cyclist shoots motorist

[Bill Meredith]

[email protected] (R15757) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Bill Meredith << if it had look like she was going for a gun or knife, I would had kill her. >>
>
> You should be more of a man than to have to shoot a woman with a knife. Maybe carrying your little
> gun around all over the place is making you soft.
>
> Robert

Hmm as any cop will tell you a knife at close range can be more of a deadly weapon then a gun and
she was in my face.

Bill Meredith

 

[Bill Meredith]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Bill Meredith) wrote:
>
> >Hell, I was in a parking lot one day with my 80 year old mother, when a young woman lost it,
> >because I had bump her car with a shopping cart. She got right into my face and told me that she
> >was going to kill me and that she was going to follow me home and kill me.
>
> The proper thing to do would be to just have you pay to fix her car. You can't do that if you're
> dead - she clearly wasn't thinking ahead!

Given that there was no harm done to her car, it would had been hard for me to offer to pay
her<grin>.

The girl was just off the wall, for some reason.

Bill Meredith

>
> Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> 10 Feb 2004 00:22:40 -0800, <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> (Bill Meredith) wrote:
>
> >Oh there are some ongoing crimes, that you are allow to used a gun to stop, such as rape or car
> >jacking.
>
> WTF! I love that. It makes the car as sacrosanct as your person and more valuable than the life of
> the car thief. SICK _ SICK _ SICK

Car-jacking is not the same as car theft; it's an armed robbery, where the victims are frequently
injured or killed.

...

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

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

>A carjacker isn't just a "car thief". He's a robber, almost always an *armed robber*, that is
>willing to take your property from your person by threat or use of deadly force. Damn right his
>life is worth less than his innocent victim's. His actions make it so.

I always considered getting killed by the victim an occupational hazard of being a thief/robber. If
they don't like the odds, they should take up some other line of work.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Jym Dyer]

> Guys a verbal threat to do you harm is not enough reason to allow you to open fire on
> another human.

=v= True, but though we know very few facts about the case, we do know that the motorist "drove
towards" the bicyclist, which is a considerable escalation over verbal threatening.

=v= And BTW, a nonverbal gesture is not enough reason to drive a truck towards another human. <_Jym_

 

[Rick Onanian]

On 11 Feb 2004 05:44:01 GMT, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:
>He's a robber, almost always an *armed robber*, that is willing to take your property from your
>person by threat or use of deadly force. Damn right his life is worth less than his innocent
>victim's. His actions make it so.

For that matter, I'd say his life is just plain worthless.
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:34:29 -0800, Zoot Katz
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Bill Meredith) wrote:
>>Oh there are some ongoing crimes, that you are allow to used a gun to stop, such as rape or car
>>jacking.
>
>WTF! I love that. It makes the car as sacrosanct as your person and more valuable than the life of
>the car thief. SICK _ SICK _ SICK

WTF! I love that. You make everything about cars. The law is tough on carjacking because of crimes
like this: http://www.seacoastonline.com/2000news/6_13_sb1.htm

The article doesn't go into gruesome detail about how the couple was murdered. They were on their
knees, backs to the carjackers, hands on their heads, begging for their lives when they were shot
from behind, IIRC. I suspect that many carjackings end in murders in remote areas.

It was a terrible thing, to think that could have been me and my girlfriend. It makes me wish that
the driver had a gun; he probably would still have been killed, but at least he would have had a
fighting chance, and maybe he would have destroyed one of those useless scumbags.
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Steven M. O'Nei]

Hunrobe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Steven M. O'Neill) > >wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>--snip--
>
>Why do you think the two statements are mutually exclusive? 1- I flip you the bird. 2- You take
>exception to that, call me a name, and tell me to get off the road. 3- I react by shooting you.

I was taking exception to the fact that the article states that the altercation began at one point,
but the cyclist says it started somewhere else.

>>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.
>
>--snip--
>
>No, it's only a crime if you actually *do* it. Does anyone honestly believe that if Nicoletti (the
>driver) had threatened to use his vehicle as a weapon to inflict bodily harm on Urick (the cyclist)
>that Urick would have failed to mention that when asked why he shot Nocoletti but would instead say
>in essence, "He was rude to me so I shot him."?
>
>>(Or maybe the cyclist just went nuts for no reason -- I wasn't there.)
>>
>I wasn't there either but given the barest of facts contained in the article I'm inclined to
>believe two things: This is a case of two knotheads meeting. Their modes of transportation have
>nothing to do with their status as knotheads.

Like I said, I wasn't there. And, I don't trust the news reportage as to what happened, since it
starts off obviously biased towards the motorist. So for all I know, the guy was driving the truck
in a menacing way. Or not. But I'll probably never know what really happened.

--
Steven O'Neill [email protected]

 

[Bill Meredith]

"Jacques Moser" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[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
> >
> > 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

Well Jacques, fro myself, there are some high crime areas that I had need to bike through from time
to time, where other cyclists, in the past, had been bikejack instead of carjack.

Never had any concern about dogs, it the animal on two legs, that is the real danger.

Bill Meredith

 

[Bill Meredith]

Zippy the Pinhead <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 11 Feb 2004 01:10:37 GMT, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:
>
> >I wasn't there either but given the barest of facts contained in the article I'm inclined to
> >believe two things: This is a case of two knotheads meeting. Their modes of transportation have
> >nothing to do with their status as knotheads.
>
> This cuts right to the essence of the matter.
>
> About the shooting -- even if the shooter had been carrying legally (I gather he wasn't), he
> screwed up before he ever drew the weapon.
>
> At least in my state, you must be an "unwilling participant" in an altercation that escalates to
> the necessity to use lethal force. Flipping the bird pretty much blows that. You must have made an
> effort to retreat, or strongly considered such an action and made a reasonable decision not to do
> so. Bikes can go where cars can't; though I don't know where this happened, hopping the curb or
> doing a 180 and riding the wrong way for half a block to lose the turd merchant would have been a
> reasonable option to drawing, much less using, the gun.
>
> My own firearm has stayed in the holster except for cleaning and a lot of practice at the range,
> and God willing that will always be the case. And I have retreated from such encounters in which I
> have been an unwilling participant in unprovoked violence.

I to had found that when I am carrying, I am far more peaceful and willing to retreat, then I would
be otherwise.

Bill Meredith

 

[Bill Meredith]

[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> David Reuteler <[email protected]> writes:
> > Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >:
> >: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:35:43 +0100, "Jacques Moser" <[email protected]>
> >: from Bluewin AG wrote:
> >:
> >:>Why the &%! would anyone need to carry a _gun_ on a bike ?
> >:
> >: To compensate for a small **** or other feelings of inadequacy.
> >
> > i'm curious as to how you would use your **** in that situation?
>
> Ever see the scene in 'Oklahoma Crude', where George C. Scott pees on the shoes of shotgun-
> wielding Jack Palance?
>
> Jack Palance -- now /there's/ a guy who can do The Look.
>
>
> cheers, Tom

I had a friend in high school that once bend over and dared a man to shot him with a shotgun in
the rear end.

Luckly for him the shotgun shell contain birdshot, but it was still a long long time before the man
could eat setting down.

Bill Meredith

 

[Q.]

"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote

> >This country is not perfect (far from it), but it's still the best situation
that
> >ever existed ...
>
> That's your story and you're stuck with it, dupe.

There are plenty of places in the world for you to live if you don't like America ... places without
"hillbillies in pickup trucks" and where armed robbers are allowed to roam the streets unopposed.
Try Angola.

Perhaps you and Mike Vandeman can room together.

C.Q.C.

 

[Q.]

"Jym Dyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Guys a verbal threat to do you harm is not enough reason to allow you to open fire on another
> > human.
>
> =v= True, but though we know very few facts about the case, we do know that the motorist "drove
> towards" the bicyclist, which is a considerable escalation over verbal threatening.
>
> =v= And BTW, a nonverbal gesture is not enough reason to drive a truck towards another human.

No, but as far as I'm concerned a "non verbal gesture" is an invitation to a conversation. On more
than one occasion I've stopped and had a "discussion" with some rude *****. If they don't want a
confrontation, don't start one.

C.Q.C.

 

[David Reuteler]

Q. <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
: No, but as far as I'm concerned a "non verbal gesture" is an invitation to a conversation. On more
: than one occasion I've stopped and had a "discussion" with some rude *****. If they don't want a
: confrontation, don't start one.

well, you're right but what's your point? flipping someone off isn't an open invite for them to try
and kick your ass or run you off the road. it is *NOT* any manner of assault nor does it even begin
to approximate it. so he flipped him off. so what? every time i've flipped someone off i've had
pretty good reason. sometimes we have a "discussion" .. usually they flip me off and drive away.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> writes:

> Perhaps you and M*** V******* can room together.

I implore you, please don't utter that accursed name in here. It attracts him.

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Bill Meredith) writes:

> I had a friend in high school that once bend over and dared a man to shot him with a shotgun in
> the rear end.

Let me guess -- neither of these erudites were elected valedictorian, where they? I hope this
practice didn't catch on and become a local custom.

> Luckly for him the shotgun shell contain birdshot, but it was still a long long time before the
> man could eat setting down.

Many folks favor rock salt for ass shooting. I hear rice works pretty good, too.

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

 

[Jacques Moser]

> The girl was just off the wall, for some reason.
>
> Bill Meredith
>
>

Had she come by bike she would have been more relaxed and wouldn't have got a car to worry about.

 

[Jacques Moser]

> There are plenty of places in the world for you to live if you don't like America ... places
> without "hillbillies in pickup trucks" and where armed robbers are allowed to roam the streets
> unopposed. Try Angola.
>

There are plenty of places in the world where it is very, very unusual to carry any kind of gun, and
which are much safer than the US. Angola is no fair comparison as Angola probably has no proper
police to enforce law.

Your position as an NRA member doesn't make sense to me. You make it clear that this guy Urick
should "rot just for having an illegal handgun"; yet (as an NRA member I assume you do) you fight
again gun control, while said gun control could prevent Ulrick from carry _his_ gun but let _you_
have any number of guns since you are probably a decent guy with no criminal history. You advocate
guns as a way to protect yourself against... all these guns that freely circulate in the country.
Sure, there may be situations where carrying a gun will save your life; but there will be more
situations where temptation to use your gun will lead to escalation and actual use of guns from
both parties.

As a Swiss citizen I _had_ to keep my military gun (a Weapon of Mass Demotivation) at home
during 20 years.I was released from the army last fall and could finally return the gun. It was
a great relief.

Jacques

 

[Jacques Moser]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:26:13 +0000, Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Perhaps you and M*** V******* can room together.
>
> I implore you, please don't utter that accursed name in here. It attracts him.

By the way, it's been some time since last appearance, hasn't it ?

 

[Bestest Handsan]

Your position makes one HUGE assumption... a law prevents people from having a gun. A law does not
prevent someone from doing anything. It simply provides intimidation before the act and punishment
afterwards. If a person decides to risk it... a law won't stop him. Gun control laws to not prevent
everyone from having a gun; they prevent people who obey laws from having guns because... well, they
obey laws!

I understand him to be saying (and pardon me if I'm putting words in his mouth) this guy was
breaking the law. He should face the consequence. The NRA's official position as an organization is
"enforcement of reasonable gun laws", although I'm sure the position of individual members covers
the spectrum. Confiscation is not a reasonable gun law. Why?

Your position seems rooted in the typical European view of the roll of government as caretaker ("let
the police handle it"). In order for that to happen people must surrender their right to take care
of themselves and give the resources they would have used for that purpose to the government. I
personally feel the government can't take care of me as well as I can. At least in the US the
government claims no responsibility to protect individuals. Lots of case law on that subject. For
instance... a woman in Washington DC was attacked in her home. She sued the police saying they
should have protected her. Court ruled that police protect society in general... NOT individuals, so
she couldn't sue them. Fine. I will accept the societal protection of the police but take the
personal responsibility to protect myself. Please don't take away the means for me to do so.

BTW... if you want to see what affect gun confiscation has one violent crime rates... just look at
Britain and Australia and what they have had to endure the last few years.

"Jacques Moser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> >
> > There are plenty of places in the world for you to live if you don't
like
> > America ... places without "hillbillies in pickup trucks" and where
armed
> > robbers are allowed to roam the streets unopposed. Try Angola.
> >
>
> There are plenty of places in the world where it is very, very unusual to carry any kind of gun,
> and which are much safer than the US. Angola is no fair comparison as Angola probably has no
> proper police to enforce law.
>
> Your position as an NRA member doesn't make sense to me. You make it clear that this guy Urick
> should "rot just for having an illegal handgun"; yet (as an NRA member I assume you do) you fight
> again gun control, while said gun control could prevent Ulrick from carry _his_ gun but let _you_
> have any number of guns since you are probably a decent guy with no criminal history.