Texas Man Shoots Teen, 15, in Road Rage Incident

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

This thread is another excellent example of how stupid the threads get around here.

Person1: "Well if this happened, then this"
Person2: "Prove that this happened - for all we know that happened, therefore blah, blah, blah."

Why don't we all just wait for the details rather than arguing hypotheticals back and forth and getting into the stupid name-calling.

I swear, you're all turning into a bunch of HankT's...

 

[lordnitrox]

imported post

I really have to know all the info on this one to make a call. However even if the 15 year old did not start it, there is a ton of things that make him an idiot. He has a gun at 15, driving at 3:45am, and good chance can't even drive. I would like to think that I'm not putting a labe on the kid, yet from what I see he was in the wrong. Even if he pulled the gun in self defence, he should not have been there in the first place.


The question is where the hell were mom and dad? I am sick of people not keeping tabs on their kids. A child is dead because mom and dad did not have a talk with their son, and it is sad. I really have to wonder how many children could have been saved from things like this if mom and dad talked to their kids.

 

[HankT]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

I swear, you're all turning into a bunch of HankT's...

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

This thread is another excellent example of how stupid the threads get around here.

Person1: "Well if this happened, then this"
Person2: "Prove that this happened - for all we know that happened, therefore blah, blah, blah."

Why don't we all just wait for the details rather than arguing hypotheticals back and forth and getting into the stupid name-calling.

I swear, you're all turning into a bunch of HankT's...

Unfortunately, that's the nature of debate. Well, except for name-calling, which has been relatively light. Regardless, I refused to go along with the perception early in this thread of condemning Vega for no good reason, and removing responsibility of the older gentleman. We attempted to flesh out this issue. To be honest, we will never know the complete details of the situation... yet I don't think that invalidates debate about these events. The first page or so of posts were exhibiting an increasingly more pervasive opinion on here that the violation of any "crime" (for which I have yet to get a clear definition) renders a person less than even an animal in terms of their rights in society. It would be a very bland forum if everyone were expected to take a neutral position behind every instance of the use of lethal force.

If everyone wants to get back to their discussion of "that 15 year old piece of scum should be dead, and the older guy should get a medal", I'll gladly leave the thread.

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

A little More information;





Road rage incident in east Oak Cliff ends in death of boy, 15

[size=-1]
09:41 PM CST on Friday, November 23, 2007[/size]


[size=-1]By STEVE THOMPSON / The Dallas Morning News
stevethompson@dallasnews.com[/size]



A man shot and killed a 15-year-old boy in east Oak Cliff early Friday during a road rage incident in which each pulled a gun on the other.

Anthony Gray, 30, told police he was heading home along Marsalis Avenue about 3:45 a.m. when the teenager, Frank Vega, cut him off in a 2004 Cadillac.

The two exchanged words at the stoplight where Marsalis meets Saner Avenue. Either at the stoplight or soon after, both men pulled out handguns. Mr. Gray fired multiple shots, and a bullet hit the teenager in the chest.

The teen's Cadillac ran off the road nearly a mile away near Overton Road. Mr. Gray pulled off the road and called 911.

"We don't know who displayed a weapon first, but both were armed, and we believe it could be a case of self-defense," said Sgt. Bruce McDonald, a Dallas police homicide supervisor.

Authorities say the teenager did not fire his weapon.

Police plan to refer the case to a grand jury.

Mr. Gray could not be reached for comment.

"It's sad that we have a 15-year-old out on the street at that time of the morning armed," Sgt. McDonald said.



http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/112407dnmetroadrage.1f5f404.html

Tarzan

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Unfortunately, that's the nature of debate. Well, except for name-calling, which has been relatively light. Regardless, I refused to go along with the perception early in this thread of condemning Vega for no good reason, and removing responsibility of the older gentleman. We attempted to flesh out this issue. To be honest, we will never know the complete details of the situation... yet I don't think that invalidates debate about these events. The first page or so of posts were exhibiting an increasingly more pervasive opinion on here that the violation of any "crime" (for which I have yet to get a clear definition) renders a person less than even an animal in terms of their rights in society. It would be a very bland forum if everyone were expected to take a neutral position behind every instance of the use of lethal force.

I'm all for opinions and debate. I just wish the debate was a bit more logical. Many of the posts here make assumptions that are unfounded considering the meager facts offered by the articles.

If everyone wants to get back to their discussion of "that 15 year old piece of scum should be dead, and the older guy should get a medal", I'll gladly leave the thread.

Again, there are two sides to this issue, and I see just as many people calling for a lynching as I do a medal. Both conclusions are equally ignorant.

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

Unfortunately, that's the nature of debate. Well, except for name-calling, which has been relatively light. Regardless, I refused to go along with the perception early in this thread of condemning Vega for no good reason, and removing responsibility of the older gentleman. We attempted to flesh out this issue. To be honest, we will never know the complete details of the situation... yet I don't think that invalidates debate about these events. The first page or so of posts were exhibiting an increasingly more pervasive opinion on here that the violation of any "crime" (for which I have yet to get a clear definition) renders a person less than even an animal in terms of their rights in society. It would be a very bland forum if everyone were expected to take a neutral position behind every instance of the use of lethal force.

I'm all for opinions and debate. I just wish the debate was a bit more logical. Many of the posts here make assumptions that are unfounded considering the meager facts offered by the articles.

If everyone wants to get back to their discussion of "that 15 year old piece of scum should be dead, and the older guy should get a medal", I'll gladly leave the thread.

Again, there are two sides to this issue, and I see just as many people calling for a lynching as I do a medal. Both conclusions are equally ignorant.

We can guess all we want and we all have our OPINIONS, but none of us KNOW what really happened and there is very little information available.



Tarzan

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

tarzan1888 wrote:

We can guess all we want and we all have our OPINIONS, but none of us KNOW what really happened and there is very little information available.



Tarzan

Precisely my point.

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

tarzan1888 wrote:

We can guess all we want and we all have our OPINIONS, but none of us KNOW what really happened and there is very little information available.



Tarzan

Precisely my point.

I know I was agreeing with you.



Tarzan

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

OT-LW

 

[massltca]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

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.

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.

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.

I don't believe in duty to retreat either, but in a road rage case like this I would try to extricate myself from the situation unless the other person forced my hand. For that matter I would try to walk away from any situation before resorting to deadly force. As for the race issue, like it or not a disproportionate number of minorities do commit crimes so its not unreasonable to be a little nervous encountering one in a road rage case.

 

[HankT]

imported post

massltca wrote:

I don't believe in duty to retreat either, but in a road rage case like this I would try to extricate myself from the situation unless the other person forced my hand. For that matter I would try to walk away from any situation before resorting to deadly force.

Sidestepping the duty to retreat principlequestion for a bit, I believe in the intelligence to retreatprinciple with regard to road rage incidents.

If it's a choice between getting into a gunfight or using a very fast and nimble motor vehicle to escape a gunfight....ummm, lessee.....which one do I pick.....?

Duh!



Vrrroooom Vrrroooom!!!



Unless the guy has a few crowbars, of course...that would be different.

 

[longwatch]

imported post

Fixed that now lets move on. LW

 

[tarzan1888]

imported post

HankT wrote:

.....Unless the guy has a few crowbars, of course...that would be different.

2 Timothy 2:23



Tarzan

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

HankT wrote:

massltca wrote:

I don't believe in duty to retreat either, but in a road rage case like this I would try to extricate myself from the situation unless the other person forced my hand. For that matter I would try to walk away from any situation before resorting to deadly force.

Sidestepping the duty to retreat principlequestion for a bit, I believe in the intelligence to retreatprinciple with regard to road rage incidents.

If it's a choice between getting into a gunfight or using a very fast and nimble motor vehicle to escape a gunfight....ummm, lessee.....which one do I pick.....?

Duh!



Vrrroooom Vrrroooom!!!



Unless the guy has a few crowbars, of course...that would be different.

Well said. "Intelligence to retreat principle" should get a trademark, methinks.

 

[massltca]

imported post

Yes intelligence to retreat is a much better principle than duty to retreat.

 

[Heartless_Conservative]

imported post

Well, I can't think of any auto manufactures that market their vehicals with the claim that they can out-accelerate bullets, so I really don't think this was a retreat applical scenaro; unless the older guy pulled his gun first, however, we will most likely NEVER know that for sure, and the guy is claiming that he pulled after the kid.

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

Heartless_Conservative wrote:

Well, I can't think of any auto manufactures that market their vehicals with the claim that they can out-accelerate bullets, so I really don't think this was a retreat applical scenaro; unless the older guy pulled his gun first, however, we will most likely NEVER know that for sure, and the guy is claiming that he pulled after the kid.

I would say that the point to retreat was before the argument started, or when the argument began, or when it got heated. Once someone pulls a gun, you're pretty much committed.

 

[vtme_grad98]

imported post

HankT wrote:

OT-LW

Ok, what in the hell is "OT-LW", and why is that nearly the only thing HankT types anymore? As that the anti version of saying "I know you are, but what am I" now?

 

[unrequited]

imported post

vtme_grad98 wrote:

HankT wrote:

OT-LW

Ok, what in the hell is "OT-LW", and why is that nearly the only thing HankT types anymore?  As that the anti version of saying "I know you are, but what am I" now?

HAHAHA... it's "off topic -- Longwatch" (the moderator edited his post and removed it). I like the way you think though.