View Full Version : FL - Road rage ends in head shot to aggressor. And teen burglar caught in act.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/23101347/detail.html
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office announced Friday that the shooting death of a man whose body was found in a car on April 1 was a justifiable homicide.
Police said the shooting happened at Cassat and Shirley avenues in the Hillcrest area on the Westside just after midnight.
Officers said Christopher Alfaro, 24, was driving in a car when he was shot to death by someone in another car by one shot to the head.
Police said Alfaro rammed another car during a road rage battle. They said the other driver started spinning out, and that's when he grabbed his gun and started shooting.
"He fired one shot from his car at the other vehicle driven by Mr. Alfaro," JSO Lt. Larry Schmitt said. "The bullet struck Mr. Alfaro in the head. That car continued to drive southbound on Cassat Avenue until it crashed on Shirley Avenue."
Police said the 38-year-old shooter called them immediately after the shooting. They said he does have a concealed weapons permit.
Officers said when Alfaro rammed the other car, the other driver became the victim of an aggravated battery, which is why police said the shooting was justifiable.
"Based on the facts of this specific incident, we don't have probable cause to believe that it was a murder," Schmitt said.
The police will make the recommendation to the state attorney's office, but prosecutors will decide if they want to press murder charges.
http://www.wftv.com/countybycounty/23124408/detail.html
DeLand, Fla. -- When a teenager tried to break into a DeLand house, he didn't count on the homeowner coming home as he was crawling through a window.
DeLand homeowner Daven Woulard opened fire on the 16-year-old he saw breaking into his house on East New Street (see map) Monday. The bullet didn’t hit the teen, but the homeowner still helped police make an arrest; the homeowner held down the suspect until the police got there.
The man was driving down the road, coming back from the store and, as the man and his wife glanced toward their yard, they saw 16-year-old Jarrett Holloman’s legs sticking out of their son’s bedroom window. The window had been smashed with a brick.
"He was going in. He was trying to get all the way in." Woulard said.
Woulard had his 18-month-old son and his wife with him. Even though he didn't know who or how many people were in his home, he said he wasn't about to back off.
"Cause it's unnecessary that people should go through stuff like this, especially when you're working so hard for the stuff that you do have," he said.
After quickly pulling into his yard, Woulard grabbed his .44 Magnum handgun out of the car, a weapon he's carried with a permit for four years. He ran to the window and ordered the teen out.
"'Get down! 'Freeze!'" he said he yelled before firing a shot into the ground to back the order up.
Woulard said the teen didn't say anything as he held him to the ground and waited for police to show up.
"He’s got a gun permit and this is his home and that's his family and he's protecting them," Daven's mom, Debbie Woulard, said.
Police arrested Jarrett Holloman and charged him with burglary. He's being held by the Department of Juvenile Justice.
The "all gun laws are unconstitutional!" people will undoubtedly follow my post, but both of those reports, more so the first, are examples of why we will end up loosing any remaining rights we still have.
Shooting someone in the head for hitting your car is really crossing the line. If you pull over, stop and the guy tries to hit/attack you, then it's all fair game, but to start firing because he rammed you is a thin excuse. The Brady bunch will actually be able to rightfully claim their shootouts over fender-bender fears are coming true. Maybe it's just really bad reporting of what really happened.
A "fender-bender" is normally considered an "accident."
Ramming someone intentionally is, as the article points out, aggravated battery.
That whole "intent" thing makes all the difference in this case.
The "all gun laws are unconstitutional!" people will undoubtedly follow my post, but both of those reports, more so the first, are examples of why we will end up loosing any remaining rights we still have.
Shooting someone in the head for hitting your car is really crossing the line. If you pull over, stop and the guy tries to hit/attack you, then it's all fair game, but to start firing because he rammed you is a thin excuse. The Brady bunch will actually be able to rightfully claim their shootouts over fender-bender fears are coming true. Maybe it's just really bad reporting of what really happened.
WTF are you talking about?
There was no "fender bender".That implies a mild accident.
This guy was intentionally ramming the other with his vehicle(a deadly weapon).
The second story no one was even shot.
rifleman2000
04-14-10, 12:25
The "all gun laws are unconstitutional!" people will undoubtedly follow my post, but both of those reports, more so the first, are examples of why we will end up loosing any remaining rights we still have.
Shooting someone in the head for hitting your car is really crossing the line. If you pull over, stop and the guy tries to hit/attack you, then it's all fair game, but to start firing because he rammed you is a thin excuse. The Brady bunch will actually be able to rightfully claim their shootouts over fender-bender fears are coming true. Maybe it's just really bad reporting of what really happened.
This is one of the dumbest posts I have ever read. This was not a fender bender. It was assault with a deadly weapon (car).
Must I say... go back to DU.
So justifiable homicide/self defense is why we're all going to lose our rights. You are a genius.
Call me names all you like, but like or not, agree with it or not, when people are shot over "road rage battle(s)", public perception will change for the worse. We are at a precarious point in gun rights history and while there have been enormous strides, there is still a majority of anti-gun members of almost all states and federal governments. Large swaths of people in the most populous states that just happen to be the most anti-gun still control the largest blocks of votes in our government. Shooting someone in your own home or with a weapon is one thing, but to have it occur in a situation that I would say most Americans have been in without shooting on roads that they drive every day will change them from a silent majority to a vocal one.
Gary,
I understand your point...sorta..., but are you really saying that the person should not have defended himself? Someone is trying to assault you with a weapon likely more dangerous than a handgun.
If not, then what's the point of the right?
Noops
rifleman2000
04-14-10, 12:47
Call me names all you like, but like or not, agree with it or not, when people are shot over "road rage battle(s)", public perception will change for the worse. We are at a precarious point in gun rights history and while there have been enormous strides, there is still a majority of anti-gun members of almost all states and federal governments. Large swaths of people in the most populous states that just happen to be the most anti-gun still control the largest blocks of votes in our government. Shooting someone in your own home or with a weapon is one thing, but to have it occur in a situation that I would say most Americans have been in without shooting on roads that they drive every day will change them from a silent majority to a vocal one.
So the victim of the attack should not have shot for political reasons, even though his life was threatened.
I would like to hear you explain that to him. And the next time your life is threatened, consider the political impact of your actions and how it might appear to the sheeple. In fact, don't carry a gun at all because it is offensive to sheeple and we might lose our right to carry at all! I'm with you on this!
Call me names all you like, but like or not, agree with it or not, when people are shot over "road rage battle(s)", public perception will change for the worse. We are at a precarious point in gun rights history and while there have been enormous strides, there is still a majority of anti-gun members of almost all states and federal governments. Large swaths of people in the most populous states that just happen to be the most anti-gun still control the largest blocks of votes in our government. Shooting someone in your own home or with a weapon is one thing, but to have it occur in a situation that I would say most Americans have been in without shooting on roads that they drive every day will change them from a silent majority to a vocal one.
Most Americans have been intentionally rammed with a vehicle being used as a deadly weapon?
Sorry,this is an easy one.
I don't forsee any backlash for these types of clear cut cases(assuming the story is accurate).
Gary,
I understand your point...sorta..., but are you really saying that the person should not have defended himself? Someone is trying to assault you with a weapon likely more dangerous than a handgun.
If not, then what's the point of the right?
Noops
No, I'm not saying that since we weren't there and the story is about a vague as they come. Might be totally justifiable and most likely would be in anyone's eyes since there are no charges filed. What I am saying is that most people, will ask "why didn't he just stop and call a cop?". Most meaning people that don't carry or even own a firearm but do drive to work every day. Those people don't care much for their own right of self defense let alone yours, but they are the majority of voters.
We are at a precarious point in gun rights history and while there have been enormous strides, there is still a majority of anti-gun members of almost all states and federal governments. Large swaths of people in the most populous states that just happen to be the most anti-gun still control the largest blocks of votes in our government.
Right. What's the count now, 40 some-odd states are now shall-issue? That doesn't happen if what you claim is true.
Shooting someone in your own home or with a weapon is one thing, but to have it occur in a situation that I would say most Americans have been in without shooting on roads that they drive every day will change them from a silent majority to a vocal one.
Uh, whiskey tango foxtrot...:rolleyes:
The "all gun laws are unconstitutional!" people will undoubtedly follow my post, but both of those reports, more so the first, are examples of why we will end up loosing any remaining rights we still have.
Shooting someone in the head for hitting your car is really crossing the line. If you pull over, stop and the guy tries to hit/attack you, then it's all fair game, but to start firing because he rammed you is a thin excuse. The Brady bunch will actually be able to rightfully claim their shootouts over fender-bender fears are coming true. Maybe it's just really bad reporting of what really happened.
A person attacks you with a deadly weapon and you recommend pulling over? DU is looking for bloggers... Apply for the job, you and your logic would be great for the job.
Gary,
Edited: I need to stay out of this thread I think. Gary, you're an odd one. I don't think you really support these rights. What's the point in having them if you can't use them at the worst time.
That is all...
Noops
Right. What's the count now, 40 some-odd states are now shall-issue? That doesn't happen if what you claim is true.
Sure it does. We've managed to gain an amazing amount of ground in the last 10 years, but mostly because of lower crime rates that have kept the "blood running in the streets" news stories to a minimum, not because of some sea change in politics across the country. We've had a lull in crime that has come with some great judicial windfalls like Heller that might not have even happened if the gang scare of the 90's had continued on.
So, exactly what is your level of training? Experience? Knowledge of the judicious use of deadly force? Knowledge of Use of Force Continuum? Experience in actually using deadly force? Civil and criminal law for these issues?
You sound just like the dbags who say call the cops, they'll protect you. Don't defend yourself. I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Or something.
That's awesome. Sorry, I forgot to unzip and measure at the door.
Just remember that our politics, and by proxy our rights, are solely dependent on the PR presented to the general public.
rifleman2000
04-14-10, 13:17
Sure it does. We've managed to gain an amazing amount of ground in the last 10 years, but mostly because of lower crime rates that have kept the "blood running in the streets" news stories to a minimum, not because of some sea change in politics across the country. We've had a lull in crime that has come with some great judicial windfalls like Heller that might not have even happened if the gang scare of the 90's had continued on.
The 'gang scares of the 90s' and high violent crime is what led to the relaxation of gun laws across the United States. DIRECTLY. As a response to the crime. You have no idea of what you are talking about.
Strike three, you're out.
rifleman2000
04-14-10, 13:18
That's awesome. Sorry, I forgot to unzip and measure at the door.
Just remember that our politics, and by proxy our rights, are solely dependent on the PR presented to the general public.
So for PR, go ahead and let yourself get killed by a road rager. Don't fight back because it is bad PR.
You are killing me.
ETA: Strike one, second batter.
That's awesome. Sorry, I forgot to unzip and measure at the door.
It ain't about zipping. Besides, I have a small johnson, I'm sure. I just want to know what you're qualifications are to pontificate, because you don't seem to know much about the subject in reality, but sure are willing to talk about it.
The 'gang scares of the 90s' and high violent crime is what led to the relaxation of gun laws across the United States. DIRECTLY. As a response to the crime. You have no idea of what you are talking about.
Strike three, you're out.
Huh?¿ The AWB was a direct result of that scare and was allowed to sunset only because of a drop, not because of an increase in crime. 94-04 is to this day one of the darkest times for gun rights and it may well have continued on if crime, or at least the media coverage and perception of it, would have risen.
A guy I work with just last week gave me the "Glock's can't be seen by metal detectors because they're plastic" line. He's in his mid twenties and barely would've had an idea of what a Glock was at the time, but the "media truth" is what sticks with him, not reality. A vast majority of our laws are based on fears, not facts.
rifleman2000
04-14-10, 13:41
Huh?¿ The AWB was a direct result of that scare and was allowed to sunset only because of a drop, not because of an increase in crime. 94-04 is to this day one of the darkest times for gun rights and it may well have continued on if crime, or at least the media coverage and perception of it, would have risen.
A guy I work with just last week gave me the "Glock's can't be seen by metal detectors because they're plastic" line. He's in his mid twenties and barely would've had an idea of what a Glock was at the time, but the "media truth" is what sticks with him, not reality. A vast majority of our laws are based on fears, not facts.
We are talking CCW here, not AWB. Don't change the subject.
The rise in permissive CCW is directly related to high rates of violent crime.
Don't avoid the question.
How is it that you expect gun owners NOT to use their rights to defend their lives for PR? Would you risk your life for PR? Probably not.
Not changing the subject or avoiding anything, the non-renewal of the AWB and the relaxing of carry laws across the country are interconnected and both a direct result of the public's perception of gun crime, not gun crime itself. You and I both know that the so called gang wars were not and still to this day are not what they were reported as being.
The vocal minority that are pushing for gun rights have always been doing so, but have met far less resistance in the last decade because of the perceived drop in violence across the country. The media played the "armed gangs are coming to your town" card one too many times, and when that didn't pan out they have dropped it like a hot potato. If it would've come true, you can bet there would've been a 10 million mom march on Washington, but it just didn't happen. I think we would all like to believe that the supreme court voted on Heller because of their strong beliefs in the Constitution, but I'm afraid that just isn't so. If the political and social climate would've been in strong favor of more restrictions at the time I'm sure it would've went a different way. Again, public perception versus reality.
I never said that I didn't expect anyone to not use any right against anyone, but that the public at large will turn against us when they start to feel threatened again, just like they did in 94.
rifleman2000
04-14-10, 14:15
Not changing the subject or avoiding anything, the non-renewal of the AWB and the relaxing of carry laws across the country are interconnected and both a direct result of the public's perception of gun crime, not gun crime itself. You and I both know that the so called gang wars were not and still to this day are not what they were reported as being.
Double talk. "interconnected?" Check your facts. What prompted the permissive laws for more CCW. Find an answer, don't make it up. Wait, I will give it to you again. It was a response to violent crime.
The vocal minority that are pushing for gun rights have always been doing so, but have met far less resistance in the last decade because of the perceived drop in violence across the country.
Not perceived, but real.
The media played the "armed gangs are coming to your town" card one too many times, and when that didn't pan out they have dropped it like a hot potato. If it would've come true, you can bet there would've been a 10 million mom march on Washington, but it just didn't happen.
The Million Mom March was a falsehood, not grassroots. The organizers were clintonites and one went to jail for gun crimes.
I think we would all like to believe that the supreme court voted on Heller because of their strong beliefs in the Constitution, but I'm afraid that just isn't so. If the political and social climate would've been in strong favor of more restrictions at the time I'm sure it would've went a different way. Again, public perception versus reality.
Reality is that grassroots support for gun rights has always been strong. You seem to think the opposite.
I never said that I didn't expect anyone to not use any right against anyone, but that the public at large will turn against us when they start to feel threatened again, just like they did in 94.
The public did not "turn against us". The clinton administration and media did, regardless of grassroot feeling.
Dude, you are now laying a smoke screen and not defending your original position. Your original position was that the self-defence shooting by the victim of road rage was unjustified. Stick to that and stop with the rambling.
pilotguyo540
04-14-10, 14:39
NICE SHOTB
****, man.. had to wade through a mile of trolling...
nice shootin, Tex! seems pretty unlikely that was wholly deliberate, but nobody will ever be able to take that from him. one shot, from a pistol, from a vehicle, to a vehicle, through the head. doesn't get any better than that.
I think all the publicity these justifiable uses of CCW get are better than Public Service announcements.That`s one of the great things about Florida. They are not shy about it, and there is a lot less liberal handwringing over it.:)
theblackknight
04-14-10, 17:25
****, man.. had to wade through a mile of trolling...
nice shootin, Tex! seems pretty unlikely that was wholly deliberate, but nobody will ever be able to take that from him. one shot, from a pistol, from a vehicle, to a vehicle, through the head. doesn't get any better than that.
exactly!! S
Don Robison
04-14-10, 17:31
Call me names all you like, but like or not, agree with it or not, when people are shot over "road rage battle(s)", public perception will change for the worse. We are at a precarious point in gun rights history and while there have been enormous strides, there is still a majority of anti-gun members of almost all states and federal governments. Large swaths of people in the most populous states that just happen to be the most anti-gun still control the largest blocks of votes in our government. Shooting someone in your own home or with a weapon is one thing, but to have it occur in a situation that I would say most Americans have been in without shooting on roads that they drive every day will change them from a silent majority to a vocal one.
Bump me as in fender bender = accident, ram me intentionally and or repeatedly/deliberately = getting shot. It's not hard to understand.
****, man.. had to wade through a mile of trolling...
nice shootin, Tex! seems pretty unlikely that was wholly deliberate, but nobody will ever be able to take that from him. one shot, from a pistol, from a vehicle, to a vehicle, through the head. doesn't get any better than that.When I read it it sounded like the shooter was rammed, from behind, and in the midst of a 180 degree spin, shot the assaulter in head. HAHA even better!
Only one thing to say about that....
http://readtheprospectus.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/boomheadshot.gif
madisonsfinest
04-15-10, 14:23
there has to be more to the first story. If you are spinning out and are able to grab your gun, and place a head shot while spinning out that's pretty amazing. I guess we will see what the DA's office does.
Alpha Sierra
04-15-10, 21:24
The "all gun laws are unconstitutional!" people will undoubtedly follow my post, but both of those reports, more so the first, are examples of why we will end up loosing any remaining rights we still have.
Shooting someone in the head for hitting your car is really crossing the line. If you pull over, stop and the guy tries to hit/attack you, then it's all fair game, but to start firing because he rammed you is a thin excuse. The Brady bunch will actually be able to rightfully claim their shootouts over fender-bender fears are coming true. Maybe it's just really bad reporting of what really happened.
STFU.
Go back to shooting trap.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.