cyclist shoots motorist

  • Thread starter Steven M. O'Nei
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steven M. O'Nei

Guest
Re: "Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver"
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-02092004-243243.html

The article states "A bicyclist shot a motorist in the arm during an altercation that began when the
man on the bike made an obscene gesture, police said."

Later on, the same article says "According to police, Urick told them he reacted as he did because
Nicoletti told him to get off the road."

So which is it? Sounds like the motorist could have easily threatened the cyclist with bodily harm
first -- but of course it's only a crime if you do it with a gun, and not with a car.

(Or maybe the cyclist just went nuts for no reason -- I wasn't there.)

Steve
--
Steven O'Neill [email protected]
 
Everything else aside...

If you lawfully carry a gun and with today's laws, you're really only allowed to shoot (in many
states even display) your gun if:

1. The person has clearly demonstrated intent to harm you. This can be verbal such as... " I intend
to kill you or do you serious bodily harm." The driver just may have done this.

2. The person is in a position to do you harm. We're talking location here. If he's 100 yards away
and has a knife, you better not shoot. The driver was just sitting in his car.

3. The person has the capability to harm you. Weapon, size, etc. The article makes no mention of
any weapon. No, I not stupid. The car could be a weapon, but not if it's pulled over to the side
of the road.

Let's go to the tape to see how this would work. You have grandma in a wheelchair ten feet away. She
has a knife.

Situation 1. Grandma yells, "You have disappointed me for the last time! I'm going to kill you!" She
raises the knife to plunge it into you chest and pushes the "GO" button on her motorized wheelchair,
but the battery is dead and the chair doesn't move. Do you shoot? NO! #2 from the above is missing.

Situation 2. Grandma yells, "You have disappointed me for the last time! I'm going to kill you!" She
pushes "Go" on her wheelchair and when she's in range, she begins to pummel you with her
osteoporosis bones under her vellum-like skin. Do you shoot? NO! #3 from the above is missing.

Situation 3. Grandma pushes "Go" on her wheelchair, comes toward you with a knife raised. Do you
shoot? NO! #1 from above is missing. She was just going to cut the tag off of that new shirt she
just gave you.

If you pull out your gun (much less discharge it) and any of the above three conditions are missing,
you better send out invitations because your about to become a prison bride to a large, hairy man
named "Tiny." Is that the way things should be? Ask the politicians. Should it be your responsiblity
to know these things if you choose to carry a gun? Damn right!

"Steven M. O'Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Re: "Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver" http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-02092004-
> 243243.html
>
> The article states "A bicyclist shot a motorist in the arm during an altercation that began when
> the man on the bike made an obscene gesture, police said."
>
> Later on, the same article says "According to police, Urick told them he reacted as he did because
> Nicoletti told him to get off the road."
>
> So which is it? Sounds like the motorist could have easily threatened the cyclist with bodily harm
> first -- but of course it's only a crime if you do it with a gun, and not with a car.
>
> (Or maybe the cyclist just went nuts for no reason -- I wasn't there.)
>
> Steve
> --
> Steven O'Neill [email protected]
 
I still say Glock ought to make handlebar mounts.

So is Weaver the best stance during a track stand?

"Steven M. O'Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Re: "Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver" http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-02092004-
> 243243.html
>
> The article states "A bicyclist shot a motorist in the arm during an altercation that began when
> the man on the bike made an obscene gesture, police said."
>
> Later on, the same article says "According to police, Urick told them he reacted as he did because
> Nicoletti told him to get off the road."
>
> So which is it? Sounds like the motorist could have easily threatened the cyclist with bodily harm
> first -- but of course it's only a crime if you do it with a gun, and not with a car.
>
> (Or maybe the cyclist just went nuts for no reason -- I wasn't there.)
>
> Steve
> --
> Steven O'Neill [email protected]
 
[email protected] (Steven M. O'Neill) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Re: "Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver" http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-02092004-
> 243243.html
>
> The article states "A bicyclist shot a motorist in the arm during an altercation that began when
> the man on the bike made an obscene gesture, police said."
>
> Later on, the same article says "According to police, Urick told them he reacted as he did because
> Nicoletti told him to get off the road."
>
> So which is it? Sounds like the motorist could have easily threatened the cyclist with bodily harm
> first -- but of course it's only a crime if you do it with a gun, and not with a car.

I am a Florida CC holder and under our state laws, the stituations where you can fire a gun, at some
one are rightly very narrow!

The only time, you can legally do so, is to stop yourself or others from being kill or gravely
injured, where you or others can not safety retreat from the situation.

If someone try to used a car to kill you but you are not in danger of harm at the moment you can not
fire a gun! IE if a car run you off the road you are not free to pull your gun out and open fire.
Now if he then turn the car in your direction afterward and you have no way of getting out of harm
way, then and only then can you fire at him or her. If you can however jump behind a barrier, you
are once more not free to fire a gun!

A person can try to murder you or your family and you can still end up behind bars yourself, if you
used a gun on him, except under very narrow conditions.

Oh there are some ongoing crimes, that you are allow to used a gun to stop, such as rape or car
jacking. The crimes have to be happening at the moment you fire the gun, if he is running from the
crime scene, you can not legally fire to stop him.

Of course under some situations you might be legally wrong and the state will not charge you, but
you are taking a large chance.

Bill Meredith


>
> (Or maybe the cyclist just went nuts for no reason -- I wasn't there.)
>
> Steve
 
"Steven M. O'Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Re: "Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver" http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-02092004-
> 243243.html
<snip>

All the facts have yet to come out but from what I've heard so far the guy riding the bike, Robert
Urick, was riding a bike because he had his drivers license revoked, and is being charged with
illegal possession of a firearm. Sounds like a real winner to me.

As a life member of the N.R.A., I hope this guy rots just for having an illegal handgun. Gun control
would work great if they started with the bad guys *sigh*.

Riding a bike, and being a looser are not mutually exclusive.

C.Q.C.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> [email protected] (Steven M. O'Neill) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Re: "Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver" http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-02092004-
> > 243243.html
> >
> > The article states "A bicyclist shot a motorist in the arm during an altercation that began when
> > the man on the bike made an obscene gesture, police said."
> >
> > Later on, the same article says "According to police, Urick told them he reacted as he did
> > because Nicoletti told him to get off the road."
> >
> > So which is it? Sounds like the motorist could have easily threatened the cyclist with bodily
> > harm first -- but of course it's only a crime if you do it with a gun, and not with a car.
>
> I am a Florida CC holder and under our state laws, the stituations where you can fire a gun, at
> some one are rightly very narrow!
>
> The only time, you can legally do so, is to stop yourself or others from being kill or gravely
> injured, where you or others can not safety retreat from the situation.
>
> If someone try to used a car to kill you but you are not in danger of harm at the moment you can
> not fire a gun! IE if a car run you off the road you are not free to pull your gun out and open
> fire. Now if he then turn the car in your direction afterward and you have no way of getting out
> of harm way, then and only then can you fire at him or her. If you can however jump behind a
> barrier, you are once more not free to fire a gun!
>
> A person can try to murder you or your family and you can still end up behind bars yourself, if
> you used a gun on him, except under very narrow conditions.
>
> Oh there are some ongoing crimes, that you are allow to used a gun to stop, such as rape or car
> jacking. The crimes have to be happening at the moment you fire the gun, if he is running from the
> crime scene, you can not legally fire to stop him.
>
> Of course under some situations you might be legally wrong and the state will not charge you, but
> you are taking a large chance.

In some states, they also add the proviso that if someone has broken into your house while you are
home, they are presumed to be intending to harm you, and you can legally shoot them. But you better
not get them in the back. Other states are more like FL, where there has to be an imminent threat.

....

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
 
So the National Reasonable-regulation Ass and its 'members' decide whose Rights are infringed? We
flee tyrants. We depose tyrants. And we grow our own.

The 'gun' is not illegal but possession by this individual was. This is the agenda of the NR-rAss -
to make felon of all but their friends and legally disarm us.

Gun control is not missing your target - philosophical or physical. The conspiracy of ignorance
masquerades as common sense.

"Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| "Steven M. O'Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| > Re: "Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver" http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-02092004-
| > 243243.html
| <snip>
|
| All the facts have yet to come out but from what I've heard so far the guy riding the bike, Robert
| Urick, was riding a bike because he had his
drivers
| license revoked, and is being charged with illegal possession of a
firearm.
| Sounds like a real winner to me.
|
| As a life member of the N.R.A., I hope this guy rots just for having an illegal handgun. Gun
| control would work great if they started with the
bad
| guys *sigh*.
|
| Riding a bike, and being a looser are not mutually exclusive.
|
| C.Q.C.
|
|
 
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 21:31:15 -0700, "Bestest Handsander" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Situation 1. Grandma yells, "You have disappointed me for the last time! I'm going to kill you!"
>She raises the knife to plunge it into you chest and pushes the "GO" button on her motorized
>wheelchair, but the battery is dead and the chair doesn't move. Do you shoot? NO! #2 from the above
>is missing.

YES! The wheelchair is probably a ruse to get you off-guard.
>
>Situation 2. Grandma yells, "You have disappointed me for the last time! I'm going to kill you!"
>She pushes "Go" on her wheelchair and when she's in range, she begins to pummel you with her
>osteoporosis bones under her vellum-like skin. Do you shoot? NO! #3 from the above is missing.

YES! We know from 1 that she's hiding a knife somewhere.

>Situation 3. Grandma pushes "Go" on her wheelchair, comes toward you with a knife raised. Do you
>shoot? NO! #1 from above is missing. She was just going to cut the tag off of that new shirt she
>just gave you.

YES! After 1 and 2, how can you trust this old woman?

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...
 
=v= I ain't taking sides one way or another, but I will point
out that the article's lead-in isn't particularly fair:

| ... an altercation that began when the man pedaling the bike made an obscene gesture, police said.

It's unfair because the bicyclist's version of events is that the confrontation began before that:
when the motorist told him to get off the road. (BTW, other versions of this AP story use the word
"confrontation" instead of "altercation.")

=v= Also unclear is whose deadly weapon was wielded first:

> Nicoletti said he turned his truck around and drove toward Urick ...

=v= Also, another story differs in some details:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04040/270970.stm

<_Jym_
 
The over riding fact is "In what state this happens" and who has the best lawyer....... maybe the
cyclist was just trying to shoot the cell phone out of his hand.

"Steven M. O'Neill" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Re: "Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver" http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-02092004-
> 243243.html
>
> The article states "A bicyclist shot a motorist in the arm during an altercation that began when
> the man on the bike made an obscene gesture, police said."
>
> Later on, the same article says "According to police, Urick told them he reacted as he did because
> Nicoletti told him to get off the road."
>
> So which is it? Sounds like the motorist could have easily threatened the cyclist with bodily harm
> first -- but of course it's only a crime if you do it with a gun, and not with a car.
>
> (Or maybe the cyclist just went nuts for no reason -- I wasn't there.)
>
> Steve
> --
> Steven O'Neill [email protected]
 
"Doug Huffman" <[email protected]> wrote

> So the National Reasonable-regulation Ass and its 'members' decide whose Rights are infringed?

When did I say that? It was just a way of saying that I'm pro second amendment, although I'm against
dunderheads and downright criminals possessing firearms.

>We flee tyrants. We depose tyrants. And we grow our own.

??? This is NOT Nazi Germany, or the USSR, or the Middle East. This country is not perfect (far from
it), but it's still the best situation that ever existed ... or are you just accusing *me* of being
a home grown tyrant?

> The 'gun' is not illegal but possession by this individual was.

You knew what I meant so there is no need to argue semantics. Whatever the case, he is being charged
with illegal possession of a firearm ... if he didn't know you had to be licensed to carry or
possess a handgun he was an idiot, if he did know he was committing a crime and still carried, he
was an idiot. We can argue about how crappy the "tyrannical" government is and all that ... but in
the end it sounds like this guy is just a plain old moron.

> This is the agenda of the NR-rAss - to make felon of all but their friends and legally disarm us.

Since when? It's the intention of the GOVERNMENT to disarm everyone by passing draconian laws. At
times it's unfortunate but that's how things work in the country. We are a nation built on laws.

The N.R.A. are just about the only ones who stand up for gun rights in this nation with the power to
do something about it. They fight against passage of unreasonable laws but once those laws are in
place we have to respect them. A lot of the laws are reasonable though ... I don't want convicted
child molesters possessing firearms legally, for example. I am *very* curious to find out why the
cyclist in this case had lost his drivers license.

I suspect when more information on this case comes to light we'll see that the shooter was just
another looser who couldn't fit in. Let's face it ... It's not that hard to keep a drivers license,
and the guy probably should have just let the driver get on his way without chucking the finger, but
nooooooo ... he was Mr. Tough Guy with his big bad gun and he wasn't going to back down from
anything. Those kind of people make us all look bad. He's lucky to still be alive.

> Gun control is not missing your target - philosophical or physical.

I agree, but more to the point; as a society trying to further civilization we must get away from
governing this nation through spewing political pap feed through the media, and start actually doing
something constructive. It will happen, it must happen, or we'll loose this war we're in now. This
whole war on terror is really a war between primitive ignorant society and modern civilization.

Gun control is often just a sound bite ... what it really embodies is the fear people have of
violence and a perception of controlling violence by passing (ineffective) laws. If "gun control" is
going to embrace what people actually want ... an end to violence in this society ... there will be
a lot of hard work ahead. It's not a simple as our dumb ass politicians make us believe.

> The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

That's a great catch phrase but what does it mean ... especially in this context? Is there really a
conspiracy going on, or are people just ignorant by choice?

I remember a great Non Sequitur cartoon with the character of "Obviousman". People were standing
around talking about how dumb the politicians are ... Obviousman asked them "Who played Mary Ann on
Gilligan's Island?" They were able to answer that ... then he asked them who their local politicians
were. They didn't know (but one remember voting for the "good looking guy"). Then he pointed out
that politicians represent the people.

Grandiose statements aside ... I think when this all boils down it will just be a case of a couple
of stupid $#!t heads going at it. There was probably no good reason for the cyclist to make "obscene
gestures", no good reason for the driver to turn around, and no good reason for the cyclist to pull
the trigger.

C.Q.C.
 
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:12:19 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:

> Re: "Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver" http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-02092004-
> 243243.html
>
> The article states "A bicyclist shot a motorist in the arm during an altercation that began when
> the man on the bike made an obscene gesture, police said."
>
> Later on, the same article says "According to police, Urick told them he reacted as he did because
> Nicoletti told him to get off the road."
>
> So which is it? Sounds like the motorist could have easily threatened the cyclist with bodily harm
> first -- but of course it's only a crime if you do it with a gun, and not with a car.
>
> (Or maybe the cyclist just went nuts for no reason -- I wasn't there.)
>
> Steve

Why the &%! would anyone need to carry a _gun_ on a bike ? To get rid of dogs, pepper spray
should suffice.

Jacques
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jacques Moser" <[email protected]> writes:

> Why the &%! would anyone need to carry a _gun_ on a bike ?

In case of disrespect, I guess. Got to teach those disrespecters a lesson. (I'm just being a little
sarcastic.)

> To get rid of dogs, pepper spray should suffice.

The few times I've been chased or followed by city dogs, I've just stopped. They stop too, sit down,
wag their tails and give me a puzzled look. I tell them how good looking they are, and they go away
happy. Maybe sometimes when dogs chase they're just lonely and want a little communication. I
understand rural dogs aren't necessarily so civilized. Good thing they don't carry guns. At least, I
hope they don't.

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca
 
"Jacques Moser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:12:19 +0000, Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>
> > Re: "Bicyclist charged with shooting at driver" http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-02092004-
> > 243243.html
> >
snip
>
> Why the &%! would anyone need to carry a _gun_ on a bike ? To get rid of dogs, pepper spray should
> suffice.
>
> Jacques

Well, obviously to shoot drivers who won't put down the cell phone and get out of the car! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.