Gun pulled on us today

[Keith A]

So this is a first for me.

Our group was riding in a rural area this morning and had just finished the final sprint. Truck buzzes one of the riders, rider flips off the driver, driver slams on his brakes, rider smacks his outside mirror, driver rolls down his window and points a loaded gun at the driver, rider immediately goes off the road over a ditch, driver goes off-road after him and then gets out of his truck (without the gun). Lots of yelling and cursing, so I call 911. Three sheriff deputies show up and take statements, then they cuff the driver and put him in the back of the patrol car and came to talk to the rider. They said he could press charges and he would most likely go to jail with a felony charge. Rider decides not to press charges and the deputy said he was going to chew the driver a new one before letting him go and confiscate his gun (which he can get back at some point). Hopefully they are going to pursue getting the guys carry permit revoked.

Crazy, crazy. Both people could have prevented this from happening, but the take away for me from this is incident is that nothing good comes from escalating a confrontation with driver.

P.S. Please don't turn this discussion into one on gun rights.

[weisan]

Keith pal, I am glad this didn't turn out any worse. There's a potential for multiple people involved and become fatal.
To the rest, listen. I don't care if you are Bruce Lee or Steven Seagal, keep your frcuking finger to yourself....unless you want to stop riding your bike...forever.

[Cicli]

that could have ended bad.

[Keith A]

that could have ended bad.Yep, one slip or pull of the trigger and there would have been a dead cyclist today.

[tigoat]

I hate to run into an inconsiderate driver but I hate it even more to ride with an a**hole cyclist. There seems to be no end to such conflict anywhere in the country.

[Louis]

To the rest, listen. I don't care if you are Bruce Lee or Steven Seagal, keep your frcuking finger to yourself....unless you want to stop riding your bike...forever.

He's the only one being chastised here, so apparently all this is the cyclist's fault for giving the rider the finger?

Interesting.

[weisan]

He's the only one being chastised here, so apparently all this is the cyclist's fault for giving the rider the finger?

Interesting.

You want to debate or assign blame with a dead man?

[bikinchris]

My wife was riding with a friend and a guy hung out the passenger window brandishing a machete.
Years ago a group ride had a road rage situation where a guy felt he was being held up (on a service road to a major highway no less) and he passed the group as close as he could, then slammed on his brakes. They were lucky HE didn't have a gun.
People are crazy. When drivers act like an ass, just let them go. Don't shoot the bird, scream, slam the bars etc.
1. That's the reaction they want. Don't give them the satisfaction of seeing you pissed off. If you want revenge, call the police.
2. You don't know how crazy they are. You could be literally dodging a bullet by holding your temper.

Your guy is lucky he wasn't shot before a word was said.

[christian]

P.S. Please don't turn this discussion into one on gun rights.No, no, by all means.

[Tickdoc]

Big whew there, very scary, though.

Glad you were able to call authorities in time

Been hit by cans, brushed by cars, yelled at, laughed at, called names, etc over the years.

I got flipped off a few weeks ago on a solo ride, out in the country, country boy in his pickup. I just assume every one is carrying these days, and just smile and wave.

[dbnm]

I would have pressed charges.

[Keith A]

...
People are crazy. When drivers act like an ass, just let them go. Don't shoot the bird, scream, slam the bars etc.
1. That's the reaction they want. Don't give them the satisfaction of seeing you pissed off. If you want revenge, call the police.
2. You don't know how crazy they are. You could be literally dodging a bullet by holding your temper.

Your guy is lucky he wasn't shot before a word was said.Exactly!!! May years ago, I used to be more aggressive with drivers who treated me badly or were aggressive. No more, there are too many people out there who are looking for an excuse to go off on someone...and I don't want to make my wife a widow or leave my children fatherless, just because I wanted to show the driver who was right.

[Keith A]

I would have pressed charges.The rider really struggled with this decision and we talked about it for a while, but in the end he decided to show the guy some mercy. I'm not going to fault him for this as I don't know what I would have done...still don't.

[rnhood]

You're exactly right, just let them go and get the plate number of possible. This is how road rage can end someone's life. Its the same. Flipping the bird only exacerbates the situation.

[FlashUNC]

I'm sorry, you decide to go John McClane on me and whip out a piece, then I'm getting the book thrown at you if I live through it.

How do you not press charges in this situation with someone who's so cavalier about potentially killing another person?

[Satellite]

Why didn't he press charges? Did he feel like the was a protagonist by flipping the bird in the first place?

If the police felt like this was a felony I don't understand why you wouldn't press charges. Maybe next time the driver will/does shot someone. Perhaps pressing charges now could/would prevent this person from seriously injuring someone.

[joosttx]

I never bring a bird to a gun fight.

Best thing to do is not escalate it. Imagine nothing would of happen if no one shot the bird.

[ripvanrando]

Keep your middle finger to yourself.

I'm glad I wasn't there because of the dilemma. Gun gets pointed at my face, do I draw?

Then, not filing charges? Wow.

[avalonracing]

The rider really struggled with this decision and we talked about it for a while, but in the end he decided to show the guy some mercy.

Yes better to let the sociopath go home to beat his wife and kids, kick his dog and threaten someone else's life tomorrow.

[93legendti]

Glad every one is ok.

My view of it is if it is bad enough to call the police, it is bad enough to press charges.



3 times I have seen cyclists hit a car with their hand/give a driver the bird/throw a water bottle at a car and every time the driver stops and gets out.

And it has nothing to do with a weapon....I was riding with a buddy outside of A2. The road had a wide shoulder. We were 2 up, I was on the inside. A car pulls up alongside us and the driver rolls down the window and says to my buddy alongside me: "single file!" My buddy swears at the woman. She slams on the brakes and veers right in front of us. My buddy slams on the brakes and does an endo, messing up his Colnago and his kit. Because I was in the inside I was able to veer farther right and stay upright. The driver then took off.


He called the police and pressed charges. Nothing big happened. The driver had to pay a fine and got some points if memory serves...

[Keith A]

I never bring a bird to a gun fight.

Best thing to do is not escalate it. Imagine nothing would of happen if no one shot the bird.I agree. The driver was looking for a reaction by buzzing the cyclists, and if no one would have responded, he would have just driven on.

[jvp]

Instead of "birding", I usually throw both hands up in a "***" type gesture. Or sometimes I just wave hi.

[ripvanrando]

I agree. The driver was looking for a reaction by buzzing the cyclists, and if no one would have responded, he would have just driven on.

Exactly.

Now we have an enraged maniac who will mow down some riders with utter impunity.

Tell your cowardly friend, thanks.

[bcroslin]

Not an uncommon thing to have happen here in sunny FL unfortunately. I've been threatened but not shown the gun and I know a few riders who've had a gun pulled on them in San Antonio (FL).

Was this in your neck of the woods? Which county?

[Dead Man]

i don't get the "pressing charges" bit. The State brings criminal charges against people, not private citizens. When a responding offer declines to arrest/charge someone suspected of a personal crime, it's generally because he knows the victims testimony is really the only strong bit of evidence in the case, and if the victim isn't interested in cooperating, there goes your conviction. But with something like this- w.t.f.? There's s handful of witnesses, sounds like the perp himself probably as much as confessed ... It was stranger on stranger and pretty egregious road ragey crap.. Menacing.. Probably unlawful use of a firearm under Florida law (would be here in Oregon), etc... Why the fap did he cut him loose?

Glad everyone left unperforated, anyway

[rustychisel]

OK, regretfully I'll not bring the debate to guns, but the level of 'blame the cyclist' on this forum is disgusting, to the point of calling someone cowardly.

Shame on you

[Dead Man]

Word. Blaming the rider here is not cool.

Gun-toter is the bad guy here.

[ripvanrando]

OK, regretfully I'll not bring the debate to guns, but the level of 'blame the cyclist' on this forum is disgusting, to the point of calling someone cowardly.

Shame on you

Not pursuing the matter and not supporting law enforcement is cowardly.

I stand by what I wrote.

Without the right testimony this gun pointing out of anger is just a misdemeanor in Florida.

[ariw]

Not pressing charges was a big mistake, it sounds like the rider only considered his/her decision in light of what happened to him/her instead of thinking about other potential victims. If someone is willing to aim a loaded gun and chase someone on a bike from their truck over the finger, the likelihood that they will react violently again in the future seems high. Gun ownership has responsibilities, and clearly the driver is failing at at those and is a dangerous individual.

[ultraman6970]

Usually people like that has already a file with bad stuff, would be good if your friend can file charges and at court day ask for a driver license suspension of at least 10 years instead of going to jail and if possible null his right to buy or have anything to do with fire arms or any type of weapon including anything that can be used for hunting like and arch or a crossbow for example, just to cover all the bases and the ones he might be already thinking at that minute.

IMO that will be a lot better for society than send this a-hole to jail for a couple of weeks specially because I assure you he wont care, take his arms and his driver license will hurt him a lot more. In that way this will put a precedence in the court system for future cases.

Put a precedence in the system that you wont be able to drive for 10 years for being an @$$ and I assure you the voice will be passed along pretty quickly.

[fuzzalow]

Without chasing minutia in spurious arguments, I think that cyclists gotta rethink how they react to this kinda thing.

This small-minded hill-billy is a dispossessed nobody looking to make his presence known. A coward who is willing to put sheetmetal against flesh and bone with a firearm to back up and bolster his courage. This hick was lookin' for a fight and he was prepared for one. C'mon, the worse society gets in economic terms the worse people are gonna become to make sure they are powerful over somebody else. Beware.

The cyclist that flipped the bird is stupid because he fell for the provocation and took the bait. He is as guilty of false courage by being emboldened by what he thought was security in numbers as the hill-billy was hot-damn waving a firearm. Both stupid but one possessed superior lethality.

Most gun laws prohibit brandishing a firearm but in fairness, FL has the insanity of the hold your ground laws which makes for a lot of wiggle room in the law before possible chargeable offense.

Be careful out there.

[wc1934]

Wow - how f'ed up. Pulling a gun on someone is serious and scary - I don't Fla. laws, but I am surprised that he wasn't at least arrested - the entire group could have confirmed the incident happened.

[Macadamia]

New market for bike gun holsters, I'm thinking cowboy-style slung either side of the horse over the top tube.

(please dont take this seriously)

[93legendti]

Let's not get crazy and throw stuff again the wall to see of it sticks and confuse the discussion.

Stand Your Ground (and the Castle Doctrine) relate to eliminating a duty to retreat when you are in danger in your home or car from an intruder. An attorney who reads the statue knows this-as should any CPL holder.
The law codified case law and provides that the home/car owner is allowed to reasonably feel endangered by an intruder. 45 States follow this practice. If someone breaks in your house, you don't have to retreat or give a warning.



"If abolishing the common law duty of retreat for cases involving the use of deadly force was not enough, “Stand Your Ground” goes one step further in cases involving home or vehicle invasions. Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, provides that, when an intruder unlawfully enters, attempts to enter, or refuses to leave a dwelling, residence, or vehicle owned or lawfully occupied by another person, the owner or occupant is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm so as to justify the use of deadly force. The intruder is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
The presumptions employed in the context of a home or vehicle invasion mark yet another statutory departure from the common law. Although, prior to 2005, Florida case decisions had long recognized the “Castle Doctrine” (which provides that where one is not the aggressor and is violently assaulted in one’s home, there is no obligation to retreat), the doctrine nonetheless required the owner or occupant of the home to reasonably believe that force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm. See Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4, 13 (Fla. 1907). Under the current statute, the reasonableness of the occupant’s belief is presumed so long as he or she acts within a “dwelling,” “residence,” or “vehicle,” as defined in Section 776.013, Florida Statutes."

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/floridas-stand-ground-law/

[DFORD]

I was on a group ride and heard gunshots. Another rider has a pistol and took some potshots at the sky and then yelled to slow down. We slowed down.

[Satellite]

Not pressing charges was a big mistake, it sounds like the rider only considered his/her decision in light of what happened to him/her instead of thinking about other potential victims. If someone is willing to aim a loaded gun and chase someone on a bike from their truck over the finger, the likelihood that they will react violently again in the future seems high. Gun ownership has responsibilities, and clearly the driver is failing at at those and is a dangerous individual.

Well said and exactly my point in response #16. It was for the greater good to press charges.

[93legendti]

well said and exactly my point in response #16.

+1

[dbnm]

The fall 2016 Rapha Look Book includes a Pro Team small caliber holster. Comes in flash blue and hot pink.

New market for bike gun holsters, I'm thinking cowboy-style slung either side of the horse over the top tube.

(please dont take this seriously)

[93legendti]

The fall 2016 Rapha Look Book includes a Pro Team small caliber holster. Comes in flash blue and hot pink.

Flaming red, grey smoke and sulfur yellow...

[Seramount]

point a gun at me and I'll gladly press charges. your ass needs to sit in jail for a while so you can reflect what a cowardly, chicken-***** loser you are.

letting that kind of person off the hook for criminal, sociopathic behavior will not help anyone.

[Peter P.]

I'm surprised the police didn't charge the cyclist with disorderly conduct/breach of peace. As soon as the cyclist touches the driver OR the driver's vehicle (hitting the mirror), there are grounds for arrest.

The cyclist wasn't totally blameless in this incident, and I'm not talking about the finger; I'm talking about the possible disorderly conduct/breach of peace.

It may not have been the finger that pushed the driver over the edge but the violation of private space (touching the driver's vehicle).

Been there, done that.

[biker72]

point a gun at me and I'll gladly press charges. your ass needs to sit in jail for a while so you can reflect what a cowardly, chicken-***** loser you are.

letting that kind of person off the hook for criminal, sociopathic behavior will not help anyone.

+1
At minimum the driver should have his license pulled. I would press charges in a heartbeat.
As a concealed carry license holder i'm very concerned with this wild west behavior. Most of my 10 hour concealed carry course was devoted to finding ways to defuse the situation and avoiding confrontation.

[Climb01742]

It's important not to create a false equivalency here. Maybe flipping someone off isn't smart, but where is the actual harm? It's a breach of etiquette. Versus pulling a loaded gun on someone, where there's harm and even greater potential for injury or death. That's a crime.

While I agree it's sensible to not escalate a situation, what exactly did the rider do wrong in the first place? Nothing but ride his bike. Flipping someone off is impolite. Pulling a gun in this situation is both criminal and likely indicative of greater issues lurking inside the driver.

I got buzzed by an SUV full of high school kids this past week and called a f*g for wearing lycra. I waved. It was the 'smart' thing to do, but somehow it felt like it also enabled their behavior. I don't know what the answer is, if there is an answer, but waving and bearing it isn't a real answer either.

[redir]

I would have pressed charges.

To the max. This person doesn't deserve to be part of the well regulated militia. He should loose all rights immediately, period, done, end of story.

[djg21]

He's the only one being chastised here, so apparently all this is the cyclist's fault for giving the rider the finger?

Interesting.

The cyclist probably should not have made contact with the automobile.

Everyone here likely agrees that the motorist was a complete asshole. Do we really need to discuss that further?

[fuzzalow]

Let's not get crazy and throw stuff again the wall to see of it sticks and confuse the discussion.

Hey there 93legendti, so here we are again. Disagree with whatever I post, I'm fine with your rebuttals. I couldn't care less about your grasp of the law because we apparently hold different approaches to how we see and read the law.

It's great you can recite the statute. I don't agree with your comprehension and interpretation of same. And I wouldn't savage you by calling you crazy. That's unnecessary and wouldn't be accurate to my opinion of your legal acumen.

[Ronsonic]

+1
As a concealed carry license holder i'm very concerned with this wild west behavior. Most of my 10 hour concealed carry course was devoted to finding ways to defuse the situation and avoiding confrontation.

This. I take that responsibility seriously and have a real problem with people who don't.

Word. Blaming the rider here is not cool.

Gun-toter is the bad guy here.

Raging a-hole driver is the bad guy.

New market for bike gun holsters, I'm thinking cowboy-style slung either side of the horse over the top tube.

(please dont take this seriously)

Why not? Cyclists have as much a right to defend themselves as anyone, and are often more vulnerable. People don't ride the Pinellas trail south past Pinellas Park because it's dangerous and sometimes the dangers are mobile. I'm thinking some kind of rectangular folder that would fit in a jersey pocket, secure the arm and provide some amount of protection from sweat and rain.

For open-carry something along the side of the stem would work. :eek:

[FlashUNC]

There's nothing the cyclist did to merit being threatened with death.

Was he a jerkwad? Totally. But the turn the other cheek business cuts both ways.

[rwsaunders]

I'm sorry, you decide to go John McClane on me and whip out a piece, then I'm getting the book thrown at you if I live through it.

How do you not press charges in this situation with someone who's so cavalier about potentially killing another person?

+1...he'll do it again to someone who might not be so lucky.

[pasadena]

I'm glad no one was hurt and I don't fault the decision maker because it's his situation to deal with, but really feel that was not the proper choice.

There's a difference between ignorance/bad driving and outright assault or attempted murder, which pointing a loaded gun qualifies in my eyes.

Imagine if he hit a pothole and accidentally fired that gun? Maybe he gets a chance next time.

[Gsinill]

This might be a stupid question but if what the driver did violated any laws, why did the police even ask the cyclist whether he wants to press charges?
Wouldn't the police pursue that anyway?
Like if you have an accident because you did something wrong, you will get ticketed by the police automatically.
Admitting total ignorance when it comes to US law and its enforcement.

[Dead Man]

Raging a-hole driver is the bad guy.

Ain't that wut I sed?

[AngryScientist]

Keith - i've got nothing productive to ad, but i'm sorry you had to go through this today. it sounds like a scary situation, and no one should ever have a gun pointed at them or one of their buddies. I'm glad to hear nothing more serious went down.

[93legendti]

Hey there 93legendti, so here we are again. Disagree with whatever I post, I'm fine with your rebuttals. I couldn't care less about your grasp of the law because we apparently hold different approaches to how we see and read the law.

It's great you can recite the statute. I don't agree with your comprehension and interpretation of same. And I wouldn't savage you be calling you crazy. That's unnecessary and wouldn't be accurate to my opinion of your legal acumen.

You called the law (which 45 States have) "insanity", not to mention mischaracterized it. I think you once posted that you had a law degree/went to law school, so you are capable of reading the Statute and understand it applies to intruders in your home or you car.

If you think it is insane for a home/car owner to not have to retreat and warn before using deadly force against an intruder you are in the vast minority. Throw all the adjectives around that you want.

At 2:00 am when someone intrudes into my home, I am not collecting my wife and kids and finding a way out of the house from the 2nd story all the while trying to stay away from the intruder(s). Then, if I can't retreat safely, warn the intruder (s) before using legally deadly force.

I posted an article describing and discussing the Statute.

I don't think you're crazy. I am sorry you took it that way. Injecting Stand Your Ground here was misplaced and you know it.


Without chasing minutia in spurious arguments, I think that cyclists gotta rethink how they react to this kinda thing.

This small-minded hill-billy is a dispossessed nobody looking to make his presence known. A coward who is willing to put sheetmetal against flesh and bone with a firearm to back up and bolster his courage. This hick was lookin' for a fight and he was prepared for one. C'mon, the worse society gets in economic terms the worse people are gonna become to make sure they are powerful over somebody else. Beware.

The cyclist that flipped the bird is stupid because he fell for the provocation and took the bait. He is as guilty of false courage by being emboldened by what he thought was security in numbers as the hill-billy was hot-damn waving a firearm. Both stupid but one possessed superior lethality.

Most gun laws prohibit brandishing a firearm but in fairness, FL has the insanity of the hold your ground laws which makes for a lot of wiggle room in the law before possible chargeable offense.

Be careful out there.

[Keith A]

Keith - i've got nothing productive to ad, but i'm sorry you had to go through this today. it sounds like a scary situation, and no one should ever have a gun pointed at them or one of their buddies. I'm glad to hear nothing more serious went down.Thanks. On top of this, a riding buddy crashed badly on another ride. His front wheel got stuck in a grate on the road and did a face plant. He didn't know who he was for a while and was taken to the ER. Stopped by to see him this afternoon and his face isn't pretty. They had to stich him up, and he has some chipped teeth...but his CT scan came back ok. I went and picked up his bike for him and dropped off the front wheel at the bike shop.

Crazy day it has been.

[Satellite]

Thanks. On top of this, a riding buddy crashed badly on another ride. His front wheel got stuck in a grate on the road and did a face plant. He didn't know who he was for a while and was taken to the ER. Stopped by to see him this afternoon and his face isn't pretty. They had to stich him up, and he has some chipped teeth...but his CT scan came back ok. I went and picked up his bike for him and dropped off the front wheel at the bike shop.

Crazy day it has been.

Wow and I thought Friday the 13th was past us.

[bikinchris]

I'm glad no one was hurt and I don't fault the decision maker because it's his situation to deal with, but really feel that was not the proper choice.

There's a difference between ignorance/bad driving and outright assault or attempted murder, which pointing a loaded gun qualifies in my eyes.

Imagine if he hit a pothole and accidentally fired that gun? Maybe he gets a chance next time.

I think in most places, that would be called felony menacing with a firearm (it might be called felony aggravated assault with a firearm).

[rounder]

Never happened to me on a bike ride.

Happened to me one time coming out of a bar. Guy with a sawed off shotgun came up to us and said...give us your stuff.

So we did. But, I had just graduated from college and had a brand new college ring. So...I sort of flung it across the paring lot. He jabbed me in my ribs...broke a few. And said...go get it. And so I did. It was not worth dying for.

Moral of the story....assess what is going on and live for another day.

[Keith A]

Wow and I thought Friday the 13th was past us.Well it is Saturday the 14th :eek:

[jmeloy]

ok, regretfully i'll not bring the debate to guns, but the level of 'blame the cyclist' on this forum is disgusting, to the point of calling someone cowardly.



Shame on you



+1!!

[Bstone]

Unfortunately, this type of thing of thing happens to our groups and individuals in central Florida with some regularity. Usually rednecks in jacked up pickups. Definitely looking for a fight.

It is obvious that they are trying to get a reaction so that they can then escalate even further.

We had a guy in a hotted up Mustang almost clip the lead rider (me) in our group. I flipped him off and he jammed on his brakes right in front of us.

I rode up and proceeded to rant at him for about 60 seconds. Spit was flying. At 55 seconds I realized that I could not see either of his hands.

At that point, it occurred to me that he was getting ready to bring his Glock to bear on my fat head.

Fortunately, he started laughing at me (probably in recognition of the unique string of compound cuss words that I had just hurled at him) and drove off.

I then realized that I had endangered all of my friends.

After apologizing to my buddies I promised that I would not let myself be provoked in this way again.

Now, my main goal is to not escalate and to continue breathing.

[JLP]

Ask your friend to reconsider and press charges. Save the next guy not the ass.

[Scuzzer]

It is obvious that they are trying to get a reaction so that they can then escalate even further.

I wave at drivers a lot when riding. I don't want to wave but when the driver is looking to provoke a response I prefer to give them the response they aren't looking for.

Occasionally I flip people off. Usually it's after a soccer mom has pulled a stupid move in her caravan to save 4 seconds. My wave to flip off ratio is way over 10 to 1 though. If someone waved a gun at me and the cops were called I'd certainly press charges.

[berserk87]

Years ago a passenger in a pickup truck that passed our group put a pistol out of his window and fired a couple of shots into the air as the truck went by. He was just trying to scare us. It worked.

Also had a guy in a small town pull up beside us at a red light and, raging so much that he was foaming at the mouth, he yelled "if I had my gun, I would shoot all of your MFer's."

It's hard not to retaliate with a yell, a hand wave, or middle finger. It's only human to get angry at rude or dangerous behavior. From experience I am finding that it's best to attempt to be as restrained as possible.

When has a middle finger ever solved any confrontation with a driver? What's the driver going to do in such an instance - say "Oh, dang it - he flipped me off. I guess I lost this time".

Not giving the driver anything in return sucks energy out of the situation, usually. Five seconds later and the driver is out of your life forever (hopefully).

The downside of our freedoms (such as driving a car, owning a gun, voting, reproducing, and getting married) is that people on the level can enjoy these, but also complete nut jobs with a tenuous grip on sanity.

[parris]

I keep coming back to the fact that the driver over and above pulling a firearm on the cyclist he ran the cyclist off the road and physically went after him. 3 tons of pickup vs cyclist means the cyclist(s) come up to the bad every time. THAT'S some sketchy s**t to worry about.

[earlfoss]

In this crazy world you have no clue how someone will choose to escalate a situation which is why I don't get crazy mad at aggressive drivers. They seem to GTFO when my phone comes out and I get a pic of their license plate.

Pressing charges allows the next person he pulls the gun on to live another day. I think your friend would be doing an individual and society as a whole a favor by doing this, but to each their own.

Pulling a gun means you are rolling the dice that the person you point it at doesn't have one. I know of a cyclist or two in Milwaukee who have nearly been killed enough that they carry while riding nowadays. That driver may be crazy and have escalated the situation but doing that to the wrong person could have resulted easily in his death.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear everyone walked away safe from this criminal.

[Elefantino]

It's best to avoid antagonizing people who have deadly weapons, either guns or cars.

[bicycletricycle]

Classy move not pressing charges.

I would like to believe that these sort of confrontations can be turned into bridges.

[nesteel]

Classy move not pressing charges.

I would like to believe that these sort of confrontations can be turned into bridges.

Sadly, if someone is brandishing firearms at someone for flipping them off, bridge building time is over. It's more than likely not the first time the asshat has done it. It won't be the last either.

[holliscx]

When wanting a tête-à-tête with a driver, nothing yields brake lights faster than a male masturbation gesture. Better than the finger, jerking off air quotes is 100% effective with male drivers.

[Bruce K]

I am among those who have a Concealed Carry Permit.

I was taught that what this driver did would certainly fall under brandishing (a crime) and menacing (also a crime).

Neither of which should require the cyclist to press charges. Those are more or less "automatics".

The world is getting crazier and crazier and i am riding on the road less and less.

BK

[Stephen2014]

If a country allows legal guns, sadly, the victims' only option is to be cowards.

[oldpotatoe]

I agree. The driver was looking for a reaction by buzzing the cyclists, and if no one would have responded, he would have just driven on.

Get their plate, call the cops, report him. Driver would probably just a 'c'mon billy bob, ya know they'all got a right to ride their little fairy bikes there', type thing but...Need this on a jersey

http://www.amazon.com/TRUCK-SORRY-ABOUT-PENIS-window/dp/B004RC2ND4

[54ny77]

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=1973497&postcount=12

I no longer start something I'm not willing to finish. Seen some crazy stuff happen over the years. I'd done gone grow'd up enough now that I can only say what's the point of flipping the bird and riding up to hit a car's mirror?
It's all words and gestures. One day someone's gonna f$#! with the wrong motorist (or vice versa). And for what, heightened tensions over bike vs. car? Aint' worth it, man.

I don't understand how or why the cyclist has to determine whether to press charges or not. One would think that's at police/DA discretion, but I'm no Perry Mason. Either way, car driver should be in jail.

Glad to hear you all got home from ride in one piece, that's all that matters.

[fuzzalow]

You called the law (which 45 States have) "insanity", not to mention mischaracterized it. I think you once posted that you had a law degree/went to law school, so you are capable of reading the Statute and understand it applies to intruders in your home or you car.

If you think it is insane for a home/car owner to not have to retreat and warn before using deadly force against an intruder you are in the vast minority. Throw all the adjectives around that you want.

At 2:00 am when someone intrudes into my home, I am not collecting my wife and kids and finding a way out of the house from the 2nd story all the while trying to stay away from the intruder(s). Then, if I can't retreat safely, warn the intruder (s) before using legally deadly force.

I posted an article describing and discussing the Statute.

I don't think you're crazy. I am sorry you took it that way. Injecting Stand Your Ground here was misplaced and you know it.

Hey, what can I tell ya?

Make your points and your argument in the best way you know how in adding to the discussion. I am not here to lecture you on how to comprehend and interprete the law nor do I seek to correct your opinion to be more congruent to my own. Our repartee here I do not view as one that seeks dominance or capitulation to some singular righteous interpretation and application of the law - that is why there are trials, courts and appellates.

So say what you gotta say. We can both read as well as can the members of this forum. And you and I can be "judged" by the readers on the strength of our arguments and the points that we make. Ain't that fun, huh?

I would say I often find your view of the law to be intently and narrowly literal, to the seeming ignorance or deemphasis as to application and intent in the wording of the law. For example our conflict here on this topic is presaged by what I read as your legal and logical underpinning strictly & solely on the word "intruder" in the statute. Fine with me, that's your call on the statute's intent and how you think it is applied.

Finally, knock off the ad hominem that presumes your falsely construed intent on my part to mislead regarding stand your ground - argue the point and not the person.

[oldpotatoe]

The cyclist probably should not have made contact with the automobile.

Everyone here likely agrees that the motorist was a complete asshole. Do we really need to discuss that further?

Yup, bad move..fingers 'can' be OK, but don't go smacking anything, IMHO...

[redir]

Classy move not pressing charges.

I would like to believe that these sort of confrontations can be turned into bridges.

Unbelievable!. :rolleyes:

[Tony T]

What I don't understand is that the Sheriff confiscated the drivers gun and that the driver can "get it back at some point". If the Sheriff has cause to confiscated the gun, then he should have cause to charge the driver w/o the rider pressing charges. Did any of the riders see the Sheriff confiscate the weapon?

[witcombusa]

I've had a few 'encounters' over all the years. But any(every) car is a far bigger threat than anything they might have with them along for the ride.
We are basically blind to what may be coming up behind us. Yes, you can hear some things, but if you get too obsessed with it, you'll have to not ride. Or go mountain biking for a while till your fear passes. Thankfully the really screwed up road rage type are a very small percentage (at least where I am), but these days the distracted drivers numbers are really getting pretty large.
THAT is a very big concern. And they don't actually mean use any harm, most simply don't consider their actions are dangerous. Till they kill someone.

[firerescuefin]

Classy move not pressing charges.

I would like to believe that these sort of confrontations can be turned into bridges.

Yeah...I'm sure he's become a fan of cyclist and a share the road advocate now charges haven't been pressed. (sarcasm inserted). When you pull a gun, you're an incredibly small step from using it.

I conceal carry (not on the bike)...so I am not anti gun.

This guy needed to go to jail for society's benefit. The cyclist not pressing charges does everyone a disservice.

[Tony T]

I've had a few 'encounters' over all the years. But any(every) car is a far bigger threat than anything they might have with them along for the ride.

Not in this case. Loaded gun was pointed at the rider.

[witcombusa]

Not in this case. Loaded gun was pointed at the rider.

and you know it was loaded how? Not that it matters for this scenario.
I'm saying that was for effect. He was actually in more danger when the guy ran him off the road. THAT was real.

I haven't heard of a case (and hope I never do) of a vehicle coming up to a group of riders, pulling a gun and actually shooting at them. They do however run us off the road, hit us with their car, intentional or not.

[ptourkin]

This might be a stupid question but if what the driver did violated any laws, why did the police even ask the cyclist whether he wants to press charges?
Wouldn't the police pursue that anyway?
Like if you have an accident because you did something wrong, you will get ticketed by the police automatically.
Admitting total ignorance when it comes to US law and its enforcement.

The officer didn't see the offense. Without the witness, he the violator can't be prosecuted.

[gdw]

Did anyone other than the cyclist involved in the confrontation see the driver brandish the gun? If not than the police have no grounds to arrest him on a firearms related charge unless said cyclist chooses to press charges. They might have been able to charge him based upon his actions as a driver but the cyclist escalated the confrontation by flipping him off and then hitting his mirror which was a really stupid move. Never strike a rednecks vehicle, dog, or family member. If you leave the firearm out of the confrontation and approach this incident not as a cyclist but as a neutral observer it's obvious that both handled the situation badly. Both could have been ticketed or arrested for their actions.

That said, if the events occurred as described in the initial post, the cyclist should have pressed charges. The driver's actions prove that he can't be trusted with a firearm or vehicle and should not be allowed to own the former and have his license to drive the latter suspended.

[Red Tornado]

A little common sense goes a long way. Tailor your riding and other "actions" to the conditions. Understand though, that's easier said than done when the adrenaline's flowing. But stil..... My main objective during a ride is always to make it back home to the wife & kids in one piece. Training is secondary to that.
These days you never know who is packing & what their mentality is.
FWIW I would have pressed charges and like the idea of suspending license & no gun purchases. Unfortunately, the idiot truck driver is probably convinced this whole incident is the cyclists fault.

[AngryScientist]

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=1973497&postcount=12

I no longer start something ............ Aint' worth it, man.


yea, i'm in this boat now too. at this point in my life, i just want to go out, have my fun on a bike and come home and sleep in my bed. shouting at a driver never "teaches" them anything, they just get mad, and forget the gun, the 3k pound car is enough of a loaded weapon to give them the advantage every time. i'm too damned old to get into a fistfight too, lol.

[Tony T]

The officer didn't see the offense. Without the witness, he the violator can't be prosecuted.

That's what I was thinking, so how could the Sheriff confiscate the weapon? (and tell him he can pick it up later).
I'm wondering if the Sheriff only said he did this.

[jc031699]

He's the only one being chastised here, so apparently all this is the cyclist's fault for giving the rider the finger?

Interesting.

There is a huge insurmountable gulf between being right and being dead/maimed. Sorry, can't really overcome that one.

[christian]

I haven't heard of a case (and hope I never do) of a vehicle coming up to a group of riders, pulling a gun and actually shooting at them. They do however run us off the road, hit us with their car, intentional or not.

On the contrary, there are examples of every kind of shooting you can imagine.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/john-jacoby-fatally-shot-while-cycling-windsor-colorado-n362407

http://www.wapt.com/news/central-mississippi/jackson/shooting-investigation-leads-police-to-jackson-home/34905766

http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/11/23/charles-diez-gets-120-days-for-shooting-cyclist-in-the-head/

[Ronsonic]

Not in this case. Loaded gun was pointed at the rider.

Nope. Car is far more destructive than anything short of a crew-served weapon system. Slower to aim and a lower initial velocity but ....

[Tony T]

Nope. Car is far more destructive than anything short of a crew-served weapon system. Slower to aim and a lower initial velocity but ....

Nope. Not in this case. Car only buzzed him, but loaded weapon was pointed directly at him.

[OtayBW]

In defense of the rider, what goes through someone's head when they're run off the road - especially intentionally - is usually a viceral, gut (fight or flight) response that is far from rational decision-making. How you handle it beyond that is what varies for most of us. Personally, I have a tough time blowing it off and letting it go, so I can understand the riders (righteous) indignation and the initial finger gesture. On the other hand, as stated above several times, approaching and making contact with the vehicle after the fact is kind of like picking a fight in a rough bar and not knowing where the back door is - it's just dumb.

I would have liked to have seen consequences for the driver (especially long-term loss of driving privileges), but I also find it ironic that it is probably the rider here who is the one that learned a lesson.

[firerescuefin]

In defense of the rider, what goes through someone's head when they're run off the road - especially intentionally - is usually a viceral, gut (fight or flight) response that is far from rational decision-making. How you handle it beyond that is what varies for most of us. Personally, I have a tough time blowing it off and letting it go, so I can understand the riders (righteous) indignation. On the other hand, as stated above, approaching and making contact with the vehicle after the fact is kind of like picking a fight in a rough bar and not knowing where the back door is - it's just dumb.

I would have liked to have seen consequences for the driver (especially long-term loss of driving privileges), but I also find it ironic that it is probably the rider here who is the one that learned a lesson.

This^ ...though never had a gun pulled, had an experience that made me consider carrying...and forever changed my response to aggressive drivers (could have gone really bad for me)....now I ride with a GoPro and report aggressive driving with video evidence....which has only happened once since utilizing (individual throwing firecrackers at a group ride)

[avalonracing]

and you know it was loaded how? Not that it matters for this scenario.
I'm saying that was for effect. He was actually in more danger when the guy ran him off the road. THAT was real.

Point a gun at a public figure... That would make a great argument in court, It was "for effect".

[Gsinill]

The officer didn't see the offense. Without the witness, he the violator can't be prosecuted.

Still don't get it:
....
Three sheriff deputies show up and take statements, then they cuff the driver and put him in the back of the patrol car
...

Didn't they have testimony from witnesses right there?
It blows my mind that a loaded gun can be pointed at someone without a justifying reason and charges have to be pressed explicitly.

[Bruce K]

I believe it was because the deputies were not the witnesses and the victim is refusing to press charges.

The only situation I am aware of where they would still make an arrest without the victim pressing charges is domestic violence where the state takes on the role.

The statements by witnesses may not be enough without someone willing to testify in court.

I wish I was a lawyer to know for sure.

BK

[Peter P.]

"They might have been able to charge him based upon his actions as a driver but the cyclist escalated the confrontation by flipping him off and then hitting his mirror which was a really stupid move. Never strike a rednecks vehicle, dog, or family member. If you leave the firearm out of the confrontation and approach this incident not as a cyclist but as a neutral observer it's obvious that both handled the situation badly. Both could have been ticketed or arrested for their actions."


You and I seem to be the only ones pointing out the cyclist bears some responsibility over this confrontation. Forget the flipping off; once the cyclist touched the vehicle, he's escalated the situation to a chargeable offense. I wouldn't be surprised if the officer didn't pose the scenario to the cyclist as, "If you choose to press charges against the driver, we also have to offer the driver the option to press charges against YOU." Would the cyclist be willing to plead to a misdemeanor Breach of Peace offense to win a felony offense charge against the driver? That's where character and conviction come in.

Did anyone other than the cyclist involved in the confrontation see the driver brandish the gun?

I'm not sure that's necessary; there's no way the cyclist could have accurately claimed the driver had a gun or even known the driver was a gun owner unless he actually saw a gun, and the officers found one in the vehicle.

[Dead Man]

What? Touching someone's vehicle is a "chargeable offense?"

No it's not.

Even whacking a mirror isn't going to be a crime anywhere, unless he actually broke/damaged it.

[gdw]

Don't bet the farm on that. The cyclist could have been charged with a number of petty offenses depending upon the claims made by the driver and state statutes. Disturbing the peace or breach of peace is the first one which comes to mind. If the driver claimed his mirror was damaged criminal mischief is an option as well.

[Climb01742]

1. Driver buzzes riders with 4000 pounds of potentially deadly vehicle.

2. Drivers pulls a gun.

VS:

1. Rider touches mirror.

2. Rider raises middle finger.

Hard to see how these actions are equal. Finding fault with the rider seems pretty far fetched. Turning the other cheek may not escalate a situation but we're kidding ourselves if we think it made anything better. The driver is free to behave again exactly as he did and why not? What consequences did he face?

[gdw]

Double post

[gdw]

Mess with the bull and risk getting the horn. I am by no means defending the driver but the cyclist's actions pushed an unstable jerk almost to the breaking point and, as many of us have pointed out, the driver faced no consequences for his actions because the cyclist chose not to press charges.

[slidey]

Wow! That's a remarkably eventful ride, in a very undesirable way.

I'm just glad that the rider in your group, had your group as their immediate support system, so good on you all for sticking together, and playing some part in de-escalating. With the benefit of never having had the misfortune of staring down a barrel, and in the relative comfort of my chair on a Sunday afternoon, I feel like the driver of the car deserved to have charges on him.

Maybe you (KeithA), and the rest of your group should consider bringing up the possibility of pressing charges, if possible, in the larger interest of safety of society that comes in contact with that short-fused, armed-person.

In either case, safe riding!

[Peter P.]

What? Touching someone's vehicle is a "chargeable offense?"

No it's not.

Even whacking a mirror isn't going to be a crime anywhere, unless he actually broke/damaged it.

Yes, touching the mirror in this case would be a chargeable offense.

The manor in which he "touched" it and the context in which he touched it could lead to Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct charges.

I have first hand experience with this, unfortunately.

Damaging the mirror is hardly necessary. Even touching the mirror to taunt the driver is sufficient if it is intentional.

1. Driver buzzes riders with 4000 pounds of potentially deadly vehicle.

2. Drivers pulls a gun.

VS:

1. Rider touches mirror.

2. Rider raises middle finger.

Hard to see how these actions are equal. Finding fault with the rider seems pretty far fetched. Turning the other cheek may not escalate a situation but we're kidding ourselves if we think it made anything better. The driver is free to behave again exactly as he did and why not? What consequences did he face?

Rider didn't just accidentally "touch" the mirror. According to the OP, he "smacked" it. It was a hostile, provocative act. Whether each party's actions were EQUALLY unacceptable is irrelevant. One could be charged with a felony but the other could still be charged albeit with a misdemeanor. Our legal system doesn't say that when two parties are involved in a situation only the party with the more serious offenses can be charged.

We'll never know whether smacking the mirror was what prompted the driver to pull the gun or merely being given the finger was enough. I'm not saying the cyclist should have turned the other cheek; I'm saying that smacking the mirror was a provoking act and a violation of the driver's property rights and could be a mitigating circumstance in charging the driver or at least prompting the cyclist to be charged with a misdemeanor. In the end, the cops could have used such a narrative to to either cause the cyclist to back off his claims (for any of a number of reasons) or to see how serious the cyclist was about pressing charges.

[avalonracing]

Mess with the bull and risk getting the horn.

Mess with a sociopathic a-hole and risk getting shot in the face.

[sg8357]

Mess with a sociopathic a-hole and risk getting shot in the face.

"An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein.

FL has the highest number of CC permit holders per 100,00 of
population. Levels of social trust are at historically low levels.

Welcome to Mogadishu with alligators.

Take away, be nice to crazy people, always was the best approach,
now that the nutters are armed with more than cars, an even better approach.

Things can always get worse....
http://road.cc/content/news/189944-fears-brisbane-anti-cyclist-booby-traps-set

[parris]

I have a couple of questions. After the driver slammed on the brakes which side mirror did the rider hit? How old was the driver? Just trying to get a better picture of the events is all.

[Keith A]

I have a couple of questions. After the driver slammed on the brakes which side mirror did the rider hit? How old was the driver? Just trying to get a better picture of the events is all.
It was the passenger side mirror. The driver looked to be in his 60's and is a retired fire chief.

He did finally calm down while we were waiting on the sheriff deputies to arrive. But even will cooler heads, he didn't seem to grasp the fact that we (or this rider) didn't present any real potential harm to him given the fact that he was in a 2+ ton vehicle and could have driven away from the situation at any point. He kept saying that because the cyclist struck his mirror that he felt threatened by him :crap:

BTW, he freely admitted to us and the deputies that he did indeed pull a gun on the cyclist.

[djdj]

No excuse for pulling a gun in that situation. He should be prosecuted.

[firerescuefin]

The driver looked to be in his 60's and is a retired fire chief.


Figures...:rolleyes:

Glad "Chief" didn't take you guys out. Hope he ends up in jail.

[Keith A]

Figures...:rolleyes:

Glad "Chief" didn't take you guys out. Hope he ends up in jail.I thought you would like that ;) BTW, the deputy stated clearly that this guy's affiliation with the fire department had no bearing on the situation.

[firerescuefin]

So you've lived there (Florida)? How would you contrast your experience there with yours in Ohio (where you currently reside)...a state whose gun death per 100k makes it more dangerous than Florida. Interested.

FL has the highest number of CC permit holders per 100,00 of
population. Levels of social trust are at historically low levels.

Welcome to Mogadishu with alligators.

[Climb01742]

He kept saying that because the cyclist struck his mirror that he felt threatened by him :crap:

It's telling that he couldn't understand the rider felt threatened first by a 4000+ pound truck buzzing him. In essence, the rider 'stood his ground' in the face of a threat. Yet he's the one who gets a gun pulled on him.

[AJM100]

I know a few have posted on this earlier in this thread but have to comment. The driver committed a felony witnessed by numerous people, not just the alleged victim. He should have been arrested, it is not the alleged victim's call to "press charges" under such serious and public circumstances. If I were to hazard a guess - and probably due to the fact he was retired fire chief - the responding officers took pains to convince the cyclist of the futility of pressing charges. :crap:

[Gsinill]

BTW, the deputy stated clearly that this guy's affiliation with the fire department had no bearing on the situation.

Of course not!

[Keith A]

I know a few have posted on this earlier in this thread but have to comment. The driver committed a felony witnessed by numerous people, not just the alleged victim...Due to the tinted windows, only the one rider saw the gun drawn. However, the driver admitted he did so.

[rab]

Really sorry to hear about this encounter.

It does seem strange the police wouldn't press charges on their own. I have known of two situations where guns/threats were made and the police did not offer the option to the threatened cyclists, they just carted the aggressors straight to jail. Different states fwiw.

These are the people that should have their right to carry restricted. If you can't carry responsibly you should not have a gun. Plenty of people do this just fine. Unfortunately the people who probably most need training don't get it or don't "get" the concept of safety.
I would hope after an occurrence like this the Chief would walk away with a lesson learned and think before doing something like that again but... If you're 60, and have been a leader in the profession of preserving human life...I have doubts.

[sfscott]

God bless 'Merika. And keep yer fairy hands off my God-given guns you commie lib-ral.


One of the many reasons I happily pay the cost of living in the Bay Area. Lots of problems here but rednecks with guns itching to use them is a few counties and a couple hours's worth of traffic away.

[Peter P.]

It was the passenger side mirror. The driver looked to be in his 60's and is a retired fire chief.

"He kept saying that because the cyclist struck his mirror that he felt threatened by him "


There you have it; my argument all along. The cyclist's touching the vehicle was a provocation, and gave the driver an "out". I don't justify the driver pulling the gun but the cyclist's behavior was a mitigating factor even IF the driver knew the right words to say to play the game and potentially get away with it. Many people who either own guns or run with the law (fire and police) know the ins and outs to get away with dubious behavior. I also don't doubt that his affiliation with the local fire department helped. They all leverage the system. I see it in my job almost every day.

[OtayBW]

There you have it; my argument all along. The cyclist's touching the vehicle was a provocation, and gave the driver an "out". I don't justify the driver pulling the gun but the cyclist's behavior was a mitigating factor even IF the driver knew the right words to say to play the game and potentially get away with it. Many people who either own guns or run with the law (fire and police) know the ins and outs to get away with dubious behavior. I also don't doubt that his affiliation with the local fire department helped. They all leverage the system. I see it in my job almost every day.
I hear you and agree, but playing the Devil's Advocate for a minute, let's say we remove the gun from the scenario. You're left with assault with a 4000 lb vehicle, and yes - the system is still very much leveraged against just that! Perhaps there was provocation by the rider; there were certainly exacerbating circumstances brought by the driver who should know better (on both counts).

[Davist]

God bless 'Merika. And keep yer fairy hands off my God-given guns you commie lib-ral.


One of the many reasons I happily pay the cost of living in the Bay Area. Lots of problems here but rednecks with guns itching to use them is a few counties and a couple hours's worth of traffic away.

Ha! YMMV I guess, I had more issues in CA than here in Pennsyl-tucky. East Bay hills have plenty of miscreants, lived in Fremont riding up to Mt Diablo through the canyons had some people ride me off the road, etc. No firearms though...

sorry for drift, back to the regularly scheduled program.

I am of the mind that charges should have been pressed. Some friends in NJ had a similar situation (gun pulled, not sure about retaliation/mirror/bird flown), pressed charges, and license revoked.

[gdw]

Keith
Did the cyclist hit the mirror and continue riding or stop next to the truck? Was the gun drawn while the vehicle was stationary or moving?

[chiasticon]

yea, i'm in this boat now too. at this point in my life, i just want to go out, have my fun on a bike and come home and sleep in my bed. shouting at a driver never "teaches" them anything, they just get mad, and forget the gun, the 3k pound car is enough of a loaded weapon to give them the advantage every time. i'm too damned old to get into a fistfight too, lol.same.

had a friend get buzzed, flip off the driver, driver pulls over and shoves him (on his bike) into a roadside ditch, messing up both brand new bike and rider, though not seriously.

same exact situation with another dude I know. but this time he got thrown into a guardrail and broke his shoulder.

I even had someone pull over and try to fight me because I did the old exaggerated shrug/"what the eff" type thing (even though no finger was brandished).

it's just not worth it man. nowadays I try my best to proactively wave at people who do the right thing (wait to pass, give a safe distance, etc), rather than further-enrage those who haven't.

[mjf]

I mean, I get the whole premise of not wanting to press charges against someone because you don't feel it's warranted in some ethical level. But in a circumstance like this, the guy is just going to temporarily lose his weapon for a short period, in all likelihood he will regard this as a minor inconvenience rather than a serious consequence.

I think the likelihood of him pulling the stunt again is still very high and this could very well end significantly worse off.

[bikingshearer]

OK, regretfully I'll not bring the debate to guns, but the level of 'blame the cyclist' on this forum is disgusting, to the point of calling someone cowardly.

Shame on you

It isn't about blaming the victim. It's about the victim's judgment.

Imagine these scenarios. First is the one described by the OP - driver does something stupid/dangerous, rider flips the bird and bangs on the car, driver pulls a gun. Now add that the driver pulls the trigger.

Second, I go walking at 2 a.m. in the Bad Part of Town with a couple of $100 bills hanging out of my pocket. I get whacked on the head and my money gets taken.

Third, a college-aged co-ed goes to a party at the frat with the worst reputation for sexual assaults provocatively dressed, and gets seriously drunk. She wakes up having obviously been raped.

In all three instances, the perp has committed a serious felony and deserves serious prison time. There is simply no justification for their behavior. It is not the victim's fault, it's theirs - they knowingly committed violent felonies. I have zero sympathy for any of them.

But, the victim in all cases was an absolute fool to put themselves in the situation they were in. They had it in their power not to be in the situation that led to the harm that befell them.

This is not about "blaming the victim." It's about being smart and not putting yourself into positions any thinking person knows dramatically increase the chances of having something really bad happen. And the fact the the perp is to blame and deserves everything he (and it's usually a "he") gets will not change the fact that the victim has been shot, concussed or raped.

Enough sh*t falls on each of us in this life - why go looking for more?

[redir]

Yeah boys will be boys. I mean did you see what that girl was wearing? No wonder she got raped. :rolleyes:

Sorry but that IS blaming the victim whether she was at church or back stage at the metal concert.

[Climb01742]

All the rider was doing was riding his bike. Everything, and I mean everything, that happened afterwards was the fault of, and at the instigation of, the driver.

Not one thing the rider did merited a gun being drawn unless you live in a cowboy movie or fantasy.

Nothing would have happened had the driver not buzzed the rider(s). The rest of the incident stems from that antagonistic choice the DRIVER made.

We can debate how wise or not wise the rider reacted after that, but to blame the rider is to lose sight of the instigating provocation by the driver. 90% of this falls on the gun-carrying dude behind the wheel.

[benb]

I'm with the folks saying the cyclist should just wave and not escalate these situations.. it just gets you more risk. And there will always be an infinite # more cars coming down the road to harass you if you play tough guy. I usually have no motivation to throw the bird. I had 3 drivers pull stupid aggressive moves on me on my commute this morning which is all of 5 miles. I just have no reaction to throw the bird.

That said I thought the dismissal of the Stand Your Ground Statute earlier in the thread confusing.

Hasn't Florida already set a precedent with the Zimmerman case that a driver can instigate a conflict with a pedestrian, kill the pedestrian, and then claim Stand Your Ground? Maybe someone can explain why this shouldn't scare us riding in Florida? It seems like a driver could possibly get away with shooting a cyclist too under the same kind of weird conviction that the cyclist was up to no good.

[Keith A]

Keith
Did the cyclist hit the mirror and continue riding or stop next to the truck? Was the gun drawn while the vehicle was stationary or moving?The mirror was struck while the cyclist was still riding as he and the driver were yelling at each other. It was at that point, when the rider struck the mirror, that the gun was drawn. When they stopped, the driver left the gun in his truck.

[Dead Man]

I'm with the folks saying the cyclist should just wave and not escalate these situations.. it just gets you more risk. And there will always be an infinite # more cars coming down the road to harass you if you play tough guy. I usually have no motivation to throw the bird. I had 3 drivers pull stupid aggressive moves on me on my commute this morning which is all of 5 miles. I just have no reaction to throw the bird.

That said I thought the dismissal of the Stand Your Ground Statute earlier in the thread confusing.

Hasn't Florida already set a precedent with the Zimmerman case that a driver can instigate a conflict with a pedestrian, kill the pedestrian, and then claim Stand Your Ground? Maybe someone can explain why this shouldn't scare us riding in Florida? It seems like a driver could possibly get away with shooting a cyclist too under the same kind of weird conviction that the cyclist was up to no good.

You can't shoot anyone unless you're defending against serious injury or death. "Stand your ground" means you don't have to try to run away from someone before you defend yourself... As mentioned, this is the law of the land in almost every state in the union. There's nothing in the doctrine that lets you shoot someone for any other reason, nor start a conflict for the purpose of shooting someone. That's a contrivance.

The law has always been, and will necessarily always be, a little shaky on deadly force used in mutual combat situations. Just because you've chosen to get in a fight with someone doesn't mean you've sacrificed your right to self defense if the situation escalates to that level. But in almost every state, if not EVERY state, you're going to face some kind of criminal charges if mutual combat turns into deadly force.

Zimmerman doesn't have ANYTHING to do with stand-your-ground. That's not just my Internet personality opinion- it's a fact. He was attacked by someone who he believed intended and had the means to do him seriously injury or kill him, so he used deadly force to stop the threat.

You don't have to believe that's how it went down - I personally don't. But that's the issue, and the only issue. There never was any duty to retreat, no new law changed anything about how that situation went down, and if it'd happened exactly the same in any state in the union, given the same jury and same evidence, the outcome would have been the same.

No "precendent" set, folks. It was a one-off situation, and our world is no different now than it was before.

[cnighbor1]

bullets flying
a while back when ridding out to Livermore CA in the ranch land north of 580
a friend had some bullets whiz by him
He sort of knew where they came from but couldn't prove it
He called the sheriff and they knew about from past occurrences it but like him couldn't decide where they came from
Lots of fun ridding there and a lot do ride in that area seems to have stopped

[benb]

Zimmerman doesn't have ANYTHING to do with stand-your-ground. That's not just my Internet personality opinion- it's a fact. He was attacked by someone who he believed intended and had the means to do him seriously injury or kill him, so he used deadly force to stop the threat.

You don't have to believe that's how it went down - I personally don't. But that's the issue, and the only issue. There never was any duty to retreat, no new law changed anything about how that situation went down, and if it'd happened exactly the same in any state in the union, given the same jury and same evidence, the outcome would have been the same.

No "precendent" set, folks. It was a one-off situation, and our world is no different now than it was before.

Eh.. According to the case Zimmerman was driving an SUV, got out and instigated with a pedestrian, and was able to kill the pedestrian and use self defense under Stand Your Ground. Stand Your Ground was absolutely a factor in the case, it was part of the jury instructions. If he stayed in his car there is no way he would have been in danger from an unarmed pedestrian.

Seems to me it could happen the same way with a driver getting out of the car angry at a cyclist and then deciding he/she was in danger of being assaulted by the cyclist.

[Dead Man]

Seems to me it could happen the same way with a driver getting out of the car angry at a cyclist and then deciding he/she was in danger of being assaulted by the cyclist.

This is the way it's always been. Has nothing to do with Zimmerman.

[benb]

This is the way it's always been. Has nothing to do with Zimmerman.

Maybe true in Florida and this is just one of many cases that became national news.

Florida's law is pretty liberal in justifying use of force. It's a pretty big contrast with say NH's right near me. NH's law goes much more into specifics.

When I'm in my car and you're on a bike or on foot I generally feel like I am in the position of power.. the idea I could decide I feel endangered enough by a ped/cyclists to consider using deadly force doesn't strike me as the right thing at all. I'm in the car, I should have the requirement to drive away since there is probably little chance you can threaten me if I do so.

I went on vacation a few months ago in Florida and I rode a lot there and I actually thought about this while riding there. It was something that I had in the back of my head reminding me to be on my best behavior. I am of the opinion that laws like that make it more likely someone is going to needlessly escalate.

[Dead Man]

Can you stalk someone in your neighborhood in your car? Yes, you can do that. Can you get out of your car and confront someone in your gated community, especially if you're the neighborhood watch captain or whatever the crap he called himself? Yes, you can do that. Can you do all that, and still defend yourself if physically attacked? Uh huh. Can you do all of this, suddenly realize your attacker might be trying to kill you or seriously injure you, and pull a gun and shoot him? Yes... We're still totally legal. And always have been, just about everywhere.

The Zimmerman issue was whether all of that was true. He maintained all of that was true, and a jury agreed there was at least a reasonable doubt that isn't the way it happened.

As with every self-defense defense, as an affirmative defense, it's in what the evidence shows and how you articulate your defense. If it's just your word against a dead body, and there's no other evidence to prove otherwise.... That's just the way it is. And should be. Fortunately, our modern criminal investigators are pretty good... And if a crime has been committed, they're pretty good at detecting it. But we don't prosecute people for murder unless there's good evidence and we can prove it in court.

Zimmerman or not.

I think everyone in America feels like Zimmerman probably instigated a physical altercation with Martin. Still wouldn't necessarily have been guilty of MURDER, but certainly some degree of manslaughter.. And I feel like if they'd gone that route, the finding might have been different.

[benb]

I'm just happy to live in a state (like Oregon apparently) where the law would be much more harsh on the car driver doing what Zimmerman did or what happened in the OPs case. Heck even NH next door from us which does have Stand Your Ground has a more carefully crafted law and would not protect an instigator in a car. I believe these laws do have an effect on how likely these situations are to occur.

[AJM100]

you guys are getting off the OP's fact scenario . . . this was an assault with a dangerous weapon - brandishing a loaded weapon. Stand your ground and the right to self defense and use of deadly force has nothing to do with what the driver of the vehicle did - fortunately it did not go that far.

[Dead Man]

I'm just happy to live in a state (like Oregon apparently) where the law would be much more harsh on the car driver doing what Zimmerman did or what happened in the OPs case. Heck even NH next door from us which does have Stand Your Ground has a more carefully crafted law and would not protect an instigator in a car. I believe these laws do have an effect on how likely these situations are to occur.

They charged and prosecuted him for MURDER, man... How the crap could you get any "harsh"er than that?

[zmudshark]

I'm just happy to live in a state (like Oregon apparently) where the law would be much more harsh on the car driver doing what Zimmerman did or what happened in the OPs case. Heck even NH next door from us which does have Stand Your Ground has a more carefully crafted law and would not protect an instigator in a car. I believe these laws do have an effect on how likely these situations are to occur.

They charged and prosecuted him for MURDER, man... How the crap could you get any "harsh"er than that?

One of these is not like the other.:beer:

[Waldo]

Please get a room already, you two...

Hey, what can I tell ya?

Make your points and your argument in the best way you know how in adding to the discussion. I am not here to lecture you on how to comprehend and interprete the law nor do I seek to correct your opinion to be more congruent to my own. Our repartee here I do not view as one that seeks dominance or capitulation to some singular righteous interpretation and application of the law - that is why there are trials, courts and appellates.

So say what you gotta say. We can both read as well as can the members of this forum. And you and I can be "judged" by the readers on the strength of our arguments and the points that we make. Ain't that fun, huh?

I would say I often find your view of the law to be intently and narrowly literal, to the seeming ignorance or deemphasis as to application and intent in the wording of the law. For example our conflict here on this topic is presaged by what I read as your legal and logical underpinning strictly & solely on the word "intruder" in the statute. Fine with me, that's your call on the statute's intent and how you think it is applied.

Finally, knock off the ad hominem that presumes your falsely construed intent on my part to mislead regarding stand your ground - argue the point and not the person.

You called the law (which 45 States have) "insanity", not to mention mischaracterized it. I think you once posted that you had a law degree/went to law school, so you are capable of reading the Statute and understand it applies to intruders in your home or you car.

If you think it is insane for a home/car owner to not have to retreat and warn before using deadly force against an intruder you are in the vast minority. Throw all the adjectives around that you want.

At 2:00 am when someone intrudes into my home, I am not collecting my wife and kids and finding a way out of the house from the 2nd story all the while trying to stay away from the intruder(s). Then, if I can't retreat safely, warn the intruder (s) before using legally deadly force.

I posted an article describing and discussing the Statute.

I don't think you're crazy. I am sorry you took it that way. Injecting Stand Your Ground here was misplaced and you know it.

[93legendti]

Hey, what can I tell ya?

Make your points and your argument in the best way you know how in adding to the discussion. I am not here to lecture you on how to comprehend and interprete the law nor do I seek to correct your opinion to be more congruent to my own. Our repartee here I do not view as one that seeks dominance or capitulation to some singular righteous interpretation and application of the law - that is why there are trials, courts and appellates.

So say what you gotta say. We can both read as well as can the members of this forum. And you and I can be "judged" by the readers on the strength of our arguments and the points that we make. Ain't that fun, huh?

I would say I often find your view of the law to be intently and narrowly literal, to the seeming ignorance or deemphasis as to application and intent in the wording of the law. For example our conflict here on this topic is presaged by what I read as your legal and logical underpinning strictly & solely on the word "intruder" in the statute. Fine with me, that's your call on the statute's intent and how you think it is applied.

Finally, knock off the ad hominem that presumes your falsely construed intent on my part to mislead regarding stand your ground - argue the point and not the person.

You're getting funny!

The Stand Your Ground statute deals with an intruder in a home or a car.

I cited the law and an article discussing the law. Dwelling, residence, home, car and vehicle are specific terms. You're great at criticizing what I wrote and quoted.

Reposted and bolded for your benefit:


"If abolishing the common law duty of retreat for cases involving the use of deadly force was not enough, “Stand Your Ground” goes one step further in cases involving home or vehicle invasions. Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, provides that, when an intruder unlawfully enters, attempts to enter, or refuses to leave a dwelling, residence, or vehicle owned or lawfully occupied by another person, the owner or occupant is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm so as to justify the use of deadly force. The intruder is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
The presumptions employed in the context of a home or vehicle invasion mark yet another statutory departure from the common law. Although, prior to 2005, Florida case decisions had long recognized the “Castle Doctrine” (which provides that where one is not the aggressor and is violently assaulted in one’s home, there is no obligation to retreat), the doctrine nonetheless required the owner or occupant of the home to reasonably believe that force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm. See Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4, 13 (Fla. 1907). Under the current statute, the reasonableness of the occupant’s belief is presumed so long as he or she acts within a “dwelling,” “residence,” or “vehicle,” as defined in Section 776.013, Florida Statutes."

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case...nd-ground-law/

[William]

Keep it on track folks...






William

[ripvanrando]

Improper exhibition of firearm in Florida requires a determination of whether the firearm was displayed carelessly, which of course is very subjective. Every state is different. My drivers license works the same in every state but my concealed carry permits are subject to all sorts of arcane laws on a state by state basis and sometimes on a city by city basis.

The maniac driver may have been justified given the aggressive hitting of the mirror but without the cyclists sworn statement? It is rather easy for the driver to justify his actions to his buddy.

What if the driver pointed the gun out the window aiming the firearm at the bird shooting cyclist. The drivers finger goes to the trigger. My personal dilemma had I been there would have been just this simple. Do I be the good guy with the gun and shoot the driver.

Avoiding conflict with 3 tons of steel and not escalating matters is my mantra. I don't want no trouble but there are indeed crazy drivers out there and I've had my share that have tried to end me intentionally and to be honest, I am a little scared of riding these days. I do everything I can to avoid motorists even riding very small roads. I avoid riding with groups that antagonize drivers.

[velomonkey]

I'm starting to stay out of these things cause it always seems the dude on the 18 pound bike in lycra is somehow at fault - none of this would have happened if it wasn't for him/her being on the road.

I just don't get that.

Let me ask 2 questions. Is it ever OK to flip off a driver? When do they cross the line that one can take their arm, extend it and withhold all the fingers but the middle? I don't do it cause I like sarcasm better, thumbs up. Clearly intentionally bussing a cyclist isn't the line where it's acceptable - if one is hit and lying in a poll of their own blood - can they then give the driver the finger? I'm trying to find the line.

Can someone here please tell me an honest story where they got the car plate # and called the cops and said "hey Mr. Police this car was operated in an unsafe manner two hours ago and buzzed us cyclists. He/she was a hazard to us, we don't know the driver, but we do know the car - and while it was in the past we have all the details you need" And the cops said "well sir, we serve and we protect - we will get to this matter straight away and keep you informed. Lock and load, boys - we have a dangerous motorists using his car to put fear into tax paying men and women in lycra. The time has come to take this villain off the roads!!!"

Cause that has almost never happened and if it has it's borderline the exception that proves the rule. Heck, there are photos are cars coming too close ON THIS VERY CYCLING FORUM and people still blame the cyclist.

Someday some sociology PhD is going to read over this stuff and come up with the "paceline syndrome."

[velomonkey]

" If you leave the firearm out of the confrontation and approach this incident "


Rock solid logic:

If you leave the rape out of it a woman victim 9 months later receives a gift from the encounter.

I swear, the ethical bending you all do to blame the cyclist is comical.

The rider is kind of a tool, just a bit. The driver is CLEARLY and obviously a major you-know-what who has zero issue putting someone's life at risk.

Anything else is just noise.

[benb]

They charged and prosecuted him for MURDER, man... How the crap could you get any "harsh"er than that?

They acquitted him for murder. Kind of a giant giant difference. I would surmise a lot of states other than Florida (certainly any with a retreat clause or an instigator clause) would have convicted him.

[ripvanrando]

Can someone here please tell me an honest story where they got the car plate # and called the cops and said "hey Mr. Police this car was operated in an unsafe manner two hours ago and buzzed us cyclists. He/she was a hazard to us, we don't know the driver, but we do know the car - and while it was in the past we have all the details you need" And the cops said "well sir, we serve and we protect - we will get to this matter straight away and keep you informed. Lock and load, boys - we have a dangerous motorists using his car to put fear into tax paying men and women in lycra. The time has come to take this villain off the roads!!!"

Cause that has almost never happened and if it has it's borderline the exception that proves the rule. Heck, there are photos are cars coming too close ON THIS VERY CYCLING FORUM and people still blame the cyclist.

Someday some sociology PhD is going to read over this stuff and come up with the "paceline syndrome."

I got the plate number and description of a vehicle that kept coming back and running me off the road. I did one better than calling the police. I went to the station one mile up the road. They laughed me out of the station. Wait, you wanted locked and loaded.

I am not sure if I read anyone blaming the cyclist but flipping off a driver and then wacking the wacko driver's mirror makes the cyclist part of the problem.

[djg21]

I am not sure if I read anyone blaming the cyclist but flipping off a driver and then wacking the wacko driver's mirror makes the cyclist part of the problem.

Dudes on 18 pound bikes in lycra can never do anything wrong or ever be part of the problem according to some here. :bike:

[gdw]

+1 That's the real "paceline syndrome".

[Dead Man]

Dudes on 18 pound bikes in lycra can never do anything wrong or ever be part of the problem according to some here. :bike:

18lbs? Dood.. my bike is metal, and still barely breaks 15lbs

[djg21]

18lbs? Dood.. my bike is metal, and still barely breaks 15lbs

I didn't want to use quotation marks! Putting aside sarcasm, my point is that we, as cyclists, need to stop with the self-righteous indignation.

Yes there are assholes everywhere, both in cars and on bicycles. While there is certainly no justification for a motorist pulling a gun, we as cyclists need to avoid such confrontations, or at least avoid escalating such confrontations once they become inevitable. Maybe the lesson to be learned here is that next time a car buzzes you or does something you don't like, consider that the motorist could be armed and mentally disturbed before you become confrontational and act out. There are ways to address these situations without yourself becoming threatening.

[jimcav]

no flipping the bird, just tell the driver he needs to apologize to the bike.
I guess this only works if
a: you've seen the movie
b: the rider has his (legal) firearm
c: is faster/more accurate than driver

crazy story. i've had a bottle of piss thrown at me riding, and more yells and heckling and horns than i can count, but no guns thank goodness

[benb]

Hey you want to open a real nice can of worms it sounds like you theoretically can use deadly force to protect your bicycle while on a ride in Florida and claim Stand your Ground. The law carves out protection for defending yourself in your vehicle and specifically says the vehicle does not have to be motorized. Maybe that is just for horse drawn carriages and fully faired recumbents though since you can't really be "in" most bikes.

[Dead Man]

Hey you want to open a real nice can of worms it sounds like you theoretically can use deadly force to protect your bicycle while on a ride in Florida and claim Stand your Ground. The law carves out protection for defending yourself in your vehicle and specifically says the vehicle does not have to be motorized. Maybe that is just for horse drawn carriages and fully faired recumbents though since you can't really be "in" most bikes.

I really don't think you are understanding Stand Your Ground, man.

[benb]

If you're a lawyer and it really does require you to be at home explain it.. the articles you linked to at that law firm website talked a lot about your home but definitely didn't say the law was restricted to when you were at home.

Here is an article with lots of interesting cases mentioned:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

There was a 14 year old who successfully defended himself for shooting someone who was trying to steal his Jet Ski. The bike one might happen yet!

[OtayBW]

Can someone here please tell me an honest story where they got the car plate # and called the cops and said "hey Mr. Police this car was operated in an unsafe manner two hours ago and buzzed us cyclists. He/she was a hazard to us, we don't know the driver, but we do know the car - and while it was in the past we have all the details you need" And the cops said "well sir, we serve and we protect - we will get to this matter straight away and keep you informed. Lock and load, boys - we have a dangerous motorists using his car to put fear into tax paying men and women in lycra. The time has come to take this villain off the roads!!!"
OK - I'll give you one. I was riding last Fall out in the sticks and making a LT at a SS. I had taken the lane, and done all the proper signalling yada yada yada. Older model pickup behind me follows me left and then immediately does a Rolling Coal thing right in my face. I'm sure they got a good rise out of that. I pulled over and seconds later a Sheriff pulled up to the intersection. I waved him over and told him what happened, as witnessed by a rider behind me. He seemed to take it very seriously and with my description of the vehicle, he found these chuckleheads sitting at a convenience store ~100 yds away and gave then a citation.

Doesn't often happen, but I'll put one in the win column over that!

[bikingshearer]

Yeah boys will be boys. I mean did you see what that girl was wearing? No wonder she got raped. :rolleyes:

Sorry but that IS blaming the victim whether she was at church or back stage at the metal concert.

Try re-reading my post. Did I ever say anything that can reasonably be construed as letting anyone off the hook because "boys will be boys" or the equivalent? Absolutely not. To the contrary, I agree 100% that "no" means "no," drunk means "no", passed out means "no" and anything that isn't an explicit "yes" means "no." And anyone who can't get that through their skulls deserves to rot in prison. The same applies in the other scenarios I described.

But the fact is that there are a whole bunch of Neanderthals out there who not only don't understand that but actively refuse to understand that. And we all, and especially women, ignore that fact at their peril. I agree that that is grossly unfair. But in terms of minimizing one's chances of being the victim, fairness, right and wrong, and "blame" have nothing to do with it.

My post is not about blaming the victim - it's about trying to not become one.

[Tin Turtle]

Everyone was lucky. I live outside Chicago and ride both to and away from the city. Anything can happen here.

[Peter P.]

I am not sure if I read anyone blaming the cyclist but flipping off a driver and then wacking the wacko driver's mirror makes the cyclist part of the problem.

Velomonkey doesn't agree with you and I.

[velomonkey]

Velomonkey doesn't agree with you and I.


Um let's make sure for prosperity that we have the variables right.

Biker riding along.

Car buzzes said biker cuz you know

Rider flips off car/driver for said buzz

Driver slams brakes using car as weapon do to the infraction of a middle finger

Rider slaps said weapon cause we all know a slap of a hand is way, way, way more powerful than tons of steal moving with 200 horse power.

Driver pulls gun cuz stand your ground

Yes, you are right - velomoney does not agree with you - either of you - it's what makes the world go round. Now the we have that straight all is well.

[velomonkey]

Dudes on 18 pound bikes in lycra can never do anything wrong or ever be part of the problem according to some here. :bike:

Not with me - I can't stand most people on bikes. That's just me - you might be different.

[velomonkey]

I got the plate number and description of a vehicle that kept coming back and running me off the road. I did one better than calling the police. I went to the station one mile up the road. They laughed me out of the station. Wait, you wanted locked and loaded.

I am not sure if I read anyone blaming the cyclist but flipping off a driver and then wacking the wacko driver's mirror makes the cyclist part of the problem.

I want to make sure I understand you - the cops did nothing. So if another rider, like you, has the experience of cops doing nothing and choses to flip off an aphhole driver then they are part of the problem?

This is what you are saying, right?

[rab]

Can someone here please tell me an honest story where they got the car plate # and called the cops and said "hey Mr. Police this car was operated in an unsafe manner two hours ago and buzzed us cyclists. He/she was a hazard to us, we don't know the driver, but we do know the car - and while it was in the past we have all the details you need" And the cops said "well sir, we serve and we protect - we will get to this matter straight away and keep you informed. Lock and load, boys - we have a dangerous motorists using his car to put fear into tax paying men and women in lycra. The time has come to take this villain off the roads!!!"

Cause that has almost never happened and if it has it's borderline the exception that proves the rule. Heck, there are photos are cars coming too close ON THIS VERY CYCLING FORUM and people still blame the cyclist.

Someday some sociology PhD is going to read over this stuff and come up with the "paceline syndrome."

Recently had a situation in Phoenix where a guy was cut off by a driver making a right turn. Driver clearly violated the state 3 foot rule as he passed/before the cutoff. Rider pulled up next to him in the entrance of the parking lot, gave him the basic "*** are you doing, you trying to kill me?" then rode off. Driver followed him and started jawing until cyclist informed him this was all being recorded by gopro etc, at which point the driver took off. Cyclist reported to the PD and the police followed up, gave the driver a call. Apparently the driver was pretty aggressive with the cop until he was informed the police had seen the video at which point driver smartly toned it down a lot.
Not sure if citation was actually issued but I'm pretty happy to just to have the police follow up and warn the guy, maybe make him think before pulling something like that again. I hope.

Seems like video is cycling's friend. People tend to act more well behaved when they think or know they are being watched.
Really makes me consider the merit of getting a camera, much as I hate the idea. Or the root cause of the idea I should say.

[Peter P.]

I want to make sure I understand you - the cops did nothing. So if another rider, like you, has the experience of cops doing nothing and choses to flip off an aphhole driver then they are part of the problem?

This is what you are saying, right?

A solid case in court needs EVIDENCE, evidence a jury can believe. The cyclist refused to press charges, and we're presuming the cops were buddy-buddy with the former fire chief, so his self-admission was dismissed. Add to that the "coached" answer that the driver "feared for his life" when the cyclist smacked the mirror.

I agree that if the cops truly wanted to do their job they could have arrested the guy. Just the process of going through the arrest and going to court, and assuming a weak case that the driver gets acquitted on, the experience alone might be enough to realign the driver's future thinking. But the police were more on the side of the driver than the cyclist. And the single most important fact in the incident that weakened the cyclist's case was, he smacked the driver's mirror, escalating the confrontation and inciting the driver, and I'M WITH YOU ON THIS-the driver's drawing of his weapon was hardly necessary or called for.

[velomonkey]

A solid case in court needs EVIDENCE, evidence a jury can believe. The cyclist refused to press charges, and we're presuming the cops were buddy-buddy with the former fire chief, so his self-admission was dismissed. Add to that the "coached" answer that the driver "feared for his life" when the cyclist smacked the mirror.



I'm so confused - you were there?

[Keith A]

A solid case in court needs EVIDENCE, evidence a jury can believe. The cyclist refused to press charges, and we're presuming the cops were buddy-buddy with the former fire chief, so his self-admission was dismissed. Add to that the "coached" answer that the driver "feared for his life" when the cyclist smacked the mirror.

I agree that if the cops truly wanted to do their job they could have arrested the guy. Just the process of going through the arrest and going to court, and assuming a weak case that the driver gets acquitted on, the experience alone might be enough to realign the driver's future thinking. But the police were more on the side of the driver than the cyclist. And the single most important fact in the incident that weakened the cyclist's case was, he smacked the driver's mirror, escalating the confrontation and inciting the driver, and I'M WITH YOU ON THIS-the driver's drawing of his weapon was hardly necessary or called for.This was not the case, and if anything the opposite was true. The cyclist's father-n-law works (or worked) for the sheriffs department and the cyclist is well connected to this group. So if anyone might have had preferential treatment, it was the cyclist.

[OtayBW]

Be interesting to see what the incident report looked like....

[kevinvc]

Try re-reading my post. Did I ever say anything that can reasonably be construed as letting anyone off the hook because "boys will be boys" or the equivalent? Absolutely not. To the contrary, I agree 100% that "no" means "no," drunk means "no", passed out means "no" and anything that isn't an explicit "yes" means "no." And anyone who can't get that through their skulls deserves to rot in prison. The same applies in the other scenarios I described.

But the fact is that there are a whole bunch of Neanderthals out there who not only don't understand that but actively refuse to understand that. And we all, and especially women, ignore that fact at their peril. I agree that that is grossly unfair. But in terms of minimizing one's chances of being the victim, fairness, right and wrong, and "blame" have nothing to do with it.

My post is not about blaming the victim - it's about trying to not become one.

Actually, I think this is absolutely blaming the victim. You're correct in that you're (rightly) also blaming the attacker, but you're not absolving the woman of blame. Blaming both sides inherently includes the victim.

[bikingshearer]

Actually, I think this is absolutely blaming the victim. You're correct in that you're (rightly) also blaming the attacker, but you're not absolving the woman of blame. Blaming both sides inherently includes the victim.

Okay, let's try it this way. Who pays the price for the bad thing that happens? The perp who goes to prison pays a price. The perp who is never caught does not. But regardless of whether the perp pays a big price, a little price, or no price at all, the victim always pays a huge price. Every. Single. Time. And possibly (make that probably) for the rest of their life. Regardless of what does or does not happen to the perp - the victim loses.

The real lesson here isn't about assigning "blame" after the fact. The real lesson is about making smart decisions before the bad stuff happens. It's about taking responsibility for yourself and your own well-being. Blanche DuBois may have been able to depend on the kindness of strangers, but it is a dangerous way to go through life.

[merlincustom1]

Eh.. According to the case Zimmerman was driving an SUV, got out and instigated with a pedestrian, and was able to kill the pedestrian and use self defense under Stand Your Ground. Stand Your Ground was absolutely a factor in the case, it was part of the jury instructions. If he stayed in his car there is no way he would have been in danger from an unarmed pedestrian.

Seems to me it could happen the same way with a driver getting out of the car angry at a cyclist and then deciding he/she was in danger of being assaulted by the cyclist.

The words "stand your ground" were in the instructions, but are simply part of Florida's common law self defense instruction. Zimmerman specifically waived that defense by forgoing a pre-trial hearing on the issue, which Florida law required if one were to assert the defense. A successful invocation of the defense pre trial would have resulted in the dismissal of the case. See https://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/20/the-stand-your-ground-law-and-the-zimmerman-trial/.

Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's lawyer, defended the case strictly on self defense grounds by arguing that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of imment bodily harm at the time he shot Martin. See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/3/3/1281852/-Zimmerman-lawyer-wants-stand-your-ground-jury-instructions-limited-to-cases-he-says-warrant-them.

The biggest prosecution failure in the Zimmerman case was the lack of an initial aggressor instruction. See http://www.law.columbia.edu/magazine/611849

[ripvanrando]

I want to make sure I understand you - the cops did nothing. So if another rider, like you, has the experience of cops doing nothing and choses to flip off an aphhole driver then they are part of the problem?

This is what you are saying, right?

Bashing another person's property is never a good idea because it can provoke an attack. I am saying flipping off a driver and then bashing his or her mirror is highly provocative. Depending upon how hard the mirror was hit and the cyclists language, the driver may have reasonably considered this threatening behavior as an assault.

I understand most cyclists in this thread feel that the cyclist was justified in bashing the mirror but in my view, this merely added gasoline to the fire.

Whether the police do anything is not relevant.

[Tony T]

Bashing another person's property is never a good idea because it can provoke an attack.

So can cutting someone off. Lets not forget who provoked the encounter.

[William]

So can cutting someone off. Lets not forget who provoked the encounter.

Tit for tat usually leads into a game of Escalatto. It generally goes down hill from there.






William

[ripvanrando]

So can cutting someone off. Lets not forget who provoked the encounter.

Of course. Was it intentional. Who knows.

I understood the driver "buzzed" the cyclists.

Cyclists gives driver the finger.

Driver slows down.

Cyclist smashes mirror.

This type of escalation can get you hurt and is not worth it. Both the driver and cyclist were wrong. That is all I am saying.