Paul Lathrop: Dealing with the surprising legal aftermath of a confrontation

Discussion in 'In the News' started by tmoore912, Aug 24, 2016.

  1. tmoore912

    tmoore912 Just a Man


    Listen to his experience throughout this whole ordeal and the amount of support he got on a podcast:
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016

  2. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    good result.
    If the other trucker really behaved the way Paul Lathrop and his student / trainee driver described, it may have been permissible to inform the angry trucker that if he assaults these people in that truck, he may face deadly force in defense of said habitation.

    If, on the other hand, the other driver was not threatening and just angrily communicating his displeasure with the student's driving skills, and if this trucker only climbed up on the running board of the truck to make himself heard and seen to the occupants (Paul and his student), rather than trying to enter the vehicle, then Paul should not have made any reference to his weapon at all.

    Big trucks sit up high. The driver and passenger sit with their butts higher above ground than the head of a man standing on the street next to the truck.
    If you want to effectively communicate with somebody inside a heavy tractor-trailer truck cab, you may have to step up onto the steps or latter to get your face up to window height.
    Not only so that you can see them, but so what you can hear them, and they can hear you, over the sound of that diesel engine.

    It's not reasonable to assume that anybody climbing onto the side of your big truck is trying to assault you. There has to be more. I wonder what was the "more" in this case. The other driver's angry voice and tone? Probably that, yes. What about the content of his communication? Did the other trucker make any threats?
  3. Scout706

    Scout706 Well-Known Member

    Is there a TLDR link somewhere?