An argument following a hit and run last month led to a shooting in Destrehan, Louisiana. Michael Woulfe allegedly sideswiped Walter Tabary’s car and then drove off. Tabary, with his wife who was in the car at the time, followed Woulfe to his home a short distance away while dialing 911.
According to the neighbor Mike Wodarczyk, the two began arguing about the accident and that’s when an argument escalated with Tabary shooting Woulfe in the gut.
As the neighbor told WWL TV, Woulfe “pulled his truck in, nothing unusual, and the other car pulled behind him, and once they both got out, they started arguing, and I didn’t go over at first because I figured it wasn’t my business, then I heard, ‘going to shoot you,’ or something. That’s when I went over, and I got between them to try and break it up,”
Wodarczyk said, “He got the gun and pointed it right at his belly and shot him.”
According to Wodarczyk, “Eventually, that older feller got back in his car. Mike was very upset at that point, and he tried to get into the car. He got a wrench and broke that window. That’s when the guy shot him two more times.”
Woulfe was airlifted to a hospital for emergency surgery and has since recovered. But the police investigation tells a slightly different story.
From nola.com . . .
“After an extensive and thorough investigation including securing video footage of the events, it was determined that Woulfe was the aggressor and provoked [the 78-year-old] to respond in self-defense,” the Sheriff’s Office said in the statement. …
Woulfe was booked with second-degree battery, aggravated burglary, DWI and reckless operation of a vehicle involving an accident, the Sheriff’s Office said. Woulfe had a blood alcohol of more than 0.20%, well over the 0.08% legal-limit, according to the agency.
There have been many studies done and found it is common for eyewitnesses to get details wrong plus make mistakes in recalling what happened during a stressful situation. Innocent people go free, and criminals are convicted based on eyewitness testimony.
This is one case where there seems to be a massive difference between what happened and what witnesses thought they saw.