Violent road rage caught on camera in Ontario

[Louis]

Originally Posted by gdw

Most gun owners in the U.S. are like you. They own firearms for a variety of reasons but are not the paranoid nuts that Michael Moore and the media claim.
The armed 24/7 generalization is far from accurate.

Perhaps so, but up-thread the option of carrying a gun while cycling was suggested as a potential solution to the problem. IMO, if you feel the need to carry while riding a bicycle, that's pretty darn close to carrying 24/7.

[tuscanyswe]

The fewer guns the better. No doubt about that.

Sad. I hope they put that guy away for a long time!!!

[rain dogs]

I'm always surprised how guns got in this thread (or the other). So an honest question I'd truly like to hear honest responses from another perspective:

If these two, same combatants:
1. an older cyclist who had whatever part in this altercation and who the driver thinks did something very wrong.
and
2. a driver who feels wronged who is ready/willing to bludgeon an older man on the skull with a fish club, repeatedly, until he is profusely bleeding & screaming for help.

So, from the pro-guns commentors: What if the cyclist had a small gun in his jersey pocket for self defense, and the driver had a gun in his truck for 'self defense?' (That's how pro-gun sees it, right? Everything self-defense? I think.)

Can one of the gun advocates here write out a step-by-step narrative of how this would end for me? Cause I don't think I can envision a logical scenario that fits with what the pro-gun camp tells us.

Like literally.... action by action as you see it in your head. "First, he does this...." "Second, he would do this...." (By all means, a number of responses would be informative. And not I would cause everyone sees themselves as Chuck Norris)

So, this scenario is with a sunday cyclist with jersey pocket gun and enraged hostile head smashing driver with a dodge ram gun. But everyone has guns. Maybe even the women with the phone has a gun? I dunno? I'm not being disingenuous/flippant I've seriously never in my 39 years even seen a person hold a gun that wasn't in a photo or on TV (except toy guns, paintball guns and BB guns)

[Bruce K]

I have a concealed carry permit but generally do not carry. I shoot in competition and MA only issues one type of license.

If a firearm were to be part of this altercation then, to me, the end result is pretty simple - at least one of them ends up seriously wounded or dead.

If the simple act of drawing the gun by the cyclist deters the initial assault, what's to keep the truck driver from backing off from the hand-to-hand assault and, if still pissed off, just ramming the cyclist as he "drives away"? Or maybe he leaves, but comes back and runs him over?

This kind of anger will end up with no good result that I can see.

Let's not even get into the possibility of a "brandishing" charge for the one who shows a firearm.

I don't think carrying on your bike is the answer but there seems to be an escalating level of anger in society, especially on the roads.

It is one of the reasons my road miles are dwindling.

BK

[veggieburger]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Gated communities. Think about that. Gated communities. With armed guards. And this isn't paranoid? Are you serious?

I admit I might have flown off the handle a bit, but I reacted to the idiot upthread. Casually suggesting that guns are the answer, as if the bizarre American gun culture were normative or even desirable in any other place in the world, tends to produce vehement reactions in Canadians. We live next door. We know what it's like.

No more politics from me on this.

You're confusing crime and poverty with gun ownership. Owning a firearm makes you as paranoid as owning a parakeet. I'm not suggesting a 357 was the answer, i just get riled up when gun owners are unfairly labeled. Also, gated communities are not unique to the US.

I too am a...gasp...peace-loving Canadian. Let's grab a Steam Whistle and go for a ride.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by Blown Reek

I thought all Canadians were nice. Never did I think I would see a video where one used the "F" word.

At least the woman ran over and intervened. If she had not, the angry man maybe would have clubbed the guy into unconsciousness.

Lucky the Florida teens weren't filming this, they'd have egged him on.
(For those who did not see the news, this is in reference to the Florida teens who filmed a man drowning and begging for help, and only laughed and joked at him until he drowned. They never reported the drowning and the man was not found until a few days later after a missing report was filed. Oh, but the teens thought it a good idea to post the video on youtube. A new level of depravity.)

[Louis]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

A new level of depravity.

It's a good thing people like that are often also very stupid, which allows them to be caught.

I read that they won't be able to charge them with not helping (I guess Florida doesn't have a Good Samaritan law, or at least doesn't have one that's applicable here.) but they may be able to charge them with not reporting the death. Anything to get some payback, beyond the contempt of all good people throughout the world.

[Red Tornado]

Originally Posted by Ken Robb

Since the attacker is 65 and the victim 74 I'm doubtful their parents are aware of what happened. Well, maybe?

Was referring to the 2nd video on this thread where the teenagers were filming a guy drowning & laughing at him instead of going to his aid.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by Louis

(I guess Florida doesn't have a Good Samaritan law, or at least doesn't have one that's applicable here.)

Louis, Good Samaritan laws do not mandate that bystanders must aid someone in the event of an emergency. the purpose of a good samaritan law is to protect bystanders who provide aid from being charged if something goes wrong. (Like if you were to provide CPR to a victim and you broke his ribs in the process of chest compression - as long as you were trying to help, they cant sue you for breaking the ribs...).

i dont think there are ANY laws that tell you you MUST provide aid if you see something like this, unless you are a licensed professional.

either way, kids are scumbags for having a cell phone and not calling 911.

[Louis]

This apparently isn't 100% applicable to the current Florida case, but Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue says this:

In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California,[10][11] Florida,[10][12][13] Hawaii,[10][14] Massachusetts,[10][15] Minnesota,[10][16] Ohio,[10][17] Rhode Island,[10][18] Vermont,[10][19] Washington,[10][20][21] and Wisconsin.[10][22] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals who try to help another person.[1] These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers.[1]

[thwart]

Originally Posted by veggieburger

Owning a firearm makes you as paranoid as owning a parakeet.

Really?

OK, a hunting rifle, I'm with you on that.

Add a handgun to the incident this thread refers to (held by either the cyclist or the psychotic motorist in the pickup), and I'll let you try to convince me that it ends with only a bleeding and bruised head.

When you're the vulnerable one on the road, don't engage or argue with any motorist. Swear under your breath, picture them under your wheel, do whatever it takes to get through the situation without escalation.

I appreciate William's input, but his energies would be better served here by helping us hone our methods of self-control rather than self defense. Don't let them get to you.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by tuscanyswe

The fewer guns the better. No doubt about that.

Sad. I hope they put that guy away for a long time!!!

sooo....what actually happened? Why was the guy riding the bike on the ground with the knuckledragger beating on him?

BUT lotsa guns out there...I never considered carrying a gun until recently(last 6 months?)while I'm taking care of grand daughters...scary times, IMHO.

[William]

Originally Posted by thwart

When you're the vulnerable one on the road, don't engage or argue with any motorist. Swear under your breath, picture them under your wheel, do whatever it takes to get through the situation without escalation.

I appreciate William's input, but his energies would be better served here by helping us hone our methods of self-control rather than self defense. Don't let them get to you.

I usually just smile and wave. It's not provocative and it probably ticks them off that they aren't getting a reaction.

I always find it interesting that anytime one starts talking about self protection there is always a segment of the population that reacts thinking that if you decide to carry a tool for the "what if" then you are just looking for trouble. In my experience, and we're talking a long time and many people, is that people who train regularly and responsibly are less likely to get into a confrontation in the first place. And if they do, they are more likely to deescalate the situation. If that doesn't work and it goes to blows, they are more likely to take it only as far as needed to end it. That ability comes from regular training, threat recognition (display/behavior), and the trained response to remain cool during the adrenaline dump of a confrontation.

It's the untrained people who think that if you have a tool on you you'll just whip it out at first contact and go nuts....and untrained people likely would, they have no learned control.

Just smile and wave boys and girls, smile and wave.









William

[Clancy]

Originally Posted by veggieburger

Seeing as this is Canada, the guy in the pickup truck will probably get an apology and 10.5 million bucks from Trudeau.

It's uneducated comments like this that makes any serious discussion impossible.

What ignorance

[makoti]

Originally Posted by Clancy

It's uneducated comments like this that makes any serious discussion impossible.

What ignorance

He's Canadian, so he can make snarky remarks about the PM with impunity. Kind of like our 97th Amendment, the "Right to Piss & Moan about the Government, but everyone else has to say we're the greatest."