Only in Florida... Dash camera captures man shooting through own windshield

Just watched those Iraaveteran8888 videos you talked about. Impressive. 9mm still lethal at 440 yards. The HSTs did their job even at that distance.

John_ said:

Yeah very safe except for the occupants of the two vehicles in front of person A vehicle. Subject to errand fire or ricochets.

All person B has to do before opening fire is slow down and see if this terminates the engagement. If A slows and re-engages, sure do what you must.

There was no direct threat to B immediately before he opened fire, A vehicle in front of his vehicle. Don't see a handgun out the window or him wildly shooting to rear. B was travelling @ 80+ mph when he starts firing. Just slow down and see if this terminates the engagement. Take the next exit off freeway.

Click to expand...

Yes, person b could have slowed down. I stated that would have likely been my preferred method. Based on the picture, I'd say the likelihood of a ricochet hitting the front vehicle is minimal. It would certainly fall within a reasonably calculated risk. There's nothing really for a bullet to ricochet off of. And given the ranges between cars, there would be a noticeable change in firing angle from the target car to the front car. I get errant shots but you're looking at around a 480 MOA difference. I think the scale might throw some people off. As per federal guidelines, those white dashes should be 10 feet long and there should be a 30 foot gap between the dashes. Again, I don't think it's the best decision but I don't think it's a bad of a decision as you made it out to be for the reasons you listed. I think the real danger is a bullet missing and going straight over the guard rail. There's a school (Endeavor Elementary School) and a neighborhood right off that part of the tollway.

Seems to me that there is enough video evidence to charge both these clowns with attempted murder. Or at least some sort of public endangerment.

There may be more to consider than just the immediate highway these idiots were Driving on. I am not sure how close other side roads or carriage roads are where this incident went down, but I would imagine that a stray could travel a decent distance beyond the intended target and cause harm. Thankfully there haven’t been any reports of anyone else being hurt that I have seen anyway.

And, yes, morons like this make it harder on all lawful gun owners, as the antis will use this for sure.

Horrible said:

Seems to me that there is enough video evidence to charge both these clowns with attempted murder. Or at least some sort of public endangerment.

There may be more to consider than just the immediate highway these idiots were Driving on. I am not sure how close other side roads or carriage roads are where this incident went down, but I would imagine that a stray could travel a decent distance beyond the intended target and cause harm. Thankfully there haven’t been any reports of anyone else being hurt that I have seen anyway.

And, yes, morons like this make it harder on all lawful gun owners, as the antis will use this for sure.

Click to expand...

Attempted Murder for shooting at a threat?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm getting some of these....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS6mci5nzro

Horrible said:

And, yes, morons like this make it harder on all lawful gun owners, as the antis will use this for sure.

Click to expand...

You know it! With video evidence for everyone in the US to see.

Moron with a handgun shooting thru his windshield @ another vehicle while travelling @ 90 mph in pursuit. Even his buddy in the vehicle has more sense. Yelling in the video while ducking flying glass shards STOP STOP.

So a number of people have said this makes gun owners look bad and/or that the driver of the truck should be arrested. Based on the video, the driver of the car points a gun at the truck. A second after that, the driver of the car reaches out the window again with the gun. It was then that the driver of the truck shot at the car. Since people don't appear to view having a gun pointed at you as a threat justifying a response of shooting, where is the line? Should the driver of the truck have to wait for the driver of the car to actually pull the trigger before responding. Should that be the new standard now?

Thankfully no stray bullets found their way to any innocent person. Sad to think it would have to come to that before anyone thought it’s a bad idea to shoot from a vehicle traveling at 80 mph on a freeway or interstate. Truthfully, the idiot’s best chance of adequately defending himself was to keep both hands on the wheel and simply drive out of harm’s way. If anyone believes his actions and explanation are based purely on fear for his life, I’ve got some waterfront property that you should invest in.
Conservatively, I’d say his actions were about 50% Billy badass ego based, 48% stupidity and 2% chance.
If someone was pointing a gun at me I’m sure I’d be more inclined to duck for cover rather than attempt to draw my weapon. Same applies to someone pointing a gun out of their car window driving down the road. Unless he’s Bruce Willis, I feel quite certain I can evade with little effort and escape being shot and likely not even get a scratch on my car. Dude is a complete tool thinking he did the right thing. He’s a bigger tool for thinking anyone would believe his justification for the idiotic actions he took.
Sure, sure, having a gun pointed at you is a threat. Clear and present danger. Even if it’s being waved out of the car window by the person who just also happens to be driving the car with his other hand. Time to take action for sure. Is it time to start shooting? Absolutely not. I’d bet my next paycheck, more than any other reason or thought, the shooter did what he did because he wanted to, not at all because he thought he had to. 10:1 he saw the appearance of a gun as an EXCUSE to shoot at someone, rather than any degree of necessary.
The only way he could justify shooting is if the other driver had him cornered or blocked in so that an instant escape would have been too difficult. He clearly could have been in the clear within a second of seeing the gun the first time. His staying in the game only exposed him and his passenger to more chance of being shot.
Here’s one last scenario: what if the shooter had his family in the car? Would it have been wise to continue the exposure past the first second?

thperez1972 said:

So a number of people have said this makes gun owners look bad and/or that the driver of the truck should be arrested. Based on the video, the driver of the car points a gun at the truck. A second after that, the driver of the car reaches out the window again with the gun. It was then that the driver of the truck shot at the car. Since people don't appear to view having a gun pointed at you as a threat justifying a response of shooting, where is the line? Should the driver of the truck have to wait for the driver of the car to actually pull the trigger before responding. Should that be the new standard now?

Click to expand...

So Perez, I'll play along with your justification here. You deem driver B is justified to use deadly force in that very moment to terminate the threat now in front of him and slightly accelerating away.

We are in agreement his first best option was to slow down big time and terminate the engagement if possible, like I stated before. Take that next exit to his immediate right and engagement/threat is over. Call the popo and give a description of the vehicle, plate # perhaps, and tell them the driver pointed a handgun at me in a road rage incident.

How about this option? Give his handgun to his buddy in the passenger seat of his truck, pull along the left side of Person A's vehicle and allow his buddy to unload on A with aimed fire and kill him. Re-load if he must. Should be pretty easy really as driver A is driving his vehicle and waving his pistol around simultaneously . Terminate the threat.

Yeah, see how that works out for you in a court of law.

John_ said:

So Perez, I'll play along with your justification here. You deem driver B is justified to use deadly force in that very moment to terminate the threat now in front of him and slightly accelerating away.

We are in agreement his first best option was to slow down big time and terminate the engagement if possible, like I stated before. Take that next exit to his immediate right and engagement/threat is over. Call the popo and give a description of the vehicle, plate # perhaps, and tell them the driver pointed a handgun at me in a road rage incident.

Click to expand...

I am in 100% agreement with you. I feel this would have been the best course of action. However, he chose a different option. I'm not judging his choice based on all available options. I'm judging whether or not his actions were legal and justified.

John_ said:

How about this option? Give his handgun to his buddy in the passenger seat of his truck, pull along the left side of Person A's vehicle and allow his buddy to unload on A with aimed fire and kill him. Re-load if he must. Should be pretty easy really as driver A is driving his vehicle and waving his pistol around simultaneously . Terminate the threat.

Yeah, see how that works out for you in a court of law.

Click to expand...

The car passes the truck up, cuts him off, then slows down and lets the truck pass. As the truck is passing, the car rolls down the window and pulls out a gun. The truck now speeds up to 100mph in what would reasonably interpreted as trying to put distance between the truck and the car. The car then speeds up and passes the truck, pointing a gun at the truck as it passes. After the car passes the truck, he points the gun out of the window again. The position of the car to the truck, i.e., in front of the truck, does not prevent any bullets from traveling backwards. Either the car was accelerating or the truck was decelerating when the shots were fired (the truck slowed to the mid 70's to exit the tollway). In either case, the car was closer than it was the first time it had passed the truck. The fact the car slowed down the first time shows the car's willingness to no simply pass up the truck and move on. Add to it the car's willingness to threaten to use deadly force against the truck, I'm not sure how someone could reasonably say the car was disengaging from the situation. So yes, I believe the car was an immediate threat to the truck and the use of deadly force could be justified.

thperez1972 said:

I am in 100% agreement with you. I feel this would have been the best course of action. However, he chose a different option. I'm not judging his choice based on all available options. I'm judging whether or not his actions were legal and justified.



The car passes the truck up, cuts him off, then slows down and lets the truck pass. As the truck is passing, the car rolls down the window and pulls out a gun. The truck now speeds up to 100mph in what would reasonably interpreted as trying to put distance between the truck and the car. The car then speeds up and passes the truck, pointing a gun at the truck as it passes. After the car passes the truck, he points the gun out of the window again. The position of the car to the truck, i.e., in front of the truck, does not prevent any bullets from traveling backwards. Either the car was accelerating or the truck was decelerating when the shots were fired (the truck slowed to the mid 70's to exit the tollway). In either case, the car was closer than it was the first time it had passed the truck. The fact the car slowed down the first time shows the car's willingness to no simply pass up the truck and move on. Add to it the car's willingness to threaten to use deadly force against the truck, I'm not sure how someone could reasonably say the car was disengaging from the situation. So yes, I believe the car was an immediate threat to the truck and the use of deadly force could be justified.

Click to expand...

From what I can tell in the video (I might need to watch it again), the car fired the first shots (I don't think that anyone is arguing that this guy should be charged) but then sped off. The guy in the track chased him down and then returned fire. Like I said, maybe I need to watch the video again, but it seems like the guy in the truck chased the guy in the car back down. If this is correct, I am not sure how one could claim self defense when they had a reasonable chance to exit the situation and chose to go after the guy in the car as John_ has pointed out.

If the guy in the car was still coming after the guy in the truck after firing the initial shots then the guy in the truck would be able to engage and fire back to stop the threat and claim self defense.

When he break checked and talked his crap... he became the Initial aggressor he can't claim self defense for this.

RainingCrumbs said:

When he break checked and talked his crap... he became the Initial aggressor he can't claim self defense for this.

Click to expand...

Once the guy in the Nissan drove off, then proceeded to slow down and escalate the situation by brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner, he has now become the aggressor.

He told his passenger to get down and he was reaching for the pistol, before the guy in the coupe passed him and brandished his firearm, I think he was going to shoot at him either way, whether he had a gun or not. I might be mistaken, but I don't think a gun had been brandished yet, and you can see him telling his passenger to get down as he prepares himself to draw BEFORE the other guy brandishes.... Thats just what I think. Other than that, I think if he had just been going 70 instead of 100 this guy would have passed him up and been long gone and he wouldn't be buying a new windshield.

RainingCrumbs said:

When he break checked and talked his crap... he became the Initial aggressor he can't claim self defense for this.

Click to expand...

Your statement lacks enough context to make it false. The car the first one to introduce deadly force to the incident. In order for your statement to be true, you would have to believe that lethal force is an acceptable reaction to being brake checked and flipped off. But to further explain why your statement is incorrect, the car speeds past the truck. At that point, he has disengaged. He then slows down and reengages with the truck, making the car the aggressor.

Mannelite said:

He told his passenger to get down and he was reaching for the pistol, before the guy in the coupe passed him and brandished his firearm, I think he was going to shoot at him either way, whether he had a gun or not. I might be mistaken, but I don't think a gun had been brandished yet, and you can see him telling his passenger to get down as he prepares himself to draw BEFORE the other guy brandishes.... Thats just what I think. Other than that, I think if he had just been going 70 instead of 100 this guy would have passed him up and been long gone and he wouldn't be buying a new windshield.

Click to expand...

No. At about 3:47 in the video, you see the truck reacting to the car slowing down to let the truck pass. As the car lets the truck pass, the car brandishes the gun. The car brandishes it a second time and the car passes up the truck and a third time when the car is in front of the truck. The truck doesn't reach for his gun until the truck is past the car which is after the car has his gun out. You can see the truck speed up as it passes the car. If anything, you could argue that had the truck not sped up, the truck would have stayed next to the car when the car first pulled the gun and the car would have fired on the truck.

In this country it can be:

A) Legal
B) Illegal
C) Could go either way and you're level of income and attorney can greatly affect the outcome.

And I will put this one in the C bin.

I just watched the video a third time on my 27" 2k monitor. A few observations: If the guy in the PU brake checked him, his speed did not change one bit as indicated. Maybe he activated the brake lights but no vehicle decel.

Guy in the Nissan has no front cap, just the metal bumper so he smacks PU in the ass. No harm to his raggy 330Z Nissan ride.

Both are stupid, Nissan guy flashing his gun like a gangsta or something. Both could have de-escalated this event but chose to carry on til the lead started flying.

So when its all over and done, pickup guy has to pay for a new windshield because his stupid bravado just wouldn't let him slow down and take that exit and disengage. And clean glass shards all over his interior.

I bet those ears were ringing!

One or both drivers will end up dead from chronic stupidity one day. Pickup driver should purchase (or steal one) a 10.5" 556 SBR loaded with M855 ammo for his next road rage engagement. Maybe two, one for his buddy too. And 5 or 6 mags. Be prepared.

sandman7925 said:

In this country it can be:

A) Legal
B) Illegal
C) Could go either way and you're level of income and attorney can greatly affect the outcome.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! Money talks in merica.

John_ said:

I just watched the video a third time on my 27" 2k monitor. A few observations: If the guy in the PU brake checked him, his speed did not change one bit as indicated. Maybe he activated the brake lights but no vehicle decel.

Guy in the Nissan has no front cap, just the metal bumper so he smacks PU in the ass. No harm to his raggy 330Z Nissan ride.

Both are stupid, Nissan guy flashing his gun like a gangsta or something. Both could have de-escalated this event but chose to carry on til the lead started flying.

So when its all over and done, pickup guy has to pay for a new windshield because his stupid bravado just wouldn't let him slow down and take that exit and disengage. And clean glass shards all over his interior.

I bet those ears were ringing!

One or both drivers will end up dead from chronic stupidity one day. Pickup driver should purchase (or steal one) a 10.5" 556 SBR loaded with M855 ammo for his next road rage engagement. Maybe two, one for his buddy too. And 5 or 6 mags. Be prepared.

Click to expand...

LMAO!
Yup!