Join BayouShooter For Free
Brass

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst ... 234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    On Target

    User Info Menu

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

  2. #22
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John_ View Post
    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.
    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.

  3. #23
    On Target

    User Info Menu

    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.

  4. #24
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Horrible View Post
    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 havenít 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.
    Attempted Murder for shooting at a threat?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #25
    Marksman

    Gold Member

    User Info Menu

    I'm getting some of these....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS6mci5nzro
    "When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say, For Your Tomorrow, We Gave Our's Today"

    Voting is the responsibility of a citizen, even if voting may not necessarily be obligatory. To not vote seems to me to be an abrogation of one's responsibility as a citizen, regardless of one's politics.

  6. #26
    Shooter

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Horrible View Post
    And, yes, morons like this make it harder on all lawful gun owners, as the antis will use this for sure.
    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.
    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

  7. #27
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    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?




  8. #28
    Donít troll me bro!

    User Info Menu

    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?
    Last edited by Magdump; October 2nd, 2020 at 08:58 AM.
    Doesnít play well with TROLLS...

  9. #29
    Shooter

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by thperez1972 View Post
    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?
    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.
    Last edited by John_; October 2nd, 2020 at 09:19 AM.
    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

  10. #30
    ESSAYONS

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John_ View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by John_ View Post
    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.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •