Four leaf clover lucky 
I wonder if the other idiot is still throwing water bottles or tailgating to show his manliness.
“Mr. Popper’s actions were justified, reasonable and lawful,” Gershman said.
I guess the authorities felt Mr. Popper’s actions were somehow justified and lawful in this case?? But I don’t see how anyone could say randomly emptying your magazine through your windshield on a public road with other vehicles and likely buildings nearby was a reasonable thing to do. He is incredibly lucky he didn’t injure an innocent bystander!
Regardless of personal opinion, a lawful authority has deemed his actions reasonable.
I am sure if he had hit other bystanders the ruling would have been different.
The fact remains he did not hit any bystanders.
Which is very fortunate as it looked to me in the video that he was not even looking at his target on several of the trigger pulls. Or if he was then the gun wasn’t pointed where he was looking.
Regardless of our opinion, whether you think he did or did not do something. The pertinent authorities reviewed the incident, and in their judgement he was acting reasonable.
I, personally, don’t find a lot of things reasonable, but I am not the final arbiter of those decisions. So I can… Advocate for outcomes I desire.
My entire issue with the 2nd Amendment community. Is this tendency we have as a whole to Eat Our Own Young. The proper authority has ruled it reasonable. Yet criticism is still ongoing.
Or, at least, the legal authorities didn’t see a high enough value to/chance of conviction to continue to pursue it.
We can not charge and convict based on what “Might Have Happened”. A lot of things Might Happen but never do. Fortunately the law is based on reality and not on fantasy.
I don’t think reckless endangerment would be a fantasy in this case. As well as reckless driving for both of the parties involved. This guy at the very least acted to escalate a road rage incident and quite possibly started it. He then reacted with maximum violence in a manor that seemed to have little regard for who else his actions might impact.
I’m all for supporting fellow self defenders who make a mistake or two in the heat of the moment. But this is not the kind of guy I feel safe sharing the road with. I think his actions harm the image of all responsible concealed carriers. At the very least his actions show the need for proper training and temperament when carrying a defensive tool.
I understand that he might have mistakenly thought he was facing an imminent threat when the water bottle was thrown at him and that might be considered legal reason to respond with deadly force by some. But this case could have very easily gone the other way.
The fact that he actively escalated the situation calls into question the innocence factor required for the use of deadly force in self defense. Mistaking a water bottle for a gunshot calls reasonableness into question.
He had more than a few options to not escalate the situation in the first place and likely dozens of much better options to respond to the assumed “gunshot” after he escalated it to that point. At the very least I think he is guilty of poor judgement on several levels. Hopefully his legal fees were a strong enough disincentive to make him reconsider his driving habits and self defense tactics in the future.
Yes and no
Some things are laws because of what might have happened.
If you run a red light, but nothing happens at all other than running the red light…and you get ticketed…the real reason for that ticket is what might happen when running a red light. It is a deterrent to running red lights because of what can happen (odds and stakes both)
Wildly firing rounds out of your moving car on a busy interstate seems, to some degree, analogous to me
The charging authorities seem to have a different opinion.
He did not hit anyone? Great! What a relief for me, who will share I-95 with this exemplary gun owner, often with children in my car. I think couple million more local people can say the same.
Somehow, this always seems to come up. But I will point it out.
In no way do I support his actions. But equally important, I do not condemn his actions. I was not there. I do not know what he thought. However, the relevant charging authority, did review the incident. Their judgement, not mine, not yours, not the general public’s opinion, their judgement was that he reacted in a reasonable manner. I am sure they have access to information that you and I do not have.
Any video can be edited to change the context. I, presume, the relevant charging authorities, would have reviewed all relevant information.
Take for instance a post on this forum right now. About the Uvalde School shooting. The press story that was linked there was about an AR-15 Battle Rifle and it’s common usage in numerous countries war. The AR-15 is a civilian semi automatic sporting rifle. Period. Freaking. Dot. But in the articles story it was so fearsome the Police had to wait… an hour while children, were under threat. … For a properly equipped Tactical Team to respond.
Feelings are irrelevant. Facts are important. The plain and simple fact is the case was reviewed and his actions were deemed reasonable.
You are not the reasonable man whose actions were reviewed. His reasonable man is predicated on him and his circumstances, just as every person’s reasonable man is different. What I may consider a reasonable response is different from what you consider a reasonable response. His reasonable mans presumptive action was reviewed and it was found to be reasonable.
F.$.c.k. F.e.e.l.i.n.g.s., that’s what is wrong right now in our Society. We are listening to feelings instead of facts.
Edited: punctuation and context
One of the differences here is that we are not reading someone’s writing about what someone else said happened, we are watching the video.
It’s fair to have our own conclusions even if they differ from charges (there WERE charges) being dismissed after 2 years of legal battle.
Also, maybe just a technicality but maybe a significant thing…did the charging authorities state that his actions were reasonable? Or did they dismiss charges after 2 years of battle and the shooter’s attorney claimed the actions were reasonable?
I am looking at the evidence presented by the shooter’s own dash cam. Last year I saw a version that appeared to go from before the start of the confrontation to after the end of the altercation without edits.
I don’t know why the prosecutors decided not to charge the shooter here. Perhaps they had access to additional evidence that showed he made a reasonable decision? Maybe they felt they didn’t have enough evidence? Though that video doesn’t look good to me. Perhaps it was a political and/or economic decision or based on the influential connections of someone involved? Or maybe the prosecutors just thought this guy was the lesser of the two road ragers so they cut him a break? From what I have seen many decisions on whether or not to go to trial are often based on many factors other than the reasonableness of the accused’s actions. I don’t assume that all the robbers, rapists and murders that prosecutors keep allowing back out on the street made reasonable decisions.
All I can say is that the shooter is lucky this didn’t make it to a trial. Unless there is significant evidence contradicting the video and witness reports I have seen I suspect there are more than a few jurors that would have found him guilty of quite a few of the possible charges that could have been brought against him. That is just my opinion based on the facts available to me.
Regardless of the legality, if I was a self defense instructor I would include this video in my training as an example of exactly what not to do when faced with a road rage incident. And I sincerely hope that people watching this video, knowing he was not prosecuted, don’t assume that they will not face prosecution if they copy his actions.
Well, I am going to venture a guess that the relevant charging authorities have better information since they had 2 years to make a charging decision. So, yeah. You are going off of your feelings about your interpretation of the underlying facts.
I can fairly say the facts were most likely presented to the proper authorities.
But hey, you could write a strongly worded letter to the D.A. et al. tell them you have some expert commentary to add based off of your beliefs and a video. Let me know how that goes. I’m sure I would be interested. 
(Rawr) 
TLDR.
That is the point I believe I have made several times. The proper authorities had 2 years, or 730.6 Days, or whatever amount of time that equals 2 years.
I don’t tend to believe that it is was a political decision seeing as the Miami/Dade District Attorney is Katherine Fernandez. She is a Democrat and considered to be fairly Progressive. She has also cooperated, multiple times, with the Federal Government on Gun Violence Taskforces.
If this was such a slam dunk of a case, I feel that a Progressive anti-gun Democratic D.A. could have burned him to the ground. In my eyes there must be additional facts that the charging authorities had.
Edit: (Rawr)
Sorry I’m not very good with snappy one liners and emojis:)
So in light of the prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute we must all accept that Mr. Popper’s driving actions and self defense tactics were perfectly legal and reasonable?? Then I guess we should all be adding his techniques to our training regimens since they are so guaranteed to keep us out of legal trouble??
Your assumption is Prog Dems are only interested in attacking gun owners. Consider another goal - increasing chaos.
With this being Miami-Dade, the case of shots fired on highway and not striking anyone ranks as million-something-th. They simply cannot put it before the judge in meaningful time, so they dropped it.