It's not assault

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by RWD, Jan 14, 2006.

  1. I woulkd have asked them in return; "If I shoot at a cop and miss, would
    that also not be considered assault?"

    - -
    Comments and opinions compliments of,
    Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman

    My web Site:
    http://geocities.com/czcorner

    To E-mail me:
    ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net
     


  2. gds

    gds Guest

    Leo Lichtman wrote:
    > "Matt O'Toole" wrote: (clip) it's an assault. But unless there's evidence,
    > witnesses, etc., no police dept. can do anything for you. (clip)
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > Why wouldn't RWD be a witness? Suppose RWD had been shot at from a car, and
    > came in to the police withthe same info--description, license number, etc.
    > Would the response have been, "We can't do anything for you because they
    > missed?"


    If they missed aren't you the witness for them littering? At least they
    can be fined.
     
  3. The Wogster

    The Wogster Guest

    Collin O'Neill wrote:
    > The Wogster wrote:
    >
    >> [email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >>> For my part, I once had a beer can thrown at me by a passenger in a car
    >>> which was stopped for a red light at a busy intersection. It was easy
    >>> for me to note the make, model, and license plate number. I even
    >>> happened to have an empty plastic bag with me, and collected the
    >>> fingerprint-laden projectile. The police gave me the impression that no
    >>> civil crime had been committed (and, while I don't condone littering, I
    >>> was not concerned with getting this person cited for that). Ultimately,
    >>> I ended up not pursuing any legal action. It wasn't worth what it would
    >>> cost me in time or the protraction of the disturbance of my peace. Ride
    >>> on!
    >>>

    >>
    >> Don't forget they got Al Capone on tax evasion, so maybe getting the
    >> passenger cited for littering, will simply mean that next time he has
    >> a beer can to get rid of, he will dispose of it properly. Saving you
    >> the problem of getting in the way of the projectile.
    >>
    >> W

    >
    > Uh ... open container laws?


    Which is another way of getting them, if they have an empty beer can,
    they tossed out of their window, then they had an open container in
    their car, so the driver could be charged as well. Problem is that
    police have let such yahoos get away with it, for far too long.

    W
     
  4. Leo Lichtman

    Leo Lichtman Guest

    "gds" wrote: If they missed aren't you the witness for them littering?
    (clip)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Let me see whether I get this. Shooting at someone from a car could be
    prosecuted as "littering," because a bullet falls by the road somewhere?
     
  5. Bob

    Bob Guest

    willarch wrote:

    > I am puzzled.
    > I would like to know how the San Diego Police Force work out which
    > officer's turn it is to use the force's one shared brain cell today?


    This is something of a non sequitor since the OP said it was a
    dispatcher, not a police officer, that gave him the obviously bad
    information and most US police/fire dispatchers are civilians.

    > Here in the UK the threat of an assault is treated legally as an actual
    > physical assault.


    The *threat* is equal to the *act*? That seems a little hard to believe
    since it would undoubtedly result in "in for a penny, in for a pound"
    thinking by the assailant. Then again, maybe that's where that phrase
    originated. It is English, after all. <g>

    > The assailant obviously intended to cause harm, and
    > even though he/she missed this was an attack with intent to cause
    > injury. It should have been prosecuted.


    Agreed.

    > As for claiming that he didn't
    > see a clearly visible cyclist, this would be seen as an admission of
    > driving without due care and attention.


    Or just as likely, as proof that the cyclist *wasn't* "clearly visible.

    Regards,
    Bob Hunt
     
  6. In article <[email protected]>, willarch
    ([email protected]) wrote:
    >
    > Rich Wrote:
    > > RWD wrote:
    > >
    > > According to the San Diego Police Department, it's not a crime to
    > > throw
    > > a full quart-sized soda bottle from a moving vehicle at a cyclist as
    > > long as you miss.
    > >
    > > I'm really not surprised, as the motorist could simply argue "Cyclist?
    > > What cyclist? I didn't see any cyclist".
    > >
    > >
    > > I've had a can thrown at me twice in the last two years. Both times
    > > from what appeared to be the same car. It sucks that there's not
    > > much
    > > that can be done about it.
    > >
    > > Rich

    >
    > I am puzzled.
    > I would like to know how the San Diego Police Force work out which
    > officer's turn it is to use the force's one shared brain cell today?
    >
    > Here in the UK the threat of an assault is treated legally as an actual
    > physical assault. The assailant obviously intended to cause harm, and
    > even though he/she missed this was an attack with intent to cause
    > injury.


    (scratches head)

    How many times there been threads over on urc of the form "run-in with
    occupants of tine box, report made to Plod, Plod sucks teeth and says
    'sorry, Sir, nothing we can do'"?

    (Answer: a lot)

    --
    Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
    And then there was light and He thought it was good, so He threw the
    receipt away.
     
  7. Roy Zipris

    Roy Zipris Guest

    Here in PA, and I'm speaking as a criminal defense lawyer, this could
    be a simple assault (and possibly an aggravated assault, depending on
    the circumstances), a crime called "recklessly endangering another
    person" and possibly several other charges as well.

    The claim that the thrower did not see the cyclist could be a defense
    to the charges, but it does not mean that the alleged act does not fit
    the definitions of those crimes. That likelihood could, however, be a
    factor in the official decision to bring charges or not, although at
    that early stage the authorities wouldn't know that.

    To the OP, you might want to look into whether California has a
    "private" charging mechanism, which in PA, is called a "private
    criminal complaint." Regards, Roy Zipris
     
  8. Bob

    Bob Guest

    Roy Zipris wrote:
    > Here in PA, and I'm speaking as a criminal defense lawyer, this could
    > be a simple assault (and possibly an aggravated assault, depending on
    > the circumstances), a crime called "recklessly endangering another
    > person" and possibly several other charges as well.
    >
    > The claim that the thrower did not see the cyclist could be a defense
    > to the charges, but it does not mean that the alleged act does not fit
    > the definitions of those crimes. That likelihood could, however, be a
    > factor in the official decision to bring charges or not, although at
    > that early stage the authorities wouldn't know that.
    >
    > To the OP, you might want to look into whether California has a
    > "private" charging mechanism, which in PA, is called a "private
    > criminal complaint." Regards, Roy Zipris


    I think I'll save this after I highlight "... and possibly several
    other charges as well" to show to the next defense lawyer who complains
    to me that their client has been "overcharged by the State". You darned
    PDs are always brutal, man! <g>

    Regards,
    Bob Hunt
     
  9. Pat in TX

    Pat in TX Guest

    Bob, I was hit by someone's fist, and the ticket he got was "Assault by
    Contact." That makes me think there is another "Assault" possibility. Am I
    wrong?

    Pat in TX
     
  10. Bob

    Bob Guest

    Pat in TX wrote:
    > Bob, I was hit by someone's fist, and the ticket he got was "Assault by
    > Contact." That makes me think there is another "Assault" possibility. Am I
    > wrong?
    >
    > Pat in TX


    Of course it's possible and you aren't wrong. Different jurisdictions
    define terms differently. Illinois for example defines assault as any
    action that would put a reasonable person in fear of receiving a
    battery and defines a battery as causing bodily harm to an individual
    or making physical contact of an insulting or provoking manner with
    another. Other jurisdictions define assault as the physical contact and
    call the actions Illinois defines as assault by other names.

    I'm guessing your post was prompted by my reply to willarch's post. The
    point I was making to him was that I doubt he was correct when he said
    that, "Here in the UK the threat of an assault is treated legally as an
    actual physical assault." That would be legal lunacy because that type
    of "logic" would lead inescapably to prosecuting a death threat as a
    murder. The person that says, "I'm going to blow up Harrod's" would be
    prosecuted as if they were the actual Harrod's bombers? No wonder they
    abolished capital punishment! <g>

    Regards,
    Bob Hunt
     
  11. Leo Lichtman

    Leo Lichtman Guest

    "Bob" (clip) That would be legal lunacy because that type of "logic" would
    lead inescapably to prosecuting a death threat as a murder. (clip)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Since we're already somewhat off-topic, why not wander a little further?
    Between a threat and a murder is the crime of attempted murder. I have
    never understood why the attempted crime is treated is treated as less
    serious than the successful completion of the crime. Bob, care to comment?
     
  12. Bob

    Bob Guest

    Leo Lichtman wrote:

    > Between a threat and a murder is the crime of attempted murder. I have
    > never understood why the attempted crime is treated is treated as less
    > serious than the successful completion of the crime. Bob, care to comment?


    The attempt actually *isn't* treated as less serious except in terms of
    the penalties that may be imposed. The punishment for an "unsuccessful"
    crime is less severe than a "successful" crime because the punishment
    is supposed to match not only the crime but also the harm done by that
    crime. Even though they are both robbers, the robber that pushes the
    teenaged female clerk away from the open register and snatches the $10
    bill from the drawer can expect a less severe punishment than the
    robber that punches that same clerk for the same reason. Where homicide
    is concerned, we penalize competence by both the victim- survival being
    a measure of competence- and the offender. <g>

    Regards,
    Bob Hunt
     
  13. [email protected] wrote:
    > Well, this was in San Diego.


    Which makes this even more interesting to me since all us East Coast
    slimeballs ever hear is how West Coast cities like S.D. are so
    pro-cycling. In fact, if you tried to lodge this sort of complaint
    anywhere on the eastern seaboard you would probably be laughed at and
    told to move to California.
     
  14. RonSonic

    RonSonic Guest

    On 31 Jan 2006 10:20:30 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

    >
    >[email protected] wrote:
    >> Well, this was in San Diego.

    >
    >Which makes this even more interesting to me since all us East Coast
    >slimeballs ever hear is how West Coast cities like S.D. are so
    >pro-cycling. In fact, if you tried to lodge this sort of complaint
    >anywhere on the eastern seaboard you would probably be laughed at and
    >told to move to California.


    Here's a bit of Californicated cyclophilia from Santa Monica.

    http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200404.html

    Ron
     
  15. RonSonic wrote:
    >
    > Here's a bit of Californicated cyclophilia from Santa Monica.
    >
    > http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200404.html
    >
    > Ron


    Wow, that's pretty bad. It's at least as nasty as some of the stuff
    you regularly see in D.C. They should make some of these so-called
    "urban planners" actually take a ride on some of their "bike lanes".

    Still, I'd take dealing with these death traps over motorists using
    cyclists for target practice.
     
  16. In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] wrote:

    > Wow, that's pretty bad. It's at least as nasty as some of the stuff
    > you regularly see in D.C. They should make some of these so-called
    > "urban planners" actually take a ride on some of their "bike lanes".

    *******
    I agree with you. I bet these "city planners" don't even know how to
    ride bicycles though....or trikes, for that matter.
     
  17. "Violet Tigress" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >
    >> Wow, that's pretty bad. It's at least as nasty as some of the stuff
    >> you regularly see in D.C. They should make some of these so-called
    >> "urban planners" actually take a ride on some of their "bike lanes".

    > *******
    > I agree with you. I bet these "city planners" don't even know how to
    > ride bicycles though....or trikes, for that matter.


    It is helpful to have a cyclist or two hidden away in your city's
    transportation and/or planning department, it is true.

    --
    Warm Regards,

    Claire Petersky
    http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
    Sponsor me for the Big Climb! See: www.active.com/donate/cpetersky06
    See the books I've set free at:
    http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
     
  18. Violet Tigress wrote:

    > I bet these "city planners" don't even know how to
    > ride bicycles though....or trikes, for that matter.


    They sure as Hell don't know how to "plan" a city.

    --
    "Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
    to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
    it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)
     
Loading...
Loading...