Charges Dismissed Against Man Who Shot at Driver on I-95 in Miami-Dade

We will have some interesting training and what-if discussions on this site if we were to declare that any action which resulted in charges being dismissed (or not brought) was a reasonable action. Just sayin. Going forward, every time there are no charges or charges are eventually dismissed, on any case about anything, look at the event as a reasonable and lawful action…it’ll get interesting




“But by Sunday, they were all released – without charges.”

So gang war shootouts are perfectly legal now!?

Authorities are willing to overlook dozens of broken laws by a group of clearly violent criminals, many of whom were likely illegally carrying weapons, simply because they agreed to fight each other? But if I put the wrong shaped piece of plastic on the back of a firearm I am threatened with 10 years in jail? The justice system has gone completely insane!


Well this was Chicago, where it’s perfectly fine for evil minded people to have illegal firearms. It’s just the law abiding citizens that aren’t allowed defensive firearms to defend themselves from evil. We wouldn’t want criminals getting hurt, or their feelings getting hurt. And although it isn’t legal for gang shootouts it is accepted as the norm in Chicago.


I don’t know they didn’t prosecute anyone for anything in this gang shootout so I must assume gang shootouts are perfectly legal there??

Clearly the problem in Chicago has nothing to do with the availability of firearms. It is the availability of criminals and their ability to commit crimes with little to no threat of legal ramifications.


With Chicago’s prosecutor, anything goes for evil-minded people. And I have to wonder what the political connections are of this I-95 shooter in Miami-Dade, because too many times that determines the resulting outcome. Although I don’t live in this area so I’m not saying that was the case, just a passing thought.


I am a 100 percent sure that a grand jury saw the video of this man firing his gun in broad daylight on a busy freeway. I mention this because these are the examples that prosecutors use to determine a reasonable person. IMHO it was not reasonable force.


I am sure their guns are also legally acquired, these men are allowed to possess them, and they all have licenses to carry guns in Chicago. I think CPL laws are too lose in that city, they need to be tightened more.


I’m going to reply to you and the rest from below.

I don’t really care about your pontificating or the rest of the pontificating down below.

In today’s society, it has been anti gun rhetoric non stop since the election of Joe Biden. The facts of the case are not known by the general public. In a city that has an anti gun, Progressive, D.A. a legal gun owner, was involved in a shooting. That incident was investigated for 2 years, and his fate rested in the hands of a D.A. who’s politics, could have influenced her to prosecute. Yet she chose not to. So there must have been something that caused her decision.

All of you screaming and virtue signaling can call Miami/Dade and speak to the District Attorney’s office about your expertise with what constitutes a legal shoot based off of your limited information from 1 video. I am absolutely positive that Ms. Fernandez will reopen her investigation based off of random internet persons_001 outrage.

:sauropod::sauropod::sauropod::t_rex: (RAWR dinosaurs).

1 Like

It’s not my job to tell the District Attorney’s office how to do their job. It is my job to learn and train to safely and legally defend myself and my family.

Based on the video and testimony available, I see few if any actions taken by Mr. Popper that demonstrate sound self defense tactics that would safely resolve the situation without unnecessarily endangering others and without raising the risk of prosecution.

Did the DA decide his actions were perfectly legal or did they not prosecute for some other reason?Given the revolving door criminal justice system these days, I have no clue what goes into deciding who to prosecute and who to let walk. Political pressure, palm greasing, coin flips??

But all the training I’ve had tells me that actions like Mr. Popper’s are likely to put myself and everyone else nearby in serious danger and significantly increase the chances of facing criminal charges. Even if Mr. Popper has managed to apparently avoid criminal and still to be determined civil liability, I am sure the time and funds spent on his legal defense have been costly. I suspect he would have rather spent the last two years doing something other than trying to avoid jail time. He almost certainly could have by choosing to take a different set of actions on that day.


You seem to be intent on making this personal, so let’s be personal. I have stated numerous ■■■■■■■ times that I neither condone nor do I condemn his actions as I was not there when this occured and since I do not have the complete information that is available.

I Do Not Care What Your Opinion Is. You do not have the full amount of information any more than I do. So take your opinion, don sackcloth and ashes, and moan about the injustice to the District Attorney who made the decision.

Was that clear enough. You and the rest here calling for his trial are virtue signaling. You do not have all of the information that the charging authorities had at their perusal. Nor the 2 years of time to make that decision.

One last TIME, I have no opinion on the correctness of his decision. What I have maintained from the start is that our opinions or lack of opinions is not relevant, since the proper charging authority, who does have the complete information, made a decision to not charge. They had 2 years to investigate the case.

The defendant stated that:

I was in fear for my life at that point, and once I heard a gunshot, I returned fire".

Were you there? Can you say without a shadow of a doubt that he was not in fear of great bodily harm or death in the defense of his life. No, you can not. Do you know who gets to judge that…

That’s right, the District Attorney’s office does. They evidently felt they did not have the evidence to overcome his presumption of innocence or they would have prosecuted.

The proper charging authority had the evidence, they had his statement, they had the other drivers statement. They at some point figured that they did not have the evidence to pursue a conviction and override the defendants claim of self defense. Or they made the decision to not pursue the incident any further. ITS THE SAME EITHER WAY.




:sauropod::sauropod::sauropod::t_rex:(RAWR Dinosaurs)


I don’t recall calling for his trial in any of my posts. I am also not trying to signal any virtue and am certainly not trying to make this personal. I apologize if it has come across that way. I have always valued your contributions here and respect your opinions even when we disagree.

I have simply pointed out that based on the evidence available to us I see many possible laws he could be accused of breaking and many tactical errors in his responses.

If we can’t discuss and learn from other’s actions to help make ourselves better defenders then why are we here?


You do not have the complete information that the D.A.'s office has, nor do I. That has been my contention from the beginning. I stated that the proper charging authorities made a decision based off of all of the relevant information that they had which is also inclusive to the 2 years they did their investigation in.

I also stated that after the situation had been reviewed by those who make those decisions that it was counterproductive for the 2nd Amendment community to comment on incomplete information ie “eat their own” young. That is a position that I have held for years. None of us were in his position. His position was that he heard a gun shot and returned fire.

That is the entire presumption of a “reasonable” self defense claim. The charging authority, evidently, did not have enough real evidence to overcome his presumptive claim of innocence due to self defense.

Personally, I don’t agree with many of the things you include in your posts. But you have the right to your opinion. Just like I have the right to mine.

So, the crux of the matter; is your opinion any more vald than my opinion.

Last time I will say this, or comment here. You and the rest can have the field.

Our opinion does not matter. The relevant charging authorities opinion does matter.

Their opinion was that they could not overcome the defendants presumptive claim of innocence due to self defense. Else they would have charged him.

We talk about District Attorney’s manipulating juries all of the time. Do you think this District Attorney could not have done this exact thing if they had enough to overcome the defendants presumptive claim of innocence due to self defense?

Self Defense is an affirmative defense based off of the “reasonableness” of the decision to defend to themselves from an externalized stimuli?

Edit: Forgot to add👇

:sauropod::t_rex::sauropod::t_rex: (RAWR Dinosaurs)


I understand what you are saying but I am not trying to discuss the merits of the decision of whether or not to prosecute.

I am trying to draw lessons from Mr. Popper’s actions and their consequences to apply to my own decision making process if I am ever stuck in a similar situation. Which I sort of was last week when someone who didn’t bother to clean the mud off their windows mistakenly almost rammed me off the highway. Well their first try was likely a mistake, not sure what their second try was about. The thought of Mr. Poppers actions were actually in my head as I was trying to get away from this person.

I only have access to the publicly available information so the video and statements are all I can go by. I think it is worth analyzing the information we have access to and discussing which of them appear appropriate and which do not. There are a lot of potential lessons there to learn from. Even Mr. Popper admitted there were things he would like to have done differently.


I do not disagree, but there is information available to suggest that his decision, while one you may not agree with it, was reasonable. That is the decision to not charge the defendant.

I’ve been in that exact position of having someone throw something at me and it sounds like a gunshot. If I had been in my own vehicle I may very well have thought I was being attacked with gunfire.

I understand taking lessons from others misfortunes but there does come a point where you have to accept that while you may not have agreed with someones action. That they were acting in good faith with the information available to them

Now, see? I had said I was done and obviously I lied because I answered.

:sauropod::t_rex::t_rex::sauropod::t_rex::t_rex:(RAWR Dinosaurs)


Sorry to entice you into a little lie but this is exactly the discussion I was hoping for. Though you are free to disengage from it at any time with no hard feelings from me. Not that my feelings are any concern of yours:)

I think it is quite possible that Mr. Popper acted under a belief of imminent threat. I’m reasonably certain that at the moment he pulled his pistol out he felt he was acting in self defense. That doesn’t necessarily completely justify his actions leading up to that moment or even in that moment. Though the DA apparently decided it did. Or maybe they just couldn’t justify going after this guy any longer after letting a bunch of clearly more dangerous convicted violent felons back on the street last year.:man_shrugging:

But even if we are acting completely within the law that doesn’t always protect us from prosecution. And just as importantly it doesn’t mean we are using the best tactics available to get us out of the situation safely or keep us from getting into it in the first place.

That’s why I think this incident is such a great learning and teaching example. At the very least it should be a cautionary tale on the reasons to avoid getting involved in road rage incidents.

I know my first thought after the second ramming attempt by the muddy windows driver was how to get out of there as quickly as possible without escalating the situation.


Except it does justify his actions. That is the literal definition of a justifiable act of self defense. Whether he had a reasonable reaction to external stimuli.

This seems to be something I am discussing frequently, with those who have a differing viewpoint.

There is no purity in being a victim. Waiting until you are down and bleeding out due to someone else’s actions is not the standard for self defense.

This is the natural causative effect of waiting on a criminals mercy. If you follow the comment I link below, be aware that the video is disturbing.

The standard is: Was your reaction to external stimuli reasonable. I do not know whether it is reasonable. I was not there. But neither were you or anyone else.

:sauropod::t_rex::sauropod::t_rex:(RAWR Dinosaurs)

1 Like

The legal decision on whether or not our fear of an imminent threat was reasonable will pretty much always be decided by the opinions of people who were not there and do not have all the information. Which is why I believe we should train to make the most reasonable decisions possible instead of settling for the most reasonable decision our brains can pull out of thin air when under duress.

But reasonable fear isn’t the only legal deciding factor. There are other key issues like innocence. Under most circumstances you can’t be the one to start a confrontation and then use lethal force to end it.

In this case Mr. Popper was not found to be criminally guilty. But there were several things he did that clearly put him in greater legal jeopardy of that outcome. Making a few different decisions likely would have saved him a lot of time, money and stress for the past two years of his life

I’m certainly not saying that means we have to wait to be victims. I have stated plenty of times on different threads that people shouldn’t leave the decision of whether they live or die up to the whims of someone who is presenting an imminent threat. That’s why I am mentally and physically training to respond to threats as quickly, effectively, responsibly and legally as I can.

I don’t have the advantage of actual experience so all I can do is train and learn from others’ experiences. Which is why I am here.


This is the point. The person who actually started the confrontation chased the defendant down and initiated the conflict by throwing a bottle at his car. I assume you have watched the video, does he look some guy enjoying what’s going on OR does he look scared. To my own inexpert eyes he looks terrified.


To be clear, though, he was charged.

1 Like