Discussion in 'Access Norton Pub' started by xbacksideslider, Aug 22, 2018.
good for her one for having a permit and carrying and 2 for having the sense to properly use it. i hate to see some one die but sometimes being stupid has consequences.
It was going to be her or him. I'm glad it turned out okay for her, although you don't just get over it...
Glad I live where I do ...... still lots of guns just not used often ....
We have some of the strongest gun laws around but still lots of guns on the black market, not many gun related deaths here, but road rage has become a big problem and a few deaths have occured from one punch kills and one that happen a while ago on the main road down the coast two males had a road rage punch up on the side of the road and one fell in front of a garbage truck killed instandly and it was over such a small thing.
Poeple have become impatient and going off for minor things and its not only here but everywhere, its not only inpatients but other things like not paying attention or on mobil phones or driving slow in the fast lanes or poeple who think they own the road and everyone else are tresspasting, but what ever reason things have changed and its not for the best, poeple need to think before they lose the plot and taking a aggressive stance is not the way to deal with it.
Well I am NOT defending the guy, he does sound like a proper prick.
But is that really enough to kill a man?
Several parts of her story just don’t smell right to me...
She’s a sports bike rider, why didn’t she simply flip him the finger and ride off rather than stop for a confrontation? That’s what most of us would have done I think.
She claims she only remembered that she had a gun whilst drifting in and out of consciousness whilst being beaten to the point she thought she was going to die. I find that REALLY hard to believe, she would have known she was ‘packing’ from the get go.
In fact, how do we know that wasn’t why she stopped in the first place; to wave her gun at the guy and frighten him? How do we know his ‘attack’ on her wasn’t actually him trying to defend himself against her and her gun??
When she did eventually pull her gun, assuming her story is true, why didn’t she simply say ‘stop or I’ll shoot’ ?
And if she did have to shoot, why was it fatal, why not a shoulder / leg / arm wound?
Like I say, I’m not taking sides, I am NOT a gun guy, and I’m not against her... I just small a rat in several parts of the story.
Yes, skepticism is appropriate; the guy's wife was in the car; presumably the police questioned her and concluded that she corroborated the girl's account.
Maybe the wife wanted him gone, she may have been miss treated through her marriage, seems like he was a hostile person to do something like that in the first place, I am not a volent person but I do stand up formyself and to help anyone who are been harassed or abused by anyone being aggressive to another person.
My daughter is now living over the pond - NY state - and her husband said she should take shooting lessons! All the advice is to go for what they call “centre mass” = torso; biggest target to aim for apparently and also the one with the highest probability of stopping your assailant.
Not justifying the shooting, and agree that she could have left him way behind but this is what is taught.
And, in the heat of the moment, when time and thinking ability is in short supply, what is taught (obviously) makes sense.
There was quite a bit posted on other forums when it happened.
You would think in that situation you would simply lane split a few cars ahead, to busy on that section of freeway I was told. It doesn't seem so based on her resent report.
It was also posted that FaceBook posts regarding previous public presentataion of said sidearm had been removed after the incident.
At the end of the day she was a 23 year old girl carrying a loaded pistol that was in easy reach (Not something you are going to forget)
In stead of cutting a track like most would do she elected to stop and confront the person by default, that person ended up dead and she can now ponder that for the rest of her life.
I don't have any time for threads for guns or not for guns because even though I have owned various firearms I live in a Country where you would never need one in daily live to protect you against ????
In saying that, if you elect to not only apply for a concealed weapon permit (for fear of attack) and then actually carry that weapon loaded on your person you need to be aware that electing to discharge said weapon will change your life one way or another.
Yep she has to live with killing someone for the rest of her life, shoot them in the knee cap and they will drop pretty quick but will survive, but then we weren't there and will never know how or what ever happened to cause this.
How can you suddenly "remember" you have a gun in your jacket?
My guess is that already KNOWING she had a gun emboldened her somewhat, to do things most riders would just lane split to get away from.
That’s how I see it.
I was intrigued with this story, so looked it up further.
He sounds like a prick and she is a gun person, and has once admitted to brandishing her weapon at a car driving too close. Recently, she gave a spirited detailed interview on YT of how the events unfolded, with a gun on her hip during the interview!
I too am somewhat of a gun enthusiast, but this seems a bit over the top.
There was a road rage incident not far from where I live here in Texas. The motorcyclist was passing a guy on a double yellow (no passing) zone. The driver took exception and ran him and his passenger off the road killng the motorcyclist and badly injuring his passenger. Another motorcyclist caught it all on his GoPro. Two wrongs don't make a right and now there is one dead and one in prison.
John in Texas
Here in California, where there was never a law against lane splitting, it used to be that car drivers, by the movements of their cars, within their lanes, would show a sort of "I own this lane, don't trespass" attitude toward bikes that were coming up behind them.
A few years ago CA changed the law and affirmatively said "Lane splitting is legal" and there was a lot of publicity and talk radio discussion about it. It was amazing, all of a sudden most cars that I came on from behind actually moved over to make room. You can see it every morning and evening on every freeway - most cars actually drift over and make room for upcoming bikes.
The fact that most states do not allow lane splitting encourages that "I own this lane . . . . I own all of it" sort of attitude.
I like the fact that, here in California, at every intersection, I can absolutely avoid the risk of being "rear ended" by slipping beside and between the cars in front of me. Almost always I do that, for that reason.
Also, it always safer for a bike to be out in front a pack of cars, as opposed to being betwixt and between that herd. Further, it always safer for a bike to exceed the speed of the cars around it so that the "field of danger" is minimized. That is, if you go the same speed of the cars, the collision threats are in the front and from the sides and even from behind, but if you go faster, then the field of danger is narrowed, to that of just what is in front of you and less from the sides, and very little from the rear - sort of a pie slice. The danger goes from being half a pie, to a quarter of a pie.
Never shoot to maim; you'll end up paying for it for the rest of the miscreant's life. If you feel that your life is in mortal jeopardy, shoot to kill; and don't stop shooting until your magazine (cylinder) is empty.
The story that was provided appeared to show that the motorcyclist tried to avoid a confrontation in many ways and was finally left no choice. I have taken a few "lethal forces" courses and all stress that you must be able to demonstrate that you did what you could to avoid a lethal confrontation.
My personal thought is that if you think you need a weapon to go someplace, don't go there.
The shooting is the second bounce of the ball. The first bounce is the assault. There is no second bounce without the first bounce... IMO, don't assume you can assault other people and you won't be shot dead.
People forget that there's a subconcious mechanism going on where a person sizes up their adversary and decides whether to make a confrontation physical or not. It happens throughout nature, humans are no different. It's the assumption that the ball will bounce the way they think it will and they will be giving the ass whipping instead of taking a beating. The shooting only changes the outcome, not the attacker's intent. It's the intention of the attacker that causes the incident
Of course the shooter has to live with their actions, so as someone with a leathal weapon, you need to do whatever you can to not let your only response to an attack be shooting another human being... and if you have to do that to defend yourself, at least it was a last resort.
Usually, in these cases, a lot more transpired than what the media portrays. Save judgement until one is possessed of all the facts .... such facts are not likely to come from the media.
Separate names with a comma.