1 dead, 1 injured in Ashland City shooting

[Guest friesepferd]

it of course all depends on the situation as to how a jury would rule that.

a young strong man actually beating up a girl or an older man - very likely it would be ruled in favor of person defending themselves.

a young girl or weak old person that smacked a strong man - much less likely that self defense is a viable thing there.

court ruling is going to depend on whether or not a jury thinks that you were in actual fear of your life.

me? I'm going to decide based on if i AM in fear of my life. simple as that.

[Guest UberDuper]

If you're on the ground, incapable of fleeing and they wont stop then make the choice.

Maybe that's the position this guy found himself in. Maybe the steel on his belt made him a little braver then he should have been. In any case nobody needed to die here and either one of them could have just walked away.

[JAB]

IANAL but unless I am terribly mistaken, you guys are forgetting one very important detail when deciding if it would be justified to use deadly force to deal with a potential ass-whooping:

If my memory serves, TN state law says that you are not justified in using deadly force, period, ever, in such a situation if you actively participated in getting into the fight in the first place. In other words, a distinction is being made between someone jumping you in a dark parking lot and starting to kick the living crap out of you and, for instance, willingly pulling over into a parking lot to continue an altercation. If Mr. Paul did, indeed, pull over simply to continue an altercation then he would not (according to my non-lawyer understanding of the law) be justified in using deadly force.

From TCA 39-11-611:

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:

(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and

( The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or…

So, to my mind if you pull over to 'have it out' over some road rage incident, you have either provoked the use or attempted use of unlawful force (an ass-whoopin') or you have consented to the exact force used (i.e. willingly entered into a fist fight) then drew your gun when it became apparent you were about to get an ass-whoopin'. Now, we don't know all the details of this incident and, therefore, can't be certain that this is what happened. If it is what happened, however, I'd say that the HCP holder was in the wrong. Further, if I were on a jury I'd have a hard time finding the other guy 'guilty' even though he did give pursuit after he took the HCP holder's gun away and the HCP holder apparently ran away. I wouldn't expect anyone to remain 'rational' after [apparently] taking two to the chest.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

IANAL but unless I am terribly mistaken, you guys are forgetting one very important detail when deciding if it would be justified to use deadly force to deal with a potential ass-whooping:

If my memory serves, TN state law says that you are not justified in using deadly force, period, ever, in such a situation if you actively participated in getting into the fight in the first place. In other words, a distinction is being made between someone jumping you in a dark parking lot and starting to kick the living crap out of you and, for instance, willingly pulling over into a parking lot to continue an altercation. If Mr. Paul did, indeed, pull over simply to continue an altercation then he would not (according to my non-lawyer understanding of the law) be justified in using deadly force.

No I didnt forget about that at all, which is why I said that I think the guy in the Ashland City incident would have definitely been charged if he would have lived. In any sort of "road rage" incident I think it would be EXTREMELY difficult to ever claim self defense. I know if I was sitting on the jury you would have to fight an uphill battle to convince me of why you couldnt have just driven off, or stayed in your car, etc.

If you have a HCP & are carrying, you really need to run away from every fight you can run away from. Drawing your weapon should be an absolute last resort if you are somewhere where you cant just walk away. If I'm driving & someone cuts me off I just go about my business. Some people might think you are a wuss or that you are letting someone walk all over you or whatever, but thats better than getting sent to jail any day of the week in my book.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

That's where I am concerned. Do I have to be beaten into unconsciousness or so badly that I can't even pull a weapon without it easily being taken away from me before I can claim "fear of serious bodily injury or death" ?

That would be where the quote "Its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" would start popping into my mind.

It really just comes down, again, to what you could convince a jury of at a trial. Most things in criminal justice are never cut & dry.

If, God forbid, you are ever put in that situation you would just have to do what you think is right for you at the time & then live with the consequences.

[Guest WyattEarp]

That's where I am concerned. Do I have to be beaten into unconsciousness or so badly that I can't even pull a weapon without it easily being taken away from me before I can claim "fear of serious bodily injury or death" ?

agreed. what about a person who can't physically defend themselves (such as physically disabled person) and can't ward off an attack under their own physical power?

I lost most of the strength in my right arm a few years ago due to an accident at work, and i've lost range of motion, strength, and if i were to punch someone, my right arm would have severe pain for days on end, and i doubt it would affect an attacker much anyhow in getting him to stop.

[G27]

It really doesn't matter how healthy you are - one shot to the right spot with the right force can knock anyone out temporarily, which is all it takes to fall and strike your head on something hard enough to kill you.

I can handle myself, but if someone attacks me I'm not waiting to see if they're armed or are able to beat me down.

[Guest RobThatsMe]

There is not enough info released to deterime what went down. IMHO

If the guy with the HCP provoked the incident, followed the guy into the parking lot, then got out of his car, confronted the other guy, argued, fought, then pulled a gun. It's his bad! If, on the other hand, he had encountered this guy on the road, thought it was over, went about his business, and was surprised on the parking lot by the other guy, perhaps he may have had a reason to use deadly force. That being said, If he was aware that the other guy followed him into the parking lot, he should not have got out of his car, he should have called the police, found a "safe" place to go, like as mentioned, a police station, police car, and got help.

It also illustrates just what can happen when in close / closing range.

Rob

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

I also agree that we really need to hear more info on this case.

When I first heard about it I was thinking that the guy who wrestled the gun away after being shot twice & killed the other dude probably wouldnt be charged, since obviously after being shot two times he could more than likely claim self defense. However, after hearing the reports of eyewitnesses saying that the guy was running through the restaurant asking people where the guy who had just shot him had run to, & finally chased him down & THEN killed him, my opinion on that changed. If that is true it would at least have to be manslaughter.

I know that above DaveTN stated that after being shot twice he probably was no longer a "reasonable person," but I would probably not be convinced of that if I was on the jury. But again, all this is speculation since we dont have all the facts. Maybe the guy who killed him would say that he had been shot twice & managed to get the gun away, but then he thought the other guy was trying to pull a BUG out of his ankle holster, so he had to kill him because he was still in fear for his life.

Its always in the details, & we unfortunately dont know all of them for this incident yet.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

And by the way, does it bother anyone else how the news almost never sees fit to give details on the weapon used? I was watching a video clip about this online a few minutes ago & they said the weapon used was a "semi-automatic handgun." Thats it. Come on people. Caliber, manufacturer, etc? These are important things I want to know!!

[southernasylum]

It was a glock ak47.

Sorry I couldn't resist.

[Patton]

It was a glock ak47.

Sorry I couldn't resist.

With a extended High Capacity Clip!

[DaveTN]

I'm sorry, isn't the very nature of someone BEATING me reason to use deadly force? I have no idea if his intention is to beat me until I die… At 48 years old, I have never been in a fight–and I intend to never get into one. However, if someone starts beating on me, he had better be prepared to face deadly force.

If you are an active participant in a road rage incident you better be willing to take an azz whipping without pulling a gun; otherwise keep right on driving.

[DaveTN]

It really doesn't matter how healthy you are - one shot to the right spot with the right force can knock anyone out temporarily, which is all it takes to fall and strike your head on something hard enough to kill you.

I can handle myself, but if someone attacks me I'm not waiting to see if they're armed or are able to beat me down.

Yes, but being attacked without cause is not nearly the same as being an active participant in a road rage incident, bar fight etc. You can't kill someone because you are afraid of getting your azz kicked. You can't let your mouth overload your azz and then have your gun back it up. You walk away; that's what a reasonable person that is carrying a gun does and that is what a jury would expect you to do.

[G27]

Yes, but being attacked without cause is not nearly the same as being an active participant in a road rage incident, bar fight etc. You can't kill someone because you are afraid of getting your azz kicked. You can't let your mouth overload your azz and then have your gun back it up. You walk away; that's what a reasonable person that is carrying a gun does and that is what a jury would expect you to do.

Well, yah, of course. I'm not one to get caught up in that sort of immature crap to begin with, on top of the fact I always carry.

[Guest nicemac]

Well, yah, of course. I'm not one to get caught up in that sort of immature crap to begin with, on top of the fact I always carry.

+1.

[Fallguy]

If you are an active participant in a road rage incident you better be willing to take an azz whipping without pulling a gun; otherwise keep right on driving.

Yes, but being attacked without cause is not nearly the same as being an active participant in a road rage incident, bar fight etc. You can't kill someone because you are afraid of getting your azz kicked. You can't let your mouth overload your azz and then have your gun back it up. You walk away; that's what a reasonable person that is carrying a gun does and that is what a jury would expect you to do.

Yeah....I think there is a big difference between if you accidentally cut someone off and they come after you as opposed to cutting them off on purpose and flipping them the bird or something. Or even if you accidentally cut them off and they flip you the bird and you respond in some aggressive manner.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Many good points raised.

I'm blind in one eye and got a bad back. One good fist to the wrong eye could make me permanently blind. One good fall could cause years of excruciating pain. I'm not gonna pick a fight, but will take my chances with a jury if deadly force is necessary to avoid an unasked-for butt-kicking by a young fit man.

I'd never intentionally get involved in a road-rage dispute though. Life is too short to go looking for trouble.

More details are needed in the case. Was the HCP guy an old geezer and the guy who got shot twice a young fit man? Maybe the guy who got shot twice did follow the HCP holder into the parking lot?

I've been minding my own biz following the speed limit and young rednecks zoom around me in jacked up pickup truck, all bondo and primer and no bumper, yelling to get off the road. If some idiot like that was so hopped on meth to follow into the walmart parking lot-- Its not like one would have much choice other than try to get back in the car and drive off again. If possible. Otherwise try to defend.

On the other hand maybe this is a case of two well-matched idiots having it out over a trivial silly dispute.

[Guest nicemac]

According to the HCP database, the HCP guy was born in 1970, making him 40 or 41.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

According to the HCP database, the HCP guy was born in 1970, making him 40 or 41.

Thanks, nicemac.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

The guy who pulled the gun (and died) was 40. The guy who took his gun & shot him (after being shot twice) was 34.

[Guest WyattEarp]

It really doesn't matter how healthy you are - one shot to the right spot with the right force can knock anyone out temporarily, which is all it takes to fall and strike your head on something hard enough to kill you.

I can handle myself, but if someone attacks me I'm not waiting to see if they're armed or are able to beat me down.

that's not what I was saying.

what I was saying is what if a person who is physically unable to defend one's self (due to a physical impairment and/or prior injury) is attacked by someone without a weapon? is the physically impaired person supposed to just stand there and take the beating? Or would they be justified in pulling their firearm (but not necessarily firing it) to deter further violence against themselves, and ordering the attacking to cease and desist or you will shoot them?

[Guest UberDuper]

That kinda thing is going to vary from state to state I suspect. In AZ a recent law was passed that would allow someone to show they were capable of deadly force (uncovering their firearm, placing a hand on it, saying "I've got a gun") as a deterrent. I suspect most other places that could result in an aggravated assault charge.

[G27]

that's not what I was saying.

what I was saying is what if a person who is physically unable to defend one's self (due to a physical impairment and/or prior injury) is attacked by someone without a weapon? is the physically impaired person supposed to just stand there and take the beating? Or would they be justified in pulling their firearm (but not necessarily firing it) to deter further violence against themselves, and ordering the attacking to cease and desist or you will shoot them?

I understand what you are saying - I made that point for a different purpose.

That said, yes, if there is a 'disparity of force' (healthy vs disabled, group vs person, male(s) vs female), I'm nearly certain TN law allows for use of deadly force.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The guy who pulled the gun (and died) was 40. The guy who took his gun & shot him (after being shot twice) was 34.

Thanks. Definitely both old enough to know better, unless addl details come out to make it more interesting.

A good road rage song--