Driver charged with attempted murder in road rage shooting

[Frantic84]

Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) -- A 32-year-old Las Vegas man faces attempted murder charges after a raod rage incident led to a shooting on Tuesday.

Police say Scoot Eakens was driving a Jeep at Sunset and Easter when he was struck by a black pickup truck.

The teen driver of the pickup truck fled the scene and entered the parking lot of a business on McLeod near Sunset.

Police say Eakens pulled his Jeep in to block the pickup truck, but the teen driving the pickup truck backed up aggressively into the side of the Jeep.

Eakens then allegedly fired multiple rounds from a handgun, hitting the 17-year-old in the head.

Medics rushed the teen to Sunrise Hospital. He is expected to recover from his injuries.

Eakens remained on scene. He was arrested and booked at the Clark County Detention Center on one count of attempted murder.
ref - http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/162967366.html

 

[wrightme]

Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) -- A 32-year-old Las Vegas man faces attempted murder charges after a raod rage incident led to a shooting on Tuesday.

Police say Scoot Eakens was driving a Jeep at Sunset and Easter when he was struck by a black pickup truck.

The teen driver of the pickup truck fled the scene and entered the parking lot of a business on McLeod near Sunset.

Police say Eakens pulled his Jeep in to block the pickup truck, but the teen driving the pickup truck backed up aggressively into the side of the Jeep.

Eakens then allegedly fired multiple rounds from a handgun, hitting the 17-year-old in the head.

Medics rushed the teen to Sunrise Hospital. He is expected to recover from his injuries.

Eakens remained on scene. He was arrested and booked at the Clark County Detention Center on one count of attempted murder.
ref - http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/162967366.html

I highlighted the part that is most relevant.

 

[MAC702]

...the teen driving the pickup truck backed up aggressively into the side of the Jeep.

Eakens then allegedly fired multiple rounds from a handgun...

This is the part that tells me I don't have enough information to form an opinion.

 

[vegaspassat]

This is the part that tells me I don't have enough information to form an opinion.

agreed. it seems like there is something that is not being said.

 

[Merlin]

I don't think that the Jeep trying to block the truck was necessarily a problem. If he was the victim of a hit and attempted-run, trying to effect a detention by blocking the offender from leaving is reasonable.

A few years back I was on the exit ramp at Decatur & 95, when the person in front of me apparently didn't know how to work the clutch, and they rolled back into me. I saw them trying to restart the vehicle and put it in gear, so I jumped out and went to their vehicle, reached in and snatched the keys out of the ignition. Turned out, they had no insurance, didn't speak a word of english, and had a baby in no car seat. They also tried to switch drivers, because the driver had no license.

By the time metro had arrive (2 hours later , yes, really), they had managed to call friends/family, who came and picked up tehe baby, managed to secure them insurance coverage for the vehicle, etc. No $hit. They were charged with nothing, and I was left to deal with my insurance company. Thankfully only minor damage.

That is like the definition of a miscarriage of justice.

Anyway, I don't think blocking the truck in necessarily puts the shooter in a bad position. Agreed though, I think there are details missing. Not enough info to really form an opinion either way.

 

[ed2276]

I don't think that the Jeep trying to block the truck was necessarily a problem. If he was the victim of a hit and attempted-run, trying to effect a detention by blocking the offender from leaving is reasonable.

A few years back I was on the exit ramp at Decatur & 95, when the person in front of me apparently didn't know how to work the clutch, and they rolled back into me. I saw them trying to restart the vehicle and put it in gear, so I jumped out and went to their vehicle, reached in and snatched the keys out of the ignition. Turned out, they had no insurance, didn't speak a word of english, and had a baby in no car seat. They also tried to switch drivers, because the driver had no license.

By the time metro had arrive (2 hours later , yes, really), they had managed to call friends/family, who came and picked up tehe baby, managed to secure them insurance coverage for the vehicle, etc. No $hit. They were charged with nothing, and I was left to deal with my insurance company. Thankfully only minor damage.

That is like the definition of a miscarriage of justice.

Anyway, I don't think blocking the truck in necessarily puts the shooter in a bad position. Agreed though, I think there are details missing. Not enough info to really form an opinion either way.

I think this will turn on the "reasonable person" standard. The question being, were the jeep driver's actions (pursuing the other vehicle, blocking him in, and shooting at the other driver for damaging his jeep) reasonable and prudent?

One is not justified in using deadly force against another for a misdemeanor crime. Hit and run, where only property damage results, is a misdemeanor. Intentionally driving his vehicle into the Jeep in an effort to escape, where only property damage to the Jeep occurs, is a misdemeanor. Unless the Jeep driver can show that the guy was trying to run him over, a felony, the Jeep driver would not be justified in using deadly force.

It will be up to a jury to decide if the Jeep driver's actions were reasonable and justifiable under law. If they decide that a reasonable and prudent person in the same circumstance would not chase the other vehicle through city streets, but would call the police and give them information about the other vehicle so that the police could apprehend the violator, the dude is toast.

The jury could also decide that his actions were reasonable and justifiable under the law up to the point where he used a deadly weapon against the other driver for a misdemeanor property crime, but his use of deadly force was not reasonable or justifiable; in which case the Jeep dude is toast, again.

The Jeep dude has to show that he was in actual personal danger of serious bodily injury or death at the time he used the deadly force, or he's done.

 

[Merlin]

Unless the Jeep driver can show that the guy was trying to run him over, a felony, the Jeep driver would not be justified in using deadly force.

Yeah, I was trying to keep an open (albeit skeptical) mind that this was a possibility. I'll say that, from what I have seen so far, it doesn't look good for Mr. Jeep.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[Maine Expat]

Based on the provided info that was a terrible decision to draw and fire. I too, tend to think there is more to this story than we've been told so far.

Certainly, a "reasonable person" would never resort to shooting in a situation like this.

 

[greengum]

Just some random thoughts on the subject. First off I do not think we have enough information here to really consider if this was justifiable or not. I get that everybody gets upset and riled up from time to time especially when driving when you know someone has wronged you. A couple weeks ago I saw a hit and run and talked to some friends about what they would do. When I saw the hit and run the guy who got hit chased after the other guy, which I would do for just as long as I needed to get a plate number. I understand that it can be nettlesome that your car got dinged up but I believe there are too many variables involved to be chasing a guy down and blocking him in somewhere. The car is just an object which is insured! Now this guy has to live with the fact he shot somebody over a f^$king deductible? That is why I believe if you are pugnacious by character or choleric that you should not be armed (note that I am not calling for a government agency to determine this). Let us take the firearm away for a moment and consider what this guy would do. Would he still engage the youngsters in the same manner? What if he had a 6 month old baby in the car, would he still chase down somebody and block them in? Would you?

Personally the last thing I would want to do is kill somebody. The first thing is live another day and make sure my family and loved ones are safe. This mans actions are just asking for trouble. What i find curious is the fact the accident was reported to have happened on Sunset and Eastern. Mcleod st. is very close to Sunset which leaves me to ask, what if the truck was just pulling in to get off the road to exchange information. The reported fact that he blocked him in seems very aggressive if all that it entailed was a minor traffic accident. I think the shooter put himself in a position that upped the ante on the situation.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

... I jumped out and went to their vehicle, reached in and snatched the keys out of the ignition.

Very badass. This type of aggression might get you shot though.

 

[Merlin]

Very badass. This type of aggression might get you shot though.

Yep, I was acutely aware. Once I saw through the window....well, just trust me that I was in command of the situation. But yes, point taken and agreed.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[chrsjhnsn]

Yep, I was acutely aware. Once I saw through the window....well, just trust me that I was in command of the situation. But yes, point taken and agreed.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

your scenario is common in San Francisco where I used to live, cops wouldn't even respond unless an ambulance is dispatched. The only way to get the cops there quick is to inform the dispatcher you need an ambulance/you're armed.

 

[CSINEV]

Here is my thought on this.

Jeep guy sees the police incident on TV a few months back when a guy is in his car unarmed and trying to get away by ramming the police vehicle that had him blocked in.
He is shot to death by the police, and the police officers are found to be justified in the shooting.
So now jeep guy figures if this is legal for the police it must be legal for all citizens right?

 

[FallonJeeper]

I see self defense.

 

[davidmcbeth]

(NRS 484E.020)
(NRS 484E.040; NRS 484E.050)
Penalties for leaving the scene of a car accident in Las Vegas that caused only property damage include:
up to six months in jail, and/or
a fine of up to $1,000, and
six (6) demerit points to your license.

Enough for a citizen's arrest defense in NV? Most states require 1 yr sentence. So this defense may be gone.

Self defense? I don't see it -- he chased the victim.

Law sucks? Sure does. But ya gotta know the laws ... and know what you can and cannot do.

I don't think they'll be able to prove attempted murder though...hopefully, its the only charge a jury is able to consider.

 

[Lasjayhawk]

Hi, I'm new here and will be rearming for the first time in 30 years, so I will have many questions in the next few weeks. But, I wanted to chime in on this.

For the sake of argument lets say you wake up one night to a strange noise, look out of your bedroom and see someone running out your door with your TV. SO calls 911 as you strap on your hog-leg and give chase. 1/2 way down the block, the self styled socialist turns, still holding your flat screen, and pulls a firearm. You shoot and the burglar is dead. (It would help if you OC all the time to have plenty of people that could testify that you never leave the house without your firearm, and it would be a BIG plus if there are several incident reports from when people without a clue have called 911 when you have been in the store or the park with your sidearm) (see I HAVE been lurking and reading posts!)

Is that murder? You could have let the thief have your TV after all. You could have turned and run when he pulled the gun.

IMHO a vehicle is no different than a gun. Someone who assaults you with a truck might as well be shooting at you. One other thing, good luck to the DA finding a jury that isn't sick of the reckless drivers in this town.

 

[HankT]

The details revealed so far do not provide enough information to determine whether Eagens was in the right or wrong, legally or criminally.

But I know with certainty that HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense[suP]©[/suP] is applicable in this case. As it ever is.

The postulate, for those who haven't seen it in a while:


"It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person."[sup] ©[/suP]


Obviously Eakens is not a member of OCDO (too bad!) and probably did not get a chance to become familiar with HPCSD[sup]©[/suP].

Pity. He's in the soup now. But it's not too late for us to reflect again on this fine bit of unassailable truth.

 

[FallonJeeper]

A vehicle can be a lethal weapon. Ask police, who shoot drivers of vehicles that are trying to run them over.

Blocking somebody in is not a crime, perhaps a traffic/parking violation, but certainly does not warrant the other driver, driving their vehicle into you a second time. This could be seen as self defense.

 

[JoeSparky]

A vehicle can be a lethal weapon. Ask police, who shoot drivers of vehicles that are trying to run them over.

Blocking somebody in is not a crime, perhaps a traffic/parking violation, but certainly does not warrant the other driver, driving their vehicle into you a second time. This could be seen as self defense.

Could this be a case of LEO's being MORE EQUAL than the rest of us?

 

[SFCRetired]

Mistake #1: Chasing the hit-and-run vehicle longer than necessary to call 911, give a tag number, description of vehicle, and what had occurred.

Mistake #2: Trying to block the hit-and-run vehicle in.

Mistake #3: Unless he honestly felt his life was in imminent danger, he had no reason to fire.

I'll grant that a vehicle is a deadly weapon. But if you are not in the direct path of it and the driver is not steering at you, you do not have self-defense as a legal option. Steering at your car and you are not in it is not justification for the use of deadly force.

As for HPCSD, I agree that it is bad strategy, but circumstances sometimes dictate it as a necessary tactic. If you are forced into using that tactic, you had better have your ducks in a row and have access to some large sums of money because you are going to be dragged through the legal system. Just as Mr. Eakens is about to find out.

I tend to agree with CSINEV. The shooter most likely saw the police on TV shooting at a vehicle under similar circumstances.