1 county, 1 weekend, 3 road rage incidents involving guns and CCWs

[Bozita]

December 1, 2010
3 drivers threatened others with guns, police say

CHRISTINE FERRETTI
The Detroit News

Mount Clemens— Macomb County sheriff officials say three men were charged this week for allegedly threatening drivers with guns in three separate road rage incidents over the holiday weekend.

Macomb County Sheriff Department Capt. Anthony Wickersham said in each case the suspect became enraged over being cut off or followed too closely.

The men each have been charged with one felony count of assault with a dangerous weapon. They face up to four years in prison if convicted.

"Someone didn't like the way someone was driving and instead of just paying attention to the road and moving on, all three decided to pull their weapons out," Wickersham said. "We want to get the message out: While you are driving, pay attention and if somebody accidentally cuts you off, shrug it off. Keep your eye on the road and move on. Don't take matters into your own hands. That's what these three did."

more...

http://detnews.com/article/20101201/METRO03/12010421

[TheWraith]

1. I can probably find three incidents in one day, in one county, of people driving drunk.

That is, of course, proof that alcohol should be banned and no one should be allowed to drink. :eyes:

[rfranklin]

4. Almost everyone who puts a gun in their mouth and swallows...

a bullet ends up dead. The same cannot be said of alcohol. Your analogy is lame.

[TheWraith]

9. Your analogy is irrelevant, and completely off topic.

The OP's implication is that anyone misusing a gun is an argument against people being armed.

The equivalent argument is that anyone misusing alcohol is an argument for no one being allowed to drink.

Deliberate suicide is irrelevant to the point.

[Euromutt]

14. Way to miss the point

TheWraith wasn't talking about alcohol alone, but the combination of a BAC of over 0.08 while operating a motor vehicle (though I should note that I recently read that majority of alcohol-related motor vehicle collisions involve BACs of 0.14 or over). That's a potentially highly lethal combination.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AndyTiedye]

10. RKBA is Not the Right to Threaten Other People With Your Gun(s)

If you do that you go to prison.

There are exceptions for the defense of life and property,
but these don't apply here.

[TheWraith]

12. You think anyone here disagrees with that?

Then you've got a ridiculously twisted view of people who own firearms.

[Euromutt]

13. Nobody's arguing that it is

Any more than anyone's arguing a driver's license confers permission to operate a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The point is, rather, that this is a very small, and not very representative sample, of CCW permit holders. In how many metropolitan counties in "shall issue" states were there not multiple incidents of this sort over the past weekend, in spite of possibly comparable numbers of CCW holders operating motor vehicles? Suggesting that this sort of behavior is typical of CCW permit holders is an example of the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" (http://fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html). It's as valid--and this is TheWraith's point--argue that, say, two dozen DUIs occurring in a single county in a single weekend is evidence that licensed drivers as a group can't be trusted.

[maxsolomon]

2. a car is a deadly weapon

they're just defending themselves.

that comment is :sarcasm: from me, but from others?

[PavePusher]

22. A car IS a deadly weapon.

As to whether self-defense was involved in these incidents.... doesn't look like it.

[maxsolomon]

38. a car is not DESIGNED as such

and that is a crucial distinction.

[X_Digger]

39. Why?

Please chime in here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x292384

[PavePusher]

41. "Design" means nothing. "Intent" is everything.

The first rock used as a weapon, was it "designed" so?

None of my guns have killed anyone. Am I using them wrong?

Is there a moral difference between various tools used for killing, aside from whether the death was justifiable (self-defense) or not?

[maxsolomon]

43. Sophistry.

and changing the subject. i made no moral judgement about objects either designed or re-purposed to kill.

firearms were not invented to look pretty, be collected, or merely shoot targets. they were invented for hunting and warfare. you know it. history proves it.

are you so ashamed of their nature that you must ask me if you're using your firearms wrong? it sounds like you don't use them, period.

[Euromutt]

45. So what?

A motor vehicle, when it is operating, consists of one or more tons of metal and other materials traveling at multiple dozens of miles per hour. Simple physics makes it potentially lethal to anything or anyone in its path; witness the thousands of possums, raccoons, domestic cats and white-tailed deer (among other things) that are fatally struck by cars every year, and the 5,000-6,000 pedestrians and cyclists who suffer the same fate.

Whether it is the purpose of a motor vehicle to be a lethal dose of blunt force trauma on wheels is irrelevant to the fact that it is.

[one-eyed fat man]

46. "......a car is not DESIGNED as such...."

That crucial distinction must have been a BIG consolation to the dead and maimed bicyclists.

[SteveM]

48. So? What's your point?

[SheilaT]

3. CCWs?

Can't figure it out.

People are not always rational, to say the least. Cars, drugs, alcohol, guns -- not a pretty mix in the best of times.

[lawodevolution]

7. When whoever was driving around and planning to piss off the driver they probably looked up to see

If the driver had a CCW.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. CPL - Conealed Pistol License

CCW isn't really appropriate to use in this context. (Concealed Carry Weapon)

[SheilaT]

26. Thank you.

It's easy to forget that others may not know the acronyms or abbreviations.

[lawodevolution]

5. Probably some kind of fraud or entrapment

[Euromutt]

11. That sounds like a stretch, LoD

We're talking a fairly densely populated county (it's part of the Detroit metro area) in a shall-issue state over a holiday weekend; especially with tempers frayed from dealing with shopping crowds, this sort of thing could easily happen by random chance. Not necessarily in this specific county, but in one of the many metropolitan counties in the many "shall issue" states across the country.

[lawodevolution]

37. when something is this out of the ordinary I like to think

Of different possibilities. They could have been cases of self defense also. Either way, the way this story was presented was probably fraudulent and we'll be reading about what really happened later.

[Katya Mullethov]

42. If I lived in Austin

I would carry a pink pistol with a blue slide , for that EXACT reason .

[Remmah2]

6. I'll bet they were licensed drivers too.

The Amish don't have problems with road rage.

[Euromutt]

8. If the events are represented accurately, this is unusual

Usually, when an incident is reported involving road rage and a CCW holder drawing a weapon, it turns out the other guy was the one with road rage. But it's always fun to watch certain people jump to conclusions.

[Bozita]

15. Detroit Free Press: "3 gun-toting motorists held in road rage fights "

Posted: 3:05 p.m. Dec. 1, 2010
3 gun-toting motorists held in road rage fights

BY CHRISTINA HALL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER


-snip-

He said each suspect is a concealed pistol license holder.

Michael Wiley, 55, of Mt. Clemens is accused of pointing a gun at a 62-year-old Richmond man at Market and North Gratiot in Mt. Clemens on Friday. Wiley told authorities that he was cut off by the other man. He then pulled out a gun while driving, Wickersham said. Wiley was arrested Tuesday.

Ronald St. Onge, 47, of Almont pointed a gun at a 44-year-old Shelby Township man at Hayes and Hall Road in Macomb Township on Saturday after St. Onge told authorities that he was cut off while driving, Wickersham said.

About seven hours later, David Julian, 45, of Clinton Township pointed a gun at 23-year-old Clinton Township man at Hall Road and Romeo Plank in Macomb Township, Wickersham said. Julian told authorities the other driver was tailgating and flashing his high-beam headlights at him as he drove.

-snip-


Read more: 3 gun-toting motorists held in road rage fights | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20101201/NEWS04/101201052/3-gun-toting-motorists-held-in-road-rage-fights#ixzz16tr44c3O

[X_Digger]

16. Oh noes, is the blood finally flowing in the streets?

Wait, you mean that statistically rare events can actually cluster together? Who knew!

:sarcasm:

[PavePusher]

23. And doesn't Detroit already have a high crime rate?

Oops.......

[RamboLiberal]

17. These 3 idiots need to have their CCW pulled

If you carry you damn well better learn to stay calm and not get into road rage or any other incident involving anger.

I even remind myself I better back off & not flip the bird to some idiot on the road since I do carry and it's not smart to escalate an incident.

[Euromutt]

33. If a court of law determines they were at fault, they will

As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, there have been plenty of instances of "CCW piece meets road rage" in which it was initially suggested that the CCW permit holder was at fault, and it later emerged that the other party was the one suffering road rage, and made the mistake of trying to take it out on the CCW permit holder.

Though at the minimum, the parties involved do seem to need a remedial course in the teachings of either Massad Ayoob or Clint Smith. Either will tell you that you can't count on being able to operate a motor vehicle and firearm effectively at the same time, and that even if you reasonably believe your life is in danger, you should only resort to your firearm if you're certain you can't drive out of trouble. One line apocryphally attributed to Ayoob is that "a Honda Civic has more stopping power than a .45 ACP."

And while on a practical level I can understand the idea that you don't want to escalate a situation by flipping some bozo off, I'm inclined to say that any judge or jury who thinks that responding to a raised middle finger by cornering the offending party's vehicle, or running it off the road, and then approaching it with apparent intent to inflict bodily harm on its occupants does not constitute unnecessary escalation has, by dint of that very fact, proven itself incompetent to judge the case. There's no law that says it's permissible to take fists or a tire iron to someone for flipping you off.

[safeinOhio]

20. I'm in favor of

CCWs for law abiding citizens. I think once entrusted with the license, the holder should be held to a much higher standard. One year in jail is way to light. In order to send a message to those entrusted with a CCW, they should be given a mandatory 10 years. I think that might send a message to all the short fuse idiots.
One good thing. They will never be able to own a handgun again if convicted. Brandishing a handgun is a felony in Michigan.

[PavePusher]

24. Can we use the same criteria on people who abuse other Civil Rights? n/t

[safeinOhio]

29. You make no sense.

Unless you are defending pointing your gun at anyone that pisses you off.
Pointing a loaded gun at some person whose driving pisses you off is not a civil right any more than lying under oath in court is a civil right to free speech.

[PavePusher]

34. My apologies, Euromutt said it much better than me.

My other objection is to the seemingly knee-jerk reaction to every variation of a crime that "we need to pass another law", when the existing laws will work just fine, and we really already have too many of them.

[Euromutt]

30. Or people who abuse other licensed activities?

Should we treat a licensed driver who gets caught DUI more harshly than a guy who got caught DUI without a valid driver's license?
Should we treat a business owner who cheats on his business' taxes more harshly if he has a valid business license?
Should we treat a health care provider whose criminal negligence results in permanent injury to a patient more harshly if he actually has a medical degree and a license to practice medicine in the jurisdiction in question?

[safeinOhio]

32. On the other hand,

we do and should hold others to a higher standard for the position they hold. Like a teacher using their authority to sexually abuse a student or a cop that breaks the law under color of law. The above examples you listed do have the added consequence of loss of license that the unlicensed offenders escape. The unlicensed gun brandisher already gets the charge of illegal possession of a handgun added to the illegal use.

A better deterrent might be better to increase the requirements of class time and testing of CCW applicants. In Michigan, the final test for the class was an open book test. More hours could be required to know and understand the laws. Looks like these 3 didn't know or understand the law.

[Euromutt]

28. I understand the sentiment, but I think your idea is misguided

What you're advocating is treating possession of a CCW permit as an aggravating circumstance to a firearm offense. In effect, that would mean that if a person were arrested for a firearm offense, it would be a mitigating circumstance if that person did not possess a license to carry concealed the firearm he used in the crime. And that means that, in effect, you'd be rewarding anyone who was carrying illegally.

Now, I acknowledge that such a person would be facing an illegal carrying charge in addition to the gun crime charge, but unless the illegal carrying charge also carried a mandatory ten years' imprisonment charge (which it doesn't), a person would in effect be better off not getting a CCW permit and carrying illegally instead. After all, the chance is fairly small that he'll be caught unless he does something illegal with the gun in the first place.

Moreover, the deterrent effect of increasing the severity of punishment for an offense is very questionable. The very problem with--as you term them--"short fuse idiots" is that are not thinking of the possible consequences when they draw their guns. None of them are thinking "this will get me at least a year in prison, and I'll be a convicted felon for life, but that's totally worth it"; consequently, a mandatory ten-year sentence wouldn't act as a deterrent, because they won't stop to consider that any more than they do a one-year sentence.

[safeinOhio]

31. You do have some good points.

A more thoughtful law might include never being able to obtain a drivers license along with never being able to buy or possess a gun, if connected to driving. Perhaps just making all brandishing a gun in traffic a five year felony, CCW or not. I do think laws make most people consider consequences to their actions. I don't really wear my seat belt on a short trip to the store because of the safety aspect. I do it to avoid being pulled over and that $100 ticket.
In the town I use to live in, a judge gave a cop a harsher sentence on a crime because he was a cop and said he should be held to a higher standard. I agreed with that judge. The lawyer had just argued that the cop should get a lighter sentence because of his service. Perhaps the judge in these cases will find it a mitigating circumstance and give a harsher sentence. I'd agree with that. Looks like others here actually think brandishing in a road rage situation is a civil right.

[Euromutt]

36. It's not laws that make people consider their actions, it's the risk of getting caught

Here's a truism: "there's never a cop around when you need one." This is because, as other posters on this board have pointed on various occasions, very few rational people violate the law in the presence of a police officer, because of the concomitantly high risk of arrest. Instead, vandals, robbers, burglars, etc. commit their crimes only when they're reasonably certain there isn't a cop around. Hence the absence of a cop "when you need one."

It's not laws per se that "make most people consider consequences to their actions"; it's their estimation of the likelihood of being caught. What causes you to buckle up on the way to the store and back is not the fact that the law requires you to, but the fact that you perceive the police presence between your house and the store to be sufficiently strong that you perceive your chances of getting away with not buckling up as lower than your chances of getting nailed. I.e. it's not the law itself that influences your behavior, but your estimation of how reliably it is enforced.

That's why imposing more severe sentences for offenses doesn't deter crime: the perpetrator either thinks he'll get away with it, or he doesn't care about being punished. If he thinks he'll get away with it, it doesn't matter how severe the punishment, because it won't be imposed on him; if he doesn't care about being punished, a more severe punishment won't make a difference to his evaluation of the situation.

Re: the cop being tried in your town, I can't deliver an informed opinion without knowing what he being tried for. I can, however, say this: cops are unusual because they are agents of the state, and they are granted powers to deprive others of life, liberty and property and otherwise break the law (ignoring traffic regulations, soliciting prostitution or drug deals, carrying while inebriated, what have you) that private citizens do not have. By contrast, a CCW permit holder is subject to the same laws concerning use of force as non-CCW holders; the only distinction is in the means of force available to them, respectively. In the shooting at that Costco in Summerlin, NV recently, the inquest could produce three verdicts: justifiable, excusable or criminal. For private citizens, including CCW holders, there is no "excusable" option; for private citizens, "not justifiable" = "criminal."

So there's a reasonable case to be made for holding cops to a higher standard under the law, because that same law grants them a wider latitude in behavior. Private citizens who hold government-issued licenses--be it to drive a motor vehicle, practice medicine, cut hair, operate a GMRS radio, or carry a concealed firearm--aren't granted that same latitude, and cannot therefore be held to the same standard agents of the state like police officers are.

Looks like others here actually think brandishing in a road rage situation is a civil right.

Care to provide a quote on the basis of which you would draw such a conclusion?
Actually, I'll give you one: if confronted by someone apparently suffering road rage who was approaching my vehicle with apparent intent to inflict bodily harm on myself and/or other occupants, yes, I'd consider it quite justified to brandish my CCW weapon in an effort to deter said individual. Sure, that's assuming I'm not the one with the road rage, but then, you didn't specify.

I'll also admit that I wish the law granted me the power to empty a mag into the sound system of the idiot behind me at the light who has the bass on his sound system cranked so loud it's giving me a headache, but I (grudgingly) accept that the law does not allow me to do so, so I don't.

[krispos42]

25. Macomb County has about 800k people in it

They probably don't have more than 20k concealed carry permits issued, maybe a fair amount less.


Seems like a rather lot.

[mvccd1000]

27. Ironic, isn't it?

While I fully agree that these three morons should be charged and prosecuted under the laws they broke, I do see some irony in the situation.

One of the arguments FOR gun control centers around the defensive use of guns. It it rarely acknowledged that simply showing, or even merely possessing, a gun may be enough to deter a crime. (Just ask anyone if possessing or unholstering a gun counts as a "defensive gun use." The answer will be a resounding "No.")

Speaking straight out the other side of the mouth, though, merely unholstering that same gun IS enough to constitute a dangerous crime that should be prosecuted.

So... showing my gun to prevent or deter a crime is not a valid legal use of a gun, but showing my gun because I'm angry at some guy cutting me off in traffic IS a valid use of a gun to commit a crime. Interesting...

[PavePusher]

35. Well said. n/t

[Glassunion]

40. Yes... Well said indeed. I have observed another contradiction...

Basically the same voice will remark in one place that gun owners are paranoid, over-reacting individuals that are scared of going out into public without a gun. Then post somewhere else that gun owners need to be feared because of what they may do.

How is it that it can be said that a “gun owner’s” point of view is invalid because they are living in fear of what the public may do, however at the same time make arguments that “gun owners” need to be feared because of what they may do in public? Are gun owners in a different group than the general public?

[jazzhound]

44. And yet another contradiction.............

Gun owners are a paranoid lot, yet............

...............we need to curb the "epidemic of gun violence" by "making guns and ammo scarce".

Which is it? Do we have a relatively peaceful nation where concealed carry really isn't needed, or do we have an "epidemic of violence" that requires more gun laws? Can't have it both ways, pro-"control" proponents.

[DeadEyeDyck]

47. Well at least they weren't texting. n/t