Bicyclist Attacks Driver, Gets Shot, Dies

[guito13]

Well said PB.
We need more cowards with CCWs validating themselves by killing unarmed people. If you need a gun to save you from a hand, you're the asshole, asshole.

While PB's comment was a bit harsh yours is as well. First off, it is a CPL [[Concealed Pistol License) not a CCW [[Carrying Concealed Weapon. This is the charge you get if you are illegally carrying a concealed weapon).

You, nor I, do not know the details of the situation. Was the driver "sucker punched" in the nose which caused his eyes to water. Could he then not safely see well enough to drive away. Is the driver disabled in some way? There is also the possiblity that the driver did have other viable alternatives and should have taken them.

Bottom line is that neither of us know enough to make judgement on this particular case.

Now, if you want to discuss the broader law then that can be done. From your post it appears that you feel like someone punching another person is not reason for lethal self-defense [[If I read things wrong, I apologize). I would argue that fists can and have killed. Furthermore, a person has the right to be able to defend themselves from unsolicitied harm by any means necessary.

[leapfrog]

While PB's comment was a bit harsh yours is as well. First off, it is a CPL [[Concealed Pistol License) not a CCW [[Carrying Concealed Weapon. This is the charge you get if you are illegally carrying a concealed weapon).

You, nor I, do not know the details of the situation. Was the driver "sucker punched" in the nose which caused his eyes to water. Could he then not safely see well enough to drive away. Is the driver disabled in some way? There is also the possiblity that the driver did have other viable alternatives and should have taken them.

Bottom line is that neither of us know enough to make judgement on this particular case.

Now, if you want to discuss the broader law then that can be done. From your post it appears that you feel like someone punching another person is not reason for lethal self-defense [[If I read things wrong, I apologize). I would argue that fists can and have killed. Furthermore, a person has the right to be able to defend themselves from unsolicitied harm by any means necessary.

You had me until that last sentence. By any means necessary? So, if someone punches me and I feel that the only "means" available to me to defend myself is slow torture, I can go ahead and roast the person over a fire? Granted, my example is taken to the extreme, but I think the point is valid. There needs to be a proportionate response, not "by any means necessary".

Having said that, this is simply my opinion. I wasn't there, I wasn't involved and I didn't witness it.

[RedeemerKid]

You had me until that last sentence. By any means necessary? So, if someone punches me and I feel that the only "means" available to me to defend myself is slow torture, I can go ahead and roast the person over a fire? Granted, my example is taken to the extreme, but I think the point is valid. There needs to be a proportionate response, not "by any means necessary".

Having said that, this is simply my opinion. I wasn't there, I wasn't involved and I didn't witness it.

He didn't say "by any means". He said by "any means necessary". I think there's a difference.

In your example, regardless of how you feel, slow torture would not be "necessary" to fend off a punch.

Walking away or running away is usually a good start when it's just fisticuffs. Rolling your window up might be have been a good start in this situation. Blasting a bullet through his chest seems a little "unnecessary". But like you, I wasn't there.

[Wheels]

If everyone who got punched in the face responded with a shot to the chest there would still be many who would object to stronger gun laws. This person on the bicycle seems to be in the wrong but did not deserve to die!

[jcole]

When was the last time you tried to close a modern power window with anything obstructing it?! Especially those with an 'auto-up' or '-down' feature.

THEY WILL NOT CLOSE.

ANY resistance, and the window pops FULLY back open. Same with sunroofs. Hollywood's Automotive Guillotines are a figment of history now.


My old Audi was the first vehicle I ever noticed this on...and my girlfriend's SAAB just tested the same. My second-generation Saturn Vue will clamp down and cause some damage to someone attempting ingress or worse, though.


So, yeah, it depends upon the car he was driving, but it is quite likely he COULDN'T ROLL UP HIS WINDOW! Add adrenaline and ego, and voila!. Dead agressive cyclist.

Regardless if the window would roll up or not, my point is there were other ways to deal with this than shooting the guy in the chest. Locking the door and moving out of reach was one. I doubt the guy would have climbed through the window. Or moving across the car and getting out of the other door. Then run like hell.
The problem is that when someone has a gun, they forget that there are other, less deadly ways to deal with a problem. The first thought, with many, is shoot first, go to court later.

[RedeemerKid]

Regardless if the window would roll up or not, my point is there were other ways to deal with this than shooting the guy in the chest. Locking the door and moving out of reach was one. I doubt the guy would have climbed through the window. Or moving across the car and getting out of the other door. Then run like hell.
The problem is that when someone has a gun, they forget that there are other, less deadly ways to deal with a problem. The first thought, with many, is shoot first, go to court later.

I would add that "some" CPL folks I have interacted with seem to have wet dreams over the notion that one day they will have the opportunity to pull out their gun during a situation.

Again, I said "some". Very few in truth. Not suggesting that the the guy in this story falls into that category at all. But that minority of over-zealous CPL folks give the rest of the level-headed CPL folks a bad name.

[guito13]

You had me until that last sentence. By any means necessary? So, if someone punches me and I feel that the only "means" available to me to defend myself is slow torture, I can go ahead and roast the person over a fire? Granted, my example is taken to the extreme, but I think the point is valid. There needs to be a proportionate response, not "by any means necessary".

Having said that, this is simply my opinion. I wasn't there, I wasn't involved and I didn't witness it.

I will concede that my choice of words could have been better. What I mean is that if you are attacking me to the point where I feel like my well being [[life/limb/etc.) is in danger, I believe in the right to defend myself in ANY way possible to save myself. I would always like to have the situation end where both parties are alive and unhurt and the offending party brought to justice.

[cla1945]

I would add that "some" CPL folks I have interacted with seem to have wet dreams over the notion that one day they will have the opportunity to pull out their gun during a situation.

Again, I said "some". Very few in truth. Not suggesting that the the guy in this story falls into that category at all. But that minority of over-zealous CPL folks give the rest of the level-headed CPL folks a bad name.

A very large percentage of people who have their CPL are not having "wet dreams" over the notion that one day they will have the opportunity to pull out their gun during a situation. I think the opposite is true...the thugs, killers, car jackers and gangs get high on the notion to go out and just kill someone..anyone.
I carry because of those thugs, killers, car jackers and gangs. Not one of them has taken a class, had a background check, learned to shoot and handle a weapon legally...I have.
Someone posted that the guy on the bike was wrong but he didn't deserve to die and I agree. But, it was his choice to get up and instead of talking man to man to the driver, he decided to start punching. The driver of the truck had no idea if this biker was going to kill him, maim him, or cause permanent bodily damage to him, and the driver did what he had to do to protect himself. The driver should not face any charges because he was acting in self defense.

[splake]

Another instance of hand-to-handgun combat, which we all have a legal right to.

Surely there is a line when self-defense crosses into overcompensation and overkill. Handgun advocates are just as clueless or in denial to its existence as they are to their own independent thought.

The majority of people with a license to HIDE their pistol are "trained" to fantasize about the day they get in a scrape and can say "Hey, look what I got!" and start blasting people. That is the only purpose of a handgun, right? To kill people? Never mind the countless non-lethal devices available that are used by the majority of citizens and law enforcement all over the world. I find it hard to believe that with all our advancements, the best option for people who feel threatened is to kill.
Why not take a karate class and become a weapon, instead of 'strapping one on' everyday?

Maybe then you could help improve a life, instead of ending one.

[Gannon]

The majority of people with a license to HIDE their pistol are "trained" to fantasize about the day they get in a scrape and can say "Hey, look what I got!" and start blasting people.
...
Maybe then you could help improve a life, instead of ending one.

That is just sick, and doesn't apply to ANYONE I know who has gone to the effort to purchase and master any defensive weapons. I remember the last punch I landed, probably forty years ago...and I cannot bear to kill even a mosquito who is enjoying my own blood. My girlfriend has fun watching me herd the ants in our kitchen and shuffle them back outside.

Training by shooting paper and metal targets unto rote habit does NOT in any way equate with fantasizing about killing any living being. Training while distracted and in a heightened nervous state may involve invoking imagination to get your adrenaline pumping, but even triple-taps to a body target [[2 body/1 head) can be done without putting a face on the paper outline. The closest one gets to that are the drills with pop-up/out targets in a mock-up urban setting where one has to differentiate between safe and dangerous targets...but MOST people never, ever get to that level.


I attempt to help improve the lives of everyone I encounter, in whatever way I am able...but if they attack me and/or those I'm in a position to protect, my responsibility lies with those who need protecting...not the sorry one who made that last bad choice.


I'll not be far from my weapon on the way to and from my karate classes then, if you insist I take them.

I'll stop having it around when I get as bas-ass as Remo Williams.

Sincerely,
John

[detroitsgwenivere]

I don't know about the gun owners you know splake, but I pray every single day that I walk out of the house with my firearm that I WILL NEVER HAVE TO USE IT.

Every single day.

One of the many prices I pay for living in a country who's economic system dictates that in order to have a disgustingly wealthy few, we must have a disturbingly poor many. As long as this is allowed to continue, violence and it's violent responses will continue to be a part of our collective lives.

[Wesley Mouch]

While there are some knee-jerk "gun bad" people on this forum, I am surprised and pleased that there are also many who understand the complexities of this situation.

Let's suppose that the victim didn't have a gun to defend himself. How might this story have ended?

[jcole]

While there are some knee-jerk "gun bad" people on this forum, I am surprised and pleased that there are also many who understand the complexities of this situation.

Let's suppose that the victim didn't have a gun to defend himself. How might this story have ended?

More than likely with both of them still alive

[cla1945]

More than likely with both of them still alive

Still alive but possibly with some very serious head injuries that could effect the rest of his entire life....while the biker would get off with a slap on the wrist, maybe serve some community service, be sued by the victims family, the family of the victim wouldn't receive a dime, and the list goes on and on.

[kenp]

I agree with cla1945, though I am sure some lawyers would make some $$$ on this.
Plus there would be no post on here if there wasnt a gun.

[jcole]

Still alive but possibly with some very serious head injuries that could effect the rest of his entire life....while the biker would get off with a slap on the wrist, maybe serve some community service, be sued by the victims family, the family of the victim wouldn't receive a dime, and the list goes on and on.

And, as the situation stands, the driver may get off with a slap on the wrist, there might be a civil suit, the family of the victim won't get a dime AND the victim doesn't have a 'rest of his life'; he's dead.

[guito13]

And, as the situation stands, the driver may get off with a slap on the wrist, there might be a civil suit, the family of the victim won't get a dime AND the victim doesn't have a 'rest of his life'; he's dead.

You are already making assumptions by calling the person who was shot "The Victim". Until more facts come out, its not fair to call either person involved a victim or a criminal.

[jcole]

You are already making assumptions by calling the person who was shot "The Victim". Until more facts come out, its not fair to call either person involved a victim or a criminal.

Regardless of what you think, he's the victim of a gunshot wound.

[cla1945]

^^^and the driver of the truck was the "victim" of an assault.

If it is found that the biker was totally at fault and was physically attacking the truck driver and the truck driver was carrying legally, and he had no choice but to use deadly force to prevent himself from being injured further, and no criminal charges are issued...the bikers family cannot sue in a civil court.

[jcole]

^^^and the driver of the truck was the "victim" of an assault.

If it is found that the biker was totally at fault and was physically attacking the truck driver and the truck driver was carrying legally, and he had no choice but to use deadly force to prevent himself from being injured further, and no criminal charges are issued...the bikers family cannot sue in a civil court.

And if the driver is charged for firing his gun and found guilty of murder, manslaughter or whatever, your comment is moot.
So it's all a matter of 'if' whichever way you slice it.

[splake]

Let's strip everything away and just say: One guy threw a punch, so the other guy killed him.

With a gun.
It was the only option.

[Big Dan]

What medical attention did the driver require? What injuries did he receive? I saw video of the driver leaving the police department when he was released and he was looking pretty healthy. Have the Taylor police released any information?

[Wesley Mouch]

More than likely with both of them still alive

I mean this as a serious question. Why do you place the life of someone who endangers others above the rights of someone innocent? I am saddened by the death -- but I accept it as a reasonable consequence of an assault.

I wasn't there, so I don't know how threatening the perp was here.

If the perp was simply verbally threatening -- shooting wasn't justified.

If the perp said I will kill you and pull your eyeballs out as he was viciously striking the victim -- the shooting is justified.

I think you have the right to go home at the end of the day with your limbs and vital organs intact and unthreatened by others. This is a crucial right to me.

At what point is deadly force appropriate to you? If you assume that this perp was capable of serious injury or death to the victim, would deadly force be appropriate.

I sure would like to have seen everyone go home alive -- but its also important to me that the victim not be threatened, maimed, or potentially killed. Is there any circumstance where you see using a handgun as justified? This is the central question to me.

[jcole]

I mean this as a serious question. Why do you place the life of someone who endangers others above the rights of someone innocent? I am saddened by the death -- but I accept it as a reasonable consequence of an assault.

I wasn't there, so I don't know how threatening the perp was here.

If the perp was simply verbally threatening -- shooting wasn't justified.

If the perp said I will kill you and pull your eyeballs out as he was viciously striking the victim -- the shooting is justified.

I think you have the right to go home at the end of the day with your limbs and vital organs intact and unthreatened by others. This is a crucial right to me.

At what point is deadly force appropriate to you? If you assume that this perp was capable of serious injury or death to the victim, would deadly force be appropriate.

I sure would like to have seen everyone go home alive -- but its also important to me that the victim not be threatened, maimed, or potentially killed. Is there any circumstance where you see using a handgun as justified? This is the central question to me.

IF you or another person are being threatened with imminent death or sexual assault AND there is no other recourse [[such as running away or hitting back) AND the other person is armed, then I think use of a gun is justified. Also, in my eyes, if you can shoot to incapacitate, it is preferable to to killing.

[cla1945]

IF you or another person are being threatened with imminent death or sexual assault AND there is no other recourse [[such as running away or hitting back) AND the other person is armed, then I think use of a gun is justified. Also, in my eyes, if you can shoot to incapacitate, it is preferable to to killing.

Wow, that's a lot of IF's and AND's. In a span of maybe 10 or 15 seconds when a person is being plummeled with fists that could possibly be a lethal weapon, there isn't much time to decide "what am I to do, my oh my oh my"!
"this biker hit MY car, now he's really really mad and he's at my window punching me in the face, knocking one tooth here and one tooth there, breaking my jaw, breaking my nose, giving me a concussion...what am I to do???"
I am sure that the driver of the truck DID NOT expect the biker to start hitting him the minute he approached his window. Never, in a million years, would I think that if I was not the person in the wrong here, that this biker would hit me. He's coming to my window to apologize for going against the signal and damaging my truck would be my thoughts. The biker was a coward who sucker punched this driver and was planning on taking his total anger out on him.
Oh, and when I shoot this guy who is throwing wild punches at me, just try to wing him, don't kill him. Yeah, plenty of time to think all that out before I die myself!
Sorry if this reply sounds a bit sarcastic but I am really getting tired of all these lame excuses to blame the "real victim" here...the driver of the truck who was minding his own business, never expecting this wildman to come and start beating up on him.