Road rage leads to shooting

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:45 am

From the Galveston County Daily News, Dec. 3:

Road Rage Leads To Shooting

SAN LEON â€” A severe case of road rage led to a shooting Saturday evening, but the enraged man ended up being the one with a bullet in his leg.

One driver followed the other to his residence and confronted him in his driveway about his alleged driving mistakes, Capt. Henry Trochesset of the Galveston County Sheriffâ€™s Office said.

The San Leon resident attempted to leave his own house to escape the enraged driver, but the other man wouldnâ€™t leave him alone and said he kept â€œcoming at him,â€? Trochesset said.

The resident then shot the enraged driver with a .45 caliber handgun in the left calf. The shot man is being treated for his injury.

The shooting will be referred to a grand jury to evaluate if it was done in self defense, Trocesset said.

â€” T.L. Hamilton

http://news.galvestondailynews.com/stor ... c92f6#Rage

Personally, I think this guy needs a good lawyer.

- Jim

HighVelocity · Post by **HighVelocity** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:16 am

If I'm reading this right, "the resident" was followed home by another driver, then was threatened ON HIS PROPERTY by the driver that followed him home and was not able to get away, even though he tried. Sounds like a righteous shooting to me.

I hope you mean the guy that got shot needs a good lawyer.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:16 am

I don't know about that...

Seems to me the resident did not do anything to escalate the situation and that the "road-rage'r" might have been better off at a few points along the way to let it go...

Maybe the resident should have called the law to run the road-rage'r off before going outside and confronting them again...But hindsight is 20/20 I figure...

I also would not have gone home if I knew I was being followed by a potential threat...

So there are a few things that could have been done, and the whole thing about shooting the guy in the leg...Well, thats going to leave a mark that they'll remember for the rest of their life!

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:43 am

I don't see that the road-rager's action met the standard for use of deadly force. Obviously the story does not contain enough facts. The unstated fact that the defender was not arrested says something.

I didn't post this yesterday, when I read it, because I wanted to see if there was more news in today's paper.

- Jim

FightinAggieCHL · Post by **FightinAggieCHL** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:14 am

He followed him HOME! Where else should the shooter have gone to get away from the follower? If the follower was enraged enough to follow somebody all the way to his place of residence, he probably doesn't mean well. This is a tough situation. I would be interested to know where on the property the shooting took place.

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:48 am

FightinAggieCHL wrote:He followed him HOME! Where else should the shooter have gone to get away from the follower?

A police station, maybe.

- Jim

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:40 am

Like I said, don't go home if you believe you are being followed by someone who is acting irrationally...

Sure gas is not cheap, but yer worth more than a gallon of gas at any price...

While your doing your best to not become a victim, jot down a plate number, even a partial will do, get a description of the occupants, vehicle type, and significant details about the vehicle, damage or special markings...All the while looking for law enforcement, and when in doubt, just do the 911 thing...Let them converge and help you...I see that as a high probablity of success to keep it from coming to an encounter between you and the road-rage'r...

Just some thoughts...

medicff0879 · Post by **medicff0879** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:44 pm

I think if someone is dumb enough to follow you home for an event that occured miles back, they deserve to be shot!! Of course, if you are dumb enough to lead someone to your house after this event you are probably not the brightest bulb in the pack. He more than likely had plenty of time to call 911 before making it all the way home, then again, no one knows how far away from this persons house it happened.

Sure would be hard to go to sleep at night knowing that someone I shot knew where I lived though!!

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:47 pm

medicff0879 wrote:I think if someone is dumb enough to follow you home for an event that occured miles back, they deserve to be shot!!

Morally, they deserve at least a pie in the face.

A litle more justification is required for a legal shooting.

I haven't heard any more about this case. The road rager must have been trying to get into the house or something like that.

Sure would be hard to go to sleep at night knowing that someone I shot knew where I lived though!!

It would be worrisome.

- Jim

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:42 pm

Ok, devil's advocate time...

If someone follows you, it might be for all the right reasons...They might be, but not inclusive to something wrong with your vehicle...

"That hand hanging out of a busted tail light might be cause for some concern..."

I know we like to deal with extremes and know if there really is a problem that we might need to be in a hieghtened state of readiness in cases like this, but the original posting was one of those where I believe there was sufficient reason to be prepared for any contigency...

Not everyone is out there to get us...

Please review my signature line...

Txroadcyclist · Post by **Txroadcyclist** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:56 pm

It seems to me that too many people resort to use of deadly force prematurely, yes I know he was shot in the leg but I question whether this is a good first option . Granted the "other driver" followed the "resident" to his home but resorting to his weapon as his first means, in my mind, is a mistake. The article did not state that the "other driver" was armed so I'm assuming that he is not. I think too many people fear a good old fashioned butt whooping and turn to their gun first. I'm not saying that this may not be appropriate for an elderly or disabled person who is facing a younger, stronger aggressor but the article is vague and made no made no mention of the age or disabilities of the "resident" so I made more assumptions. I personally feel one who is physically capable should have training in hand to hand combat skills before being licensed to carry. I don't mean to say that it should be mandatory, but if one is considering carrying a firearm, a decision not to be taken lightly, then they should be responsible enough to educate and train themselves in less than lethal methods. I do agree that the "resident" should have driven to a police station and prevent the situation to escalate into a physical or deadly confrontation.

jazr45acp · Post by **jazr45acp** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:05 pm

How does this case fit with the Castle Doctrine? Doesn't the "duty to retreat" fly out the window when one is in his "castle"? I'm just trying to comprehend the situation. Thanks in advance. Later.

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:13 pm

jazr45acp wrote:How does this case fit with the Castle Doctrine? Doesn't the "duty to retreat" fly out the window when one is in his "castle"? I'm just trying to comprehend the situation. Thanks in advance. Later.

A "mobile" castle???

Interesting situation...One that deserves plenty of discussion!!!

You da man "Jazr"!!! I like how you think!

TX Rancher · Post by **TX Rancher** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 am

stevie_d_64 wrote:
jazr45acp wrote:How does this case fit with the Castle Doctrine? Doesn't the "duty to retreat" fly out the window when one is in his "castle"? I'm just trying to comprehend the situation. Thanks in advance. Later.
A "mobile" castle???

Interesting situation...One that deserves plenty of discussion!!!

You da man "Jazr"!!! I like how you think!

If I remember correctly, the law basically says if youâ€™re where you have a right to be, you donâ€™t have an obligation to retreat. Since this guy was on his own property, it certainly was a location he had the right to be, and didnâ€™t have to retreat before resorting to his firearm.

But Castle Doctrine, in my opinion, only comes into play once youâ€™ve met the requirements for the use of deadly force (that is if you pull the triggerâ€¦if you donâ€™t pull the trigger I think itâ€™s use of force).

The article sounds a little strange to me and I canâ€™t get it straight in my head how this transpired. The article tends to indicate the shooter entered his house, and then left it to try and get away from the ragerâ€¦If youâ€™re in your house, why would you exit it? Was the rager inside the house? Was he asked to leave? Did he refuse to comply? Was he outside and the home owner exited his house, and then shot the guy? Was there disparity in force (size, age, disabilities, etc.)? Did the rager threaten the home owner? Did the home owner escalate the situation, or did he try to deescalate?

This one just sounds like the bubble is a few degrees off centerâ€¦I would need more information before making a call on this oneâ€¦it could go either way.

I agree that since the home owner was not arrested thatâ€™s a point in the favor of it being a legal shoot.

Good thing the home owner doesn't live in the North East, he would probably be in big time trouble

seeker_two · Post by **seeker_two** » Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:29 am

When all the charges are tallied against Mr. Hot-Head (Tresspassing, Terroristic Threat, Assault, etc.), he may be "convinced" to consider himself lucky he was just shot in the leg and limp away from the matter....