Cyclist fatally shot after crash with pickup

[kaze]

Bad judgment on both sides of this one.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120830/METRO01/208300403/1361/Cyclist-fatally-shot-after-crash-with-pickup-in-Taylor

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

[MattTuck]

Obviously, they're doing an investigation, so all the facts aren't out yet, but based on the statements in those two stories, the post should read "man shoots assailant".

That he was on a bike and crashed into the truck was incidental. He started attack the driver and was shot for that. Not because of the crash.

I'm not sure how the driver was guilty of bad judgement. Tragic, yes. But no way that I see the driver at fault here.

[wallymann]

maybe "vagrant riding a bike" is more apropo.

anyone properly trained with firearms knows that shooting is the LAST RESORT. driver had it within his means to leave the situation -- he was INSIDE of a RUNNING vehicle. why shoot when you can drive away?

there is a dead man that didnt have to be made dead, IMO the driver/shooter is at least guilty of aggravated manslaughter and should do time.

[William]

maybe "vagrant riding a bike" is more apropo.

anyone properly trained with firearms knows that shooting is the LAST RESORT. driver had it within his means to leave the situation -- he was INSIDE of a RUNNING vehicle. why shoot when you can drive away?

there is a dead man that didnt have to be made dead, IMO the driver/shooter is at least guilty of aggravated manslaughter and should do time.

I agree with the first part. The second part....there isn't enough stated to go by yet. If the man got out to see if the rider was alright, and then was attacked, he may not have been able to get to his vehicle to escape. We just don't know enough about the incident yet.

Sad all around.



William

[67-59]

Obviously, they're doing an investigation, so all the facts aren't out yet, but based on the statements in those two stories, the post should read "man shoots assailant".

That he was on a bike and crashed into the truck was incidental. He started attack the driver and was shot for that. Not because of the crash.

I'm not sure how the driver was guilty of bad judgement. Tragic, yes. But no way that I see the driver at fault here.

I agree with your comment about the title to the article...but depending on the facts that come out of the investigation, I think I might define shooting the guy in the chest as "bad judgment."

Even though the cyclist was clearly in the wrong by hitting the truck and attacking the driver, I'd bet in many of these situations just pulling the gun and firing a warning shot into the air would be more than enough to stop an attack. And if that doesn't work, shooting him in the foot would do the trick. Maybe the investigation will show that those weren't options, but to say there's "no way" the driver was at fault seems pretty premature.

[wallymann]

driver never left his vehicle.

the vagrant actually hit the truck, not the other way around. lots of these random drunkards ride bikes up and down telegraph in that area. i think it's guys that lost their licenses and drink all the time.

so the vagrant is very, very culpable in this mess...but not enough to be made dead when it was avoidable. very sad indeed.

I agree with the first part. The second part....there isn't enough stated to go by yet. If the man got out to see if the rider was alright, and then was attacked, he may not have been able to get to his vehicle to escape. We just don't know enough about the incident yet.

Sad all around.



William

[William]

driver never left his vehicle.

the vagrant actually hit the truck, not the other way around. lots of these random drunkards ride bikes up and down telegraph in that area. i think it's guys that lost their licenses and drink all the time.

so the vagrant is very, very culpable in this mess...but not enough to be made dead when it was avoidable. very sad indeed.


Neither article stated explicitly whether the driver got out or stayed in his vehicle. The second linked article did say the bike rider ran around the front of the vehicle, but again wasn't explicit as to whether the driver was in or out so I wasn't going to jump to either conclusion.




William

[slowgoing]

Even though the cyclist was clearly in the wrong by hitting the truck and attacking the driver, I'd bet in many of these situations just pulling the gun and firing a warning shot into the air would be more than enough to stop an attack.



Firing a warning shot in the air? In the city? C'mon, you know better than that.

[oldguy00]

"The bike rider reportedly got up and started attacking the unidentified 46-year-old trucker, hitting him several times"

Would have been hard to hit him several times if he was inside the car, no?

[rugbysecondrow]

Like William said, not nearly enough info. He could be outside the car, he could be inside the car, he could be inside the car getting pulled through the window. The engine could have been off, there are way too many variables parse out.

The gist is the guy on the bike brought his fists to a gun fight and lost. Tough, but he ought not to have attacked the gentleman.

[MattTuck]

Like William said, not nearly enough info. He could be outside the car, he could be inside the car, he could be inside the car getting pulled through the window. The engine could have been off, there are way too many variables parse out.


He was inside the car. If you watch the video, the voice over specifies that the guy was attacking him through the driver side window.

The only bad judgement they made was living in Detroit. And I say that only half kidding.

[rugbysecondrow]

He was inside the car. If you watch the video, the voice over specifies that the guy was attacking him through the driver side window.

The only bad judgement they made was living in Detroit. And I say that only half kidding.


I just read the article.

Still, a few variable left.

If you go beat on a guy, expect him/her to use whatever means necessary to save themselves, with you as an after thought.

[slidey]

Guns for everyone, my a$$! :mad:

What an empathetic society we live in :butt:

[Aaron O]

Obviously, they're doing an investigation, so all the facts aren't out yet, but based on the statements in those two stories, the post should read "man shoots assailant".

That he was on a bike and crashed into the truck was incidental. He started attack the driver and was shot for that. Not because of the crash.

I'm not sure how the driver was guilty of bad judgement. Tragic, yes. But no way that I see the driver at fault here.

+1...I'm not seeing how this is a bicycle related issue; it seems to be an idiot related issue and assault related issue. Assuming the witness account is accurate, I don't see a problem. An idiot assaults someone and gets shot. Don't assault people - nothing good will come of it and being shot is a potential and predictable outcome.

maybe "vagrant riding a bike" is more apropo.

anyone properly trained with firearms knows that shooting is the LAST RESORT. driver had it within his means to leave the situation -- he was INSIDE of a RUNNING vehicle. why shoot when you can drive away?

there is a dead man that didnt have to be made dead, IMO the driver/shooter is at least guilty of aggravated manslaughter and should do time.

Again, I wasn't there, but IF the witness account is accurate, and a guy attacked someone, I'm not second guessing the victim. There might have been a car or people in front of him, he might not have been able to drive. I don't know what went through his head. If the guy punched him repeatedly, he had a right to defend himself, including shooting the guy. What if he did try to avoid the situation, hit the gas, and killed another cyclist? Sorry, but I'd rather have the assaulting party killed than risk another incident.

I don't own a gun and am neither a gun rights advocate nor an anti-gun activist. They have a place, they should be regulated and I think the regulation should be local and consistent with area specific balancing acts. I'll say this...if someone attacks me, I'm not going to stop and think about how much threat I'm in. I'm going to stop him...and if I have a gun or access to a gun, yes...I'm shooting. Afterwards I'll hope I get the right jury and that my actions will be judged reasonable. In my area...if you shoot someone in the inner city, you might be in trouble. If you shoot them in the burbs, you're going to walk.

[Bob Loblaw]

I wish the press wouldn't use the term 'cyclist' to describe every semi-sane, meth-addicted bonehead who throws a leg over a Wal-mart bike.

BL

[slidey]

Fantastic take man!

I sure do hope we start issuing biological weapons/hand-held rocket launchers/IEDs to the public in the future...you know, whatever means necessary.


...expect him/her to use whatever means necessary to save themselves...

[rugbysecondrow]

Fantastic take man!

I sure do hope we start issuing biological weapons/hand-held rocket launchers/IEDs to the public in the future...you know, whatever means necessary.

Just a silly statement.

[Aaron O]

Just a silly statement.

Yeah, but some of the guns and amo out there are also a little out of control. Some of this stuff should be restricted to shooting ranges, gun clubs and the like. I'm sorry, but I just don't want kevlar piercing rounds out there.

[Waldo]

Damn. Keep guns legal, outlaw bicycles instead.:cool:

[67-59]

Just a silly statement.

It was equally silly for you to say it was "necessary" for the driver to shoot the guy in the chest for taking some swings at him. If this is what the gun crowd considers "necessary" force, we're in more trouble than I thought....

[rugbysecondrow]

It was equally silly for you to say it was "necessary" for the driver to shoot the guy in the chest for taking some swings at him. If this is what the gun crowd considers "necessary" force, we're in more trouble than I thought....

Nope, not silly at all. "Taking some swings" might be what you think, but if you are getting beat on, you might fear for your life.

Question, how long must a person be beat on before it is reasonable to protect their life? How much threat must be prevalent?

[Aaron O]

People can be killed by a punch. Why exactly is it insane from protecting myself from a guy attacking me and who initiated the behavior? Sorry, but if I'm on the jury, and a guy assaults someone and gets shot for it, I'm not going to wonder if the shooter adequately determined if it was lethal force. Getting shot is a predictable ramification of assaulting someone. Don't assault people.

[firerescuefin]

Nope, not silly at all. "Taking some swings" might be what you think, but if you are getting beat on, you might fear for your life.

Paul...remember your statement about swinging at every pitch....this topic was destined to be a race to the bottom.

[67-59]

Nope, not silly at all. "Taking some swings" might be what you think, but if you are getting beat on, you might fear for your life.

Not if I'm in a pickup and the guy is outside. Maybe you - well, at least that's what you'd tell the police....

Silly and scary....

[rugbysecondrow]

Paul...remember your statement about swinging at every pitch....this topic was destined to be a race to the bottom.

You are right...you can't reason with unreasonable people.

[67-59]

People can be killed by a punch. Why exactly is it insane from protecting myself from a guy attacking me and who initiated the behavior? Sorry, but if I'm on the jury, and a guy assaults someone and gets shot for it, I'm not going to wonder if the shooter adequately determined if it was lethal force. Getting shot is a predictable ramification of assaulting someone. Don't assault people.

So anyone who takes a swing at someone else deserves to be shot, no questions asked? Got it.

You guys remind me of Steve Martin's line about giving the death penalty for parking violations.

[67-59]

You are right...you can't reason with unreasonable people.

How true.

[cnighbor1]

I never can figure why if you feel a need to shoot at someone why 1st shoot isn't in the air .Just to scare that person 2nd shoot is at at ground in front of person. that will kick up a lot of dirt, gravel and scare that person 3rd shoot at legs Just to stop him. Unless person is charging you with say a knife than do 3rd 1st
and 4th shoot is at upper body but not middle so just to wound person not kill
this applies to police offers also
charles

[cnighbor1]

So anyone who takes a swing at someone else deserves to be shot, no questions asked? Got it.

You guys remind me of Steve Martin's line about giving the death penalty for parking violations.

Yes using that approach when someone swings at you we all head into a lawless socitey.
Great.

[Aaron O]

So anyone who takes a swing at someone else deserves to be shot, no questions asked? Got it.

You guys remind me of Steve Martin's line about giving the death penalty for parking violations.

Anyone who takes an unprovoked swing at someone should expect that being shot is a potential outcome...and yes - for me, attacking someone is a justification for defense, including lethal force. 3 people have died in Philadelphia over the past few years by just being punched. One was attacked and fell, hitting his head. Another had an asthmatic reaction.

This might offend your sensibility, but me not being injured is more important than the life of someone assaulting me. He chose to place a low value on his life when he attacked me. He initiated the behavior.

There should be questions asked, including asking witnesses. I don't want the wild west, but I also should be able to stop someone from assaulting me.

FYI - I do not own a gun and I'm not an NRA supporter. In fact I'm opposed to the extension of castle doctrine because I think it gives too much leeway and I trust juries and DAs to be reasonable. Obviously, they aren't always reasonable. Under the premise of duty to retreat, protection from lethal force...I consider a punch potentially lethal force and just being in a truck doesn't mean he had the ability to retreat (safely).

[Gummee]

I never can figure why if you feel a need to shoot at someone why 1st shoot isn't in the air .Just to scare that person 2nd shoot is at at ground in front of person. that will kick up a lot of dirt, gravel and scare that person 3rd shoot at legs Just to stop him. Unless person is charging you with say a knife than do 3rd 1st
and 4th shoot is at upper body but not middle so just to wound person not kill
this applies to police offers also
charlesSo you're going to pop off a round into the air where it'll land where? Shoot the ground and have a richotet go where?

No. That's the movies. Not real life.

IF its gotten to the point where you've drawn a weapon, its time to shoot.

...and IDK about any of y'all, but the last time *I* was trained to shoot someone, I was taught aim center mass. :nod Biggest target on the body, relatively still, most parts that if you hit em it'll stop someone immediately.

Despite not agreeing with the guy that's shooting the pistol in this instance, he did a good job with it. Hit what he aimed at. Stopped the guy. No stray bullets. All-in-all a good example of using a pistol in self-defense.

M

[Fixed]

I was thinking about learning to use a firearm like at a shooting range
Then I thought archery might be fun ,now I am kind of hooked on learning to fish .since I have never done any activity that was not about exercise (Except music ) I live in a really good fishing wonderland .
Cheers

[yngpunk]

depending on which fish you're angling for...trying to real in some deep sea species can be quite the work out:banana:

[Jaq]

Went fishing with a friend and his then future (now ex, after the divorce) father-in-law.

My friend hooks a nice-sized blue-fin and we're bringing it in... and out of nowhere a couple blue sharks decide it's time for lunch and have at it....

Until his father-in-law-to-be (a former Gunnery Sergeant and LAPD detective) pulls out a PPK and starts banging away at the sharks, three feet from my buddy's ear. He jumps aside, scared ****less (we all were), cursing and yelling and finally everyone calms down.

My buddy asks to see the pistol. Gunny hands it over. Buddy tosses it in the deep blue sea.

They never spoke again after that, not even at the wedding (which my buddy actually paid for) and it definitely contributed to the breakup of the marriage about a year later.

[CNY rider]

I never can figure why if you feel a need to shoot at someone why 1st shoot isn't in the air .Just to scare that person 2nd shoot is at at ground in front of person. that will kick up a lot of dirt, gravel and scare that person 3rd shoot at legs Just to stop him. Unless person is charging you with say a knife than do 3rd 1st
and 4th shoot is at upper body but not middle so just to wound person not kill
this applies to police offers also
charles

If the situation has escalated to the point that I'm pulling a gun, I intend to use it to kill.
Otherwise it has no role.

[William]

Obviously this discussion could go round and round and likely down and down.

The decision to use a firearm for self defense is an extremely difficult and important decision to make. With it comes much responsibility. It's a tool, and like any tool if you choose to carry you better train, train, and train some more on proper usage.

The difficult question is what justifies use? Is "being punched" justifiable? Here's the problem: How do you know if the guy is just going to punch once and walk away, or just keep punching until you aren't moving anymore? All it takes is one punch to the right spot and your lights are out. No more covering up, no running, no defending yourself. The guy will stop when he wants to stop or when someone intervenes. Black eye, concussion, vegetable, or death. You just don't know where on the spectrum you'll end up. Are you willing to take that chance?

It's a difficult question to answer. And, as much as I respect LE, they won't likely get there until after the fact.

As I said, it's a difficult question to consider.


I'll let this thread ride for a bit as long as everyone is respectful in the discussion.




William

[Aaron O]

Obviously this discussion could go round and round and likely down and down.

The decision to use a firearm for self defense is an extremely difficult and important decision to make. With it comes much responsibility. It's a tool, and like any tool if you choose to carry you better train, train, and train so more on proper usage.

The difficult question is what justifies use? Is "being punched" justifiable? Here's the problem: How do you know if the guy is just going to punch once and walk away, or just keep punching until you aren't moving anymore? All it takes is one punch to the right spot and your lights are out. No more covering up, no running, no defending yourself. The guy will stop when he wants to stop or when someone intervenes. Black eye, concussion, vegetable, or death. You just don't know where on the spectrum you'll end up. Are you willing to take that chance?

It's a difficult question to answer. And, as much as I respect LE, they won't likely get there until after the fact.

As I said, it's a difficult question to consider.


I'll let this thread ride for a bit as long as everyone is respectful in the discussion.




William

I think this is exactly right...and we have to trust to judges/juries and police/prosecutors to be reasonable.

[wallymann]

just so you dont use this ill-informed logic in the future, bullets are only fast and lethal when the emerge from the barrell of a firearm or otherwise discharged. when they fall, they fall according to gravity and wind-resistance. unless there are legions of maimed people lying about after a hailstorm, nobody is going to get injured by a free-falling bullet.

So you're going to pop off a round into the air where it'll land where?

[Aaron O]

just so you dont use this ill-informed logic in the future, bullets are only fast and lethal when the emerge from the barrell of a firearm or otherwise discharged. when they fall, they fall according to gravity and wind-resistance. unless there are legions of maimed people lying about after a hailstorm, nobody is going to get injured by a free-falling bullet.

People get hurt and killed by bullets fired into the air every fourth of July and New Years in Philly. And wasn't he in a truck? How would he fire into the air? If you pull a gun, you're pulling it to use it. I'm not assuming someone dumb enough to attack me is going to back off if I shoot into the air.

The question isn't if there was a better alternative, the question is did he act reasonably? If the witness account is accurate, yes...he did. He was confronted with potential lethal force and injuries. He was in a truck and likely had no way of retreating.

Let's see if he gets charged.

[wallymann]

i'm guessing those philly drunkards are firing more laterally than vertically!


People get hurt and killed by bullets fired into the air every fourth of July and New Years in Philly. And wasn't he in a truck? How would he fire into the air? If you pull a gun, you're pulling it to use it. I'm not assuming someone dumb enough to attack me is going to back off if I shoot into the air.

[Aaron O]

Yes - a bullet fired straight up can certainly hurt you, and potentially kill you on the return trip. The best case described below is being hit with the force of a hammer. I don't want to be hit with a hammer. If the choice is between a guy who assaults someone being shot, and bullets being fired in the air...I'll take shooting the guy who caused the problem.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1199/can-a-bullet-fired-into-the-air-kill-someone-when-it-comes-down

[slidey]

Probability of getting killed by a punch <<< Probability of getting killed by being shot at.

There is no linear equality between a human body's offensive capabilities, and a gun+ammo.

No one's asking you to keep quiet when you're assaulted by punches...block them, dammit! Ok, so you're not proficient in martial arts, etc...still you've seen Tom and Jerry cartoons enough to know that you can always run, or in this case the moron in the car could've just driven away.

What is achieved by shooting someone for throwing punches? And what do you lose by just running away from the scene, except your ego? Is it worth spilling someone's blood to save your ego? Are you willing to teach your kids that this is the right thing to do?

People can be killed by a punch. Why exactly is it insane from protecting myself from a guy attacking me and who initiated the behavior? Sorry, but if I'm on the jury, and a guy assaults someone and gets shot for it, I'm not going to wonder if the shooter adequately determined if it was lethal force. Getting shot is a predictable ramification of assaulting someone. Don't assault people.

[slidey]

He's in a truck and he has nowhere to go to avoid the deadly ammo of a spandex covered idiot??!!

Thanks for the laughs!

He was in a truck and likely had no way of retreating.

Reason has now left the building!

[Aaron O]

Probability of getting killed by a punch <<< Probability of getting killed by being shot at.

There is no linear equality between a human body's offensive capabilities, and a gun+ammo.

No one's asking you to keep quiet when you're assaulted by punches...block them, dammit! Ok, so you're not proficient in martial arts, etc...still you've seen Tom and Jerry cartoons enough to know that you can always run, or in this case the moron in the car could've just driven away.

What is achieved by shooting someone for throwing punches? And what do you lose by just running away from the scene, except your ego? Is it worth spilling someone's blood to save your ego? Are you willing to teach your kids that this is the right thing to do?

1. He's in a truck, being attacked. Driving away might hurt others, assuming it's possible at all. IF I could run, I would. I am not a brave man nor am I a fighter. A guy being attacked in an intersection is fairly trapped.

2. His life is less important to me then a small chance of death or injury to me. In fact I'd kill him over a risk of a broken nose. You assume that both of our lives are equal to me - they aren't. He chose to assault me...why should I have ANY risk of death? Our lives aren't equal...he decided his was worth less when he takes that chance. In this case, he lost. He instigated the behavior and I hope he's willing to deal with the potential consequence. This isn;t about pride...it's about survival and fairness.

3. I would teach my children to run if possible. As my father taught me. If he was being attacked, I'd shoot the attacker if necessary. Sorry...I value my life and the lives of "my people" over someone assaulting them or me.

[Chance]

It was equally silly for you to say it was "necessary" for the driver to shoot the guy in the chest for taking some swings at him. If this is what the gun crowd considers "necessary" force, we're in more trouble than I thought....

If any of us walked up to a police officer on duty and started punching them, don't you think they would shoot us? Pretty sure they are trained to do so if necessary.

And that brings me to a factor that hasn't been discussed here yet. Are both individuals of equal power? Size? And so on. They listed their ages but that’s about it. One could be large and strong and the other not so much. That seems important to me.

If a large strong man started beating on a small female police officer, the chances of her using a gun is much greater than if a small person attacked a large strong officer. In that case he might just beat you silly and arrest you. But in the case of dissimilar physical capabilities (like there might be in this bicycle case) the odds of guns saving the day may be much greater. Truth is we don't know enough to pass judgment. For all we know the cyclist may have started punching after seeing the gun aimed at him. Granted that wouldn't be wise, but we don't know how we'd react to that kind of threat either. What seems odd to me is that the driver was able to get to his gun while being attacked unless he already had it ready. That is the only part that bothers me about this story based on reports. Sadly other than that the shooting seems justified. A tragedy for sure but justified nonetheless.

As a cyclist, personally would never physically attack a driver. As a driver, would not hesitate shooting anyone who reached inside my car to do me harm.

Please understand that my intent is not to question your choices. Most of us probably respect your choice not to arm yourself. My preference is not to take that risk.

[ultraman6970]

+1... that you have a weapon like that doesnt mean you have to use it, the cyclist screw up. But just a few more secs of deep thought would have saved his life... sad anyways.

Bad judgment on both sides of this one.

[rugbysecondrow]

+1... that you have a weapon like that doesnt mean you have to use it, the cyclist screw up. But just a few more secs of deep thought would have saved his life... sad anyways.

How so? I have never been beat on by a crazed stranger, but deep thought is likely NOT what is going to occur in such a situation. Also, how many seconds must one wait until they either shoot or become Reginald Denny?

Again, we are not talking about a fight, we are talking about a violent attack.

It is asinine that people are sticking up for this violent guy. If your wife or daughter were in the car gettin beat on, how long would you expect her to take a beating? Are you prepare to risk your own well being, possibly permanent , for the sake of saving this attacker?

When you attack somebody like this there are possible outcomes which might detrimental to your health, a bullet to the chest is one of them.

What is sad is that there is a traumatized motorist who not only was violently attacked but also took his attackers life, the attackers loss of life. All for what? Just totally senseless and preventable

[ultraman6970]

Thats the reason i said that the cyclist screw up... too... sure the guy got scared and stuff, who knows but either way he was inside of the car, close the windows go away or something, call the cops from inside of the car... who knows what the rider tried to do... sure he was not happy but well... too late now.

[charliedid]

This story is not a bout "cycling" it's about rage and frustration. The cycling part is incidental...

It's a shame either way.

[Chance]

This story is not a bout "cycling" it's about rage and frustration. The cycling part is incidental...

It's a shame either way.

You are correct that it’s not directly about the act of cycling, but in my opinion it indirectly touches on some cycling issues that fortunately don’t occur often.

Cyclists are very vulnerable to automobiles and when conflicts occur it’s easy to see how things can get out of hand. More so than when two cars just have a fender bender. Those conflicts don’t seem as personal to me. It also touches on issues surrounding the sharing of roads; where bikes are neither true vehicles (because we can’t maintain traffic speed) and are not pedestrians either.

This case may not be about the act of riding a bike itself, but at the extreme it’s representative of scary trends we are seeing more often. Idiot riders, lack of respect for bikes, aggression on both sides, people in society arming themselves for protection because of out-of-control crime, use of violence to solve problems, and so on.

Have to admit that riding a bike is not what it used to be for me because of some of these issues. Worries can take some of the fun out of it. It just doesn’t feel like the carefree experience of the past.

[charliedid]

You are correct that it’s not directly about the act of cycling, but in my opinion it indirectly touches on some cycling issues that fortunately don’t occur often.

Cyclists are very vulnerable to automobiles and when conflicts occur it’s easy to see how things can get out of hand. More so than when two cars just have a fender bender. Those conflicts don’t seem as personal to me. It also touches on issues surrounding the sharing of roads; where bikes are neither true vehicles (because we can’t maintain traffic speed) and are not pedestrians either.

This case may not be about the act of riding a bike itself, but at the extreme it’s representative of scary trends we are seeing more often. Idiot riders, lack of respect for bikes, aggression on both sides, people in society arming themselves for protection because of out-of-control crime, use of violence to solve problems, and so on.

Have to admit that riding a bike is not what it used to be for me because of some of these issues. Worries can take some of the fun out of it. It just doesn’t feel like the carefree experience of the past.

That's very true...

I just have to think that the current state of some human's condition will ultimately end in an unfortunate often violent scenario. The same thing could have transpired due to a shopping cart in a parking lot accidentally rolling in front of someone, or a person accidentally bumping into someone in line at the gas station. Somebody looks at someone's girlfriend and a "boyfriend" goes nuts.

We are seeing this happen on an almost daily basis here in Chicago. It's not all gang turf warfare, a large part of it is a huge number of people who feel absolutely helpless in almost every aspect of their lives. These actions are born out of frustrations and are often "triggered" buy a seemingly insignificant/normal set of circumstances.

Too many people who see nothing at the end of the tunnel.

[Aaron O]

That's very true...

I just have to think that the current state of some human's condition will ultimately end in an unfortunate often violent scenario. The same thing could have transpired due to a shopping cart in a parking lot accidentally rolling in front of someone, or a person accidentally bumping into someone in line at the gas station. Somebody looks at someone's girlfriend and a "boyfriend" goes nuts.

We are seeing this happen on an almost daily basis here in Chicago. It's not all gang turf warfare, a large part of it is a huge number of people who feel absolutely helpless in almost every aspect of their lives. These actions are born out of frustrations and are often "triggered" buy a seemingly insignificant/normal set of circumstances.

Too many people who see nothing at the end of the tunnel.

There are a lot of people with mental illness and there are a lot of people with addiction issues. There are too many folks who are desperate and angry, and when you have less, you might value things differently. A significant portion of people are nuts and I try my best to keep my head down and not look like a target.

Not to be overtly political, but folks might want to consider that desperation and the stability/safety of society when discussing tax reform and social cuts.

[Chance]

Not to be overtly political, but folks might want to consider that desperation and the stability/safety of society when discussing tax reform and social cuts.

Think about this all the time. And like most things don’t see a clear solution. It’s not like it’s a black and white problem (no pun intended).

Have cousins with kids whose brains are damaged from using drugs. These boys are now a burden on society in that they will never be productive members. They are now, and will remain, a burden on their parents until the parents die or can no longer help them. After that who knows what will happen to these boys. Assuming they live that long.

Yeah, we can make a great case that they need help. And will always need help. However, the rest of society will have to suffer because of their actions. Or some would say for the lack of proper parenting. Lack of parental actions.

On the flip side maybe it’s time to get really tough on things like drugs, violent crime, or any crime at all. Seems we’ve tried going easy on crime and being excessively understanding and things just keep getting worse. Maybe the next time a movie star drives drunk or gets caught using drugs they should be sentenced to 10 years hard time to make an example of them rather than give them 8 hours in county lockup.

Don’t really know. Just doesn’t seem anyone has an answer that will work. In my mind it’s doubtful more taxes to support more programs will make things better at all. In fact, we can make a great case for it making life worse when viewed long-term. When people (particularly the young) know there are people waiting to help when they screw up they will simply take more chances. More risks. Maybe we need to take the training wheels off society and let a few people take some hard crashes in order to improve society long term. Trying to solve this problem with short-term remedies just doesn’t seem to be working at all. Maybe for a few individuals, but not for society as a whole.

[Fixed]

peoples life were ruined that Is sad
It only takes a few major things in your life to go wrong to make anyone unhinged .believe it or not .


Cheers

[Aaron O]

Think about this all the time. And like most things don’t see a clear solution. It’s not like it’s a black and white problem (no pun intended).

Have cousins with kids whose brains are damaged from using drugs. These boys are now a burden on society in that they will never be productive members. They are now, and will remain, a burden on their parents until the parents die or can no longer help them. After that who knows what will happen to these boys. Assuming they live that long.

Yeah, we can make a great case that they need help. And will always need help. However, the rest of society will have to suffer because of their actions. Or some would say for the lack of proper parenting. Lack of parental actions.

On the flip side maybe it’s time to get really tough on things like drugs, violent crime, or any crime at all. Seems we’ve tried going easy on crime and being excessively understanding and things just keep getting worse. Maybe the next time a movie star drives drunk or gets caught using drugs they should be sentenced to 10 years hard time to make an example of them rather than give them 8 hours in county lockup.

Don’t really know. Just doesn’t seem anyone has an answer that will work. In my mind it’s doubtful more taxes to support more programs will make things better at all. In fact, we can make a great case for it making life worse when viewed long-term. When people (particularly the young) know there are people waiting to help when they screw up they will simply take more chances. More risks. Maybe we need to take the training wheels off society and let a few people take some hard crashes in order to improve society long term. Trying to solve this problem with short-term remedies just doesn’t seem to be working at all. Maybe for a few individuals, but not for society as a whole.

The biq questions are NEVER easy...if they were, we'd have fixed the problems. I tend to see both sides of every argument too...the positive and negative of each decision. Usually it's a choice between non-ideal choices and you hope for the best.

I guess I prefer apple and stick approaches as the most practical solutions. We should provide incentives and opportunity while punishing bad behavior that effects the group. The real problem comes in when those folks you don't want to support have kids...you may not want to support them, but I don't think we want to let the kids starve either. Like you said - these are tough issues. If you don't provide some opportunity for the kids, it's going to be a repeat cycle - which is where I think we are today. Even providing opportunity isn't going to help when their parents drug use impacts their development. I'm convinced that a lot of the current problems in poorer areas are based in pre-natal drug use and malnutrition.

I wish I had easy answers or quick fixes - but I'm not running for office. I know most problems take a long time to develop...and they take a long time to fix...the fix is always a comprehensive approach,

[soulspinner]

i wish the press wouldn't use the term 'cyclist' to describe every semi-sane, meth-addicted bonehead who throws a leg over a wal-mart bike.

Bl

+1

[smead]

Anyone who takes an unprovoked swing at someone should expect that being shot is a potential outcome...and yes - for me, attacking someone is a justification for defense, including lethal force. 3 people have died in Philadelphia over the past few years by just being punched. One was attacked and fell, hitting his head. Another had an asthmatic reaction.

This might offend your sensibility, but me not being injured is more important than the life of someone assaulting me. He chose to place a low value on his life when he attacked me. He initiated the behavior.

There should be questions asked, including asking witnesses. I don't want the wild west, but I also should be able to stop someone from assaulting me.

FYI - I do not own a gun and I'm not an NRA supporter. In fact I'm opposed to the extension of castle doctrine because I think it gives too much leeway and I trust juries and DAs to be reasonable. Obviously, they aren't always reasonable. Under the premise of duty to retreat, protection from lethal force...I consider a punch potentially lethal force and just being in a truck doesn't mean he had the ability to retreat (safely).

I'm only on page 2 of 4 in this thread but felt I had to chime in here.

Perhaps I grew up on another planet, but where I'm from fists are for fights when hot tempered males lose control, guns are used for hunting. Trying to rationalize that someone should shoot someone IN THE CHEST for taking a swing at them is insane, again at least where I'm from (not the inner city).

[Aaron O]

I'm only on page 2 of 4 in this thread but felt I had to chime in here.

Perhaps I grew up on another planet, but where I'm from fists are for fights when hot tempered males lose control, guns are used for hunting. Trying to rationalize that someone should shoot someone IN THE CHEST for taking a swing at them is insane, again at least where I'm from (not the inner city).I think conversation has run its course...but I don't understand some of these comments. You wrote IN THE CHEST...as if he had an option to fire a warning shot, or shoot him in the shoulder. That's not how it works. If you pull your gun, you're shooting center. This Roy Rogers stuff where someone shoots to "wound" isn't real. You're being attacked, you shoot to stop the attack.

This isn't a bar fight...this guy assaulted someone and punched repeatedly. It sounds like the victim (you know...the guy who was assaulted) was in a car without the ability to fight back. He sounds trapped to me. Clearly some of us view the issue differently.

I want to restate - I don't own a gun and I'm a long way from being an NRA'ite. At the same time people have the right to defend themselves from being attacked.