Possible road rage ends in fatal shooting

The Houston Chronicle ^ | September 17, 2012 | Mike Glenn

[Uncle Chip]

A woman on her way to work fatally shot another motorist she said attacked her after a minor collision in northwest Harris County, officials said.

Crystal Scott, 23, pulled into a Shell station on Perry near west FM 1960 about 7:20 a.m. Monday with the intention of exchanging insurance information with the other driver, officials said.

[Gay State Conservative]

I don't know about anyone else but to me the testimony of a friend or relative of an accused *or* a victim in a case like this means nothing...even if the relative or friend in question is an eyewitness.I want testimony from people who have nothing to gain from lying,imagining or wishful thinking.I want videos...I want DNA...I want ballistics testing...I want cellphone records,etc,etc,etc.

Case in point...a few years ago there was a big murder case in Boston,a bigshot Harvard doctor accused of murdering his wife.During the trial a Boston TV station caught their three kids,two of whom were physicians themselves,leaving the court for the day.The reporter asked how they thought the trial was going."Very well,indeed" they answered in unison."The defense has made many,many excellent points".The reporter then said "but the prosecution has presented many powerful bits of evidence...your mother's DNA having been found where it shouldn't have been found,you father's DNA having been found where *it* shouldn't have been found..." (he badly cut his hand while stabbing her).Their response to that? In unison..."well,those were obviously lab errors".

I don't care what the family of friends of *either* person involved says here...or in any other similar case.

[Uncle Chip]

<>I want testimony from people who have nothing to gain from lying,imagining or wishful thinking.I want videos...I want DNA...I want ballistics testing...I want cellphone records,etc,etc,etc.<>

You bet but thus far we have this statement from the commenter which does seem to be borne out by the evidence thus far that the writers of these articles seem to miss:

First, the window of the car shows one bullet hole angled in such a way that it could not have hit him at all, much less in the chest. Picture here:

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/black-woman-stands-her-ground-kills-white-man/

Second, he had two bullet holes in his chest per the Houston Chronicle article.

Those are two forensic witnesses that aren’t lying and aren’t family and aren’t mistaking and aren’t going to
be changing their stories.

Per these two forensic witnesses, she must have fired once from within the car and twice outside. That is not self-defense.

[Persevero]

“Zimmerman could have retreated.”

Zimmerman had a man sitting on his chest, banging his head repeatedly into the concrete.

Not the same at all.

I don’t know whether this woman is innocent or guilty, but her situation was not Zimmerman’s.

[Delhi Rebels]

It’s the difference between being pinned down with yiur head being bashed inot the concrete on the one hand, and being in a locked car with ample means of safe escape on the other.

Under the 'stand your ground' provisions of the Texas law she was under no obligation to try and flee. It was her car, she believed he was trying to unlawfully enter it, she had the right to protect herself with whatever means she felt was necessary.

Zimmerman appears to have been within the law, and this woman appears not to have been, on the basis of what is known and the law.

Wrong. Read the Texas law. It clearly states that the use of deadly force "...is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment..." If he walked up to her car and tried to open the door without her consent, as she claims, then she was justified to use whatever means she thought necessary to stop him. Like it, don't like it, it doesn't matter. The law is the law, and the law appears to be in her favor in this case.

By the way, it seems to have been confirmed that the dead man had two bullets in his chest. That does not appear to be very supportive of the woman’s claim.

In what way? She said she shot him.

[Delhi Rebels]

Baloney.

Yeah it appears that you are clinging to nothing but baloney. So be it. Arguing the law with you doesn't get anywhere. Arguing the facts doesn't get anywhere. Your mind is completely closed and nothing is going to change your position. I suppose there is nothing left to do but let you rant and rage while, as I truly hope and expect, Ms.Scott is not charged with a crime, since no crime was committed.

[Scoutmaster]

Ms.Scott is not charged with a crime, since no crime was committed.

Houston police have said that, due to all of the grey areas surrounding the shooting, they are leaving it up to a grand jury to determine whether Ms. Scott will be charged.

[Uncle Chip]

It clearly states that the use of deadly force "...is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment..."

Was he still attempting to enter the vehicle after the first shot when she subsequently exited the vehicle, went after him, and then shot him twice in the chest???

[Red in Blue PA]

For one to be justifiably in fear for their life, some type of action must be taken against them. He had no weapon.....so Was she even touched by the guy? I cannot see where she was.

Sounds like murder to me.

[Red in Blue PA]

GZ had a guy sitting on his chest pounding his head into the pavement and then reaching for his gun openly saying that GZ would die that night.

If you believe that case is similar to this case you need your head examined. Seriously.

[Scoutmaster]

Was he still attempting to enter the vehicle after the first shot when she subsequently exited the vehicle, went after him, and then shot him twice in the chest???

Please note, Delhi Rebels, that there are no news reports or reported eyewitness statements of the shooter exiting the vehicle or firing three shots.

That may have happened. The public doesn't know.

Only Uncle Chip 'knows.'

[Uncle Chip]

According to his co-worker he was armed with just his drivers license and insurance card.

[Uncle Chip]

Only Uncle Chip 'knows.'

And the forensic evidence available thus far and whoever wants to pay attention to it.

[Delhi Rebels]

If you believe that case is similar to this case you need your head examined. Seriously.

Why? The similarities are obvious to anyone. Zimmerman had called 911 to report Martin, Scott had called 911 to report Ables. Zimmerman says he was attacked by Martin. Scott says she beleived she was about to be attacked by Ables. Zimmerman feared for his safety. Scott feared for her safety. Both were legally carrying firearms. Both used their firearms within the guidelines of the laws of their state. Neither one should be prosecuted for doing what law says they were legally entitled to do.

[Delhi Rebels]

I’m sorry your friend was killed. But your argument is with the laws of Texas and not with Ms. Scott. She did what she was legally allowed to do. Don’t like it? Change the law.

[Scoutmaster]

Scott had called 911 to report Ables

One report says she called 911 to report Ables' aggressive behavior before the shooting. Another report says she placed the 911 call after the shooting.

As I've said - shouldn't we all wait until the facts shake out?

[Scoutmaster]

According to his co-worker he was armed with just his drivers license and insurance card.

*Laughing*

What's your source for the co-worker saying he had his drivers' license? His drivers' license was suspended, remember?

I think you're misstating the co-worker's statement that he was going to exchange insurance information.

[Uncle Chip]

<>What’s your source for the co-worker saying he had his drivers’license? His drivers’ license was suspended, remember?<>

You are leaping to conclusions. What you posted regarding him is unclear. It does not say that his license was suspended at the time of the incident. Read it again and show me where it does. It looks like he paid a fine [bond] and was perhaps on probation — but it is unclear regarding what is meant by “dismissed” and “disposed”.

<>I think you’re misstating the co-worker’s statement that he was going to exchange insurance information.<>

“Witness 1; Co-Worker: States Jonathan just going to exchange insurance information”

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/black-woman-stands-her-ground-kills-white-man/

Just shaking out the facts —

[Uncle Chip]

She did what she was legally allowed to do.

We'll see what the Grand Jury says.

[Uncle Chip]

One report says she called 911 to report Ables' aggressive behavior before the shooting. Another report says she placed the 911 call after the shooting.

Oh that's precious if she made that 911 call to report his aggressive behaviour after she shot him.

[Scoutmaster]

*sigh*

You just confirmed what I said; the co-worker only said 'insurance information,' and didn't mention a drivers' license.

Here's the relevant section of Ables' record, again:

"Disposal" means that a legal case is finished, either by 'adjudication' (a legal ruling) or 'dismissal' (completion of the case short of adjudication, such as dismissal by a judge for lack of evidence or . . . the defendant dies). So a disposal includes dismissals. The latest date of action on this license suspension - which is described as both a disposal and a dismissal - is 9/19/12, or two days after the death of Ables.

The type of disposal was a dismissal, on 9/19/12.

What could have caused Ables' suspended license action to be dismissed two days after his death? Perhaps . . . his death? Where do you see a fine? Or bond? Or probation?