 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2006Just let 'em do it
Especially when it comes to road rage. Spokesman Review, Spokane, WA 01/02/06. www.spokesmanreview.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Driver faces murder charge. A 41 OA Athol, Idaho, woman was run over and killed Saturday in an apparent case of road rage. ---------------------------------- My summary: Two teenage girls were being harrassed by Jonathan Ellington (45), tailgating, passing reclessly etc. Girls stopped, perp stopped, beat on windows threatened to kill them, left. They called cops on cell, the called parents. Cop showed, parents showed, cop took statement and went lookign for perp. Girls and parents see perp go by and chase him, he runs into ditch, daddy tries to block him, he gets the 4x out of ditch and runs over momma who had gotten out of car. Cop finds perp at home a little ways away. He is in jail with charges of 2nd degree murder, leaving scene of accident, DUI, probation violation (prior DUI). Okay, there were 5 stupid (very) people there that night, one of them is dead. Why? Because they tried to confront the road rager. Did I say they were stupid? It bears repeating. Harry K > My summary: Two teenage girls were being harrassed by Jonathan > Ellington (45), tailgating, passing reclessly etc. Girls stopped, perp [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is dead. Why? Because they tried to confront the road rager. Did I > say they were stupid? It bears repeating. Saying "Don't JLEDI" doesn't mean "Act like a moron as well". There was no call to go chasing this guy after the cop had already taken statements. What did they hope to achieve? Yell at him some more? >>Girls and parents see perp go by >>and chase him, he runs into ditch, daddy tries to block him, he gets >>the 4x out of ditch and runs over momma who had gotten out of car.UI). > What did they hope to achieve? Yell at him some more? Collect on a life insurance policy? >My summary: Two teenage girls were being harrassed by Jonathan >Ellington (45), tailgating, passing reclessly etc. Girls stopped, perp [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Harry K What is your point? Based on Illinois law, the parents did nothing wrong at all, and were fully within their rights to detain the perp. It comes under self defense and defense of others, and under those circumstances you have every right to arrest the perp. Now as to what the girls did to deserve this, they were probably acting like you do. > >My summary: Two teenage girls were being harrassed by Jonathan > >Ellington (45), tailgating, passing reclessly etc. Girls stopped, perp [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > It comes under self defense and defense of others, and under those > circumstances you have every right to arrest the perp. Huh??? You have a very strange reading of self defense. Self defense in all states requires it to be an on-the-spot thing. Chasing after someone after they have left leaves that excuse out. > Now as to what the girls did to deserve this, they were probably > acting like you do Nice. Care to specify just how I am acting other than providing some very sane advice? Harry K. >> What is your point? Based on Illinois law, the parents did nothing >> wrong at all, and were fully within their rights to detain the perp. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >in all states requires it to be an on-the-spot thing. Chasing after >someone after they have left leaves that excuse out. Cite? Of course I won't hold my breath, since we know you are incapable of defending your fanatical claims. >> Now as to what the girls did to deserve this, they were probably >> acting like you do > >Nice. Care to specify just how I am acting other than providing some >very sane advice? Sure, see any of your other posts. > >> What is your point? Based on Illinois law, the parents did nothing > >> wrong at all, and were fully within their rights to detain the perp. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sure, see any of your other posts. I didn't ask for a cite, only some common sense. Didn't get it. Harry K >>Huh??? You have a very strange reading of self defense. Self defense >>in all states requires it to be an on-the-spot thing. Chasing after >>someone after they have left leaves that excuse out. > > Cite? Of course I won't hold my breath, since we know you are > incapable of defending your fanatical claims. OK, I don't know why you two are using the term "self-defense" as it doesn't apply to the original road rage incident NOR does it apply to the illegal vigilante action that followed the original road rage incident. The term you two should be using is citizen's arrest. But that doesn't apply either. Two things would prevent the illegal vigilante action from being a lawful citizen's arrest: 1) No felony is alleged to have been committed during the original road rage incident (a misdemeanor, possibly, but misdemeanors do not qualify for a lawful citizen's arrest) 2) The alleged perp left the scene, and you can't make a lawful citizen's arrest AFTER THE FACT So first get your terms right, and then continue your argument. :) -Dave >So first get your terms right, and then continue your argument. :) -Dave This is becoming an All Dave newsgroup...  SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >What is your point? Based on Illinois law, the parents did nothing >wrong at all, and were fully within their rights to detain the perp. >It comes under self defense and defense of others, and under those >circumstances you have every right to arrest the perp. Self defense is when a person attacks you and you defend yourself. When you follow the criminal and confromt them, that is no longer self defense. They should have just let the cops do their job. ---------------- Alex > Especially when it comes to road rage. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Harry K They DID THE RIGHT THING. Doing the right thing is not stupid, no matter what the consequences. I am sick and tired of people rolling over and taking it when some jerk does something that jerks do without confrontation or comment, because it makes them that much more likely that they'll keep being jerks, and eventually I'll have to deal with it. Kind of like the passengers in that plane that went down in PA on 9/11. I've never been so proud of my fellow countrymen as I was that day because they stood up for what was right, even knowing that it would cost them their lives. nate "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Kind of like the passengers in that plane that went down in PA on 9/11. > I've never been so proud of my fellow countrymen as I was that day > because they stood up for what was right, even knowing that it would > cost them their lives. And well you should be proud of them, for they earned it. But puh-leeze! Do not equate those folks with the aforementioned participants. What you conveniently overlook is that the people on the 9/11 aircraft also knew that taking *no* action would cost them their lives - a circumstance not applicable to the traffic scenario described. > "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > taking *no* action would cost them their lives - a circumstance not > applicable to the traffic scenario described. This is where you're wrong. Taking no action may well cost someone their life, if not necessarily the original person the driver harassed. nate > > "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > This is where you're wrong. Taking no action may well cost someone > their life, if not necessarily the original person the driver harassed. Idle and pointless ( probably wrong ) speculation. Don't wind up the aready wound up idiot any more and let the Police do their job. Graham > > > "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Graham Relying on the police to keep you safe is a good way to not BE safe. They're handy when they're around and you need them, but you can't completely rely on them. nate > > > > "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > nate Still waiting for you to show how confronting a road rager makes you safer. Harry K > > > > > "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Still waiting for you to show how confronting a road rager makes you > safer. Forces the a-hole to reevaluate the acceptability of his actions re: polite society. Can also end up with a-hole in jail. I don't know about you but if someone threatens to kill me in a credible manner (and by the article that happened) I feel that it is my right to take whatever steps I deem necessary to protect myself up until such time as a-hole is in handcuffs. nate "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message > ......if someone threatens to kill me in a credible manner > (and by the article that happened) I feel that it is my right to take > whatever steps I deem necessary to protect myself up until such time as > a-hole is in handcuffs. There are many circumstances where I might agree with you in principle, but the fact is that what you *feel* is your right is not justification for any action on your part. It is only the law that can govern response in such a scenario, and in most jurisdictions you can take no action that absent any threat could be considered assault unless you are in direct and present danger and there is no means of escape or avoidance available to you. If you do as you suggest, reigniting the conflict in spite of ample opportunities to not reignite the direct conflict, then you are as much a violator as the original threatener, and perhaps more so because he can claim to have been acting in the heat of passion whereas you acted with forethought and intent. > > > > > > "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > nate Attacking him (if he isn't actively attackin gyou at the time) will result in -you- begin charged with assault. You don't have self defense until you can honestly claim that you were in danger of your life. But then I and others have already tried to explain that to you. Again, how is confronting him improving your safety? Harry K >>>>>>>"N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Harry K I just explained it to you. If you don't understand the concept of a citizen's arrest or putting yourself at risk for the greater good then nothing I can say will change your mind. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > If you don't understand the concept of a > citizen's arrest or putting yourself at risk for the greater good There was no 'greater good' served by this stupidity. Don't be so idiotic. Graham > > If you don't understand the concept of a > > citizen's arrest or putting yourself at risk for the greater good > > There was no 'greater good' served by this stupidity. Don't be so idiotic. > > Graham A man who made credible threats to kill two people is behind bars. I can't help you if you fail to see the goodness in that. It is regrettable that he actually succeeded in killing one person, however. nate >> There was no 'greater good' served by this stupidity. Don't be so >> idiotic. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > nate The person who died did so during the commission of a crime. It didn't have to be that way. If the family had OBEYED THE LAW and let the police catch the perp, nobody would have died. There was no "greater good" served by this stupidity. If the family had not engaged in illegal vigilante action, the perp would be behind bars RIGHT NOW, and nobody would have died. -Dave >> Again, how is confronting him improving your safety? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > nate Citizen's arrest wouldn't be applicable to the original road rage incident. Two things would make this an incident which would NOT qualify for a lawful citizen's arrest: 1) No felony was committed (words were exchanged, no injuries, no property damage of any kind, where's the felony? Simple assault/ saying "I'm going to kill you" is a misdemeanor, not a felony) 2) A citizen's arrest, to be lawful, must happen during a felony (not AFTER it). When the perp fled the scene, no citizen then had the right to arrest him, even if he HAD just committed a felony (and he had not in fact committed any felony). It was a matter for the police to handle at that point. -Dave >Forces the a-hole to reevaluate the acceptability of his actions re: >polite society. Can also end up with a-hole in jail. I don't know [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >nate Exactly, and contrary to JLEDI boy harry, that is the law in all 50 states. > >Forces the a-hole to reevaluate the acceptability of his actions re: > >polite society. Can also end up with a-hole in jail. I don't know [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Exactly, and contrary to JLEDI boy harry, that is the law in all 50 > states. Better read up on the law before you try that or you will be the one in the gray bar hotel. The law in all states requires the threat to be immediate and a danger to your life. Self protection ends as soon as the immediate threat is over. Harry K >> >Forces the a-hole to reevaluate the acceptability of his actions re: >> >polite society. Can also end up with a-hole in jail. I don't know [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >to your life. Self protection ends as soon as the immediate threat is >over. The embellishment you added in the earlier post -- the duty to flee if possible -- is NOT law in all states. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> >Forces the a-hole to reevaluate the acceptability of his actions re: > >> >polite society. Can also end up with a-hole in jail. I don't know [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can > result in a fully-depreciated one. Better read it again. I didn't say anything at all about 'duty to flee'. And you are correct, it doesn't apply in all states. The selfl-defense law also has quirks depending on states. Here, you can shoot someone breaking down your door coming in but can't as he is leaving. Harry K >> >> >Forces the a-hole to reevaluate the acceptability of his actions re: >> >> >polite society. Can also end up with a-hole in jail. I don't know [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Better read it again. I didn't say anything at all about 'duty to >flee'. Ahh, sorry, that was John Gaquin. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> >> >Forces the a-hole to reevaluate the acceptability of his actions re: > >> >> >polite society. Can also end up with a-hole in jail. I don't know [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can > result in a fully-depreciated one. Not a problem. Harry K i think its fair to say road rage scares the crap out of me... yes ive been pissed while driving before... that ussually reflects upon my speedometer, not my aggresiveness in driving. (that is until i see a cop or check my speed. < then i go to cruise. and slow way the hell down) but i can say i have never ridden anyones a.s to piss them off. yes ive gotten close to make a pass cuz i got places to go, but never to solely piss someone off. and with luck i never will. Signaturezx2guy http://www.automotiveforums.com >>Forces the a-hole to reevaluate the acceptability of his actions re: >>polite society. Can also end up with a-hole in jail. I don't know [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Exactly, and contrary to JLEDI boy harry, that is the law in all 50 > states. Wrong. If the death threat was made verbally, it might qualify as assault, which is a misdemeanor. You can't claim self-defense if you aren't reasonably certain that your life is in danger. You can't make a citizen's arrest if no felony was committed by alleged perp. In BOTH CASES, a private citizen can't LEGALLY take any direct action against the person of the alleged perp, AFTER THE FACT. This family who actively chased and cornered the perp after the fact was just plain WRONG, in the eyes of the law in all 50 states. It is unfortunate that one of them died during the illegal vigilante action. -Dave "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message > This is where you're wrong. Taking no action may well cost someone > their life, if not necessarily the original person the driver harassed. No, I.m not wrong here. Read carefully what has been written. Taking no action following a traffic incident may well cost someone their life, but it is the most random sort of speculation. You have no way of knowing who, how, where, or when, or whether the potential result will be at the primary, secondary, or even tertiary level of events. Conversely, the folks on the plane KNEW that taking *no* action would just as likely cost them their lives as taking some action would. Entirely different decision matrix. >> Especially when it comes to road rage. >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >They DID THE RIGHT THING. No, they didn't. You leave confrontation up to the police. Lacking that, you only do confrontation when there is no question you are going to win. > Doing the right thing is not stupid, no >matter what the consequences. It wasn't the right thing to go chasing / personally confronting the road rager, and it wasn't the right thing that the mother is dead. >I am sick and tired of people rolling >over and taking it when some jerk does something that jerks do without >confrontation or comment, because it makes them that much more likely >that they'll keep being jerks, and eventually I'll have to deal with >it. What they did was more or less the equivalent of a duel, which was outlawed centuries ago. Its not completely without merit to be charging someone with something - what I'm not sure - but something to have attempted to escalate this. The right course of action is to do whatever you're going to do such that the good guys win. Call the cops, tail the perp (without being noticed!) and birddog his whereabouts until the police can run an intercept, etc. etc. Never get out of the car, that's a sure way to risk death. And preferably, be armed. Dave Head >Kind of like the passengers in that plane that went down in PA on 9/11. > I've never been so proud of my fellow countrymen as I was that day >because they stood up for what was right, even knowing that it would >cost them their lives. > >nate >>They DID THE RIGHT THING. > >No, they didn't. You leave confrontation up to the police. They did not confront him until he attacked them AGAIN. Following someone is not confronting them, especially when you are on the phone with the cops. Not that they will actually respond... >>>They DID THE RIGHT THING. >> >>No, they didn't. You leave confrontation up to the police. > >They did not confront him until he attacked them AGAIN. The fatal flaw is here: >>Girls and parents see perp go by >> and chase him >Following >someone It wasn't "following", it was "chasing". Difference is that they chased him so hard that he ran into the ditch. They should have followed him at a distance far enough that he couldn't tell it was them, got on the phone to 911, and just kept tabs on his whereabouts until the cops could run an intercept. When he crashed, they should never have approached him, let alone tried to block him. They escalated this thing until the inevitable bad ending happened. Dave Head >is not confronting them, especially when you are on the phone >with the cops. Not that they will actually respond... > >>>They DID THE RIGHT THING. > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > crashed, they should never have approached him, let alone tried to block him. > They escalated this thing until the inevitable bad ending happened. I think you hit the nail on the head. Graham > > >>>They DID THE RIGHT THING. > > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Graham Yes, but DTJ won't get it. Harry K >The fatal flaw is here: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >It wasn't "following", it was "chasing". Difference is that they chased him so Hey idiot (I can say that now that I know this isn't one of the good Daves) the MEDIA said chase. You weren't there. > They DID THE RIGHT THING. Doing the right thing is not stupid, no > matter what the consequences. I am sick and tired of people rolling [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > because they stood up for what was right, even knowing that it would > cost them their lives. In that instance there is some relation. But I don't think that was Harry's intent at all, but rather show how we should back down to everyone who shoulder passes and what not. > > They DID THE RIGHT THING. Doing the right thing is not stupid, no > > matter what the consequences. I am sick and tired of people rolling [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Harry's intent at all, but rather show how we should back down to > everyone who shoulder passes and what not. Wasn't my intent. I worded the first line wrong. It should have read "WHEN" vice "ESPECIALLY". hARRY k >They DID THE RIGHT THING. The outcome proves they did the wrong thing. The right thing is to have let the cops handle the situation. >Doing the right thing is not stupid, no >matter what the consequences. I disagree. People who had no training in how to properly handle a situation did the wrong thing and one of them ended up dead. They made a poor decision and one of them paid for it with their life. >I am sick and tired of people rolling >over and taking it when some jerk does something that jerks do without >confrontation or comment, because it makes them that much more likely >that they'll keep being jerks, and eventually I'll have to deal with >it. That's why there are cops. Call the cops and let them handle it. Sometimes you can just confront the jerk/s and correct the situation. But you have to know enough to make that decision. >Kind of like the passengers in that plane that went down in PA on 9/11. > I've never been so proud of my fellow countrymen as I was that day >because they stood up for what was right, even knowing that it would >cost them their lives. Those folks made a very brave choice. They were in a lose lose situation and made the choice to minimize the damage the terrorists could inflict on others. -------------- Alex >They DID THE RIGHT THING. Doing the right thing is not stupid, no >matter what the consequences. I am sick and tired of people rolling >over and taking it when some jerk does something that jerks do without >confrontation or comment, because it makes them that much more likely >that they'll keep being jerks, and eventually I'll have to deal with >it. How do you know that the "jerks" were not those two girls? After all, people don't become enraged for no reason. Given the profound stupidity displayed by the entire family, how do you know that these girls did not perform an initial stupid act that enraged Mr. Ellington in the first place? Sounds like he could have been doing precisly what you advocate: he refused to just roll over and take it these girls' poor driving without confrontation or comment. > How do you know that the "jerks" were not those two girls? After all, > people don't become enraged for no reason. Haven't you seen someone become enraged when you wouldn't let them shoulder pass you or similiar? I've also seen people become enraged for some slight that they felt happened. For instance, being ahead of them in the queue at a light while using a bicycle. >> How do you know that the "jerks" were not those two girls? After all, >> people don't become enraged for no reason. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >some slight that they felt happened. For instance, being ahead of them in >the queue at a light while using a bicycle. Unfortunately, the liberal media isn't likelt to give us enough information to decide which party drew first blood. In their minds, the "road rager" is automatically at fault. > Unfortunately, the liberal media isn't aren't >> Unfortunately, the liberal media isn't > >aren't Learn how to capitalize properly before you start posting grammar flames, fuckwit. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave >>> Unfortunately, the liberal media isn't >> >>aren't > > Learn how to capitalize properly before you start posting grammar > flames, fuckwit. pffft... >> Unfortunately, the liberal media isn't > >aren't That's a matter of opinion. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Especially when it comes to road rage. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Harry K Evening news addign something. It gets even stranger. After they caught up to the perp, he sideswiped daddies car then rammed the daughters and pushed it 30 feet. At that point daddy pulled off several rounds at him (no hits) but the perp is using that as the excuse for the entire incident. Note that the rounds were fired after (or during) his deadly assault on the girls. Okay, now THAT qualifies as self defense providing he wasn't already departing when the rounds were fired. Harry K > Evening news addign something. It gets even stranger. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Harry K As I wrote before, this could easily be self-defense, if there wasn't a DUI charge involved. In other words, he had no right to be driving AT ALL, so he shouldn't have been in the situation where it would have been necessary to defend his own life. Oh, and if there wasn't a DUI charge involved, I'd STILL call this self-defense, even if he was attempting to escape before someone started shooting at him. After you're shot, it's too late to defend yourself. (DUH!!!) -Dave > > Evening news addign something. It gets even stranger. > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > shooting at him. After you're shot, it's too late to defend yourself. > (DUH!!!) -Dave Trying to understand that. No luck. Your definition of self defense would end up with you in jail if you tried it. There was a DUI involved (see the OP) but WTF does that have to do with whatever you tried to write? Harry K >> Oh, and if there wasn't a DUI charge involved, I'd STILL call this >> self-defense, even if he was attempting to escape before someone started [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Harry K OK, I'll simplify it a bit. You are NOT DRUNK, but involved in a road rage incident. An entire family (also involved in the road rage incident) surrounds you while you are trying to get your car out of the ditch. You can get the car out of the ditch, but the angry family is trying to prevent you from doing so. A man pulls a gun on you with obviously hostile intentions. You reasonably believe that your life is in danger. Do you: A) Sit there and wait for the man to shoot you DEAD? OR . . . B) GET THE f.ck OUT OF THERE NOW!!! (even if that means running somebody over and possibly killing him/her/them) Or as I wrote before, if there was no DUI involved, this would clearly be a case of self-defense. IF there was no DUI involved. But the DUI bit muddys the waters slightly. You could probably still make a strong case for this murder charge being justifiable homicide, or "self-defense". Sure he was drunk, but he also reasonably believed that his life was in danger. So, apart from the being drunk (which probably got him in the mess in the first place) his actions in regard to killing the mother were almost perfectly reasonable. It could be argued that the mother was part of a murder conspiracy to kill the perp. That is, the mother blocked the perp in while the father TRIED TO SHOOT HIM TO DEATH. Therefore running over the mother to escape the people hell-bent on KILLING him was a reasonable action. Put another way . . . I'd rather be (alive and on trial for murder) than (a dead DUI road rager). Wouldn't you? -Dave > >> Oh, and if there wasn't a DUI charge involved, I'd STILL call this > >> self-defense, even if he was attempting to escape before someone started [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Put another way . . . I'd rather be (alive and on trial for murder) than (a > dead DUI road rager). Wouldn't you? -Dave A whole bunch of babble that comes down to reading something into it that wasn't there. It still goes back to the original. They were STUPID to chase him. That he will try to claim self defense goes without saying. That he will lose says the same. Harry K > A whole bunch of babble that comes down to reading something into it > that wasn't there. It still goes back to the original. They were > STUPID to chase him. That he will try to claim self defense goes > without saying. That he will lose says the same. > > Harry K I'm not so sure that claiming "self defense" won't work in this situation. Let's go back to the original road rage incident . . . was there any FELONY involved there? No injuries, no property damage, there was a possible death threat which might qualify as assault, but that's a misdemeanor. No, it looks like no felony was involved. So the family chasing down the perp and cornering him in the ditch was (at best) an illegal vigilante action, especially as the family chased him AFTER he left the scene of the original incident (when he was no longer a threat to anybody). Citizen's arrest wouldn't apply. No felony, and the "arrest" was after-the-fact, so the arrest was illegal on two counts. So while sympathy might be on the side of the family (mom died, blah blah blah), the LAW very well could be on the side of the person charged with murder. A claim of self-defense might be applicable, and might indeed be applied, successfully. If you are having trouble visualizing this, just drop the road rage incident off of it and run it through your head from the point of view of the accused: An angry mob who has no LEGAL right to stop you corners you and attempts to prevent you from escaping. One of the angry mobsters illegally trying to stop you pulls a gun on you and tries to murder you by shooting you to death. In fear of your own life (someone is shooting at me, sh.t!!!), you immediately flee the scene taking the only path open to you. Unfortunately, to SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE, you have to take a path of escape which happens to be THROUGH another human being. It's you or her, you've got less than one millisecond to take action or you are DEAD. That would be an easy decision for most people to make. It boils down to "I want to live, so I'm going to do the only thing I can do to try to stop this angry armed mob from killing me". It's not so black and white now, is it? Self defense could easily get this guy out of a murder charge. -Dave > > A whole bunch of babble that comes down to reading something into it > > that wasn't there. It still goes back to the original. They were [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > It's not so black and white now, is it? Self defense could easily get this > guy out of a murder charge. -Dave Yes, in your made up scenario a self defense could be claimed, 'in fear of his life with credible reason to do so' would justify it. Too bad we aren't discussing that and what has so far been reported says no 'credible threat' was there until AFTER he bashed the girls twice. I myself suspect that daddy did display his weapon before that but... Harry K >> It's not so black and white now, is it? Self defense could easily get >> this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Harry K It's still not so black and white. You are forgetting that the family had no legal authority to chase the perp, corner him and try to prevent him from leaving. Let's assume for a moment that there was no gun involved. The accused murdered could STILL be in fear of losing his life. If they have no legal authority to confront him, WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY TRYING TO DO THEN??? Was he supposed to assume that the angry mob was just chasing him because they wanted to apologize for whatever incident pissed him off to begin with? Please . . . Putting myself in that situation, where I was cornered by an angry mob, intent on not letting me leave, what would I have done? Well, I would have attempted to escape, obviously. If a car had me blocked in? I would have attempted to move that car with my own car. No doubt this would have pissed off the angry mob to the point where they would have wanted to cause me grave bodily harm. Knowing that it was only a matter of time before the angry mob started using nearby rocks, tire irons and other objects to try to kill me, and knowing that my car couldn't protect me indefinitely, the wisest action on my own part would have been to get the f.ck out of there RIGHT DAMNED NOW. It would have been stupid to exit the car to try to flee on foot, so as long as the car was still running, the ONLY choice I would have is to drive away. If my only avenue of escape is being blocked by a person? Well, that person better jump out of the way or he/she will be run over, as I'm certainly not hanging around to let an angry mob kill me. Where you are confused is that you don't understand that in the eyes of the law, a "credible threat" was present as soon as the family gave chase, doing so ILLEGALLY, by the way. -Dave > >> It's not so black and white now, is it? Self defense could easily get > >> this [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > law, a "credible threat" was present as soon as the family gave chase, doing > so ILLEGALLY, by the way. -Dave Assuming no gun (or other weapon) was displayed, you might stand a chance of a self defense based on that. I can't recall ever hearing a case made based on that and I do a lot of reading and news watching. My bet is you would lose. The perp may even stand a chance in this case if the gun was displayed before his 'ramming'. Will be an interesting case to watch when it comes up as I am sure that point will be a case of "he said, she said". Harry K Harry K > Assuming no gun (or other weapon) was displayed, you might stand a > chance of a self defense based on that. I can't recall ever hearing a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Harry K That much we can agree on. It will be interesting. :) -Dave > Okay, there were 5 stupid (very) people there that night, one of them > is dead. Why? Because they tried to confront the road rager. Did I > say they were stupid? It bears repeating. I don't see anything in this story related to 'just let them do it' as I relate it. Or are you implying that hunting someone down is somehow equal to not letting another driver push you off the road? > > Okay, there were 5 stupid (very) people there that night, one of them > > is dead. Why? Because they tried to confront the road rager. Did I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > relate it. Or are you implying that hunting someone down is somehow equal > to not letting another driver push you off the road? Not really, but it is an escalation of that. It is rather difficult to draw a line and say where your JLTDI stance ends and stupidity begins. I myself have stood my ground. Harry K >> > Okay, there were 5 stupid (very) people there that night, one of them >> > is dead. Why? Because they tried to confront the road rager. Did I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > draw a line and say where your JLTDI stance ends and stupidity begins. > I myself have stood my ground. It's very simple, in my case where holding my ground poses a credible danger to the paint job of my vehicle. Most people do not pose a credible threat. > >> > Okay, there were 5 stupid (very) people there that night, one of them > >> > is dead. Why? Because they tried to confront the road rager. Did I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > danger to the paint job of my vehicle. Most people do not pose a > credible threat. Sounds reasonable. I have never come close to an incident like that and don't know. I suspect I would back down a bit short of that line. Harry K > Especially when it comes to road rage. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ellington (45), tailgating, passing reclessly etc. Girls stopped, perp > stopped, beat on windows threatened to kill them, left. Is threatening to kill - as here - an arrestable offence as in the UK ? Graham > > Especially when it comes to road rage. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Graham Yes. The original charge would probably be Assault 4 (misdemeanor), ramming with a vehicle raises that to assualt 1 (dangerous weapon) (felony). Harry K > Okay, there were 5 stupid (very) people there that night, one of them > is dead. Why? Because they tried to confront the road rager. Did I > say they were stupid? Were they all trailer trash ? Graham > Especially when it comes to road rage. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 2nd degree murder, leaving scene of accident, DUI, probation violation > (prior DUI). Murder? You could almost pass this one off as self-defense, if there wasn't a DUI charge involved. Yes, aside from the DUI, this perp was very stupid. HOWEVER, at the point the whole family cornered him in the ditch, the perp very well could have believed that his life was threatened. In a similar circumstance, I might have driven out of the ditch, and driven away, regardless of how many human beings I had to drive OVER to get away. So I can see this being self-defense. But then, when you throw in the DUI? Yup, I think this is murder. I gotta wonder though . . . if the family got close enough to corner this guy in the ditch, why didn't they just get on the cell phone and tell the cops (WHO WERE ALREADY LOOKING FOR THE PERP) where the guy was? Wouldn't that be the obvious course of action? Follow at safe distance, relay location to cops on cell phone . . . everybody lives to sort it out in court later. But NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo . . . I guess that would make too much sense. -Dave >> Especially when it comes to road rage. >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo . . . I guess that would make > too much sense. -Dave Uh,"self-defense" cannot be claimed when one is in the commission of a crime,or fleeing from the commission of a crime. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Uh,"self-defense" cannot be claimed when one is in the commission of a > crime,or fleeing from the commission of a crime. Yes, I understand that. But what we have here is more than one incident, coincidentally related: 1) Road rage incident, involving teenage girls and perp. Perp fled from scene. Incident OVER 2) Illegal Vigilante incident, started by victim family from earlier incident. During this incident, the NEW PERPS (the previous victims/ family) pull a gun and start shooting at the victim (who was the perp in the earlier incident). At this point, the perp is now the victim of a violent felonious assault which is likely to result in the victim's death. Now it is indeed self-defense. When the guy was cornered by the family, AT THAT POINT, he was neither in the commission of a crime, NOR was he fleeing from the commission of a crime. He'd already fled from the crime a long time ago. Maybe he wasn't smart enought to stay FAR AWAY from the crime scene, but nobody involved in this mess was a mental giant, obviously. The victims in the first incident had no right to corner the perp and then try to kill him in the second incident. Follow him? Yes, they had a right to do that, as long as they did not trespass on private property or break any other laws in the process. Drop a dime on him? Yes, they had a right to do that. Arrest him? NO, they had no right to do that, so their actions in trying to apprehend him were unlawful. SHOOT HIM? NO, they had no right to do that, so their actions in trying to kill him were unlawful. In other words, the family with the teenage girls would have had no right to claim self-defense, as they became the perps at a point in time before the mother was killed. But the guy who killed the mother? He can and probably should claim self-defense. He's got a really strong argument for self-defense, other than the DUI part. -Dave >> Uh,"self-defense" cannot be claimed when one is in the commission of >> a crime,or fleeing from the commission of a crime. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > property or break any other laws in the process. Drop a dime on him? > Yes, they had a right to do that. Arrest him? AFAIK,they were not "trying to ARREST him",they were trying to DETAIN him,an entirely different matter. Also,it's unclear whether the detainers pulled the gun *before* the original perp tried to run them over,or pulled the gun when the original perp tried to use his vehicle as a weapon to harm them.If the gun was not in evidence while they were detaining him,he had no right to try to run over the detainers;he was in no danger of harm -at that point-. (being safe inside his vehicle.) > NO, they had no right > to do that, so their actions in trying to apprehend him were unlawful. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > He can and probably should claim self-defense. He's got a really > strong argument for self-defense, other than the DUI part. -Dave I'm not a lawyer,nor do I know the full story of what happened in this case,but I disagree about the claim of "self-defense" on the original perp's part. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> The victims in the first incident had no right to corner the perp and >> then try to kill him in the second incident. Follow him? Yes, they [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > over the detainers;he was in no danger of harm -at that point-. > (being safe inside his vehicle.) To arrest someone is (quite simply) to restrict their freedom of movement. If you prevent someone from going where that person wants to go, exactly WHEN that person wants to leave, and say that you are "DETAINING" him, you are in violation of the law. It doesn't matter if you use the word "detain", the fact remains that you have arrested someone with no legal authority to do so. People think "arrest" means that a uniformed police officer slaps cuffs on you, throws you in the back of his cruiser and hauls you off to jail. While that does meet the definition of arrest, there is a lot more involved in that situation than a simple ARREST. There is no such thing as a right of detaining someone, even if you think that person might have violated a law. There are VERY SPECIFIC circumstances under which a civilian may ARREST someone else. A couple of these are often referred to as shopkeeper's privilege and citizen's arrest. As this situation had nothing to do with shoplifting, we'd have to evaluate it on the basis of citizen's arrest: Citizen's arrest laws vary from state to state, but generally: In order for the citizen's arrest to be lawful, you must arrest the perp while the perp is in the process of committing a FELONY (an act for which a conviction would mean mandatory time in prison). If someone states "I'm going to kill you", that does not qualify as a felony. It is a misdemeanor, if it can be proven. If someone ATTEMPTS to kill you (or someone else) that WOULD qualify as a felony. So if you were to restrict someone's freedom of movement while they were trying to kill someone, that would PROBABLY be a legal citizen's arrest. If the perp flees the scene of the crime however, then that perp is no longer *actively* engaged in felonious criminal activity, so while the perp is fleeing, you can NOT make a lawful citizen's arrest. For the family to chase down this perp AFTER THE FACT of possibly committing a misdemeanor, and try to detain him, was unlawful. It was an illegal vigilante action, at best. During this illegal vigilante action, one of the perps pulled a gun. So on top of unlawfully arresting someone who (at worst) never committed a felony, and was not actively engaged in breaking any law, the perps also committed some kind of weapons violation, which might have been felonious criminal activity on the part of the vigilantes. Or put another way, if you have no right to arrest someone to begin with, it is stupid in the extreme to use a firearm to arrest someone, as you've just upped the charges against yourself from unlawful arrest (probably a misdemeanor) to a weapons charge which will probably mean mandatory time in prison. It is extremely important that you realize that citizen's arrest is an action which must meet very specific requirements in order to be LAWFUL. If ALL of those requirements are NOT met, then YOU are engaged in criminal activity simply by attempting to restrict someone's freedom of movement in any manner. A road rage incident where words are exchanged, no physical injury is involved and no property damage is involved could never in any stretch of the imagination qualify for a incident in which citizen's arrest might be lawful. There has to be a felony first. But even if there WAS a felony (and there wasn't), citizen's arrest no longer would be applicable, after the perp leaves the scene of the crime. -Dave >>> The victims in the first incident had no right to corner the perp >>> and then try to kill him in the second incident. Follow him? Yes, [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > felony (and there wasn't), citizen's arrest no longer would be > applicable, after the perp leaves the scene of the crime. -Dave Store owners or employees regularly DETAIN people they caught shoplifting,until police arrive. That crime is not a felony. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Store owners or employees regularly DETAIN people they caught > shoplifting,until police arrive. > That crime is not a felony. It could be. In order to be a felony, a certain cash value must be met (forget what it is off the top of my head, but somewhere in the thousands of dollars) But even when shoplifting is not a felony, store owners and/or employees are ALLOWED to detain suspected shoplifters. That is legal. HOWEVER, before you detain someone for shoplifting, you'd better be damned sure that you have reasonable suspicion. Also, you can not detain a shoplifter inside the store, as no crime has happened until the suspected shoplifter has left the building with unpaid merchandise. As I wrote before, there are certain circumstances where civilians can arrest other people. The road rage incident that started this thread did not meet the criteria to be a lawful citizen's arrest scenario. -Dave > > Uh,"self-defense" cannot be claimed when one is in the commission of a > > crime,or fleeing from the commission of a crime. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > should claim self-defense. He's got a really strong argument for > self-defense, other than the DUI part. -Dave Would you for God's sake at least read what the posts say? No shots were fired until the perp had rammed the girls car (twice) after he was out of the ditch. Or can you excercise your imagination enough to explain how a person stuck in a ditch can ram a car twice? Harry K > Would you for God's sake at least read what the posts say? No shots > were fired until the perp had rammed the girls car (twice) after he was > out of the ditch. Or can you excercise your imagination enough to > explain how a person stuck in a ditch can ram a car twice? > > Harry K If someone doesn't have the right to arrest you, you have the right to defend yourself from an angry mob attempting to illegally arrest you. Or put more simply, if the girls hadn't illegally attempted to stop him from leaving, it wouldn't have been necessary for him to ram their car to get them to MOVE. Pulling the gun to try to enforce an action which was illegal in the first place was not only criminal, but terribly stupid. If this person charged with murder beats the rap by claiming self-defense, then the grieving family members can share part of the blame for this person beating the murder rap. -Dave >>> Especially when it comes to road rage. >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >Uh,"self-defense" cannot be claimed when one is in the commission of a >crime,or fleeing from the commission of a crime. That's not a universal rule. Further, in this case, the original crime (if one occurred) had already been completed; the incident in which he killed the mother was separate. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>Uh,"self-defense" cannot be claimed when one is in the commission of a >>crime,or fleeing from the commission of a crime. > > That's not a universal rule. Further, in this case, the original crime > (if one occurred) had already been completed; the incident in which he > killed the mother was separate. And none of us truly know all of what happened in that case. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > Especially when it comes to road rage. > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > later. But NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo . . . I guess that would > make too much sense. -Dave Too bad for your imagination. They were on the cell phone with the dispatcher asking them to quit chasing. Still on the phone when momma got run over. The deputy was en route. Harry K > Too bad for your imagination. They were on the cell phone with the > dispatcher asking them to quit chasing. Still on the phone when momma > got run over. The deputy was en route. > > Harry K So the dispatcher knew that the angry mob was engaged in illegal vigilante action, and was trying to advise them FOR THEIR OWN GOOD to stop breaking the law. It's too bad they ignored good legal advice, and somebody died because they failed to follow instructions, OR the law. -Dave >Especially when it comes to road rage. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Harry K Pretty fishy story here and all we're getting is one side of it. I'd like to hear what the so-called perp has to say. This family that was chasing him sound like a bunch of nuts and may have made up a lot of this. > >Especially when it comes to road rage. > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Pretty fishy story here and all we're getting is one side of it. I'd Sounds like one of your usual trolls, loser. > like to hear what the so-called perp has to say. This family that was Who cares what you'd like, sh.t for brains? > chasing him sound like a bunch of nuts and may have made up a lot of > this. Bunch of nuts making things up? Sounds like the majority of your posts, Einstein. By the way, how was your Hannukah? > >Especially when it comes to road rage. > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > chasing him sound like a bunch of nuts and may have made up a lot of > this. While I usually won't respond to trolls: The perps story is that he was afraid for his life and was fleeing the shots. Too bad no shots were fired until he had already rammed the girls twice committing a felony with a dangerous weapon and daddy therefore was justified in the shooting. Too bad he only hit the car as it was leaving (over the top of momma). I would really like to know what started the road rage to begin with. Nothing has been mentioned so far. Harry K > Especially when it comes to road rage. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Harry K Best procedure for a sighting of such a criminal would be to follow and dial up the police and tell them your location,description of the suspect vehicle,and direction he's headed.This has happened before,in a few bank robberies,with great success. This tragedy is because some untrained citizens tried to act like police. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >My summary: Two teenage girls were being harrassed by Jonathan >Ellington (45), tailgating, passing reclessly etc. One wonders what bone-headed move the girls pulled to trigger such a reaction. >Okay, there were 5 stupid (very) people there that night, one of them >is dead. Why? Because they tried to confront the road rager. Did I >say they were stupid? It bears repeating. I agree, they were stupid for attempting to confont Ellington. But where does the JLEDI philosophy come into this? > >My summary: Two teenage girls were being harrassed by Jonathan > >Ellington (45), tailgating, passing reclessly etc. > > One wonders what bone-headed move the girls pulled to trigger such a > reaction. I have been waiting for the same thing. I wondered from the first report what started it. > >Okay, there were 5 stupid (very) people there that night, one of them > >is dead. Why? Because they tried to confront the road rager. Did I > >say they were stupid? It bears repeating. > > I agree, they were stupid for attempting to confont Ellington. But > where does the JLEDI philosophy come into this? Errmm, care for ones health, ya think? Just what do you think two teenage girls are going to do with an enraged man? Harry K > Especially when it comes to road rage. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Harry K Well, you all were right. His defense is that he ran over her while trying to escape being shot at. The PA dropped the Murder 1 charge today and is going for Homicide 2. The trial should be interesting as his defense will still be 'trying to escape". It will come down to "He said, she said" unless somehow forensics can show just when the shooting started. Harry K > > Especially when it comes to road rage. > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Harry K Late news corrected that. The charge will be Involuntary Manslaughter. So his "escaping" defense seems to have flown. I would still like to know what the girls did to start the whole thing in the beginning. Maybe it will come out in the trial. Harry K Harry K wrote: <brevity snip> > Late news corrected that. The charge will be Involuntary Manslaughter. > So his "escaping" defense seems to have flown. I would still like to > know what the girls did to start the whole thing in the beginning. > Maybe it will come out in the trial. ----- I find this a very interesting case. Media reports ain't worth squat, I want transcripts and records... but not enough to pay for 'em. ----- - gpsman > Harry K wrote: <brevity snip> > > Late news corrected that. The charge will be Involuntary Manslaughter. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - gpsman I now doubt that it will ever go to trial. Given the "slap on the wrist" charge if found guilty and the outrage in the community he would be insane not to accept a plea bargain. Harry K > > Harry K wrote: <brevity snip> > > > Late news corrected that. The charge will be Involuntary Manslaughter. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Harry K It's getting wierder by the day. Looks like there is a face-off between the judge and Pa. Pa has re-filed Murder 2 charges. I wondered how the judge could amend the charges. That isn't a judges job. He is supposed to rule on whether the charge is valid (which he did) but not say what the proper charge is AFAIK. From all the reports in the paper it looks to me like the question of what the charge should be is a matter for a jury to decide, They can always find for a "lesser included offense" if the PA does his job right. I am still seeing it as "He said, she said" unless the bullet holes in the car can show just when the firing started. Harry K >> > Harry K wrote: <brevity snip> >> > > Late news corrected that. The charge will be Involuntary Manslaughter. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >job. He is supposed to rule on whether the charge is valid (which he >did) but not say what the proper charge is AFAIK. If the state can't even present a certain minimal amount of evidence for the charge, the judge is supposed to throw it out before getting to trial. Basically, if events went exactly the way the _prosecution_ describes and the elements of murder aren't present, the judge should dismiss the murder charges. > >> > Harry K wrote: <brevity snip> > >> > > Late news corrected that. The charge will be Involuntary Manslaughter. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > describes and the elements of murder aren't present, the judge should > dismiss the murder charges. True. I have seen it happen more than one. Where the either the judge or reporter was in the wrong was saying the judge reduced the charge to manslaughter. That goes beyond his pervue. The PA can do that if his original charge is tossed but not the judge. Harry K |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message