Texas Man Shoots Teen, 15, in Road Rage Incident

imported post

The old man in Pasadena did not murder anyone, he killed two burglars in the act. Please tell the truth. Horn killed two burglars in the act (not murdered them) He is still not arrested and will probably go to the Grand jury soon. Odds are he will be no billed, if not a jury conviction will be dificult. Time will tell.

The old man in Dallas was just no billed for killing (not murdering) two burglars and gut shooting a third.

This incident between the two driverswill be investigated and if the shooting was leagal, the man will be no billed. Odds are the younger guy pulled and showed, the older guy pulled and shot. Time will tell.

If you dont like Texas law please stay away, if you steal for a living you can and probably will be shot for it in Texas.

Slightly off topic, but please note the effectiveness of the 12ga with buckshot for home defense. Two old men, 5 shots, four dead burglarsand one gravely wounded burglar. 100% hits to shots fired under pressure. Compare that with the Yankee cops recently shooting a crazy manwho hada blow drier! 30 shots for 10 hits. Shotgun with buckshot rules for close in work folks!

imported post

A note on legal procedure: prosecutors can re-present to grand juries (at least during the same session). A no-bill today can turn into an indictment tomorrow. That usually doesn't happen, but it certainly has. Jeopardy only attaches when a petit jury is empaneled.

-ljp

imported post

OT-LW

imported post

hamourkiller wrote:

The old man in Pasadena did not murder anyone, he killed two burglars in the act. Please tell the truth. Horn killed two burglars in the act (not murdered them) He is still not arrested and will probably go to the Grand jury soon. Odds are he will be no billed, if not a jury conviction will be dificult. Time will tell.

The old man in Dallas was just no billed for killing (not murdering) two burglars and gut shooting a third.

This incident between the two driverswill be investigated and if the shooting was leagal, the man will be no billed. Odds are the younger guy pulled and showed, the older guy pulled and shot. Time will tell.

If you dont like Texas law please stay away, if you steal for a living you can and probably will be shot for it in Texas.

Slightly off topic, but please note the effectiveness of the 12ga with buckshot for home defense. Two old men, 5 shots, four dead burglarsand one gravely wounded burglar. 100% hits to shots fired under pressure. Compare that with the Yankee cops recently shooting a crazy manwho hada blow drier! 30 shots for 10 hits. Shotgun with buckshot rules for close in work folks!

Click to expand...

Great post.



I agree 100%

Tarzan

imported post

DreQo wrote:

OT-LW

Anyway it doesn't say who pulled first, it doesn't say who started the verbal argument. The 15 yr old was obviously making bad decisions, including deciding to break the law, by driving underage, carrying underage, and possibly driving dangerously. The 30 yr old made at least one bad decisionby allowing himself to be involved in a verbal argument at a stop light.

I think the biggest lesson we should learn from this is stay out of arguments over stupid stuff like someone else being a jerk. I've heard about quite a few of these "at a stoplight" incidents that turn into fights, accidents, or shootings. Talk about a stupid argument. If that happens to me I just smile at the fact that I was able to piss someone off so easily , and then I take a moment to feel bad for their significant other lol.

Oh and yeah that 15 yr old's parents need to be punished, too.

Click to expand...

I agree. Wait for all of the facts to come out.

- The 15 year old may have been legally able to drive. My wife had a hardship license in Texas at 14.5

- The 15 year old may have had a BB/pellet gun and been responding to threats by the adult.

- The Adult may have been completely justified in shooting the teenager.

We just don't know.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

.......Here we have a case where a man was angered by someone who cut him off in traffic. He shot a youth with a Hispanic-sounding name when he could have just driven away. Granted, this is probably legal in Texas. Even so, I'd hardly consider it ethical or moral to do it. It's just like going outside and murdering two people on someone else's property.

Click to expand...

??? Has there been some new evidence brought fourth?

I really hate to pull a HankT, but could you cite your source or sources for this startling information?



To quote Abrahan Lincoln, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have, five? Calling a tail a leg, don't make it a leg."



Tarzan

imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

.......Here we have a case where a man was angered by someone who cut him off in traffic. He shot a youth with a Hispanic-sounding name when he could have just driven away. Granted, this is probably legal in Texas. Even so, I'd hardly consider it ethical or moral to do it. It's just like going outside and murdering two people on someone else's property.

Click to expand...

??? Has there been some new evidence brought fourth?

I really hate to pull a HankT, but could you cite your source or sources for this startling information?



To quote Abrahan Lincoln, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have, five? Calling a tail a leg, don't make it a leg."



Tarzan

Click to expand...

What new information did I bring out?

a man was angered by someone who cut him off in traffic.

Click to expand...

The story says, "Gray and Vega argued at a stoplight." Someone who wasn't anger, presumably, wouldn't have argued and had just let it go.

He shot a youth with a Hispanic-sounding name

Click to expand...

"Vega" sounds Hispanic to me. Blind guess there, sorry.

when he could have just driven away.

Click to expand...

He was in a vehicle, wasn't he? It was at a stoplight, as the story said, so I doubt the vehicle was immobile. Even if he didn't initiate the confrontation, he could have... driven away.

Granted, this is probably legal in Texas.

Click to expand...

In the thread about Mr. Horn, Texas laws were cited that established very little criteria for being able to kill another person.

Even so, I'd hardly consider it ethical or moral to do it.

Click to expand...

Laws don't always reflect the best moral policies. I believe that provoking an argument in response to a traffic dispute is not grounds for killing the other person.

It's just like going outside and murdering two people on someone else's property.

Click to expand...

Similarly, I don't believe that alleged burglary is a capital offense.

imported post

hamourkiller wrote:

If you dont like Texas law please stay away, if you steal for a living you can and probably will be shot for it in Texas.

Click to expand...

If you don't like DC's anti-gun laws, please stay away.
If you don't like New York's anti-gun laws, please stay away.
If you don't like California's anti-gun laws, please stay away.

If you're house sitting for a person and his neighbor doesn't know, you can and probably will be shot for it in Texas.
If you're a minority in a white suburb, you can and probably will be shot for it in Texas.
If you OC a handgun, you can and probably will be shot for it in Texas.

See, I can do it too. :celebrate

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

hamourkiller wrote:

If you dont like Texas law please stay away, if you steal for a living you can and probably will be shot for it in Texas.

Click to expand...

If you don't like DC's anti-gun laws, please stay away.
If you don't like New York's anti-gun laws, please stay away.
If you don't like California's anti-gun laws, please stay away.

If you're house sitting for a person and his neighbor doesn't know, you can and probably will be shot for it in Texas.
If you're a minority in a white suburb, you can and probably will be shot for it in Texas.
If you OC a handgun, you can and probably will be shot for it in Texas.

See, I can do it too. :celebrate

Click to expand...

One big difference.

The Texas laws are right and just,

The ones you allude to are not.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

tarzan1888 wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

.......Here we have a case where a man was angered by someone who cut him off in traffic. He shot a youth with a Hispanic-sounding name when he could have just driven away. Granted, this is probably legal in Texas. Even so, I'd hardly consider it ethical or moral to do it. It's just like going outside and murdering two people on someone else's property.

Click to expand...

??? Has there been some new evidence brought fourth?

I really hate to pull a HankT, but could you cite your source or sources for this startling information?



To quote Abrahan Lincoln, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have, five? Calling a tail a leg, don't make it a leg."



Tarzan

Click to expand...

What new information did I bring out?

a man was angered by someone who cut him off in traffic.

Click to expand...

The story says, "Gray and Vega argued at a stoplight." Someone who wasn't anger, presumably, wouldn't have argued and had just let it go.

He shot a youth with a Hispanic-sounding name

Click to expand...

"Vega" sounds Hispanic to me. Blind guess there, sorry.

when he could have just driven away.

Click to expand...

He was in a vehicle, wasn't he? It was at a stoplight, as the story said, so I doubt the vehicle was immobile. Even if he didn't initiate the confrontation, he could have... driven away.

Granted, this is probably legal in Texas.

Click to expand...

In the thread about Mr. Horn, Texas laws were cited that established very little criteria for being able to kill another person.

Even so, I'd hardly consider it ethical or moral to do it.

Click to expand...

Laws don't always reflect the best moral policies. I believe that provoking an argument in response to a traffic dispute is not grounds for killing the other person.

It's just like going outside and murdering two people on someone else's property.

Click to expand...

Similarly, I don't believe that alleged burglary is a capital offense.

Click to expand...

Sorry that you don't get it.

It was a rhetorical statement.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Here we have a case where a man was angered by someone who cut him off in traffic. He shot a youth with a Hispanic-sounding name when he could have just driven away. Granted, this is probably legal in Texas. Even so, I'd hardly consider it ethical or moral to do it. It's just like going outside and murdering two people on someone else's property.

Click to expand...

This guy stole Joe's thunder!

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

...Here we have a case where a man was angered by someone who cut him off in traffic. He shot a youth with a Hispanic-sounding name when he could have just driven away....

Click to expand...

You're assuming a whole lot. We don't know that the 30 yr was angry in the first place. The kid could have gotten pissed because the other guy was going the speed limit, so he cut him off then started yelling at him at the stoplight before pulling his gun and getting himself shot. Of course the 30 yr old could have been a complete jerk and scared the 15 yr old into attempting to defend himself.

The point is we don't know a lot of the details. Oh and why bring up his name? It's Texas, of course his name was hispanic! Ya'll need to quit pointing fingers and making up facts. The only thing we know for sure is the 15 yr was breaking, at the very least, 3 separate laws. That puts him on the bad side of this as far as I'm concerned.

imported post

Here we have a case where a man was angered by someone who cut him off in traffic. He shot a youth with a Hispanic-sounding name when he could have just driven away. Granted, this is probably legal in Texas. Even so, I'd hardly consider it ethical or moral to do it. It's just like going outside and murdering two people on someone else's property.

Click to expand...

Weakest.Argument.EVAR!!1!

I can see it now - the dark city, 2 angry men at a stoplight arguing about each other's driving:

30 yr old: What's your last name boy?
15 yr old: Vega! What's it to you.
30 yr old: Oh crap, you're one of them! *bang*bang*bang*

Pray tell, how the HELL would the 30 year old have a single clue as to what the kid's name was???? You are obviously alleging that there was a racial element in this. Have you seen a pic of the kid? Does he look hispanic? What is Anthony Gray's heritage. Does he look hispanic. Is he black, white, purple, green, yellow, or a whiter shade of pale?

Was his car blocked in by the kid's vehicle? Did the kid already have the weapon drawn and Gray couldn't get back in his vehicle and leave without being in greater danger? Was vehicle contact made? Would Gray have been fleeing the scene of an accident if he had left and that is why he was still there?

The source article doesn't tell enough facts to even begin to hypothesize what happened let alone draw conclusions. I think most everyone has so far said that they hate seeing things like this, justified or not. Most everyone on this forum, and every responsible gun carrier hates to see a verbal argument escalate into a shooting because it paints all of us as emotionally retarded individuals incapable of making good decisions about use of force.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Here we have a case where a man was angered by someone who cut him off in traffic. He shot a youth with a Hispanic-sounding name when he could have just driven away. Granted, this is probably legal in Texas. Even so, I'd hardly consider it ethical or moral to do it. It's just like going outside and murdering two people on someone else's property.

Click to expand...

Weakest.Argument.EVAR!!1!

I can see it now - the dark city, 2 angry men at a stoplight arguing about each other's driving:

30 yr old: What's your last name boy?
15 yr old: Vega! What's it to you.
30 yr old: Oh crap, you're one of them! *bang*bang*bang*

Pray tell, how the HELL would the 30 year old have a single clue as to what the kid's name was???? You are obviously alleging that there was a racial element in this. Have you seen a pic of the kid? Does he look hispanic? What is Anthony Gray's heritage. Does he look hispanic. Is he black, white, purple, green, yellow, or a whiter shade of pale?

Was his car blocked in by the kid's vehicle? Did the kid already have the weapon drawn and Gray couldn't get back in his vehicle and leave without being in greater danger? Was vehicle contact made? Would Gray have been fleeing the scene of an accident if he had left and that is why he was still there?

The source article doesn't tell enough facts to even begin to hypothesize what happened let alone draw conclusions. I think most everyone has so far said that they hate seeing things like this, justified or not. Most everyone on this forum, and every responsible gun carrier hates to see a verbal argument escalate into a shooting because it paints all of us as emotionally retarded individuals incapable of making good decisions about use of force.

Click to expand...

It all depends on who escalated the argument, the 30 year old might have been jusified. Due the the fact that the 15 year old had a gun in his possession leads me to believe that he was probably up to no good. It really sucks that a traffic incident had to degenerate into a shooting, but maybe the kid forced his hand. Who knows.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Here we have a case where a man was angered by someone who cut him off in traffic. He shot a youth with a Hispanic-sounding name when he could have just driven away. Granted, this is probably legal in Texas. Even so, I'd hardly consider it ethical or moral to do it. It's just like going outside and murdering two people on someone else's property.

Click to expand...

Weakest.Argument.EVAR!!1!

I can see it now - the dark city, 2 angry men at a stoplight arguing about each other's driving:

30 yr old: What's your last name boy?
15 yr old: Vega! What's it to you.
30 yr old: Oh crap, you're one of them! *bang*bang*bang*

Pray tell, how the HELL would the 30 year old have a single clue as to what the kid's name was???? You are obviously alleging that there was a racial element in this. Have you seen a pic of the kid? Does he look hispanic? What is Anthony Gray's heritage. Does he look hispanic. Is he black, white, purple, green, yellow, or a whiter shade of pale?

Was his car blocked in by the kid's vehicle? Did the kid already have the weapon drawn and Gray couldn't get back in his vehicle and leave without being in greater danger? Was vehicle contact made? Would Gray have been fleeing the scene of an accident if he had left and that is why he was still there?

The source article doesn't tell enough facts to even begin to hypothesize what happened let alone draw conclusions. I think most everyone has so far said that they hate seeing things like this, justified or not. Most everyone on this forum, and every responsible gun carrier hates to see a verbal argument escalate into a shooting because it paints all of us as emotionally retarded individuals incapable of making good decisions about use of force.

Click to expand...

I am indeed suggesting that there may be a racial element to this. I won't go into details so as not to drag this too off-topic. I'm not accusing the older gentleman of anything, but mentioning it as subconscious racial profiling may have played a part.

Regardless, the gentleman who fired put himself into a dangerous situation, just like a certain other hero murderer of late, and, at best, was forced to engage in a self-defense shooting due to a situation that he caused. What do I do when someone cuts me off or pulls another stupid driving move? I back off, and try to stay a good distance behind the other vehicle. If a red light crops up and I have to come to a stop near the other driver, I'll pull behind the vehicle and, if possible, in an adjacent lane. It avoids an argument and, if the other driver would be deranged enough to want to start shooting, it would be a tough shot for him to make, and a bit more material between us than the two windows of separation if we were next to each other. I'd hope that most reasonable people would utilize a rational approach like that.

The point is, I don't support a duty to retreat, and believe that a person has every right to defend his life if put in jeopardy. But there is something wrong when people willingly put themselves into a dangerous situation, and then are "forced" to shoot. How about avoiding that situation in the first place? Then again, I'm one of those crazy liberals who isn't looking for an opportunity to kill people (or criminals, as apparently they aren't people).

I'm sure I'll get bitched at for this, but I'm starting to see the prophecies of the Brady bunch coming true now. "Castle doctrine" laws are one thing, but the laws (or lack of prosecution) that make legal the use of lethal force for even a tangetal justification of self-defense are resulting in peoples' whipping out guns and shooting each other over road rage incidents. They are resulting in other questionable (if not criminal) shootings of criminals. Not many yet, mind you, but I fear that it won't be long before the blood is running through the streets of Texas.

I'm not saying (yet) that the guy in this case is guilty of anything because, as usual, the details are sparse. Yet it seems much more likely than not that he was at least partially responsible for the shooting.

Edited because I think I used the wrong font size.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

...Regardless, the gentleman who fired put himself into a dangerous situation...

Click to expand...

You don't know this, plain and simple. If this was true, you'd be making a valid point, but THIS IS NOT A STATED FACT. Again, this guy could have been cut off by a crazy driver, and so he continued to drive safely, laying low and minding his own business. He may not have realized the kid was at the stoplight. It was dark outside, did he recognize the tail lights? That kid could have flipped out on him and all he was doing was sitting in his car waiting for the light to turn green so he could get the crap out of there.

You're opinion isn't really wrong here, but you're basing you're opinion on a huge assumption. I'm not trying to defend the 30 yr old or the 15 yr old. All the information released so far has given us very very little to go on.

On that note, no one has mentioned that the article wasn't horrible bias against guns. It just simply stated that someone shot someone else after a verbal argument, and it might have been self defense. I think that's pretty good reporting if you ask me!

imported post

DreQo wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

...Regardless, the gentleman who fired put himself into a dangerous situation...

Click to expand...

You don't know this, plain and simple. If this was true, you'd be making a valid point, but THIS IS NOT A STATED FACT. Again, this guy could have been cut off by a crazy driver, and so he continued to drive safely, laying low and minding his own business. He may not have realized the kid was at the stoplight. It was dark outside, did he recognize the tail lights? That kid could have flipped out on him and all he was doing was sitting in his car waiting for the light to turn green so he could get the crap out of there.

You're opinion isn't really wrong here, but you're basing you're opinion on a huge assumption. I'm not trying to defend the 30 yr old or the 15 yr old. All the information released so far has given us very very little to go on.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying here. And the situation that you proposed would most definately have been an unprovoked case of self-defense, had the 15y.o. been harassing the other driver and brandishing his gun. However, I inferred that the 30y.o. was somewhat responsible for placing himself into the situation from "Gray and Vega argued at a stoplight". To me, it takes two people to argue. If the 15y.o. indeed began taunting the 30y.o, and if the latter was looking to avoid a dangerous situation, he would have ignored it rather than having engaged the former.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

DreQo wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

...Regardless, the gentleman who fired put himself into a dangerous situation...

Click to expand...

You don't know this, plain and simple. If this was true, you'd be making a valid point, but THIS IS NOT A STATED FACT. Again, this guy could have been cut off by a crazy driver, and so he continued to drive safely, laying low and minding his own business. He may not have realized the kid was at the stoplight. It was dark outside, did he recognize the tail lights? That kid could have flipped out on him and all he was doing was sitting in his car waiting for the light to turn green so he could get the crap out of there.

You're opinion isn't really wrong here, but you're basing you're opinion on a huge assumption. I'm not trying to defend the 30 yr old or the 15 yr old. All the information released so far has given us very very little to go on.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying here. And the situation that you proposed would most definately have been an unprovoked case of self-defense, had the 15y.o. been harassing the other driver and brandishing his gun. However, I inferred that the 30y.o. was somewhat responsible for placing himself into the situation from "Gray and Vega argued at a stoplight". To me, it takes two people to argue. If the 15y.o. indeed began taunting the 30y.o, and if the latter was looking to avoid a dangerous situation, he would have ignored it rather than having engaged the former.

Click to expand...

And that all follows with the possibilities I posed earlier: Was his car blocked in by the kid's vehicle? Did the kid already have the weapon drawn and Gray couldn't get back in his vehicle and leave without being in greater danger? Was vehicle contact made? Would Gray have been fleeing the scene of an accident if he had left and that is why he was still there?

There are lots of possible scenarios where the 30yo could be acting in a perfectly reasonable manner and have ended up in that situation. There are also lots of possible scenarios that he could have been an equal participant or instigater. You seem to do the opposite of what you accuse us of doing. While you seem to think that we all want to go out and execute every criminal on the street, you prescribe the worst possible motivations and assumptions onto every citizen using his firearm. Every irresponsible or unjustified use of a firearm by a private citizen harms us and increases the likelihood of a knee-jerk response by the community or legislators that further limits our 2A rights. Most firearm owners get quit angry at irresponsible/unjustified use of a firearm.

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

DreQo wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

...Regardless, the gentleman who fired put himself into a dangerous situation...

Click to expand...

You don't know this, plain and simple. If this was true, you'd be making a valid point, but THIS IS NOT A STATED FACT. Again, this guy could have been cut off by a crazy driver, and so he continued to drive safely, laying low and minding his own business. He may not have realized the kid was at the stoplight. It was dark outside, did he recognize the tail lights? That kid could have flipped out on him and all he was doing was sitting in his car waiting for the light to turn green so he could get the crap out of there.

You're opinion isn't really wrong here, but you're basing you're opinion on a huge assumption. I'm not trying to defend the 30 yr old or the 15 yr old. All the information released so far has given us very very little to go on.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying here. And the situation that you proposed would most definately have been an unprovoked case of self-defense, had the 15y.o. been harassing the other driver and brandishing his gun. However, I inferred that the 30y.o. was somewhat responsible for placing himself into the situation from "Gray and Vega argued at a stoplight". To me, it takes two people to argue. If the 15y.o. indeed began taunting the 30y.o, and if the latter was looking to avoid a dangerous situation, he would have ignored it rather than having engaged the former.

Click to expand...

And that all follows with the possibilities I posed earlier: Was his car blocked in by the kid's vehicle? Did the kid already have the weapon drawn and Gray couldn't get back in his vehicle and leave without being in greater danger? Was vehicle contact made? Would Gray have been fleeing the scene of an accident if he had left and that is why he was still there?

There are lots of possible scenarios where the 30yo could be acting in a perfectly reasonable manner and have ended up in that situation. There are also lots of possible scenarios that he could have been an equal participant or instigater. You seem to do the opposite of what you accuse us of doing. While you seem to think that we all want to go out and execute every criminal on the street, you prescribe the worst possible motivations and assumptions onto every citizen using his firearm. Every irresponsible or unjustified use of a firearm by a private citizen harms us and increases the likelihood of a knee-jerk response by the community or legislators that further limits our 2A rights. Most firearm owners get quit angry at irresponsible/unjustified use of a firearm.

Click to expand...

It stated that they engaged in an "argument". As I said, that requires the willingness of two people. If the guy got out of his vehicle (at a traffic light, nonetheless), that's just plain stupid. Once again, that would be his placing himself into a dangerous situation. If the shooter's vehicle was blocked by the kid's vehicle, surely a few scrapes and dents from pushing it out of the way would have been better than shooting the kid. If there was an accident, he would have had no obligation to remain in a dangerous situation, or no more of an obligation than someone who chooses not to slam on the brakes in the middle of a crowded interstate upon having an accident. Call 911, move to a safe area, or vice versa. To put it simply, there are very, very few instances where the shooter in this situation would not have been partially or fully responsible for his having to use lethal force.

I assume that y'all want to go out and execute every criminal on the street because I have yet to hear a standard beyond defense of life that is clear-cut. There's a huge grey area that is seemingly being left to citizens' discretion... which effectively means that any criminal on the street can be executed. Regardless, I seem to differ in that I feel lethal force is a last resort. Try to safely get out of the dangerous situation before commencing to use lethal force. Don't look for opportunities to shoot. Don't use lethal force as a tool for fighting crime. People who put themselves into dangerous situations no longer are acting in true self-defense in my book.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

DreQo wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

...Regardless, the gentleman who fired put himself into a dangerous situation...

Click to expand...

You don't know this, plain and simple. If this was true, you'd be making a valid point, but THIS IS NOT A STATED FACT. Again, this guy could have been cut off by a crazy driver, and so he continued to drive safely, laying low and minding his own business. He may not have realized the kid was at the stoplight. It was dark outside, did he recognize the tail lights? That kid could have flipped out on him and all he was doing was sitting in his car waiting for the light to turn green so he could get the crap out of there.

You're opinion isn't really wrong here, but you're basing you're opinion on a huge assumption. I'm not trying to defend the 30 yr old or the 15 yr old. All the information released so far has given us very very little to go on.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying here. And the situation that you proposed would most definately have been an unprovoked case of self-defense, had the 15y.o. been harassing the other driver and brandishing his gun. However, I inferred that the 30y.o. was somewhat responsible for placing himself into the situation from "Gray and Vega argued at a stoplight". To me, it takes two people to argue. If the 15y.o. indeed began taunting the 30y.o, and if the latter was looking to avoid a dangerous situation, he would have ignored it rather than having engaged the former.

Click to expand...

And that all follows with the possibilities I posed earlier: Was his car blocked in by the kid's vehicle? Did the kid already have the weapon drawn and Gray couldn't get back in his vehicle and leave without being in greater danger? Was vehicle contact made? Would Gray have been fleeing the scene of an accident if he had left and that is why he was still there?

There are lots of possible scenarios where the 30yo could be acting in a perfectly reasonable manner and have ended up in that situation. There are also lots of possible scenarios that he could have been an equal participant or instigater. You seem to do the opposite of what you accuse us of doing. While you seem to think that we all want to go out and execute every criminal on the street, you prescribe the worst possible motivations and assumptions onto every citizen using his firearm. Every irresponsible or unjustified use of a firearm by a private citizen harms us and increases the likelihood of a knee-jerk response by the community or legislators that further limits our 2A rights. Most firearm owners get quit angry at irresponsible/unjustified use of a firearm.

Click to expand...

It stated that they engaged in an "argument". As I said, that requires the willingness of two people. If the guy got out of his vehicle (at a traffic light, nonetheless), that's just plain stupid. Once again, that would be his placing himself into a dangerous situation. If the shooter's vehicle was blocked by the kid's vehicle, surely a few scrapes and dents from pushing it out of the way would have been better than shooting the kid. If there was an accident, he would have had no obligation to remain in a dangerous situation, or no more of an obligation than someone who chooses not to slam on the brakes in the middle of a crowded interstate upon having an accident. Call 911, move to a safe area, or vice versa. To put it simply, there are very, very few instances where the shooter in this situation would not have been partially or fully responsible for his having to use lethal force.

I assume that y'all want to go out and execute every criminal on the street because I have yet to hear a standard beyond defense of life that is clear-cut. There's a huge grey area that is seemingly being left to citizens' discretion... which effectively means that any criminal on the street can be executed. Regardless, I seem to differ in that I feel lethal force is a last resort. Try to safely get out of the dangerous situation before commencing to use lethal force. Don't look for opportunities to shoot. Don't use lethal force as a tool for fighting crime. People who put themselves into dangerous situations no longer are acting in true self-defense in my book.

Click to expand...

I think you underestimate the how quickly these situations happen sometimes. I have read before that on average that lethal incidents beginning to end are usually less than 30 seconds in duration and the actual shooting part 3 seconds or less. If those averages are correct, that is not enough time to analyze the situation, only to react the best you can.

I still object to your hypotheticals that repeatedly assume the shooters in various threads the bad guy. These are regular citizens reacting very quickly to life or death situations. These are not people who have had hours and hours of live fire exercises as a soldier would have. It is very stressful. That is why in defense classes you are generally told that you will perform at 50% of your max training performance level in the real thing. People don't always do what makes the most sense sitting in your living room reading about it and thinking it over for 20 minutes the next day. They do what they think in the "fog of war" they need to do to survive. Take all those factors and add in a VERY sketchy report such as we have in this situation and not a single person on the forum can even begin to guess what really went down. We don't have diagrams of the intersection, we don't know if there was contact between the vehicles, we do not even know if it was a 2 lane or multi-lane intersection. We certainly do not know if race, religion or national origin played any part.

For all we know, the 30 yo could have backed off from the 15 yo after the traffic incident, slowly pulled up behind the 15 yo at a 1 lane stop light with high curbs or landscaping on either side preventing him going around, and the 15 yo leaned out the window and started yelling, an argument ensued, 30 yo says after a brief exchange, "I do not want to argue with you. I'm sorry if you feel I cut you off. I didn't mean to be rude to you. I just want to get home. Have a good evening." and at that point the 15 yo got out of his car waving a gun running at the 30 yo, at which point the 30 yo drew and shot totally in self-defense and it all happened so fast that he had tunnel vision on the kid's weapon and it never occured to him in the moment to throw it in reverse and get away.

Do I think that likely? No. I would guess if I had to that they were both being jackasses and it got out of control. The language "road rage" and "argument" in the news story lends that impression. But the media often gets such descriptive language wrong so it has to be taken with a grain of salt. In the meantime, I am not going to make any firm assumptions, and as most other people in the thread, I'm just sickened that it happened in the first place for multiple reasons, especially that a 15 yo boy is dead and on the surface, it makes gun owners look bad.

As to your second paragraph, I choose not to respond further on that subject in this thread as it really is off topic and I was a significant contributor to that off topic portion (sorry guys). I will be happy to discuss it further in a more appropriate thread or in PM, however.