NationStates Jolt Archive

right over the bodies and bicycles of these shitstains.

A family in a minivan was enjoying a visit to San Francisco in celebration of one of the children's birthday when they were all of a sudden surrounded by a swarm of bicyclists. The bike riders attacked the van and did some $5000 worth of damage as well as frightening the young children in the vehicle.

From the article it seems this happens from time to time in San Francisco, and since San Francisco is all pussified, the police just stand around and watch it happening. If the bikes did this to me and I knew the police weren't going to do anything I'd probably lose my temper and drive right through the bikers. Probably end up in prison afterward, but it almost seems worth it.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGF7P12RN23.DTL

Aye...it would be self defense and you'd be fully justified to step on it, and show those pricks what for.

Aye...it would be self defense and you'd be fully justified to step on it, and show those pricks what for.

I get the feeling that self defense is punishable by life without parole in San Francisco.

If there were that many actually colliding with me at once, I would swerve left and right to get them under the wheels.

Afterwards, I could easily say that I was trying to avoid one, when another darted into me on purpose.

Probably run over a half dozen cyclists before they got the hint.

I get the feeling that self defense is punishable by life without parole in San Francisco.

Get a change of venue to Redding...or perhaps Palm Springs :D

Get a change of venue to Redding...or perhaps Palm Springs :D

I'd be willing to bet that if they tried this crap almost anywhere else in the country most of them would have their bikes shoved up their asses sideways.

From the article it seems this happens from time to time in San Francisco, Actually, no.

The article states that the Critical Mass bike rides happen from time to time (obviously) but it does not give a single example of something like this having happened before and says "Sgt. Ed Callejas -- the lead cop on the scene and a veteran of Critical Mass rides since their inception -- said he'd never seen anything like it before."

The people who attacked the car were fucking nutcases (mob dynamics, anyone?) and it's too fucking bad they won't be found.

Actually, no.

The article states that the Critical Mass bike rides happen from time to time (obviously) but it does not give a single example of something like this having happened before and says "Sgt. Ed Callejas -- the lead cop on the scene and a veteran of Critical Mass rides since their inception -- said he'd never seen anything like it before."

The people who attacked the car were fucking nutcases (mob dynamics, anyone?) and it's too fucking bad they won't be found.

Here in Virginia, if I had my kids in the car, and that many cyclists were attacking the vehicle, and smashing the windows, I could go "cyclic" and kill everyone who had been attacking my car with my personal firearm of choice.

Actually, no.

The article states that the Critical Mass bike rides happen from time to time (obviously) but it does not give a single example of something like this having happened before and says "Sgt. Ed Callejas -- the lead cop on the scene and a veteran of Critical Mass rides since their inception -- said he'd never seen anything like it before."

The people who attacked the car were fucking nutcases (mob dynamics, anyone?) and it's too fucking bad they won't be found.

The spontaneous Critical Mass bike rides, in which thousands of free-spirited cyclists roam the city, have been a fixture on the last Friday night of the month since the early 1990s. But even bike-weary cops, who have seen their share of traffic disturbances and minor skirmishes, weren't prepared for what happened during the latest exercise of pedal power.

"I've seen the bikes swarm cars, and scratch them as they go by. I've seen guys get out of their cars and start fighting with the bikers, but if you had seen the faces on those little girls in tears,'' Callejas said. "All I could do was apologize for what they had been through."

Ok, it doesn't usually happen to this extreme degree. My bad. But still it seems these bike riders do get out of line quite often.

right over the bodies and bicycles of these shitstains.
[...]
Probably end up in prison afterward, but it almost seems worth it.
Aye...it would be self defense and you'd be fully justified to step on it, and show those pricks what for.
Ah yes, the obvious solution to a bunch of assholes scaring the crap out of you and willfully damaging your car is of course to drive "right over their bodies" and feel like a hero when you go to prison because you were "justified" in killing people because they were attacking your car.

I get the feeling that self defense is punishable by life without parole in San Francisco.Of course. :rolleyes:

I'd be willing to bet that if they tried this crap almost anywhere else in the country most of them would have their bikes shoved up their asses sideways.

Well, being as how it's San Francisco... eh, that's to easy of a joke. Nevermind.:D

Ok, it doesn't usually happen to this extreme degree. My bad. But still it seems these bike riders do get out of line quite often. It's not a question of degree, it's a whole different quality. Before, the damages were solely those unavoidable when a big mass of bicycles takes to streets that already have a big mass of cars on them and doesn't care about if they scratch them or not; the fights were solely those picked by drivers with the bike people (and probably vice versa).

This incident is a WHOLE different thing, with people being actively attacked in their car without any provocation on their part.

Ah yes, the obvious solution to a bunch of assholes scaring the crap out of you and willfully damaging your car is of course to drive "right over their bodies" and feel like a hero when you go to prison because you were "justified" in killing people because they were attacking your car.


Actually, one could easily argue this. They were surrounded by dozens, if not hundreds of bikers. They had no idea what was going on, and were being attacked, and had every reason to believe that the biker's wished them bodily harm. Self-defense could be quite easy to get out of such a situation.

Ah yes, the obvious solution to a bunch of assholes scaring the crap out of you and willfully damaging your car is of course to drive "right over their bodies" and feel like a hero when you go to prison because you were "justified" in killing people because they were attacking your car.

Of course. :rolleyes:

Hey, you never know when it's going to move from attacking your car to attacking you or your family. Anyway, I'm no pacifist. You fuck with me and I'm likely to fuck you up and deal with the consequences afterward.

New Jersey biker gang. (http://www.lostorder.com/memberphotos/albums/userpics/10009/normal_31_biker_gang.jpg)

San Francisco biker gang. (http://www.mscalgary.org/Bike%20Gallery%20New%202005/images/Smiling%20cyclist.jpg)

New Jersey Family ('http://www.bmigaming.com/Images/sopranos2.jpg')

Actually, one could easily argue this. They were surrounded by dozens, if not hundreds of bikers. They had no idea what was going on, and were being attacked, and had every reason to believe that the biker's wished them bodily harm. Self-defense could be quite easy to get out of such a situation.
Don't get me wrong, I would certainly drive my car out of there as fast as possible - but in this situation "as fast as possible" will not be all that fast. I was caught in a mob like that once with my car (no bikes and they weren't attacking me, but hell it was scary as fuck) and it was damn hard to drive and not run someone over but that doesn't mean I still wouldn't try and not run somebody over. In this situation, I certainly wouldn't have cared if I damaged their bikes or bumped into someone, but I take exception to the "I'll waste the fuckers" sentiments echoed above.

Don't get me wrong, I would certainly drive my car out of there as fast as possible - but in this situation "as fast as possible" will not be all that fast. I was caught in a mob like that once with my car (no bikes and they weren't attacking me, but hell it was scary as fuck) and it was damn hard to drive and not run someone over but that doesn't mean I still wouldn't try and not run somebody over. In this situation, I certainly wouldn't have cared if I damaged their bikes or bumped into someone, but I take exception to the "I'll waste the fuckers" sentiments echoed above.

Sorry, if it's legal to shoot people who pose a credible lethal threat to myself or my children (a violent mob smashing my car certainly qualifies here), I would take full advantage of the law and open fire.

The fact that you would most likely have killed six people wouldn't worry you?

It's not like they were innocently driving down the road, looking for a place to get a latte.

If there were that many actually colliding with me at once, I would swerve left and right to get them under the wheels.

Afterwards, I could easily say that I was trying to avoid one, when another darted into me on purpose.

Probably run over a half dozen cyclists before they got the hint.

The fact that you would most likely have killed six people wouldn't worry you?

Sorry, if it's legal to shoot people who pose a credible lethal threat to myself or my children (a violent mob smashing my car certainly qualifies here), I would take full advantage of the law and open fire.

http://www.stardenver.net/forum/images/smilies/wank.gif

A broken window in a stationary vehicle counts as a lethal threat to you?

If done by an angry mob of hundreds, and my children are in the car, yes it does in Virginia.

Technically, we have no means of escape. Cornered, as you can see.

They broke the windows in with a raised bike, while shouting threats.

Sorry, if it's legal to shoot people who pose a credible lethal threat to myself or my children (a violent mob smashing my car certainly qualifies here), I would take full advantage of the law and open fire.

A broken window in a stationary vehicle counts as a lethal threat to you?

Um, there is a bit more to this story.

http://www.cyclelicio.us/
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGLRP2LEI8.DTL

The cycling organizations are calling the person who broke the window a hooligan. The article you presented is an editorial and hardly dedicated to presenting the full story. The cyclists claimed that she accelerated into one of them and her claims that she was "inching forward" suggests that she was trying to cover up that she drove into a crowd of bicyclists.

It appears there were several bad actors here and the woman was likely one of them.

It also appears that the bicyclists also called the cops to have her arrested and many were just trying to keep her from running off.

And it appears it was nothing like the number of bicyclists that is implied in the article. More like a dozen or so cyclists.

So what do we have? A cyclist gets hit. Some cyclists get angry. Someone gets caught up in mob mentality and goes overboard. And a couple of posters express their murderous rage.

That's it in a nutshell.

If you are going to kill them and claim self-defense, the onus is on you to show that they presented an actual threat to you life, no?

The scenario described in the OP would easily qualify in Virginia.

It's not like they were innocently driving down the road, looking for a place to get a latte.

If you are going to kill them and claim self-defense, the onus is on you to show that they presented an actual threat to you life, no?

If done by an angry mob of hundreds, and my children are in the car, yes it does in Virginia.

Technically, we have no means of escape. Cornered, as you can see.

They broke the windows in with a raised bike, while shouting threats.

The van having allegedly initially collided with a cyclist prior to them turning on the vehicle... and since when was SF in Virginia?

The van having allegedly initially collided with a cyclist prior to them turning on the vehicle... and since when was SF in Virginia?

There are no witnesses to the original collision (which may have been intentional on the part of the cyclist) as stated in the OP.

I live in Virginia. Just saying what I would do here.

Keep in mind I live in a state where a woman can kill her rapist (a rapist who only intends to rape her, not kill her).

If I am subject to a violent attack which threatens severe bodily harm to myself or my children (being outnumbered by people smashing in the windows of the car certainly counts, regardless of any unproven unwitnessed incitement), with no avenue to retreat, I can certainly start killing members of the mob who are closest.

Um, there is a bit more to this story.

http://www.cyclelicio.us/
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGLRP2LEI8.DTL

The cycling organizations are calling the person who broke the window a hooligan. The article you presented is an editorial and hardly dedicated to presenting the full story. The cyclists claimed that she accelerated into one of them and her claims that she was "inching forward" suggests that she was trying to cover up that she drove into a crowd of bicyclists.

It appears there were several bad actors here and the woman was likely one of them.

It also appears that the bicyclists also called the cops to have her arrested and many were just trying to keep her from running off.

And it appears it was nothing like the number of bicyclists that is implied in the article. More like a dozen or so cyclists.

So what do we have? A cyclist gets hit. Some cyclists get angry. Someone gets caught up in mob mentality and goes overboard. And a couple of posters express their murderous rage.

That's it in a nutshell.That's what I get for being lazy. <.<

That's what I get for being lazy. <.<

There are no witnesses to the original "collision". Wonder why he ran off, instead of making his complaint to the police, eh?

If done by an angry mob of hundreds, and my children are in the car, yes it does in Virginia.

Technically, we have no means of escape. Cornered, as you can see.

They broke the windows in with a raised bike, while shouting threats.

Hmmm... actually it was maybe a dozen bikers or so. They appear to have preventing her from fleeing the scene because she'd hit one of them. And if she did hit one, then they had every right to prevent her exit.

ONE of them broke a window, which was clearly illegal. Opening fire on the crowd however, would be murder.

And let me guess, EO, you carry a gun just hoping you'll get an opportunity to shoot someone in self-defense, no?

There are no witnesses to the original collision (which may have been intentional on the part of the cyclist) as stated in the OP.

Except for the cyclists who didn't press charges.

Hmmm... actually it was maybe a dozen bikers or so. They appear to have preventing her from fleeing the scene because she'd hit one of them. And if she did hit one, then they had every right to prevent her exit.

Funny how the one who was supposedly hit, fled and didn't provide a statement to police - or a complaint. So there are no legal witnesses to the supposed incitement. In any case, ramming her car and smashing the windows and shouting violent threats isn't a legal response at all.

ONE of them broke a window, which was clearly illegal. Opening fire on the crowd however, would be murder.

Not here in Virginia. She had reason to fear for her life, and the lives of her children (to include fear of imminent severe bodily harm).

And let me guess, EO, you carry a gun just hoping you'll get an opportunity to shoot someone in self-defense, no?

I, and most of the people I know, carry one to make sure that we aren't the victims of something worse.

Or would you be happier if we ended up dead and maimed, and criminals got away?

Except for the cyclists who didn't press charges.

Yeah, he ran off. What about that?

According the first article, the police even said that the biker who was allegedly hit by the van refused to give his info, swore at the police, then ran off. So I have serious doubts as to the claims made by the cyclist site that it was hit so hard it was lodged under the vehicle.

As for firing a weapon at them in self defence, I think it would be legitimate. If you're surrounded, your van being smashed (the window was hardly the only damage), someone just put a bike through your rear window, your children are screaming and crying, and you have an angry mob surrounding and screaming at you, I think everyone would consider that a threat to their life since they don't know if some other objects are going to be coming through the windows, or if anyones going to try getting in.

There are no witnesses to the original "collision". Wonder why he ran off, instead of making his complaint to the police, eh?

Because he was making his complaint to the police and the police appeared to have been on the side of the woman. The cyclists decided he was not going to get justice and left.

The OP is hardly an unbiased piece. They clearly didn't even bother to get all the information and had tons of misleading claims.

Aaah, you smell that? Hmm?

Yet another thread where the smell of bloodlust lies heavily upon the early posts, and yet another thread where, after some posters have cried "Bloody Murder!", some intrepid posters show that there actually is more to the story than originally presented... Leaving the most bloodthirsty posters looking like worse hooligans than the ones they're decrying.

NSG doesn't surprise me anymore.

http://www.stardenver.net/forum/images/smilies/wank.gif

:fluffle:

Aaah, you smell that? Hmm?

Yet another thread where the smell of bloodlust lies heavily upon the early posts, and yet another thread where, after some posters have cried "Bloody Murder!", some intrepid posters show that there actually is more to the story than originally presented... Leaving the most bloodthirsty posters looking like worse hooligans than the ones they're decrying.

NSG doesn't surprise me anymore.

:fluffle:

Yah, I know - you would rather live in a world of hooligans doing what they pleased, with the police powerless to do shit (as in SF), with the Mayor turning a blind eye to hooliganism - as opposed to a place where hooligans know that if they do something like that, a large number might end up splattered all over the front of the nearby Starbucks - so they don't do shit like that.

1) They should have been arrested for a number of laws I can't even think to name all of right now.

2) I would've "accidentally" tossed something out of my window which would have jammed up the bastard's wheels.


3) She hit the bike so hard "it was lodged under her car" but the person who got hit ran off? Bullshit. If that wasn't entirely incredulous to begin with, the fact that it is coming from the pro-biking crowd makes me dismiss the incident entirely.

Funny how the one who was supposedly hit, fled and didn't provide a statement to police - or a complaint. So there are no legal witnesses to the supposed incitement. In any case, ramming her car and smashing the windows and shouting violent threats isn't a legal response at all.

Actually, this isn't that uncommon. The police arrived on a scene where women and children were crying and one of the biker's cohorts had definitely acted like an idiot. I'd be thinking "run away" as well.

There is evidence however. The bicyclists called 911 first. This kind of shoots a hole in your theory that there was no incident. Were the bicyclists calling the police on themselves? Or did they perhaps honestly believe there was a problem and wanted to have her arrested?

By law if I witness a crime I can detain the person who committed the crime with force if necessary. I know because I've done it. I left the gentleman uninjured, but the police actually told me that I could have kicked the crap out of him and it still would be legal.


Not here in Virginia. She had reason to fear for her life, and the lives of her children (to include fear of imminent severe bodily harm).

Which only holds up if she didn't assault them first. The evidence actually suggests otherwise.

And we've had this discussion about Virginia before. When I presented the law to you, you skulked away.

I, and most of the people I know, carry one to make sure that we aren't the victims of something worse.

Or would you be happier if we ended up dead and maimed, and criminals got away?

Nope. I was asking because I don't buy into this practice of constantly accusing people of being old posters. However, you've entirely shown yourself to be DK beyond any reasonable doubt.

My wonder is why you don't just man up and admit you history. Why hide? Why the skulking? I don't care that you're DK, but I do wonder why you care if we know?

Yah, I know - you would rather live in a world of hooligans doing what they pleased, with the police powerless to do shit (as in SF), with the Mayor turning a blind eye to hooliganism - as opposed to a place where hooligans know that if they do something like that, a large number might end up splattered all over the front of the nearby Starbucks - so they don't do shit like that.

Yes. And if the hooligan was the woman who hit them with her car and attempted ot flee the scene?

Actually, this isn't that uncommon. The police arrived on a scene where women and children were crying and one of the biker's cohorts had definitely acted like an idiot. I'd be thinking "run away" as well.

There is evidence however. The bicyclists called 911 first. This kind of shoots a hole in your theory that there was no incident. Were the bicyclists calling the police on themselves? Or did they perhaps honestly believe there was a problem and wanted to have her arrested?

And there's no proof - the cops didn't even arrest the woman. Or charge her.

By law if I witness a crime I can detain the person who committed the crime with force if necessary. I know because I've done it. I left the gentleman uninjured, but the police actually told me that I could have kicked the crap out of him and it still would be legal.

Actually, you can't use force to detain anyone if not on your property (or the crime wasn't committed against you personally).


Which only holds up if she didn't assault them first. The evidence actually suggests otherwise.
What evidence? There are no legal witnesses and no legal complaints.

And we've had this discussion about Virginia before. When I presented the law to you, you skulked away.

No, you didn't.

Do you know how many people carry here in Virginia - in Fairfax County alone?
Do you know that if a violent mob surrounds you, attacks you, and you and your children have no means of escape, that it constitutes an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury?

Keep saying that I'm someone else. It's not a rational argument.

even if the woman did "Hit" a cyclist it is very wrong/illegal for others to take action on their own. the alleged "victim" said he was fine and rode off. its not like she was going 55mph and aimed directly for him. the people who did the damage should have been arrested for assault and been held responsible to pay for the damage.

another reason why i have absolutely no intention of visiting san francisco.

And there's no proof - the cops didn't even arrest the woman. Or charge her.

Or them. Both sides are still being investigated. If whether or not people were charged is your evidence, then I guess you'd have committed murder.



Actually, you can't use force to detain anyone if not on your property (or the crime wasn't committed against you personally).

I did. In Champaign, IL. I received a commendation from the city.

http://www.ci.urbana.il.us/urbana/police/reports/annual_report/Archives/1999_Annual_Report.pdf

My name is Eric Boyd. You'll see me on the commendation list. I can't find the news article of the event, but I detained a guy by tying him up with the strap of a bag he had stolen after I'd witnessed him entering cars and burglarizing them. He had not touched my vehicle, nor did I own any property nearby of any type that wasn't on my person.



What evidence? There are no legal witnesses and no legal complaints.

They called the police first, to report a hit and run. That, in and of itself, is evidence. She has to prove it's self-defense. I know you like to pretend that's easy, but it's actually quite difficult which is why despite wanting very badly to shoot people, you cannot do so and haven't.


No, you didn't.

Yes. I did and you did.


Do you know how many people carry here in Virginia - in Fairfax County alone?
Do you know that if a violent mob surrounds you, attacks you, and you and your children have no means of escape, that it constitutes an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury?

So you claim, but when I've challenged you on this in the past, you always just end up skulking away when the evidence comes out. Kind of like every thread you present, really.


Keep saying that I'm someone else. It's not a rational argument.

Uh-huh. You just happen to have the same beliefs, make the same arguments, carry the same phobias. And *gasp* even after people had already accused of DK, the evidence keeps mounting. So far, every part of you exactly matches up and no part doesn't. But, hey, it's just coincidence.

Like I said, I don't care that you won't admit it, but I find it funny that you'd skulk.

And since I have valid reasons for believing it, it is rational. It doesn't necessarily mean it's correct, but I'm playing the odds here, and they are greatly in favor of me being right.

even if the woman did "Hit" a cyclist it is very wrong/illegal for others to take action on their own.

If she attempted to flee the scene then they, in fact, do have a right to detain her. It is not illegal, at least, not in my state.

the alleged "victim" said he was fine and rode off. its not like she was going 55mph and aimed directly for him. the people who did the damage should have been arrested for assault and been held responsible to pay for the damage.

another reason why i have absolutely no intention of visiting san francisco.

They are still investigating. You do not know what the outcome will be, but it may be charges against the woman. The cyclists called the police first.

She had the presence of mind to dial 911 on her cell phone -- and within minutes, the squad of motorcycle cops who were assigned to keep an eye on the ride descended on the scene.
When the alleged bicycle victim was approached, however, he said he wasn't hurt. He also refused to give his name or any other information.

Then, after a few swear words, the alleged victim took off on his bike while the rest of the crowd continued to yell at both the cops and the van.

from original article.

She called 911, not the cyclist. If the cyclist was hit hard enough to wedge the bike under the van how was he uninjured? How was he able to RIDE away? Nope, if you actually read the article it kinda pokes holes in what the bikers claim.

from original article.

She called 911, not the cyclist. If the cyclist was hit hard enough to wedge the bike under the van how was he uninjured? How was he able to RIDE away? Nope, if you actually read the article it kinda pokes holes in what the bikers claim.

Never let the facts get in the way of Jocabia's arguments...

If she attempted to flee the scene then they, in fact, do have a right to detain her. It is not illegal, at least, not in my state.


keeping someone at the scene is not. but assualt is. also some states have laws on "road rage". which this would be a prime example of.

Um, there is a bit more to this story.

http://www.cyclelicio.us/
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGLRP2LEI8.DTL

The cycling organizations are calling the person who broke the window a hooligan. The article you presented is an editorial and hardly dedicated to presenting the full story. The cyclists claimed that she accelerated into one of them and her claims that she was "inching forward" suggests that she was trying to cover up that she drove into a crowd of bicyclists.

It appears there were several bad actors here and the woman was likely one of them.

It also appears that the bicyclists also called the cops to have her arrested and many were just trying to keep her from running off.

And it appears it was nothing like the number of bicyclists that is implied in the article. More like a dozen or so cyclists.

So what do we have? A cyclist gets hit. Some cyclists get angry. Someone gets caught up in mob mentality and goes overboard. And a couple of posters express their murderous rage.

That's it in a nutshell.

The bicycyclist who was hit didn't want to press charges, that means there might or might not have been a crime. Either way, what the bicyclists did falls under the legal definition of kidnapping.

According the first article, the police even said that the biker who was allegedly hit by the van refused to give his info, swore at the police, then ran off. So I have serious doubts as to the claims made by the cyclist site that it was hit so hard it was lodged under the vehicle.

As for firing a weapon at them in self defence, I think it would be legitimate. If you're surrounded, your van being smashed (the window was hardly the only damage), someone just put a bike through your rear window, your children are screaming and crying, and you have an angry mob surrounding and screaming at you, I think everyone would consider that a threat to their life since they don't know if some other objects are going to be coming through the windows, or if anyones going to try getting in.

It's a tricky situation. One could expect to find themselves in court if faced with a similar situation.

from original article.

She called 911, not the cyclist. If the cyclist was hit hard enough to wedge the bike under the van how was he uninjured? How was he able to RIDE away? Nope, if you actually read the article it kinda pokes holes in what the bikers claim.

Uh-huh, that would be an excellent claim if your article was the only article. It's not. Your article is an editorial. The guy is intentionally only presenting one side.

Equally reliable sources are claiming that the van hit the cyclist and that it sparked an argument that resulted in the smashing of the window when the cyclists attempted to prevent her from leaving.

The police seem to be investigating both sides and giving both sides equal weight. The article gives a provably false picture that there were hundreds of cyclists when the ride was almost over. That number appears to have been off by at least one order of maginitude.

But, hey, why bother incorporating all of the evidence in. Just cherrypick it. All evidence suggests that both sides are wrong. This wasn't a band of hooligans hoping for a fight. They had an intervehicle accident and it escalated. Pretending the bicyclists are violent criminals and the woman is a saint is just shutting your eyes and claiming it's dark.

The bicycyclist who was hit didn't want to press charges, that means there might or might not have been a crime.

Actually, that doesn't appear to be accurate. It appears that they were attempting to press charges until they felt like they weren't going to get justice. This entire thing is based on a VERY biased article that doesn't even TRY to hide that bias.

Either way, what the bicyclists did falls under the legal definition of kidnapping.

No, it doesn't. Not unless the law awarded me for kidnapping a person. Legally, at least in most states, you are permitted to detain a person if you witness a crime.

keeping someone at the scene is not. but assualt is. also some states have laws on "road rage". which this would be a prime example of.

Actually, according to the police, I would be permitted to use whatever force necessary for detainment.

Where they went over the line, clearly, is busing the rear window and everyone, including all of the cyclist org's make that claim. It was the rear window and was not related to an effort at detainment.

However, so far, the evidence ONLY supports one person, that particular bicyclist being guilty of anything, and it wasn't assault. It was destruction of property.

from original article.

She called 911, not the cyclist.

From a different source already posted in the thread:

Bicyclists surrounded the vehicle while calling 911 to prevent a hit-and-run.

http://www.cyclelicio.us/

Never let the facts get in the way of Jocabia's arguments...

Yes, because Jocabia is considering all of the facts rather than just those in ONE biased article. I actually put forth a little effort and read all sides of the story. I know how you hate when I do that, you know, seeing how it keeps making your rants look absurd.

From a different source already posted in the thread:



http://www.cyclelicio.us/

I saw the source. It conflicts with the article. Who's likely going to be a more reliable source of information, the news or an organization affiliated with the bikers?

I saw the source. It conflicts with the article. Who's likely going to be a more reliable source of information, the news or an organization affiliated with the bikers?

You mean an editorial designed to present one side or an editiorial designed to present the other? Neither. A rational person would incorporate both.

The other article from the same new source doesn't even agree with the editorial. It's much more complete and definitely gives the impression of some fault on each side and points out that the mayor and police are investigating BOTH sides. Something conveniently left out of your OP.

It's good that you can at least admit that you dismissed the evidence because it didn't support your claims but with no other real reasoning. Makes it easier to dismiss your claims.

Actually, that doesn't appear to be accurate. It appears that they were attempting to press charges until they felt like they weren't going to get justice. This entire thing is based on a VERY biased article that doesn't even TRY to hide that bias.
I'm not saying either way. There might or might not have been a crime.

Edit: I'm in no way saying that the article wasn't biased, it most definately was. I'm just saying that there's not enough facts for me to base a decision on. The bicylcist not wanting to press charges is a fact. What it's relevance is, who can say.


No, it doesn't. Not unless the law awarded me for kidnapping a person. Legally, at least in most states, you are permitted to detain a person if you witness a crime.
Here in the state of Oregon you are legally allowed to put someone under citizen's arrest if you witness the crime (which presumably they did), but you also have to inform the person that they are being held under citizens arrest. I believe this is true for most states, but maybe not for California.

Also, keep in mind. They were preventing the husband and kids from leaving. They did not commit any crime and therefore could not be legally detained. Under the "reasonable person" standard, it could definately be argued that the husband and children felt they could not leave the vehicle.

Yes, because Jocabia is considering all of the facts rather than just those in ONE biased article. I actually put forth a little effort and read all sides of the story. I know how you hate when I do that, you know, seeing how it keeps making your rants look absurd.

Sure, just keep your bias with the only person who gave a statement to the police - the woman.

The bikers seem to have run off. That reduces their credibility in court to ZERO.

I'm not saying either way. There might or might not have been a crime.



Here in the state of Oregon you are legally allowed to put someone under citizen's arrest if you witness the crime (which presumably they did), but you also have to inform the person that they are being held under citizens arrest. I believe this is true for most states, but maybe not for California.

Also, keep in mind. They were preventing the husband and kids from leaving. They did not commit any crime and therefore could not be legally detained. Under the "reasonable person" standard, it could definately be argued that the husband and children felt they could not leave.

By law, the vehicle cannot leave the scene of the accident. Allowing the vehicle to leave would actually be complicity. The husband and children would be accomplices if they tried to take the vehicle from the scene. As such the bicyclists were not detaining them, but the woman and the vehicle. Reasonably, the husband and children was not a legal choice, unless you're suggesting they were wishing to walk out and were prevented, which there is no evidence for.

More facts and an eyewitness story about another Critical Mass incident.

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2005/04/30/critical_violent_mass_or_how_a_group_of_bicyclists_alienated_me.html

I saw the source. It conflicts with the article. Who's likely going to be a more reliable source of information, the news or an organization affiliated with the bikers?

They both have their agendas: we shall see what the real story is once the dust settles.

Sure, just keep your bias with the only person who gave a statement to the police - the woman.

The bikers seem to have run off. That reduces their credibility in court to ZERO.

It actually doesn't. I know you'd like for it to be so, but it's quite clear that the police and the mayor is taking them seriously. Much like the woman's complaint. That's because they are looking at the incident rationally. You are not and this is why, unlike them, you'd only like to side with this woman. Maybe it's because siding with the bicyclists does not justify murderous rage.

It actually doesn't. I know you'd like for it to be so, but it's quite clear that the police and the mayor is taking them seriously. Much like the woman's complaint. That's because they are looking at the incident rationally. You are not and this is why, unlike them, you'd only like to side with this woman. Maybe it's because siding with the bicyclists does not justify murderous rage.

Apparently, the Mayor isn't doing anything except pandering to his green scene.

By law, the vehicle cannot leave the scene of the accident. Allowing the vehicle to leave would actually be complicity. The husband and children would be accomplices if they tried to take the vehicle from the scene. As such the bicyclists were not detaining them, but the woman and the vehicle. Reasonably, the husband and children was not a legal choice, unless you're suggesting they were wishing to walk out and were prevented, which there is no evidence for.

They were surronded by a dozen bicyclists that were preventing the car from moving. The bicylists appeared to be agressive. No reasonable person would take their children out through that.

The vehicle is also supposed to move out of the flow of traffic if able. The bicylists were preventing that. Therefore they were committing a crime.

The bicyclist who was hit left the scene. Legally he must stay too.

More facts and an eyewitness story about another Critical Mass incident.

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2005/04/30/critical_violent_mass_or_how_a_group_of_bicyclists_alienated_me.html

What? *gasp* Bicyclists and cars tend to get into arguments. And *gasp* the guy on one side of the argument thinks the other side was wrong.

Excuse me while I contain my shock.

What? *gasp* Bicyclists and cars tend to get into arguments. And *gasp* the guy on one side of the argument thinks the other side was wrong.

Excuse me while I contain my shock.

And only one side presented any legal comment. The rest ran off and commented through the press.

Which one gets heard in court?

The one who talked to the police.

Apparently, the Mayor isn't doing anything except pandering to his green scene.

That's not a fair statement. The investigation is ongoing and most of the facts will be kept confidential until it's complete.

What? *gasp* Bicyclists and cars tend to get into arguments. And *gasp* the guy on one side of the argument thinks the other side was wrong.

Excuse me while I contain my shock.

About 5+ minutes later, on the other side of the street, another car was stuck in the middle of the intersection. They started screaming at him and he decided he was going to push through and get the fuck out of the intersection. A group picked up their bicycles and started pounding them on the car, hitting the car, kicking the car and from it looks like, hitting the driver through his window. I called 911, reported an assault and told them to get a police officer there immediately; the guy who was right out of my window screamed disperse. Ok, so an argument consists of screaming at someone and if he tries to leave beating on him and his property. Try arguing like that and explaining it to a judge.

Step 1. Extend middle finger in the direction of said bicyclists.

Step 2. Floor it.

Step 3. Swerve left and right until all bicycles have vanished.

They were surronded by a dozen bicyclists that were preventing the car from moving. The bicylists appeared to be agressive. No reasonable person would take their children out through that.

The bicyclists had a right to detain the vehicle that participated in a hit-and-run. That's a fact. The fact that there are other passengers does not make it illegal. At the very least, they were witnesses. Reason would have it that the father and children would not leave the woman there and not act as witnesses.


The vehicle is also supposed to move out of the flow of traffic if able. The bicylists were preventing that. Therefore they were committing a crime.

Um, you've actually not demonstrated this and neither has the article. There is no evidence that the vehicle was attempting to exit the flow of traffic and the woman admits she was attempting to flee. She does not admit there was an accident. What evidence there possibly be that she was pulling over as a result of an accident she doesn't admit happened?

The bicyclist who was hit left the scene. Legally he must stay too.

No, actually not. The bicyclist that was hit is like a pedestrian. They cannot be guilty of a hit and run. They can be guilty of fleeing the scene of a crime, but only if they committed the crime.

Bicyclists are held to some vehicle laws, but hit-and-run is not one of them in any state I've biked in. Or at least wasn't at the time I biked in them.

Ok, so an argument consists of screaming at someone and if they try to leave beating on him and his property. Try arguing like that and explaining it to a judge.

Um, do you have an actual article or charges or anything? This is just an anecdote. It has no probative value at all. I could have written that or you could have.

Yah, I know - you would rather live in a world of hooligans doing what they pleased, with the police powerless to do shit (as in SF), with the Mayor turning a blind eye to hooliganism - as opposed to a place where hooligans know that if they do something like that, a large number might end up splattered all over the front of the nearby Starbucks - so they don't do shit like that.
*Dances around the strawman, hopped up on the testosterone in the thread*

The fun part is that if there had been one Eve Online among the bikers and one Eve Online in the car, they would have started shooting at each other at about the same time :)

*Dances around the strawman, hopped up on the testosterone in the thread*

The fun part is that if there had been one Eve Online among the bikers and one Eve Online in the car, they would have started shooting at each other at about the same time :)

Funny how that doesn't seem to happen in places where concealed carry is legal with the regularity you assume it would.

Nor do you seem to notice how often concealed carry people stop this sort of shit by merely showing the weapon.

Your logic is not supported by real life.

And only one side presented any legal comment. The rest ran off and commented through the press.

Which one gets heard in court?

The one who talked to the police.

Again, you're wrong. They are investigating BOTH sides. Hmmm... sems likes this thing called evidence rather than just jumping on the biased story from either side. The FACT that they are investigating this story actively disproves your claim here.

Seriously, do you just LIKE being wrong, because showing how and why you're wrong doesn't even require an effort. It's readily apparent in the article from the source you presented.

Living in Portland I've seen Critical Mass at work first hand. This group crowds onto I-5 in the middle of rush hour to prevent people from getting home. I've seen them kick BMWs for no reason. I've been stuck on public transportation(the environmentally responsible thing) for hours because of these guys. I've seen ambulances stuck in traffic jams caused by this group. What happens when someone dies because they were stuck in a traffic jam caused by this group?

Funny how that doesn't seem to happen in places where concealed carry is legal with the regularity you assume it would.

Nor do you seem to notice how often concealed carry people stop this sort of shit by merely showing the weapon.

Your logic is not supported by real life.

You mean, that usually what happens is that one person threatens another with a weapon rather than just opening fire? So then you were just spouting crap when you said you'd have pulled your weapon and opened fire. It's really YOUR LOGIC that claims that having a weapon means firing it.

So, let's assume for a moment that the woman did hit the bicyclists and then tried to flee puting the cyclists in danger. If you were among the cyclists and had your weapon would you have opened fire?

The fun part is that if there had been one Eve Online among the bikers and one Eve Online in the car, they would have started shooting at each other at about the same time :)

Although the EO in the car may have the benefit of more protection, the EO cyclist would probably be quicker on the draw as he wouldn't be in an awkward sitting position and possibly restricted by a seatbelt.

I say we wargame this to find the likely outcome.

Um, do you have an actual article or charges or anything? This is just an anecdote. It has no probative value at all. I could have written that or you could have.
You have to consider the fact that the writer of that piece sympathizes with Critical mass' aims.
It's not hard proof, but it is evidence that Critical Mass members are known for getting violent at times.

Living in Portland I've seen Critical Mass at work first hand. This group crowds onto I-5 in the middle of rush hour to prevent people from getting home. I've seen them kick BMWs for no reason. I've been stuck on public transportation(the environmentally responsible thing) for hours because of these guys. I've seen ambulances stuck in traffic jams caused by this group. What happens when someone dies because they were stuck in a traffic jam caused by this group?

You mean you have a bias here? I'm shocked. I couldn't tell that at ALL from your posts. *conceals shock*

You have to consider the fact that the writer of that piece sympathizes with Critical mass' aims.
It's not hard proof, but it is evidence that Critical Mass members are known for getting violent at times.

So? He could have said that to give himself more credibility. The fact is it has no value. It's an internet claim with no support.

Living in Portland I've seen Critical Mass at work first hand. This group crowds onto I-5 in the middle of rush hour to prevent people from getting home. I've seen them kick BMWs for no reason. I've been stuck on public transportation(the environmentally responsible thing) for hours because of these guys. I've seen ambulances stuck in traffic jams caused by this group. What happens when someone dies because they were stuck in a traffic jam caused by this group?

...then again I've been on Critical Masses where ambulances, public transport and taxis are allowed through with minimum of delay, and other regular car users experience at most five minutes of wait before being able to proceed.

If an equal amount of people on said Critical Mass had staged a similar rally in cars, one occupant per vehicle, the disruption and delays would have been much greater.

You mean, that usually what happens is that one person threatens another with a weapon rather than just opening fire? So then you were just spouting crap when you said you'd have pulled your weapon and opened fire. It's really YOUR LOGIC that claims that having a weapon means firing it.

So, let's assume for a moment that the woman did hit the bicyclists and then tried to flee puting the cyclists in danger. If you were among the cyclists and had your weapon would you have opened fire?

The woman didn't hit the bicyclists. The only legal testimony we have is from the woman to the officers about how they rammed her.

If you're part of mob violence, you have no legal standing for self-defense, even if someone opens up on you. You're the aggressor.

She was not. There is no legal testimony or statements of legal standing to the contrary and you know it.

She, including her children, were under imminent lethal threat of severe bodily harm - and under Virginia law, she would have been within her rights as the non-aggressor to either use her vehicle as a weapon, or use a firearm as a weapon.

Someone in the mob would not be.

Learn when self-defense is legal, and when it is not.

Ok, it doesn't usually happen to this extreme degree. My bad. But still it seems these bike riders do get out of line quite often.

Not as much as drivers getting out of line every single day abusing cyclists.

It's not hard proof, but it is evidence that Critical Mass members are known for getting violent at times.

Critical Mass doesn't have members, at most it can be said to have participants.

So? He could have said that to give himself more credibility. The fact is it has no value. It's an internet claim with no support.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think this would count as eyewitness testimony establishing a pattern of behavior if we were running a trial.

EDIT: In addition I found the link on that cycling website posted on page two. If the person who wrote the account isn't an avid bike rider why was he posting comments on that page? Most folks don't go to random websites I'm not interested in to post comments on the articles. It's much more reasonable to assume that the witness to the violent incident frequents that site because he is an avid cyclist.

The bicyclists had a right to detain the vehicle that participated in a hit-and-run. That's a fact. The fact that there are other passengers does not make it illegal. At the very least, they were witnesses. Reason would have it that the father and children would not leave the woman there and not act as witnesses.
On duty police officers are the only ones who are legally allowed to detain witnesses. Kidnapping is being illegally held against your will. If any reasonable person in the same situation believes they were not entitled to leave, then it qualifies.



Um, you've actually not demonstrated this and neither has the article. There is no evidence that the vehicle was attempting to exit the flow of traffic and the woman admits she was attempting to flee. She does not admit there was an accident. What evidence there possibly be that she was pulling over as a result of an accident she doesn't admit happened?
I didn't say she was. I said the bicyclists were preventing that from happening. If I place you under citizens arrest in the middle of the street, I have an obligation to move you to the sidewalk.


No, actually not. The bicyclist that was hit is like a pedestrian. They cannot be guilty of a hit and run. They can be guilty of fleeing the scene of a crime, but only if they committed the crime.

Bicyclists are held to some vehicle laws, but hit-and-run is not one of them in any state I've biked in. Or at least wasn't at the time I biked in them.
The victim of certain crimes doesn't have a choice (not all, some). Both parties in a vehicle-related accident must stay until police arrive. If you rear- end me (let's say it's a 100% fault state), I can't just decide to go on my merry way because I didn't want to press charges.

So? He could have said that to give himself more credibility. The fact is it has no value. It's an internet claim with no support.

So are all of the claims made by the riders.

None of which were made to the police. So they are bullshit.

You mean you have a bias here? I'm shocked. I couldn't tell that at ALL from your posts. *conceals shock*

I'm speaking from personal experience here. Actually I hate people who drive mini-vans, SUV's, H-3's, ect far more that any bicyle group. I'm sure this woman was an idiot and deserved it.

...then again I've been on Critical Masses where ambulances, public transport and taxis are allowed through with minimum of delay, and other regular car users experience at most five minutes of wait before being able to proceed.

If an equal amount of people on said Critical Mass had staged a similar rally in cars, one occupant per vehicle, the disruption and delays would have been much greater.

It depends on the group I'm sure. The group in Portland is just a little erm, militant.

The woman didn't hit the bicyclists.


Um, the why are the cops investigating the claim?

The only legal testimony we have is from the woman to the officers about how they rammed her.

Again, you are just making things up. This is being investigated. Are you actually claiming by investigating the cops mean "we're not talking to anyone about this."


If you're part of mob violence, you have no legal standing for self-defense, even if someone opens up on you. You're the aggressor.

Except when she hit them, there was no mob violence. Of course, keep just ignoring what happened in order to justify your homocidal desires.


She was not. There is no legal testimony or statements of legal standing to the contrary and you know it.

No, I don't. And don't claim to. Claiming to have that evidence is irrational and common BS.


She, including her children, were under imminent lethal threat of severe bodily harm - and under Virginia law, she would have been within her rights as the non-aggressor to either use her vehicle as a weapon, or use a firearm as a weapon.


The bicyclists were under imminent threat of bodily harm as well. I love how you keep trying to pretend this isn't true.


Someone in the mob would not be.


Again, you use a baseless assumption.

An equally likely scenario: Were they a violent mod when she struck them? By all appearances, no. They became justifiably violent. And by law, according to you, the cyclists could have opened fire on her. And their violence was self-defense.


Learn when self-defense is legal, and when it is not.

I did. However, when I tried to cite the law to you, you skulked away as you always do when the evidence doesn't support you.

The cops and the mayor do not agree with you and they are investigating. You base your claims on one editorial argument and then ignore all other evidence. Wouldn't it be nice if this was an isolated tactic by you?

It's much more reasonable to assume that the witness to the violent incident frequents that site because he is an avid cyclist.

Avid cyclist = liar.

Avid cyclist = liar.

Mini-van driver = uneducated breeder.

(generally speaking, of course)

Those bikers are lucky that SF doesnt have CCW and a good castle doctrine that applies to cars, or it could have been the final mistake for some of them.

I'm speaking from personal experience here. Actually I hate people who drive mini-vans, SUV's, H-3's, ect far more that any bicyle group. I'm sure this woman was an idiot and deserved it.

I'm sorry, but that vehicles often don't like bicyclists is pretty much an expected problem. I was in a car with a woman who nearly hit a cyclist and then complained that he should be on the sidewalk. I pointed out to her that when I'm cycling it's not unusual for me to hit speeds of over 30 mph and if she'd like for that to be on the same sidewalk where she was walking with her children. The obvious answer is no.

My experience was happens, but it does not apply to all or even most drivers. Your experience is the same.

That's a fact.

Those bikers are lucky that SF doesnt have CCW and a good castle doctrine that applies to cars, or it could have been the final mistake for some of them.

Yes, because if there was CCW law it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for the cyclists to be carrying. If this woman actually struck a cyclist, then she was in the middle of a commission of a crime and she's the one who is lucky there is no CCW law. If they'd have had one, she'd be dead. If she'd have had one, she would be charged in using a firearm during the commision of crime and upped her punishment.

Except when she hit them, there was no mob violence. Of course, keep just ignoring what happened in order to justify your homocidal desires.


The "homocidal desires" are all in your head.

The bikers made no statements to the police. Period.

The "homocidal desires" are all in your head.

And, of course your posts. Making an excuse to run people over is homicide. That's not a judgement. That's the law.

If there were that many actually colliding with me at once, I would swerve left and right to get them under the wheels.

Afterwards, I could easily say that I was trying to avoid one, when another darted into me on purpose.

Probably run over a half dozen cyclists before they got the hint.


The bikers made no statements to the police. Period.

How do you know this? Do you like making ignorant assertions? Or would you prefer to say "I don't know about any statements by the bikers to the police. Wisely, I will wait until I have more evidence"?

Funny how that doesn't seem to happen in places where concealed carry is legal with the regularity you assume it would.

Nor do you seem to notice how often concealed carry people stop this sort of shit by merely showing the weapon.

Your logic is not supported by real life.

What is my logic? I've said two things:
1) The bloodlust in this thread ran very high at the beginning.

2) You would have used your weapon if you were on a bike, being hit by the car - and claimed self defence. You would have used your weapon if you were in the car - and claimed self defence.

Either way, you would have fired your weapon. Wouldn't you?
Although the EO in the car may have the benefit of more protection, the EO cyclist would probably be quicker on the draw as he wouldn't be in an awkward sitting position and possibly restricted by a seatbelt.

I say we wargame this to find the likely outcome.
I support that idea!

*Shoots*

Did I win? :)
The woman didn't hit the bicyclists. The only legal testimony we have is from the woman to the officers about how they rammed her.

If you're part of mob violence, you have no legal standing for self-defense, even if someone opens up on you. You're the aggressor.

She was not. There is no legal testimony or statements of legal standing to the contrary and you know it.

She, including her children, were under imminent lethal threat of severe bodily harm - and under Virginia law, she would have been within her rights as the non-aggressor to either use her vehicle as a weapon, or use a firearm as a weapon.

Someone in the mob would not be.

Learn when self-defense is legal, and when it is not.
What? Legal testimony? How do you know they haven't talked to the police afterwards, or after the article for that matter? It doesn't change a thing however - namely, we can't be sure as to what happened, that's what the investigation is for.

So are all of the claims made by the riders.

None of which were made to the police. So they are bullshit.
Where are you getting this from? If they talk to the police now, it will have the same legal value as the statements of the woman.

The bikers made no statements to the police. Period.

How do you know? And so what?

BTW:
No one was hurt, although cyclists told police at the scene that driver Susan Ferrando should be arrested because her vehicle allegedly bumped one of the biker's tires.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGLRP2LEI8.DTL

I'm sorry, but that vehicles often don't like bicyclists is pretty much an expected problem. I was in a car with a woman who nearly hit a cyclist and then complained that he should be on the sidewalk. I pointed out to her that when I'm cycling it's not unusual for me to hit speeds of over 30 mph and if she'd like for that to be on the same sidewalk where she was walking with her children. The obvious answer is no.

My experience was happens, but it does not apply to all or even most drivers. Your experience is the same.

That's a fact.

Auto drivers (and it's generally the soccer moms), don't like to share the road with anyone. I ride my longboard in the street because of the max speeds I can achieve downhill. Hell, even on level concrete I'm going 3- 4 times faster than a pedestrian. It's dangerous for them and me to be on the sidewalk, not to mention impeding my progress.

I've been honked at, flipped off, swerved at, yelled at for being on the street which is where I belong. I had one idiot woman get out of her car at a stop light to yell at me.

I don't know if Portland drivers are abnormally agressive or if it's like that everywhere.

Living in Portland I've seen Critical Mass at work first hand. This group crowds onto I-5 in the middle of rush hour to prevent people from getting home. I've seen them kick BMWs for no reason. I've been stuck on public transportation(the environmentally responsible thing) for hours because of these guys. I've seen ambulances stuck in traffic jams caused by this group. What happens when someone dies because they were stuck in a traffic jam caused by this group?

As a cyclist, I will try to explain the position of those who engage in Critical Mass:

Living in cities, I've seen automobiles and their drivers at work first hand. This group crowds onto all the streets in the middle of rush hour to prevent people from getting home. I've seen them kick cyclists and each other for no reason. I've been stuck on public transportation(the environmentally responsible thing) for hours because of these guys. I've seen ambulances stuck in traffic jams caused by this group. What happens when someone dies because they were stuck in a traffic jam caused by this group?

EDIT: with this post 1750, I have attained forum boredom. ho-hum.

My main problem with agressive bicycle groups, like the Portland Critical Mass, is that is gives motorists a chance to point fingers back at the bicycle community as a whole.

Generally speaking I always side with a cyclist, but the group in PDX are are assholes. They make every non-motorized vehicle sharing the road look bad.

Motorists started the problem, I understand that. But fighting stupidity with stupidity is never the answer.

As a cyclist, I will try to explain the position of those who engage in Critical Mass:

Living in cities, I've seen automobiles and their drivers at work first hand. This group crowds onto all the streets in the middle of rush hour to prevent people from getting home. I've seen them kick cyclists and each other for no reason. I've been stuck on public transportation(the environmentally responsible thing) for hours because of these guys. I've seen ambulances stuck in traffic jams caused by this group. What happens when someone dies because they were stuck in a traffic jam caused by this group?

EDIT: with this post 1750, I have attained forum boredom. ho-hum.

:confused: Did you just respond to my quote with my quote?

:confused: Did you just respond to my quote with my quote?

I thought he did too until I noticed that he'd changed it from talking about the Critical Massholes to automobile drivers.

Auto drivers (and it's generally the soccer moms), don't like to share the road with anyone. I ride my longboard in the street because of the max speeds I can achieve downhill. Hell, even on level concrete I'm going 3- 4 times faster than a pedestrian. It's dangerous for them and me to be on the sidewalk, not to mention impeding my progress.

I've been honked at, flipped off, swerved at, yelled at for being on the street which is where I belong. I had one idiot woman get out of her car at a stop light to yell at me.

I don't know if Portland drivers are abnormally agressive or if it's like that everywhere.

I used to ride 30 miles a day back and forth to work in MN. I've been run off roads several times. The worst part is my feet are locked in and I'm often going as fast as cars. People will just drive up next to you and turn in front of you and the like.

Being on a motorcycle is no different. I never laid one down (except once in my yard) but my uncle tore all the muscles in his arm catching my cousin).

By the way, the end of that story is he's in the hospital on drugs and they keep trying to take off his boots and he keeps getting mad. My aunt walks in and explains to the doctor that he doesn't want the doctor to see his toes. Because my big, burly, biker uncle has three daughters and right before he'd left the house he was asleep in the chair and they'd painted his toes with various colored flowers. In the painkiller haze he kept remembering he didn't want them to see his feet, but couldnt remember why.

The "homocidal desires" are all in your head.

The bikers made no statements to the police. Period.

I think it's hilarious that a minute ago you were claiming my rational conclusion was irrational while admitting I was right in another thread. I'd say bye-bye to your credibility, but seriously, who would I be kidding?

I thought he did too until I noticed that he'd changed it from talking about the Critical Massholes to automobile drivers.

Ah. I'm slow today.

I think it's hilarious that a minute ago you were claiming my rational conclusion was irrational while admitting I was right in another thread. I'd say bye-bye to your credibility, but seriously, who would I be kidding?

Actually, Sierra BTHP is not DK...

We're actually two distinct people, who have been doing this for over a year now...

Actually, Sierra BTHP is not DK...

We're actually two distinct people, who have been doing this for over a year now...

What? Lying? Skulking around pretending to be someone else? Pretty much proving your claims are completely unreliable and that no tactic is beneath you in order to attempt to win an argument? Trolling?

maybe my partners and I will list the over 20 alts we've been posting with over the past two years...

I used to ride 30 miles a day back and forth to work in MN. I've been run off roads several times. The worst part is my feet are locked in and I'm often going as fast as cars. People will just drive up next to you and turn in front of you and the like.

Being on a motorcycle is no different. I never laid one down (except once in my yard) but my uncle tore all the muscles in his arm catching my cousin).

By the way, the end of that story is he's in the hospital on drugs and they keep trying to take off his boots and he keeps getting mad. My aunt walks in and explains to the doctor that he doesn't want the doctor to see his toes. Because my big, burly, biker uncle has three daughters and right before he'd left the house he was asleep in the chair and they'd painted his toes with various colored flowers. In the painkiller haze he kept remembering he didn't want them to see his feet, but couldnt remember why.

I had a motorcycle. I got sick of drivers not seeing me. It's no fun to ride one when you're scared for your life every second you're on it.

I did it right too. I took the class, bought full body armor. I just realised one day that I wasn't having fun.

My buddies go to track days at PIR. They've all got their racing licenses. I might consider buying a track bike. It's so much money to get involved in racing tho. One day, when I'm a rich pilot maybe.:P

I had a motorcycle. I got sick of drivers not seeing me. It's no fun to ride one when you're scared for your life every second you're on it.

I did it right too. I took the class, bought full body armor. I just realised one day that I wasn't having fun.

My buddies go to track days at PIR. They've all got their racing licenses. I might consider buying a track bike. It's so much money to get involved in racing tho. One day, when I'm a rich pilot maybe.:P

Exactly why I quite riding motor cycles. Who needs to wonder when their time to lay it down will come? And if you wait long enough, you will lay down.

maybe my partners and I will list the over 20 alts we've been posting with over the past two years...

So you admit you've been trolling?

Yes, because if there was CCW law it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for the cyclists to be carrying. If this woman actually struck a cyclist, then she was in the middle of a commission of a crime and she's the one who is lucky there is no CCW law. If they'd have had one, she'd be dead. If she'd have had one, she would be charged in using a firearm during the commision of crime and upped her punishment.

Windows down.... "hands on the ears kids".... "CEASE ATTACKING MY VEHICLE< CEASE TRYING TO BREAK INTO MY VEHICLE"

no cease


boom boom boom boom boom

Windows down.... "hands on the ears kids".... "CEASE ATTACKING MY VEHICLE< CEASE TRYING TO BREAK INTO MY VEHICLE"

no cease


boom boom boom boom boom

And when it's shown you were attempting to flee the scene of an accident. Go to jail. Do not pass go. "Sorry that I'm so stupid, kids. Daddy doesn't know that you cannot use a firearm in the commision of a crime and now he has to fellate some big dude named Bubba."

I know that you're taught this in your little clubhouses, but there is a reason why there aren't tons of gunfights going on. Becaue you have to prove there was a credible threat to you that was not justified. If she really struck a bicyclist then they are 100% justified in preventing her vehicle or her from leaving. They are in the right and she is in the middle of a crime.

So you admit you've been trolling?

No, we haven't been trolling.

It's perfectly legal to disagree here.

What? Lying? Skulking around pretending to be someone else? Pretty much proving your claims are completely unreliable and that no tactic is beneath you in order to attempt to win an argument? Trolling?
Key word "attempting"
And when it's shown you were attempting to flee the scene of an accident. Go to jail. Do not pass go. "Sorry that I'm so stupid, kids. Daddy doesn't know that you cannot use a firearm in the commision of a crime and now he has to fellate some big dude named Bubba."

I know that you're taught this in your little clubhouses, but there is a reason why there aren't tons of gunfights going on. Becaue you have to prove there was a credible threat to you that was not justified. If she really struck a bicyclist then they are 100% justified in preventing her vehicle or her from leaving. They are in the right and she is in the middle of a crime.
I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Judgement should be reserved until all the facts are in, and all the macho posturing is just silly in my opinion.

And when it's shown you were attempting to flee the scene of an accident. Go to jail. Do not pass go. "Sorry that I'm so stupid, kids. Daddy doesn't know that you cannot use a firearm in the commision of a crime and now he has to fellate some big dude named Bubba."

I know that you're taught this in your little clubhouses, but there is a reason why there aren't tons of gunfights going on. Becaue you have to prove there was a credible threat to you that was not justified. If she really struck a bicyclist then they are 100% justified in preventing her vehicle or her from leaving. They are in the right and she is in the middle of a crime.

If she didn't strike a bicyclist, the people attacking her van are fair game.

And no bicyclist has come forward to the police yet.

Funny, that. Kind of cuts your version of events to ribbons.

No, we haven't been trolling.

It's perfectly legal to disagree here.

Not disagree. Do you believe the things you've been arguing? Or were you just trying to stir things up?

And the we would explain the schizophrenic posting styles. I don't y'all were very careful to keep one person to one persona.

Not disagree. Do you believe the things you've been arguing? Or were you just trying to stir things up?

And the we would explain the schizophrenic posting styles. I don't y'all were very careful to keep one person to one persona.

Some of the things we believe. Some of them we don't.

Are you saying that everyone here absolutely believes everything they argue here?

And no, not just to stir things up.

i wouldn't keep on driving but i wouldn't sit there and take it either. i'd probably get out of the car and start swinging, and then probably get beaten to the ground admittedly, but, eh, at least i did something. (and i don't believe property damage and child scaring warrants going into a homicidal rage, rage is fine, homicide isn't)

If she didn't strike a bicyclist, the people attacking her van are fair game.

Sure. The problem is the first part of your statement is not necessarily true. The police are still investigating.

You think because I can't prove she struck a bicycle then we must conclude she didn't, but that's a fallacious argument. Lack of evidence means lack of conclusion.


And no bicyclist has come forward to the police yet.

Not according to some of the sources. According to some of the source bicyclists told the police that she struck a bike. They testified to the police at the scene.


Funny, that. Kind of cuts your version of events to ribbons.

Um, what? You're false claims? How so? Because you say they're true out of sheer ignorance?

If you know how logic works, then a lack of proof for a positive assertion does not prove a negative assertion. The positive assertion must be proven false for the negative assertion to be proven true. Lack of evidence leaves with no valid conclusion, including the one that has you running people down in a homocidal rage.

Sure. The problem is the first part of your statement is not necessarily true. The police are still investigating.

You think because I can't prove she struck a bicycle then we must conclude she didn't, but that's a fallacious argument. Lack of evidence means lack of conclusion.


The police have said that none of the bikers have given statements. That the woman was the only one.

Keep making up false evidence that bikers somehow made statements.

And when it's shown you were attempting to flee the scene of an accident. Go to jail. Do not pass go. "Sorry that I'm so stupid, kids. Daddy doesn't know that you cannot use a firearm in the commision of a crime and now he has to fellate some big dude named Bubba."

I know that you're taught this in your little clubhouses, but there is a reason why there aren't tons of gunfights going on. Becaue you have to prove there was a credible threat to you that was not justified. If she really struck a bicyclist then they are 100% justified in preventing her vehicle or her from leaving. They are in the right and she is in the middle of a crime.

Which little clubhouse is that? I know you're not taught this in your little clubhouse, but rambling nonsense doesnt win you any brownie points. Get a grip.

From the OP, I got the impression that a gang of bicycle mountain hooligans decided to accost and start breaking the windows of a van full of people.

If this is the case, and if, like I posted, SF had a robust castle doctrine law covering vehicles , then shooting someone who is breaking into your car, while you are in it, is 100% justified.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about, at least in regards to the robust castle doctrine law covering vehicles that I mentioned, so I'll explain it to you.

"Becaue you have to prove there was a credible threat to you that was not justified."

A castle doctrine law establishes the presumption that if your house or car is being broken into unlawfully, then you are justified in using deadly force.

Again, unless these bikers had some legal justification for breaking the windows and accosting the vehicle, legal justification would exist to use deadly force, under a castle doctrine law.

The police have said that none of the bikers have given statements. That the woman was the only one.

Keep making up false evidence that bikers somehow made statements.

To be fair. We can sit here making assumptions all day long. We don't know who will come forth after the fact. We don't know what the investigation will turn up. We don't know if we'll agree on the conclusion of the investigation one it's released.

The police have said that none of the bikers have given statements.

Source? The OP says otherwise as well as every other source we've seen.

That the woman was the only one.

Keep making up false evidence that bikers somehow made statements.

The cyclists were loudly demanding that Ferrando be arrested for hit and run.

OP's article. That's a statment, my friend.

Second article. Same source -

No one was hurt, although cyclists told police at the scene that driver Susan Ferrando should be arrested because her vehicle allegedly bumped one of the biker's tires.

And the bicycle group -
According to several witnesses at the scene, however, the minivan driver "revved and swerved into the bicyclists, and tried to flee after hitting one. Bicyclists surrounded the vehicle while calling 911 to prevent a hit-and-run. One [hooligan] bicyclist smashed the rear window."

So the sources suggest the bicyclists DID give statement and certainly don't claim they didn't, and it's certainly being stated that there were witnesses that claim a bicyclist was hit before a bicyclist (that the witness called a "hooligan" which suggests it was not a bicyclist who they are quoting) threw the bike through the window.

But, again, keep ignoring that evidence. It's not you're using it for anything.

right over the bodies and bicycles of these shitstains.

A family in a minivan was enjoying a visit to San Francisco in celebration of one of the children's birthday when they were all of a sudden surrounded by a swarm of bicyclists. The bike riders attacked the van and did some $5000 worth of damage as well as frightening the young children in the vehicle.

From the article it seems this happens from time to time in San Francisco, and since San Francisco is all pussified, the police just stand around and watch it happening. If the bikes did this to me and I knew the police weren't going to do anything I'd probably lose my temper and drive right through the bikers. Probably end up in prison afterward, but it almost seems worth it.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGF7P12RN23.DTL

Bikes should be banned in San Fransisco. And then *suggests favorite suggestion* Martial law should be declared. If the cops can't do anything about it I'm damn sure the national guard can! :mp5:

The cyclists were loudly demanding that Ferrando be arrested for hit and run.

OP's article. That's a statment, my friend.

Second article. Same source -

No one was hurt, although cyclists told police at the scene that driver Susan Ferrando should be arrested because her vehicle allegedly bumped one of the biker's tires.

And the bicycle group -
According to several witnesses at the scene, however, the minivan driver "revved and swerved into the bicyclists, and tried to flee after hitting one. Bicyclists surrounded the vehicle while calling 911 to prevent a hit-and-run. One [hooligan] bicyclist smashed the rear window."

So the sources suggest the bicyclists DID give statement and certainly don't claim they didn't, and it's certainly being stated that there were witnesses that claim a bicyclist was hit before a bicyclist (that the witness called a "hooligan" which suggests it was not a bicyclist who they are quoting) threw the bike through the window.

But, again, keep ignoring that evidence. It's not you're using it for anything.

The police said that none of the bicyclists gave a statement.

While they may have shouted, it appears they all ran off after trashing the van.

Which little clubhouse is that? I know you're not taught this in your little clubhouse, but rambling nonsense doesnt win you any brownie points. Get a grip.

From the OP, I got the impression that a gang of bicycle mountain hooligans decided to accost and start breaking the windows of a van full of people.

If this is the case, and if, like I posted, SF had a robust castle doctrine law covering vehicles , then shooting someone who is breaking into your car, while you are in it, is 100% justified.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about, at least in regards to the robust castle doctrine law covering vehicles that I mentioned, so I'll explain it to you.

"Becaue you have to prove there was a credible threat to you that was not justified."

A castle doctrine law establishes the presumption that if your house or car is being broken into unlawfully, then you are justified in using deadly force.

Again, unless these bikers had some legal justification for breaking the windows and accosting the vehicle, legal justification would exist to use deadly force, under a castle doctrine law.

I'm aware of the doctrine the problem here is that you're ignoring evidence in your claims. One side claims she was attempting a hit-and-run. So in one scenario she would be justified and in another equally likely scenario she would be compounding her crime.

Your original claim was that a CCW would have helped this woman, but the fact is that the only scenario where it would have helped her is if she was the only one armed AND she had never struck a bicycle.

I'm accounting for all possibilites. You're ignoring them. That's your flaw.

What's this then?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGLRP2LEI8.DTL

How do you know that they didn't make statements afterwards as well? And where did you get the definitive statement from the police that no bikers have given any statements?


Apparently, none of them stuck around to give a sworn statement, or file a complaint.

The woman certainly did.

Otherwise, the police would surely have arrested the woman for hit and run.

Which they did not.

The police have said that none of the bikers have given statements. That the woman was the only one.

Keep making up false evidence that bikers somehow made statements.

What's this then?
No one was hurt, although cyclists told police at the scene that driver Susan Ferrando should be arrested because her vehicle allegedly bumped one of the biker's tires.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGLRP2LEI8.DTL

How do you know that they didn't make statements afterwards as well? And where did you get the definitive statement from the police that no bikers have given any statements?

Which little clubhouse is that? I know you're not taught this in your little clubhouse, but rambling nonsense doesnt win you any brownie points. Get a grip.

From the OP, I got the impression that a gang of bicycle mountain hooligans decided to accost and start breaking the windows of a van full of people.

If this is the case, and if, like I posted, SF had a robust castle doctrine law covering vehicles , then shooting someone who is breaking into your car, while you are in it, is 100% justified.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about, at least in regards to the robust castle doctrine law covering vehicles that I mentioned, so I'll explain it to you.

"Becaue you have to prove there was a credible threat to you that was not justified."

A castle doctrine law establishes the presumption that if your house or car is being broken into unlawfully, then you are justified in using deadly force.

Again, unless these bikers had some legal justification for breaking the windows and accosting the vehicle, legal justification would exist to use deadly force, under a castle doctrine law.

Police said she might have inadvertently tapped one of the bicyclists' tires.

Bicyclists who witnessed the event countered that Ferrando had accelerated recklessly through a crowd of riders, hitting one and knocking him from his bike, then attempted to flee the scene before riders surrounded the vehicle. They complained that police didn't charge her with a crime.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/05/MNGFAP353S1.DTL
If they were indeed trying to stop the woman from fleeing after hitting a biker, how would castle doctrine law apply?

The police said that none of the bicyclists gave a statement.

While they may have shouted, it appears they all ran off after trashing the van.

Again, source? If the police said that then present it. What was it you said about just making things up? Oh, I'll just quote -

Keep making up false evidence

And the article says ONE of them ran off, not all of them. It says statements were given and every article cites those statements. None of the articles makes the claim that none of the bicyclists gave a statement and none of them claim that they ALL ran off.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/05/MNGFAP353S1.DTL
If they were indeed trying to stop the woman from fleeing after hitting a biker, how would castle doctrine law apply?

If they were attempting to break and enter her car, then it would apply. This would be regardless of any law she might have broken.

That said; one person smashed a window, but did not try to enter.

This would be the same as someone throwing a rock through your living-room window. If they were doing it to be an ass it makes them a vandal (non-shootable), if they were doing it to gain entry it makes them a burgler (shootable).

Edit: This would be in a state that has a castle doctrine that applies to vehicles.

Again, source? If the police said that then present it.

She wasn't charged with anything, was she?

The person who had a complaint that he was struck by the van ran off. No statement from him, either.

Gosh, if your version was true, she would have been charged.

Your version must be false.

Apparently, none of them stuck around to give a sworn statement, or file a complaint.

Again, source? Now it's a sworn statement. Hmmm... where does it say that none of the bicyclists have ever given a sworn statement?


The woman certainly did.

Otherwise, the police would surely have arrested the woman for hit and run.

Which they did not.

Or they would have investigated, which the articles say they are doing. Why were none of the bicyclists arrested? One hint: the police are investigating. Arrests happen when they know who is guilty of what. They aren't just random guesses.

She wasn't charged with anything, was she?

The person who had a complaint that he was struck by the van ran off. No statement from him, either.

Gosh, if your version was true, she would have been charged.

Your version must be false.

There's an open investigation. For all we know both parties may be guilty.

I know that you're taught this in your little clubhouses, but there is a reason why there aren't tons of gunfights going on. Becaue you have to prove there was a credible threat to you that was not justified. If she really struck a bicyclist then they are 100% justified in preventing her vehicle or her from leaving. They are in the right and she is in the middle of a crime.

It's possible that she struck a cyclist and was unaware of it, considering the situation.

But, even then, does "preventing her or her vehicle from leaving" really need to include 5 grand worth of damage, endangering her children, and throwing a bicycle at her? Maybe knocking on the window and saying, "Hey, you just hit someone," would have been in order?

Maybe I missed something in the pages I skipped, but from what I've seen, I don't think anyone in their right mind could argue that the bikers were "100% justified".

If they were attempting to break and enter her car, then it would apply. This would be regardless of any law she might have broken.

Wrong. If she were attempting to leave, she is in the process of committing a crime. They have a right to detain her.


That said; one person smashed a window, but did not try to enter.

This would be the same as someone throwing a rock through your living-room window. If they were doing it to be an ass it makes them a vandal (non-shootable), if they were doing it to gain entry it makes them a burgler (shootable).

Edit: This would be in a state that has a castle doctrine that applies to vehicles.

And if they were doing it to attempt to stop her from fleeing the scene and she shoots one of them she has just an firearm in the commision of a crime.

It's possible that she struck a cyclist and was unaware of it, considering the situation.

But, even then, does "preventing her or her vehicle from leaving" really need to include 5 grand worth of damage, endangering her children, and throwing a bicycle at her? Maybe knocking on the window and saying, "Hey, you just hit someone," would have been in order?

Maybe I missed something in the pages I skipped, but from what I've seen, I don't think anyone in their right mind could argue that the bikers were "100% justified".

Everyone involves that the window should not have happened. However, it appears that she hit someone and kept driving. One side claims the bike went under the car and they were trying to stop her. The other claims there was no incident and the bikes just suddenly attacked a family. Both sound a bit exaggerated and almost certainly there is some fault to spread around.

I mean legally justified in preventing her from leaving. I didn't justify the window which appears to have been just rage. She is in a minivan and trying to leave. By law, I can physically attack a person if I witness a felony. Physically attack them. Force is permissable to detain someone. It's a van. They can legally do whatever it takes to stop the fleeing of the site (to the woman and her property, not to the husband or kids).

But, hey, forget that, let's just start driving over people in a homocidal rage a la Deep Kimchi, I mean Sierra, I mean WL, I mean EO.

We'll be right back to this exciting pissing contest between Jocabia and the Eve Online/Deep Kimchi symbiont right after this message from Dead Horse brand bludgeoning tools!

:p

It's possible that she struck a cyclist and was unaware of it, considering the situation.

But, even then, does "preventing her or her vehicle from leaving" really need to include 5 grand worth of damage, endangering her children, and throwing a bicycle at her? Maybe knocking on the window and saying, "Hey, you just hit someone," would have been in order?

Maybe I missed something in the pages I skipped, but from what I've seen, I don't think anyone in their right mind could argue that the bikers were "100% justified".

IMHO, there is probably a fair degree of responsibility on both sides.

Imagine this scenario: She's driving and notices she's in the midst of a group of bicyclists. She gets pissed that they're slowing her down so she honks and makes agressive gestures with her car.

This pisses off the bicyclists who swarm her car. Some are assholes. The assholes scratch her car, a big asshole throws his bike through her window.

Somewhere in the rukus a cyclist feels her bumper hit his tire. Enough to rattle him, but not enough to injure him. He's shaken, and just wants to go home. He's not sure she meant to do it so he doesn't want to press charges so he is evasive with the cops (who might be acting a little jerkish themselves) and rides off.

The investigation will tell. Hopefully.

Wrong. If she were attempting to leave, she is in the process of committing a crime. They have a right to detain her.
Detain: yes. Break into her car: no. By law you can only use the minimum amount of force necessary to detain someone.

But they weren't trying to break into her car. So the castle doctrine wouldn't apply anyway.


And if they were doing it to attempt to stop her from fleeing the scene and she shoots one of them she has just an firearm in the commision of a crime.
They still have no right to break into her car. They would if she just kept driving and inuring cyclists. But this isn't the case either.

In this situation, there was no one breaking and entering in her car. She had no right to shoot them.

Given that there's no castle doctrine in SF anyway, she would only be allowed to shoot someone if she (or her kids) was in imminent danger of lethal injury. Which they weren't.

In this case, regardless of what side you are on, she would have no right to shoot anyone (unless new evidence came to light).

If they were attempting to break and enter her car, then it would apply. This would be regardless of any law she might have broken.

That said; one person smashed a window, but did not try to enter.

This would be the same as someone throwing a rock through your living-room window. If they were doing it to be an ass it makes them a vandal (non-shootable), if they were doing it to gain entry it makes them a burgler (shootable).

Edit: This would be in a state that has a castle doctrine that applies to vehicles.

But if the castle doctrine applies, and she has fit a biker and tries to run, aren't Jocabia right in his assessment that the bikers had a right to detain her, and that right would preceed the castle doctrine? Meaning that if she had fired in such a situation, she would have gotten into more serious trouble with the law? (This is disregarding the biker who broke the back window - an act that was not justified...)

EDIT: This was answered above. Cheers :)

Okay, I'll post seriously.

It seems to me that there's not enough information yet to make an informed decision for EITHER party in this dispute. The rest is heated conjecture, which will do well on the talking-head pundit curcuit, but does nothing to address the actual issue of criminality.

So please, continue the debate. I haven't seen this good of a circle jerk since my college days and the "ookie cookie" incident.

IMHO, there is probably a fair degree of responsibility on both sides.

Imagine this scenario: She's driving and notices she's in the midst of a group of bicyclists. She gets pissed that they're slowing her down so she honks and makes agressive gestures with her car.

This pisses off the bicyclists who swarm her car. Some are assholes. The assholes scratch her car, a big asshole throws his bike through her window.

Somewhere in the rukus a cyclist feels her bumper hit his tire. Enough to rattle him, but not enough to injure him. He's shaken, and just wants to go home. He's not sure she meant to do it so he doesn't want to press charges so he is evasive with the cops (who might be acting a little jerkish themselves) and rides off.

The investigation will tell. Hopefully.

Yes. This seems the most likely scenario I've heard.

What is highly unlikely is that the bicycles just saw a car and took to it like a bull to a cape. Something started the drama and I guarantee it was not intentional.

Yes, because Jocabia is considering all of the facts rather than just those in ONE biased article. I actually put forth a little effort and read all sides of the story. I know how you hate when I do that, you know, seeing how it keeps making your rants look absurd.

To be fair, the version of events put forth by cyclists in infintely less believable. If she had hit a cyclist hard enough to wedge the bike under the van, there would be absolutely no question here - unless, for some reason, the person who owned it pulled it out from under the van and then ran off before the cops got there for some reason.

I think it's much more likely that she found herself caught up in a mass of cyclists with no idea what was going on. She may have swerved a bit - whether it was aggression or the fact that she had no idea what to do (most drivers who aren't accustomed to having cyclists around don't* - and very few are accustomed to this many) is something we can't really say. In the midst of that, she very well may have bumped somebody, but it seems fairly obvious that she didn't do anything that caused real damage. Chances are high that, even if it happened, she was completely unaware that it did. Then, cyclists are suddenly swarming the car and ramming into it. While I suppose it is possible that it happened and she ignored it, no one seems to have simply tried to draw her attention to the fact that she hit someone. Instead, they attacked.

* I know some of the laws governing bicycles and cars. I know that cyclists are supposed to be on the road (if there is no bike lane). They are also supposed to follow traffic signals (which these riders apparently don't, but that really isn't relevant to this story). But, even then, having one bike on the road near me, as a driver, makes me incredibly nervous. Yes, being behind them and having to slow down can be annoying, but that isn't it. I'm more worried about the logistics of the thing. The roads in my town are horrible for cyclists. They're full of potholes and inconsistencies. Some of the hills are steep enough to cause real problems with speed and stopping. If there's a cyclist around, I'm terrified that something will cause him to fall and I won't be able to avoid him. I can't imagine being surrounded by hundreds or thousands. I'd probably just have to stop my car and wait for them all to leave.

IMHO, there is probably a fair degree of responsibility on both sides.

Imagine this scenario: She's driving and notices she's in the midst of a group of bicyclists. She gets pissed that they're slowing her down so she honks and makes agressive gestures with her car.

This pisses off the bicyclists who swarm her car. Some are assholes. The assholes scratch her car, a big asshole throws his bike through her window.

Somewhere in the rukus a cyclist feels her bumper hit his tire. Enough to rattle him, but not enough to injure him. He's shaken, and just wants to go home. He's not sure she meant to do it so he doesn't want to press charges so he is evasive with the cops (who might be acting a little jerkish themselves) and rides off.

The investigation will tell. Hopefully.

Or, maybe she's just confused as hell and bumps one of them. I see no reason to assume she was being actively aggressive, especially considering the pretty obviously grossly exaggerated statements from the witnesses who say she was.

I'd be willing to bet that if they tried this crap almost anywhere else in the country most of them would have their bikes shoved up their asses sideways.

I'm sure I could find a Stillson wrench or croquet mallet somewhere in the car and clear up the problem pretty quickly.

I wouldn't see killing the cyclists as being self-defence, but if they were attacking your property then whatever the law says, as far as I'm concerned it'd be self-defence to injure them all. And if they happen to fall right under the wheels and get killed, I'd feel sorry but it would be their own stupid fault.

We'll be right back to this exciting pissing contest between Jocabia and the Eve Online/Deep Kimchi symbiont right after this message from Dead Horse brand bludgeoning tools!

:p

http://www.bittermancircle.com/my%20images/BeatDeadHorse.gif

But, hey, forget that, let's just start driving over people in a homocidal rage a la Deep Kimchi, I mean Sierra, I mean WL, I mean EO.


Its always possible to encounter somene prone to a homocidal rage on the road. If you keep this in mind, you have a good chance of having trouble with them.

To be fair, the version of events put forth by cyclists in infintely less believable. If she had hit a cyclist hard enough to wedge the bike under the van, there would be absolutely no question here - unless, for some reason, the person who owned it pulled it out from under the van and then ran off before the cops got there for some reason.

No, didn't run off before. Left after. I've had my bike put under a car before. It wasn't even damaged, really. I had to straighten the handlebars.

And I agree, that I never trust any scenario that makes it sound like only one side got upset and did anything unreasonable. It happens, but it's not common.

I think it's much more likely that she found herself caught up in a mass of cyclists with no idea what was going on. She may have swerved a bit - whether it was aggression or the fact that she had no idea what to do (most drivers who aren't accustomed to having cyclists around don't* - and very few are accustomed to this many) is something we can't really say. In the midst of that, she very well may have bumped somebody, but it seems fairly obvious that she didn't do anything that caused real damage. Chances are high that, even if it happened, she was completely unaware that it did. Then, cyclists are suddenly swarming the car and ramming into it. While I suppose it is possible that it happened and she ignored it, no one seems to have simply tried to draw her attention to the fact that she hit someone. Instead, they attacked.
If she hit one of the cyclists, then by law she cannot leave the scene. They would have witnessed a crime and would have the right to detain her. That it later turned out she was unaware of the crime would protect her from prosecution but would not make them prosecutable. This doesn't justify the window, which from all accounts was the majority of the damage.




* I know some of the laws governing bicycles and cars. I know that cyclists are supposed to be on the road (if there is no bike lane). They are also supposed to follow traffic signals (which these riders apparently don't, but that really isn't relevant to this story). But, even then, having one bike on the road near me, as a driver, makes me incredibly nervous. Yes, being behind them and having to slow down can be annoying, but that isn't it. I'm more worried about the logistics of the thing. The roads in my town are horrible for cyclists. They're full of potholes and inconsistencies. Some of the hills are steep enough to cause real problems with speed and stopping. If there's a cyclist around, I'm terrified that something will cause him to fall and I won't be able to avoid him. I can't imagine being surrounded by hundreds or thousands. I'd probably just have to stop my car and wait for them all to leave.

I think about this too. I think the original hitting of the cyclist could very likely have been accident. It would not be necessarily so, any cyclist or motorcyclist can tell you that agressive drivers are not unusual, but the most likely scenario is that she hit one of the cyclists by accident and they got angry. Then she freaked out and tried to leave. The problem is that, she is not entitled to leave and leaving consititutes a crime.

If she committed a crime, even if she wasn't intending to commit the crime, what they witnessed (since they couldn't discuss her awareness with her) would justify preventing her from leaving and using force to do so.

Or, maybe she's just confused as hell and bumps one of them. I see no reason to assume she was being actively aggressive, especially considering the pretty obviously grossly exaggerated statements from the witnesses who say she was.

I really don't think the bicyclists would swarm her unprovoked (like Jocabia pointed out). Like I've mentioned, the PDX Critical Mass group are as assholish as they come, and I've never heard of this kind of incident here.

Think about it this way; if the entire Critical Mass group really were just gigantic asshats (which is what they'd be if they swarmed her car unprovoked), the guy who's tire was bumped would be crying about his neck and his back for a lawsuit.

And I'm not assuming anything. I'm just giving one possible scenario. Knowing of Critical Mass and being all to familiar with the driving habits in a city, I'd guess the fault lies with both parties. Guess not assume, mind you.

Okay, I'll post seriously.

It seems to me that there's not enough information yet to make an informed decision for EITHER party in this dispute. The rest is heated conjecture, which will do well on the talking-head pundit curcuit, but does nothing to address the actual issue of criminality.

So please, continue the debate. I haven't seen this good of a circle jerk since my college days and the "ookie cookie" incident.
Debate? Where? Have you seen a debate? I'm not sure I have...

Otherwise I agree with you... We don't have enough facts to say for sure what happened.
To be fair, the version of events put forth by cyclists in infintely less believable.
Yes, but it's not conclusive...

right over the bodies and bicycles of these shitstains.

A family in a minivan was enjoying a visit to San Francisco in celebration of one of the children's birthday when they were all of a sudden surrounded by a swarm of bicyclists. The bike riders attacked the van and did some $5000 worth of damage as well as frightening the young children in the vehicle.

From the article it seems this happens from time to time in San Francisco, and since San Francisco is all pussified, the police just stand around and watch it happening. If the bikes did this to me and I knew the police weren't going to do anything I'd probably lose my temper and drive right through the bikers. Probably end up in prison afterward, but it almost seems worth it.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGF7P12RN23.DTL
The Illinois Nazi scene from The Blues Brothers comes immediately to mind. "I hate Critical Mass cyclists..."

Some of the things we believe. Some of them we don't.

Are you saying that everyone here absolutely believes everything they argue here?

And no, not just to stir things up.

WTF!? Is this a bona fide confession??

Funny, but I'm still not seeing the part where over $5k of damage to her car was justified.

No, didn't run off before. Left after. I've had my bike put under a car before. It wasn't even damaged, really. I had to straighten the handlebars.

That's obvious damage, though.

And if it was wedged under the car, she would have had to move in order to get it out.

If she hit one of the cyclists, then by law she cannot leave the scene. They would have witnessed a crime and would have the right to detain her. That it later turned out she was unaware of the crime would protect her from prosecution but would not make them prosecutable. This doesn't justify the window, which from all accounts was the majority of the damage.

A busted windshield is maybe about $1000 to fix. Perhaps a little higher in CA. They're citing over $5000 worth of damage - in all of the articles that have been linked here.

I think about this too. I think the original hitting of the cyclist could very likely have been accident. It would not be necessarily so, any cyclist or motorcyclist can tell you that agressive drivers are not unusual, but the most likely scenario is that she hit one of the cyclists by accident and they got angry. Then she freaked out and tried to leave. The problem is that, she is not entitled to leave and leaving consititutes a crime.

If she committed a crime, even if she wasn't intending to commit the crime, what they witnessed (since they couldn't discuss her awareness with her) would justify preventing her from leaving and using force to do so.

They can use force if and only if other measures have failed. Violence is not and should not be the first course of action.


I really don't think the bicyclists would swarm her unprovoked (like Jocabia pointed out). Like I've mentioned, the PDX Critical Mass group are as assholish as they come, and I've never heard of this kind of incident here.

Think about it this way; if the entire Critical Mass group really were just gigantic asshats (which is what they'd be if they swarmed her car unprovoked), the guy who's tire was bumped would be crying about his neck and his back for a lawsuit.

And I'm not assuming anything. I'm just giving one possible scenario. Knowing of Critical Mass and being all to familiar with the driving habits in a city, I'd guess the fault lies with both parties. Guess not assume, mind you.

I didn't suggest that they would have done it unprovoked. But I'd be willing to bet money that they'd be quick to be provoked, even by something completely accidental or relatively innocent. If she swerved because she was nervous, they might see that as intentional and swarm. If she bumped a guy by accident, they might see it as intentional and swarm.

I've read the whole article now... what kinds of pussies are those cops? You don't just stand there and apologise, you call for back up and get the nutters away from the victim, and if your force isn't big enough then you get a neibouring city/state force to assist. That Sergeant should be fired. If there's any kind of police complaints authority then I hope the woman complains (if she hasn't already). What would they do if the people in the car were being murdered - still stand there and watch whilst the people are being killed? Considering how slow this forum's being, you'll probably see this post in an hour.

WTF!? Is this a bona fide confession??
Either that, or EO has just been assimilated and are the Borg :)

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/alien003.gif
Funny, but I'm still not seeing the part where over $5k of damage to her car was justified.

It wasn't.

I've read the whole article now... what kinds of pussies are those cops? You don't just stand there and apologise, you call for back up and get the nutters away from the victim, and if your force isn't big enough then you get a neibouring city/state force to assist. That Sergeant should be fired. If there's any kind of police complaints authority then I hope the woman complains (if she hasn't already). What would they do if the people in the car were being murdered - still stand there and watch whilst the people are being killed? Considering how slow this forum's being, you'll probably see this post in an hour.

Have you read the alternative articles too, and not just the editorial in the OP?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/BAGLRP2LEI8.DTL

Oh and btw...

I don't think a woman with kids would provoke a group of cyclists

I don't think a President would ever take part in an illegal war against another country

I don't think a government would support a torture camp

I don't think Christians would harm others without being provoked

I don't think cyclists would harm the woman without being provoked.

These kinds of statements are stupid. Just because a particular group doesn't normall do a particular bad thing, that doesn't mean they won't ever do it or that part of that group won't ever do it.

So please, continue the debate. I haven't seen this good of a circle jerk since my college days and the "ookie cookie" incident.

:eek:

Funny, but I'm still not seeing the part where over $5k of damage to her car was justified.

And that's to say nothing of how a guy who "was hit so hard that his bike stuck under the car" rode off on it. Even if he was hit, he wouldn't be going anywhere on a bike that got stuck under a car.

And that's to say nothing of how a guy who "was hit so hard that his bike stuck under the car" rode off on it. Even if he was hit, he wouldn't be going anywhere on a bike that got stuck under a car.

Perhaps this was a "hit and run," but apparently no one was hurt and the damage was all done to the van.

If I knew I hadnt ran over any bikers, and one broke my windshield, I'd be justified in shooting him under the castle doctrine.

When, at the end of the day, my car is trashed and the only bicyclist who didnt ride away on his bike is the one who threw it through my window and then got shot, I dont see how I would be charged with "hit and run," much less murder.

speed up then if they chase you and are directly behind you
Hit the brakes

repeat as necessary

Funny, but I'm still not seeing the part where over $5k of damage to her car was justified.

By law, if she hit one of them with her car they are justified in detaining her. A large portion of the damage was to the rear window that had nothing to do with detaining her for the police to arrive. However, any damage that occurred when they were trying to get her to stop driving and to remain there, assuming she actually struck on of them, is justified legally.

Perhaps this was a "hit and run," but apparently no one was hurt and the damage was all done to the van.

If I knew I hadnt ran over any bikers, and one broke my windshield, I'd be justified in shooting him under the castle doctrine.

No, the castle doctrine requires that they were trying to enter the car. They were not. Don't let facts get in the way, however.

There are just so many people that think manslaughter is so easy to justify. It isn't. On purpose. You can't shoot me if I throw a rock through your window. A bike is just a bigger rock.

When, at the end of the day, my car is trashed and the only bicyclist who didnt ride away on his bike is the one who threw it through my window and then got shot, I dont see how I would be charged with "hit and run," much less murder.

That you don't see doesn't mean it can't happen. People on the internet talk such a good game, but there is a reason this stuff isn't regularly happening and why usually a shooting in a road incident is labeled road rage and the person does time.

And again, you've got no evidence for how this really started. It's unlikely they just decided to terrorize a family.

Funny, but I'm still not seeing the part where over $5k of damage to her car was justified.
Probably because no one thinks that it was.
And that's to say nothing of how a guy who "was hit so hard that his bike stuck under the car" rode off on it. Even if he was hit, he wouldn't be going anywhere on a bike that got stuck under a car.

Stop riding bikes made out of tinfoil.

I'm having a hard time believing that someone from Redwood City has no idea what Critical Mass is, Redwood City is on the SF Peninsula.

It's all hearsay from interested parties, so to bank on one version of the story over the other is pretty foolish. If I were to guess, she clipped a bike without knowing it, the Massers reacted then overreacted (probably a lot of "What's going on?" "That van just hit a bicyclist!" and then disproportionate rage and response.)

Critical Mass is in part to accentuate the danger bicyclists face from careless drivers and something like this underlines it. It also means that the bikers trigger on something like that is short, so over reacting is also a short step. If you mistake that for excusing them slap yourself. This is a far more likely scenario than a roving band of bike hooligans looking for a family in a minivan to harass.

No, the castle doctrine requires that they were trying to enter the car. They were not. Don't let facts get in the way, however.

There are just so many people that think manslaughter is so easy to justify. It isn't. On purpose. You can't shoot me if I throw a rock through your window. A bike is just a bigger rock.


That you don't see doesn't mean it can't happen. People on the internet talk such a good game, but there is a reason this stuff isn't regularly happening and why usually a shooting in a road incident is labeled road rage and the person does time.

And again, you've got no evidence for how this really started. It's unlikely they just decided to terrorize a family.


1) I need only to think that one of the maniacs outside attacking my car is trying to get in, say, by breaking one of my windows.

2) Manslaughter on purpose is hard to justify, self defense is easy to justify - under the castle doctrine, it is presumed to be justified.

3) You don't see many mobs of crazy bicyclists assault vans either. It is hardly road rage to shoot back at a member of a mob who has just broken your window. Why would he break it if he did not intend to enter?

If someone walked up to your car at a stop light and broke the window with a monkey wrench, that is sufficient to protect yourself under the castle doctrine. You do not need for him to 'reach in' with his monkey wrench (hit you). How are you supposed to know his intentions? Psychic powers? No, there is a presumption that he intends to do you serious bodily harm.

4) From what has been posted so far, that all the cyclists were able to ride away, it doesnt look like it was a case of hit and run. Where is the cyclist who was injured by the car? Did he/she illegally swerve in front of the car? Why were there bikes where the car belongs?

Nothing about this story makes much sense. If someone does a hit-and run, you are not entitled to destroy his car - rather, note his license plate number.

That's obvious damage, though.

And if it was wedged under the car, she would have had to move in order to get it out.

No. She wouldn't. This has happened to me. I simply loosen the wheels and it slipped out. I then straightened everything out while the driver apologized profusely. I shook it off and went to work.



A busted windshield is maybe about $1000 to fix. Perhaps a little higher in CA. They're citing over $5000 worth of damage - in all of the articles that have been linked here.

A rear window has defrosters in it and wiper on it. Fixing the damage busting this out would cause, particularly if it was fixed at a dealership would be very expensive. However, I'll accept $1000. And you figure if his bike was under the car and she attempted to go and they started kicking the van, that would be a lot of damage and completely justified.



They can use force if and only if other measures have failed. Violence is not and should not be the first course of action.

Shouldn't be and not justified are not the same thing. I've often been justified to use force but chose not to because I shouldn't.


I didn't suggest that they would have done it unprovoked. But I'd be willing to bet money that they'd be quick to be provoked, even by something completely accidental or relatively innocent. If she swerved because she was nervous, they might see that as intentional and swarm. If she bumped a guy by accident, they might see it as intentional and swarm.

Why? Because they're bicyclists? What's your basis for this claim?

right over the bodies and bicycles of these shitstains.If some people tries to run over my bike, me and 500 of my friends are gonna terminate the shitstains.

Perhaps you and the Critical Mass'ers have more in common than you care to think about DCD.

And that's to say nothing of how a guy who "was hit so hard that his bike stuck under the car" rode off on it. Even if he was hit, he wouldn't be going anywhere on a bike that got stuck under a car.

Expensive bikes are incredibly resillient. My entire bike popped apart and back together in minutes and I could correct problem in alignment on the spot. Crashing or being forced to crash isn't that unusual and as a result I wore gloves and protective clothing.

Being able to ride off is not evidence against being hit. No one is claiming she ran him or the bike over.

Perhaps this was a "hit and run," but apparently no one was hurt and the damage was all done to the van.

If I knew I hadnt ran over any bikers, and one broke my windshield, I'd be justified in shooting him under the castle doctrine.

When, at the end of the day, my car is trashed and the only bicyclist who didnt ride away on his bike is the one who threw it through my window and then got shot, I dont see how I would be charged with "hit and run," much less murder.
Seriously, what the hell is it with all the triggerhappiness in this thread? :confused: I'm starting to get worried...

By law, if she hit one of them with her car they are justified in detaining her. A large portion of the damage was to the rear window that had nothing to do with detaining her for the police to arrive. However, any damage that occurred when they were trying to get her to stop driving and to remain there, assuming she actually struck on of them, is justified legally.
But surely that only goes so far? I mean, not all damages would be justifiable? The breaking of the windshield seems excessive to me, and not a good way to try to stop her from getting away, so would you say that the thowing of the bike could be justifiable? All the other damages are a different story, but that act did not seem warranted.

Not a good idea to take the kids to San Francisco.. there's a reason families with kids are leaving the city in large numbers. Let them see the aquarium and the bridge and Alcatraz when they're grown.. it's not a family-friendly vacation spot, and anyone living nearby should have known that.

That said, the driver probably could've been a bit more aggressive in getting out of that situation.. it seems like they stopped and called the cops rather than trying to solve it themselves. Again, not a good idea in San Francisco.

1) I need only to think that one of the maniacs outside attacking my car is trying to get in, say, by breaking one of my windows.

No, it has to be a reasonable conclusion. Here it was not.

2) Manslaughter on purpose is hard to justify, self defense is easy to justify - under the castle doctrine, it is presumed to be justified.

No, it isn't. Any defense attorney will tell you it's actually quite difficult.


3) You don't see many mobs of crazy bicyclists assault vans either. It is hardly road rage to shoot back at a member of a mob who has just broken your window. Why would he break it if he did not intend to enter?

Because they were angry. Were they trying to enter the engine compartment when they were kicking the van? Or were they trying to damage the van?

And, yes, I do believe they may very well have been trying to damage the van to avenge their friend. This, of course, is not justified and illegal.


If someone walked up to your car at a stop light and broke the window with a monkey wrench, that is sufficient to protect yourself under the castle doctrine. You do not need for him to 'reach in' with his monkey wrench (hit you). How are you supposed to know his intentions? Psychic powers? No, there is a presumption that he intends to do you serious bodily harm.

But that's not what happened. Again, there's a reason why when road rage incidents happen the person shoots and the person goes to prison. Self-defense has to actually be self-defense. This situation resolved itself with only $5000 damage. That you'd make the absurd claim that murdering people would have produced a better outcome is just sad.


4) From what has been posted so far, that all the cyclists were able to ride away, it doesnt look like it was a case of hit and run. Where is the cyclist who was injured by the car? Did he/she illegally swerve in front of the car? Why were there bikes where the car belongs?

Um? A hit and run does not require an injury. And bikes are vehicles. I know you don't understand this, but they are SUPPOSED to be on the road.

It's illegal to ride them on the sidewalk once you reach about 12.



Nothing about this story makes much sense. If someone does a hit-and run, you are not entitled to destroy his car - rather, note his license plate number.

False. If someone commits a crime you are entitled to detain them even if it requires damaging the car or further force.

If you'd shot one of the cyclists and it would have turned out they were trying to prevent a hit-and-run, then you'd have the hit-and-run AND murder to contend with.

Internet claims. "I'd have shot him." Sure you would, Clint.

Seriously, what the hell is it with all the triggerhappiness in this thread? :confused: I'm starting to get worried...


But surely that only goes so far? I mean, not all damages would be justifiable? The breaking of the windshield seems excessive to me, and not a good way to try to stop her from getting away, so would you say that the thowing of the bike could be justifiable? All the other damages are a different story, but that act did not seem warranted.

Yeah, I don't think anyone felt the window was justified (I believe it was a rear window, by the way). However, it is POSSIBLE to justify. That's why when the mayor spoke "IF" was used in regards to whether they broke the law. Damage to the vehicle even a lot of damage is justifiable.

Nees, is around, I wonder if she knows how this works in Canada.

Yeah, I don't think anyone felt the window was justified (I believe it was a rear window, by the way). However, it is POSSIBLE to justify. That's why when the mayor spoke "IF" was used in regards to whether they broke the law. Damage to the vehicle even a lot of damage is justifiable.

Nees, is around, I wonder if she knows how this works in Canada.

I saw the pic of the rear window, it was with one of the other articles (Not the OP, but the same paper...)

Ah well, the investigation will uncover whether or not the damages were justifiable, and whether or not the driver or the bikers were to blame.

1) I need only to think that one of the maniacs outside attacking my car is trying to get in, say, by breaking one of my windows.
No. It must meet the "reasonable person" standard.

2) Manslaughter on purpose is hard to justify, self defense is easy to justify - under the castle doctrine, it is presumed to be justified.
It will go to court, either way.

3) You don't see many mobs of crazy bicyclists assault vans either. It is hardly road rage to shoot back at a member of a mob who has just broken your window. Why would he break it if he did not intend to enter?
Vandalism for one. Vandalism in this case. Point in fact, if he was trying to enter he would have started to climb in the car. He didn't.

If someone walked up to your car at a stop light and broke the window with a monkey wrench, that is sufficient to protect yourself under the castle doctrine. You do not need for him to 'reach in' with his monkey wrench (hit you). How are you supposed to know his intentions? Psychic powers? No, there is a presumption that he intends to do you serious bodily harm.
Assuming someone smashes the drivers window, a case could be mad efor justification. It's completely different if he's smashing the rear window in a mini-van.

4) From what has been posted so far, that all the cyclists were able to ride away, it doesnt look like it was a case of hit and run. Where is the cyclist who was injured by the car? Did he/she illegally swerve in front of the car? Why were there bikes where the car belongs?
If she clipped his front tire, there was reason for them to believe that a crime had been commited. Don't know, there's an open investigation. Because bikes share the public roadway with cars. They were exactly where they were supposed to be.

Nothing about this story makes much sense. If someone does a hit-and run, you are not entitled to destroy his car - rather, note his license plate number.
No one is saying the cyclists had any right to destroy the car. The jackasses that did need to be charged. Damage to property is not a justification, however, to use lethal force. That's one reason it's highly reccomended to carry less- lethal force even if you do pack.

Just because you didn't think to bring it, doesn't mean you get to bend the rules of when deadly forced is used.

Yeah, I don't think anyone felt the window was justified (I believe it was a rear window, by the way). However, it is POSSIBLE to justify. That's why when the mayor spoke "IF" was used in regards to whether they broke the law. Damage to the vehicle even a lot of damage is justifiable.

Nees, is around, I wonder if she knows how this works in Canada.

To be fair. None of the damage was justified. They had her successfully detained (this is on the presumtion there was a crime), they needed to wait patiently for the police to arrive.

And they needed to inform her she was being detained and why. The person must be informed they are being placed under citizens arrest and why.

No, it has to be a reasonable conclusion. Here it was not.

No, it isn't. Any defense attorney will tell you it's actually quite difficult.

Because they were angry. Were they trying to enter the engine compartment when they were kicking the van? Or were they trying to damage the van?

And, yes, I do believe they may very well have been trying to damage the van to avenge their friend. This, of course, is not justified and illegal.

But that's not what happened. Again, there's a reason why when road rage incidents happen the person shoots and the person goes to prison. Self-defense has to actually be self-defense. This situation resolved itself with only $5000 damage. That you'd make the absurd claim that murdering people would have produced a better outcome is just sad.

Um? A hit and run does not require an injury. And bikes are vehicles. I know you don't understand this, but they are SUPPOSED to be on the road.

False. If someone commits a crime you are entitled to detain them even if it requires damaging the car or further force.

If you'd shot one of the cyclists and it would have turned out they were trying to prevent a hit-and-run, then you'd have the hit-and-run AND murder to contend with.

Internet claims. "I'd have shot him." Sure you would, Clint.


1) The CD renders the act of breaking/attempting to break in to a house or car de facto reasonable belief in danger of sever bodily harm / justification for deadly force.

2) Under the CD, the burden is on the state to prove it was not in self defense if the CD conditions apply, not your defense atty to prove it was. Most of the time, since CD has been in force, no defense atty is needed since no charges are filed.

3) In the heat of being attacked by these people, when the first one breaks a window, and your children are in the car, you are not expected to sit and wonder whether the maniac outside really wants to come in. If he didnt, he wouldnt have broken the window. The DA would have to decide whether it constituted attempted break+entry, then a judge and jurt.

4) A car being broken into isnt "road rage." When you shoot people who are breaking into your car, it is CD-protected justified self defense.

5) This assumes there really was a hit-and-run, which is far from clear.

6) It could be argued convincingly that since any hit-and-run was far from apparent, the victim was under the reasonable impression that he was simply being attacked by criminals.

7) I certainly hope that if maniacs started to assault my car, with my family in it, that I would have the presence of mind to draw down on them and force them to stop.

This bunch of bicyclist maniacs may not have deserved to die, but in some states (like mine) one would be legally justified in threatening or using deadly force against some of them. When the windows are broken to give the maniacs access to enter, the CD kicks in.

It remains to be seen whether charges are filed for hit-and-run or for damage against the car. If the latter happens, then there isnt anything to ameliorate the CD justification here.

To be fair. None of the damage was justified. They had her successfully detained (this is on the presumtion there was a crime), they needed to wait patiently for the police to arrive.

Again, this assumes facts not in evidence. We don't know what damage was caused in the attempt to prevent her departure. Your assumption requires evidence. That evidence is not available to us.

And they needed to inform her she was being detained and why. The person must be informed they are being placed under citizens arrest and why.

Hmmm... I didn't. And I got an award from the city.

What is required of your depends on what is happening. The scene was chaotic. Informing her may not have been an option. You make it seem like they stepped in front of her vehicle and she said "oh, no worries. I'll just wait here then." She said she was inching forward while they were attacking her vehicle. Doesn't sound very detained to me.

3) In the heat of being attacked by these people, when the first one breaks a window, and your children are in the car, you are not expected to sit and wonder whether the maniac outside really wants to come in. If he didnt, he wouldnt have broken the window. The DA would have to decide whether it constituted attempted break+entry, then a judge and jurt.

There's the core of it. You act as if that it's breaking and entrying is obvious and then you show why it's not. Again, are you claiming that throwing a rock at the window in your home means you can shoot the kid outside? if not then, you have no grounds here. The guy threw his bike at the window. We KNOW he was not breaking and entering. We KNOW it.

Would appear to have been an attempt to enter the vehicle? THere is no evidence to suggest that this is a reasonable conclusion. The fact that you claim it does not support said conclusion.

And yes, the DA always has to prove that it's a crime. That's how the law works. I'm glad you've got that much down.

No. It must meet the "reasonable person" standard.

It will go to court, either way.

Vandalism for one. Vandalism in this case. Point in fact, if he was trying to enter he would have started to climb in the car. He didn't.

Assuming someone smashes the drivers window, a case could be mad efor justification. It's completely different if he's smashing the rear window in a mini-van.

If she clipped his front tire, there was reason for them to believe that a crime had been commited. Don't know, there's an open investigation. Because bikes share the public roadway with cars. They were exactly where they were supposed to be.

No one is saying the cyclists had any right to destroy the car. The jackasses that did need to be charged. Damage to property is not a justification, however, to use lethal force. That's one reason it's highly reccomended to carry less- lethal force even if you do pack.

Just because you didn't think to bring it, doesn't mean you get to bend the rules of when deadly forced is used.

1) Under the CD, attempted break/entry into a house or vehicle causes the presumtion of a reasonable fear of bodily harm / justifiability of deadly force.

2) If there is an attempted break/entry into a house or vehicle, it won't go to trial because charges won't be filed.

3) It is debatable whether simply breaking into a car, say with a tire iron or a bike, constitutes attempted break/enter. In this situation, I think the odds would favor the driver, on account of the violent mob outside.

4) If it includes the driver's window, which would be hard to enter through, why wouldnt it include the easier-to-enter through rear window?

5) The police havent charged the woman with anything, to the anger of the cyclists, according to this: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/05/MNGFAP353S1.DTL

6) Damage to certain occupied property is specifically covered in the CD, for instance, an occupied car or house. Breaking down the door isnt vandalism. It isnt really possible to break down a car door, so the windows are the closest analogue there.

If no charges are filed agaisnt the driver, then that places the violent mob squarely in the wrong and drastically improves the chances that it would be a 'good shoot' under the CD.

Again, this assumes facts not in evidence. We don't know what damage was caused in the attempt to prevent her departure. Your assumption requires evidence. That evidence is not available to us.
How is throwing a bicylce in her back window preventing her from departing?



Hmmm... I didn't. And I got an award from the city.

What is required of your depends on what is happening. The scene was chaotic. Informing her may not have been an option. You make it seem like they stepped in front of her vehicle and she said "oh, no worries. I'll just wait here then." She said she was inching forward while they were attacking her vehicle. Doesn't sound very detained to me.

It can vary from state to state. I will do some research and return what I find. Fair?

There's the core of it. You act as if that it's breaking and entrying is obvious and then you show why it's not. Again, are you claiming that throwing a rock at the window in your home means you can shoot the kid outside? if not then, you have no grounds here. The guy threw his bike at the window. We KNOW he was not breaking and entering. We KNOW it.

Would appear to have been an attempt to enter the vehicle? THere is no evidence to suggest that this is a reasonable conclusion. The fact that you claim it does not support said conclusion.

And yes, the DA always has to prove that it's a crime. That's how the law works. I'm glad you've got that much down.

If a man walked up to my window and threw a bicycle through it, creating a means to enter the house while I was in it, I would be justified here in arizona in shooting him. Wouldnt go to trial. Not since we got the CD.

Would I? Probably not. I would draw down on him though and command him to cease and surrender, then call the police.

If it was him and 10 other violent maniacs? I probably would, or at the very least command him to cease and surrender, then call the police.

If the criminal who threw the bike through the window moved toward the broken window after doing so, that would almost certainly pass the 'reasonable person' test.

How is throwing a bicylce in her back window preventing her from departing?

No, and everyone agrees with that. THat's not what you said.

[quote]None of the damage was justified.

So what you meant to say was "some of the damage was not justified" which is what you demonstrate with your claim.

It can vary from state to state. I will do some research and return what I find. Fair?

Yeah, I can't be bothered. I know it in some states. I've actually done it so I know for you sure that in my state that I can actually attack someone in the commission of a crime, provided I am trying to stop the crime or detain them for police.

And the benefit of the doubt goes to the detainer not the detainee. At least in IL and MN.

http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/citarr.htm

Also, I found a little tidbit about California law. If you make a citizen's arrest, police are legally required to take the person you arrested into custody. Now, here's the fun. If the arrest is unjustified (without probably cause) then the officer is in violation of the law, even if he immediately releases the person. Weird, huh?

I looked around and laws are intentionally vague. In many places it's common law, but the gist is that if you witness a crime, you're all set. You can detain the person and use force to do so if necessary. HOWEVER, if it turns out you were not within your rights you are suddenly open to suit for doing so. However, in this case if they witnessed her striking the bike and then attempting to drive away, that would be sufficient to effect an arrest. You do have to allow them to surrender voluntarily if possible but in this case it does not appear likely or poosible.

Citizens arrest in California, this is interesting.
California Penal Code mandates:
A private person may arrest another: 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it. (C.P.C. § 837).

Here it is:
To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felony…may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired. (C.P.C., §844).
Therefore they had no right to break the window.

A private person who has arrested another for the commission of a public offense must, without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a magistrate, or deliver him or her to a peace officer. (C.P.C. §847)
She made the 911 call not them. That's a matter of record.

Source. (http://www.saveourstate.org/vforums/archive/index.php/t-768.html) Please excuse the vigilante rhetoric. It doesn't make the penal code less valid.

Edit: It also means if they weren't trying to break open the window they were within their rights to hold her like you mentioned.

How is throwing a bicylce in her back window preventing her from departing?



Exactly, breaking the back, most easily-entered window and then later claiming you were trying to prevent someone who wasnt charged with a crime from "fleeing" is illegal.

Bearing in mind that the vehicle was already stopped and pinned down by the bikes in front of it, no attack on the rear window can be justified as trying to 'detain' the person.

[QUOTE=Snafturi;12515285]How is throwing a bicylce in her back window preventing her from departing?

No, and everyone agrees with that. THat's not what you said.



So what you meant to say was "some of the damage was not justified" which is what you demonstrate with your claim.
None of the damage was justified. How is causing damage to her car preventing her from fleeing?


Yeah, I can't be bothered. I know it in some states. I've actually done it so I know for you sure that in my state that I can actually attack someone in the commission of a crime, provided I am trying to stop the crime or detain them for police.

And the benefit of the doubt goes to the detainer not the detainee.

Done and done. I'm not sure if these are all the statutes that define it or not. I'm statisfied though.

1) Under the CD, attempted break/entry into a house or vehicle causes the presumtion of a reasonable fear of bodily harm / justifiability of deadly force.
There was no attempt to enter. There was not break/entry, there was vandalism. They weren't standing outside waving guns around (believe me, that would have been reported). One person smashed the back window, if he didn't immediately preceed to crawl in, then he's not breaking and entering.

2) If there is an attempted break/entry into a house or vehicle, it won't go to trial because charges won't be filed.
Whether or not there's breaking/entering occuring is debatable, this case would go to trial.

3) It is debatable whether simply breaking into a car, say with a tire iron or a bike, constitutes attempted break/enter. In this situation, I think the odds would favor the driver, on account of the violent mob outside.
I still think it's a matter the courts would need to decide. This is a good reason to carry less- lethal force.

4) If it includes the driver's window, which would be hard to enter through, why wouldnt it include the easier-to-enter through rear window?
Well, you have time to determine whether or not the person is trying to enter if they are coming through the back of a minivan. A driver's side window you would just have to react.

5) The police havent charged the woman with anything, to the anger of the cyclists, according to this: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/05/MNGFAP353S1.DTL
No, but neither were the cyclists.

6) Damage to certain occupied property is specifically covered in the CD, for instance, an occupied car or house. Breaking down the door isnt vandalism. It isnt really possible to break down a car door, so the windows are the closest analogue there.
No, it's more like the rock through the living room window scenario.

If no charges are filed agaisnt the driver, then that places the violent mob squarely in the wrong and drastically improves the chances that it would be a 'good shoot' under the CD.
It was a judgement call on the officer's part to take the lady's info and maybe charge her later. Things would have gone down very different if a shot had been fired.

Yeah, I can't be bothered.
.

It would behoove you in similar threads in the future to learn about the laws that you presume to talk about.

Re: citizen's arrest.

What I will say is this. Just like for cops, it's always a good idea to clearly state your motives and intentions when performing an arrest. Just in case it goes to trial. It's a hell of alot better to announce loudly what you are doing than to face kidnapping charges.

It would behoove you in similar threads in the future to learn about the laws that you presume to talk about.

Meh, I offered. If he doesn't like my research, the burden shifts to him to disprove what I dug up.

Oh and btw...

I don't think a woman with kids would provoke a group of cyclists

I don't think a President would ever take part in an illegal war against another country

I don't think a government would support a torture camp

I don't think Christians would harm others without being provoked

I don't think cyclists would harm the woman without being provoked.

These kinds of statements are stupid. Just because a particular group doesn't normall do a particular bad thing, that doesn't mean they won't ever do it or that part of that group won't ever do it.

QFT.

There was no attempt to enter. There was not break/entry, there was vandalism. They weren't standing outside waving guns around (believe me, that would have been reported). One person smashed the back window, if he didn't immediately preceed to crawl in, then he's not breaking and entering.


Whether or not there's breaking/entering occuring is debatable, this case would go to trial.


I still think it's a matter the courts would need to decide. This is a good reason to carry less- lethal force.


Well, you have time to determine whether or not the person is trying to enter if they are coming through the back of a minivan. A driver's side window you would just have to react.


No, but neither were the cyclists.


No, it's more like the rock through the living room window scenario.


It was a judgement call on the officer's part to take the lady's info and maybe charge her later. Things would have gone down very different if a shot had been fired.


1) The person who broke the window moving towards the window would probably be reasonable, under the extreme duress of the violent mob, and with children in the car to protect.

2) It looks like the nutcases who broke the windows dispersed before the police arrived. The police know who she is, they dont know who broke her car window, so they can't file any charges against that person.

3) It would be closer to throwing a bike (since a person can throw a rock a lot farther than a bike) through the living room window, while a mother and her kids are in the living room.

If a man walked up to my window and threw a bicycle through it, creating a means to enter the house while I was in it, I would be justified here in arizona in shooting him. Wouldnt go to trial. Not since we got the CD.

Um, again, no. Breaking a window is criminal damage to property. There has to be a reasonable attempt to actually gain entry. You've not demonstrated one.

Again, is just that a bike is big enough? Would a rock do it? A baseball? I know the answer and so do you.


Would I? Probably not. I would draw down on him though and command him to cease and surrender, then call the police.

If it was him and 10 other violent maniacs? I probably would, or at the very least command him to cease and surrender, then call the police.

If the criminal who threw the bike through the window moved toward the broken window after doing so, that would almost certainly pass the 'reasonable person' test.

Ha. So now you're changing your claim. Throwing the bike isn't enough, they must move toward the window. Good. Did they? Um, you don't know. So you cannot justify lethal force with the information here.

In fact, you can't demonstrate that the cyclists were justified in using lethal force.

Your entire argument is based on ignorance.

None of the damage was justified. How is causing damage to her car preventing her from fleeing?

They were trying to get her to stop. Damaging her car in the process is legal.


Done and done. I'm not sure if these are all the statutes that define it or not. I'm statisfied though.

I looked them up several times before, but I don't have the laws for each state memorized. I looked up CA and they would have been within rights.

1) The person who broke the window moving towards the window would probably be reasonable, under the extreme duress of the violent mob, and with children in the car to protect.
If that was the case, it would be arguable. I'm just saying that this case even with CD would go to trial. It would be one of the rare times.

2) It looks like the nutcases who broke the windows dispersed before the police arrived. The police know who she is, they dont know who broke her car window, so they can't file any charges against that person.
True enough. Luckily the police can investigate. Maybe turn something up.

3) It would be closer to throwing a bike (since a person can throw a rock a lot farther than a bike) through the living room window, while a mother and her kids are in the living room.
Not if the rock was heavy and pointy. Nah, just kidding. :p

Then it falls to what the vandals next actions are. If the person just stood there or started advancing that's one thing, if they ducked down and grabbed their bike then ran of it's something else.

By law, if she hit one of them with her car they are justified in detaining her. A large portion of the damage was to the rear window that had nothing to do with detaining her for the police to arrive. However, any damage that occurred when they were trying to get her to stop driving and to remain there, assuming she actually struck on of them, is justified legally.

I don't buy that. If they surrounded her, as you say, then she COULD NOT MOVE. That is detaining her. If she did not run people over who were attacking her car, then it seems likely to me that she would not have run over people who were blocking her front and back and were calling 911. That just seems to be sensible.

In truth, if people WERE attacking my car, I can't be sure that I wouldn't be scared enough to floor it and try to get away -- not because I want to hurt anyone, or because I'm playing cowboy, but because I want to get away from the lunatics attacking me.

Ramming the sides of her car, the broken back window, and terrorizing her family do not seem reasonable.

Taking down her license number and reporting a hit and run, or having a bunch of bikes both in front and in back seems reasonable.

I've biked in NYC -- it was my only mode of transportation getting to and from college. I know what it's like to share the road with assholes -- and the people who attacked her car were assholes. She may have been as well -- but they were definitely assholes.

Um, again, no. Breaking a window is criminal damage to property. There has to be a reasonable attempt to actually gain entry. You've not demonstrated one.

Again, is just that a bike is big enough? Would a rock do it? A baseball? I know the answer and so do you.

Ha. So now you're changing your claim. Throwing the bike isn't enough, they must move toward the window. Good. Did they? Um, you don't know. So you cannot justify lethal force with the information here.

In fact, you can't demonstrate that the cyclists were justified in using lethal force.

Your entire argument is based on ignorance.


1) A bike was involved in the real incident, so I am using a bike to make things as similar as possible in my thought-experiment.

2)
My claim is and has been that more likely than not, the driver would be justified under the CD from using deadly force on whoever broke her back window. Like I said, and you dont seem to have understood,

"If the criminal who threw the bike through the window moved toward the broken window after doing so, that would almost certainly pass the 'reasonable person' test."

that an event which may well have occured, where one of the angry mob moved toward the broken open window, would cause the situation to pass the 'reasonable person' test.

3) I havent tried to justify the cyclists using lethal force. What are you talking about and why did you post this?

4) Look up a few posts to the explanation of the citizen's arrest provisions you claimed to know, but didnt.

They were trying to get her to stop. Damaging her car in the process is legal.
$5,000 worth? How could accidental damage total half that?

I looked them up several times before, but I don't have the laws for each state memorized. I looked up CA and they would have been within rights.

That's what I said. Unless the person breaking the back window was doing it to stop her from fleeing. Then he'd have to announce why.

Edit: also no 911 call from them so they weren't delivering her to an officer immediately.

Citizens arrest in California, this is interesting.


Here it is:

Therefore they had no right to break the window.

Um, you haven't demonstrated they did not do this. And I wasn't claiming they had a right to break the window. I said pretty clearly that the window was almost CERTAINLY just an act of anger. I'm sure there about fifteen quotes of me saying it in this thread. Want me to find them?

Meanwhile, again you make an assumption that based on facts not in evidence.

She made the 911 call not them. That's a matter of record.

No, it isn't. Only the editorial claims that. The other statements claim that both people claim to have notified the police and neither categorically states that either did.

However, please provide that 'record'. And no an editorial is not the record.


Source. (http://www.saveourstate.org/vforums/archive/index.php/t-768.html) Please excuse the vigilante rhetoric. It doesn't make the penal code less valid.

Edit: It also means if they weren't trying to break open the window they were within their rights to hold her like you mentioned.

I read the law in CA. It does require that you at least attempt to inform them that you are holding them for police. We don't know they didn't. We don't know they did. We do know they never claimed they broke the window in order to stop her from driving away and as it seems to be the rear window, it seems unlikely that they were making that attempt.

If that was the case, it would be arguable. I'm just saying that this case even with CD would go to trial. It would be one of the rare times.


True enough. Luckily the police can investigate. Maybe turn something up.


Not if the rock was heavy and pointy. Nah, just kidding. :p

Then it falls to what the vandals next actions are. If the person just stood there or started advancing that's one thing, if they ducked down and grabbed their bike then ran of it's something else.


I admit it *might* go to trial, and that it isnt an immediately clear good shoot/bad shoot, but there is no obligation to have it go to trial.

If the DA or CA or whoever would be filing the charges in this case thinks it was covered by the CD, and he doesnt file charges, then no judge or jury is necessary to exonerate the person.

A civil trial might be something else entirely though, not 100% clear on how CD laws relate to civil trials if no charges are filed.

$5,000 worth? How could accidental damage total half that?

Who said ALL? I didn't. You said NONE. Honestly, I'm trying here, but do I have to explain that NONE is not the only alternative to all. You said "to be fair, NONE of the damage was justified." That means if $2 of damage was justified, you're wrong.

Meanwhile, it doesn't have to be accidental. I can punch you in the face if I'm trying to prevent a crime. That's not an accident.





That's what I said. Unless the person breaking the back window was doing it to stop her from fleeing. Then he'd have to announce why.

I agree. I didn't say otherwise. I don't think it was an attempt to prevent fleeing and I've said that repeatedly. Do you have me confused with someone else?

Edit: also no 911 call from them so they weren't delivering her to an officer immediately.

Again, where is this record?

Um, you haven't demonstrated they did not do this. And I wasn't claiming they had a right to break the window. I said pretty clearly that the window was almost CERTAINLY just an act of anger. I'm sure there about fifteen quotes of me saying it in this thread. Want me to find them?
I'm just using it as an example of the CA law in action. I never said you said that.

Meanwhile, again you make an assumption that based on facts not in evidence.
What am I assuming here?


No, it isn't. Only the editorial claims that. The other statements claim that both people claim to have notified the police and neither categorically states that either did.

However, please provide that 'record'. And no an editorial is not the record.
I read both stories. You don't think the story in favor of the bicyclists would have mentioned that? It's a big fact that swings things wildly in their favor.


I read the law in CA. It does require that you at least attempt to inform them that you are holding them for police. We don't know they didn't. We don't know they did. We do know they never claimed they broke the window in order to stop her from driving away and as it seems to be the rear window, it seems unlikely that they were making that attempt.
Again, the article that favored the cyclists would have made mention. It's more than poor journalism to leave something like that out. That's a major fact.

I admit it *might* go to trial, and that it isnt an immediately clear good shoot/bad shoot, but there is no obligation to have it go to trial.

If the DA or CA or whoever would be filing the charges in this case thinks it was covered by the CD, and he doesnt file charges, then no judge or jury is necessary to exonerate the person.

A civil trial might be something else entirely though, not 100% clear on how CD laws relate to civil trials if no charges are filed.

Of course it falls to the DA. That's with every *potential* criminal case.

I think the CD is meant to protect the homeowner from civil trials too. It probably vaires state to state.

The bikers seem to have run off. That reduces their credibility in court to ZERO.

So did Tom Robinson.

1) A bike was involved in the real incident, so I am using a bike to make things as similar as possible in my thought-experiment.

2)
My claim is and has been that more likely than not, the driver would be justified under the CD from using deadly force on whoever broke her back window. Like I said, and you dont seem to have understood,

"If the criminal who threw the bike through the window moved toward the broken window after doing so, that would almost certainly pass the 'reasonable person' test."

that an event which may well have occured, where one of the angry mob moved toward the broken open window, would cause the situation to pass the 'reasonable person' test.

Wait, seriously, I can't get air. Let's examine this.

"If the criminal" and "one of the angry mob". Do you not know the difference between the person who broke the window and everyone else? "Whoever broke her back window" is not liable for someone else in the mob moving toward it. Meanwhile, I love this scenario. Seriously, I'm almost crying.


3) I havent tried to justify the cyclists using lethal force. What are you talking about and why did you post this?

And this. Seriously. You're killing me. I intended to write "weren't" justified in using lethal force.

4) Look up a few posts to the explanation of the citizen's arrest provisions you claimed to know, but didnt.

Um, I did. I'm right. I never claimed breaking the window to enter the vehicle was justified. EVER. However, if I did, please, please quote me. I need some more humor in my life.

The people writing the article don't come off as objective.

That being said, if I were in a situation and I had children and I feared for my childrens' safety, I would have at least hospitalized several of those bikers. Legal or not.

I'm just using it as an example of the CA law in action. I never said you said that.


What am I assuming here?

That they didn't tell her that they were detaining her for the police or request entry to the vehicle. Now, this assumption, I would say is pretty likely, but as you've mentioned it's also likely that they weren't trying to gain entry to the vehicle.


I read both stories. You don't think the story in favor of the bicyclists would have mentioned that? It's a big fact that swings things wildly in their favor.

It did. You didn't notice.
http://www.cyclelicio.us/
According to several witnesses at the scene, however, the minivan driver "revved and swerved into the bicyclists, and tried to flee after hitting one. Bicyclists surrounded the vehicle while calling 911 to prevent a hit-and-run. One [hooligan] bicyclist smashed the rear window."

Notice two things. One, that it does say that they called 911. Two, that the bicyclist who broke the window was called a hooligan. Even the pro-cyclist report didn't defend the window breaking. They pretty openly condemned it. So did I.


Again, the article that favored the cyclists would have made mention. It's more than poor journalism to leave something like that out. That's a major fact.

Um, it did. The other two articles are from the same paper and neither would be considered pro-cyclist.

I don't buy that. If they surrounded her, as you say, then she COULD NOT MOVE. That is detaining her. If she did not run people over who were attacking her car, then it seems likely to me that she would not have run over people who were blocking her front and back and were calling 911. That just seems to be sensible.

Um, even the very pro-minivan article said she continued moving after this began.


In truth, if people WERE attacking my car, I can't be sure that I wouldn't be scared enough to floor it and try to get away -- not because I want to hurt anyone, or because I'm playing cowboy, but because I want to get away from the lunatics attacking me.

No doubt. That's the thing. The most likely scenario is that things spiraled out of control and it was pretty lucky no one was hurt. There was clearly rage here. However, it is not logical to claim that the woman is necessarily right and the cyclists are necessarily wrong, which is what most people are claiming.


Ramming the sides of her car, the broken back window, and terrorizing her family do not seem reasonable.

I think much of this seems unreasonable, but we don't have the information required to determine how much was reasonable on which side.


Taking down her license number and reporting a hit and run, or having a bunch of bikes both in front and in back seems reasonable.

Again, the pro-minivan article reported that she continued moving after she was surrounded.


I've biked in NYC -- it was my only mode of transportation getting to and from college. I know what it's like to share the road with assholes -- and the people who attacked her car were assholes. She may have been as well -- but they were definitely assholes.

Again, you assume facts not in evidence. The guy who threw the bike is almost certainly to blame. However, the other people may well have simply trying to get her to stop. It appear even from her story that she continued to move after the problem began, and it's most likely that either a collision or a near miss started this whole thing. Given that, it would seem that both the cyclists and the motorist had cause for alarm and that it spiraled from there.

That they didn't tell her that they were detaining her for the police or request entry to the vehicle. Now, this assumption, I would say is pretty likely, but as you've mentioned it's also likely that they weren't trying to gain entry to the vehicle.
Can we just agree that this is the most likely scenario then? At least until the investigation is released?

Edit: The one we agree it most likely that is.


It did. You didn't notice.
http://www.cyclelicio.us/
According to several witnesses at the scene, however, the minivan driver "revved and swerved into the bicyclists, and tried to flee after hitting one. Bicyclists surrounded the vehicle while calling 911 to prevent a hit-and-run. One [hooligan] bicyclist smashed the rear window."
It made no mention that they had her detained on citizens arrest. I make this distinction for an important reason.

Here in Oregon if I call to report that someone hit me on my bike, they might (really, might) show up in a few hours. If I call to report I have someone under citizens arrest they are usually there in 15 min. I did private security after my stint in the Army so I know this as fact. This does only apply to my state, mind you.

Notice two things. One, that it does say that they called 911. Two, that the bicyclist who broke the window was called a hooligan. Even the pro-cyclist report didn't defend the window breaking. They pretty openly condemned it. So did I.
I know you did. I was giving example of how CA was used. I used that specifically because of the way the law was written.



Um, it did. The other two articles are from the same paper and neither would be considered pro-cyclist.
They didn't say they detained her. That's important.

Mini Van > bicycle

Mini Van will always win in a battle of who has more moving mass. Crazy people on bicycles should consider that ...

Um, even the very pro-minivan article said she continued moving after this began.




No doubt. That's the thing. The most likely scenario is that things spiraled out of control and it was pretty lucky no one was hurt. There was clearly rage here. However, it is not logical to claim that the woman is necessarily right and the cyclists are necessarily wrong, which is what most people are claiming.




I think much of this seems unreasonable, but we don't have the information required to determine how much was reasonable on which side.




Again, the pro-minivan article reported that she continued moving after she was surrounded.




Again, you assume facts not in evidence. The guy who threw the bike is almost certainly to blame. However, the other people may well have simply trying to get her to stop. It appear even from her story that she continued to move after the problem began, and it's most likely that either a collision or a near miss started this whole thing. Given that, it would seem that both the cyclists and the motorist had cause for alarm and that it spiraled from there.

Tell me how attacking her car was safer and/or prevented her from leaving any more than simply being in front or behind it was?

Can we just agree that this is the most likely scenario then? At least until the investigation is released?

Edit: The one we agree is most likely that is.

Fair enough. I just don't like all the bloodlust claiming that there is any clear evidence that one group or another was in the wrong alone.


It made no mention that they had her detained on citizens arrest. I make this distinction for an important reason.

Here in Oregon if I call to report that someone hit me on my bike, they might (really, might) show up in a few hours. If I call to report I have someone under citizens arrest they are usually there in 15 min. I did private security after my stint in the Army so I know this as fact. This does only apply to my state, mind you.

Most people don't use those terms. However the article implies that they called and told them that a hit-and-run was occurring and they were attempting to detain the woman. Don't you think they'd ask?


I know you did. I was giving example of how CA was used. I used that specifically because of the way the law was written.

They didn't say they detained her. That's important.

Um, it doesn't say what they said specifically. It does say they detained her and the implication is that they reported this to the police. Do you think they called and then just breathed into the phone? Likely they reported the situation. That's what I did.

Tell me how attacking her car was safer and/or prevented her from leaving any more than simply being in front or behind it was?

They just have to reasonably believe it would get her to stop. It appears to have worked. If the evidence was conclusive that the cyclists were in the wrong, and trust me, they have much more evidence than we do, then we'd have heard that from the article that tells us how they are investigating. Currently, all legal officials appear to be continuing the investigation and making pretty clear that both sides are under investigation.

Does that mean they WERE justified? No, but it does mean that if she actually hit the bike and attempted to flee they can legally use force to attempt to stop the vehicle.

Mini Van > bicycle

Mini Van will always win in a battle of who has more moving mass. Crazy people on bicycles should consider that ...

And this is why I am of the opinion that she would not have run down people in front of and behind her. She could have mowed down the people in front of her -- in fact, with flight or fight in play (almost certainly to happen when people are attacking you and your kids are screaming in terror) the fact that she DIDN'T hurt or kill someone is pretty amazing.

And this is why I am of the opinion that she would not have run down people in front of and behind her. She could have mowed down the people in front of her -- in fact, with flight or fight in play (almost certainly to happen when people are attacking you and your kids are screaming in terror) the fact that she DIDN'T hurt or kill someone is pretty amazing.

Yes, I'm very glad that things did not get more out of hand. However, she admits to continuing moving, which, by fact, is illegal if she was in an accident.

Them bikers could never catch me in my 280z!!

Sorry, guys, the presidents club is closing so I have to go to my gate. It's been real. Seriously, Snaf, it was fun arguing with someone not trying to claim that a murderous rage was justified or that the bicyclists were necessarily 100% in the wrong. (if you weren't saying these things, not talking about you)

Fair enough. I just don't like all the bloodlust claiming that there is any clear evidence that one group or another was in the wrong alone.
I think we both agree on that fact. I think both sides are at fault here. I really think the truth lies somewhere near the scenario I presented earlier.

I don't like all the bloodlust either. I'm a gun owner, and I'm getting uneasy with all the talk of shooting.:P


Most people don't use those terms. However the article implies that they called and told them that a hit-and-run was occurring and they were attempting to detain the woman. Don't you think they'd ask?
Not in my experience. SF dispatch might be completely different though. I do think all the articles were highly polarizing. All the more reason to think all parties are at fault to some degree.


Um, it doesn't say what they said specifically. It does say they detained her and the implication is that they reported this to the police. Do you think they called and then just breathed into the phone? Likely they reported the situation. That's what I did.
I figure they called and reported the hit and run. Also, keep in mind, if they were reporting a hit and run it's not unreasonable to assume the person has already ran. Otherwise they'd report an accident. I can see your point though.

If you want to continue this, I'll be on the forums tomorrow. I have to get home now. Snafturi needs food and sleep. And my eyes are woozy.

It has been a very plesant debate. Cheers!:)

Sorry, guys, the presidents club is closing so I have to go to my gate. It's been real. Seriously, Snaf, it was fun arguing with someone not trying to claim that a murderous rage was justified or that the bicyclists were necessarily 100% in the wrong. (if you weren't saying these things, not talking about you)

This was quite fun! Till next time.:)

Wow...

I wish someday they try that with the kind of person who has about 5 guns in their car (Which is, of course, a stretched hummer.)


What a bunch of stupid fuckers. Why the hell does the city have a hands-off policy? You know that guy who was mayor of New York and cracked down on crime so much he fined a kid for jaywalking. Maybe we should put him in charge of San Francisco again.

Now, I am normally a liberal person. Not here.

"We sit there and they just go right through the red lights,'' Sgt. Callejas said. "What else can we do? Arrest one rider while 500 keep going?

Cops have tear gas and shotguns for a reason. It's not to kill war protesters. It's to disperse rioters. Like these guys.

Okay. This is easy. Just bring in a few rules:
1: Groups of bicyclists more than 50 in number will be stopped (Using police cars or similar to block the road) and questioned, if not outright arrested..
2: Any group of bicyclists who are obviously smashing cars will be teargassed. If they do not cease after the teargas, the police will be allowed to use deadly force.
3: Any large group of bicyclists who are harassing the cars and it is reported, the dispatcher will ask the direction. The police will dispatch cars there, and teargas the large group of bicyclists, then round them up and arrest them.
4: Any person who runs over or hits bicyclists in said large, harassing groups will not be charged with a crime.
5: Any large group of people smashing and swarming cars will be treated the same as large groups of bicylists.

That last one's so if they catch on and stop riding bicycles not much will change.

Giving a lot of power to the police? Certainly. Questionable? Definitely. Good? Yeah.

Good. Cars are nothing but trouble.

So it's an attack by biker gangs basicly. Pedal Bikes but a biker gang it is.

I would have slammed on brakes.

Wow...

I wish someday they try that with the kind of person who has about 5 guns in their car (Which is, of course, a stretched hummer.)

Defending their friend who had been struck by the vehicle? Because the cyclists claim that happened.

Listening to either side there is a strong indication that both sides know they were in the wrong. The woman's story sounds like my little nephew who tries to tell me how he was watching TV but not REALLY watching TV. "I was moving.... but not REALLY moving. I was just inching forward." The fact that she says inching suggests she thinks her speed was an issue, which it would be if she had hit a cyclist.

I think the description where the cyclist was jostled but uninjured is probably the most likely thing that started this whole issue. Much confustion and fear ensued. The cyclists are protesting the problem of cars injuring or endangering cyclists. They might, just might be a little senstive.

However, I'm certain that they are a giant group of terrorists just looking for a family to harrass.



What a bunch of stupid fuckers. Why the hell does the city have a hands-off policy? You know that guy who was mayor of New York and cracked down on crime so much he fined a kid for jaywalking. Maybe we should put him in charge of San Francisco again.

Now, I am normally a liberal person. Not here.



Cops have tear gas and shotguns for a reason. It's not to kill war protesters. It's to disperse rioters. Like these guys.

Okay. This is easy. Just bring in a few rules:
1: Groups of bicyclists more than 50 in number will be stopped (Using police cars or similar to block the road) and questioned, if not outright arrested..

A violation of the US Constitution. But hey that's just a piece of paper, no?

2: Any group of bicyclists who are obviously smashing cars will be teargassed. If they do not cease after the teargas, the police will be allowed to use deadly force.

The bicyclists were no longer attacking the vehicle when the police arrived. They did stop.


3: Any large group of bicyclists who are harassing the cars and it is reported, the dispatcher will ask the direction. The police will dispatch cars there, and teargas the large group of bicyclists, then round them up and arrest them.

Any car that is harrassing a group of bicyclists... nevermind I'm just not into this level of violence.


4: Any person who runs over or hits bicyclists in said large, harassing groups will not be charged with a crime.

Um, wow, so you think the solution to a problem that is already escalating is to take to the furthest level possible. You realize that if people witness a person in a car who is killing people, they will ALSO be permitted to use lethal force to stop this.


5: Any large group of people smashing and swarming cars will be treated the same as large groups of bicylists.

Again, you completely ignore the role of cars in these altercations.


That last one's so if they catch on and stop riding bicycles not much will change.

Giving a lot of power to the police? Certainly. Questionable? Definitely. Good? Yeah.

Good? Nope. Since it basically ignores the cause of the problems and escalates the problems. It encourages motorists to mess with bicyclists since if they get upset they can just start running people down like a video game.

In doing so you are attempting to prevent legal protests. Which, of course, is a violation of constitutional rights.

Sorry, guys, the presidents club is closing so I have to go to my gate. It's been real. Seriously, Snaf, it was fun arguing with someone not trying to claim that a murderous rage was justified or that the bicyclists were necessarily 100% in the wrong. (if you weren't saying these things, not talking about you)

NOTE: Sorry I attempted to post this last night, but it didn't send. For the record, I missed my flight arguing with you fools (I mean that in the most loving way).

Actually, my flight said it was delayed on the internet to 8:40 and it actually was 8:10. It worked out good though. My mother arrived from FL at the same time I arrived from Houston.

So it's an attack by biker gangs basicly. Pedal Bikes but a biker gang it is.

I would have slammed on brakes.

They didn't randomly attack her car. She drove into a group of bicyclists and likely accidently struck or nearly struck one of them and they got into an argument. She admits to keeping driving even after ther argument began, which if she had hit or almost hit a cycle, would be obviously upsetting and just adding to the problem. It's pretty clear that there is a lot to this event people don't know and assuming the blame falls on the cyclists is absurd.

They didn't randomly attack her car. She drove into a group of bicyclists and likely accidently struck or nearly struck one of them and they got into an argument. She admits to keeping driving even after ther argument began, which if she had hit or almost hit a cycle, would be obviously upsetting and just adding to the problem. It's pretty clear that there is a lot to this event people don't know and assuming the blame falls on the cyclists is absurd.

Let us assume that you are correct in believing that the woman struck a cyclist.

It is not legal for them to assault the vehicle.

Surround it, perhaps. But not dash a window in with a bike.

It is also not legal to shout threats while doing so.

Okay. This is easy. Just bring in a few rules:
1: Groups of bicyclists more than 50 in number will be stopped (Using police cars or similar to block the road) and questioned, if not outright arrested..


a.) Once you have questioned them they just form up again and then what have you gained except adding much greater disruption than they would normally cause.
b.) On what basis are you questioning them - because they are cycling? As far as I am aware that ain't sufficient.
c.) If this is going to be instituted than obviously similar procedures must be instituted for groups of more than 50 cars or 50 trucks or 50 motorcycles, no?
d.) Exactly what would these people be arrested for?
e.) How do you tell whether 50 cyclists are a group or just 50 cyclists who happen to be travelling at the same time?

No. She wouldn't. This has happened to me. I simply loosen the wheels and it slipped out. I then straightened everything out while the driver apologized profusely. I shook it off and went to work.

Ok, if you say so.

A rear window has defrosters in it and wiper on it. Fixing the damage busting this out would cause, particularly if it was fixed at a dealership would be very expensive. However, I'll accept $1000. And you figure if his bike was under the car and she attempted to go and they started kicking the van, that would be a lot of damage and completely justified.

It is "completely justified" if and only if they made sure that she knew the accident had occurred and she still tried to go.

Shouldn't be and not justified are not the same thing. I've often been justified to use force but chose not to because I shouldn't.

If you saw someone commit a crime that could have been completely accidental, would you really expect the law to call it justified if you tackled them and did $5000 worth of damage to their property?

Why? Because they're bicyclists? What's your basis for this claim?

The basis is the nature of what they were doing in the first place. They are trying to cause traffic jams and piss off motorists. And they're reasoning appears to be that drivers are dangerous to them. As such, especially given the mob mentality that can affect any large group, I would expect them to be very easily provoked and to be likely to assume that even the most innocent of accidents was somehow intentional.

It's not a matter of them being cyclists - it's a matter of them being human beings. Human beings who have a preconceived notion of what might happen are quick to see it, often even if it isn't really occurring.

Police said she might have inadvertently tapped one of the bicyclists' tires.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/05/MNGFAP353S1.DTL

Fair enough. I just don't like all the bloodlust claiming that there is any clear evidence that one group or another was in the wrong alone.

At this point, you seem to be the only one making such claims. You keep saying that, regardless of how much damage was done or how unaware of the situation the woman might have been, the cyclists (minus the one guy) were "completely justified."


Yes, I'm very glad that things did not get more out of hand. However, she admits to continuing moving, which, by fact, is illegal if she was in an accident.

Assuming she was aware of said accident...

Listening to either side there is a strong indication that both sides know they were in the wrong. The woman's story sounds like my little nephew who tries to tell me how he was watching TV but not REALLY watching TV. "I was moving.... but not REALLY moving. I was just inching forward." The fact that she says inching suggests she thinks her speed was an issue, which it would be if she had hit a cyclist.

Or maybe it has to do with the fact that, if you don't want to harm someone or further incite a mob, "inching" is all you can do when your car is being attacked by multiple cyclists.

I think the description where the cyclist was jostled but uninjured is probably the most likely thing that started this whole issue. Much confustion and fear ensued. The cyclists are protesting the problem of cars injuring or endangering cyclists. They might, just might be a little senstive.

Funny. You seemed to get angry when I suggested this very same thing.

In doing so you are attempting to prevent legal protests. Which, of course, is a violation of constitutional rights.

Legal protests that involve this level of traffic and essentially require that roads be shut down require permits. It isn't unconstitutional to require such permits, because they are necessary for the safety both of those participating and those who are not. These cyclists were breaking the law - plain and simple - even before the minivan got involved. Not only were they holding such a protest without any permits and without informing the city of their route, they also (according to everything I've read) completely ignore traffic signals.

Would I run them over? Depends what kind of car I was driving :p

Ok, if you say so.



It is "completely justified" if and only if they made sure that she knew the accident had occurred and she still tried to go.

They have to try to inform her. The onus is on her to stop and to be aware of whether or not her car struck something. All in all, I think it was pretty chaotic from both sides and both stories sound a bit too one-sided to be accurate.

What I notice though it is that she says "inching" forward, which is really very similar to listening to a kid who knows they were wrong trying to make it seem like they aren't. Why would inching matter? If she was going 20 mph, it would actually be better for her since she would be much more sure she hadn't struck anything and she'd also be more sure the person would be hurt if she did. However, people rarely think of this when they are trying to sound innocent so they pretend like they were barely moving when the accident occurred. It's practically an admission that at least SHE thinks an accident occurred.

Does that mean they should have went ballistic? Like I said, because you can doesn't mean you should.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;12517404]If you saw someone commit a crime that could have been completely accidental, would you really expect the law to call it justified if you tackled them and did $5000 worth of damage to their property?

Yes. By law, yes, you absolutely could. You aren't required to determine motivation. In this case, if she was still moving, they didn't only witness a crime, but she was still committing the crime and continued to until she stopped. As well, as long as she continued to move she was not only fleeing a scene, but she was also endangering any cyclists still in front of her.



[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;12517404]The basis is the nature of what they were doing in the first place. They are trying to cause traffic jams and piss off motorists. And they're reasoning appears to be that drivers are dangerous to them. As such, especially given the mob mentality that can affect any large group, I would expect them to be very easily provoked and to be likely to assume that even the most innocent of accidents was somehow intentional.

They are not. They are trying to be seen protesting. This might cause traffic jams and piss off motorists, but the aim is to protest.


[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;12517404]It's not a matter of them being cyclists - it's a matter of them being human beings. Human beings who have a preconceived notion of what might happen are quick to see it, often even if it isn't really occurring.

Uh-huh. She's not human? You've already seen people in this thread say they think they have no right to be in the street. Road rage happens. We don't know she wasn't driving aggressively.

Again, it's pretty clear the cyclists got angry, as I've repeatedly said, but one can't claim that they had no reasonable reason to be angry without more evidence.

They have to try to inform her.

Indeed. And neither story, not even the one that is pretty much on the side of the cyclists, claims that they did.

What I notice though it is that she says "inching" forward, which is really very similar to listening to a kid who knows they were wrong trying to make it seem like they aren't. Why would inching matter? If she was going 20 mph, it would actually be better for her since she would be much more sure she hadn't struck anything and she'd also be more sure the person would be hurt if she did. However, people rarely think of this when they are trying to sound innocent so they pretend like they were barely moving when the accident occurred. It's practically an admission that at least SHE thinks an accident occurred.

I don't see it that way. I see it as most likely being the story of a woman who found herself in a situation in which she had no idea what the best action to take was, so she drove very slowly, hoping that the situation would resolve itself.

Yes. By law, yes, you absolutely could.

Then the law is stupid and dangerous. It needs to be changed.

You aren't required to determine motivation. In this case, if she was still moving, they didn't only witness a crime, but she was still committing the crime and continued to until she stopped. As well, as long as she continued to move she was not only fleeing a scene, but she was also endangering any cyclists still in front of her.

If there was no clear indication that she knew there had been an accident, attacking her vehicle was completely out of line. In fact, the people causing the danger were the cyclists.

They are not. They are trying to be seen protesting. This might cause traffic jams and piss off motorists, but the aim is to protest.

Is that why they ignore traffic signals? Is that why they refuse to file the proper paperwork and make sure the city is aware of the route they take? If they were simply wanting to protest, they could do it much more safely and cause a great deal less problems. Instead, they intentionally break the law, make things as inconvenient for others as they can, and thus cause dangerous situations. That type of protest is specifically designed to piss others off.

Uh-huh. She's not human?

Where did I say or even suggest that?

Again, it's pretty clear the cyclists got angry, as I've repeatedly said, but one can't claim that they had no reasonable reason to be angry without more evidence.

I haven't claimed that. I said it is likely that they would have become angry, even without a reasonable reason to do so - that would have been likely to take an accident that occurred completely by accident and see it as an intentional act of "aggressive driving" because that is precisely what they were primed to see.

Unless this woman is completely lying and knew for a fact she was driving into the route of the cyclists (unlikely as they won't even announce it ahead of time to the city), she didn't have those sorts of preconceived notions. I see no reason to disbelieve her that she thought she must have gotten caught up in a bike race. That would certainly be my first thought in such a situation.

At this point, you seem to be the only one making such claims. You keep saying that, regardless of how much damage was done or how unaware of the situation the woman might have been, the cyclists (minus the one guy) were "completely justified."

Um, no. I'm sorry that I don't qualify my statements every time. I expect people to read the entire thread particular all of my replies to them.

Maybe I missed something in the pages I skipped, but from what I've seen, I don't think anyone in their right mind could argue that the bikers were "100% justified".
Everyone involves that the window should not have happened. However, it appears that she hit someone and kept driving. One side claims the bike went under the car and they were trying to stop her. The other claims there was no incident and the bikes just suddenly attacked a family. Both sound a bit exaggerated and almost certainly there is some fault to spread around.

I mean legally justified in preventing her from leaving. I didn't justify the window which appears to have been just rage. She is in a minivan and trying to leave. By law, I can physically attack a person if I witness a felony.[/quote]
I cut that to keep it brief but several times I said IF she hit one of them, that they were legally justified in damaging her vehicle. Taking that out of context to make it seem like I think that everything they did is justified in every way is simply not paying attention.

I have several times said they were justified to attempt to stop her from leaving, not to wildly to damge things because they're angry. I beleive some of this was just rage, and you are not permitted to act in blind rage, ever, for any reason.

Of course, absent evidence, we really can't say with any certainty that either of these groups were breaking the law (well, except the guy who threw the bike through the window).


Assuming she was aware of said accident...

You're required to be aware of your car striking things. If she is in a position where she cannot tell what she is striking then she should not be driving.


Or maybe it has to do with the fact that, if you don't want to harm someone or further incite a mob, "inching" is all you can do when your car is being attacked by multiple cyclists.

Again, anything to make this woman perfectly innocent, huh? If she was in danger of harming someone, she shouldn't have been moving. I love how you paint these cyclists like a bunch of terrorist on a ride for victims.


Funny. You seemed to get angry when I suggested this very same thing.

I did? Hmmm... can you quote me "getting angry". That should be amusing.

And of course, as you are still doing, you make out like this woman necessarily did nothing wrong. It's fairly likely she hit someone and if she did, she was required to stop and wait for police. She doesn't appear to have done so. Ignorance is not an excuse. You are required to be in control of your vehicle.

Legal protests that involve this level of traffic and essentially require that roads be shut down require permits. It isn't unconstitutional to require such permits, because they are necessary for the safety both of those participating and those who are not. These cyclists were breaking the law - plain and simple - even before the minivan got involved. Not only were they holding such a protest without any permits and without informing the city of their route, they also (according to everything I've read) completely ignore traffic signals.

They are allowed to ride on the roadway. Legally. They aren't impeding traffic. They are traffic.

They have been known to ignore traffic signals which is illegal. That's actually far to common among cyclists. Howeve,r it was said by the government and police that those sorts of problems have stopped occurring since they cracked down. We certainly have no evidence that occurred here. If they broke the law they should be punished like anyone else. That has nothing to do with whether they are legally permitted to ride on the streets where cyclists belong in a group, much like motorcyclists do. Do they have to announce their routes on the way to the motorcycle rallies too? Oh, wait, since they are vehicles and belong on the road, there is no legal requirement to do so.

According to many of the cycling grouups they have repeatedly requested the city participate and keep them safe as well as preventing these sorts of problems.

Um, no. I'm sorry that I don't qualify my statements every time. I expect people to read the entire thread particular all of my replies to them.

Indeed, and while my first post referred to pages that I had skipped, I did go back through the rest of the thread.

I can understand arguing with those who were bloodthirsty and acting as if the cyclists were 100% in the wrong, but I don't see how swarming a ramming your bicycles into a minivan is ever "completely justified." There are much easier, much better ways to stop her if that is what you think you need to do. Knocking on the window and making it very clear what has happened is one of them - and one that should have been tried at least once before people started ramming her vehicle.

I cut that to keep it brief but several times I said IF she hit one of them, that they were legally justified in damaging her vehicle.

Only if they had tried nonviolent means and failed. Even then, the damage would need to be accidental, not intentional.

You're required to be aware of your car striking things. If she is in a position where she cannot tell what she is striking then she should not be driving.[/qutoe]

Then nobody should ever drive. What do you think your reaction would be if you were driving along in a city in which you don't live and you were suddenly surrounded by more cyclists than you'd ever seen on a road outside of a bicycle race? Would you be fully aware of your surroundings? It wouldn't make you at least a little bit nervous?

[quote]Again, anything to make this woman perfectly innocent, huh?

LOL. The fact that you would characterize this as any such thing makes it clear you aren't even trying to see my actual point of view.

If she was in danger of harming someone, she shouldn't have been moving.

Probably not. But, then again, if you were suddenly in the middle of a bicycle race or something, would it be better to sit there as a big obstacle? Or try to get out of the way?

Meanwhile, her comment about inching along was made in reference to what she did after the bicycles started ramming her vehicle. So, from that point of view, you can sit there and let people terrify your children, or you can try to get away.

I love how you paint these cyclists like a bunch of terrorist on a ride for victims.

Very funny. You know for a fact I've done no such thing.

I did? Hmmm... can you quote me "getting angry". That should be amusing.

...

Why? Because they're bicyclists? What's your basis for this claim?

You certainly took issue with me suggesting that they might have been prone to overreaction.

And of course, as you are still doing, you make out like this woman necessarily did nothing wrong.

Wrong. I have done no such thing. In fact, I have alluded to the possibility that she might have numerous times. I simply find the situation that she was intentionally endangering others or trying to flee the scene of a crime to be much less likely than the situation in which she is suddenly caught up in a very confusing, chaotic situation and doesn't know what to do.

It's fairly likely she hit someone and if she did, she was required to stop and wait for police. She doesn't appear to have done so. Ignorance is not an excuse. You are required to be in control of your vehicle.

And the other people on the road have no responsibility? Suppose you were driving along and suddenly a bunch of cars or motorcycles that were ignoring traffic signals, sharing lanes, etc. surrounded you. Would you necessarily be aware of it if you bumped one of them? Would you be completely at fault?

Last time I checked, cyclists are bound by pretty much the same traffic rules as people in motorized vehicles. An accident can be the fault of either party involved. And though I'm not entirely certain of it, I don't think bicyclists are supposed to share lanes any more than motorcyclists or cars are.

They are allowed to ride on the roadway. Legally. They aren't impeding traffic. They are traffic.

Not as part of a protest or official event. If I were to stage a protest, I couldn't suddenly clog city streets with a bunch of cars and call it legal unless I had received the proper permits and made the proper notifications to do so. Why should cyclists be excused from the law in this regard?

Now, if, by some weird twist of fate, hundreds to thousands of cyclists just happened to all be out riding at the exact same time to the exact same place, that would be legal. But you have already stated that it is part of a protest. It is, essentially, a parade in protest. And, as such, it requires various permits and notifications so that the city can ensure the safety of the participants and others in the area.

They have been known to ignore traffic signals which is illegal. That's actually far to common among cyclists. Howeve,r it was said by the government and police that those sorts of problems have stopped occurring since they cracked down. We certainly have no evidence that occurred here. If they broke the law they should be punished like anyone else. That has nothing to do with whether they are legally permitted to ride on the streets where cyclists belong in a group, much like motorcyclists do. Do they have to announce their routes on the way to the motorcycle rallies too? Oh, wait, since they are vehicles and belong on the road, there is no legal requirement to do so.

The routes "on the way to motorcyle rallies"? No. But they are required to announce it if they are (as they do in some cities) going to have an official ride down the road. They are required to announce where they are holding the rally and get the proper permits.

According to many of the cycling grouups they have repeatedly requested the city participate and keep them safe as well as preventing these sorts of problems.

Funny, if they really wanted to have that, they would actually file with the city and make sure the city was aware of their route. Sounds to me like they're either flat-out lying on that one, or the city is.

Indeed. And neither story, not even the one that is pretty much on the side of the cyclists, claims that they did.

It claims they tried to stop her. How they attempted to stop her is unclear, but to suggest they never told her she hit someon is really a ludicrous suggestion.


I don't see it that way. I see it as most likely being the story of a woman who found herself in a situation in which she had no idea what the best action to take was, so she drove very slowly, hoping that the situation would resolve itself.

Yes, I realize that you're not even attempting to wrap your head around her likely culpability. She's innocent and the bicyclists are guilty because they're human. Which is why I asked if she's not human as well.

It's not a matter of them being cyclists - it's a matter of them being human beings. Human beings who have a preconceived notion of what might happen are quick to see it, often even if it isn't really occurring.

Hmmm... since she's a human being, and this is your reasoning for suggesting that they were being unreasonable, it seems logic would tell you that she would likely be unreasonable by the same logic. People from and around SF have a bad view of this group because of its past, the PAST, some of which you brought up. As likely as they are to be sensitve is how likely she is to have a negative view of them and expect a problem or to consider them to be "blocking traffic" which of course they are doing by using a roadway that is as much theirs as anyone's.



Then the law is stupid and dangerous. It needs to be changed.

You're opinion. However, it's stll the law.


If there was no clear indication that she knew there had been an accident, attacking her vehicle was completely out of line. In fact, the people causing the danger were the cyclists.

You think that everyone who has ever struck a pedestrian and drove off didn't try to claim they "didn't know". You are required to be responsible for you vehicle and be aware of what is in front of it. If she hit something and didn't know then she wasn't paying attention like she should have.


Is that why they ignore traffic signals? Is that why they refuse to file the proper paperwork and make sure the city is aware of the route they take? If they were simply wanting to protest, they could do it much more safely and cause a great deal less problems. Instead, they intentionally break the law, make things as inconvenient for others as they can, and thus cause dangerous situations. That type of protest is specifically designed to piss others off.

Amusing. Again, you show a pretty unreasonable bias. They HAVE ignored traffic signals. They don't ALWAYS ignore traffic signals. It's an unorganized group. Unless THESE cyclists ignored traffic signals, then you're claim has no merit.

They are not required to give the city a route. They are vehicles. They are allowed to use the road. They have offered to allow the city to tag along, but they should not be required to take a special route simply because they are a bunch of vehicles using the road.

Pull your skirt down, your bias is showing. The evil cyclists have struck again. When will they get these terrorists off the street.

It would really help if you'd just admit that rather than examining this situation rationally and recognizing that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, you are assuming the woman is innocent and the cyclists are guilty based on unrelated events and arguing from that point.

For THIS incident and THESE cyclists, you have nothing that indicates this wasn't just an escalation of a woman who struck one of the cyclists.


Where did I say or even suggest that?

Answered above. Simple logic.


I haven't claimed that. I said it is likely that they would have become angry, even without a reasonable reason to do so - that would have been likely to take an accident that occurred completely by accident and see it as an intentional act of "aggressive driving" because that is precisely what they were primed to see.

If she hit one of them, it was aggressive driving. Bicyclists are slow moving vehicles and provided they are using the roadway are easy to miss. Very easy. This wasn't a kid chasing a ball in the street.



Unless this woman is completely lying and knew for a fact she was driving into the route of the cyclists (unlikely as they won't even announce it ahead of time to the city), she didn't have those sorts of preconceived notions. I see no reason to disbelieve her that she thought she must have gotten caught up in a bike race. That would certainly be my first thought in such a situation.

She doesn't have to know she was driving into the route. The cyclists are vehicles. I can't tailgait you because you're on the road, no matter what vehicle you're using. I cannot cut across your lane of traffic or share your lane with you. I have to give you space no matter what vehicle you use. You have no evidence they made this impossible, and since most drivers don't understand that they must do with cyclists, usually following right behind them or driving in the lane they are in, she wouldn't have had to have been lying to have driving too aggressively.

And what would you do if you were caught in a bike race? Stop moving and let them pass. This wasn't hundreds of bikes as the OP claims. It was a few dozen.

However, if I was among a bunch of vehicles sharing the road with me, I would simply do as I should understand and treat them as vehicles. If she doesn't know she's to do this, then she shouldn't be behind the wheel. Understanding traffic is the law. She as culpable for not treating bicycle traffic properly as they would be IF they blew a traffic signal.

NOTE: And for the record, a lot of cyclists don't know they have to follow traffic signals like any other vehicle instead preferring to switch back and forth between acting like a pedestrian and acting like a vehicle. For this reason I think cyclists should be licensed and they should be succeptable to be pulled over or losing that license like any other operator.

That's unrelated to this incident, but a major cause of bicycle-vehicle incedents is that people on both sides are terribly ignorant on the whole and as such both sides feel justified in being fairly aggressive.

Is it normal on this forum to write essays for posts? Just wondering.

Indeed, and while my first post referred to pages that I had skipped, I did go back through the rest of the thread.

I can understand arguing with those who were bloodthirsty and acting as if the cyclists were 100% in the wrong, but I don't see how swarming a ramming your bicycles into a minivan is ever "completely justified." There are much easier, much better ways to stop her if that is what you think you need to do. Knocking on the window and making it very clear what has happened is one of them - and one that should have been tried at least once before people started ramming her vehicle.

Here's the exact problem. You said that in your first post and I qualified that claim as only referring to legal justification. You've since continued to pretend I've not told you this.

They aren't cops. They aren't expected to calmly assess the situation. The law gives a fair amount of lattitude in these situtaions, because common law allows us to step in if we witness a crime and because the average citizen is not trained.

So the choices are really -
1. Do away with common law and disallow citizens stepping in.

The results would be A) in the incident where I saw someone burglarizing cars I would have had to allow him to escape instead of subduing them AND it's likely that the practice would continue and innocent people attempting to help would end up being sued or going to jail.

Or 2. Allow it to continue and make an attempt to educate people so they behave better in these situations. Which is what happens. However, there is still the occasional incident like this one where there are a lot of people who made mistakes or behaved on unreasonably. It's not likely that ANYONE in this situation did NOTHING wrong. It's also unlikely that anyone did what they did with the intention of breaking the law.

Is it normal on this forum to write essays for posts? Just wondering.

No just a few of us. I'm terrible about it and so is Dem. You've run into a discussion between us so if you don't like long posts, ours together are going to be miserable. I just made an attempt to shorten them up because otherwise after a few pages we are killing everyone with the huge posts. Don't judge everyone based on us.

It claims they tried to stop her. How they attempted to stop her is unclear, but to suggest they never told her she hit someon is really a ludicrous suggestion.

Someone might have tried. But if others were already acting aggressively, she might not have heard it. Maybe they were screaming, "You hit someone!" but were already being so aggressive that she thought it was best for her to get away. We can't really know, can we?

Yes, I realize that you're not even attempting to wrap your head around her likely culpability. She's innocent and the bicyclists are guilty because they're human. Which is why I asked if she's not human as well.

Once again, I never said anything like that. I never said that there is no way the woman did nothing wrong. I simply said that I find many of the scenarios being posted less likely than the one in which any wrongdoing was accidental.

There is a difference, you know, between finding one scenario more likely and completely discounting the possibility of others.

Hmmm... since she's a human being, and this is your reasoning for suggesting that they were being unreasonable, it seems logic would tell you that she would likely be unreasonable by the same logic.

Only if you didn't read the rest of what I wrote. I said that human beings often see what they want to see. Like I said, unless she knew for a fact that she was going to be driving into their route (which she pretty much couldn't have, given the circumstances), she didn't have any expectations of driving into their route and how they might act. They, on the other hand, have expectations of angry, aggressive drivers. This would likely make them, as you put it, "a little sensitive." They'd be likely to interpret even a completely accidental occurrence as one of an angry, aggressive driver because that is what they were expecting to see. Add to that the fact that they were near the end of their run, and had probably already seen quite a few angry people, and it becomes even more plausible.

People from and around SF have a bad view of this group because of its past, the PAST, some of which you brought up. As likely as they are to be sensitve is how likely she is to have a negative view of them and expect a problem or to consider them to be "blocking traffic" which of course they are doing by using a roadway that is as much theirs as anyone's.

She doesn't live in SF. It's very likely that she's never encountered this group. She might not even have heard of them, except perhaps in passing. I see no reason to disbelieve her statement that she thought she must have driven into the route of a bicycle race. She might be lying, of course, but I see no reason to assume that or even to see it as the most likely situation.

You're opinion. However, it's stll the law.

And it does nothing but encourage violence.

You think that everyone who has ever struck a pedestrian and drove off didn't try to claim they "didn't know". You are required to be responsible for you vehicle and be aware of what is in front of it. If she hit something and didn't know then she wasn't paying attention like she should have.

How do you pay attention to everything when you are suddenly surrounded by cyclists? If you're looking at one, you might not notice another.

And yeah, I'm sure that a lot of people who were well aware of their actions have tried to claim that they didn't know. That doesn't negate the possibility, however, that some of them really didn't. No one is fully aware of their surroundings - no one. We try, but none of us are perfect. And we are even less so when we are in confusing or unexpected situations.

Amusing. Again, you show a pretty unreasonable bias. They HAVE ignored traffic signals. They don't ALWAYS ignore traffic signals. It's an unorganized group. Unless THESE cyclists ignored traffic signals, then you're claim has no merit.

They are not required to give the city a route. They are vehicles. They are allowed to use the road. They have offered to allow the city to tag along, but they should not be required to take a special route simply because they are a bunch of vehicles using the road.

Once again, you ignore the difference between driving and staging a protest or other planned event. This isn't a matter of a bunch of people going to work or out for a ride or anything like that. This is a planned event that is known to cause issues. As such, they are required by law to make their route and their intentions known to the city. Not doing so is negligent at the very least.

Do you think parades should "not be required to take a special route simply because they are a bunch of vehicles using the road"? What if a car show were holding an event in which they all wanted to drive down the road together? These are things that are not normal traffic. They are special events that will cause problems on the road. As such, the city has a vested interest in being aware of them - which is why we have laws that require notification and permits for them.

Pull your skirt down, your bias is showing. The evil cyclists have struck again. When will they get these terrorists off the street.

WTF?

I've said nothing bad about cyclists, my dear. It would seem that your bias is showing. You want so bad for me to be the big bad person that you can argue about that you aren't even trying to understand what I am actually saying.

It would really help if you'd just admit that rather than examining this situation rationally and recognizing that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, you are assuming the woman is innocent and the cyclists are guilty based on unrelated events and arguing from that point.

It might help you, but that would be dishonest of me, considering that not a single word of it is at all true.

Answered above. Simple logic.

Do you mean "simple" in the sense that they used to call people who had diminished mental capacity "simple"?

Nothing I have said has even come close to suggesting what you want it to. You want an argument so badly you can't see that.

If she hit one of them, it was aggressive driving. Bicyclists are slow moving vehicles and provided they are using the roadway are easy to miss. Very easy. This wasn't a kid chasing a ball in the street.

A mass of cyclists? Seems to me like it would be pretty easy to bump one of them - perhaps while trying to avoid another. We aren't talking about one bicycle here. We're talking about a huge number of cyclists.

Why are you so intent on her being a big bad lady who wanted to ram into a bicycle?

She doesn't have to know she was driving into the route.

She does to have the same level of expectations about it that the cyclists would have had about her - which is what we were discussing.

The cyclists are vehicles. I can't tailgait you because you're on the road, no matter what vehicle you're using. I cannot cut across your lane of traffic or share your lane with you.

Are you really going to suggest that these cyclists weren't sharing lanes with each other? It's possible of course, but it isn't the way these protests generally go.

And what would you do if you were caught in a bike race? Stop moving and let them pass. This wasn't hundreds of bikes as the OP claims. It was a few dozen.

IIRC, even your article put in on the order of hundreds. They said it wasn't thousands. I'll go back and look, however.

However, if I was among a bunch of vehicles sharing the road with me, I would simply do as I should understand and treat them as vehicles. If she doesn't know she's to do this, then she shouldn't be behind the wheel. Understanding traffic is the law. She as culpable for not treating bicycle traffic properly as they would be IF they blew a traffic signal.

This was hardly normal traffic. And while you may like to assume that all of the cyclists were following traffic laws, I find that to be highly unlikely, given the general nature of these protests.

NOTE: And for the record, a lot of cyclists don't know they have to follow traffic signals like any other vehicle instead preferring to switch back and forth between acting like a pedestrian and acting like a vehicle. For this reason I think cyclists should be licensed and they should be succeptable to be pulled over or losing that license like any other operator.

Makes sense - on city streets anyways. I wouldn't worry nearly as much about cyclists in residential neighboorhoods.

That's unrelated to this incident, but a major cause of bicycle-vehicle incedents is that people on both sides are terribly ignorant on the whole and as such both sides feel justified in being fairly aggressive.

Maybe you define "aggressive" differently. To me, "aggressive" driving (or riding) suggests that you are intentionally causing danger.

Here's the exact problem. You said that in your first post and I qualified that claim as only referring to legal justification. You've since continued to pretend I've not told you this.

I don't see it as legally justified either, anymore than I would see it as legally justified if I saw you litter on the highway and rammed into your car with mine.

They aren't cops. They aren't expected to calmly assess the situation. The law gives a fair amount of lattitude in these situtaions, because common law allows us to step in if we witness a crime and because the average citizen is not trained.

So the choices are really -
1. Do away with common law and disallow citizens stepping in.

The results would be A) in the incident where I saw someone burglarizing cars I would have had to allow him to escape instead of subduing them AND it's likely that the practice would continue and innocent people attempting to help would end up being sued or going to jail.

Or 2. Allow it to continue and make an attempt to educate people so they behave better in these situations. Which is what happens. However, there is still the occasional incident like this one where there are a lot of people who made mistakes or behaved on unreasonably. It's not likely that ANYONE in this situation did NOTHING wrong. It's also unlikely that anyone did what they did with the intention of breaking the law.

Or,

3. Allow citizens to intervene reasonably, with a reasonable level of force - in other words, force that is necessary. Those who use an unreasonable level of force can be prosecuted.

Of course, IIRC, this is pretty much what we have. It's exactly the same reason that I couldn't bonk you over the head or ram your car with my car for littering. That would be unreasonable force.

If the lady had rammed into and seriously injured someone and then tried to drive off, then I could see a great deal of force being used to stop her. If she bumped someone - something she may or may not have been aware of, much calmer measures are in order. Not to mention the fact that taking down her license plate and calling it in would have been much, much safer for all people involved.

To the bolded: With a few exceptions (ie. the guy throwing his bike through the window cannot possibly have been unaware he was breaking the law), I agree. I simply think a slightly different version of events than you is more likely.

Anyways, I have to go home.

My point is not (and has never been) that we can rule out blame for anyone. I just find it highly likely that this woman was caught in a situation where she didn't know what to do and her nervousness was perceived as "aggressive driving" by cyclists already geared up to see just that. She probably did bump someone - maybe even knocking him off his bicycle - and things escalated from there. She may have noticed, she might not have - I find it more likely that she didn't, others can disagree. But I doubt anyone calmly tried to inform her either. I think the violence probably started fairly quickly, and with mob mentality being what it is - many might have been cheering on actions they now describe as that of a "hooligan."

I highly doubt we'll see any real charges coming out of this. If the police find that the woman most likely did strike a cyclist, the DA likely won't charge her because a conviction would be highly unlikely. If the police find that the cyclists were most at fault, well, no one knows precisely who they were - so nothing to do there either. Hopefully for the woman, her insurance will cover the damages.

I don't see it as legally justified either, anymore than I would see it as legally justified if I saw you litter on the highway and rammed into your car with mine.

The law says what applies and how I must act. I believe you're not entirely wrong here, as the crime goes up, you're allowance tends to as well. Most of this isn't codified, but if you witnessed a felony, like saying a hit-and-run, then you'd be pretty damn justified. More importantly if you witnessed a car still moving forward toward other people in its path, you could actually ram that car and be legally justified.

As you can see, the police are investigating because it's actually possible for this to be legally justified. Your claim that it's not really doesn't change the law or its effect.

Or,

3. Allow citizens to intervene reasonably, with a reasonable level of force - in other words, force that is necessary. Those who use an unreasonable level of force can be prosecuted.

They aren't trained to execute a reasonable level of force and they are involved in a situation they aren't trained for. If we talk about unreasonable force, you'd prosecute almost everyone who ever intervenes. Very few people have the training I do and can confidently disable someone without hurting them. Most people are going to use as much force as they can muster until the person is subdued.


Of course, IIRC, this is pretty much what we have. It's exactly the same reason that I couldn't bonk you over the head or ram your car with my car for littering. That would be unreasonable force.

If the lady had rammed into and seriously injured someone and then tried to drive off, then I could see a great deal of force being used to stop her. If she bumped someone - something she may or may not have been aware of, much calmer measures are in order. Not to mention the fact that taking down her license plate and calling it in would have been much, much safer for all people involved.

To the bolded: With a few exceptions (ie. the guy throwing his bike through the window cannot possibly have been unaware he was breaking the law), I agree. I simply think a slightly different version of events than you is more likely.

Yes, and it's more than likely that many of the people who were reacting were not sure if she'd injured anyone.

Here, let me give you an example and you tell me what would be justified. Is this what happened? Well, it's possible. I wouldn't say it's the most likely scenario.

A bunch of cyclists are riding on the roadway. Obeying signals or not is really irrelevant, but for the sake of you not bringing it up like it is, they are obeying all traffic laws.

You pull onto the roadway in the middle of our group. You see a bunch of people you don't think should be taking up the road. You enter the lane with bicycles already in it, as vehicles commonly do, and you follow too closely behind a bicycle you don't think should be there in the first place.

You're looking around at the other cycles, nervous and annoyed. While you're looking to the side a bicycle in front of you stops at the intersection and you hit the cyclist. The person jumps away but the bike goes under your van.

People hear the collision and start yelling at her to stop, but she doesn't. They can see the bike underneath her vehicle but cannot see their friend on the other side of the van and as such thing she is running them over.

They start beating the hell out of her car. One of them throws his cycle at the rear window and breaks it. They are clearly angry but they believe she has just hit their friend and is not stopping. They are alos frightened for their friend.

In a few moments, the car is beat up, she's only traveled perhaps a foot or two and the bike gets pulled out from under the vehicle and they continue to argue utnil the police arrive. The family is terrified the bikers are angry.

Both sides feel the other side is wrong. One side most certainly witnessed a woman strike a bike and not stop.

Would the damage to her vehicle be legally justified? Would it be completely unreasonable?

And again, I'm not claiming this is what happened. It's just one of many possiblities.

Is this scenario impossible? Nope. It's it unlikely? Well, it's probably not the most likely scenario, but it's not really unlikely. Do we know if it happened this way or not? Nope. As such claiming we know one side or the other is wrong is assuming facts not in evidence. And their friend may not have been seriously injured but when most of this occurred it's completely likely that they thought their friend or friends were in the process of being injured.

The law says what applies and how I must act. I believe you're not entirely wrong here, as the crime goes up, you're allowance tends to as well. Most of this isn't codified, but if you witnessed a felony, like saying a hit-and-run, then you'd be pretty damn justified. More importantly if you witnessed a car still moving forward toward other people in its path, you could actually ram that car and be legally justified.

As you can see, the police are investigating because it's actually possible for this to be legally justified. Your claim that it's not really doesn't change the law or its effect.

My interpretation of the law may be different from someone else's. I've never claimed otherwise.

They aren't trained to execute a reasonable level of force and they are involved in a situation they aren't trained for. If we talk about unreasonable force, you'd prosecute almost everyone who ever intervenes. Very few people have the training I do and can confidently disable someone without hurting them. Most people are going to use as much force as they can muster until the person is subdued.

Reasonable force has little to do with training. It has to do with the amount of force a reasonable person would think was necessary in a given situation. And, of course, the line of what is reasonable or not gets fuzzier as you get to stranger situations and less clear ones. Hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat because they littered on the street is pretty obviously beyond reasonable. But hitting them with it because they are in the midst of beating up or attempting to rape someone? I'd call that reasonable, and I think many would agree with me, particularly if the person doing it is relatively small. But then - hitting someone with a bat with no warning when they are robbing cars? That may seem fuzzier, but I'd say it's over-the-top.

*snip*

All of that is very possible. I can't that one could actually run over a bicycle and not be aware of it, but I suppose it is possible in the midst of a lot of confusion. And, if that were the actual case, then I could see quite a bit of damage occurring to the car simply because people were trying to get her to stop in a hurry and thus would beat on the car to get her attention (I still don't see where ramming the vehicle with a bicycle would be very productive, though).

But none of the evidence that we do have points to the idea of her running over a bicycle. At most, the statement is made that it was wedged under the vehicle, which (to me at least) would refer to being partially under the vehicle and then pulled out.

Like I said before, I was listing what I think to be the most likely occurrence. I could very well be wrong (and I'm almost certainly wrong on at least some part).

My interpretation of the law may be different from someone else's. I've never claimed otherwise.

Reasonable force has little to do with training. It has to do with the amount of force a reasonable person would think was necessary in a given situation.

Yes, the problem is, however, that most people are not reasonable in dangerous situations. Military training is completely about teaching people to continue to reason during such situations. The flight or flight response actually makes it really difficult to control yourself. It takes training to overcome it. Mob violence is as much a part of this response and getting caught up in the excitement as it is a mob mentality.


And, of course, the line of what is reasonable or not gets fuzzier as you get to stranger situations and less clear ones.

Yes, of course, this is precisely why training becomes important.


Hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat because they littered on the street is pretty obviously beyond reasonable. But hitting them with it because they are in the midst of beating up or attempting to rape someone? I'd call that reasonable, and I think many would agree with me, particularly if the person doing it is relatively small. But then - hitting someone with a bat with no warning when they are robbing cars? That may seem fuzzier, but I'd say it's over-the-top.

By law, it's not fuzzy. The potential for them to be armed is there so if they are burglarizing cars, you'd be justified. The chief of police in Urbana, IL, said he was surprised I didn't hurt the guy. He also said they couldn't tie him to anything other than the three sites he'd hit that night, but that there'd been a rash of incidents that ended when I captured him. He was completely uninjured though he claimed I punched him repeatedly in the face. The response of the officers on the scene is that I could blindsided him and hospitalized him and it would have been legal.


All of that is very possible. I can't that one could actually run over a bicycle and not be aware of it, but I suppose it is possible in the midst of a lot of confusion. And, if that were the actual case, then I could see quite a bit of damage occurring to the car simply because people were trying to get her to stop in a hurry and thus would beat on the car to get her attention (I still don't see where ramming the vehicle with a bicycle would be very productive, though).

That last bit is exactly what you'd expect from people in a position they are not trained to deal with. They don't calmly think, what can I do that will ACTUALLY stop this car. They just start acting and hoping that she'll stop. The law protects them, because they may very well have been simply trying to keep her from killing someone.

Now it's also quite possible they were just really angry and acting on it. However, is she hit one of them, the benefit of the doubt goes to them.


But none of the evidence that we do have points to the idea of her running over a bicycle. At most, the statement is made that it was wedged under the vehicle, which (to me at least) would refer to being partially under the vehicle and then pulled out.

Yes, I'm not talking about her running it over. I'm talking about it being wedged and them seeing it sticking out from under the vehicle. It is a reasonable thought for them to think that this was because the rider was with it.


Like I said before, I was listing what I think to be the most likely occurrence. I could very well be wrong (and I'm almost certainly wrong on at least some part).

I really don't think the most likely scenario is that she is innocent here. I think the most likely scenario is that they share fault. That she'd acted stupidly and so had they. That's the unfortunate occurance far to often in these kinds of situations and the ONLY solution is education. In unfamiliar situations people act badly. Most bicyclists don't know thier responsibilities as a vehicle because they are not required to learn and most motorists don't know how to handle cycles because they are not required to learn. Conduct a test. Ask people you know if they can share a lane with a bicycle riding along on the outer edge of the road. Ask people if they have to treat a bicylce or a motorcycle like its a car. Ask people if a bicycle has to obey all traffic signals including a no turn on red sign.