
- crystalphoto
- TexCzech
- Stuck-n- CA
- Nick!
- brashears9567
- McCrapper
- innominate
- RevolverGuy
- tinplas
- Johnny Diamond
- Otto_Mation
- Darqhelmet
- zackmars
- Jeff S
- Emow
- jwhistler
- A.Texas.Yankee
- Elias010
- Texasgordo
- Sparsky
- Orbie
- easy rider
- cpaken
- skfullgun
- zw150202
- lonestardiver
- Pachucko
- SIG_Fiend
- 13centkiller
- llbts1
- Bozz10mm
- kbaxter60
- RankAmateur
- myroverleaks
- Armybrat
- Bigguy
- Roscoe
- Steve In Texas
- Rhino
