[UPDATED] Seeking perspective on a situation my neighbor is going through...

[brashears9567]

I wouldn't have drawn on the guy, but you say the aggressor was only ten feet away. A person can cover ten feet in a second and a half. A lawyer can point this out and probably get it dropped. This is a tough one. Low ready would have been a better choice, if he was going to pull on the guy, but I'd have left it holstered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ingramite]

My advice?

Good fences make good neighbors.

I'd reel my nose back in, outta their business.

Or, do you want to keep your stick in the paint to churn this mess?

On a shit case like this it's always "their side" and "our side" with the truth somewhere in the middle.

The 5 oh roll in and hear both sides and since they didn't see it go down...somebody goes to jail. That way their covered. Let the judge sort it out.

The burden of bad advice are not the boots you want to be left standing in. I understand that you're friends and want to help but it's too late.

 

[madwildcat]

"I was afraid for my life."

In my mind, this is the key part. If he feared for his life or the life of his wife, mother, father, it seems like it would be justified. I don't think the dispatcher and cops would have agreed otherwise, unless they were trying to getting him to stand down the gun, but it sounds like that was already done. I would think an attorney should be able to win that case.

10 feet is close enough to stop someone from drawing and firing if they don't already have their gun out at the ready. Many martial arts train in this range. We are talking about a 21 year old new pistol carrier, not Jerry Miculek.

I do agree with the earlier statements about cornering the other driver. That seems like a big no-no. Get the info on the other car and let the insurance company deal with it. The recording of her driving away would be enough to prove she fled.

 

[General Zod]

Whether or not he was right to chase her down and get her to stay put, isn't the point.

Except, it's the factor that messes up the entire situation and brings self defense into doubt. When he gave chase, he created a situation where he was the instigator - that puts him in a difficult spot proving self defense later with the husband's belligerence. If that had happened at the scene he'd probably be free and clear, but since he chased her down...not so much.

I don't think he's in the wrong, but where the law is concerned he put himself in a situation he shouldn't have.

 

[etmo]

Whether or not he was right to chase her down and get her to stay put, isn't the point.

You're wrong. This is why everyone needs a good lawyer. It is the point, and if you truly want to "gain understanding and perspective" you need to understand it. Todd hinted at it above. You just don't know enough about the law to understand why it is the point. Keeping in mind none of this is legal advice, here we go:

Self defense, under the law, only exists under certain presumptions, and the primary presumption is that the person who wants to defend themselves is in the "right". For example, a stupid, made-up scenario:

Step 1: you start shooting at some innocent person for no reason
Step 2: innocent person shoots at you
Step 3: you shoot at innocent person again

Question: Since you got shot at in Step 2, are you defending yourself in Step 3, according to the law?
Answer: NO, you're a criminal in a gunfight, nothing more.

So chasing her is already looking bad, because actually chasing her could put her in fear for her life. Maybe you are kidnappers. But then you "somehow" get her to stop and stay put? OK, that's your side of the story. The prosecution could say you used fear of force to get her to stop and she only complied because you were terrorizing her. That's arguably aggravated kidnapping in the state of Texas (yes, I know this isn't "you", it's someone named "Carlos", but it's easier to say "you", so substitute as needed).

So "you" could be charged with aggravated kidnapping. You don't want to know how much your life will suck if you're convicted of that.

You are (the prosecution could argue) kidnapping this person, and this person's relatives arrive, and attempt to free this person from her kidnapper(s). The relatives are acting under a presumption of self-defense (defense of self and others). YOU are not. You then pull a gun on them, well, that's just one more crime that you could be charged with.

Now your side will say that this was just a big misunderstanding, she was fleeing the scene, Carlos was defending himself, the Dad actually chased her, blah blah blah. Maybe your side will win, if your lawyers are really good.

Different perspectives make the "same" story sound like different stories. You don't know which story the jury will believe, so instead of pretending you get to decide what's "the point" and what isn't, get the best lawyer you can possibly afford, do what they tell you to do, and start praying.

If the DA charged Carlos with a crime, then self defense is going to be a hard thing to prove, because, as I mentioned above, they're saying you weren't in the "right", you were committing a crime. Your lawyer is your only hope here. I don't see where you mention what the exact crime was.

Plea deals are totally dependent on the circumstances, and 4th-hand description from a biased party is not the right place to get a truthful list of circumstances, no offense intended. If the DA has a sympathetic victim, witnesses, and/or Carlos made stupid statements on key matters, then the DA is going to laugh at plea deals, and Carlos is getting flushed down the toilet. This is why you get a lawyer before you wipe your nose, then shut your mouth -- Carlos may have totally screwed himself already. Maybe the DA is an anti-gun zealot, hoping to run for office in a leftist city, in which case Carlos is going to go through the ringer, and spend every penny he has defending himself for years. Maybe the DA will drop all the charges because he sees Carlos as you do -- a nice, earnest, young man.
Probably it'll end up somewhere in between -- time will tell.

But if you're interested only in what advice to give Carlos, tell him that because he's this impulsive, he shouldn't carry a gun until he learns to think. He needs to learn to think about the big picture with a cool head in moments of stress above all else, because sometimes, the other guy is a hot-head (as apparently was the case here), and you need to be calm enough for both sides. If Carlos is as good a person as you say, hopefully this will just scare him into realizing he has to work these things.

 

[kenboyles72]

Whether or not he was right to chase her down and get her to stay put, isn't the point.

This is the point that will get him prosecuted. Once he took chase, he stopped being the victim and became the aggressor, no matter what the intentions were. Second, chasing a hit and run driver in Texas is against the law and can result in a felony on certain situations. So now you have a criminal act of chasing down a hit and run, plus an aggravated assault with a firearm. The aggravated assault charge could have been thrown out on it's own, but since he gave pursuit, this stopped being a self defense case.

 

[candcallen]

Defensive display and aggravated assault are 2 very different things separated by a razor thin line, as seen here. Ofcourse I wasnt there but the facts as stated in total I'm not sure there was an imminent physical force threat to justify defensive display here but the verbal threats and stepping up would make that so close it would not be charged.

While defensive display may have been let slide here, the pointing of the weapon is the crime. Ofcourse issues like disparity in force could mitigate that, say if the kid was alone and out numbers or disabled etc, that doesnt sound like the case here. The kid and his dad versus one guy with no weapon shown. Ofcourse if the incident progressed with blows to the head the justification changes with the facts.

Aggravated assault is a typical and appropriate charge here. Is it the right charge? The final adjudication? No IMHO.

I think he will end up getting off or with a disorderly conduct deal but needs a good lawyer. Of course he could very well get the full ride felony conviction if he doesn't play cards right.


NOW HAVING FULFILLED THE REQUEST TO LIMIT DISCUSSION TO THE NARROW QUESTION FROM THE OP ....

When you carry you gotta avoid conflict. Getting identifiers like a license plate would be as far as I would go. Even then....thats what insurance is for.

Walking away from conflict IS THE ABSOLUTELY MOST DIFFICULT THING TO DO. Especially for young males and especially when your right. It always makes you FEEL like a coward and comes with adrenaline dumping into you body and makes you have to deal with all the fight or flight emotions on top of it.

Conflict avoidance isnt weakness or cowardice.

Hindsight is perfect vision ofcourse but obviously calling the police and saying the ladies husband showed up is threatening us and here are her licens plate info and we are going across the street to wait on the police so you you have t HF em hurry up before he escalates this situation would have been the best course of action.

From simple incidents to things like this to even physical altercations try your best to avoid your actions being that trigger that takes away your options and justification.

IMHO even defensive display is on shakey ground here. I hope what sounds like a good kid is allowed to learn from this incident and have a life altering felony conviction.

 

[JColumbus]

This is the point that will get him prosecuted. Once he took chase, he stopped being the victim and became the aggressor, no matter what the intentions were. Second, chasing a hit and run driver in Texas is against the law and can result in a felony on certain situations. So now you have a criminal act of chasing down a hit and run, plus an aggravated assault with a firearm. The aggravated assault charge could have been thrown out on it's own, but since he gave pursuit, this stopped being a self defense case.

No, it's not the point of the thread. I'm asking for perspective on the gun part. I'm not concerned with him chasing her down.

 

[JColumbus]

Defensive display and aggravated assault are 2 very different things separated by a razor thin line, as seen here. Ofcourse I wasnt there but the facts as stated in total I'm not sure there was an imminent physical force threat to justify defensive display here but the verbal threats and stepping up would make that so close it would not be charged.

While defensive display may have been let slide here, the pointing of the weapon is the crime. Ofcourse issues like disparity in force could mitigate that, say if the kid was alone and out numbers or disabled etc, that doesnt sound like the case here. The kid and his dad versus one guy with no weapon shown. Ofcourse if the incident progressed with blows to the head the justification changes with the facts.

Aggravated assault is a typical and appropriate charge here. Is it the right charge? The final adjudication? No IMHO.

I think he will end up getting off or with a disorderly conduct deal but needs a good lawyer. Of course he could very well get the full ride felony conviction if he doesn't play cards right.


NOW HAVING FULFILLED THE REQUEST TO LIMIT DISCUSSION TO THE NARROW QUESTION FROM THE OP ....

When you carry you gotta avoid conflict. Getting identifiers like a license plate would be as far as I would go. Even then....thats what insurance is for.

Walking away from conflict IS THE ABSOLUTELY MOST DIFFICULT THING TO DO. Especially for young males and especially when your right. It always makes you FEEL like a coward and comes with adrenaline dumping into you body and makes you have to deal with all the fight or flight emotions on top of it.

Conflict avoidance isnt weakness or cowardice.

Hindsight is perfect vision ofcourse but obviously calling the police and saying the ladies husband showed up is threatening us and here are her licens plate info and we are going across the street to wait on the police so you you have t HF em hurry up before he escalates this situation would have been the best course of action.

From simple incidents to things like this to even physical altercations try your best to avoid your actions being that trigger that takes away your options and justification.

IMHO even defensive display is on shakey ground here. I hope what sounds like a good kid is allowed to learn from this incident and have a life altering felony conviction.

Very well put and thank you for the time to write that. I agree that pointing the weapon AT him was the thing that got him in trouble. Growing up in martial arts, you learn to avoid situations like this and I got real good at that. Hell I've had people tell me they've Fed my mother, she's a whore, all that nonsense and it doesn't get me riled up. Instead, I tend to feel pity for them having such childish behavior.

I hope he gets plead down to something that allows him to learn from it and keep his rights. If you met him, you'd think he was in his 30's cause he's so beyond his years in responsibility and attitude. Knowing him, I'm sure he dealt with the crap talk for a long time and just finally lost his patience when the husband physically got rowdy.

One thing I forgot to add, he did say he was ashamed of himself. Whether or not he should feel shame is one thing, but the fact that he is able to reflect on it and say that, it's something kids his age probably have no concept of. Especially these days. Really sucks, and I feel for him.



As for the lawyer, 6k doesn't seem enough to get a real good one. He saw the judge and according to his wife, the things the judge said to him were based on his own presumptions of what happened. According to her, the judge turned it into a "dark skinned rambunctious kid VS a white service member". Guy was in the army and Carlos is obviously Mexican and he is pretty dark. I hope she was exaggerating but if that's the case... YIKES.

Carlos is the type of guy who wears shorts above the knees, fitted T shirts and is either always working, or is outside working on his car. With his facial hair, the way he speaks, and his temperament, you'd think HE was the one in the army and would probably assume he was in his 30's. I'm real proud of the kid. He doesn't deserve what's happening to him. Sure, cause and effect and all that, but as you said, he should be allowed to learn from this and get back to life as it was, before this.

 

[Axxe55]

This is the point that will get him prosecuted. Once he took chase, he stopped being the victim and became the aggressor, no matter what the intentions were. Second, chasing a hit and run driver in Texas is against the law and can result in a felony on certain situations. So now you have a criminal act of chasing down a hit and run, plus an aggravated assault with a firearm. The aggravated assault charge could have been thrown out on it's own, but since he gave pursuit, this stopped being a self defense case.

No, it's not the point of the thread. I'm asking for perspective on the gun part. I'm not concerned with him chasing her down.

It may not be the point of the thread, but @kenboyles72 is looking at it and explaining how LE and and DA are going to look at the chasing her down.

One point of the thread doesn't mitigate the other point in the eyes of the law.Right or wrong don't factor in. Legal and illegal are what LE and DA's are going to look at. Once he gave chase, regardless of the reasons, he moved from a point of self-defense to that of the agressor as far as the law is concerned. He went from Point "A" to Point "B", and at Point "B" regardless of whatever threats were thrown out by her husband become irrelevant.

 

[Axxe55]

Very well put and thank you for the time to write that. I agree that pointing the weapon AT him was the thing that got him in trouble. Growing up in martial arts, you learn to avoid situations like this and I got real good at that. Hell I've had people tell me they've Fed my mother, she's a whore, all that nonsense and it doesn't get me riled up. Instead, I tend to feel pity for them having such childish behavior.

I hope he gets plead down to something that allows him to learn from it and keep his rights. If you met him, you'd think he was in his 30's cause he's so beyond his years in responsibility and attitude. Knowing him, I'm sure he dealt with the crap talk for a long time and just finally lost his patience when the husband physically got rowdy.

One thing I forgot to add, he did say he was ashamed of himself. Whether or not he should feel shame is one thing, but the fact that he is able to reflect on it and say that, it's something kids his age probably have no concept of. Especially these days. Really sucks, and I feel for him.



As for the lawyer, 6k doesn't seem enough to get a real good one. He saw the judge and according to his wife, the things the judge said to him were based on his own presumptions of what happened. According to her, the judge turned it into a "dark skinned rambunctious kid VS a white service member". Guy was in the army and Carlos is obviously Mexican and he is pretty dark. I hope she was exaggerating but if that's the case... YIKES.

Carlos is the type of guy who wears shorts above the knees, fitted T shirts and is either always working, or is outside working on his car. With his facial hair, the way he speaks, and his temperament, you'd think HE was the one in the army and would probably assume he was in his 30's. I'm real proud of the kid. He doesn't deserve what's happening to him. Sure, cause and effect and all that, but as you said, he should be allowed to learn from this and get back to life as it was, before this.

I sympathize with his situation, and hope all works out well for him.

 

[rotor]

This is a very good video on picking a lawyer


In my opinion you don't need to get a killer punch to the head before pulling your gun and even aiming it at the offender. People also ask if you can shoot someone with a Molotov cocktail before they throw it at you. "I feared for my life."

 

[V-Tach]

This is one of those threads where I type, delete, type, delete........

 

[toddnjoyce]

…(S)ome lady hit his car and tried to take off. He was with his dad and they chased her down and somehow got her to stop and stay put until the cops came.

Leaving the scene when there is no injury or death is a Class B misdemeanor. This is important because Carlos The Neighbor is not a peace officer. Let's see whether or not Carlos The Neighbor can effect arrest by preventing another person from leaving the scene of an accident. That takes us to the Code of Criminal Procedure which states

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.​

No, leaving the scene isn't an offense against the public peace and because no felony was witnessed, Carlos The Neighbor cannot detain or prevent another person from leaving the scene. Strike one for Carlos The Neighbor.

Let's continue thru TPC 9 to see where Carlos The Neighbor is justified in using force. TPC 9 treats the threat of using force/deadly force the same as using force/deadly force.

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter.​

​

Moving on, we find that

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:​

...​

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:​

...​

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:​

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and​

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;​

So, because Carlos The Neighbor was attempting an unlawful use of force by unlawfully detaining another person, his threat (by display) of use of force or use of deadly force is not justified.

On the other hand, the state only has to prove Carlos The Neighbor

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:​

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;​

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or​

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.​

​

And​

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:​

(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or​

(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.​

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if:​

(1) the actor uses a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault and causes serious bodily injury to a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code;​

​

If the prosecution wins, Carlos The Neighbor can be fined up to $10,000 and face 2 - 20 years in prison. If I was Carlos The Neighbor and my lawyer could plea down to Disorderly Conduct without the deadly weapon enhancement, I'd take that in a heartbeat.

​

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Damn.

 

[Axxe55]

Leaving the scene when there is no injury or death is a Class B misdemeanor. This is important because Carlos The Neighbor is not a peace officer. Let's see whether or not Carlos The Neighbor can effect arrest by preventing another person from leaving the scene of an accident. That takes us to the Code of Criminal Procedure which states

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.​

No, leaving the scene isn't an offense against the public peace and because no felony was witnessed, Carlos The Neighbor cannot detain or prevent another person from leaving the scene. Strike one for Carlos The Neighbor.

Let's continue thru TPC 9 to see where Carlos The Neighbor is justified in using force. TPC 9 treats the threat of using force/deadly force the same as using force/deadly force.

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter.​

​

Moving on, we find that

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:​

...​

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:​

...​

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:​

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and​

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;​

So, because Carlos The Neighbor was attempting an unlawful use of force by unlawfully detaining another person, his threat (by display) of use of force or use of deadly force is not justified.

On the other hand, the state only has to prove Carlos The Neighbor

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:​

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;​

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or​

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.​

​

And​

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:​

(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or​

(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.​

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if:​

(1) the actor uses a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault and causes serious bodily injury to a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code;​

​

If the prosecution wins, Carlos The Neighbor can be fined up to $10,000 and face 2 - 20 years in prison. If I was Carlos The Neighbor and my lawyer could plea down to Disorderly Conduct without the deadly weapon enhancement, I'd take that in a heartbeat.

​

And if Carlos the Neighbor is squeaky clean, it's possible he could end up with probation rather than jail or prison time.

 

[JColumbus]

Leaving the scene when there is no injury or death is a Class B misdemeanor. This is important because Carlos The Neighbor is not a peace officer. Let's see whether or not Carlos The Neighbor can effect arrest by preventing another person from leaving the scene of an accident. That takes us to the Code of Criminal Procedure which states

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.​

No, leaving the scene isn't an offense against the public peace and because no felony was witnessed, Carlos The Neighbor cannot detain or prevent another person from leaving the scene. Strike one for Carlos The Neighbor.

Let's continue thru TPC 9 to see where Carlos The Neighbor is justified in using force. TPC 9 treats the threat of using force/deadly force the same as using force/deadly force.

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter.​

​

Moving on, we find that

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:​

...​

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:​

...​

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:​

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and​

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;​

So, because Carlos The Neighbor was attempting an unlawful use of force by unlawfully detaining another person, his threat (by display) of use of force or use of deadly force is not justified.

On the other hand, the state only has to prove Carlos The Neighbor

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:​

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;​

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or​

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.​

​

And​

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:​

(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or​

(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.​

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if:​

(1) the actor uses a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault and causes serious bodily injury to a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code;​

​

If the prosecution wins, Carlos The Neighbor can be fined up to $10,000 and face 2 - 20 years in prison. If I was Carlos The Neighbor and my lawyer could plea down to Disorderly Conduct without the deadly weapon enhancement, I'd take that in a heartbeat.

​

Holy damn. If it goes this way, looks like he's in for the ride of his life. I guess he can only pray for leniency. Apparently there was no proof, or footage of any of this. I suppose that can either help, or damn him. Considering the only thing anyone actually admitted to, was that he pulled a gun on someone, looks like the gavel might come down against him. SHIT. I'm getting USCCA!

 

[kenboyles72]

You can't simply separate the two actions, they are as one and treated as such in this case, that is why I wrote what I did, as well as @Axxe55 and @toddnjoyce have stated, although they explained it in more detail.

 

[AZ Refugee]

Read this early this morning and have been thinking about it based on the information presented. Sounds like something that got blown out of proportion and hopefully will not ruin the kids life. That said, imagine it from the other side. Your wife/girlfriend/daughter calls you and said to guys chased her down and are accusing her of hit and run and holding her until the police arrive, and she is minutes away from you. Would you go to her rescue? What would you do once you arrived? Holding someone until the police arrive is a tricky one as previously stated, especially over a fender bender. I would most likely have been the one in trouble not the kid in this scenario if it were my family member. Luckily it ended without violence or it would really up the stakes .For clarity I am curious to know to what extent was the damage to his vehicle? Did the damage occur on a public street or a private parking lot?

 

[karlac]

SHIT. I'm getting USCCA!

Along with doing readily available online research on -what to do-, that, or something similar would be a smart move if you carry and have any assets.