cyclist shoots motorist

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Steven M. O'Nei, Feb 9, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 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]
     
    Tags:


  2. 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]
     
  3. John

    John Guest

  4. Chris B .

    Chris B . Guest

    On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:12:19 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (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."

    Yeah, sure it did.
     
  5. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    Mon, 9 Feb 2004 23:12:19 +0000 (UTC),
    <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Steven M. O'Neill)
    wrote:

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

    He blew it by not shooting out the tires first.
    --
    zk
     
  6. Rex Vincere

    Rex Vincere Guest

    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]
     
  7. [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
     
  8. Q.

    Q. Guest

    "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.
     
  9. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    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.
     
  10. Doug Huffman

    Doug Huffman Guest

    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.
    |
    |
     
  11. 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...
     
  12. Jym Dyer

    Jym Dyer Guest

    =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_
     
  13. Jym Dyer

    Jym Dyer Guest

    > There was a rather long discussion about this at Fark.com today
    > http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=826542

    =v= Great. Yet another batch of ranting online idiots. Sometimes I wish whatsisname* never invented
    the Internet. <_Jym_>

    ________________________________________________________________
    * Insert Al Gore joke here.
     
  14. Buck

    Buck Guest

    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]
     
  15. Q.

    Q. Guest

    "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.
     
  16. 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
     
  17. Tom Keats

    Tom Keats Guest

    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
     
  18. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

  19. "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! :)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...