It turns out the mother and son had previously searched for the other driver. The son had a loaded gun with him at the time.
YIKES!
That is extremely crazy! If true, I want to take back everything I ever said about how no jury would ever convict the son. Not only is that a very felonious thing to do. But it is also extremely stupid.
A phone call to the police that mentions the word “gun” gets lots of attention and action - all the attention and action you could ever want. At least that was my experience.
I once saw a man in a store who had a shoulder holster and I could see a semi-automatic pistol in the holster. It was barely visible - certainly not visible to the public. But he took off his jacket - just for a second to adjust it and the pistol was in plain view for a second.
Anyway, I called the police and told them this man looked like he could easily be a judge or a police officer. So, I told them to take it easy because it would be very easy to mistake him for a criminal.
Anyway, I have never seen a faster response. It was almost as if before I could hang up the phone, several marked cruisers and unmarked cruisers came roaring up the street in pursuit of this man (he had left the store a few seconds earlier). I had never seen cars travel so fast. It was amazing.
P.S. It turned out that he was a police officer. Just my opinion but it’s really stupid for anyone - even a police person - to show the public that he is carrying a gun (if he is not in uniform or wearing a badge).
Here is a link to this “new twist” (that is what the news outlet is calling it).
OMG! I just saw one line from that story. “Steiber” is the name of some police officer.
"Steiber said the gun Meyers’ son was armed with is properly registered. "
It seems to me that some people think that makes things better. I think it makes things worse because it’s easier to find the shooter.
So dumb. So freaking dumb.
So she and her son went looking for the car, found it and yet they (now just the son) aren’t able to provide police with the model, make or a license plate? Seems if they felt it was so necessary, that should have been the entire purpose of the two of them venturing back out.
Depends totally on local legislation.
In Western European countries, the conditions for claiming self defense are (IME) a lot stricter than in the US. Basically, to qualify for using deadly force, the danger to your own life has to imminent and acute. Shooting at someone leaving the scene would be treated as attempted murder or manslaughter. That the other person “might” come back to be a threat again just isn’t relevant.
So, it’s all a question of local legislation.
Apparently, from the previously linked articles, mom and daughter were driving and were confronted by people they “beeped” at. Physically unharmed (but upset) they get home and mom wakes up son and they go to out to look for the offending people…armed.
They find what THEY THINK is the car and start following it. They finally return home and that car followed them back to their home.
Somebody (the facts don’t tell us who yet) starts shooting. Other party starts shooting. Mom ends ups with a bullet in the head, killing her.
Getting home was good. Angry and upset was justified. Going back out to look for trouble was stupid.
(hypothetically) So, if the guys in the car are legal carriers and weren’t involved in the earlier incident (or even if they were,) now what? It was a bad decision by everybody, but only one person is dead because of it.
Am I the only one who thinks the whole story (minus the shooting itself, of course) is bogus?
Why would the mother be teaching her daughter to drive at 10-something at night? On a school night, at that? Sure, it’s possible. But believable, no.
Why would it occur to the mother to think she’d even be able go back and find the driver that confronted them? If the car was speeding, it was heading to a destination. Logic would suggest that the driver would be long gone, not sitting there waiting for this lady to double back and confront them.
Related to the above: its awfully convenient that the driver did indeed hang around the area, just as the lady had illogically predicted they’d be. And not only that, but they hid themselves just so that they could stealthily follow her back home and ambush her. Almost as if they knew she’d come all along and had devised a plan to get back at her. Because being beeped at made them that mad, yo.
I won’t be surprised if it comes out that this was a drug deal gone bad or something.
That was a man who set up a trap and after shooting one of the teens he walked up to him as he lay helpless and bleeding out on the ground, raised his rifle, and fired again. I’m a big fan of castle doctrines and even I would have convicted based on the evidence in that case.
ABC News tonight said that the trim on one side of the wife’s car was completely ripped off.
What exactly happened during the return trip with the son is what we need to know. The son doesn’t seem to be talking about that. (I wonder why)
Yep, the family’s story is complete bullshit. I have no idea what really happened, but the story they first told “We were driving around, honked at some dudes, they followed us home and shot at us and killed mom, and I went out and shot at the car as it was driving away” is fabricated.
A man has been arrested in the shooting.
Harmless looking runt. Size doesn’t matter when you got a gun. Glad they caught the POS. Nevada has the death penalty. He’ll get his.
http://news.yahoo.com/vegas-police-family-defend-mom-killed-road-rage-091321723.html
He lives a block from the victim’s home.
Yep. This wasn’t a random road-rage shooting. The family knew who the shooter was.
It’s funny how when the person lying dead on the ground is a white woman, the shooter is a POS who deserves the death penalty, but when the person lying dead on the ground is a black guy the shooter is a hero.
Why would you bring up race? A woman was shot in the head in her own driveway. Race has nothing to do with this case.
Yes, something isn’t right. I don’t know if the whole story will ever come out, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the son eventually gets charged with something.
How do you know the shooter wasn’t acting in self defense?
I’m sure the shooter needs to go to jail, at the very least it seems he missed his real target which was probably the son who was waving a gun around. If you’re going to shoot at a guy waving a gun around, don’t shoot their mom by mistake.
Or maybe he actually meant to hit the mom, since according to the media he had some sort of relationship with her. It seems a little strange that the cops have been looking for this guy for a week when he lived only a block away. I suppose the answer is that the cops knew the suspect’s name and where he usually slept, they just hadn’t released that information to the public.
Also funny that Charlie Wayne created an imaginary a punk rocker with a mohawk out of an 80s teen movie, all from “spiky hair”.
What a bizarre story. I have the feeling it will change multiple times over the next few days.
Even the reporting of it is weird:
(bolding mine)