Road Rage shooting

[Dante]

Another article explaining why it is hard to get someone who you may think needs mental health help the help they need.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_21693744/he-refused-get-help-and-no-one-could

[peckerhead]

There are plenty of accurate labels that are not derogatory. You've even included a couple in your clarification.

So I guess you choose to be sensitive. Appologies if your offended. I did not intend to offend and I guess I am not sensitive to the subject. This is the interwebz and although I'm sure someone is working on it somewhere, you are not protected from being offended on the interwebz.

The core issue is Mental Illness and gun ownership. If a person is known to have issues, what is the right thing to do.

I saw a report last night that the recent workplace shooter's family knew he had issues, the police department suspected he had issues due to some specious 911 calls he made. The 71 YO had 4 prior Road Rage incidents - obviously on record somewhere since it didn't take long for the reporters to find the information. The Treptow case there were plenty of warning signs.

I believe the process is basically in place, my question is why does it appear not to be working. Is there information sharing that isn't happening?

I think we've got a good system in place. Criminals break the law by their very nature, and they're not going to care whether or not they're got a carry permit.

I know of someone who had a carry permit and who was convicted of a felony after the permit was granted. He quickly received a letter from the sheriff's office revoking the permit.

We have many, many thousands of gun owners and permit holders in MN, and between all of these cases you're talking about 2, possibly 3 bad apples. The government can't protect us from every single thing.

The flip side of the issue is that if any of the people working at Accent had been armed on the day of the shooting, the outcome may have been different.

[peckerhead]

I've kicked plenty of cars that came in to my lane. I don't think I was looking for trouble in doing so.

Now that is probably not how it happened here, it sounds like all parties were already actively involved in a road rage situation that started when the driver in the car would not allow the motorcycles to pass.

Given the facts released to date, unless the motorcyclist had a weapon, I don't see why he needed to be shot to resolve the situation.

As a longtime biker living in the metro area, I absolutely beg to differ that kicking someone's car isn't asking for trouble. I have been on both sides of the situation. It's awfully easy to miss someone on a bike, and I'm guilty of it even though I'm always very careful. I have been cut off and swerved at more times than I can count over the years, and I have never, ever kicked another person's vehicle, nor would I. What would the purpose of something like that be, other that to be an ass and potentially get yourself run over?

Maybe the permit holder pulled over to try to get insurance information so he could get the damage to his car fixed. It's what I would have done.

It's likely that the reason the biker was shot is there was a major disparity of force. The permit holder is 71, and was confronted by two pissed off men who were 29 and 30. Think about it. Fear of death or GBH? Check. Were they capable of infliction? Check. Did he attempt to flee? Well yeah, given the fact that he stopped at a police station. And although he may have been actively involved in the road rage incident, he may not have been involved in escalating it to the level of lethal force.

Just playing devil's advocate for the sake of debate.

[MasonK]

I've kicked plenty of cars that came in to my lane. I don't think I was looking for trouble in doing so.

Now that is probably not how it happened here, it sounds like all parties were already actively involved in a road rage situation that started when the driver in the car would not allow the motorcycles to pass.

Given the facts released to date, unless the motorcyclist had a weapon, I don't see why he needed to be shot to resolve the situation.

If I were his lawyer I'd say this elderly man was followed by two younger men, he pulled off the freeway and drove to a police station where he was confronted by them, and there was clearly a disparity of force between them and this 71 year-old man and his elderly wife. He felt that his life was in danger so he used his weapon in self-defense.

This case will probably be won and lost on his statements at the scene, but I doubt he had the sense to keep his mouth shut and assert his 5th amendment rights. I believe, however, that there is plenty of fault to go around and this could have been avoided to some degree because both sides antagonized and escalated the situation, even if that wasn't their intent.

[Dante]

As a longtime biker living in the metro area, I absolutely beg to differ that kicking someone's car isn't asking for trouble. I have been on both sides of the situation. It's awfully easy to miss someone on a bike, and I'm guilty of it even though I'm always very careful. I have been cut off and swerved at more times than I can count over the years, and I have never, ever kicked another person's vehicle, nor would I. What would the purpose of something like that be, other that to be an ass and potentially get yourself run over?

Maybe the permit holder pulled over to try to get insurance information so he could get the damage to his car fixed. It's what I would have done.

It's likely that the reason the biker was shot is there was a major disparity of force. The permit holder is 71, and was confronted by two pissed off men who were 29 and 30. Think about it. Fear of death or GBH? Check. Were they capable of infliction? Check. Did he attempt to flee? Well yeah, given the fact that he stopped at a police station. And although he may have been actively involved in the road rage incident, he may not have been involved in escalating it to the level of lethal force.

Just playing devil's advocate for the sake of debate.

I did it solely to let them know I was there as it was clear they had no idea I was. It was very much a reflex reaction. If I had a horn on that bike maybe I would have thought to use that instead but I doubt it.

All good points though and I am hoping more details come out as this plays out. Sucks for everyone involved.

[Motoman]

http://www.startribune.com/local/north/264602941.html

1 year in jail for the shooter.

[Mn01r6]

http://www.startribune.com/local/north/264602941.html

1 year in jail for the shooter.

"Kadlec, who had a permit to carry a gun at the time of the shooting, has been involved in five other road-rage incidents in the past six years, according to documents filed in this case."

This guy should never be allowed to touch a gun, knife, or slightly pointy stick ever again.

[Randygmn]

http://www.startribune.com/local/north/264602941.html

1 year in jail for the shooter.

Can't tell from the article, but to me it implies that the motorcyclists went to the police station and this guy followed them. Totally different scenario if that's the case.

[jshuberg]

"Kadlec, who had a permit to carry a gun at the time of the shooting, has been involved in five other road-rage incidents in the past six years, according to documents filed in this case."
This guy should never be allowed to touch a gun, knife, or slightly pointy stick ever again.

You'd think that after the 3rd, 4th or 5th road range incident that perhaps this guy should be prosecuted. This story is actually about how a criminal hot-head was released by our government back onto the streets. The fact he eventually escalated to using a firearm is tragic, but it was also predictable, and entirely preventable.

The anti's like to blame guns for this kind of thing. I blame a thoroughly incompetent government and judicial system for failing to properly deal with this guy when they had the chance to. They had an obligation 5 times to deal with this guy, and to protect the public and failed.

[Ironbear]

They had an obligation 5 times to deal with this guy, and to protect the public and failed.

It seems that it would depend on the nature of the road rage. Someone yelling and shouting out he window the car might be considered road rage but not necessarily criminal.

[jshuberg]

If the cops were involved 5 times for separate incidents, and a police report filed for each, I'll bet my next paycheck that at least one of them was more than simply yelling.

I've yelled at a$$hats that have swerved into my lane, flipped them the finger, etc. Everyone has. For the situation to devolve into a police report being filed, it has to have gone beyond simply being pissed off at idiot drivers.

[farmerj]

These two bikers weren't part of that crotch rocket gang that zips around the cities inciting trouble?

I've seen them cause three accidents so far in just the last year.

[gunsmith]

I'm afraid I would be a 'hard-liner' in a case like this NYC bike gang attack....sorry...judged by 12 vs carried by 6

[gunsmith]

You tube says this is the 15 mins before the biker crunch-down:

[20mm]

I've got my flame suit on for the big L Liberatarians who think there should never be restrictions on anything. To a certain extent I agree except for the fact that the Utopia of absolute freedom isn't reality and ain't going to happen anytime soon, so that dream world head in the sand approach doesn't work for me.

What libertarian believes there shouldn't be restrictions on anything? Did you get an anarchist and a libertarian confused somehow?

The Rule of Law. Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that “people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything.” Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.