Crime Pregnant woman shot to death in road rage incident after deliberately hitting motorcyclist

[Poon Goon]

I wasn't there, so I don't know what exactly happened at the home, but no, stalking is not legal, as she doesn't know what the guy's intent is when he pulls up to her house. Especially when he's packing. Nobody does, which could be argued created the lethal confrontation.

If she just used her car to assault someone then I am guessing the law wouldn't view it as stalking, especially in Florida.

Like I said, it's an interesting case.

You keep hitting the fucking nail on the head with this. I also think it is interesting.

 

[HereticBD]

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking

Okay, what do you want? "Vigilantism"? I'm just saying, it could be argued that the motorcycle guy is the aggressor after the fact, and created the lethal scenario. If you follow someone home to take their plates and address, and nothing happens, that's one thing. Something happened here, though. It gets messy after that.

 

[THEfightsAREfixed]

If anyone can find the best solution and recourse after a tragedy like this it's the bright and compassionate minds of this community. Looking forward to seeing what we can up with here.

 

[Neph]

We'll adjust as more info comes in.

Heretic's take isn't a good one. It's not criminal stalking and having the gun doesn't mean shit unless he did something to threaten her with it. She fled from a crime scene and as the victim he had reason to determine her location for legal purposes.

Dumb move as far as I'm concerned on the part of the dude. If she tried to kill him with her car you just take note of the registration plates and report it to the police. Why are you following her back to her house with a gun? It's escalating a very dangerous situation when you already have everything you need for the police to prosecute and you're no longer in any danger.

Just stupid, but then again, I live in a country where the police do their job and vigilantism is not acceptable, so it might just be a cultural thing to go hunt down offenders with your gun on your own accord in the US.

 

[luckyshot]

She fucked up when she went outside.
Especially if he wasn't on her door step or near her door.

I would need more information bit it sounds like he was justified. That is still going to fuck with his mind even if he was.

She also fucked up when she drove home with someone following her.

 

[Mike]

I wasn't there, so I don't know what exactly happened at the home, but no, stalking is not legal, as she doesn't know what the guy's intent is when he pulls up to her house. Especially when he's packing. Nobody does, which could be argued created the lethal confrontation.

Like I said, it's an interesting case. I'm not saying the guy is guilty of anything, but there is a WIDE opening for the prosecution to argue that he dragged the confrontation out and created the scenario, when he had every opportunity to call the police.

Following her when she fled the scene of felony assault isn't stalking lmao. And she didn't know he was armed. Probably why she felt comfortable coming out and pulling a gun on him.

 

[Pressure Project]

Obligatory.
Florida gonna Florida.

the dong of America.

 

[Mike]

Dumb move as far as I'm concerned on the part of the dude. If she tried to kill him with her car you just take note of the registration plates and report it to the police. Why are you following her back to her house with a gun? It's escalating a very dangerous situation when you already have everything you need for the police to prosecute and you're no longer in any danger.

Just stupid, but then again, I live in a country where the police do their job and vigilantism is not acceptable, so it might just be a cultural thing to go hunt down offenders with your gun on your own accord in the US.

If she just sped off before anyone could capture her plate # then following her is perfectly legal and reasonable.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Okay, what do you want? "Vigilantism"? I'm just saying, it could be argued that the motorcycle guy is the aggressor after the fact, and created the lethal scenario. If you follow someone home to take their plates and address, and nothing happens, that's one thing. Something happened here, though. It gets messy after that.

He committed no crime that we know of. He had a reason to determine her location. She confronted him by coming out of her home and presented a threat of deadly force. He had reason to fear death or great bodily harm. He acted in self-defense.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Dumb move as far as I'm concerned on the part of the dude. If she tried to kill him with her car you just take note of the registration plates and report it to the police. Why are you following her back to her house with a gun? It's escalating a very dangerous situation when you already have everything you need for the police to prosecute and you're no longer in any danger.

Call it dumb and that's fine. But this "followed her with a gun" narrative is as legally worthless as muh "crossed state lines".

 

[Neph]

If she just sped off before anyone could capture her plate # then following her is perfectly legal and reasonable.

Yes if you add extra details to the story about speeding off and then assume:

• He didn't see the rego plates at the time
• He couldn't see the rego plates the whole drive home despite successfully following her home
• He didn't see the plates upon arriving at her home for reasons unknown and needed her to open her garage because she parked it there without him seeing and yet he still found her... or something (if it was parked outside, problem solved)
• Even though she was inside the house and he knew the address he somehow couldn't just provide her home address to the police where the car was currently parked...

This doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Merlotte's]

Yeah I’m not really sure what we’re supposed to make of that one. Shouldn’t be assaulting people with a ducking vehicle anyways.

Not an isolated incident

 

[Neph]

Call it dumb and that's fine. But this "followed her with a gun" narrative is as legally worthless as muh "crossed state lines".

Where I am, and I respect that I'm not American, this is a no-no: legally and for plain common sense.

 

[Mike]

Yes if you add extra details to the story about speeding off and then assume:

• He didn't see the rego plates at the time
• He couldn't see the rego plates the whole drive home despite following her
• He didn't see the plates upon arriving at her home for reasons unknown and needed her to open her garage... or something
• Even though she was inside the house and he knew the address he somehow couldn't just provide her home address to the police where the car was currently parked...

This doesn't sound right to me.

We don't know the exact details. But following her home isn't illegal. Especially if she fled a felony assault. And no matter how many times posters here claim it is, having a weapon isn't. People on here have some very strange views on what constitutes escalating a situation. If someone hits you and drives off, you sure can follow them and report their location to police.

If she was afraid for her life, which is the only circumstance you should introduce a lethal weapon to the situation, she should have locked her doors and called the cops. Or not fled the scene of an assault, as then he would have had no reason to follow her. Instead she got her gun and came out pointing it at him and screaming because he followed her home. She was the aggressor at every stage, from the limited information we have right now.

 

[Neph]

We don't know the exact details. But following her home isn't illegal. Especially if she fled a felony assault. And no matter how many times posters here claim it is, having a weapon isn't. People on here have some very strange views on what constitutes escalating a situation. If someone hits you and drives off, you sure can follow them and report their location to police.

If she was afraid for her life, which is the only circumstance you should introduce a lethal weapon to the situation, she should have locked her doors and called the cops. Or not fled the scene of an assault, as then he would have had no reason to follow her. Instead she got her gun and came out pointing it at him and screaming because he followed her home. She was the aggressor at every stage, from the limited information we have right now.

I fully agree that you are legally allowed to drive to someone's house.

I do think in the greater context of this it is both a terrible and unsafe idea and there were tragic consequences that were easily avoidable given my suggestion of just taking a plate number.

I fully agree that we have limited information and in that sense there is a broad spectrum of possibilities beyond him being the perfectly innocent individual in the circumstances.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Where I am, and I respect that I'm not American, this is a no-no: legally and for plain common sense.

That's fine and certainly nothing I'd debate you on.

In this case though I feel pretty confident that the law doesn't care how things are done in Australia and I'm formulating my view based on what I know of how self-defense works here in America (specifically Florida).

I'll add that this lady coming out of her house (presumably with gun in hand), had she killed the motorcyclist, would be going away for murder.

 

[Mike]

I fully agree that you are legally allowed to drive to someone's house.

I do think in the greater context of this it is both a terrible and unsafe idea and there were tragic consequences that were easily avoidable given my suggestion of just taking a plate number.

I fully agree that we have limited information and in that sense there is a broad spectrum of possibilities beyond him being the perfectly innocent individual in the circumstances.

The thing on here is, every time someone legally carrying a firearm has to use it because someone else was the aggressor, everyone questions the actions of the person acting in self defense. Obviously investigation is warranted, but people shouldn't be frightened to do things that are perfectly legal because someone else might react illegally with violent intent. That's on her for exercising extremely poor judgement at every turn.

First, she chose to commit vehicular assault. Most likely attempted vehicular homicide since he was on a bike. Then, she chose to flee the scene. Then, when she realized he'd followed her she decided to come out brandishing a weapon and instigate ANOTHER confrontation. Three poor choices in a row on her part.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

For anyone looking to critique decision making, who showed worse judgment? The person who committed two crimes, including assault with a deadly weapon. Or the person who followed the person who committed a crime against them in order to determine their location for the police?

Seems like an honest assessment would put the onus on the person committing crimes.

 

[Neph]

The thing on here is, every time someone legally carrying a firearm has to use it because someone else was the aggressor, everyone questions the actions of the person acting in self defense. Obviously investigation is warranted, but people shouldn't be frightened to do things that are perfectly legal because someone else might react illegally with violent intent. That's on her for exercising extremely poor judgement at every turn.

First, she chose to commit vehicular assault. Most likely attempted vehicular homicide since he was on a bike. Then, she chose to flee the scene. Then, when she realized he'd followed her she decided to come out brandishing a weapon and instigate ANOTHER confrontation. Three poor choices in a row on her part.

There's a few assumptions you've made and I don't know if those are all true - only time and investigation will tell. I haven't yet defended the woman's actions in this incident since... why would I. She tried to run down and kill someone.

 

[HereticBD]

If she just sped off before anyone could capture her plate # then following her is perfectly legal and reasonable.

Okay, now argue in a court that he had no other options but to chase her down over a non-lethal altercation on the road, which created a unnecessary confrontation that led to him shooting and killing her. Justify why he didn't just call the police, and absolutely had to chase her down.

There is very, VERY little justification for killing someone in most situations, let alone one where you created the environment for it to happen. I'm not saying it's a Murder One case or anything, but just going by what I've read, he's probably not walking away clean.