Man Opens Fire On Good Samaritans Trying To Help Him In Snowstorm

[fast]

Also, I'm not saying the police shouldn't have been notified, but I think it's a bad idea to taunt your would-be killer.

Imagine the victim (before becoming a victim) saying something like this:

Look bro, we just stopped to help. We'll be on our way. No wait, because you are being a dick, we're not just going to leave. First, we're going to destroy everything you've worked your whole life to build. Before we're done with you, you're going to lose your job, your freedom, and your wife. Yeah, dickhead, she is going to leave you because she isn't going to stay with another jobless dick who can't stay sober and clean enough to stay out of jail, which is exactly where you're going to go. Maybe you've had multiple run-ins with the law, and maybe what I'm about to do will put you away for a long, long time. Better grab your phone and call your wife to give your little girl a hug, 'cause it's the last time you'll see her.

Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't call the authorities. I'm not saying you should either--assess the situation, but if you think you should, fine, but a) don't taunt, and b) don't be within bullet shot.

Wait a minute: It seems to me that calling the police was an effort to help someone who was stranded, not an attempt to screw over a drunk guy. He was stranded and could have been in danger himself.

It's altogether possible that Lee was too drunk to consider that the men who stopped were actually still attempting to help him.

It's quite likely that the men who stopped to help Lee had no idea he was armed.

It's not unlikely that Lee was drunk enough that whether or not they said anything out loud, Lee would have fired at them. He seems not to be a very stable person.

Also, for the record, Jefferson Heavner was white, judging by online photos.

View attachment 5478

That little kid shown in the picture is now without a daddy. It is absolutely and completely the fault of the belligerent fuck that pulled the trigger. He's dead, and you're being logical. It's amazing more people aren't killed.

 

[laughing dog]

I think that we should just not allow crazy people to own a gun.

Or hatchets.

I suppose you are trying to be humorous. Otherwise, that is simply stupid. If this drunk asshole had a hatchet, he would have a much harder time killing anyone that simply pulling out his firearm and shooting. It is much more likely no one would have been murdered.

 

[fast]

Or hatchets.

I suppose you are trying to be humorous. Otherwise, that is simply stupid. If this drunk asshole had a hatchet, he would have a much harder time killing anyone that simply pulling out his firearm and shooting. It is much more likely no one would have been murdered.

No argument there. I was just imagining the headlines about 3 good Samaritans being chased down by madman with hatchet. Lighting fuses tend to make things go boom, so whether a gun, hatchet, or barroom pool ball, if you set someone off, there's usually gonna be repercussions.

Is there a way to blame the victim without blaming the victim? There is something that always seems missing in the pissing matches that ensue after many of the stories. Consider this, suppose (it's not reflective of what happened), but who do you think most victim-blamers would target if instead of the phone user getting killed it was one of his friends? They wouldn't blame the victim. They would hold the gunman morally responsible and blame him, rightfully so, but there would be room for a bit of anger towards his friend the cell phone user. The third party variable helps separate the underlying distraction that makes people think the victim is being blamed.

 

[laughing dog]

I suppose you are trying to be humorous. Otherwise, that is simply stupid. If this drunk asshole had a hatchet, he would have a much harder time killing anyone that simply pulling out his firearm and shooting. It is much more likely no one would have been murdered.

No argument there. I was just imagining the headlines about 3 good Samaritans being chased down by madman with hatchet. Lighting fuses tend to make things go boom, so whether a gun, hatchet, or barroom pool ball, if you set someone off, there's usually gonna be repercussions....

The only way to avoid setting someone is never interact or even come near anyone, which is hardly realistic in this day and age. It is probably the case that this victim would still be alive if these people had not stopped to help this drunken murderous ass. And, it is likely if they had known he was a drunken murderous asshole, they would not have stopped. Of course, there was no way to know before that this person was so dangerous. Most people welcome help when they are stuck in snow. Where I live, you see people routinely helping others who are stuck in the snow.

At this point, there is no information that points to any of the "Good Samaritans" doing anything that remotely would cause a rationale person to go get his/her firearm and to open fire repeatedly. We can concoct scenarios, but it seems to me that most of those scenarios point to the drunken murderous asshole as solely responsible for this tragedy.

 

[fast]

No argument there. I was just imagining the headlines about 3 good Samaritans being chased down by madman with hatchet. Lighting fuses tend to make things go boom, so whether a gun, hatchet, or barroom pool ball, if you set someone off, there's usually gonna be repercussions....

The only way to avoid setting someone is never interact or even come near anyone, which is hardly realistic in this day and age. It is probably the case that this victim would still be alive if these people had not stopped to help this drunken murderous ass. And, it is likely if they had known he was a drunken murderous asshole, they would not have stopped. Of course, there was no way to know before that this person was so dangerous. Most people welcome help when they are stuck in snow. Where I live, you see people routinely helping others who are stuck in the snow.

At this point, there is no information that points to any of the "Good Samaritans" doing anything that remotely would cause a rationale person to go get his/her firearm and to open fire repeatedly. We can concoct scenarios, but it seems to me that most of those scenarios point to the drunken murderous asshole as solely responsible for this tragedy.

From the first post in this thread:

But when Lee allegedly became belligerant, the Samaritans decided to call police to come help him. “They thought he was drunk or on dope and said ‘let’s just call the law and let them deal with it,’ ” Reid said.

Ignore the bold, as it's utter bullshit. WHEN he became BELLIGERANT, the group then made the decision to do what? To call the police and let the law deal with it (aka, his belligerant ass.)

You're telling me that the desire to remain helpful continued? And you're saying this because we don't have evidence to support my assumption? We should act like MY assumption is faulty or just plain unsubstantiated? It's curious how the daddyless cop-calling law-bringing cellphone-using 'Samaritan' was targeted. No rationale eh.

ETA shouldn't have said daddyless. That would refer to his son--in the wake of the choices he made

 

[TV and credit cards]

The only way to avoid setting someone is never interact or even come near anyone, which is hardly realistic in this day and age. It is probably the case that this victim would still be alive if these people had not stopped to help this drunken murderous ass. And, it is likely if they had known he was a drunken murderous asshole, they would not have stopped. Of course, there was no way to know before that this person was so dangerous. Most people welcome help when they are stuck in snow. Where I live, you see people routinely helping others who are stuck in the snow.

At this point, there is no information that points to any of the "Good Samaritans" doing anything that remotely would cause a rationale person to go get his/her firearm and to open fire repeatedly. We can concoct scenarios, but it seems to me that most of those scenarios point to the drunken murderous asshole as solely responsible for this tragedy.

From the first post in this thread:

But when Lee allegedly became belligerant, the Samaritans decided to call police to come help him. “They thought he was drunk or on dope and said ‘let’s just call the law and let them deal with it,’ ” Reid said.

Ignore the bold, as it's utter bullshit. WHEN he became BELLIGERANT, the group then made the decision to do what? To call the police and let the law deal with it (aka, his belligerant ass.)

You're telling me that the desire to remain helpful continued? And you're saying this because we don't have evidence to support my assumption? We should act like MY assumption is faulty or just plain unsubstantiated? It's curious how the daddyless cop-calling law-bringing cellphone-using 'Samaritan' was targeted. No rationale eh.

ETA shouldn't have said daddyless. That would refer to his son--in the wake of the choices he made

No. A fair assumption at this point in time would be that they recognized he was drunk and calling the cops was the right thing to do. That is a fair assumption. Not your assumption that they verbally goaded the drunken idiot in to pulling a gun any more than we should assume they poked him with sticks. There is usually a reason to make an assumption.

 

[laughing dog]

The only way to avoid setting someone is never interact or even come near anyone, which is hardly realistic in this day and age. It is probably the case that this victim would still be alive if these people had not stopped to help this drunken murderous ass. And, it is likely if they had known he was a drunken murderous asshole, they would not have stopped. Of course, there was no way to know before that this person was so dangerous. Most people welcome help when they are stuck in snow. Where I live, you see people routinely helping others who are stuck in the snow.

At this point, there is no information that points to any of the "Good Samaritans" doing anything that remotely would cause a rationale person to go get his/her firearm and to open fire repeatedly. We can concoct scenarios, but it seems to me that most of those scenarios point to the drunken murderous asshole as solely responsible for this tragedy.

From the first post in this thread:

But when Lee allegedly became belligerant, the Samaritans decided to call police to come help him. “They thought he was drunk or on dope and said ‘let’s just call the law and let them deal with it,’ ” Reid said.

Ignore the bold, as it's utter bullshit. WHEN he became BELLIGERANT, the group then made the decision to do what? To call the police and let the law deal with it (aka, his belligerant ass.)

You're telling me that the desire to remain helpful continued? And you're saying this because we don't have evidence to support my assumption? We should act like MY assumption is faulty or just plain unsubstantiated? It's curious how the daddyless cop-calling law-bringing cellphone-using 'Samaritan' was targeted. No rationale eh.

I am saying we don't know. You have concocted an interpretation. I can concoct an alternative explanation: the "Good Samaritans" wanted to remain helpful and realized that it would take professionals to deal with his drunkeness and his predicament, and this drunken ass just started shooting and hit someone.

Regardless, I don't see how your interpretation logically allows partial responsibility of the resulting shooting on the victim. Calling the police may explain the drunken ass's "rationale" but it does not provide a jot of responsibility on the part of the victim.

 

[ZiprHead]

Question: was the murderer a responsible gun owner ^TM or was he illegally carrying?

 

[arkirk]

Question: was the murderer a responsible gun owner ^TM or was he illegally carrying?

That doesn't matter too much actually. If the city and county and state license a lot of the walking mistake makers, there will be a higher number of shootings. Far better that there be less guns on the street. Everybody seems to feel obligated to pack their own firepower to "protect" themselves. "Protect" themselves in this case from DUI. And there is a dead person because of that...and the drunk guy now also has hell to pay.

 

[fast]

Okie dokey. Until the next death...

 

[Arctish]

No. A fair assumption at this point in time would be that they recognized he was drunk and calling the cops was the right thing to do.

I am saying we don't know. You have concocted an interpretation. I can concoct an alternative explanation: the "Good Samaritans" wanted to remain helpful and realized that it would take professionals to deal with his drunkeness and his predicament, and this drunken ass just started shooting and hit someone.

Their options were:

1) leave, knowing that the guy could easily become hypothermic in those weather conditions and knowing that if the guy managed to get his car unstuck he would continue to drive drunk in a freaking blizzard, or

2) call the cops to deal with the drunk, the stuck car, and the possibility of hypothermia.

They made the right choice, and the belligerent asshole who opened fire made all the wrong ones.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Question: was the murderer a responsible gun owner ^TM or was he illegally carrying?

You can't legally carry while drunk. He had to have been illegally carrying.

 

[Deepak]

I am saying we don't know. You have concocted an interpretation. I can concoct an alternative explanation: the "Good Samaritans" wanted to remain helpful and realized that it would take professionals to deal with his drunkeness and his predicament, and this drunken ass just started shooting and hit someone.

Their options were:

1) leave, knowing that the guy could easily become hypothermic in those weather conditions and knowing that if the guy managed to get his car unstuck he would continue to drive drunk in a freaking blizzard, or

2) call the cops to deal with the drunk, the stuck car, and the possibility of hypothermia.

They made the right choice, and the belligerent asshole who opened fire made all the wrong ones.

If there's one thing I know about belligerent drunks it's that I don't want to be near them, armed or not. A third option would be to leave the area and call the cops.

 

[Arctish]

Their options were:

1) leave, knowing that the guy could easily become hypothermic in those weather conditions and knowing that if the guy managed to get his car unstuck he would continue to drive drunk in a freaking blizzard, or

2) call the cops to deal with the drunk, the stuck car, and the possibility of hypothermia.

They made the right choice, and the belligerent asshole who opened fire made all the wrong ones.

If there's one thing I know about belligerent drunks it's that I don't want to be near them, armed or not. A third option would be to leave the area and call the cops.

Hard to do in a severe snowstorm. You can't just call the cops on your cell phone as you drive away. They pretty much had to call the cops while they were still at the scene, so they could keep an eye on things and answer any questions the 911 dispatcher might have.

That or abandon the guy to his frozen fate, and leave his car as a road hazard to other drivers.

 

[DBT]

Or, if the guy you are trying to help is belligerent, just back off and say nothing, move to a safe distance and call the Cops without drawing the attention of belligerent motorist and wait till the Cops arrive.

 

[Deepak]

Hard to do in a severe snowstorm. You can't just call the cops on your cell phone as you drive away. They pretty much had to call the cops while they were still at the scene, so they could keep an eye on things and answer any questions the 911 dispatcher might have.

That or abandon the guy to his frozen fate, and leave his car as a road hazard to other drivers.

I'm with DBT - the chances the scenario develops into a danger for them is much higher than the chances they're able to successfully render help to the drunk. Unless he's unconscious and remains unconscious after being helped he's already demonstrated that he's liable to be a risk to be around. I'd call the dispatcher and answer the questions the best I could: the car is by mile marker X, or it's between exit X and X+1. Certainly the last place I want to be is between a drunk and an overzealous cop.

 

[bilby]

Exactly.

The shooter was not in the wrong. There is no escaping that.

I don't want to blame the victim. I just want to explain how one can prevent from becoming a victim without resorting to refraining from being a Good Samaritan. There are things we can do. When we are in the right (or even if in the wrong; it doesn't matter), we can make the choice to postpone being mouthy. We can temper our attitude. We can (oh let me see) not threaten to take actions that any belligerent person realizes can turn their world upside down. Calling the police can adversely effect the direction of someone's life. It can effect their financial life. It can effect their personal life!

So, remember that the next time you openly threaten to have someone fired when they're on the verge of a breakdown. Remember that the next time you flip someone off in traffic and your kid is in the car with you. You might get lucky...most do, but fuck with people enough, you'll eventually come across the wrong one, and although you get to bask in your morally superior position, you may not get to rest for all the tears that could have been prevented.

I think that we should just not allow crazy people to own a gun.

Why do you hate America?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Question: was the murderer a responsible gun owner ^TM or was he illegally carrying?

You can't legally carry while drunk. He had to have been illegally carrying.

Well, that doesn't make any sense. You're allowed to legally carry your gun into places like restaurants and bars which serve alcohol, but not legally carry it out after you've had a few drinks?

Leaving your gun behind in a bar full of drunk people is dangerous. That's a silly law.

 

[fast]

Or, if the guy you are trying to help is belligerent, just back off and say nothing, move to a safe distance and call the Cops without drawing the attention of belligerent motorist and wait till the Cops arrive.

Not bad, not bad at all. You get a 94.

I had to deduct 1 point for the "say nothing" part and 4 points for the "wait till" part. The other point deduction, well, just accept that you passed.

 

[RavenSky]

Or, if the guy you are trying to help is belligerent, just back off and say nothing, move to a safe distance and call the Cops without drawing the attention of belligerent motorist and wait till the Cops arrive.

I'm not seeing anything in the original story that says the victims were not trying to do exactly that. Despite fast's fantasy scenario, the OP does not say the victims told the shooter they were calling the police. Another article says he overheard them. That article also says that they witnessed him spin out, not simply stuck. As witnesses to an accident, they should not leave, so they did the correct thing all they way around.

Yet another article says the victim was one of the neighborhood residents, not one of the drivers.