Shots Fired on I95 PWC

[peter nap]

imported post

nova wrote:

peter nap wrote:

That's a pretty good way to make everyone's ignore list Nova!

Hey!

Sorry!:uhoh:

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

peter nap wrote:

bohdi wrote:

Man, it's things like this that make me glad I have a 3 mile commute.

Makes me glad this is the nearest highway

Gee whiz Pete, how many neighbors do you have???

Had one a little over mile away. He died.
Got another one 3 miles.

 

[Wooley]

imported post

And I have to pay 20 bucks extra a month to have a reserved spot in front of my building...

 

[Marco]

imported post

Wooley wrote: snip

I don't think a good hardcore combat pistol course a bad idea for anyone that carries.

As long as it's voluntary!

Can you see your mother/father etc... or disabled person completeing one of those courses?

Should they be denied the right to self defense beacuse they can't do what a semi-fit 25yr can do?

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

Wooley wrote: snip

I don't think a good hardcore combat pistol course a bad idea for anyone that carries.

As long as it's voluntary!

Can you see your mother/father etc... or disabled person completeing one of those courses?

Should they be denied the right to self defense beacuse they can't do what a semi-fit 25yr can do?

+1
Wooley, I've had numerous combat training classes and shoot multiple times a week and run training drills weekly.
I believe in them but agree 100% with Agent 19 that while good, should not be mandatory.

Of course, I also don't believe anyone should have to have a CHP to carry concealed.

 

[Chuckles]

imported post

Not to justify what the shooter did (I personally don't think anything justifies shooting 13 timesat a truck that is driving away on a crowded rush-hour highway), but the lastest news has the driver of the dump truck also being charged with 2nd degree attempted murder, so whatever he did to the Jaguar must have been quite severe as well.

 

[Wooley]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Agent19 wrote:

Wooley wrote: snip

I don't think a good hardcore combat pistol course a bad idea for anyone that carries.

As long as it's voluntary!

Can you see your mother/father etc... or disabled person completeing one of those courses?

Should they be denied the right to self defense beacuse they can't do what a semi-fit 25yr can do?

+1
Wooley, I've had numerous combat training classes and shoot multiple times a week and run training drills weekly.
I believe in them but agree 100% with Agent 19 that while good, should not be mandatory.

Of course, I also don't believe anyone should have to have a CHP to carry concealed.

Hey now! I never said it should be mandatory. If I did I mispoke. I think you should take it upon yourself to do it.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

Wooley wrote:

peter nap wrote:

Agent19 wrote:

Wooley wrote: snip

I don't think a good hardcore combat pistol course a bad idea for anyone that carries.

As long as it's voluntary!

Can you see your mother/father etc... or disabled person completeing one of those courses?

Should they be denied the right to self defense beacuse they can't do what a semi-fit 25yr can do?

+1
Wooley, I've had numerous combat training classes and shoot multiple times a week and run training drills weekly.
I believe in them but agree 100% with Agent 19 that while good, should not be mandatory.

Of course, I also don't believe anyone should have to have a CHP to carry concealed.

Hey now! I never said it should be mandatory. If I did I mispoke. I think you should take it upon yourself to do it.

No...I guess you didn't. I'm getting old and it gets hard to climb on and off that soapbox:lol:

 

[johnfenter]

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

johnfenter wrote:

Just a side comment.

The news story says that the dump truck was on the express lane and was merging into the main lanes; does this mean the truck was in the HOV lanes? If so, he wasn't supposed to be there; HOV excludes heavy commercial vehicles.

If the truck driver was merging, he didn't have right of way; the other guy didn't have to let him merge ahead. It would have been the polite thing to do, but not required. I've seen the traffic on 95 where the HOV ends; it's gridlock, so neither of them were going anywhere fast anyway.

And I'm pretty sure Philip made those comments before the full story was published on what the truck driver did and was charged with. A truck is as much of a deadly weapon as a gun. F=ma, and all that... Basically, both guys were in the wrong, and deserve what they are getting. The one who didn't deserve any of what was experienced here was that child.

You are incorrect. Trucks are not restricted from most HOV lanes during non-HOV hours in VA.

Well, yes, but the news story clearly states that the incident occurred during evening rush hour, more specifically 4:23 PM. The dump truck driver, unless he was coming from a VDOT job site that required him to use those lanes, was NOT supposed to be on the HOV during HOV hours...

 

[kaiheitai17]

imported post

johnfenter wrote:

simmonsjoe wrote:

johnfenter wrote:

Just a side comment.

The news story says that the dump truck was on the express lane and was merging into the main lanes; does this mean the truck was in the HOV lanes? If so, he wasn't supposed to be there; HOV excludes heavy commercial vehicles.

If the truck driver was merging, he didn't have right of way; the other guy didn't have to let him merge ahead. It would have been the polite thing to do, but not required. I've seen the traffic on 95 where the HOV ends; it's gridlock, so neither of them were going anywhere fast anyway.

And I'm pretty sure Philip made those comments before the full story was published on what the truck driver did and was charged with. A truck is as much of a deadly weapon as a gun. F=ma, and all that... Basically, both guys were in the wrong, and deserve what they are getting. The one who didn't deserve any of what was experienced here was that child.

You are incorrect. Trucks are not restricted from most HOV lanes during non-HOV hours in VA.

Well, yes, but the news story clearly states that the incident occurred during evening rush hour, more specifically 4:23 PM. The dump truck driver, unless he was coming from a VDOT job site that required him to use those lanes, was NOT supposed to be on the HOV during HOV hours...

Neither the car nor the truck were in the HOV lanes, the conflict occurred over a section of highway of about 10 miles. Neither driver would let up and leave it be. Guess they both had a point to prove. 10 miles and weaving all over the southbound lanes! Both drivers deserve a Darwin award, the kiddoes not though.

I drive that stretch of hwy four days a week. You CANNOT get into the HOV lanes from that (the 123) on ramp, legally that is. The last place you can (legally) enter the southbound HOV lanes is in the Newington/Springfield area.This altercationwas in the regular southbound traffic lanes.

 

[TFred]

imported post

Looks like Governor McDonnell addressed this incident in his hour-long radio interview on WTOP.

Here is a report:

Va. Gov.: 'Road rage duel' doesn't reflect gun laws
March 30, 2010 - 4:04pm
by Justin Karp,
Special to WTOP.com

WASHINGTON - In the wake of last week's road rage incident on I-95 near Dale City, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell says his state's gun laws are fine the way they are.

"People abuse their rights and their privileges all the time and we have criminal laws that punish them, just as in this case," McDonnell said on WTOP's Ask The Governor program Tuesday morning.

On March 23, James Bringham, 44, the driver of a 2007 Ford F550 dump truck, tried to merge into the southbound lanes of I-95 near Route 123, shortly after 4 p.m.

Police say Bringham and the driver of a Jaguar, Gabriel Poventud, 25, "began engaging with one another in an aggressive manner." The dump truck struck the Jaguar Poventud was driving twice.

Both vehicles ended up on the left shoulder of the highway, pinned against the Jersey wall. That's when Poventud got out of his car and started firing at the truck. The dump truck pulled away into traffic, but was struck more than four times by the 13 rounds, police say.

Both drivers have been charged with attempted murder.

No one was hurt by the gunfire.

McDonnell says this incident, in which a person who legally owned a gun "snapped," doesn't mean prior restraint is necessary.

"I don't think it's instructive at all when it comes to saying what kind of policies we should have with firearms," McDonnell said.
​

 

[Marco]

imported post

Wooley wrote:

peter nap wrote:

Agent19 wrote:

Wooley wrote: snip

I don't think a good hardcore combat pistol course a bad idea for anyone that carries.

As long as it's voluntary!

Can you see your mother/father etc... or disabled person completeing one of those courses?

Should they be denied the right to self defense beacuse they can't do what a semi-fit 25yr can do?

+1
Wooley, I've had numerous combat training classes and shoot multiple times a week and run training drills weekly.
I believe in them but agree 100% with Agent 19 that while good, should not be mandatory.

Of course, I also don't believe anyone should have to have a CHP to carry concealed.

Hey now! I never said it should be mandatory. If I did I mispoke. I think you should take it upon yourself to do it.

Didn't mean to imply you did.

Just wanted to add training should be voluntary not mandated.

 

[Coolman]

imported post

How can the Commonwealth Attorney charge both with attempted murder if the truck driver rammed the car twice and that is the basis for the charge against the truck driver than the driver of the car would only have to say to a jury look the Commonwealth even says the truck driver was trying to kill me. And I acted in self defense. The prosecution can't have it both ways.

 

[TFred]

imported post

Coolman wrote:

How can the Commonwealth Attorney charge both with attempted murder if the truck driver rammed the car twice and that is the basis for the charge against the truck driver than the driver of the car would only have to say to a jury look the Commonwealth even says the truck driver was trying to kill me. And I acted in self defense. The prosecution can't have it both ways.

Sure they can if the situation escalated in such a manner. You're not allowed to chase someone down and shoot them if they threatened you, then left. Just as an example, the facts here are far from clear.

TFred

 

[peter nap]

imported post

TFred wrote:

Coolman wrote:

How can the Commonwealth Attorney charge both with attempted murder if the truck driver rammed the car twice and that is the basis for the charge against the truck driver than the driver of the car would only have to say to a jury look the Commonwealth even says the truck driver was trying to kill me. And I acted in self defense. The prosecution can't have it both ways.

Sure they can if the situation escalated in such a manner. You're not allowed to chase someone down and shoot them if they threatened you, then left. Just as an example, the facts here are far from clear.

TFred

As you said, we don't know the facts and in this case, the devil is in the details. Was he chasing him to continue the fight or was he trying to arrest him (Which he could do legally if he was hit first).

Was he pinned against the wall and the truck trying to hit him or was the truck trying to leave.

This is going to be very delicate.

 

[jayarmbar]

imported post

I talked to a VA state trooper about the road rage incident a couple of days ago. He didn't go into much detail but he did tell me that all 13 rounds hit the dump truck.