Gridlocked Road Rager Shown a Bat, Results in Charges

My question involves criminal law for the state of: GA

Someone close to me (Abe) was nearly hit by another driver (Beatrice) who became agitated that he pulled around her, even though she did not move her car for an extended period of time when there was plenty of space ahead of her. This was at two merging lanes exiting a parking deck. She had jerked in front of him when her gate opened slightly after his, but then stopped in the middle of the path.

When B realized A was pulling around, B became agitated and jerked the car towards A's car nearly hitting him on the left rear tire well. As this was happening B honked repeatedly then continuously, while also continuing to move the car slightly.

At this point A panicked, grabbed a bat that was in the car from batting practice, and opened the door to check the closeness of the vehicles and to get B to back off. A stuck the bat out of the door and yelled for the other person to quit or shes gonna see how she likes it. B stopped honking and then A turned around, shut the door, and drove off. B called the cops who could not access the area, and did not arrest A when traffic was past, but later arrested A at his apartment.

A believed an accident would occur if action was not taken. Was the person going to keep edging closer and play chicken? Was the person goign to try and whip around and clip him? A's sole intention was to stop the other person's aggressive behavior and defuse the situation. A succeeded in doing this.

A was charged with two felonies and simple assault and is facing 15 years in prison over this incident. (Terroristic threats, Weapon on school grounds)

What do you think?

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

defuse the situation.

---

Defuse the situation by threatening physical harm? Come on!!!

"A" should find himself a GOOD criminal defense attorney in hopes that he can come up with a better defense.

A cop huh?

A) In GA you have no obligation to retreat when defending yourself. If you believe you are in danger, you are fully allowed to threaten the other person to back off. See O.C.G.A. 16-3-23.1. It's the law, and for good reason. If you don't like it, be glad you don't live in GA. At least until one day you get into trouble and the police get there 5 minutes too late.

Also there is no such thing as a conditional threat in GA. If you threaten someone to back off, the person knows they are not in any danger unless they continue to act aggressively themselves.

B) Abe succesfully defused the situation by his actions. If it worked it worked. It's been working for thousands of years. Cops rely on the threat of their weapons and of their fellow officers to deter criminals. All abe needed to do was snap person B out of it before he/she caused a wreck.

OP, following your logic, if Abe had shot at Bea, Bea would have, in all likelihood, also backed off.

Would Abe be still trying to use the same defense?

Come on - you know better. Abe needs a really good attorney. Now. Yesterday, in fact.

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

A cop huh?

---

Nope! Just someone who's only read one side of the story. It would be safe to assume that "B" tells a different version... Otherwise the DA would not have filed FELONY charges and "A" would not have been arrested!!!

You two are absurdly ridiculous. Georgia law couldn't be clearer on this, and for good reason.

If someone threatens to run you over on foot, you can shoot them in self defense! Not that I would do it necessarily instead of jumping behind cover, but still. That is Georgia law. You are not obligated to run away from someone who is threatening you just because you are not a cop.

A did something that resulted in no harm to anyone, and B was snapped out of their pyschotic road rage thus preventing an accident. This is directly and clearly addressed by Georgia self defense law.

Circular logic: The cop did it so he must be justified in doing it? What are you 3? Plus that was what the cops charged on the scene. Any cop can charge someone with something, that doesn't mean that person has a snowball's chance in hell of being convicted.

In fact the law says that a person in this circumstance is IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24.2 This doesn't mean the cop can't arrest you, it only means they cannot prosecute.

There are plenty of only-if's in the situation where deadly force was used. There are no restrictions on this defense for a situation where the implied threat of less than deadly force was used in self defense, other than that the person reasonably believed there was danger to themselves or their property and they were not the aggressor. Don't like it? Don't threaten to ram someone with your car!

This is a law site, and if you are uninterested in the actual law regarding the matter you should not be commenting.

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

You two are absurdly ridiculous. Georgia law couldn't be clearer on this, and for good reason.

If someone threatens to run you over on foot, you can shoot them in self defense!

A did something that resulted in no harm to anyone, and B was snapped out of their pyschotic road rage thus preventing an accident.

---

there was no threat of personal injury (aka: assault) by B upon A. A did commit an assault. Look up the definition of assault and you will see A is a moron.

and here is the statute you listed:

Quote:

---

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23.1
No duty to retreat prior to use of force in self-defense

A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force.

---

A was not threatened with injury. His property may have been threatened but he wasn't. You need to read the statute where it says "in defense of self or others". It says nothing about using lethal force to defend one's property.

READ THE LAW YOU JUST QUOTED MORE CAREFULLY

"or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force."

Further more, it is a bold faced lie that Abe was not in danger. The person threatened to hit his car at his driver side window.

Georgia is not a state for people who think they have the right to threaten others with a 2000 lb, 150 hp motor vehicle with full protection from the law against any counter measures.

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

You two are absurdly ridiculous. Georgia law couldn't be clearer on this, and for good reason.

If someone threatens to run you over on foot, you can shoot them in self defense! Not that I would do it necessarily instead of jumping behind cover, but still. That is Georgia law. You are not obligated to run away from someone who is threatening you just because you are not a cop.

A did something that resulted in no harm to anyone, and B was snapped out of their pyschotic road rage thus preventing an accident. This is directly and clearly addressed by Georgia self defense law.

Circular logic: The cop did it so he must be justified in doing it? What are you 3? Plus that was what the cops charged on the scene. Any cop can charge someone with something, that doesn't mean that person has a snowball's chance in hell of being convicted.

In fact the law says that a person in this circumstance is IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24.2 This doesn't mean the cop can't arrest you, it only means they cannot prosecute.

There are plenty of only-if's in the situation where deadly force was used. There are no restrictions on this defense for a situation where the implied threat of less than deadly force was used in self defense, other than that the person reasonably believed there was danger to themselves or their property and they were not the aggressor. Don't like it? Don't threaten to ram someone with your car!

This is a law site, and if you are uninterested in the actual law regarding the matter you should not be commenting.

---

It would be rather cool if you actually had a clue of what you speak, before you posted.

But other than that - if you KNOW the law so well, and you KNOW the answers...why are you here?

Obviously not to talk to a bunch of know-nothings like you who post laws without even READING THE LAW THEY JUST POSTED.

Once again as posted but not read by jk:

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23.1

"or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force."

If you can't understand or accept this, then you do not qualify to answer questions on a legal advice forum. This is not a forum for naive criminal justice students to troll and shove their poorly reasoned, self-righteous, convaluted bs down other people's throats.

here is the section:

Quote:

---

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24
Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property:

(1) Lawfully in his possession;

(2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or

(3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.

(b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

---

that is not a blanket "no duty to retreat". Read section (b) and realize the DA would not have charged the crimes if he believed and he felt a jury will believe there was a reasonable belief the threat was justified.

and you want to talk about lies. Here is a snip from your first post:

Quote:

---

nearly hitting him on the left rear tire well.

---

which is quite different than this:

Quote:

---

The person threatened to ram his car at his driver side window.

---

which we know is a lie based on your own rendition of the acts involved:

Quote:

---

A panicked, grabbed a bat that was in the car from batting practice, and opened the door to check the closeness of the vehicles and to get B to back off.

---

If beatrice was such a danger, especially to make your buddy to believe his life was in danger because she was so close, how did your buddy open the door and get out to look to see how close she was?

If she was about to ram his door, all he had to do was look down from where he was setting.

see some problems with your story?

I am sure everybody else does.

so, your buddy will get his day in court. He really needs some anger management courses. Maybe that will be part of his sentence.

Oh, and regardless what happens with the threat, he is still guilty of possessing a weapon on school property.

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

Obviously not to talk to a bunch of know-nothings like you who post laws without even READING THE LAW THEY JUST POSTED.

Once again as posted but not read by jk:

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23.1

"or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force."

If you can't understand or accept this, then you do not qualify to answer questions on a legal advice forum.

---

You did not answer the question. You're also not going to be dictating who responds to your posts.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

here is the section:




that is not a blanket "no duty to retreat". Read section (b) and realize the DA would not have charged the crimes if he believed and he felt a jury will believe there was a reasonable belief the threat was justified.

and you want to talk about lies. Here is a snip from your first post:



which is quite different than this:

which we know is a lie based on your own rendition of the acts involved:


If beatrice was such a danger, especially to make your buddy to believe his life was in danger because she was so close, how did your buddy open the door and get out to look to see how close she was?

If she was about to ram his door, all he had to do was look down from where he was setting.

see some problems with your story?

I am sure everybody else does.

so, your buddy will get his day in court. He really needs some anger management courses. Maybe that will be part of his sentence.

Oh, and regardless what happens with the threat, he is still guilty of possessing a weapon on school property.

---

Cars can do this thing called acceleration! And steer! Which is what B did. She nearly hit A at the rear tire well, and then steered to angle at the door or perhaps to try and whip around and then stopped halfway. Who knows?

WHAT ON EARTH DOES THE USE OF FORCE INTENDED TO CAUSE DEATH HAVE TO DO WITH THE THREAT OF THE USE OF LESS THAN DEADLY FORCE? SECTION B HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. LEARN TO READ LAWS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THEN POST ON A LEGAL ADVICE FORUM. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Maybe the DA hasn't read up on his laws recently. It doesn't matter what the DA reasonably believes - any thoughts of his on A's state of mind are pure speculation. B instigated the whole thing, and A reasonably believed he and his property were in danger. Furthermore there is a videotape of the whole thing that will show the details of what happened, without the need for any speculation. The physical elements for self defense are all there, the only thing left is whether or not A reasonably believed he or his property was in danger. Prosecution of A is, by Georgia law illegal.

Weapon on school grounds? § 16-11-127.1.

(c) The provisions of this Code section shall not apply to:

(1) Baseball bats, hockey sticks, or other sports equipment possessed by competitors for legitimate athletic purposes;

Even the judge at the bond hearing balked when he saw a charge for possesing a baseball bat on school grounds.

But then, how could you possibly claim to know something about the weapon charge without knowing any circumstances of the case?

Quote:

---

=citizenxo;399625]Cars can do this thing called acceleration! And steer! Which is what B did. She nearly hit A at the rear tire well, and then steered to angle at the door.

---

then how did he get out of the door and why did he have to look at how close she was? Incongruencies will cost him the trial.

Quote:

---

WHAT ON EARTH DOES THE USE OF FORCE INTENDED TO CAUSE DEATH HAVE TO DO WITH THE THREAT OF THE USE OF LESS THAN DEADLY FORCE? SECTION B HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. LEARN TO READ LAWS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THEN POST ON A LEGAL ADVICE FORUM. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

---

why don't you read. It said the use of force must have been reasonably believed to be necessary. The problem is: what your buddy thinks is reasonable is not the definition the court will impose. They will impose a reasonable man standard.

Quote:

---

Weapon on school grounds? § 16-11-127.1.

(c) The provisions of this Code section shall not apply to:

(1) Baseball bats, hockey sticks, or other sports equipment possessed by competitors for legitimate athletic purposes;

---

well, the instant he USED IT AS A WEAPON, the exception you just quoted became irrelevant. He was not using it for a legitimate athletic purpose, he was using it as a weapon therefore, he had a weapon on school grounds. He loses.

Quote:

---

But then, how could you possibly claim to know this without knowing any circumstances of the case? Now it is becoming clear. Let me make this perfectly clear. If you are who I think you are, and you attempt to pursue this matter I WILL COMPLETELY HUMILIATE YOU AND RUIN YOUR CAREER.

---

what a joke!!! come on and spit it out if you think you have some magical powers.

Quote:

---

Lawsuits, news coverage, the works. With over half a million dollars and plenty of connections at my disposal when I need them, don't think for a second that I don't mean it.

---

wow, I am really worried, NOT.

and in the beginning, you said she was in front of him. Then he pulled in front of her and then magically he could just hop into his car and drive away. Doesn't sound like there was any justification for the threat of lethal force.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

then how did he get out of the door and why did he have to look at how close she was? Incongruencies will cost him the trial.

why don't you read. It said the use of force must have been reasonably believed to be necessary. The problem is: what your buddy thinks is reasonable is not the definition the court will impose. They will impose a reasonable man standard.

well, the instant he USED IT AS A WEAPON, the exception you just quoted became irrelevant. He was not using it for a legitimate athletic purpose, he was using it as a weapon therefore, he had a weapon on school grounds. He loses.

what a joke!!! come on and spit it out if you think you have some magical powers.

wow, I am really worried, NOT.

and in the beginning, you said she was in front of him. Then he pulled in front of her and then magically he could just hop into his car and drive away. Doesn't sound like there was any justification for the threat of lethal force.

---

What incongruencies fool??!?! She aimed the car at his door, she did not get all the way there! There was still room to open the door. Again READ BEFORE RESPONDING.

I never said she was in front. What are you talking about?

The only power I have and the only one I need is truth. The truth shall set you free!

Quote:

---

But then, how could you possibly claim to know this without knowing any circumstances of the case? Now it is becoming clear. Let me make this perfectly clear. If you are who I think you are, and you attempt to pursue this matter I WILL COMPLETELY HUMILIATE YOU AND RUIN YOUR CAREER.

---

Quotalicious!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

.

I never said she was in front. What are you talking about?
!

---

yes you did. From your first post:

Quote:

---

She had jerked in front of him when her gate opened slightly after his, but then stopped in the middle of the path.

---

YOU really need to think about what you wrote before proving yourself to be a liar.

Quote:

---

The only power I have and the only one I need is truth. The truth shall set you free!

---

and quotes of your posts before you have a chance to delete them shall hang you.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Quotalicious!!!!!!

---

Ya, it was quite funny to realize that when I posted that, OP had deleted the threats thinking they would go away.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Ya, it was quite funny to realize that when I posted that, OP had deleted the threats thinking they would go away.

---

Yeah. :D:D

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

When B realized A was pulling around, B became agitated and jerked the car towards A's car nearly hitting him on the left rear tire well.

---

My god, you have the reading comprehension skills of a struggling 3rd grader!

A pulled around and then B jerked towards the car.

You have now misquoted something 4 times in a row, making yourself look like a complete and total moron. Do you honestly believe you are in a position to talk about how other people would come across in trial?

Liar? How DARE you. The thought that you even think you can try and spew this convaluted bs on the world and have some degree of influence makes me sick. Know something about the situation and the law, and for the love of god know something about RIGHT AND WRONG before you try to cause someone to be perceived in a way that puts their freedom at risk. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Ya, it was quite funny to realize that when I posted that, OP had deleted the threats thinking they would go away.

---

What on earth do you think you are talking about kid? I deleted that because I decided it was too speculative to try and guess your identity by your irrational will to try and twist the facts and your comments as if you had knowledge regarding specific details of the case. I have no fear for threatening to do something that I am fully within my right to do (File a lawsuit for illegal charges, and bring attention to misconduct).

You, having completely humiliated yourself by misquoting law you posted directly above your misquote twice, and misquoting my statements 2 more times, are hardly in a position to talk.

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

My god, you have the reading comprehension skills of a struggling 3rd grader!

A pulled around and then B jerked towards the car.

You have now misquoted something 4 times in a row, making yourself look like a complete and total moron. Do you honestly believe you are in a position to talk about how other people would come across in trial?

Liar? How DARE you. The thought that you even think you can try and spew this convaluted bs on the world and have some degree of influence makes me sick. Know something about the situation and the law, and for the love of god know something about RIGHT AND WRONG before you try to cause someone to be perceived in a way that puts their freedom at risk. You should be ashamed of yourself.



What on earth do you think you are talking about kid? I deleted that because I decided it was too speculative to try and guess your identity by your irrational will to try and twist the facts and your comments as if you had knowledge regarding specific details of the case. I have no fear for threatening to do something that I am fully within my right to do (File a lawsuit for illegal charges, and bring attention to misconduct).

You, having completely humiliated yourself by misquoting law you posted directly above your misquote twice, and misquoting my statements 2 more times, are hardly in a position to talk.

---

jk isn't the one being humiliated, kiddo.

Trust me.

Quote:

---

=citizenxo;399647]My god, you have the reading comprehension skills of a struggling 3rd grader!

A pulled around and then B jerked towards the car.

You have now misquoted something 4 times in a row, making yourself look like a complete and total moron. Do you honestly believe you are in a position to talk about how other people would come across in trial?

---

misquoted? I am copying and pasting your own words. It's not like I am retyping anything.

again:

Quote:

---

She had jerked in front of him when her gate opened slightly after his, but then stopped in the middle of the path.

---

here (from your first post) you say she was in front of him.

then you said he pulled in front of her (how else would she have been able to threaten him with her car?. Then, after he threatened her with a weapon, his simply got into his car and drove away.

Quote:

---

Liar? How DARE you.

---

How dare I? You are the one that is lying. How dare YOU. and yes, I proved you to be a liar several times.

Quote:

---

The thought that you even think you can try and spew this convaluted bs on the world and have some degree of influence makes me sick. Know something about the situation and the law, and for the love of god know something about RIGHT AND WRONG before you try to cause someone to be perceived in a way that puts their freedom at risk. You should be ashamed of yourself.

---

actually, your friend, whom I suspect is in reality you, should be ashamed for threatening a woman with a weapon simply because of a traffic problem. Had anger problems for long or is this a recent development. Sometimes as you are going through puberty the increase in testosterone can cause you to have anger management problems. Is that your problem? just now going through puberty?

Quote:

---

What on earth do you think you are talking about kid? I deleted that because I decided it was too speculative to try and guess your identity by your irrational will to try and twist the facts and your comments as if you had knowledge regarding specific details of the case. I have no fear for threatening to do something that I am fully within my right to do (File a lawsuit for illegal charges, and bring attention to misconduct).

---

It's your story, tell it how you want. Oh, so now you admit YOU are the guy with the anger management problem. and no, read about the immunity afforded a DA as long as he reasonably believes his actions are justified.

Quote:

---

You, having completely humiliated yourself by misquoting law you posted directly above your misquote twice, and misquoting my statements 2 more times, are hardly in a position to talk.

---

you have humiliated yourself by lying about who "A" is, the facts of the situation, and showing yourself to having anger management problems.

I cannot misquote you when I cut and paste. Those were the words exactly as you typed them. If you have a problem with them, then it's time you yelled at the person you see in the mirror, not the person that points out your faults.

and just to remind you of how immature you are I will repost your threats to me:


B

Quote:

---

ut then, how could you possibly claim to know this without knowing any circumstances of the case? Now it is becoming clear. Let me make this perfectly clear. If you are who I think you are, and you attempt to pursue this matter I WILL COMPLETELY HUMILIATE YOU AND RUIN YOUR CAREER.

---

Quote:

---

Lawsuits, news coverage, the works. With over half a million dollars and plenty of connections at my disposal when I need them, don't think for a second that I don't mean it.

---

Threatening a person in my capacity will get you nowhere.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

jk isn't the one being humiliated, kiddo.

Trust me.

---

I can't think of anything more humiliating then posting a law and going on a diatribe about how the law says defense of self not property when RIGHT ABOVE THAT THE LAW SAYS DEFENSE OF PROPERTY

I can only imagine the DA making the same mistake and being equally humiliated in the court room. Maybe the DA will take the intelligent route of actually reading and obeying the law.

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

I can't think of anything more humiliating then posting a law and going on a diatribe about how the law says defense of self not property when RIGHT ABOVE THAT THE LAW SAYS DEFENSE OF PROPERTY

I can only imagine the DA making the same mistake and being equally humiliated in the court room. Maybe the DA will take the intelligent route of actually reading and obeying the law.

---

you just keep believing yourself. Maybe you can wrangle that and the anger problem into a mental deficiency plea.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

misquoted? I am copying and pasting your own words. It's not like I am retyping anything.

again:

here (from your first post) you say she was in front of him.

then you said he pulled in front of her (how else would she have been able to threaten him with her car?. Then, after he threatened her with a weapon, his simply got into his car and drove away.

How dare I? You are the one that is lying. How dare YOU. and yes, I proved you to be a liar several times.

actually, your friend, whom I suspect is in reality you, should be ashamed for threatening a woman with a weapon simply because of a traffic problem. Had anger problems for long or is this a recent development. Sometimes as you are going through puberty the increase in testosterone can cause you to have anger management problems. Is that your problem? just now going through puberty?

It's your story, tell it how you want. Oh, so now you admit YOU are the guy with the anger management problem. and no, read about the immunity afforded a DA as long as he reasonably believes his actions are justified.

you have humiliated yourself by lying about who "A" is, the facts of the situation, and showing yourself to having anger management problems.

I cannot misquote you when I cut and paste. Those were the words exactly as you typed them. If you have a problem with them, then it's time you yelled at the person you see in the mirror, not the person that points out your faults.

---

You are misquoting in your claims about what I said after copying and pasting. The person started out in front, I pulled around after they sat there for around 30 seconds, then they jerked at my car. What is confusing about this? And in the real trial there will be a video of this, or a gaping whole where the video should be but instead mysteriously disappeared (presumably because it didn't help the DA's case) as there was a video camera pointed directly at the whole event. Because I know what really happened, I know the video supports my claim of self defense. If the DA had access to witnesses who saw the aggressive behavior of B, and this video, and the fact that I told the police I was threatened by the other driver, then filing charges would clearly be illegal given the clear statement of the law to this effect.

Your inability (or perhaps unwillingess?) to comprehend what you read does not constitute me being a liar.

A was recently INTENTIONALLY RAMMED by another female driver, who, lo and behold, did not need to be rambo to press a gas pedal. A traffic problem is not someone jamming their car up your tail pipe in a threatening manner and leaning on the horn! You place a car based on the intensity of the car horn, and if the car horn sounds like it is going off in your back seat, and then you see the car moving even closer in the side view right above the "objects in mirror are closer than they appear" warning, you are going to panic and feel threatened.

I did not remove it because I felt it was too angry. I removed it because I was not sure. You are failing to differentiate between some kind of boundless rage (like that of a driver threatening another with a vehicle because they think the person cut them in line) and a feeling of empowerment that comes with seeing that something is clearly wrong and addressing it accordingly. Or the panicked reaction of someone who themselves feels threatened and cornered. And do not fool yourself, that is EXACTLY what happened.

I was addressing the misquotes you wrote after the "cut and pastes".

The part about this that I find the most deeply sickening of all is how the justice system is so well trained to take a situation like this, which the law clearly calls self defense, and twist everything that happened in hopes of confusing the person involved out of using the defense.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

you just keep believing yourself. Maybe you can wrangle that and the anger problem into a mental deficiency plea.

---

Betcha between a couple of us, we could write this script for L&O or something...

..and we know who'd come out on top ;)

Quote:

---

citizenxo;399670]You are misquoting in your claims about what I said after copying and pasting. The person started out in front

---

whoa, just a minute ago you said she was never in front:

Quote:

---

I never said she was in front. What are you talking about?

---

and now you are contradicting your own argument when you said you never said she was in front.

dang kid, make up your mind.

Quote:

---

, I pulled around after they sat there for around 30 seconds, then they jerked at my car. What is confusing about this?

---

and you just keep changing the story. This doesn't bode well for you.

Quote:

---

And in the real trial there will be a video of this, or a gaping whole where the video should be but instead mysteriously disappeared (presumably because it didn't help the DA's case) as there was a video camera pointed directly at the whole event.

---

and you know it was on? Have you subpoenaed video? If not, don't count on it being there. The victim is enough to hang your butt. Well, that and your confession here that just might find it's way to the trial.

Quote:

---

If the DA had access to witenesses who saw the aggressive behavior of B, and this video, and the fact that I told the police I was threatened by the other driver, then filing charges would clearly be illegal given the clear statement of the law to this effect.

---

IF. You haven't subpoenaed it and you have no idea if the prosecution has? Man, you better get off some of the "more than a half million dollars" and get your defense in gear. You are way behind and getting further all the time.

Quote:

---

Your inability (or perhaps unwillingess?) to comprehend what you read does not constitute me being a liar.

---

No, you making contrasting claims 2 or 3 or 4 times makes you a liar.

Quote:

---

A was recently INTENTIONALLY RAMMED by another female driver, who, lo and behold, did not need to be rambo to press a gas pedal.

---

Oh, so now your defense is you have a terrible fear of little old ladies driving and they might ram you so you get to use lethal force to put them in their place. Wow, you really have some problems.

Quote:

---

A traffic problem is not someone jamming their car up your tail pipe in a threatening manner and leaning on the horn!

---

Up your tailpipe? You said she was about to hit your door and injure you. Now you say she was "up your tailpipe". Unless they move tailpipes, that would put her behind you.

Quote:

---

You place a car based on the intensity of the car horn, and if the car horn sounds like it is going off in your back seat, and then you see the car moving even closer in the side view right above the "objects in mirror are closer than they appear" warning, you are going to panic and feel threatened.

---

the "objects are closer than they appear" is on the right side view mirror. You claim she was on the drivers side. Are you lying again? and the horn sounding like it is going off in the back seat? I thought you said she was taking a bead in the front door? Now, again, it appears she was near the rear of your car. Man, pick a story and stick with it.

Quote:

---

I did not remove it because I felt it was too angry. I removed it because I was not sure. You are failing to differentiate between some kind of boundless rage (like that of a driver threatening another with a vehicle because they think the person cut them in line) and a feeling of empowerment that comes with seeing that something is clearly wrong and addressing it accordingly. Or the panicked reaction of someone who themselves feels threatened and cornered. And do not fool yourself, that is EXACTLY what happened.

---

Oh, so now you are claiming you kept the bat as a weapon due to little old ladies that drive aggressively. Man have you got some problems going on there. Maybe some medical attention is in order.

Quote:

---

I was addressing the misquotes you wrote after the "cut and pastes".

---

How could those be misquotes? Do you know what a quote is? What was cut and pasted was a quote. What followed was my statement. It was not a quote of anything.

Quote:

---

The part about this that I find the most deeply sickening of all is how the justice system is so well trained to take a situation like this, which the law clearly calls self defense, and twist everything that happened in hopes of confusing the person involved out of using the defense.

---

well, self defense or simply admitting guilt. I would try self defense as well. You obviously have a better shot of being found not guilty if you mount a defense. If you admit guilt, well..you are guilty.

I just don't accept your justifications for self defense and I seriously doubt the jury will either.

btw: if this was a really big guy in the other car, I might have some sympathy for you but the fact it was a woman, tsk, tsk, tsk. You should be ashamed of yourself. There are not many women in this world that I would feel threatened enough by that I would feel the need for a baseball bat.

She wasn't in front during the confrontation, as I was obviously stating. Are you really this terrible at comprehending things that you read? Or do you think you are going to fool a competent jury into thinking that you are not totally full of it when you say things like that? The only thing squabbling over meaningless misinterpretations of details is going to do is make you look dishonest. If anything from here shows up at trial, the jury is going to know who is on the other end of the discussion, and how dishonest and incompetent that person is.

A friend of A's that works at the parking deck is the one who alerted us to the video's existence, and yes the video was on to monitor rush hour traffic exiting the deck. This person is fully aware of what happened, and offered to help in any way she can. A's lawyer assures the subpoenae is in the works. Trying to get rid of evidence of something like because it doesn't help the case is a crime if I am not mistaken.

Little old ladies? Ok... did you not realize that Abe and Beatrice were stage names?

No contradicting statements were made. You made absurd claims, quite in line with your inability to read laws you post 2 inches above your summary of them, about what I said. None of your claims were true or even remotely addressed what I said.

My god draw a picture if you are having that much trouble visualizing. Does your side view have tunnel vision or something? In the beginning she was on the front side. In the end she was on the rear left side of the car. The car moved during the encounter. You did know cars could do that right? Who do you think you are fooling?

A already told the police what happened. No new information is being presented here.

Quote:

---

=citizenxo;399684]She wasn't in front during the confrontation, as I was obviously stating. Are you really this terrible at comprehending things that you read?

---

I jsut don't know what to believe anymore. One time you say she got in front of you. Then you say she was never in front of you. Then you again say she was in front of you. Now you do not deny she was in front of you but during the confrontation, where she clearly was in front of you and then you cut her off, she was no longer in front of you.

Wow. the jury is just going to love hearing your story.

Quote:

---

Or do you think you are going to fool a competent jury into thinking that you are not totally full of it when you say things like that?

---

You are the one that changed whether she was in front of you or not several times. I merely quoted your words.

Quote:

---

The only thing squabbling over meaningless misinterpretations of details is going to do is make you look dishonest.[

---

and you are looking really dishonest right about now...

and guilty.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I jsut don't know what to believe anymore. One time you say she got in front of you. Then you say she was never in front of you. Then you again say she was in front of you. Now you do not deny she was in front of you but during the confrontation, where she clearly was in front of you and then you cut her off, she was no longer in front of you.

Wow. the jury is just going to love hearing your story.

You are the one that changed whether she was in front of you or not several times. I merely quoted your words.


and you are looking really dishonest right about now...

and guilty.

---

The only person the jury would perceive as an idiot is you. I state something with 100 % clarity and then you ramble to yourself for 20 minutes about in front not in front to the side etc. You are not fooling anyone. None of this is even remotely important when there were several witnesses and a video. Even if there was no video, (which I know for a fact there better be or someone is going to be in deep doo doo for getting rid of it) a simple diagram would prevent any confusion.

If some fool like you came up to me on the stand and started asking me ridiculous questions like "You said behind but now ... front er?", the jury would laugh their butts off when I simply pointed out that cars have engines and can move from point A to B.

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

The only person the jury would perceive as an idiot is you. I state something with 100 % clarity and then you ramble to yourself for 20 minutes about in front not in front to the side etc. You are not fooling anyone. None of this is even remotely important when there were several witnesses and a video. Even if there was no video, (which I know for a fact there better be or someone is going to be in deep doo doo for getting rid of it) a simple diagram would prevent any confusion.
.

---

I love it.

It's not important since there is a video but even if there isn't a video.


If you don;t know now if there is a video, you are lost.

If the video was made by a private entity (as in non-governmental) they have no duty to retain the video for any period of time unless they are ordered by the court to retain it. If that has not been done yet, there is nothing to prevent the owner from deleting it.

Even if it was done by a governmental agency, there may not be any requirement to retain a copy for any specific length of time.

and a diagram; ya, that's the answer. You presenting a diagram is you presenting a diagram. It's not like they have to accept that any more than they accept your story. It is simply you telling your story with pictures. It is still your point of view, your perspective. It can help describe the situation but if they don't believe you, all the drawings in the world aren't going to make any difference.

Quote:

---

If some fool like you came up to me on the stand and started asking me ridiculous questions like that, I know exactly how to handle them

---

You sound a like a 15 yo kid that thinks he rules the world. The witness doesn't handle anything. You answer questions when asked. You keep your mouth shut when not asked a question. If you speak when not spoken to, the prosecutor asks the judge to tell you to shut up. You don't make the rules and you surely don't "handle" the prosecutor.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I love it.

It's not important since there is a video but even if there isn't a video.


If you don;t know now if there is a video, you are lost.

If the video was made by a private entity (as in non-governmental) they have no duty to retain the video for any period of time unless they are ordered by the court to retain it. If that has not been done yet, there is nothing to prevent the owner from deleting it.

Even if it was done by a governmental agency, there may not be any requirement to retain a copy for any specific length of time.

and a diagram; ya, that's the answer. You presenting a diagram is you presenting a diagram. It's not like they have to accept that any more than they accept your story. It is simply you telling your story with pictures. It is still your point of view, your perspective. It can help describe the situation but if they don't believe you, all the drawings in the world aren't going to make any difference.


You sound a like a 15 yo kid that thinks he rules the world. The witness doesn't handle anything. You answer questions when asked. You keep your mouth shut when not asked a question. If you speak when not spoken to, the prosecutor asks the judge to tell you to shut up. You don't make the rules and you surely don't "handle" the prosecutor.

---

Even if there wasn't a video, as in, in a totally different hypothetical situation where the video wasn't there, you still wouldn't be able to bs the facts into confusion by asking stupid questions.

I know someone who works at that public entity, and they do not delete the videos for a while. If this video was suddenly deleted out of order, my friend would know what happened. Anyways my lawyer has gone through the process, I just don't know the details of what is going on with that.

Who said they aren't going to believe me? You acted as though you could poke holes in my crystal clear story by repeatedly asking me the same questions over and over. That is absurd and would just make you look stupid.

So, in otherwords if I, at just the right moment, give a non yes or no answer that completely destroys the prosecuters entire argument which was mostly based on perversion of truth, I might receive a warning from the judge? Got it.

You are clearly not involved in any kind of trial procedings. Your knowledge of how these things work is shoddy at best. The only thing I can't figure out is who ARE you? You would lie cheat and steal to try and prevent someone from using the defense fully afforded to them by law for this exact situation, all in the name of justice? What is wrong with you?

Quote:

---

Who said they aren't going to believe me? You acted as though you could poke holes in my crystal clear story by repeatedly asking me the same questions over and over. That is absurd and would just make you look stupid.

---

you are the one that changed the details constantly, not me. I merely pointed out your inconstancies.

Quote:

---

So, in otherwords if I, at just the right moment, give a non yes or no answer that completely destroys the prosecuters entire argument which was mostly based on perversion of truth, I might receive a warning from the judge? Got it.

---

you watch way too much TV. This isn't Law and Order.

Quote:

---

You are clearly not involved in any kind of trial procedings. Your knowledge of how these things work is shoddy at best. The only thing I can't figure out is who ARE you? You lie cheat and steal to try and prevent someone from using the defense fully afforded to them by law for this exact situation, all in the name of justice? What is wrong with you

---

well, one leg is slightly shorter than the other and my eyes are not perfectly level but other than that, there is nothing wrong with me.

you just keep believing your dreams of how this will go down in the courtroom.

and I lie, cheat, and steal? and somehow, even if I had, how would that affect what you use as a defense?

and who am I:

I am the Shadow and the Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, including yours. You are an evil little boy that felt the need to threaten a woman with your baseball bat after cutting her off and she got pissed at you.

I bet your mommy is proud of the little boy she raised.

I didn't change any details. You purposely read them out of order and pretended to have confused yourself for the benefit of some imagined audience. That imagined audience is laughing at your transparent behavior.

A's mom told him the charges were ridiculous and A merely acted in self defense.

I would dare you to look me in the eye and try and tell me that I was evil. Not because I would hurt you but because you would know the claim would be totally full of it, that you probably couldn't even bring yourself to say it. That is, unless you are some sort of sociopath, which I fully suspect is what is behind many agents of the justice system.

You know, in an odd way, you have actually been much more helpful than you probably ever intended to be.

Quote:

---

Quoting citizenxo

---

I didn't change any details. You purposely read them out of order and pretended to have confused yourself for the benefit of some imagined audience. That imagined audience is laughing at your transparent behavior.

A's mom told him the charges were ridiculous and A merely acted in self defense.

I would dare you to look me in the eye and try and tell me that I was evil. Not because I would hurt you but because you would know the claim would be totally full of it, that you probably couldn't even bring yourself to say it. That is, unless you are some sort of sociopath, which I fully suspect is what is behind many agents of the justice system.

---

Your paranoia is astonishing in its absurdity.

Quote:

---

citizenxo;399720]I didn't change any details. You purposely read them out of order and pretended to have confused yourself for the benefit of some imagined audience. That imagined audience is laughing at your transparent behavior.

---

and you don't think a DA will point out how many times you change your facts?

Quote:

---

A's mom told him the charges were ridiculous and A merely acted in self defense.

---

Well, a mom usually does support their children, even when they are wrong. It is the motherly instinct.

Quote:

---

I would dare you to look me in the eye and try and tell me that I was evil.

---

I don't think I could get low enough to look you in the eye. I don't threaten women with baseball bats.

Quote:

---

Not because I would hurt you but because you would know the claim would be totally full of it, that you probably couldn't even bring yourself to say it.

---

well, if you needed a baseball bat to scare a woman, I doubt you would be able to hurt me so I am not concerned about that.

Quote:

---

That is, unless you are some sort of sociopath, which I fully suspect is what is behind many agents of the justice system

---

.

Aww man, you caught us. We are all a bunch of raving lunatics. Everybody thinks we are on the inside of the cage but in reality, it is all of you that are in the cage and we are in control.


I have been having a lot of fun but let me get serious with you for a minute:

you need to think about your actions and position. In my opinion, nobody is going to believe you reasonably believed you needed to threaten, especially with a weapon, in the situation you were in. In fact, since she was in a car, how did you intend on stopping her if she did intend to injure you or damage your car? It's not like she would have worried about her car being damaged so what would the bat do that her hitting your car wouldn't? Your defense just doesn't make any sense.


You need to quit kidding yourself with your defense and what you think is your ability to control this situation. You are not in control and if this is real, you are faced with some very serious charges and possibly looking at serious prison time if convicted.

If this is real, you need to shut up and quit telling everybody your story and speak with your attorney and only your attorney. Anybody you speak to can be used as a witness against you. This isn't a game and what I think doesn't mean anything when you are setting in that defendants chair trying to explain why a guy that plays baseball felt threatened enough by a woman they he needed to use a baseball bat to get his point across. It will be a tough sell regardless what the law states about no duty to retreat.

It's time to stop telling everybody, no, anybody about it and use some of the money you were bragging about (if it is real) and hire a very good attorney. You are fighting a very steep uphill battle.

A was reacting to a 2000 lb motor vehicle being operated by a road rager, not some harmless female. It would be ILLEGAL for this to go to trial, as you would know if you were actually capable of reading the laws you even posted yourself that CLEARLY STATE a person is well within their rights to use the threat of force to defend themselves against the threat of damage to their property or their person.

You guys are ridiculous and are not fooling anybody. Your pathetic attempts to read claims out of order and then claim that someone "changed their story" is laughable at best. No one is interested in what you have to say, and you are wasting your time here. This is a legal advice forum, for competent people to offer legal advice. You have no business posting here, and furthermore I find it disturbing that you continue to act in this manner with wreckless disregard for how your contrived statements might confuse the issue. You seem to have no interest whatsoever in the truth, and thus continuing to argue with you is a waste of time.

I once again invite anyone who is genuinely interested in the truth of the matter to consider GA state law:

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24
Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property:

(1) Lawfully in his possession;

and

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23.1
No duty to retreat prior to use of force in self-defense

A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force.

Additionaly, regarding the other driver's actions:

§ 40-6-397. Aggressive driving; penalty

(a) A person commits the offense of aggressive driving when he or she operates any motor vehicle with the intent to annoy, harass, molest, intimidate, injure, or obstruct another person, including without limitation violating Code Section 40-6-42, 40-6-48, 40-6-49, 40-6-123, 40-6-184, 40-6-312, or 40-6-390 with such intent.

(b) Any person convicted of aggressive driving shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.