HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Bicyclist shot after coll...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 03:23 PM

 

Bicyclist shot after colliding with pickup truck

Police said the two began arguing after the bicyclist disregarded a "Do Not Cross" signal at Telegraph and Northline roads, causing the driver to hit him. Witnesses said the bicyclist got up and confronted the driver.

"The pedestrian light was red. He wasn't supposed to be crossing and ran into the side of the truck," said witness Michelle Noffsinger. "He jumped up, he got up, and he ran around the front of the truck to the driver's side and he just started pounding on this guy. He hit him ... maybe seven times or so, and then the driver shot him and he fell to the ground. It was just really crazy."


Yet another Darwin Award for someone who didn't learn a valuable lesson when growing up. Keep your hands to yourself.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Bicyclist-shot-after-colliding-with-pickup-truck-at-Telegraph-Northline-roads-in-Taylor/-/1719418/16418434/-/asi9ddz/-/index.html

194 replies, 24981 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 194 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bicyclist shot after colliding with pickup truck (Original post)
Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 OP
Confusious Aug 2012 #1
rl6214 Aug 2012 #3
Confusious Aug 2012 #16
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #44
Confusious Aug 2012 #76
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #82
Confusious Aug 2012 #88
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #91
Confusious Sep 2012 #181
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #182
hack89 Aug 2012 #4
Confusious Aug 2012 #15
gejohnston Aug 2012 #17
Confusious Aug 2012 #20
gejohnston Aug 2012 #22
Confusious Aug 2012 #23
gejohnston Aug 2012 #24
DanTex Aug 2012 #41
gejohnston Aug 2012 #45
DanTex Aug 2012 #48
gejohnston Aug 2012 #52
Missycim Aug 2012 #58
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #46
hack89 Aug 2012 #49
DanTex Aug 2012 #50
hack89 Aug 2012 #51
ManiacJoe Aug 2012 #53
Missycim Aug 2012 #59
Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #63
DBoon Sep 2012 #104
gejohnston Sep 2012 #106
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #110
Confusious Aug 2012 #56
Deep13 Aug 2012 #81
ManiacJoe Aug 2012 #95
ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #178
Kezzy604 Aug 2012 #70
Confusious Aug 2012 #71
gejohnston Aug 2012 #77
Kezzy604 Aug 2012 #97
Confusious Sep 2012 #183
ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #177
ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #176
hack89 Aug 2012 #18
Confusious Aug 2012 #19
hack89 Aug 2012 #29
Confusious Aug 2012 #74
gejohnston Aug 2012 #80
Confusious Aug 2012 #85
gejohnston Aug 2012 #86
Confusious Aug 2012 #90
gejohnston Aug 2012 #92
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #93
hack89 Aug 2012 #94
beevul Aug 2012 #55
Confusious Aug 2012 #73
Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #64
Confusious Aug 2012 #72
gejohnston Aug 2012 #83
Confusious Aug 2012 #87
gejohnston Aug 2012 #89
Jenoch Aug 2012 #103
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #109
pipoman Sep 2012 #107
ileus Aug 2012 #2
Deep13 Aug 2012 #79
Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #5
gejohnston Aug 2012 #6
slackmaster Aug 2012 #7
Trunk Monkey Aug 2012 #66
slackmaster Aug 2012 #67
Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #192
slackmaster Sep 2012 #193
DanTex Aug 2012 #8
gejohnston Aug 2012 #11
DanTex Aug 2012 #13
gejohnston Aug 2012 #14
MicaelS Aug 2012 #21
friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #101
DBoon Sep 2012 #105
gejohnston Sep 2012 #108
glacierbay Sep 2012 #115
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #116
gejohnston Sep 2012 #117
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #118
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #119
gejohnston Sep 2012 #120
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #121
gejohnston Sep 2012 #123
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #125
gejohnston Sep 2012 #128
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #129
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #130
gejohnston Sep 2012 #132
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #134
gejohnston Sep 2012 #138
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #142
PavePusher Sep 2012 #135
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #122
gejohnston Sep 2012 #124
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #126
DanTex Sep 2012 #141
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #144
gejohnston Sep 2012 #148
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #149
gejohnston Sep 2012 #152
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #154
gejohnston Sep 2012 #157
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #161
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #162
gejohnston Sep 2012 #166
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #169
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #163
gejohnston Sep 2012 #165
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #167
gejohnston Sep 2012 #170
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #171
glacierbay Sep 2012 #131
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #133
gejohnston Sep 2012 #136
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #137
gejohnston Sep 2012 #140
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #145
gejohnston Sep 2012 #156
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #159
gejohnston Sep 2012 #164
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #168
glacierbay Sep 2012 #146
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #147
glacierbay Sep 2012 #151
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #153
glacierbay Sep 2012 #158
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #160
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #127
Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #42
Kezzy604 Aug 2012 #75
Lizzie Poppet Aug 2012 #28
Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #194
JustABozoOnThisBus Aug 2012 #10
Clames Aug 2012 #12
Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #65
slackmaster Aug 2012 #9
Jenoch Aug 2012 #25
DontTreadOnMe Aug 2012 #26
MicaelS Aug 2012 #27
slackmaster Aug 2012 #30
Lizzie Poppet Aug 2012 #31
DontTreadOnMe Aug 2012 #32
gejohnston Aug 2012 #35
slackmaster Aug 2012 #37
Lizzie Poppet Aug 2012 #38
PavePusher Aug 2012 #33
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #47
ManiacJoe Aug 2012 #54
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #191
mike_c Aug 2012 #34
PavePusher Aug 2012 #36
Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #39
DanTex Aug 2012 #40
mike_c Aug 2012 #43
ManiacJoe Aug 2012 #96
JustABozoOnThisBus Aug 2012 #61
mike_c Aug 2012 #62
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #69
JustABozoOnThisBus Aug 2012 #98
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #99
ileus Aug 2012 #57
JustABozoOnThisBus Aug 2012 #60
PavePusher Aug 2012 #68
Deep13 Aug 2012 #78
gejohnston Aug 2012 #84
Deep13 Aug 2012 #100
gejohnston Aug 2012 #102
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #111
Deep13 Sep 2012 #112
gejohnston Sep 2012 #113
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #114
hack89 Sep 2012 #155
friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #172
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #173
apocalypsehow Sep 2012 #174
PavePusher Sep 2012 #139
Deep13 Sep 2012 #184
gejohnston Sep 2012 #186
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #179
Deep13 Sep 2012 #185
PavePusher Sep 2012 #188
glacierbay Sep 2012 #189
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #190
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #187
Deb Sep 2012 #143
gejohnston Sep 2012 #150
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #175
ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #180

Response to Reasonable_Argument (Original post)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:04 PM

1. Yeay!!

The death penalty for every crime!

Steal a pizza, death penalty!

Make a mistake, death penalty!

Maybe we could expand that to the schools. Lowest scores get the death penalty. It'd be a great motivator!

Truant? Death penalty!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:30 PM

3. Getting the shit beat out of you because you had the misfortune of being run into

 

not a problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:28 PM

16. I would think that you would have to go to the hospital

if you "had the shit beaten out of you"

Doesn't say the shooter went to the hospital.

besides which, 80 people die a year by having "the shit beat out of them," 50 die a year from being hit by lightning.

30,000 die by guns. What are the chances.

The American public, judge, jury and executioner.

Doesn't really fill me with a sense of safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #16)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 09:10 PM

44. Please highlight for me...

...where in the Bill of Rights a "sense of safety" is protected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #44)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:14 PM

76. Complety missed the point

like a 747 going over your head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #76)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:34 PM

82. My apologies...

...I fly in A321s almost exclusively.

Is there not a point or are you not able to explain it succinctly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #82)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:03 PM

88. Retry

The American public, judge, jury and executioner. ( the American public likes things like American idol, so I already don't trust their judgment)

Doesn't really fill me with a sense of safety?, security?, trust in people to make the right judgments in a stressful time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #88)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:11 PM

91. The case in point...

...is someone (part of "The American public") who after breaking some laws and hurting himself by accidentally colliding with someone else, decided to attack the person he hit while riding his bicycle. Is he the "judge, jury and executioner" whom you are not trusting?

Perhaps is was the victim of the attack who defended himself by shooting his attacker.

What opinion are you portraying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #91)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:00 PM

181. More clearly

I don't trust the American public do be judge, jury and executioner, just as I have qualms about the American legal system and it's right to be executioner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #181)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:06 PM

182. I will accept that...

...there are those who will kill in defense of themselves or others. I cannot accept the death penalty.
It seems we have something in common.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:32 PM

4. More people are killed by fists then by "assault weapons"

punching a guy six or seven times is a dangerous assault - it could inflict serious injury if not death. Why shouldn't the driver be able to defend himself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:22 PM

15. of course you have to limit it to "assault weapons"

because if you compared actual gun deaths to deaths by fists:

30,000 by gun, 80 by fists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:32 PM

17. no

most of those by gun are suicides. In 2010: 8,775 homicides by firearms, 742 by "personal weapons" such as fists.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl11.xls

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #17)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:38 PM

20. death is death

guns just make it easier

31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007

even if the number is 745, it's far lower then 30,000

The guy could have gotten in his car and driven off.

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #20)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:44 PM

22. all of the 745 are murders

less than half of the 30K are. Closer to one third. That is a very importing thing to remember unless you seriously think a gun ban is a viable suicide prevention strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #22)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:48 PM

23. I never said anything about a gun ban

I just think this was an overuse of force in this case.

If he had had pepper spray or a taser, or gotten into his car and driven away, things would have turned out differently.

But if all you have is hammer, then everything looks like a nail.

If you have a gun, you get to be judge, jury and executioner. and the rest of us get to live in fear of you having a bad day.

If it's a gun death, it's a gun death. don't try to sugar coat it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:06 PM

24. he was in his car

and I don't think he could have just driven away, without killing the biker or crashing into others. He would be flooring it through a red light with traffic going 50 miles per hour. Good way to injure or kill innocents. Oh wait, since they would be killed by a car instead of a gun, their deaths would be less tragic or less real.
I don't think tasers are legal, and pepper spray doesn't work that close of a range without affecting you.

You don't know the difference between self defense and vigilantism. This clearly wasn't the latter.

If you have a gun, you get to be judge, jury and executioner. and the rest of us get to live in fear of you having a bad day.
which is irrelevant an absurd, since this is not vigilantism. If the attacker kept his hands to himself, he wouldn't have gotten shot. I'm not sugar coating anything, simply looking at it realistically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #24)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:48 PM

41. "If the attacker kept his hands to himself, he wouldn't have gotten shot."

True, but the point is, not keeping your hands to yourself shouldn't be punishable by death. Most of the homicides that the pro-gunners like to celebrate are unnecessary. It's almost as if the gun nuts like the questionable shootings even more than the legitimate ones, because it's "pushing the envelope" of self-defense. Anyone would shoot a guy who is charging you with a gun and screaming that they are going to kill you, but shooting an unarmed bike rider takes real devotion to the gun cult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #41)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 09:12 PM

45. since you were not there

you are making assumptions not based on the article but only in your imagination. Kind of like the gas station shooting where you said "he should have gotten in his car" even though he was retreating before he fired, and we have no idea if he had a car there. He could have walked around the corner for a Pepsi. He was not shot for touching, he was shot for violently punching.
I'm not making any such assumptions. Bare hands are lethal weapons. More people are murdered with fists than all long guns combined including "assault weapons". There is also the disparity of force when you look at comparative health and ages, which we don't know. In short, the "unarmed" is utter bullshit.
No one is celebrating anything, once again you are projecting unfounded assumptions on people you don't like, aka bigotry, basing assumptions on information you don't have, on subjects you know nothing about.
Since those are busy streets in Detroit, moving the vehicle, if he could, would have caused a pile up likely killing the cyclist and injuring innocents in the intersection. When making decisions, one must look at all of the possible outcomes and pick the least worst. Given your claims of being very well educated and brilliant, I find it odd that you don't realize that.
So far, the investigators and DA his reasonable fear meets the "reasonable man" standard. They know more of the relevant details than either of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #45)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 09:52 PM

48. And you are making assumptions too.

Still, from the facts that we know, it is very likely that this whole situation could have been resolved without someone getting killed. The death of a "bad guy" makes gun nuts giddy, and so they try to simplify the situation to a "good guy versus bad guy" moral scenario that doesn't give rise to any troubling ambiguities. But, the pattern I've observed in a lot of these "DGU threads" is that there is usually no real threat to life or even serious injury.

And the statistics bear that out. People who own or carry guns are not statistically safer than people who don't. They are more likely to shoot someone in "self-defense", but all those shootings don't translate into more personal safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #48)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:52 PM

52. yeah, but I'm putting some thought in to my assumptions

anyone suggesting the driver bolt into busy cross traffic, which anyone with a room double digit IQ would realize the death and injury that would cause. No one is "giddy", so don't project. You don't grasp the situation, the reality is attacker and defender. Attack is repelled. There is nothing moral or immoral about it. It is what is hardwired in all mammals. We like to pretend that we are "the moral animal" but the reality is we are primates genetically less than one percent different than chimps and bonabos. To pronounce that you know what would have been a better course of action even though
you were not there
have no idea of what all of the facts were
no idea what the shooter based his information on,
but still make pronouncements of what the "moral thing would have done" is arrogant and foolish. It also feeds into one of the worst stereotypes that the right uses against the the left, and it doesn't play well in most of the US or anywhere else. All due respect to Thomas Frank, that is really the matter with Kansas.

You observe what you want to. What you read or think you observe based on a couple of paragraphs, isn't enough information to base any decision on. You are filtering that small amount of the information through an ideological filter that precludes you from seeing it from the participant's point of view.
I honestly don't think you would approve of even the most obvious example of self defense because it would conflict what you think is "the truth". You remind me of a Rush "dittohead" the kind of person that doesn't come to their own conclusions based on actual experience or education, but rather "I call myself a liberal/conservatives therefore I am supposed to believe this" anyone who disagrees with one issue is automatically a (a fill in the blank)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #48)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:58 AM

58. So it would have been ok if this man was severely injured or killed

 

as long as he didn't shoot his assailant? I guess it would have been ok if he drove off and hit a car while trying to stop a pummeling he was receiving.

The man made the best out of a bad situation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #41)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 09:16 PM

46. Regarding...

"True, but the point is, not keeping your hands to yourself shouldn't be punishable by death."

It isn't. A violent assault can end one of two ways, the aggressor can discontinue or someone else can end it. It is quite valid use what means one has available to end unjust aggression.


Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #41)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:01 PM

49. If I am violently assaulted and fear death or serious injury

the welfare of the guy trying to kill me is the last thing on my mind. If you don't want to be shot, don't go around attacking people.

Why is the life of the criminal more important than the life of his victim?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #49)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:06 PM

50. That's exactly what I meant by a simplistic good guy vs bad guy world.

It takes all the guilt out of killing another human when you have the moral sophistication of a 12-year-old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #50)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 10:36 PM

51. So I should just let him pound me into to a pulp?

I don't see your point here.

If I am minding my business and I am violently assaulted and shooting someone is the best way to make him stop, why not? Why should risk my life for one second?

What is moronic is the perverted sense of fairness that makes you unable to distinguish between a violent criminal and his innocent victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #50)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 02:22 AM

53. Some situations are simple enough that

even a 12-year-old can figure it out.

If you are stuck in traffic and wearing your seatbelt, then your head is the only target available to the attacker outside your car. Like it or not, you are in a deadly attack with no hope of retreating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #50)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:00 AM

59. So what should have the man

 

done? Can you once answer that question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #50)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 11:48 AM

63. Sometimes things really are just that simple.

 

In most places in this country, if you physically assault me I can use deadly force to defend myself.

I don't understand why you continue to think this is a bad thing.

No innocent person should have to run away from, submit to, or bodily fight off a violent attacker.

It really is that simple.

Here is what an eyewitness said:

"The pedestrian light was red. He wasn't supposed to be crossing and ran into the side of the truck," said witness Michelle Noffsinger. "He jumped up, he got up, and he ran around the front of the truck to the driver's side and he just started pounding on this guy. He hit him ... maybe seven times or so, and then the driver shot him and he fell to the ground. It was just really crazy."

According to the eye witness, the assailant was "pounding on" the victim, "seven times or so".

No one should be required or expected to run away from that, or to submit to it, or to have to resort to martial arts to defend themselves. If you have a gun, you don't have to do any of those things, and you should be expected to resort to them instead of the gun.

I find it truly and absolutely unbelievable that there are people like you who think so. I find it absolutely astounding that you don't read about this kind of situation from the same article as everyone else and find this an absolutely black and white case of self-defense.

From what is presented in the article, this really is a simplistic, good guy vs. bad guy situation.

The good guy won, and the bad guy died.

Try rooting for the good guys once and a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #63)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 12:28 AM

104. The good guy is the one in the pickup truck with a gun

The bad guy who deserves to be shot is a bicyclist with his fists

And this seems right to you?

You REALLY think a bicyclist deserves to be gunned down?

And you wonder why some of us think gun advocates are dangerous psychpaths?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DBoon (Reply #104)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 12:39 AM

106. the police seem to think so

more people are killed with bare fists than with so called assault weapons. What would you do in the situation? The only dangerous psychopath was the cyclist who violently assaulted some guy for no legitimate reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DBoon (Reply #104)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:27 AM

110. Did the victim deserve to be assaulted?

 

You REALLY think a bicyclist deserves to be gunned down?

And you wonder why some of us think gun advocates are dangerous psychpaths


There is nothing psychopathic in defending oneself from violence with a firearm.

Deserving has nothing to do with it. The bicyclist was "pounding" on the victim, about 7 times, according to an eye-witness.

This is a clear-cut case of self-defense from violent assault.

I really don't understand your mindset how when someone is physically beating the shit out of an innocent person and they get shot for it how you can be sympathetic to the guy doing the beating. I really don't.

Bicyclist runs into someone's truck, flips his shit and starts beating the crap out of the driver, the driver defends himself, but suddenly it's the driver who is a dangerous psychopath.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to gejohnston (Reply #24)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:32 PM

81. So why not just drive away? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #81)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:27 PM

95. Probably boxed in by traffic.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #24)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:06 PM

178. Some good points. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #23)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 05:48 PM

70. Tasers & pepper spray

In Michigan Tasers only just within the last four weeks even became legal to own in Michigan by a private individual, and only more recently became legal (by court decision) to have concealed if you have a Michigan CPL. Any sort of chemical agent concealed is illegal in Michigan and is highly regulated i.e. Michigan legal chemical agent.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/
MCL 750.224a

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kezzy604 (Reply #70)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:09 PM

71. Nice

You can blow someone away, but you can't incapacitate someone.

This country is fucked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #71)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:30 PM

77. Since when is

Michigan "the whole country"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #71)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:06 PM

97. It's more than that.

Tasers and chemical agents aren't non deadly, they are less lethal. People have died from both the use of Tasers, mace and pepper spray. They aren't toys and just because they are the new in thing doesn't make them better. People can fight threw both, there is a reason cops have Tasers, chemical agent and guns. It's always nice having the ability to up the use of force but you have to remember that a strike to the head, neck and face can lead to long term or permanent damage to the brain and spine or death. We have already established that there are many deaths in this country ever year from being attacked with fists and feet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kezzy604 (Reply #97)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:40 PM

183. But at least pepper spray and a taser

are an attempt at less lethality. I can accept that compromise, until something else comes along.

Like a phaser. They never killed when they set it on stun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:05 PM

177. "If he had had pepper spray or a taser,"

I agree, pepper spray would have been much, much better.

Even a taser would have been better, but the pepper spray is safer, and still pretty effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #20)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:03 PM

176. Punching one's self to death is probably extremely difficult.

I have never tried it, but it seems like a tough thing to do.

The guy could have gotten in his car and driven off.


Maybe. Without a video of the incident, it is very hard to judge. Performing activities, such getting into a vehicle, can be difficult while being beaten.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:33 PM

18. More like 745 murders due to hands and feet.

and you need to reduce your gun number to 8775 - we are talking about crimes after all.


But you miss my point. Punching people can kill and maim - the driver was not executing anyone. He was defending himself from a potentially deadly assault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:37 PM

19. death is death

guns make it easier

31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007.

even if the number is 745, it's far lower then 30,000

The guy could have gotten in his car and driven off.

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #19)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:31 PM

29. No - self defense is self defense

don't want to get shot? Don't violently assault someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #29)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:13 PM

74. How far you wanna take this

bumping into someone? pushing someone? One punch? seven?

Where, in your book, is the line drawn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #74)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:32 PM

80. what lawyers call the

"reasonable man" standard. Reasonable fear for life and safety. That is where self defense laws have been for decades if not centuries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #80)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:53 PM

85. I guess I'm unreasonable

If I say I wouldn't have done it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #85)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:59 PM

86. it is a legal term

to let someone pound your face in, possibly maiming or killing you, and not fight if flight is impossible or not viable is irrational.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #86)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:06 PM

90. If the guy got out of his car

Seems to me he was looking to shoot someone.

If he didn't, then he could have taken off.

Personally, if someone is coming up to my car, and looks like violence is going to ensue, I would have driven away.

If I give the guy a few broken ribs, oh well. At least he's not dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #90)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:12 PM

92. did you read the article?

There is no evidence he got out of the car. He had his window rolled down.
He jumped up, he got up, and he ran around the front of the truck to the driver's side and he just started pounding on this guy. He hit him ... maybe seven times or so, and then the driver shot him and he fell to the ground. It was just really crazy."
So the "seems to me he was looking to shoot someone" is not only absurd projection, but most of the most moronic Brady talking points around.

There is a chance he could not have driven away, that was my point. Hitting him with your car and driving off, assuming you could?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #90)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:12 PM

93. Leaving the scene is a crime :( n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #74)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:21 PM

94. One punch can kill or maim

real life is not like the movies.

If someone attacks me and I think my life is in danger then I would shoot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #19)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 04:31 AM

55. Then why aren't you going on and on about alcohol?

Alcohol is responsible for over 100k deaths a year.

Death is death, right?

Or is it only in the context of the gun issue in which that applies?

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Don't be a nail, and you generally wont have to worry about any hammers hitting you because you are one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #55)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:11 PM

73. I'm not going on about turtle attacks either

Do you know why?

Hint: what the OP is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #19)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 11:50 AM

64. Good people HAVE NO DUTY TO RETREAT when they are victims of violent crime.

 

The guy could have gotten in his car and driven off.

Victims of violent crime should not be required nor expected to run away from, submit to, or bodily fight off their attackers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #64)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:10 PM

72. In some places it's the law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #72)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:37 PM

83. some places,

and certainly has its problems. One of which is one has to prove their innocence of murder or manslaughter in many cases. In this case, it is entirely possible that the shooter was "against the wall" making the issue moot. Running a red light into a six lane high way to retreat would lead to the cyclist's death, more injured in the pile up.
Legal obligation but not moral obligation. Ever wonder "duty to whom?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #83)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:00 PM

87. This wasn't a six lane highway

Looks like a residential area to me, no more then two lanes, with a turn lane. The pedestrian light was red, not the drivers. The guy came around to the drivers side, at that point it would have been a good time to leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #87)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:03 PM

89. I looked it up on Google maps

They are six lanes. Telegraph has a grass median. It does not say which lane the driver was in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #87)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 11:53 PM

103. Wait a minute...

The light is red and you're stopped just after some idiot has run into your vehicle, they run around to the driver's side of the car and the FIRST thing you think of is to drive away? Talk about 20/20 hindsight. The driver had no idea he was about to be assaulted. He started to get his head beaten in, he WAS getting his head beaten in and he defended himself. There is zero reason to fault him for defending himself. He would be doing his own family a disservice by NOT defending himself. How is it ok for the driver to end up dead instead of the instigator of the violence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #72)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:19 AM

109. And that's a darn shame. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 12:42 AM

107. The point the other poster is making

is that you are comparing suicides to homicides..it is a typical tactic used by the Brady orgs..to hell with honesty..like..where the hell did you get the false 80 number in post 16? "besides which, 80 people die a year by having "the shit beat out of them," 50 die a year from being hit by lightning." Make it up?

Homicides by firearms are <10k annually, the number of 'hands and feet' homicides is in the 800 range annually..or around 8% of the gun homicide rate....not worth considering when someone is punching you in the face, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Original post)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:25 PM

2. Politeness and respect first, getting shot later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:31 PM

79. What?! Don't you know violence is the solution to every problem? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Original post)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 04:49 PM

5. Choices? Hmm! Lemme think

1. Close the window and lock the door.
2. Drive across the street.
3. Pull out a handgun and kill the cyclist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:16 PM

6. what would you do

1 while getting pounded on, and trying to deflect punches? What are the differences in size and strength?
2 what are the traffic conditions? Is there room to maneuver? if cyclist was hurt or killed by the moving vehicle, would there be
charges? If he moved the vehicle the cyclist probability would have been injured or killed.
3 based on couple of detail free paragraphs, we don't know if that was in fact the best or only alternative or not. The SCOTUS Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. quote when SYG became federal standard in 1921 applies here: "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".

That is the thing about armchair generals and sofa sergeant majors who never read a book on military science or history, yet pretend to know what is fact and what is Red Dawn.
I find it strange that anti self defense folks seem to assume the worst about the defender regardless of the situation, and assume ideal conditions for alternate actions even when there is no evidence of those alternatives being viable or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:22 PM

7. 4. Grab assailant's arm and drive off

 

I did that once. The guy managed to stay on his feet until just after I shifted my Honda Civic into second gear.

When he started to stumble I let go of his arm. In my side mirror I could see him tumble on the pavement several times before he hit a light post.

I just kept driving.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 12:34 PM

66. How in the Hell did you manage to hold the guy, shift the gears and steer?

 

Not to say I don't believe you. It would have been funny as Hell to watch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #66)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 12:44 PM

67. I held his wrist with my left hand and steered with my knees

 

It's not hard for me do do that in a small car.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 02:22 PM

192. I had the opportunity to do that once and I decided the three dollars being snatched

from my shirt pocket were not worth the injury I could have done to the kid snatching my change. I looked him in the eye, his arm locked against the side of my door, and then let him go and drove off.

Life as a new york cabbie was always interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #192)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 02:35 PM

193. The man who attacked me was big, mean, and drunk, tailgate partying in a stadium parking lot

 

He accused me of hitting his truck with my car. (The vehicles were never within 10 feet of each other.)

I figure his intent was at best to beat the crap out of me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:24 PM

8. Naturally, you kill the cyclist! The point of "defensive gun use" isn't self-protection, silly!

It's about the glory of becoming a gun hero. Showing that bike rider who's boss! I mean, sure, you could just drive away, and let the guy live, but you're not going to become a gun hero by being prudent and respectful of human life!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:35 PM

11. not a valid answer

you either didn't read or comprehend what you tried to read. If you drive off, in traffic, the bike rider would have been injured or killed in traffic. Even without traffic, he would be injured or killed with your car. That is before you get to the moronic "gun hero" straw man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:48 PM

13. "The bike rider would have been injured or killed".

And you know this because... umm... wait, no you're just making that up. And even if the bike rider had been injured, that's a lot better than dead, don't you think?

I'm not saying the bike rider wasn't out of line, but the thing is, people resolve conflicts without killing anyone all the time, even conflicts with people who are belligerent and out of line. I highly doubt that killing was necessary in this situation. Why is it that you guys always jump to make excuses for the gun hero?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #13)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:05 PM

14. not making up anything

just reading the article and applying logic. You are making up the traffic conditions and possible alternatives. In other words, your reasoning ability is stunted by ideology.

I'm not saying the bike rider wasn't out of line, but the thing is, people resolve conflicts without killing anyone all the time, even conflicts with people who are belligerent and out of line.
Yeah you can reason with someone pounding the shit out of you. If someone is beating the shit out of you, you are not talking him down.

I highly doubt that killing was necessary in this situation. Why is it that you guys always jump to make excuses for the gun hero?
He shot to stop, not to kill. The fact that the attacker died is beside the point. Since you have no idea what else was going on, the shooter's state of mind, or what he saw as viable alternatives, you are making shit up. Don't make shit up and accuse me of making shit up.

I'm not jumping to excuse anyone. You and other anti self defense types seem to find excuses or even assume facts not in evidence to think the worst of someone who is being violently attacked. The most extreme example is the one anti that projects his own apparent racism onto others. This is the guy that says the defender was a racist, even when the evidence shows the defender retreating, yet excuses a cop machine gunning a child in the back.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #13)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 06:42 PM

21. Because "you guys" always condemn any defensive gun use..

That's why.

"They should have just run away, instead of shooting."
"They should have run out the back door, instead of shooting."
"They should just give the criminal what he wants, instead of shooting."
"The person was just drunk, and in the wrong house."
"He was just a teenager."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #21)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 11:31 PM

101. One wonders why none of them has won the James Randi prize...

...given the certitude with which they proclaim their "knowledge" of what actually happened. Psychic abilities like that should be rewarded!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 12:31 AM

105. This is not defensive gun use

this is murder

Someone on a bicycle with only his fists was shot down by a pickup truck driver with a gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DBoon (Reply #105)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 12:43 AM

108. it is not murder

if someone is punching you in the face, you have every legal and moral right to defend yourself. Over twice as many people are murdered with bare fists than "assault weapons" and that is before you get to the permanent maiming. The only psychopath was the cyclist who went into a rage after he hit the truck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DBoon (Reply #105)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:16 PM

115. Not murder

 

cops are calling it justifiable homicide as I suspect the DA will also. Just because you say it's murder doesn't make it so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DBoon (Reply #105)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:24 PM

116. That's precisely what it is: murder. The Matt Dillon-wannabe had multiple options open

to him in order to avoid having to use deadly force, including locking his doors, simply driving off, and contacting the police. He instead pulled out his PRD, and blazed away. Easier to just shoot someone, you see, rather than drive off and contact the cops. You are quite right: it was simply murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #116)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:29 PM

117. since you weren't there

he could not have simply driven off into six lanes of traffic. Maybe the cyclist got there before he could get his windows rolled up? You are speculating a lot based on nothing. At least I took the time to look at the intersection in Google Maps.
The cyclist was committing assault and battery, maybe turning into second degree murder or manslaughter.
Neither of you made a single valid point even based on information given in the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #117)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:34 PM

118. So, you were an eyewitness to this event, eh? Great! How about...

...instead of posting about it down here in this swamp, you take your information to the police?

Oh, what's that you say? You weren't there either? Gosh....well...what else you got? Oh, right:

"maybe"

...Hmmmmm, "maybe"? That's not much help. What else?

"At least I took the time to look at the intersection in Google Maps."

Google Maps? Wowzer! Alrighty then, I guess that just closes the books on this one!



Laughable, contemptible, stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #118)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:37 PM

119. In point of fact, the Matt Dillon-wannabe had ample opportunity to drive off,

and simply felt like playing Dodge City Sheriff instead. He should be charged with murder, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #118)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:38 PM

120. another invalid point

If you read the article, witnesses did. Police investigation shows self defense.

At least I made the effort to put thought and research, rather than saying something stupid that contradicted the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #120)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:43 PM

121. Completely valid, and all the hand-waving in the world don't make it so.

"He jumped up, he got up, and he ran around the front of the truck to the driver's side and he just started pounding on this guy. He hit him ... maybe seven times or so, and then the driver shot him and he fell to the ground. It was just really crazy...Witnesses told police the driver pulled a pistol and fired one round at the bicyclist, striking him in the chest."

He had ample opportunity to retreat from the scene: he was in a pickup truck, for Dog's sake, and the guy was on a bicycle.

He just didn't want to, and so a guy is dead. The guy who made him dead should be charged with murder. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #121)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:50 PM

123. you know this how?

if he were boxed in traffic, he could not have. He would have no way of knowing his intentions until he started getting his face pounded in. Hitting someone in the face seven times is attempted murder. There is no law or court in North America or Europe that would charge him with murder let alone convict him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #123)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:54 PM

125. "if he were boxed in traffic" - You know this how? Oh, right: you don't.

"maybe"..."Google Maps"..."you weren't there" and now "if"...

Boy, that's some spot-on logic there, alrighty!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #125)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:58 PM

128. the cops were

they didn't press charges.
But I'm not the one saying he should have done anything without knowing if it was a viable option or not, so you are the one who is logic free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #128)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:01 PM

129. Show me where the cops said he was "boxed in." Oh, right, you can't because they didn't.

What's that about "logic free"?

"But I'm not the one saying he should have done anything without knowing if it was a viable option or not, so you are the one who is logic free."

Now that's what I'd call "free": coherence-free. Funny stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #128)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:03 PM

130. "if he were boxed in traffic" - Those are your words; your assertion. Back it up.

Show us whether either eyewitnesses or the cops said he was "boxed in." Step up to the plate with evidence, as opposed to "mabye" and "Google Maps" and "you weren't there" and "if" and more "maybe's"...let's have it.

Oh, right: you can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #130)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:06 PM

132. Doesn't matter

some newspaper isn't going into that great of detail. I don't have to prove anything. You are the one saying the cops and the law are wrong, you have to provide the proof. You are the one said "he could have just driven off" without knowing or even thinking about the situation, so the burden if proof is on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #132)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:09 PM

134. "maybe"..."Google Maps"...."you weren't there"..."if"..."maybe" again...now "Doesn't matter."

That latter translates as I can't refute your facts, so I'll just say none of it matters.

More funny stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #134)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:14 PM

138. you didn't refute anything

and you offed no facts, other than he was taken into custody for questioning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #138)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:18 PM

142. Oh yes I did: the fact that you can't be bothered to read it or simply are unable to comprehend

what it is you have read is not in my ability to correct or change. You might try scrolling through the sub-thread again, if it helps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #125)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:09 PM

135. And your evidence is... where? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #120)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:45 PM

122. "maybe"..."Google Maps"...."you weren't there"...

Yep: that's about the level of logical discourse one expects in the Gungeon. The more things change...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #122)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:53 PM

124. maybe if you actually understand what

duty to retreat laws say, and apply some logic, maybe you would actually be taken seriously. but, logic and critical thinking is pretty nonexistent among antis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #124)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:55 PM

126. "maybe"..."Google Maps"...."you weren't there"..."if"...and then back to "maybe" again...

One begins to detect a pattern here....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #126)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:17 PM

141. The pattern is, anytime a gun hero shoots a bad guy...

...all the NRA bots will bend over backwards to find excuses, however improbable, to vindicate the shooter and insist that the gun was the only way out of the situation. Kinda makes you wonder how so many non-gun-toters manage to survive all the dangers of day to day life without ever shooting anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #141)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:21 PM

144. Spot-on analysis, all of it. I've seen this kind of bloodlust disguised as concern for "RKBA"

for years down here, and as time goes by it only seems to get worse.

You said: " Kinda makes you wonder how so many non-gun-toters manage to survive all the dangers of day to day life without ever shooting anyone"

This is a point the vast majority of our fellow progressives agree with us on throughout DU. The fact that it's a curiosity in the Gungeon among our "pro gun progressives" is quite telling. Again, excellent commentary.


Edit: typo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #141)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:28 PM

148. who's making excuses

it looks like your side is making back flips to turn a victim of a violent crime the villain for petty ideological reasons. None of them, including you, made a single valid point because they can't even read the article correctly. One even said "he got of of the truck" even when the article said he was in the truck.

Well, if he was not a "toter" most likely he would be among the 800 people a year that are murdered by bare fists or permanently injured from blunt force trauma to the head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #148)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:32 PM

149. Here, here...it's not as bad as all that. Just because you've been schooled on the facts and

been caught red-handed several times in this sub-thread distorting facts or just leaving them out or simply making them up, doesn't mean a thing in the bigger scheme of things. It's just an internet discussion board debate you've lost, not the end of the world.

Here now...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #149)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:35 PM

152. I haven't been schooled on any facts

I have not distorted anything, you have been caught making shit up and being a troll.
If anyone who has been schooled on facts, it is you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #152)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:39 PM

154. Oh yes you have. And the posts are there to prove it, with a simple mouse scroll. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #154)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:45 PM

157. no, you made assumptions without evidence

aka made shit up. I simply said what if.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #157)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:48 PM

161. "I simply said what if"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #161)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:49 PM

162. This stuff truly gets all too easy the longer it goes....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #162)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:55 PM

166. easy for me because

trolls are easy to deal with. Besides, you have not shown any of your options were actually viable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #166)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 04:04 PM

169. Uh-huh. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #157)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:51 PM

163. "maybe"..."Google Maps"...."you weren't there"..."if"..."maybe" again..."Doesn't matter"...

now "I simply said what if."

Dog have mercy, but you couldn't make this stuff up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #163)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:53 PM

165. you are the one making stuff up

you are assuming that he had options open to him. I never said he didn't, other than driving into six lanes of traffic. I'm beginning to think your cognitive skills are as questionable as your reading skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #165)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:58 PM

167. Now, a heapin' helpin' of Psychological Projection. Textbook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #167)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 04:07 PM

170. that for you?

while you are at it, how about "how to make a cogent argument"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #170)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 04:08 PM

171. Uh-huh. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #116)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:04 PM

131. Cops don't think so

 

and I'll bet the DA will rule it as justifiable homicide. It's only your opinion that it's murder and your opinion doesn't really matter now does it?

My opinion, and just remember, also the opinion of the cops, it was a justified use of force. End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #131)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:07 PM

133. Cops don't "think" anything of the sort: they arrested him.

As you are obviously unaware of how these things work: usually, the cops turn their investigation over to the district attorney's office, which then makes a determination whether to charge a person or not.

Turns out your "opinion" isn't worth much, as it's not based on any kind of facts...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #133)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:11 PM

136. then released him

He was taken in for questioning. How some reporter writes it really doesn't matter. The odds of him being charged is slim, the odds of him being convicted are zero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #136)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:13 PM

137. They arrested him. Whether he will be charged will be up to the D.A.

And he should be charged with murder.

"the odds of him being convicted are zero"

That's what you said about Jerome Earsland, and we all know how that prediction turned out, now don't we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #137)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:17 PM

140. you don't know what murder means

The two are not even remotely alike.
The cyclist was an active threat pounding his face in.
Earsland summary executed a robber that was wounded and surrendered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #140)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:23 PM

145. Oh yes I do, and this was it. The shooter here should be charged just like Earsland was.

"The cyclist was an active threat pounding his face in"

The shooter/killer had the opportunity to retreat: he could have locked his doors, driven off, and contacted the police. He instead chose to play Dodge City Sheriff. He should be charged with murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #145)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:42 PM

156. you have no evidence that he had the opportunity

you are assuming it. As far as the law is concerned, it doesn't matter. There is a famous Oliver W. Holmes quote about "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife"


"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #156)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:46 PM

159. He had every opportunity to lock those truck doors, put that vehicle in drive, and hit the gas,

all of our irrelevant links to some one hundred year old court case notwithstanding.

He chose not to: instead, he chose to kill a man. That's murder. He should be charged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #159)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:52 PM

164. it is very relevant

the point of the quote. Hit the gas into six lanes of traffic, right. You are assuming he could have hit the gas without crashing, you are assuming he was not in the process of rolling up the window when the nut came around, I doubt the cyclist was calmly walking around. Then again, maybe the driver's first thought was he was going to apologize for hitting the truck, which would be a reason to leave the windows down. I don't know either, but I'm not the one claiming to know.
So, you don't know for a fact that he had any choice. You don't actually know anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #164)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:59 PM

168. As he had ample opportunity to retreat, it is not relevant. Period. n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #133)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:24 PM

146. I never said he wasn't arrested.

 

I know far better than you how these things work, he was arrested, interrogated, then released, the report will be turned over to the DA who will more than likely decline to press charges based on witness statements, defendant's statement, reponding police statements, the detective's investigation, medical reports.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #146)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:27 PM

147. No, you just conveniently left that fact out because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Busted, again. This stuff is just all too easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #147)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:33 PM

151. Busted?

 

What are you talking about? Never mind. Not worth it.
Suffice to say that I have far more knowledge how this works than you do.
And one more time, have a good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #151)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:38 PM

153. "have a good day" <--Third time I've been bid adieu by you today.

Saying goodbye to a person must mean something different where you come from....

In any event, you said:

"Busted?"

Yes: busted.

You posted an assertion without including in that assertion a very major fact, to wit, that our Matt Dillon-wannabe was arrested by the police. Whether he will be charged will be up to the D.A. Instead, you just acted as if the police had patted him on the back and sent him on his way with no reservations whatsoever. That was shown to be false.

Yes, busted.

"Suffice to say that I have far more knowledge how this works than you do"

Really? Do tell! Been arrested much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #153)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:46 PM

158. Nope

 

Arrestor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #158)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:48 PM

160. Yep.

He was arrested, and you declined to provide that fact in your now-busted narrative above.

BTW, I thought you'd bid me good day?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DBoon (Reply #105)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:57 PM

127. Again, good post and spot-on analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #13)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:53 PM

42. So...

 

If I were in that scenario and ran the guy over with my back tires that would be more acceptable to you than shooting him? He's just as dead either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #13)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:13 PM

75. Out of line

Yo mamma jokes are out of line. No one here can read minds, you don't know what the end intention of anyone involved except the man doing the beating, and you still don't know how far he was going to take that. At the end of the day you don't know what the available alternatives were, we can speculate all day but no one knows for sure. I will tell you from my experiences that you get a very narrow view when someone is on top you of you throwing punches and yelling. And in that split second you'll know if its a life and death situation or if you can reasonably stop the treat by other means. Does anyone here actually draw from life experience or is it mere speculations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:30 PM

28. Yay! Amateur psychoanalysis!

Always worth exactly what you pay for it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #8)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 08:09 PM

194. What's the point of having a gun handy if you don't get to use it occasionally?

Or maybe the shooter didn't know how to close the window or slide across the cab.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:29 PM

10. Choices? No, you can't think!

You have a road-raged and possibly steroid-raged cyclist pounding on you, probably can't close the window, certainly can't just drive into the traffic on either Telegraph or Northline - both have traffic going 45-50mph.

And you want to think? Ponder the consequences?

The guy being assaulted made a choice. I hope there are no charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:40 PM

12. So did you think?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #5)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 11:55 AM

65. ANY OF THOSE CHOICES ARE VALID.

 

1. Close the window and lock the door.
2. Drive across the street.
3. Pull out a handgun and kill the cyclist.


When you are actively being a victim of violent crime, any of those actions are appropriate responses!

What don't you get about that?

Shooting the perpetrator is a perfectly valid response to violent assault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Original post)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:26 PM

9. Some bicyclists do stupid things when they're pumped up

 

I had one pound his fist on my vehicle last weekend after I passed him. I gave him plenty of room, but he wasn't paying attention to traffic and was startled when he saw me. He hit my truck, yelled "Watch yourself!" at me, then ran a stop sign, turned right, and almost wiped out.

He and his buddy weren't even wearing helmets, and he thought he could take on a three-ton vehicle with his bare hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Original post)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:07 PM

25. I don't believe this newspaper

story contains enough details to make a good judgement about what happened in this incident. The 'what if' game can be played, but it's pointless without more information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Original post)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:15 PM

26. He could have threatened to shoot the cyclist

I am sure the cyclist would have backed off when seeing a gun pointed at him. The car driver did NOT have to shoot the guy.

END OF STORY. When you shoot TO KILL in a situation where you could SHOOT TO WOUND INSTEAD, then you are a gun nut.
(that should give the gun nuts at least 20 replies worth of froth)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DontTreadOnMe (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:21 PM

27. You do not know what you're talking about.

The Use of Deadly Force is The Use of Deadly Force, period. That means, you do not Shoot to Warn, Shoot to Wound, or Shoot to Kill. You Shoot to Stop. That is exactly what this man did, he fired ONE shot, and the assault against him was stopped, thus he stopped shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DontTreadOnMe (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:34 PM

30. Obviously you have never taken a firearm self-defense class

 

There is no "shoot to wound" or "shoot to kill." You shoot to STOP, and only when you have decided that you have no reasonable alternative.

Brandishing may not have been an option, and depending on state law doing so can sometimes create legal issues that don't don't come up when you actually shoot someone. A person punching you repeatedly is plenty of justification for use of deadly force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DontTreadOnMe (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:34 PM

31. "Shoot to wound?"

Sorry, but you never, ever do that. Shooting to "just wing 'em" is Hollywood bullshit. In the fluid, fast-moving reality of actual violent conflict, just hitting the torso of a human being is not easy to do (just look at that recent debacle in New York...). Bottom line: if you don't have the legal and ethical right to kill someone who is attacking you, you shouldn't pull the gun at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #31)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:45 PM

32. I thought all gun nuts were good shots?

"Shooting to "just wing 'em" is Hollywood bullshit." ...Even more reason not to even bother owning a gun.

I have been in a few fist fights in my lifetime. Never thought I needed to shoot the other guy...

I am waiting for a gun nut reply to tell me the guy's life was being threatened...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DontTreadOnMe (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:03 PM

35. it is Hollywood bullshit

One case of "trying to wing them" was a case in Del Ray Beach, Florida. Guy robs deli with knife. After the owner hands over the money, robber decided to take her 18 month old as a hostage. That got him shot. She shot him in the leg, the bullet hit the femoral artery causing the robber to bleed to death in less than a minute. In this case, the attackers upper torso and head seemed to be the only thing exposed. But then, the Oliver W. Holmes quote applies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DontTreadOnMe (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:09 PM

37. What Would Neil Degrasse Tyson say?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DontTreadOnMe (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:21 PM

38. Some are, some aren't.

But you could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of people in the world who could reliably hit a person in a non-vital part of an extremity (or some other part of their body that woudl not risk a fatal wound) in the fast-moving conditions of actual violent conflict. Those people make a lot of money staging trick shooting exhibitions. Even world-class shooting competitors and the most highly-trained military and law-enforcement people (Air Marshalls, for example) couldn't make such a shot more than one time in twenty. You do NOT take that kind of risk in a potentially life or death situation (and particularly when there are bystanders...again, look at those NYPD clown shoes...).

You don't use a firearm to apply non-lethal force. That's what pepper spray or (if you happen to be physically suited) your fists are for. Guns are for when you feel threatened with deadly or crippling force yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DontTreadOnMe (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 07:57 PM

33. You don't shoot to kill or to wound....

 

you shoot to stop the attack/threat.

For a variety of legal and moral reasons that have been discussed ad infinitum here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DontTreadOnMe (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 09:34 PM

47. Shooting to wound...

...is a very bad idea. The very last thing you want to do is fire a shot with someone close enough to you to be hitting you that you may not incapacitate him with the hit or may miss him altogether and injure a bystander. This will usually result in the attacker taking your weapon. In most jurisdictions and in the mind of anyone thinking straight and morally, deadly force needs to be applied only in response to grave danger.

Your greatest chance of stopping the attack presenting a grave danger is to target the attacker's center of mass. This same target also affords you the smallest chance of shooting a bystander.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DontTreadOnMe (Reply #26)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 02:25 AM

54. Shoot to wound is both illegal* and immoral.

If you are not shooting to stop, then you do not believe your life is in danger. If you don't believe your life is in danger, you should not be using deadly force by shooting someone. Deadly force is always deadly force.

* in most jurisdictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DontTreadOnMe (Reply #26)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 04:06 AM

191. At least you were honest enough to admit you are trolling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Original post)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:00 PM

34. what am I missing here? Bicyclists are NOT pedestrians in any state that I'm aware of....

Did the cyclist run a red light? If so, he's at fault for the initial accident. Was he obeying traffic laws, i.e. did he have the right of way? The OP is unclear on that. It says the pedestrian light was red, but the pedestrian light does not apply to cyclists. The TRAFFIC light applies. Was the cyclist's traffic light green or yellow? Was the truck turning on a red light?

But of course none of that really addresses the cowardice of the shooter who evidently thought the risk of being punched or pushed was grave enough to justify deadly force. Might have hurt his pride, otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #34)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:06 PM

36. Being punched in the head can easily be lethal.

 

If you don't believe it, try it.

The "article" didn't seem to mention the age/health of the driver or the rider, so disparity of force in a physical attack is an unknown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #34)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:27 PM

39. I was told before by the admins

 

I was to only post snippets from the links, so if you want more detail you'll have to click the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #39)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:42 PM

40. The rule is four paragraphs max. Or at least it used to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #39)

Thu Aug 30, 2012, 08:55 PM

43. there is no more information in the article....

The statement that the cyclist entered the intersection while the pedestrian light was red was from a witness, but there is no information about who had the actual right of way.

For future reference, cyclists are not pedestrians. They are vehicles under the law every state I've ever ridden in and have the right of way in just about every situation where a motorist would have the right of way in their place. I'm a long time cyclist and it pisses me off to no end to hear ignorant people make statements like "he shouldn't have been in the middle of the road" and similar nonsense. It pisses me off equally to see cyclists blatantly ignoring their responsibility to ride within the law, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #43)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:33 PM

96. The laws vary from state to state.

In WA, bikes can be used in the street (same rules as cars) or on the sidewalk (same rules as pedestrians, yielding to all pedestrians).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #34)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:10 AM

61. What if you're fiding the bicycle on the sidewalk? Which rules apply?

Traffic rules, or pedestrian rules? On Telegraph Road, I always ride on the sidewalk. The street is three or four lanes in each direction, and the 45 mph limit is generally perceived as "minimum speed". It's no place for a bicycle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #61)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 11:20 AM

62. laws vary by state....

Check your state motor vehicle code. In California, where I live, the law specifically states that cyclists are supposed to use the traffic lanes but should stay to the right unless turning, and can use the shoulders but are not required to. It gives municipalities the option of banning bicycle travel on sidewalks, but does not do so statewide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law_in_California

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #61)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 04:23 PM

69. I bet you know...

...what a 'Michigan left' is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #69)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 10:04 PM

98. What, you mean there's another kind of left turn? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #98)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 10:30 PM

99. I worked in Grand Rapids...

...for 2 years. I had to drive to DTW a few times for flights home. I usually drove at 10 - 15 over the speed limit being as you folks seem to see those limits as being LOWER limits. I'd usually pass a few trucks but all the cars usually passed me.

I suppose it's all just a question of point of view.

Have a good holiday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Original post)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:04 AM

57. Share the road....and don't attack people when you collide with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Original post)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 08:04 AM

60. A few more details

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012308310100

The story still needs more details. Anyway, the truck turned from northbound Telegraph onto eastbound Northline. So he would have been in a "right turn only" lane. For the bicyclist to hit him, the bicycle must have been on the sidewalk. On Telegraph, the sidewalk is the only smart path for bicycles, but if you're on the sidewalk, you probably need to heed pedestrian crossing lights.

BTW, about the link: "freep" is the local nickname for the Detroit Free Press, not related to "freeper".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Original post)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 01:15 PM

68. Wow, seriously misleading title on that report.

 

"Bicyclist shot after criminally attacking driver". There, fixed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Original post)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:30 PM

78. Let's pretend the driver really had reason to fear for his life.

Why not just drive away? Leaving the scene of an accident is a better option than shooting the cyclist.

On an unrelated matter, the driver noted the crash was caused by the cyclist disregarding the pedestrian light. Will everyone PLEASE get this through your head: cyclists are NOT pedestrians. They are part of the traffic. They belong on the road, not the sidewalk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #78)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:45 PM

84. Possibly because he would be running a red light

into six lanes of traffic. Chances are the cyclist would have held on while hitting him, which would get him killed. You can't safely drive while getting punched in the face. People don't calmly think while getting punched if the face. That is why people who were not there and have no idea what else would affect a decision proclaiming "he should have" is quite frankly, absurd.
Both of the roads are six lane higher speed roads. Perhaps he was surrounded by cars. For all we know the driver considered those possibilities. If it were a four way stop residential street, you might have had a more valid point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #84)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 11:30 PM

100. Getting punched in the face didn't affect his aim.

And I don't buy the rest of that. The cyclist had the red light, which means the truck had the green. And in my experience (*shrug* I was a reckless teenager, what can I say?) cyclists hanging on your door (so was he) let go when you speed away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #100)

Fri Aug 31, 2012, 11:51 PM

102. can't miss at point blank range

think about it. Driver's seat to window, don't antis actually think before they post? and it really doesn't matter if you buy it or not, so far the police and DA does. They know more about the situation than either one of us.
Can't drive while getting beaten. Besides, the cyclist would be run over or badly injured. That would be leaving the scene of an accident or vehicular homicide. Reckless teenager? Since when was 42 a reckless teenager? That reminds me of Henry Hyde's saying an affair he had in his 40s a youthful indiscretion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hyde#Extramarital_affair

One more thing, the cyclist did not have a red light, he had the pedestrian "do not cross", but continued anyway. I'm guessing he was using the vehicle rules as a pedestrian. Which means, the cross street had the green light. If Telegraph had the green light, the shooter would have been moving forward. The article reads like the shooter was sitting at a red light.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #78)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:32 AM

111. He could have.

 

Why not just drive away?

What you don't understand is that there multiple responses to being a victim of violent crime.

All of them are equally valid, and it is up to the victim to decide which is the best course of action for them, not for you, and not for the criminal.

Yes, driving away was an option. So was getting out of the truck and fighting off the cyclist with his fists. So was just sitting there and taking the punishment. And so was pulling out a gun and shooting his attacker.

All of these responses are equally valid responses to a violent criminal.

Leaving the scene of an accident is a better option than shooting the cyclist.

Better for who? Better for the violent criminal, no doubt, but in these kinds of situations the only thing that matters is what is the best option for the victim.

And the only person who can make that decision is the victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #111)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 01:47 PM

112. The cyclist is the victim.

He got hit by a car and then got shot.

And not every response is valid. Murder is a serious crime and it is only self defense if one is reasonably afraid of immediate death or serious injury. Depending on the state, a person may have a duty to retreat before resorting to lethal violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #112)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 01:56 PM

113. read the article

he hit the car
If someone who is larger and or stronger than I am is beating me in the face, that meets the "reasonalbe man standard" of death or serious injury.
If you are seat belted in, boxed in by traffic, and getting your face pounded in, you can't reasonably retreat without putting yourself in more danger or violating the law. In that case, you are "against the wall" fulfilling the duty to retreat. Michigan has no such law.

In the criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is often taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.


In English law the focus of the test is whether the defendant is acting reasonably in the particular situation. There is no specific requirement that a person must retreat in anticipation of an attack. Although some withdrawal would be useful evidence to prove that the defendant did not want to fight, not every defendant is able to escape. In R v Bird (1985) 1 WLR 816 the defendant was physically attacked, and reacted instinctively and immediately without having the opportunity to retreat. Had there been a delay in the response, the reaction might have appeared more revenge than self-defense.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #112)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 02:06 PM

114. You apparently haven't gotten the memo: if you so much as even look cross-eyed

at one of our "law abiding gun owners," you should expect to be plugged and planted, no questions asked. That's how it plays down here with our Matt Dillon-wannabe's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #114)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:41 PM

155. Punching someone in the face = looking cross eyed? Ok. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #114)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:01 PM

172. Why have you not contacted the authorities in MI with your "knowledege" of this incident?

While you're at it, inform them of the whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa, since you're apparently good at remote viewing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #114)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:08 PM

173. Matt Dillon???

You must be almost as old as me.

Today the correct derision would be Zimmerman wannabes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #173)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:15 PM

174. Heh - you're right. Duly noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #112)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:15 PM

139. There are three possible scenarios here, none of them flattering to you.

 

1. You didn't read the article

2. You didn't understand the plain language of the article.

3. You are wilfully siding with a person who commited a violent attack on an innocent party.

Oh, option 4, I suppose, would be that your cognitive skills are defficient, but I'm trying to be kind and optimistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #139)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:18 PM

184. None of your four scenarios are accurate.

In a criminal investigation, the dead, unarmed guy is the victim. This is reality, not some old west fantasy. At best, the driver is looking at a decade in prison for manslaughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #184)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:29 PM

186. don't think so

if there is a disparity of force, and fists are deadly weapons, he won't be. More people are murdered with bare hands than "assault weapons" that is before you get to permanent bodily damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #112)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:08 PM

179. The pickup driver did not have...

...a DTR. Cyclist fail. Assault can get you dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #179)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:21 PM

185. If true, deadly force is still only legally available...

...if the driver was in danger of death himself. He wasn't. The cyclist was unarmed. As it is, the driver is probably looking at a murder indictment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #185)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 12:29 AM

188. "unarmed" does not mean "incapable of lethal force".

 

Being punched about the head is very much potentially lethal force.

The driver will be found innocent of criminal action.

The bike rider ignored rules of the road, causing himself to be hit by a vehicle. The bike rider then attacked the driver with lethal force.

It is clear now that you have no idea what constitutes criminal attack and lawful defense. You should brush up on the topics before making further erroneous comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #185)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 12:45 AM

189. If the driver had a reasonable fear for his life

 

then the use of deadly force is justifiable. I seriously doubt that the DA will even file charges as it sounds like the driver was in fear of his life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #185)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 02:26 AM

190. in your opinion...

- deadly force is still only available if... But that's not true.
- he wasn't... (in danger of death...) in your opinion.

Being unarmed doesn't make one a victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deep13 (Reply #112)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 10:49 PM

187. Methinks you need to read the article again.

 

He got hit by a car and then got shot.

Um, no. The cyclist ran into the truck. Then he got mad about it and started beating the snot out of the driver. According to an eye witness, he was "pounding" on the driver, about 7 times.

I'd say, and the police investigating the case say, that this was a valid self-defense shooting.

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/story/19415253/2012/08/30/driver-fatally-shoots-bicyclist-in-taylor

"Meyers, who stayed at the scene until police arrived, was taken into custody and then released from jail Thursday. He referred us to his attorney, James Makowski, who claims this is a clear cut case of self defense.

"Started pounding on the car saying, 'I'm going to kill you,' reached inside the pickup truck, started pounding on my client's face," Makowski explained. "My client was hitting the gas trying to get away, but in the heat of the moment he didn't realize he... had it in park. Car (is) not going anywhere, so he finally felt no choice but to retrieve his weapon and discharge it."
"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:21 PM

143. Head injuries can make a person very violent

stupid article never lets on to the extent of the bicyclist's injuries

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deb (Reply #143)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 03:33 PM

150. possible

but if I'm the one getting my face pounded in, my first concern will be my safety not his motivation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #150)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 06:52 PM

175. +1 :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 07:14 PM

180. Hard for me to judge this without video.

There are so many possible variables.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread