cyclist shoots motorist

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:07:32 -0600, Zippy the Pinhead
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >I've quite forgotten. WTF were we talking about?

    Anything other than bicycles.
    --
    Rick Onanian
     


  2. On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:27:56 -0500, Rick Onanian <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:07:32 -0600, Zippy the Pinhead <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>I've quite forgotten. WTF were we talking about?
    >
    >Anything other than bicycles.

    Oh -- yeah. Thanks.
     
  3. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:43:50 -0600, Zippy the Pinhead
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >And you have a funny way of spelling "Kevin".

    I don't think so; I always read it "kev-ann". Is it supposed to be phonetically identical
    to "kevin"?
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  4. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:43:50 -0600, Zippy the Pinhead
    <[email protected]> from Xavier Onassis Associates wrote:

    >On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:44:16 -0600, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>>So you do, indeed, hate us because we're free?
    >>
    >>You have an apt nym.
    >
    >Ooooh. Good one. You're a master debater, ain't ya?

    And I'm real good at putting worms on hooks, too.

    >And you have a funny way of spelling "Kevin".

    I didn't choose it.

    --
    [email protected]
    Don't be frightened of cliches.
    2
     
  5. Robin Hubert

    Robin Hubert Guest

    "Hunrobe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >Zoot Katz [email protected]
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Huh?
    > >
    > >After he was threatened with bodily harm by the driver turning around and driving toward him with
    > >a pickup truck.
    > >
    > >The truck had to have stopped so he, the driver, could further escalate the situation. It's not
    > >as if the cyclist chased him down to shoot him.
    >
    > Yes, the cyclist was probably shaking in fear as he stood at that truck's door, gave the driver
    > five seconds to get out of the truck, and then shot
    the
    > driver through the open window. Twist it any way you like. Assume all kinds of facts not in
    > evidence. When
    all
    > of your self-righteous outraged assumptions are over and done the only
    thing
    > any of us can say without fear of contradiction by the *facts* is this: The cyclist was knothead #
    > 1. The driver was knothead # 2. Knothead # 1
    shot
    > knothead # 2. Knothead # 1 went to jail.
    >

    Maybe someone was tired of being a victim, kinda like those who suffer spousal abuse.
    Sometimes people crack. As a cyclist, I empathize (though ultimately a totally boneheaded move
    on part of cyclist).

    I must say, though, I believe the world would be safer if one would assume everyone is capable of
    killing you with a gun or other weapon. I assume that my life is in danger *any* time someone wants
    to fight with me, or acts aggressively with a dangerous weapon (automobile), and I let them know I'm
    not in for a fight. I *will* be defending my life, and acting accordingly.

    Robin Hubert
     
  6. I think I'll use that as my sig line. Whatta all think?

    "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > "Hunrobe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Or in the immortal words of the eloquent Zoot Katz:
    >
    > "Substantiate that assertion with data or shove it up your ass."
    >
    > C.Q.C.
     
  7. Steve wrote (edited for relevance):

    >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.

    Actually, it is a crime: Assault, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to kill.
    vehicular manslaughter (attempted)...

    "May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills!"

    Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

    Chris'Z Corner http://www.geocities.com/czcorner
     
  8. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    13 Feb 2004 06:34:58 GMT,
    <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote:

    >Twist it any way you like. Assume all kinds of facts not in evidence.

    "Nicoletti said he turned his truck around and drove toward Urick"

    By his own admission he went out of his way to threaten Urick's life with a deadly weapon because
    the guy saluted him. 'Nobody gives ME the finger'

    Knothead #1 is going to walk because he's a driver (probably a church going family man and proud
    veteran by the time it gets to court) and the whole shitsucking system is weighted in favour of
    drivers. Knothead #2 was an easy bust.
    --
    zk
     
  9. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

  10. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    Fri, 13 Feb 2004 04:05:42 -0500, <[email protected]>,
    "Q." <LostVideos-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Just because most people that meet you end up hating your guts, doesn't mean they're hostile
    >towards cyclists. It simply means you're an @$$hole.

    Go tinkle.
    --
    zk
     
  11. jhuskey

    jhuskey Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Messages:
    10,605
    Likes Received:
    339
    You guys just don't get it!
    Anyone who tells me no is rude.
    Anyone who disagrees with me is a Dumba**
    Anyone who drives slower than me is a stupid moron with thier head up thier butt
    Anyone who drives faster is a suicidal maniac
    Anyone who has one more beer than I do is an alcoholic
    Anyone who wants sex one more time than I do is a nymphomaniac
    Anyone that has sex once more than me is a *****
    And anyone who is a better cyclist than me just plain sucks!
    If I left anything out I am not sorry!
     
  12. Chris Zacho "The Wheelman" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Steve wrote (edited for relevance):
    >
    >>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.
    >
    >Actually, it is a crime: Assault, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to kill.
    >vehicular manslaughter (attempted)...

    Tell it to the police.

    --
    Steven O'Neill [email protected]
     
  13. "jhuskey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Zoot Katz wrote:

    Snip

    >
    > You guys just don't get it! Anyone who tells me no is rude. Anyone who disagrees with me is a
    > Dumba** Anyone who drives slower than me is a stupid moron with thier head up thier butt Anyone
    > who drives faster is a suicidal maniac Anyone who has one more beer than I do is an alcoholic
    >
    >
    > And anyone who is a better cyclist than me just plain sucks! If I left anything out I am
    > not sorry!

    How about... anyone who is uglier than me is a loser, and anyone who is better looking than me
    is gay. :)
     
  14. jhuskey

    jhuskey Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    Messages:
    10,605
    Likes Received:
    339
    I'll accept that!
     
  15. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:21:44 -0800, Zoot Katz
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >"Nicoletti said he turned his truck around and drove toward Urick"
    >
    >By his own admission he went out of his way to threaten Urick's life with a deadly weapon because
    >the guy saluted him.

    I don't know the context; I haven't bothered to pay too much attention to the serious portions of
    this thread. That quote, however, doesn't say "drove at urick", it says _toward_. The language used
    most commonly implies that he used the truck as transportation to get to the bicyclist -- at which
    point, we don't know what he'd do.

    Okay, in fact, I just read http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-02092004-243243.html

    Apparently, the driver drove back to the cyclist and stopped to talk. The cyclist didn't shoot at
    the moving vehicle, so he couldn't even have thought he was about to be run over. The cyclist
    proceeded to reach into the stopped truck and shoot the driver.

    >Knothead #1 is going to walk because he's a driver (probably a church going family man and proud
    >veteran by the time it gets to court) and the whole shitsucking system is weighted in favour of
    >drivers. Knothead #2 was an easy bust.

    So, the guy who got shot shouldn't walk (for his crime of offending a cyclist and then going back to
    talk/argue about it), but the guy who didn't get hurt should walk (for his attempted murder)?

    Personally, if _anybody_ shoots me (especially point blanc and premeditated like that), and I have
    _any_ form of weapon (truck, gun, pneumatic nailer, whatever) available, you can bet I'd do a lot
    more than "ram him off his <insert transportation here>". Knothead
    #1 must have had great restraint to avoid repeatedly running over
    Knothead #2.

    Knothead #2 gets off easy to retain his life after so directly attempting to kill Knothead #1.

    It might have been good for Knothead #1 to have gotten killed. Then, Knothead #2 would definitely be
    in jail a moderately long time. Our society could use some culling.

    ..."One is in the morgue and the other's in jail. One got wasted and the other's a waste"...
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  16. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    Fri, 13 Feb 2004 18:05:42 GMT,
    <[email protected]>, jhuskey
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >You guys just don't get it!

    The point piddlewits missed was that there is no way to prove his claim that a driver is going to
    willfully endanger cyclist B because cyclist A jumped a curb, flipped them off, ran a stop, filtered
    ahead at a light or any one of a number of other things that tends to knot driver's knickers. It's a
    paranoid delusion without basis in reality and a myth propagated by idiots.

    I just called him on his bullshit.
    --
    zk
     
  17. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:33:04 -0500,
    <[email protected]>, Rick Onanian
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Apparently, the driver drove back to the cyclist and stopped to talk.

    IOW, created the situation he could have avoided by shrugging off the salute he deserved after
    verbally accosting the cyclist.

    Go play in traffic, you apologist buttkisser.
    --
    zk
     
  18. S O R N I

    S O R N I Guest

    Zoot Katz wrote:
    > Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:33:04 -0500, <[email protected]>, Rick Onanian
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Apparently, the driver drove back to the cyclist and stopped to talk.
    >
    > IOW, created the situation he could have avoided by shrugging off the salute he deserved after
    > verbally accosting the cyclist.
    >
    > Go play in traffic, you apologist buttkisser.

    Umm, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't someone say that the cyclist was only riding because he'd
    had his license to drive pulled for a number of road-rage-related incidents?

    Bill "two flakes make a blizzard" S.
     
  19. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:57:20 GMT,
    <[email protected]>, "S o r n i"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Umm, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't someone say that the cyclist was only riding because he'd
    >had his license to drive pulled for a number of road-rage-related incidents?

    Yeah piddlewits pulled something like that out of his butt.

    Message-ID: <[email protected]> "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, ..."
    --
    zk
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...