Freeper Shoots Guy in Road Rage Incident (in MI)

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/04/farmington_hills_road_rage_sus.html (Farmington Hills road rage suspect: 'It's not like I wanted to shoot the guy')

Carl Mintz, the 27-year-old Farmington Hills man accused of shooting a fellow driver who approached his car during an altercation, on Tuesday pleaded not guilty to charges of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder and felony firearm.

Farmington Hills police say both men were traveling north on Orchard Lake Road on Monday afternoon when Mintz irked the 20-year-old driver behind him by tapping his brakes repeatedly. The victim approached Mintz's car, the two exchanged words and Mintz shot him in the arm.

The television station now reports Mintz is a regular YouTube commentator who has uploaded a number of hate-filled videos, typically targeting Islam.

"Islam is a cult. It is a threat. It is a threat to all Judeo-Christian nations," Mintz says in one of the videos (which you can see in the player above) as he sits in front of an American flag.

HIS HATE FILLED VIDEOS ALSO TARGET PRES. OBAMA

Weak little chickenshit.

Because if they don't, the second shot is mine.

Damn right.

speak out against this Teabag bullshit, hate speach, and gun carring bullshit, we're doomed.

want the nit wits to act on? It allows the R's to strut around and say "see the D's are to soft on crime", even though the R's are the ones stirring the crap up to get reactions out of their blind followers. The funny thing about the nit wits is when they get picked up for acting out like their wonderful R leaders tell them, when nit wits end up in court the wonderful R leaders are no where to be found.

because it would be political suicide to do so. They have painted themselves into a corner of kiss up to the fringe or go by the wayside.

Nixon and the R's did in 1968 with the anti war protesters. It was a well known fact that the R's put infiltrators in the anti war movement to stir up protesters to get a police reaction, then Nixon would say see the D's can't handle these trouble making anti war/anti government protesters, they are soft on crime even though the protesters did nothing illegal, back in 1968 it was legal to over throw the government, it was also legal to assemble and voice descent. That was taken out by Nixon and the republicons after Nixon won the election.

And finds out that it didn't quite go the way he'd fantasized in his mind many thousands of times before it actually happened.

He's a tea-partier. Freeper is too nebulous for public discourse, but attaching him to the Tea Party movement will do more to characterize their behavior.

behavior.

Sounds like both drivers were at fault, but this nut with a gun took it to another level.

And that would mean address the person who did it... I don't have a car, so I'm not sure about the etiquette.

it says the idiot with the gun tapped his brakes which "irked" the guy behind him (presumably because he had to slow down/brake in response). So that guy gets out of his car, confronts the idiot with a gun and gets shot.

While the shooting is completely unwarranted and the shooter obviously a hater, the guy who got of his car to confront him wasn't using the best judgment.

According to the story given, he initiated the incident by repeatedly "tapping" his brakes, that could add "aggravated" assault to the charges.

Then there is the fact he shot someone who was not, (as far as the story goes), a "grave" threat to either him or his property; (no mention that the victim of the shooting had a weapon or physically threatened him).

Just because an individual has a registered firearm and a concealed weapons permit does not give him/her a "license" to use the forearm against someone. Generally speaking, just showing a firearm to someone in this situation should have diffused the situation immediately. There is also the fact that Mintz, could have, if feeling compelled to fire a round, could have fired said round w/o striking the individual. There was, from the story in the link give, a "compelling" reason for shooting the 20 yo in the arm. The only thing Mintz has, is his statement that..."(He) got out of the car, and he scared me." Fear is subjective, but if Mintz was easily scared, why would he deliberately aggravate the individual driving behind him?

Since bail is at $50,000 I am thinking the DA is looking at felony charges here, and if convicted, Mintz will lose his "right" to carry, purchase, own or come in contact with firearms, or be in the immediate area where firearms are known to be.

Bottom line, this moran decided to piss someone off, then, when confronted shot and wounded an apparently unarmed individual. All this, because he could not control himself, he was looking for trouble, and an excuse to shoot someone. Hope he rots in prison for a long time.

...and, well, see below text for details.



There's more on his profile, but here's another snippet:




http://www.youtube.com/user/judeochristianunity

I hope the victim heals quickly. Poor guy.