Man Points Gun on Freeway Driver During Texting Dispute

http://waukesha.patch.com/articles/...-on-i-94-police-say?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001

Car carry is not concealed! Poor timing to removed the holster. Oh, and just because you don't know how to describe how to get somewhere, doesn't mean you don't know how to get there. :banghead:

protias said:

http://waukesha.patch.com/articles/...-on-i-94-police-say?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001

Car carry is not concealed! Poor timing to removed the holster. Oh, and just because you don't know how to describe how to get somewhere, doesn't mean you don't know how to get there. :banghead:

Click to expand...

Is Tran a CCL holder? If not how did a gun in plain sight become a concealed weapon? This is the same thing that happened to MKE. Now Tran will have to prove that he was not pointing a gun at the other person texting while driving. The gun store owner can prove weather Tran was at his store or not. This MAY be a case of taking someone's gun away for nothing. However his actions towards the other person may come into play. Still not a good reason to take his gun away which MAY happen. The powers that be are always looking for an excuse to take our guns away and they are good at it. Tran needs a good lawyer.

I think that Tran screwed himself over big time talking to the cops ... he gave them 99% of what they need to convict.

If he would have said nothing .. the cops would have this evidence:

1) word of other driver that he pointed a gun at him
2) gun was on passenger seat

Likely not enough to convict.

But he talked and now they have:

1) and 2) above PLUS
3) he removed his gun from his holster
4) he did it during the time period in question
5) he put it on the seat during the time period in question
6) admitted to the altercation with the other driver
7) said that the reason for the altercation was to tell the driver that talking on the cell phone was against the law...really? He must be very busy if he is telling all the cell phone using drivers this...not plausible IMO.

Now they do have enough to convict.

Sorry, just the way I see it.

Mr. Tran's explanations are very amusing. Mr. Tran had best take a plea deal if one is offered. Mr. Tran will have to get another toy cause he aint gettin the one he had back.

Boris Badenov said:

Mr. Tran's explanations are very amusing. Mr. Tran had best take a plea deal if one is offered. Mr. Tran will have to get another toy cause he aint gettin the one he had back.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't take a plea bargain.Trial by jury. Plea bargains are there bec the system has conjured up so many charges, some imaginary that the suspect is made to feel afraid. If Mr Tran is up to it, he needs to bust the crooked system at the seams and if the texter was lying he needs to be busted too and fined for texting while driving. On this blog we all fume about how the powers that be have devious means of taking our guns away, even if we are innocent, but by making a case only from the point of the alleged victim. So Mr Tran needs to get a good lawyer and prove his innocence. Now that is if he is really innocent. Read the op by MKE and what they tried to do to her.

Law abider said:

Mr Tran needs to get a good lawyer and prove his innocence. Now that is if he is really innocent.

Click to expand...

It's hard to prove a negative ("I didn't do that"). That's why the State is required to prove the positive ("he did this").
And yes, it's a lot harder for them to prove anything if you don't talk to the police.
Innocent or not, talking to the police is almost never going to benefit you.
(If you've asked for help, then yeah, talk to them. Or if you know someone socially. Don't be stupid about it.)

With all the traffic-cams out there, I'd expect to see some footage of this supposed road rage incident. It would at least show if he was tailgateing & flashing his lights, as the texter claims.

I am curious how he expected to be able to talk to the texter while driving on the freeway. This is where a sign would be helpful. I've thought about making a flip sign with things like "stop texting", "tire low", "light out", "my number is..."

And I'm a bit skeptical of the claims about why he put it on his seat, and why he had to bring it into sight. My car is a stick shift, & I bet I could do that w/o a driver next to me noticing.

One of the commenters claims the guy doesn't have a license, so he may have to fight that charge too.
ETA: yep, he's charged with ccw. Don't these idiots ever learn?? (Or rather, can't they learn from the mistakes other DAs make?) Have to write this guy & tell him about a good lawyer + the outcome in my case.

And hey, did anyone catch this - it supposedly happened 12SEP, but he was just charged this Wed., more than 2 months later. Tells me they don't have much of a case.

Being innocent of instigation is one huge factor the jury will consider for a self defense claim. What would he have done if the other driver would have drawn their weapon after his verbal tirades and seeing him draw his? Regardless of the actions of the accused, this case illustrates the point that we are held to a higher standard when we choose to engage another person while carrying. MYOB will save you alot of BS. The fact that he engaged in disorderly conduct (yelling at the other driver, making obscene gestures, etc) illustrates that his head was not on straight. I believe that a jury is going to be less likely to believe his statements as factual regarding why the handgun was removed from the holster and why it was deliberately placed in the view of the other driver.

davidmcbeth said:

I think that Tran screwed himself over big time talking to the cops ... he gave them 99% of what they need to convict.

If he would have said nothing .. the cops would have this evidence:

1) word of other driver that he pointed a gun at him
2) gun was on passenger seat

Likely not enough to convict.

But he talked and now they have:

1) and 2) above PLUS
3) he removed his gun from his holster
4) he did it during the time period in question
5) he put it on the seat during the time period in question
6) admitted to the altercation with the other driver
7) said that the reason for the altercation was to tell the driver that talking on the cell phone was against the law...really? He must be very busy if he is telling all the cell phone using drivers this...not plausible IMO.

Now they do have enough to convict.

Sorry, just the way I see it.

Click to expand...

Exactly!!
Poor excuse for poor judgement, but he provided his own best evidence to get himself convicted.
Even if he did not break the law, he would have provided everything they need to convict him.

Interceptor_Knight said:

MYOB will save you alot of BS. .

Click to expand...

I'm guessing that most people who carry behave to avoid confrontation when they are carrying v. when they are not carrying.

1) word of other driver that he pointed a gun at him

Click to expand...

Illegal, but impossible to prove unless the other person had a video camera.
One person's word against another's. I'm surprised the DA is wasting time on such flimsy evidence.
ETA: unless maybe there were passengers in the texter's car, or they found that traffic-cam video.

2) gun was on passenger seat

Click to expand...

Legal. Not evidence of anything.

3) he removed his gun from his holster

Click to expand...

Legal. Not evidence of anything.
(Though not the best idea, esp. while distracted with driving.)

4) he did it during the time period in question

Click to expand...

Legal. Not evidence of anything.

5) he put it on the seat during the time period in question

Click to expand...

Legal. Not evidence of anything.
But again, not the best idea, having a potentially flying heavy-ish object. Especially one that, if grabbed for, could make your day a whole lot worse.

6) admitted to the altercation with the other driver

Click to expand...

Potential for conviction on the DC charge. :uhoh:

7) said that the reason for the altercation was to tell the driver that talking on the cell phone was against the law.
not plausible IMO

Click to expand...

I think he said the other driver was texting.
I can believe that very well could have been his intent, but again I question his reasoning.
How did he expect the other driver (in a car going freeway speed, windows up) to understand what he was saying?
And if he did point the gun (impossible to prove) he went way overboard.
(Though I suppose there could be an argument made that someone who's texting while driving, esp. at freeway speed, is a direct threat to the lives of everyone around...)

protias said:

just because you don't know how to describe how to get somewhere, doesn't mean you don't know how to get there.

Click to expand...

Even going to Fletcher's, which I know pretty well (at least from I-94), I usually tell my GPS to take me there.
And if I'm coming at it from anywhere else, I rely on the GPS. I find Waukesha to be very confusing.

My directions would probably be on the order of "go west on 94 to that really confusing exit & get off so you go toward Fletcher's, then branch left, go down the hill, & it's on the left after the McDonald's." Or I find the address & give it to the person. (Which doesn't help much unless they have a GPS.)

As I mentioned in the other thread, the law has to be clarified ASAP so no more cops or DAs can harass someone for OC in the car. This makes 2 this week just in Waukesha County where (as far as we can figure from news reports) people have been charged with ccw simply for having a pistol in a car, not encased.

MKEgal said:

Illegal, but impossible to prove unless the other person had a video camera.
One person's word against another's. I'm surprised the DA is wasting time on such flimsy evidence.
ETA: unless maybe there were passengers in the texter's car, or they found that traffic-cam video.


Legal. Not evidence of anything.


Legal. Not evidence of anything.
(Though not the best idea, esp. while distracted with driving.)


Legal. Not evidence of anything.


Legal. Not evidence of anything.
But again, not the best idea, having a potentially flying heavy-ish object. Especially one that, if grabbed for, could make your day a whole lot worse.


Potential for conviction on the DC charge. :uhoh:


I think he said the other driver was texting.
I can believe that very well could have been his intent, but again I question his reasoning.
How did he expect the other driver (in a car going freeway speed, windows up) to understand what he was saying?
And if he did point the gun (impossible to prove) he went way overboard.
(Though I suppose there could be an argument made that someone who's texting while driving, esp. at freeway speed, is a direct threat to the lives of everyone around...)

Click to expand...

Normally, I would agree that most of the information would not be enough to convict but with charges related to guns the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard goes right out the window....unless he gets a juror who is super pro-2nd he is doomed.

I guess if he can subpoena the driver's text messages and it confirms his statement regarding this then it may be helpful to him. Or the other driver confirms he was texting...either way.

He has an uphill battle because he "told his story" to the cop...not the cop's fault, right?

I think he screwed himself by not minding his Business in the frist place.

Why inject yourself into someone elses life over something so smiple as texting.

A lot of the trouble like this would be advoided if one would just let the minor things slide.

Firearms Iinstuctor said:

I think he screwed himself by not minding his Business in the frist place.

Why inject yourself into someone elses life over something so smiple as texting.

A lot of the trouble like this would be advoided if one would just let the minor things slide.

Click to expand...

Words of wisdom I practice. Course up here in frostbite land I can go days without seein a human type critter.