take a look at this. I found it on GlockTalk:

http://weareaustin.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=81415

Peter.

Smith should never have fired at Evans. He will be convicted in Austin.

"A man opened fire during a road rage incident along a busy Austin highway Monday night, police say.
The 8-mile ordeal began Monday around 10 p.m. at 35th Street and MoPac.
According to an arrest affidavit, Charlie Smith, 30, was driving southbound when Thomas Evans, 20, began tailgating him in a construction zone. Smith said he tapped his brakes to signal for the driver to back off. When he didn’t, Smith turned on his hazard lights.
The affidavit said that once the cars cleared the construction site, Evans swung around Smith’s vehicle and cut him off. Smith said Evans began swerving recklessly in front of him. He said he believed Smith was trying to hit him.
The two cars exited at Southwest Parkway where Smith said Evans swerved towards him once again. Smith, who is licensed to carry a handgun in Texas, said he feared for his life and pulled his 9mm handgun and fired two rounds at Evans’ pickup truck and hit the two right tires, according to the affidavit.
Smith said in the affidavit that even though his shots hit the truck, his intention was to use deadly force on the driver to stop the situation. When asked by an Austin police officer at the scene why he didn’t exit earlier to defuse the situation, Smith said he didn’t think of it and he thought he was covered under the Castle Doctrine, which meant he was not required to retreat.
During questioning Evans told an officer he has attention deficit disorder and he did intentionally antagonize Smith by cutting him off but he was just “messing around.”
Smith faces the charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a first degree felony."

Smith needs a good liar....uuuunnnhhh, I mean lawyer......and right now.

He was in no real danger, no damage to his vehicle, he had no right to shoot although I can certainly understand his frustrations. If the actual facts are as stated in the story, he'd guilty and will be convicted.

Now, if Smith had stopped his vehicle, the other guy jumped out and came back and opened Smith's door and was shot to doll rags, he'd walk, rightfully so in my opinion.

"Castle Doctrine" doesn't apply to your vehicle if you're chasing someone down or otherwise engaged in some sort of ongoing "dispute" when you have the option to disengage.

Report the other driver, License # and vehicle/driver description. Then get the hell away from them. If they get out of their vehicle, that's your opportunity to disengage.

The guy has no defense. Attention Deficit won't cut anything in court, might be a reason to deny him a CCW permit.

Agree with everything said so far. My thought is that one's behavior IS affected by whether or not you have a firearm handy. Thus, no firearm:
pull off, call the cops on your cell phone etc;
firearm:
Hey, I will settle this myself. That will show HIM that he's messing with the wrong person!
Of course one has to be relatively rational to make the correct decision.
Peter.

It continually amazes me that folks don't seem to understand "as a last resort to stop". Why would you even think about shooting someone unless you or your loved ones were in imminent peril. Things can be replaced. A life and the consequences of taking one cannot.
GWB

quote:

Originally posted by Geedubya:
It continually amazes me that folks don't seem to understand "as a last resort to stop". Why would you even think about shooting someone unless you or your loved ones were in imminent peril. Things can be replaced. A life and the consequences of taking one cannot.
GWB

"This is gonna be cool! I wanna see the look on this asshole's face when he's staring down the barrel of my 45 semi-auto!"

I think the shooter is wrong so that solves that half of the issue.

A 4000-10000 pound vehicle when used to "mess around" is a deadly weapon and so both should be charged with the same charge.

I am so damn tired of ADD defense for childish actions. There may be some organic issues beyond the lack of parenting, but the one ADD-D (extra D = DISRUPTIVE) I had in one of my classes NEVER misbehaved again after I told him simply and plainly that I would NOT tolerate one more problem.

I realize a sample of one isn't real scientific but I have observed others and parenting seemed to be a contributing factor or root cause.

Stepping down from Soap Box and donning Nomex shorts.