Good guy with a gun stops road rage mass pike

[Picton]

This argument is nuts. The driver was in a position to very rapidly and without warning run over multiple people that were on foot in the vicinity of the car. The guy was still on his hood when the guy pulled the gun. The driver could have tried to smash through the cars that were in his way. As I said, almost everything he did after he unholstered his weapon was dumb, but there was ample justification there to unholster and probably to aim it at him as well.

Sure, but it would sound different in court.

Lawyer: so, you pulled your gun because you were on foot beside the car, correct?
Sashbearer: yes, sir.
L: and you felt your life was in danger, standing there next to a car with a crazy guy behind the wheel, correct?
S: yes, sir.
L: then, if your life was in danger standing there, I’m curious why you didn’t just, y’know, walk away...
S: sir?
L: you CHOSE to put yourself in danger, right?

Bottom line: the sashbearer made his choice to be the sheepdog. Everyone’s glad it didn’t go south, but if it had? His choice, his responsibility. He’s not a cop. His life was only in danger because he wanted it to be in danger.

 

[Boston4567]

With his finger on the trigger? And, you're also making the assumption that the Infiniti was still running after being pinned in by other vehicles.

I said pulling and maybe aiming were justified, and everything else after that was mostly dumb. If he had his finger on the trigger, it would not be justified, but in my opinion the video is too blurry to indicate whether or not he had his finger on the trigger.

I think when we're dealing with a situation like this, if you're making assumptions, you give the Good Samaritan with the gun the benefit of the doubt. So sure, hypothetically, if the car was not running, or if had suddenly broken down, or if it was caught in a space saucer's traction beam and couldn't move, it would probably render the guy pulling his gun unjustified. It's pretty reasonable to assume the car was still running, in good repair, and not immobilized by aliens.

It's also possible that the car was off but when the guy with the gun had his adrenaline pumped up and lots of loud highway noise from both sides of the highway and peoples' lives potentially in danger, he wasn't going to settle down and pause to listen carefully for the sound of an engine before pulling his weapon.

 

[Boston4567]

Sure, but it would sound different in court.

Lawyer: so, you pulled your gun because you were on foot beside the car, correct?
Sashbearer: yes, sir.
L: and you felt your life was in danger, standing there next to a car with a crazy guy behind the wheel, correct?
S: yes, sir.
L: then, if your life was in danger standing there, I’m curious why you didn’t just, y’know, walk away...
S: sir?
L: you CHOSE to put yourself in danger, right?

Bottom line: the sashbearer made his choice to be the sheepdog. Everyone’s glad it didn’t go south, but if it had? His choice, his responsibility. He’s not a cop. His life was only in danger because he wanted it to be in danger.

When he pulled the gun the guy was still on the hood and there were others on foot in the vicinity of the car.

 

[Picton]

When he pulled the gun the guy was still on the hood and there were others on foot in the vicinity of the car.

None of which matters once the trial starts. Lawyers are in charge there; common sense isn’t.

Who cares who else was beside the vehicle? The focus is on the man with the gun, who made decisions that the rest of us have every right to examine and critique. Nobody was forcing Captain Sash to intervene. He’s ultimately accountable for his decisions if things go bad.

That car wasn’t going anywhere; it was boxed in, front and side. At that point? Stay in the car and keep yourself out of jeopardy. Use your phone, not your gun.

 

[Bonesinium]

As mentioned before, no one is saying that the gunman's action was worse than the other two clowns.

You sure?

However, there was a chance that it could have been if things turned south. If he did indeed fire his weapon, we would be having a much different discussion.

But he didn’t, did he? If if if.
If he didn’t pull his gun and if crazy window smasher kept smashing the window until he broke all the way through things would also be different. If the driver kept driving and ran him or someone else over things would be different. But none of that happened.

Time and again, you are usually the first to bash cops for their behavior, even if others didn't see it the same way as you did. It doesn't take much to imagine what your response would have been if the gunman had been a police officer.

Exactly the same. Drawing a firearm on clearly dangerous and irrational people seems highly reasonable to me.

The bottom line for me is, I don't see a problem with the gunman intervening as he did.

Sure seems like you do.

However, at no point was there a need to point his weapon at anyone

Yep, you do.

with his finger on the trigge

r

I certainly agree there.

or telling the driver to get on the ground.

Why not?

In addition, the gunman was still carrying the gun when the police arrived, which could have led to him being shot.

He quickly put it down and his hands up, but yes, he probably should have a bit sooner.

I don't think gun guy contemplated the level of crazy involved for a person to be hanging onto the hood of a car while driving down the pike before he exited his car with a gun. If they were any higher level of crazy he may have had to pull the trigger. If I had stopped them I wouldn't have jumped out with a gun. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

I think he did think about how crazy they were, which is exactly why he drew his gun.

Just because he did, and you wouldn’t, doesn’t make his actions wrong, just different.

 

[ISOTOX]

Dumb and Dumber wont be driving for awhile.....Not sure what will happen to Brother Darrell.

 

[Glockster30]

I said pulling and maybe aiming were justified, and everything else after that was mostly dumb. If he had his finger on the trigger, it would not be justified, but in my opinion the video is too blurry to indicate whether or not he had his finger on the trigger.

I think when we're dealing with a situation like this, if you're making assumptions, you give the Good Samaritan with the gun the benefit of the doubt. So sure, hypothetically, if the car was not running, or if had suddenly broken down, or if it was caught in a space saucer's traction beam and couldn't move, it would probably render the guy pulling his gun unjustified. It's pretty reasonable to assume the car was still running, in good repair, and not immobilized by aliens.

It's also possible that the car was off but when the guy with the gun had his adrenaline pumped up and lots of loud highway noise from both sides of the highway and peoples' lives potentially in danger, he wasn't going to settle down and pause to listen carefully for the sound of an engine before pulling his weapon.

A couple of days ago, I blew up two different photos with different angles and by changing the lighting and contrast, it shows that his finger is definitely on the trigger. As a firearms instructor, it's my opinion that he wasn't trained properly.

Research has shown that there are essentially two scenarios involved in this type of scenario, 1) muscle contractions from the brain that send a signal directly to the finger to pull the trigger, which is known as a voluntary contraction and thus, a discharge of the weapon, and 2), involuntary contractions causing a discharge when a part of the nervous system other than the brain sends signals based on other uncontrolled factors. An involuntary contraction and discharge aren't intended, but they happen. This guy set himself up for a world of bad shit if he had an involuntary discharge.

Studies performed on police officer training show that there is an insignificant amount of time difference between having their finger on the trigger as opposed to having them on the trigger guard, and again, having a finger on the trigger guard reduces the chance of having an involuntary discharge.

 

[AHM]

... that one nagging nag's statement uttered years ago...

We don’t believe in self help​

​

FTFY.

WORCESTER, Mass. - Frankie Hernandez was on his way home from work when he saw a man being dragged on the hood of a car as it traveled along the Massachusett Turnpike in Weston.

"... dragged on the hood of a car as it traveled ...", LOL.

Can we submit news articles to Columbia U's Alfred Joyce Kilmer Memorial Bad Poetry Contest?
Because this one qualifies.

 

[Glockster30]

You sure?



But he didn’t, did he? If if if.
If he didn’t pull his gun and if crazy window smasher kept smashing the window until he broke all the way through things would also be different. If the driver kept driving and ran him or someone else over things would be different. But none of that happened.



Exactly the same. Drawing a firearm on clearly dangerous and irrational people seems highly reasonable to me.



Sure seems like you do.



Yep, you do.



I certainly agree there.



Why not?



He quickly put it down and his hands up, but yes, he probably should have a bit sooner.



I think he did think about how crazy they were, which is exactly why he drew his gun.

Just because he did, and you wouldn’t, doesn’t make his actions wrong, just different.

Other than me writing this, you're no longer even worth having a discussion with you on this matter.

 

[Bonesinium]

Lol. Can’t explain your position so why bother, right?

 

[Nick Fury]

I stand corrected. This guy was one of the chosen. Trained in the arts...

Man pulls gun on Pike to stop road rage: 'My military training kicked in'

Man who stopped Mass. Pike road rage incident with handgun said firearm-owners need to be ‘mentally fit’

Maybe he will make a training video and put it up on YouTube so lesser men such as myself can learn from it.

 

[DPR]

.

Just because he did, and you wouldn’t, doesn’t make his actions wrong, just different.

I didn't say he was wrong.

 

[Bonesinium]

I know. It was meant as a general statement with ‘you’ meaning whoever is reading it.

Far too many people have the opinion that if they wouldn’t do something or something some way that it means anyone who does is wrong. It’s really one of the driving premises behind stuff like gun control.

 

[Buck F]

The jackass "NES Guy" just doesn't know when to shut up. First, here's a pic of him displaying his gun claiming his "military training kicked in". Today's quote in the Glob "I just needed to do something" Hernandez said. "I didn't know if the guy was armed, so that's why I drew my weapon". The guy is just begging to get his LTC yanked for suitability. What a maroon.

 

[DW357]

The jackass "NES Guy" just doesn't know when to shut up. First, here's a pic of him displaying his gun claiming his "military training kicked in". Today's quote in the Glob "I just needed to do something" Hernandez said. "I didn't know if the guy was armed, so that's why I drew my weapon". The guy is just begging to get his LTC yanked for suitability. What a maroon.

Yep. Definitely seems like he wants a lot of attention for what he did and boy that's going to bite him in the ass...

 

[Ringworm]

Sure, but it would sound different in court.

Lawyer: so, you pulled your gun because you were on foot beside the car, correct?
Sashbearer: yes, sir.
L: and you felt your life was in danger, standing there next to a car with a crazy guy behind the wheel, correct?
S: yes, sir.
L: then, if your life was in danger standing there, I’m curious why you didn’t just, y’know, walk away...
S: sir?
L: you CHOSE to put yourself in danger, right?

Bottom line: the sashbearer made his choice to be the sheepdog. Everyone’s glad it didn’t go south, but if it had? His choice, his responsibility. He’s not a cop. His life was only in danger because he wanted it to be in danger.

Lawyer: so, you pulled your gun because you were on foot beside the car, correct?
Sashbearer: yes, sir.
L: and you felt your life was in danger, standing there next to a car with a crazy guy behind the wheel, correct?
S: No sir, I saw the old man's life was in danger. Am I not allowed to make sure my fellow man is safe? We were still waiting for you to show up...Would the State feel better if nobody stepped in and allowed harm to come?
L: <continues with some BS about how the State is in charge, and how dare "S" mock the court, blah blah blah>

F**k the State, cops, and anybody who feels that nobody should be allowed to step in.

However, this is the number one reason why I won't step in if someone's in harms way, badge included (although I might watch the badge get beat down. It's not like some of you don't deserve it). With how cops and DAs view the People, it's not worth going under the knife for the pleasure of either. Remember, DAs and cops are not there to keep you safe, they're around to justify their existence. And if you get in the way, you're going to be a lesson for the rest of us.

 

[Picton]

Lawyer: so, you pulled your gun because you were on foot beside the car, correct?
Sashbearer: yes, sir.
L: and you felt your life was in danger, standing there next to a car with a crazy guy behind the wheel, correct?
S: No sir, I saw the old man's life was in danger. Am I not allowed to make sure my fellow man is safe? We were still waiting for you to show up...Would the State feel better if nobody stepped in and allowed harm to come?
L: <continues with some BS about how the State is in charge, and how dare "S" mock the court, blah blah blah>

F**k the State, cops, and anybody who feels that nobody should be allowed to step in.

However, this is the number one reason why I won't step in if someone's in harms way, badge included (although I might watch the badge get beat down. It's not like some of you don't deserve it). With how cops and DAs view the People, it's not worth going under the knife for the pleasure of either. Remember, DAs and cops are not there to keep you safe, they're around to justify their existence. And if you get in the way, you're going to be a lesson for the rest of us.

The bit in red is noble and all, but no court in the world is going to let a witness get all editorial like that.

I’m with you on that last paragraph, though.

 

[Zappa]

No charges against the LTC holder.
As predicted, Infiniti driver claims he was in fear of his life because other guy got out of his truck, approached him aggressively, and smashed his windshield.

Here’s exactly what happened during the Mass. Pike road rage incident, according to the police report - The Boston Globe

 

[NewGuyRay]

Lawyer: so, you pulled your gun because you were on foot beside the car, correct?
Sashbearer: yes, sir.
L: and you felt your life was in danger, standing there next to a car with a crazy guy behind the wheel, correct?
S: No sir, I saw the old man's life was in danger. Am I not allowed to make sure my fellow man is safe? We were still waiting for you to show up...Would the State feel better if nobody stepped in and allowed harm to come?
L: <continues with some BS about how the State is in charge, and how dare "S" mock the court, blah blah blah>

F**k the State, cops, and anybody who feels that nobody should be allowed to step in.

However, this is the number one reason why I won't step in if someone's in harms way, badge included (although I might watch the badge get beat down. It's not like some of you don't deserve it). With how cops and DAs view the People, it's not worth going under the knife for the pleasure of either. Remember, DAs and cops are not there to keep you safe, they're around to justify their existence. And if you get in the way, you're going to be a lesson for the rest of us.

This post illustrates the fundamental problem. I have seen no reference in any media coverage implying that our "Wannabe Hero" was an eye witness to the events that precipitated the incident. Without such knowledge, "Wannabe Hero" jumped into action making an ASSUMPTION as to who was the aggressor. Are we really advocating that people jump into action, risking their guns, 2A rights, financial future, and possibly even their freedom by making snap judgments based on assumptions?

Particularly in this state, every use of a firearm requires a risk vs return calculation. This dude took on incredible risk without possessing even basic FACTS concerning what precipitated the event. So what did he stand to gain as compensation for accepting such risk -- a news reporter interview? If this sounds judgemental or elitist, too bad. If anyone can't see that this dude's actions were reckless (in regard to needlessly exposing himself to substantial civil, legal, and even physical harm dangers) then you should be reevaluating why you carry a gun.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The jackass "NES Guy" just doesn't know when to shut up. First, here's a pic of him displaying his gun claiming his "military training kicked in". Today's quote in the Glob "I just needed to do something" Hernandez said. "I didn't know if the guy was armed, so that's why I drew my weapon". The guy is just begging to get his LTC yanked for suitability. What a maroon.

Suitability. define it please.

 

[drgrant]

I don't see anything morally wrong with what he did at all. He did a "good" thing (in terms of stopping the rolling hazard to other motorists) and the cops weren't pricks, and he didn't get arrested. Great.

That said....

If I was dispensing legal advice to the guy though, it would be something along the lines of like "Dude, did that guy you pointed the gun at, did he hit your car or injure you? Or is that guy on the hood of the car someone you know or really care about? Because otherwise, next time, get the f*** out of there, f*** those people, hopefully they'll just kill each other and leave everyone else out of it. Otherwise you're just putting yourself at great legal peril and pretty much nothing is covering your back legally. If it's road rage you're better off staying out of retard conferences and let someone else deal with it"

The fact that both of those guys got arrested is also 110% confirmation that a retard conference was indeed in full session that day on I90...

-Mike

 

[Bonesinium]

Kamrowski said he went up to the Infiniti’s passenger window and asked for Fitzgerald to pull over so the two could exchange information, but said Fitzgerald wouldn’t pull over. So Kamrowski grabbed a water bottle from the passenger seat, walking to the front of the Infiniti and demanding Kamrowski to pull over.... Kamrowski told authorities, and smashed the windshield with the water bottle

Fitzgerald was arrested and charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon on a person over 60, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and leaving the scene of a property damage accident. Kamrowski was also arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and malicious damage to a motor vehicle.

There is zero indication of any damage to the other party’s car,” Chinman said.

If the article is correct in that Kamrowski admits to grabbing the water bottle from the guys car and smashing the window, and that it does turn out there was no damage to Kamrowski’s car, (and I haven’t seen anything indicate there was), then I’d have Kamrowski guilty of the malicious damage to a motor vehicle charge, not guilty on disorderly conduct, and Fitzgerald not guilty on all counts.

 

[Nick Fury]

The fact that both of those guys got arrested is also 110% confirmation that a retard conference was indeed in full session that day on I90...

-Mike

I would not think it wise to use a police dept to determine a persons guilt or innocence...

 

[AHM]

If I was dispensing legal advice to the guy though, it would be something along the lines of like "Dude, did that guy you pointed the gun at, did he hit your car or injure you? Or is that guy on the hood of the car someone you know or really care about? Because otherwise, next time, get the f*** out of there, f*** those people, hopefully they'll just kill each other and leave everyone else out of it. Otherwise you're just putting yourself at great legal peril and pretty much nothing is covering your back legally. ...

The only thing you omitted was,
"Dude! The car is totally pulled over -
now's your chance to route around the jam
and make up for lost time".