TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/article/2682 ... each-other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Michigan - two drivers are dead after a road rage incident. Both had licenses to carry concealed weapons.

Sounds like the PT Cruiser guy may have died defending himself but not many details.

great, i'm sure they'll have a field day with this one too. ecspecially since the media were most likely coached to specify that they both had concealed weapon permits two or three times.

never stop, never get out, and call the po-po.....

Rare that you hear stories like this, thankfully.
Let's remember that, based on current information, only ONE of those guys was an idiot. The other was defending himself.

RoyGBiv wrote:Rare that you hear stories like this, thankfully.
Let's remember that, based on current information, only ONE of those guys was an idiot. The other was defending himself.

Unfortunately, both were good shots.

Wonder what the guy in the Taurus had up his craw. I guess we'll never find out.

Wow.....what a senseless tragedy. I'm glad stories like these are extremely rare.

RoyGBiv wrote:Rare that you hear stories like this, thankfully.
Let's remember that, based on current information, only ONE of those guys was an idiot. The other was defending himself.

I think they both qualify...neither should have stopped. I bet there is more to this story than just road rage.

road rage is bad... been to way to many where both sides end up acting the fool. Here we have two dead people over tailgaing (if that is what it was about)

There's no such thing as "road rage!" It's either an assault or it's not. This is a great example of the end result of accepting the use of a non-descriptive, overly-broad term to describe events about which one has little if any information. This term has been so misused for so long that people merely assume they know what happened and this is very dangerous. If someone standing in their front yard defends themselves by using deadly force against someone trying to run over them with a 5,000 pickup truck, then everyone agrees that it was an attempted murder and the victim used deadly force in self-defense. Put the intended victim behind the wheel of car and in the mind of the public it's no longer an innocent victim defending himself/herself against an attempted murder. Now it's "road rage" implying that both parties are to blame and the use of deadly force was not justified.

In the Michigan case, both people dead and there's no one to tell what happened. Witnesses say one was following too close so the presumption is "road rage." Maybe one tried to rob the other person, but the intended victim escaped. Perhaps they knew and hated each other; perhaps both wanted the same woman. There's no way to tell at this point. If one person gave the other person "the finger" in a public park, would society call it "park rage?" Why isn't it "kitchen rage" when a husband and wife have an argument in the kitchen?

I understand the excuses that a growing segment of society, especially LEOs and shrinks, use to justify the term. People claim there is a "different dynamic" when people are behind the wheel, but that's a bogus claim. There's no anonymity when one is sitting in a car. People feel safer thus more willing to attack someone verbally or physically, but that's true regardless where one is located. If one feels stronger or more capable than their adversary and their personality or character is such that they will attack another person, then they will do so regardless of their location.

I know this cry will largely fall on deaf ears, but folks need to understand that accepting the use of the vague term "road rage" has a very real impact on people justifiably using deadly force in self-defense, if it happens in a motor vehicle. The initial assumption will be "road rage" which translates to "unjustified."

Chas.

No telling what the widow and mother in law, the only survivors, will say happened.

So the person who got out of the vehicle and witnesses seem to indicate was the aggressor had his mother and wife in the car. Strange, most folks would avoid confrontations when the women who mean the most to them are right there.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/ ... m_one.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree Charles, we have no details at all. It could have been a long standing feud or simply cut off in traffic or anything in between (like “park rage” lol). The only thing I am sure of is it will be used against the CHL community - and the fact that this is a rare event makes no difference.

Well Said Charles.

Good word Charles

Thank you, Charles.

JALLEN wrote:No telling what the widow and mother in law, the only survivors, will say happened.

The widow isn't speaking yet, but the mother who was in the car and witnessed the events says,

said her son didn't have time to figure out what the second driver, identified by police as Taylor, was angry about. She said Taylor tailgated the Pullum vehicle as they drove along M-66, sometimes pulling so close that they could not see the hood of his vehicle, but that there was no back-and-forth between her son and Taylor.

"He shot at Jim first, then he shot Jim again while Jim was reaching in his car to get his gun. And I think that’s the one that took him," she said. "And then Jim got his (gun) and he made a couple shots."

Investigators have not confirmed Bernadine Pullum's account of the encounter.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/ ... l_sho.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still not enough information and accounts are conflicting. Also, Taylor was previously charged with DWI and carrying while intoxicated but the carry charge was dismissed. The only record in Ionia County for Pullum was a 2004 seat belt violation.

MLive has nine stories on this so far, here is their list of stories.
http://topics.mlive.com/tag/ionia-road- ... posts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So "non-aggressor" got out of the car is what it sounds like....not worth it.