Is this road rage or a hate crime?

[realibrad]

That he is. As I've pointed out recently, I find Democrats have become quite a potent hate group.

I'm not usually one for trying to balance the sides, but it feels more than just Democrats. Anyone who is a hard line party follower seems hateful right now. Republicans, Tea party, Democrats, Green. Everyone seems to hate everyone and they all think the other side is out to get them, so they do what they can to screw over the opposition first.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'm not usually one for trying to balance the sides, but it feels more than just Democrats. Anyone who is a hard line party follower seems hateful right now. Republicans, Tea party, Democrats, Green. Everyone seems to hate everyone and they all think the other side is out to get them, so they do what they can to screw over the opposition first.

Agreed, and well said.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I am willing to bet this guy gets all his information from Fox news. "Go back to islam" (smh, stupid) lends credence IMO that this was a racial/ethnic induced situation. Those who are Muslim, I'm sure, are under constant ridicule and side glances from the American public. It's mostly due to the media not telling the truth, as it were, to the populace but instead gives 'opinions' that are draped in 'fact' garb. Sure there are Muslims 'out there to get ya', just as there are so called 'christians' the have the same intentions. Hell you're more likely to be harmed or killed by your own damned police in America than some fricken terrorist.

IDK what to think of the 'defending myself' argument. From what the video stated was he was getting punched through his window and chose to shoot him instead of fighting back with equal force or simply DRIVING AWAY (he was in his car). My opinion is that he wanted to shoot him and just took advantage of the situation to satisfy his blood lust of the bad brown people.

 

[realibrad]

I am willing to bet this guy gets all his information from Fox news. "Go back to islam" (smh, stupid) lends credence IMO that this was a racial/ethnic induced situation. Those who are Muslim, I'm sure, are under constant ridicule and side glances from the American public. It's mostly due to the media not telling the truth, as it were, to the populace but instead gives 'opinions' that are draped in 'fact' garb. Sure there are Muslims 'out there to get ya', just as there are so called 'christians' the have the same intentions. Hell you're more likely to be harmed or killed by your own damned police in America than some fricken terrorist.

IDK what to think of the 'defending myself' argument. From what the video stated was he was getting punched through his window and chose to shoot him instead of fighting back with equal force or simply DRIVING AWAY (he was in his car). My opinion is that he wanted to shoot him and just took advantage of the situation to satisfy his blood lust of the bad brown people.

Hate speech does not give justification to physical violence. I am not saying you said that, but I want to make it clear for the next point.

Physical violence runs the risk of killing the other person. All it takes is 1 hit to cause some people to die. If you start physically attacking someone you are very much putting their life at risk. If you are going to put life at risk, then you run the risk of someone putting yours at risk as well. So if the argument is one of equal force, then it gets very grey because throwing punches runs the risk of killing someone and words to not.

People can claim baiting all day, and it does not justify physical violence. Provoking people is not a great idea, but it also not illegal and for good damn reason. Me living with my girlfriend when we are not married is considered deeply offensive to some. My actions in no way justify the offended people to do anything other than bitch and complain. I also don't have the right to do anything to the offended people other than to use free speech.

Just because this guy said a bigoted thing does not justify physical violence. If you are going to use physical violence and thus put this man at risk, he has a right to defend himself. If people want to say its unequal, then fine, but lets admit that the first jump was done by the person attacking the guy in the truck. Like I said before, people die from minor physical altercations.

All this is predicated on what I know thus far. If the person shot had not thrown a punch, then its murder. If he had, its self defense.

 

[xBiffx]

That he is. As I've pointed out recently, I find Democrats have become quite a potent hate group.

I don't know if its seeded in hatred as much as the need for them to feel morally and intellectually superior. Either way, they come off as quite callous.

 

[TheSlamma]

I am willing to bet this guy gets all his information from Fox news. "Go back to islam" (smh, stupid) lends credence IMO that this was a racial/ethnic induced situation. Those who are Muslim, I'm sure, are under constant ridicule and side glances from the American public. It's mostly due to the media not telling the truth, as it were, to the populace but instead gives 'opinions' that are draped in 'fact' garb. Sure there are Muslims 'out there to get ya', just as there are so called 'christians' the have the same intentions. Hell you're more likely to be harmed or killed by your own damned police in America than some fricken terrorist.

IDK what to think of the 'defending myself' argument. From what the video stated was he was getting punched through his window and chose to shoot him instead of fighting back with equal force or simply DRIVING AWAY (he was in his car). My opinion is that he wanted to shoot him and just took advantage of the situation to satisfy his blood lust of the bad brown people.

I find it interesting that the testimony of the wife is all we have right now. She doesn't seem to be indicating the punching took place but she says the go back to Islam shout was made. I feel like we have 2 parties here not telling the whole truth at all.

When I saw the picture of the guy who was shot in the OP link there is nothing to indicate to me he is Muslim, he could pass for someone with a heritage from any number of countries from Latin America to the Mediterranean to the Middle East. Maybe this guy is a complete racial douche and assumes everyone with brown skin is a Muslim or maybe this wife is lying. We should probably be careful on the assumptions.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Hate speech does not give justification to physical violence. I am not saying you said that, but I want to make it clear for the next point.

Physical violence runs the risk of killing the other person. All it takes is 1 hit to cause some people to die. If you start physically attacking someone you are very much putting their life at risk. If you are going to put life at risk, then you run the risk of someone putting yours at risk as well. So if the argument is one of equal force, then it gets very grey because throwing punches runs the risk of killing someone and words to not.

People can claim baiting all day, and it does not justify physical violence. Provoking people is not a great idea, but it also not illegal and for good damn reason. Me living with my girlfriend when we are not married is considered deeply offensive to some. My actions in no way justify the offended people to do anything other than bitch and complain. I also don't have the right to do anything to the offended people other than to use free speech.

Just because this guy said a bigoted thing does not justify physical violence. If you are going to use physical violence and thus put this man at risk, he has a right to defend himself. If people want to say its unequal, then fine, but lets admit that the first jump was done by the person attacking the guy in the truck. Like I said before, people die from minor physical altercations.

All this is predicated on what I know thus far. If the person shot had not thrown a punch, then its murder. If he had, its self defense.

Ok.

Using that same logic then wouldn't this man be well within his rights to use defensive deadly force? If not, why not?

 

[realibrad]

Ok.

Using that same logic then wouldn't this man be well within his rights to use defensive deadly force? If not, why not?

I know the story and no, the NYPD officer should not have struck the guy. The reason the NYPD gave was that the officer wanted to arrest the man for a supposed knife the officer saw. Apparently the NYPD and the mayor do not see a problem with arresting a man with out a better cause than a supposed knife he thought he saw.

The reason they gave for justification is that nobody has the right to resist arrest even when the arrest is unjustified. That is complete BS. The officer struck the guy first and that was wrong. If the offer had been defending himself, he can do what is necessary to defend himself, but it gets tricky because he was a cop.

Cops are civil servants and thus have to abide by rules that the public does not. The training and pay require them to live by different standards. The 2 situations do not really apply to each other though.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I know the story and no, the NYPD officer should not have struck the guy. The reason the NYPD gave was that the officer wanted to arrest the man for a supposed knife the officer saw. Apparently the NYPD and the mayor do not see a problem with arresting a man with out a better cause than a supposed knife he thought he saw.

The reason they gave for justification is that nobody has the right to resist arrest even when the arrest is unjustified. That is complete BS. The officer struck the guy first and that was wrong. If the offer had been defending himself, he can do what is necessary to defend himself, but it gets tricky because he was a cop.

Cops are civil servants and thus have to abide by rules that the public does not. The training and pay require them to live by different standards. The 2 situations do not really apply to each other though.

I'm only trying to see if your viewpoints are consistent. If it is 'deadly force' for a man to punch another through a window and therefore justifying a deadly response then we should have the same understanding when dealing with a cop who initiates the same type of force.

Often I see the badge not only grant extra Rights but they also tend to have some mystical power that turns off the ability to reason and objectively judge the situation for what it truly is.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm not usually one for trying to balance the sides, but it feels more than just Democrats. Anyone who is a hard line party follower seems hateful right now. Republicans, Tea party, Democrats, Green. Everyone seems to hate everyone and they all think the other side is out to get them, so they do what they can to screw over the opposition first.

Agreed. Sadly, I can't say that I'm above that. *says BoberFett, surprising nobody here*

 

[HeXen]

Well I'm not sure about Texas law, but typically you can't open someone's car door and attack them regardless of words. So he acted in self defense imo. Words don't kill, you physical behavior does. Starting a fight with words really has nothing to do with your life being in imminent danger.

 

[realibrad]

I'm only trying to see if your viewpoints are consistent. If it is 'deadly force' for a man to punch another through a window and therefore justifying a deadly response then we should have the same understanding when dealing with a cop who initiates the same type of force.

Often I see the badge not only grant extra Rights but they also tend to have some mystical power that turns off the ability to reason and objectively judge the situation for what it truly is.

My view is consistent. Even if it was not it should not detract from the logic in my argument. An argument should stand on its merit. The source should not matter.

 

[cubby1223]

We should probably be careful on the assumptions.

Why?

This forum would be god-awful boring if we didn't all assume and jump to conclusions 😉

 

[mikeymikec]

I find it more than a little disturbing that killing someone in self-defence can actually happen in anything less than extremely exceptional circumstances, but I guess that's what happens when firearms ownership is as widespread and as normal as carrying change in your pocket, and therefore the ability to kill someone can be done in a matter of seconds without much in the way of strength or skill.

IANAL and I have no knowledge of the American legal system but I would have thought (ie. in a sane world) that the person "attacking" would have had to be seen carrying a weapon or be generally known to be extremely physically dangerous in order to justify shooting them in self-defence.

 

[MongGrel]

NM.

 

[pcgeek11]

My bet is the man will never be charged or convicted of murder or manslaughter. I don't think the aggravated assault charge will be successful either.

The law is quite clear on when force can be used against another person and verbal provocation is not sufficient.

Deceased was shot while attacking the defendant and most likely will be ruled as self defense.

Self Defense - Texas

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.31

I agree. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me ...

No hate crime found. The guy may be an ass, but he did not attack anyone. The dude that was shot however did ( IAW the report ) attack physically.

 

[pcgeek11]

rich white guy, likely a republican. he walks.

None of that has anything to do with it. You must be bigoted.

 

[realibrad]

I find it more than a little disturbing that killing someone in self-defence can actually happen in anything less than extremely exceptional circumstances, but I guess that's what happens when firearms ownership is as widespread and as normal as carrying change in your pocket, and therefore the ability to kill someone can be done in a matter of seconds without much in the way of strength or skill.

IANAL and I have no knowledge of the American legal system but I would have thought (ie. in a sane world) that the person "attacking" would have had to be seen carrying a weapon or be generally known to be extremely physically dangerous in order to justify shooting them in self-defence.

First, carrying a firearm is not as common as you are implying. Second, any physical assault carries the risk of death. People have medical conditions that can easily result in death with a single blow to the head. Further, as I explained before, if someone is willing to fight you over words how sure can you be that they will hit you once and stop? If someone is going to physically attack me and put my life in risk, even if the amount is small or unknown over words, I would use a gun to defend myself.

If you think that punches rarely kill anyone, do a quick google search for death after fights.

 

[mikeymikec]

First, carrying a firearm is not as common as you are implying.

My point wasn't about how statistically common it is, but about how such a thing could possibly be considered to be normal, hence the "as change in your pocket" comment. I realised afterwards that it was possibly going to be interpreted as a comment on particular types of gun licences, which it wasn't intended to be either.

Second, any physical assault carries the risk of death.

Of course, however only the most disingenuous of people would argue that the likelihood of death doesn't go up considerably if one or more participants of a fight owns or uses a firearm.

People have medical conditions that can easily result in death with a single blow to the head.

Further, as I explained before, if someone is willing to fight you over words how sure can you be that they will hit you once and stop? If someone is going to physically attack me and put my life in risk, even if the amount is small or unknown over words, I would use a gun to defend myself.

That line of logic easily justifies using a firearm as the first resort rather than the last, which again I find a tad disturbing and an extremely poor justification for such actions (basically "you thought they might hit you").

I would also consider it to be extremely poor justification if someone shot another person for saying "go back to Islam", but using your line of logic as justification, it's not inconceivable or unreasonable; in a place where anyone could be carrying a firearm, you've got a dickhead who is angrily shouting racist shit at you, there's definitely a risk there, it doesn't take much effort or time for the guy doing the shouting to pull out a pistol.

 

[TheSlamma]

I find it more than a little disturbing that killing someone in self-defence can actually happen in anything less than extremely exceptional circumstances, but I guess that's what happens when firearms ownership is as widespread and as normal as carrying change in your pocket, and therefore the ability to kill someone can be done in a matter of seconds without much in the way of strength or skill.

IANAL and I have no knowledge of the American legal system but I would have thought (ie. in a sane world) that the person "attacking" would have had to be seen carrying a weapon or be generally known to be extremely physically dangerous in order to justify shooting them in self-defence.

It's not as widespread as you are thinking.

"without much strength or skill" So if it was done with either of these methods it would be justified?

"In a sane world" people wouldn't be inflicting bodily harm on other people over dumb shit like road rage or teens playing "the knockout game"

 

[mikeymikec]

"without much strength or skill" So if it was done with either of these methods it would be justified?

I'm not sure where you got that idea from. I was referring to how little effort or mental consideration it takes to do something extremely significant.

"In a sane world" people wouldn't be inflicting bodily harm on other people over dumb shit like road rage

You think that shouting racist shit at someone isn't a valid reason to hit the person doing the shouting? Really?

I don't know about you, but if someone said to me that they got a broken nose because they shouted "go back to Islam" at someone, I would say, "you deserved it".

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You think that shouting racist shit at someone isn't a valid reason to hit the person doing the shouting? Really?

No according to the law.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.31

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

I don't know about you, but if someone said to me that they got a broken nose because they shouted "go back to Islam" at someone, I would say, "you deserved it".

You more than likely would have ended up dead as well and many people would say you deserved as it occurred when you were assaulting the person.

 

[mikeymikec]

No according to the law.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.31

I wasn't talking about the law. I was responding to TheSlamma who appeared to be equating shouting racist comments at people with "dumb shit", as "dumb shit" is normally a term I would consider using if I tried to leave the house without footwear on, ie. something stupid one does without thinking, and that witnesses to the incident should treat it as nothing happened.

You more than likely would have ended up dead as well and many people would say you deserved as it occurred when you were assaulting the person.

Ok, this comment confused me a great deal until I realised that you put me in the place of the person doing the punching... as well as requiring me to suddenly appear in America in time to respond to a "road rage" incident and meet it with physical violence. Based on all of that, I'm really not sure how to respond to it.

 

[TheSlamma]

You think that shouting racist shit at someone isn't a valid reason to hit the person doing the shouting? Really?

I don't know about you, but if someone said to me that they got a broken nose because they shouted "go back to Islam" at someone, I would say, "you deserved it".

Yes really I don't, but as part of my brain development I've gained the ability to suppress the reptilian brain and rationalize in those situations. Hauling off and blasting someone in the face because they said something dumb within their legal rights just lands you in jail, sued or in this case blown away.

Now does the guy DESERVE to be blasted in the face? hell yeah. But deserve and validation don't crossover.

 

[mikeymikec]

Yes really I don't, but as part of my brain development I've gained the ability to suppress the reptilian brain and rationalize in those situations. Hauling off and blasting someone in the face because they said something dumb within their legal rights just lands you in jail, sued or in this case blown away.

I agree, though I think ending up dead as a result is overkill by an order of magnitude to the offence, pun not intended. While I don't advocate solving disputes with violence either, IMO in a sane world this guy would not get away with a self-defence excuse, because to me self-defence implies that he had just cause to be afraid for his safety even though he had a firearm, which IMO only makes sense if the other guy had a similarly deadly weapon.

Now does the guy DESERVE to be blasted in the face? hell yeah. But deserve and validation don't crossover.

I agree, 'valid' wasn't the correct word to use.