Road Rage

Use this forum to post your experience with encounters with law enforcement, criminals, or other encounters as a result of your firearm or potential to be carrying one.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Re: Road Rage

Postby Face » Mon Dec 21, 2015 11:43 am

I'll second the G1W - have had one for 2 years, same results.

To add - there are apps that easily let one download and string together segments to create "trip" videos. They all record in segments. They also continuously re-record over the card. The G1 has a push one button and it will save that segment until manually deleted. I forget what size card I have either 16 or 32, but it takes around 20 hours to start overwriting.

Hardest part is running power. I have mine discretely mounted behind the rearveiw mirror, just below that black windshield strip. Routed the wires up the A pillar and wired into an on with ignition wire under the dash.


Hyflyer wrote:
HancockCountyHAl wrote:I'd love to see your dash cam video and a little info on what brand you have. I can see a real benefit in having one but am unsure of what to get.



Although I am not the OP, I have some personal experience with two different dash cam models. I did some research on them a few years ago and came up with these two. I bought them both from "http://www.spytecinc.com/" in NYC and was completely satisfied with their service.

the "G1W" ....... http://www.spytecinc.com/g1w-1080p-hd-car-dash-camera.html is as simple to use as a "point & shoot" camera. Built in viewing screen. Very good quality video. I've used this camera for 1.5 years in my personal vehicle with no problems with the camera itself. The suction cup has had some problems but is still functional.

the "mobius" .... http://www.spytecinc.com/mobius-1080p-hd-action-camera.html is smaller than the G1W and is very capable. It's not as user friendly and requires a computer to set up. I've used this camera in my work truck daily for 1.5 years with no problems.

Check out https://dashcamtalk.com/ for everything you want to know and more about dash cams.

Scott
Totally useless, waste of space, irrelevant, sig.
Face
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:10 pm

Re: Road Rage

Postby rbel » Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:18 am

IMHO you escalated this situation. If you would have continued on your way none of this would have happened. Swearing and calling people names because of their driving (no matter how inconsiderate) is road rage. I drove a semi-truck over the road for a year many moons ago so I know all about peoples bad driving. As CCW holders we have a responsibility to be extra courteous to the general public, since we are on the front lines of representing gun owners. We don't need headlines of CCW holders involved in incidents that are the result of anger over someones bad and inconsiderate driving.
rbel
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:54 am

Re: Road Rage

Postby ArmedPatriots » Tue May 24, 2016 5:32 pm

JMO wrote:I'm not so sure you would've looked in his direction and used expletives, had you NOT been armed, would you?

I would consider what you done escalating, considering had you done nothing he would've stayed in the far left lane while you stayed on the right

Im not buying that.
I was MUCH more likely to cuss someone like that out BEFORE I started packing. Since getting my CHL Ive stopped letting road ragers bother me so much because I dont want to have to use the gun or deal with the legalities.
Just having the gun doesnt make us act any more aggressive from my experience....just the opposite from what Ive seen of CCWers
Isnt it ironic that the anti gun agenda response to defenseless people being murdered is to try to make them even more defenseless...
User avatar
ArmedPatriots
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Road Rage

Postby ArmedPatriots » Tue May 24, 2016 5:36 pm

TheShadow wrote:Today I was driving home, and a jerk flew past me in a school zone double yellow lines, pulled in front of me and locked his brakes, drove slow and continued on his way about a 1/2 mile ahead he was in the left turn lane I was in the far right turning lane stopped at red light, I look at him and said {inappropriate language} next thing I saw was him pulling in front of my car blocking my car, he got out and was coming toward my window .... But stopped abruptly when he noticed my Kimber Raptor Pro starring at him, he told me I was in trouble because his brother was a cop and left, I call 911 and made a police report, which included the video from my dash cam....see what happens

Im reading this over and over and honestly something is missing from the story. What happened prior to this school zone incident?
Isnt it ironic that the anti gun agenda response to defenseless people being murdered is to try to make them even more defenseless...
User avatar
ArmedPatriots
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Road Rage

Postby JU-87 » Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:03 pm

To the OP:
Badly handled. You give the rest of us a "bad name". Please think about how you escalated the situation, and don't do that again.
Or:
Turn in your Ohio CCW Permit, and sell your guns. Get Anger Management counsleing.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun... Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson, 1785.

Read "War is a Racket" by MG Smedly Butler,USMC. He knew war,and was awarded the Medal of Honor twice. http://warisaracket.org/

Henry Kissinger said, "Military Men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in Foreign Policy" and has not denied this quote to this day.
User avatar
JU-87
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 9:16 am
Location: N.E. Ohio

Re: Road Rage

Postby SeanC » Mon Aug 15, 2016 2:46 pm

gaptrick wrote:Escalation is what a lawyer convinces a judge or jury it is. Could a total ignore, stare straight ahead be considered escalating things? Did the end result cause the hot head to get hotter? That's escalation in my book, be it just or not. Sometimes no matter how hard you try, you just gotta leave it up to the jury!


Nothing in the self-defense law has anything to do with escalation unless you're the first one to introduce deadly force into a non-deadly force encounter. Otherwise, the law says that you're able to claim self-defense if you're not the "initial aggressor." Nasty words don't count as aggression. Running your mouth at the aggressive driver had no impact on the legality of the situation, as far as I'm concerned.
I am a lawyer; I am not your lawyer.

http://www.green-law.com/attorneys/sean-m-culley/
User avatar
SeanC
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:35 pm
Location: Springboro, Ohio

Re: Road Rage

Postby Werz » Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:06 am

SeanC wrote:
gaptrick wrote:Escalation is what a lawyer convinces a judge or jury it is. Could a total ignore, stare straight ahead be considered escalating things? Did the end result cause the hot head to get hotter? That's escalation in my book, be it just or not. Sometimes no matter how hard you try, you just gotta leave it up to the jury!

Nothing in the self-defense law has anything to do with escalation unless you're the first one to introduce deadly force into a non-deadly force encounter. Otherwise, the law says that you're able to claim self-defense if you're not the "initial aggressor." Nasty words don't count as aggression. Running your mouth at the aggressive driver had no impact on the legality of the situation, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know that I would agree with the "initial aggressor" characterization. The jury will be instructed that you must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that you were "not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray[.]" State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St.2d 74, paragraph 2 of the syllabus (1979); State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 249 (1990); OJI CR 421.19. Establishing that you were not at fault in creating the situation is not the same as establishing that you were not the initial aggressor.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 5498
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Re: Road Rage

Postby DontTreadOnMe » Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:45 am

Werz wrote:I don't know that I would agree with the "initial aggressor" characterization. The jury will be instructed that you must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that you were "not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray[.]" State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St.2d 74, paragraph 2 of the syllabus (1979); State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 249 (1990); OJI CR 421.19. Establishing that you were not at fault in creating the situation is not the same as establishing that you were not the initial aggressor.

I think "initial aggressor" and "at fault in creating the situation" may mean the same thing. I don't think they necessarily mean "first to use violence" but they don't cover "name calling" either.

In Robbins, the defendant "admitted striking the first blow and being the aggressor."

In Williford, it was the victim who got out of his car when he saw Williford and confronted him (verbally) about an issue. From there the facts are contested, but no one disagrees with that part and although he was allowed to argue self-defense the jury convicted anyway the verdict was upheld.

In Robbins the court referenced the phrase "at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray" to cases all the way back to Stewart v. State (1852), 1 Ohio St. 66. In that case Stewart didn't create the situation simply by calling Dotey a liar, or even by confronting him with the apparent attempt to argue with him, the evidence showed that he armed himself with the intention of getting back at Dotey for an earlier beating. Dotey was the first to use violence but Stewart was the "initial aggressor" because he initiated the confrontation with the intent to incite an attack he could respond to with deadly force.

Robbins next references State v. Doty (1916), 94 Ohio St. 258. In that case Doty was described by the court as "the initial aggressor" because evidence showed that he and others "formed an agreement to go to the hospital and assault certain workmen ... Having entered the building they proceeded to attack the painters at work, Doty assaulting one with the blackjack".

In the last case referenced in Robbins, State v. Morgan (1919), 100 Ohio St. 66, Morgan shot and killed a train conductor after the conductor left the area of the conflict and returned after arming himself with a revolver. Despite this the court described Morgan as "wholly at fault" because he was attempting to illegally ride the train without paying for a ticket and had armed himself in anticipation of the conflict.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Road Rage

Postby Werz » Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:16 am

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Werz wrote:I don't know that I would agree with the "initial aggressor" characterization. The jury will be instructed that you must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that you were "not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray[.]" State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St.2d 74, paragraph 2 of the syllabus (1979); State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 249 (1990); OJI CR 421.19. Establishing that you were not at fault in creating the situation is not the same as establishing that you were not the initial aggressor.

I think "initial aggressor" and "at fault in creating the situation" may mean the same thing. I don't think they necessarily mean "first to use violence" but they don't cover "name calling" either.

The jury will decide the affirmative defense by applying the words I quoted. Whether those words mean the same thing as "initial aggressor" may be an interesting exercise in semantics, but the jury will not be provided with the words "initial aggressor." There will be no debating of the case law with the jury, nor will there be discussion of what happened in this case versus what happened in that case. Just thought we should be clear on how that works in the real world.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
User avatar
Werz
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 5498
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:37 am

Previous

Return to Real Life Encounters

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests