Florida Man, Legislative Affairs Director for the State Board of Administration Shot Dead

[Politesse]

I did not know road rage was still popular in US.
Could be Covid related, at least indirectly.

It's quite common and has been for a long time; if you're curious there are some grim statistics here:
https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/road-rage-statistics/
https://everytownresearch.org/reports-of-road-rage-shootings-are-on-the-rise/

Not only are road rage incidents becoming more common, the guns are coming out more often, too. Apparently Florida saw 147 road rage cases involving a firearm between 2014 and 2016. I'd rag on them some more, but my own state isn't doing that much better.

I was stopped on the Altamont Pass in heavy traffic once, and witnessed an enraged fellow punch in the window of a car two lanes over after a fender bender had dented his. Apparently with his bare hands, which I didn't think was possible? Certainly not recommended. I hate commuting.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It will take some time, but eventually self-driving cars will mitigate this problem.

 

[Elixir]

It will take some time, but eventually self-driving cars will mitigate this problem.

Or at least allow the initiator of violence to use both hands on his Glock. If he had hit his target the first time we wouldn’t have this controversy over who started it.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm still taken aback by the fact that they let that moron posess a gun after the first incident.

 

[Toni]

I did not know road rage was still popular in US.
Could be Covid related, at least indirectly.

Yeah, this wasn't his first incident of road rage where he used a gun. The first time was well before the pandemic.

 

[laughing dog]

But if you like, I can say that men and women of any race get shot at in public streets, and that has always been so in the US, and the point remains the same: the "white men" comment is out of place.

Why?

Why is it out of place? Because it was not an emergency but something that has happened always in the US.

I see, you missed Toni’s point.

(additionally, it's not even related to the thread).

You are mistaken.

No, I did not miss it. She brought up racism when the incident was not at all related.

You are mistaken.

 

[Politesse]

I'm still taken aback by the fact that they let that moron posess a gun after the first incident.

And appointed director of legislative affairs, for that matter. Was he really the best candidate they could find?

 

[Gun Nut]

I don’t know about good guy/bad guy applies here. Kuczwanski seems to be mentally unstable and has a history of firing guns at people with whom he gets into traffic disputes. No idea about the other guy’s record it lack of record but apparently he has no problem firing a gun at another person on what I can only assume was a crowded roadway. Neither seem like people who should be allowed to carry firearms.

Based on the report, he fired a gun accurately at a person firing a gun at him. There seems to be no good reason to suspect that he should not be allowed to carry firearms, or that he wasn't aiming accurately. As for risks to others, a single accurate shot probably reduced the risk compared with further shots by Kuczwanski. But in any event, people generally do not have an obligation not to shot back, even if there is some slight risk of third parties getting shot.

I don’t know about good guy/bad guy applies here. Kuczwanski seems to be mentally unstable and has a history of firing guns at people with whom he gets into traffic disputes. No idea about the other guy’s record it lack of record but apparently he has no problem firing a gun at another person on what I can only assume was a crowded roadway. Neither seem like people who should be allowed to carry firearms.

Based on the report, he fired a gun accurately at a person firing a gun at him. There seems to be no good reason to suspect that he should not be allowed to carry firearms, or that he wasn't aiming accurately. As for risks to others, a single accurate shot probably reduced the risk compared with further shots by Kuczwanski. But in any event, people generally do not have an obligation not to shot back, even if there is some slight risk of third parties getting shot.

Yes, the person defending themselves was justified in shooting. However, regardless of the situation, the law assigns accountability for every bullet that leaves a person's gun. Had this person missed their target (or shot through their target) and killed another person, it would still be manslaughter of some degree, depending on the reasonableness of the shot taken, the necessity, known risk, etc. Even if unprosecuted, there would at the least be a civil liability.

I know the quotes are all broken... it's the site and I refuse to work any harder to fix it... its already too much a chore to do a simple quote.. god forbid you need to edit for snips

 

[Toni]

I'm still taken aback by the fact that they let that moron posess a gun after the first incident.

And appointed director of legislative affairs, for that matter. Was he really the best candidate they could find?

He's a Republican in Florida. This probably sealed the deal for him, actually. I'd be surprised if shooting someone over a traffic incident while white were not practically a prerequisite.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes, the person defending themselves was justified in shooting. However, regardless of the situation, the law assigns accountability for every bullet that leaves a person's gun. Had this person missed their target (or shot through their target) and killed another person, it would still be manslaughter of some degree, depending on the reasonableness of the shot taken, the necessity, known risk, etc.

I see; then I say it's another case where the law is wrong. Still, my point stands, as it is not affected by this.

I know the quotes are all broken... it's the site and I refuse to work any harder to fix it... its already too much a chore to do a simple quote.. god forbid you need to edit for snips

It's alright, I tend to have the same problem...and others I really dislike the new forum software.

 

[Elixir]

Yes, the person defending themselves was justified in shooting. However, regardless of the situation, the law assigns accountability for every bullet that leaves a person's gun. Had this person missed their target (or shot through their target) and killed another person, it would still be manslaughter of some degree, depending on the reasonableness of the shot taken, the necessity, known risk, etc.

I see; then I say it's another case where the law is wrong. Still, my point stands, as it is not affected by this.

I know the quotes are all broken... it's the site and I refuse to work any harder to fix it... its already too much a chore to do a simple quote.. god forbid you need to edit for snips

It's alright, I tend to have the same problem...and others I really dislike the new forum software.

Much relief:
When you select text to quote there’s a tiny “reply” box that shows up under it. Click that and it does all the work for you. Try it, you’ll like it!
Took me until a day or so ago to notice it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes, the person defending themselves was justified in shooting. However, regardless of the situation, the law assigns accountability for every bullet that leaves a person's gun. Had this person missed their target (or shot through their target) and killed another person, it would still be manslaughter of some degree, depending on the reasonableness of the shot taken, the necessity, known risk, etc.

I see; then I say it's another case where the law is wrong. Still, my point stands, as it is not affected by this.

I know the quotes are all broken... it's the site and I refuse to work any harder to fix it... its already too much a chore to do a simple quote.. god forbid you need to edit for snips

It's alright, I tend to have the same problem...and others I really dislike the new forum software.

Much relief:
When you select text to quote there’s a tiny “reply” box that shows up under it. Click that and it does all the work for you. Try it, you’ll like it!
Took me until a day or so ago to notice it.

Thanks, but I tried "reply", and it does something that I don't understand and find difficult to manage. I'm used to quoting manually when I want to quote (I do not use the quote features of the forum) But for some reason this forum makes that more difficult, with some text appearing in the box that I find it difficult to get rid of partially (since I want to keep some). Anyway, I think I'm getting used to the solution - select all, delete, then copy and paste. But sometimes I forget and it's still annoying. I'll learn eventually.

 

[Elixir]

I'll learn eventually.

I probably won’t. .
But when I selected the text “I’ll learn eventually” and clicked “reply”, this is what it did…

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.

I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.

You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.

 

[laughing dog]

I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.

I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.

You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.

Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, the person defending themselves was justified in shooting. However, regardless of the situation, the law assigns accountability for every bullet that leaves a person's gun. Had this person missed their target (or shot through their target) and killed another person, it would still be manslaughter of some degree, depending on the reasonableness of the shot taken, the necessity, known risk, etc.

I see; then I say it's another case where the law is wrong. Still, my point stands, as it is not affected by this.

I know the quotes are all broken... it's the site and I refuse to work any harder to fix it... its already too much a chore to do a simple quote.. god forbid you need to edit for snips

It's alright, I tend to have the same problem...and others I really dislike the new forum software.

Much relief:
When you select text to quote there’s a tiny “reply” box that shows up under it. Click that and it does all the work for you. Try it, you’ll like it!
Took me until a day or so ago to notice it.

There's also this [ ] icon hidden under the vertical ... adjacent to the undo icon. Click that and it goes back to the old markup.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.

I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.

You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.

Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.

Saying the target is the car doesn't make it so. Note where he rammed: the driver's door.

 

[Enigma]

I prefer no one dead and no one using guns or knives or bats or motor vehicles or poison or candlesticks in the library.

I prefer that people not engage in road rage or other criminal acts.

You don't get to choose from scenarios that don't exist.

In this case the bad guy was already using his car as a weapon before guns ever came into play. Remove the guns and it's big car vs small car--in all probability the big car wins.

Did it occur to you that just maybe the existence of the firearms in those cars may have influenced their behavior?

BTW, the bad guy using his car as a weapon was using it against another car not the driver. This was a completely senseless tragedy on multiple levels.

Ah, the classic "No, your Honor. My client was not intentionally shooting the deceased but was instead shooting their hat. The fact that the deceased was wearing the hat at the time is an incidental detail." defense.

Good stuff.

 

[Gospel]

He rammed the car to send a message to the driver and the driver received that message.

 

[ZiprHead]

I wonder if this story would make the NRA's list of good guys with guns.