[TBO]

http://www.westportnow.com/index.php...rage_incident/

[Roger1079]

Originally Posted by TBO

http://www.westportnow.com/index.php...rage_incident/

What on earth was the occupant of the other car thinking by approaching the vehicle at the traffic light? Sounds like there may be more to this story than reported.

[Chris Chris]

Originally Posted by Roger1079

What on earth was the occupant of the other car thinking by approaching the vehicle at the traffic light? Sounds like there may be more to this story than reported.

This has a 'smell test' problem.
The news arrticle notes that a women travelling with a child called in a 911 complaint about a vehicle passing them in a "No Passing" zone. OK... she's irked at something. But, a 911 call about a vehicle passing you in a No Passing zone is ridiculous on its face. Extreme reckless driveing, maybe. Passing in a No Passing Zone -- 911? Are you kidding!? What thought process goes into that 911 call?

The article later states than an 'occupant' of that vehicle (not identified as to the originally mentioned woman & child) approached the bad passing vehicle at a stop sign/light.

Did the women who called the original 911 call do the approaching.? Did the child? Or, was there a deliberate obfuscation regarding the identity/gender/make up of the unidentified "occupant" who did the approaching? Why wasn't he mentioned in the article?

What was that unidentified "occupant's" gender, size, or demeanor?

Is it possible that the occupant of the 'passing' vehicle suddenly saw a large individual exit a car behind him at a stop light and charge his vehicle? Some might interpret that as an attempted carjacking, or assault. In either case, being in your vehicle... and without a ready means to retreat... drawing a handgun might be a reasonable action.

This MSM news article requires a bit more information in order to pass the "smell test". Something is not quite right here... either with the actions of the 'passed' vehicle, or that of the unidentified occupant of that vehicle who charged the 'passing' vehicle.

[Bruce M]

I concur that there seems to be something missing from the article however if the subject felt that he was about to be carjacked, sometime after he pulled the gun and then managed an escape, he missed the third part of the response to that situation which of course is to contact the police.


I am also a firm believer in the thought that if one has not been granted power by the legislature to enforce traffic laws then one should not attempt to enforce traffic laws including by verbal warning.

[willy1094]

There was just an article about a woman who shot a man after a road rage that resulted in an accident. You would have to be crazy to approach a person's car in traffic. I agree that there is a huge part of the story missing and the passer should have called the police.

People call 911 because the have locked themselves out of their car and because there is a raccoon in the back yard. Not shocked by her caller for someone passing in a no passing zone. Now that everyone has a cellphone 911 is increasingly abused and under funded.

[jph02]

Man arrested in Westport road-rage incident involving gun

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but I suspect Mr. Blum will be found guilty. While I can appreciate a concern for his safety with someone appearing at his passenger door, I don't think that passes the immediate threat test, especially since he sped off from the scene.

Too bad there's nothing telling us how old the son is so we can better gage the potential threat. Maybe the mother should face child endangerment charges she let a minor child approach the vehicle to confront someone she already should know is a law violator.

Trumbull man allegedly pointed gun at Westport driver

It appears the lady called 9-1-1 after Blum pointed the Glock 23 at her son.

[Roger1079]

Even in the additional articles and the edited version of the original one, they are still leaving out details as mentioned earlier. This kid (or adult) could have been in his 20's and the size of a linebacker. They also leave out the demeanor in which the son approached the car. Was he screaming and yelling? Did he bang on a window? Did he have any objects in his hands?

This guy definitely did not use good judgment simply by the fact that he was able to flee the scene. Regardless of the details, it would have been much better on his part to have fled without pointing his firearm at anyone. That being said, without all the details it is difficult to tell whether he may have legitimately been in fear for his safety.

[jerryd]

Both parties are at fault, first the person in the womans car for getting out to go to the other persons car, and also the person arrested for pulling his weapon and not reporting it to police. Both parties didnt use common sense, its going to be interesting to see where this goes.Any time you pull your weapon the police should be notified, CYA which in this case didnt happen. By the way this is about 6miles from me and know alot of the officers in both depts. if i find anything out will post it.

[SCmasterblaster]

I am glad that I can drive in VT with my G17 on me.

[janice6]

On the face of it, if you are threatened enough to pull a loaded gun for self protection, why do you not call the police to protect yourself and justify the pointed weapon. (Brandishing)

Regardless of the person approaching his car, no evidence of an impending threat was presented by the gun wielding driver. I believe he knew he was driving like an ass, and the gun was for intimidation. I believe he fled because he knew he had no legal grounds for the gun and panic moved him.


Of course, I could be wrong.

[Chris Chris]

Originally Posted by janice6

On the face of it, if you are threatened enough to pull a loaded gun for self protection, why do you not call the police to protect yourself and justify the pointed weapon. (Brandishing)

Regardless of the person approaching his car, no evidence of an impending threat was presented by the gun wielding driver. I believe he knew he was driving like an ass, and the gun was for intimidation. I believe he fled because he knew he had no legal grounds for the gun and panic moved him.


Of course, I could be wrong.

The circumstances of your post are also a possibility. But, an individual approaching the passenger side of a vehicle is in the driver's "blind spot".

Looking out the passenger window from the driver's side presents a narrow view. It is very possible that the driver could not see the approaching person's hands and determine whether they had a weapon or not.

How fast did the the "occupant" exit the vehicle behind the 'gun puller'? What was their demeanor as they approached the passenger side? How big were they? Were they obviously angry (my guess, and it's only a guess, is yes... what calm, collected individual leaves their vehicle at a traffic light and 'casually' approaches the vehicle in front of them... on their blind side).

When the 'gun puller' displayed a gun... I agree that he should have called the police right then and there. But, has it been established that he had a cell phone that would allow him to do that? If he didn't have a phone, how would he call? A pay phone up the road? How many pay phones have any of us seen conveniently located lately?

It hasn't been established (just assumed by some) that the 'gun puller' did have a cell phone. We don't know if he did.

Much info is missing on this incident. We really don't know what actually happened. But, an individual suddenly charging your passenger door at a traffic light, might be considered to be reasonable fear of a car jacking or robbery. It's not normal behavior. But, until more data is released, we really don't know what actually happened.

[janice6]

Originally Posted by Chris Chris

The circumstances of your post are also a possibility. But, an individual approaching the passenger side of a vehicle is in the driver's "blind spot".

Looking out the passenger window from the driver's side presents a narrow view. It is very possible that the driver could not see the approaching person's hands and determine whether they had a weapon or not.

How fast did the the "occupant" exit the vehicle behind the 'gun puller'? What was their demeanor as they approached the passenger side? How big were they? Were they obviously angry (my guess, and it's only a guess, is yes... what calm, collected individual leaves their vehicle at a traffic light and 'casually' approaches the vehicle in front of them... on their blind side).

When the 'gun puller' displayed a gun... I agree that he should have called the police right then and there. But, has it been established that he had a cell phone that would allow him to do that? If he didn't have a phone, how would he call? A pay phone up the road? How many pay phones have any of us seen conveniently located lately?

It hasn't been established (just assumed by some) that the 'gun puller' did have a cell phone. We don't know if he did.

Much info is missing on this incident. We really don't know what actually happened. But, an individual suddenly charging your passenger door at a traffic light, might be considered to be reasonable fear of a car jacking or robbery. It's not normal behavior. But, until more data is released, we really don't know what actually happened.

Agreed, we don't have enough information. I clearly "speculated".

In my case, the gun would have been out but not in view. Until facts are there, it's "he said, she said".




ADDED: I would still have him arrested for not notifying the police that he drew his pistol on someone..

[Chris Chris]

Gun gripped in hand, and tucked out of view, is the far wiser course..... unless the 'occupant' who approached his passenger side provided a reason for him to point the gun in a "Back The Hell Off!" statement.

I've been there twice. I didn't have to shoot, thankfully! But, the individual looking down the .38 caliber muzzle decided he didn't need to complete his actions either. That's a very good SD use of a handgun.

One went unreported and unnoticed, except by the two participants on a very dark rural road in the wee hours.

The other cost me $3000 in lawyer fees, but got me a "walk" . And the individual who did press the charges was later fired from their job... and is no longer employed in their chosen career.... because of the under oath statements they made in connection with that incident.

Just because you wind up with a gun pointed at you does not give you license to lie under oath.

I'm wondering what the 'occupant' who approached/charged? ...the vehicle would say under oath?

We may find out later.

[writwing]

Originally Posted by Chris Chris

Gun gripped in hand, and tucked out of view, is the far wiser course..... unless the 'occupant' who approached his passenger side provided a reason for him to point the gun in a "Back The Hell Off!" statement.

I've been there twice. I didn't have to shoot, thankfully! But, the individual looking down the .38 caliber muzzle decided he didn't need to complete his actions either. That's a very good SD use of a handgun.

One went unreported and unnoticed, except by the two participants on a very dark rural road in the wee hours.

The other cost me $3000 in lawyer fees, but got me a "walk" . And the individual who did press the charges was later fired from their job... and is no longer employed in their chosen career.... because of the under oath statements they made in connection with that incident.

Just because you wind up with a gun pointed at you does not give you license to lie under oath.

I'm wondering what the 'occupant' who approached/charged? ...the vehicle would say under oath?

We may find out later.

You were lucky, that behavior doesnt work out so well in non-Gun friendly states.

[Roger1079]

Originally Posted by writwing

You were lucky, that behavior doesnt work out so well in non-Gun friendly states.

And it would have worked out equally as bad for him if he had discharged his firearm when his assailant was no longer a threat to his life. I sure as heck know if I ever needed to draw my gun on someone and they immediatly began retreating, I am not about to shoot them in the back. (Not saying this was the case in his situation, but just giving an example.)