An alert from "next door" in Louisiana

[leVieux]

If the Mississippi River is the "colon" of North America, then New Orleans is the Continent's ANUS.

We have two fairly recent "road rage" shootings, both fatal, here in the past couple years.

Both "shooters" had no criminal record, were legally armed, and were assaulted by ex-pro football players.

Both incidents started with traffic confrontations.

Trials resulted in convictions of both shooters.

While there were significant differences between the two cases, these outcomes demonstrate that juries don't like "self defense" legal defenses. Perhaps these were acts of "juror nullification" of our traditions of "self-defense" rights; and, repudiations of our carry laws and "castle" or "stand your ground" concepts of late.

One was "Will Smith Shooting", the other was "Gasser West Bank Shooting", for those who care to look up.

Perhaps we were wrong to feel secure under recent legislative improvements. The Louisiana laws are very similar to those of Texas, except that the open carry of handguns was legally NEVER prohibited in Louisiana.

F Y I

leVieux

 

[candcallen]

Seriously?

These cases aren't exactly self defense cases in the traditional sense. Nor are they an indictment on stand your ground laws. Neither guy was assaulted by anyone. They contributed to road rage road side cock measuring contest and then pissed on them selves when the other party called their bluff. The guy in the Smith case even shot Smith's wife.

Both shooters contributed to the escalation of the event and shot unarmed people in situations where there was no immediate threat to life nor means to effect a precieved threat.

You don't get to act like Billy bad ass when carrying, especially in the midst of a road rage incident that you had part in creating and then kill cause you "felt" a threat.

If you carry you do all you can to avoid a situation where you are FORCED to take a life.

Hint Hint, a cock measuring contest over who drives like an ars, in your opinion, what or how they drive that is taking place on the side of the road isnt a castle doctrine incident. You have no right to scream yell flip off or fight on the side of the road over someone's driving and claim protection under the castle doctrine like you were walking down the road minding your own buisness.. You especially don't have a right to ram into someone. None of this is even remotely conceivable as something meant to be protected under stand your ground laws.

The jury was gracious in both cases as many would consider them 2nd degree murder crimes.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

While there were significant differences between the two cases, these outcomes demonstrate that juries don't like "self defense" legal defenses.

No, it does not. What it demonstrates is that both cases were not self defense shootings. Just because somebody proclaims "self defense" does not automatically mean that it is self defense.

 

[easy rider]

Unfortunately responsibility doesn't come with a legal purchase of a handgun.

 

[Younggun]

Texas self defense law says if you escalate a situation you aren't covered by self defense.

Very few road rage incidents are one sided. Usually involves two people trying to prove how stupid they are.

 

[pronstar]

Avoiding retarded situations should be rule #1 when carrying (and even when not).




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[grasshopperglock]

I actually looked those shootings up. Will Smith reeks of gang violence. Gasser west bank was reported by a liberal outlet. In fact, all it is coming from liberal media. I'm not seeing legal carry and road rage as the issue. More like punks playing gangster and shooting each other.

I seriously have the notion that social warrior crap is trying to explain away these shootings in terms not true of the situation.

Self-defense my a$$.

 

[easy rider]

I actually looked those shootings up. Will Smith reeks of gang violence. Gasser west bank was reported by a liberal outlet. In fact, all it is coming from liberal media. I'm not seeing legal carry and road rage as the issue. More like punks playing gangster and shooting each other.

I seriously have the notion that social warrior crap is trying to explain away these shootings in terms not true of the situation.

Self-defense my a$$.

Wouldn't surprise me.

 

[leVieux]

Seriously?

These cases aren't exactly self defense cases in the traditional sense. Nor are they an indictment on stand your ground laws. Neither guy was assaulted by anyone. They contributed to road rage road side cock measuring contest and then pissed on them selves when the other party called their bluff. The guy in the Smith case even shot Smith's wife.

Both shooters contributed to the escalation of the event and shot unarmed people in situations where there was no immediate threat to life nor means to effect a precieved threat.

You don't get to act like Billy bad ass when carrying, especially in the midst of a road rage incident that you had part in creating and then kill cause you "felt" a threat.

If you carry you do all you can to avoid a situation where you are FORCED to take a life.

Hint Hint, a cock measuring contest over who drives like an ars, in your opinion, what or how they drive that is taking place on the side of the road isnt a castle doctrine incident. You have no right to scream yell flip off or fight on the side of the road over someone's driving and claim protection under the castle doctrine like you were walking down the road minding your own business.. You especially don't have a right to ram into someone. None of this is even remotely conceivable as something meant to be protected under stand your ground laws.

The jury was gracious in both cases as many would consider them 2nd degree murder crimes.

The "Will Smith" incident was some 3 blocks from where we live. The FACTS were that Smith intentionally ran-into the shooter's car at least 3 times, as on the surveillance videos. At least the first of those times was totally without any provocation. The shooter called 911 and begged them to hurry, at the onset. Smith was legally drunk, as per autopsy. Smith got out of his car, told the shooter "I'm going to get my gun!" (from his car). There was a NOPD Police Officer IN Smith's car during the incident; he didn't help, but was later disciplined for trying to hide Smith's pistol AFTER the shooting. The shooter called 911 and begged for an ambulance for Smith. Drew Brees' attendance at the trial, with the Smith Widow, was a BIG influence on the jury, and should never have been allowed.

The "Gasser" case did begin as a road rage incident, precipitated by the player. Yes, the Gasser deal did have some complicated factors, and he certainly was not without fault. BUT he stayed in his vehicle and the player came up to his window and lunged into it.

I followed both cases via "news" reports; many of which were wildly inaccurate. Both of our local newspapers are extremely leftist, and always distort things like this.

Neither was a straight forward "road rage"shooting.

Point is, that juries want to see more risk (or, some injury) to the defender; and that shooting someone should be an absolute LAST RESORT.

BTW, both player "victims" were Black; one shooter was Black and the other White.

leVieux

 

[leVieux]

I actually looked those shootings up. Will Smith reeks of gang violence. Gasser west bank was reported by a liberal outlet. In fact, all it is coming from liberal media. I'm not seeing legal carry and road rage as the issue. More like punks playing gangster and shooting each other.

I seriously have the notion that social warrior crap is trying to explain away these shootings in terms not true of the situation.

Self-defense my a$$.

Neither shooter had any record of convictions. The Smith shooter had NO "record" and had a valid CHP. Also, please see reply below.

leVieux

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The "Will Smith" incident was some 3 blocks from where we live.

And your geographic proximity to the location of the event is relevant or adds credibility to your argument how? Were you somehow part of the event? If so, you neglected to tell us your part in how things went down.

The FACTS were that Smith...

You failed to provide sources in the opening and failed to do so again. It just seems to odd that you suggested members look up the case in your original post and when we did we found different things than what you are claiming and now you claim that the news sources are wrong and that you have all the "FACTS." Maybe you could direct us to some of these non-leftist news reports with the correct information?

 

[leVieux]

And your geographic proximity to the location of the event is relevant or adds credibility to your argument how? Were you somehow part of the event? If so, you neglected to tell us your part in how things went down.



You failed to provide sources in the opening and failed to do so again. It just seems to odd that you suggested members look up the case in your original post and when we did we found different things than what you are claiming and now you claim that the news sources are wrong and that you have all the "FACTS." Maybe you could direct us to some of these non-leftist news reports with the correct information?

I was just advising those in Texas of these happenings.

I am not a lawyer, and do not intend to argue with a major A H like you on here.

Adios!

leVieux

 

[V-Tach]

I am not a lawyer, and do not intend to argue with a major A H like you on here.

leVieux

Really?

 

[Younggun]

Let's drop the unwarranted personal attacks.

 

[candcallen]

I was just advising those in Texas of these happenings.

I am not a lawyer, and do not intend to argue with a major A H like you on here.

Adios!

leVieux

Don't think anyone been an A Hole.

A troll? The OP Maybe. You weren't just advising, you intended on stirring up something. This is fine as far as I'm concerned unless you get butthurt when people disagree with your suggested opinion.

I could care less about color or gang membership unless it was a hate crime or gang activity was involved in the incident. I care about size only as far as if the incident related to disparity in force.

I also don't care that Smith hit the guys car 3 times before the shooting because the shooter continued down the road and made the choice to ram the car to the point of blocking it. HE CREATED THE SITUATION THAT DIRECTLY LED TO THE SHOOTING. He then shot the guys wife who was no threat. Kinda kills his whole fear for life claim and his actions IN the incident IN NO WAY proves his stand your ground claim. Also calling for help has no bearing on the FACTS of the incident.

If anyone think these guys were justified they need some serious remedial use of force justification training.

 

[candcallen]

Adios!

leVieux

Come on man! Take your ball and go home?

Could you please direct us to the info sources you talked about? If we are wrong I would really like to know. If you still feel the decisions were wrong please support that supposition.

Learning you're right or wrong, and why, is how you advance your knowledge. A side effect of this may be acute anal inflamitory syndrome but it's short lived.

I'm serious.