Your road rage stories? How do you handle it.

[txinvestigator]

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.

Nice try... there is a difference between "he started it" and provocation. Some of you are also confusing how self defense laws work. You have to establish that you met the defense to prosecution in a self defense claim. Penal code chapter 9 states that there is no justification if you provoke the other person. Thst does not mean that the other person can attack without penalty.

Also, stand your ground is irrelevant in this discussion. Chapter 9 states that a person is not required to retreat before using force or deadly force if he didn't provoke the other person, he had a right to be present at the location where the force or deadly force was being used, and he was not committing a crime at the time .

The finger can be disorderly conduct, a crime. The finger is provocation, as is the rest of the OPS behavior.

No one here is suggesting that the other driver was innocent or that the behavior of the OP justified force by the other driver. If the other driver was here asking for advice or bragging about his own behavior we would address him. But he is not. This is about the OP

One cannot justify bad (or unlawful) behavior by pointing out other bad (or unlawful) behavior.

I am reminded of the case in Houston where a guy went to his neighbors property and provoked others by videotaping their " wild party". He ended up shooting and killing someone who confronted him, and he now sits in prison.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

When threads don't appeal to you whoever you may be, why do you feel compelled to request the mods to shut them down?

I never understand this request.

No one is forced to read threads they don't find to their liking.

Here's the answer to such requests.

Don't read the thread, don't try to get it censored as often times others do find it interesting.

Unless you are being forced to read a thread you don't find interesting, just move on.

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

Nice try... there is a difference between "he started it" and provocation. Some of you are also confusing how self defense laws work. You have to establish that you met the defense to prosecution in a self defense claim. Penal code chapter 9 states that there is no justification if you provoke the other person. Thst does not mean that the other person can attack without penalty.

Also, stand your ground is irrelevant in this discussion. Chapter 9 states that a person is not required to retreat before using force or deadly force if he didn't provoke the other person, he had a right to be present at the location where the force or deadly force was being used, and he was not committing a crime at the time .

The finger can be disorderly conduct, a crime. The finger is provocation, as is the rest of the OPS behavior.

No one here is suggesting that the other driver was innocent or that the behavior of the OP justified force by the other driver. If the other driver was here asking for advice or bragging about his own behavior we would address him. But he is not. This is about the OP

One cannot justify bad (or unlawful) behavior by pointing out other bad (or unlawful) behavior.

I am reminded of the case in Houston where a guy went to his neighbors property and provoked others by videotaping their " wild party". He ended up shooting and killing someone who confronted him, and he now sits in prison.

He has a right to be in his vehicle, an extension of his home, on public travel routes, so he would not have to retreat if attacked.

Middle finger, alone, is not considered disorderly conduct and therfore could be argued it's also not provocation. Texas courts say as much and overturned conviction where a guy was charged with just that, saying the finger is not alone an illegal act.

Your example of the guy video taping is different. That guy went out of his way onto property not his and without knowing the rest, obviously wasn't able to prove self defense. This scenario would be closer to: guy 1 was filming from his property... Guy 2 didn't like it and guy 1 flipped him off... Guy 2 enters property of guy 1... Yada Yada Yada.

Saying that you lose your right to self defense because you gave someone the bird is silly. Some courts recognize it as being covered under first amendment. I doubt the Supreme Court has seen a case to make a ruling.

Your actions after that point might cause you to lose your defense to prosecution, but not the act of giving the bird, itself.

Sent from some where out there.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

A.T.Y.

If you provoke a fight and then kill the guy when he is provoked, are you in the right?

 

[Maverick44]

Texas Penal Code

§ 42.01. Disorderly Conduct



(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:


(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;


(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;


(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

(6) fights with another in a public place;

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act;  or

(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:

(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;

(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room;  or

(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

(a-1) For purposes of Subsection (a), the term “public place” includes a public school campus or the school grounds on which a public school is located.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.

(c) For purposes of this section:

(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence;  and

(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.

(f) Subsections (a)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) do not apply to a person who, at the time the person engaged in conduct prohibited under the applicable subdivision, was a student younger than 12 years of age, and the prohibited conduct occurred at a public school campus during regular school hours.

(g) Noise arising from space flight activities, as defined by Section 100A.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, if lawfully conducted, does not constitute “unreasonable noise” for purposes of this section.

 

[txinvestigator]

He has a right to be in his vehicle, an extension of his home, on public travel routes, so he would not have to retreat if attacked.

His vehicle is NOT an extension of his home under ANY laws, specifically weapons and self-defense laws. Read the code. If you provoke the attack, you lose the "non duty to retreat". If you are committing a crime, you lose the "no duty to retreat". Also, though it does not apply to this case, if you are at a place where you have no right to be you lose the non duty to retreat.

Middle finger, alone, is not considered disorderly conduct and therfore could be argued it's also not provocation. Texas courts say as much and overturned conviction where a guy was charged with just that, saying the finger is not alone an illegal act.

The ruling did not make all acts of flipping the bird unlawful. It is still unlawful if the act tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Int certainly did in this case.

Your example of the guy video taping is different. That guy went out of his way onto property not his and without knowing the rest, obviously wasn't able to prove self defense. This scenario would be closer to: guy 1 was filming from his property... Guy 2 didn't like it and guy 1 flipped him off... Guy 2 enters property of guy 1... Yada Yada Yada.

What it shows is that there CAN be a duty a retreat, despite your statement that there is not.

Saying that you lose your right to self defense because you gave someone the bird is silly. Some courts recognize it as being covered under first amendment. I doubt the Supreme Court has seen a case to make a ruling.

You have no "right" to self defense. Self defense is a defense to prosecution that requires justifications outlined in chapter 9. Justifications that are limited with restrictions.

Your actions after that point might cause you to lose your defense to prosecution, but not the act of giving the bird, itself.

Sent from some where out there.

The courts, and I, disagree with you. Review the case to which you refer. Read the entire opinion.

 

[txinvestigator]

A.T.Y.

If you provoke a fight and then kill the guy when he is provoked, are you in the right?

What does "in the right" mean? Penal code chapter 9 outlines when deadly force is justified and provides a defense to prosecution, and when that justification is removed.

 

[jrbfishn]

Edit.

sent from an idgit coffeeholic

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

His vehicle is NOT an extension of his home under ANY laws, specifically weapons and self-defense laws. Read the code. If you provoke the attack, you lose the "non duty to retreat". If you are committing a crime, you lose the "no duty to retreat". Also, though it does not apply to this case, if you are at a place where you have no right to be you lose the non duty to retreat.

The ruling did not make all acts of flipping the bird unlawful. It is still unlawful if the act tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Int certainly did in this case.

What it shows is that there CAN be a duty a retreat, despite your statement that there is not.

You have no "right" to self defense. Self defense is a defense to prosecution that requires justifications outlined in chapter 9. Justifications that are limited with restrictions.

The courts, and I, disagree with you. Review the case to which you refer. Read the entire opinion.

Texas Law Shield, which you are big supporter of and I also a member of, seems to think it's an extension of the home:

Just proving that everything is bigger in Texas, our law extends the “Castle Doctrine” beyond your residence to include your occupied vehicle and workplace.

Extends the castle (your home) to include occupied vehicle... Extension of the home.

Flipping the bird is not enough to provoke an attack. It may considered disorderly conduct, but there is case laws saying it may not be. Show me, in all your legal expertise with case documented law, that flipping the bird is provocation removing the defense to prosecution in self defense. Then I'll concede. The only case in Texas I could find was a case of disorderly conduct where the defendant used his middle finger and that case was overturned and defendant won. So where don't the courts agree with me? Show me a case where someone gave a guy the middle finger in place he was within legal bounds of being there and was attacked, used his firearm in self defense, and was prosecuted because he lost his defense to prosecution for flipping the guy off.

If a guy is trying to run you off the road and potentially kill you, and all you did was give him the bird.. Oh gosh... Well, damn this guy is trying to kill me... Well ****, I can't defend myself because I flipped him off a few miles ago. Oh well...

Stupid.

Anyone has a right to self defense 100% of the time. That right is God given and not a power granted by courts and for exactly this reason.

Sent from some where out there.

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

A.T.Y.

If you provoke a fight and then kill the guy when he is provoked, are you in the right?

If I make a non life threatening gesture and the receiving end attempts to end my life over it, yes, I'm in the right to defend myself.

Provocation is subjective. Someone looking at someone could provoke them to a physical altercation.

Sent from some where out there.

 

[Maverick44]

If I make a non life threatening gesture and the receiving end attempts to end my life over it, yes, I'm in the right to defend myself.

Provocation is subjective. Someone looking at someone could provoke them to a physical altercation.

Sent from some where out there.

Flipping someone off is universally seen as provocative. You flip me off, I consider that an insult. I flip you off, and I intend that to be an insult. No matter how much you say it's not provocative, the fact remains that it is. It wouldn't be considered disorderly conduct if it wasn't.

So if you flip someone off and escalate the situation to the point that you have to take the other guy's life, your ass is going to be put on trial because you provoked him and ultimately caused the fight.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

TXI,

My "in the right" question wasn't clear.

I'll try to be more articulate.

So, trying once again, if someone deliberately provokes another person and is then attacked due to his provocation, does the provoking person have a defense against prosecution? Or, is it really up to a jury if the incident gets that far?

I appreciate some think being flashed the middle finger is not reason enough for provocation. I don't know what world they live in, but many, if not most folks, get highly provoked when flashed ye ole middle digit. I would guess that many a fight, some resulting in death have occurred when this ugly hand gesture is displayed.

 

[Maverick44]

If a guy is trying to run you off the road and potentially kill you, and all you did was give him the bird.. Oh gosh... Well, damn this guy is trying to kill me... Well ****, I can't defend myself because I flipped him off a few miles ago. Oh well...

At that point, things are different. If you retreat after provoking the person and they continue to go after you, lethal force is justified.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(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;

The problem here is, the OP didn't do that. He kept on screwing with the guy. Had he used lethal force to defend himself, it would not have been justified.

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

Flipping someone off is universally seen as provocative. You flip me off, I consider that an insult. I flip you off, and I intend that to be an insult. No matter how much you say it's not provocative, the fact remains that it is. It wouldn't be considered disorderly conduct if it wasn't.

So if you flip someone off and escalate the situation to the point that you have to take the other guy's life, your ass is going to be put on trial because you provoked him and ultimately caused the fight.

It's subjective and as I said, Texas courts ruled otherwise (it not necessarily being able DO). You say it's an insult. So I call your mom a fat and you try to kill me I lost my legal defense to self defense? I don't think so.

Flipping someone off AND escalating the situation is different. You are doing more than just giving someone the bird then, depending on your escalation, I would agree.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

ETA I'm at my 3 post argument limit, I'm out.

 

[Younggun]

Maverick is laying down a Penal smack down in here.


It's almost obscene.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[casp625]

Since I started carrying in the carrying, I always set my cruise a few bumps above the speed limit. I generally don't speed like I used to and if I am gaining on a car and its clear in the left lane, I will move over and pass. However, I have had a car come flying up on my rear many times and they either - tailgate hella-hard or try to fly around me on the right if they see a gap. I move back over to the right when I'm finished passing and let the guy go flying past me. It's always a good laugh when I see that same car pulled over a couple miles down the road.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

The far left lane IS called the passing lane for a reason...

 

[zincwarrior]

Warning: People are arguing about points of law WHO ARE NOT LAWYERS. Unless you've reviewed actual case law, it would be a very bad call to read them and believe they are controlling.

Going forward-don't give the finger to someone. It helps avoid the conflict and issues of provocation become irrelevant.

 

[zincwarrior]

Maverick is laying down a Penal smack down in here.


It's almost obscene.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interpretation of law by making "universal statements" is always interesting, but flawed. Fun for the internetz though. As ancient Yoda would say: "rely on them not, you should."


EDIT: if this sounds hostile it is not meant to, but these are issues of criminal law. While they may be discussed it is important to remember, if you have a criminal law question, be sure to consult criminal counsel (but I repeat myself heh heh) on how to proceed in the Real World (TM).

 

[TheDan]

Stupid.

Anyone has a right to self defense 100% of the time. That right is God given and not a power granted by courts and for exactly this reason.

Sticks and stones will get you shot, but words (and birds) will never hurt me.

You're both right... You're arguing the moral position and TXI is arguing the legal. Two completely separate things.