Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In every jurisdiction in this country (AFAIK), a requirement for the use of deadly force in self defense is that one must reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily injury. You'll be required to be able to articulate that to the judge and jury. Since you believe it would be an easy acquittal, why you tell us all about how a kick to your vehicle by a motorcyclist placed would place you in imminent danger of death or grave bodily injury.
If I'm driving down the freeway at 80 mph and some maniac starts kicking the hell out of my car, I think it's reasonable to conclude that he is trying to do me harm. I'll do what I have to to stay alive, and take my chances in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
You use a video of a driver of an SUV being attacked by a mob to justify your position that deadly force against a single motorcycle rider is justified because he kicked your car? Seriously? The two situations are hardly comparable.
The point was that the SUV driver was not charged for running over the bikers. The bikers, including one off duty cop, were convicted and sent to prison. The number of bikers involved is irrelevant. You have a right to defend yourself against one person, or a hundred. So there is legal precedent for using your car to defend yourself against an attack.
In every jurisdiction in this country (AFAIK), a requirement for the use of deadly force in self defense is that one must reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily injury. You'll be required to be able to articulate that to the judge and jury. Since you believe it would be an easy acquittal, why you tell us all about how a kick to your vehicle by a motorcyclist placed would place you in imminent danger of death or grave bodily injury.
You use a video of a driver of an SUV being attacked by a mob to justify your position that deadly force against a single motorcycle rider is justified because he kicked your car? Seriously? The two situations are hardly comparable.
The witness that filmed the crash said that the motorcyclist came very close to their vehicle while passing them in the space between the left lane and the HOV lane before the incident with the driver that crashed took place. The witness also said that the motorcycle rider displayed a knife.
If you are driving on a freeway and you have a man on a motorcycle that is weaving around your car, kicking it on both the passenger and driver sides that is possibly armed and brandishing a weapon, fear of death or injury on the driver's part is very reasonable.
If I'm driving down the freeway at 80 mph and some maniac starts kicking the hell out of my car, I think it's reasonable to conclude that he is trying to do me harm. I'll do what I have to to stay alive, and take my chances in court.
Ah, but that's not what you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz You come up alongside of me while I'm driving and start kicking my car, I will ram you into the median, and I will not miss. If you damage my car, you are going to get damaged.
You didn't describe a situation where you were in fear for your life, you described a retaliation for damage done to your car. Absolutely NOT a justification for the use of deadly force.
Quote:
The point was that the SUV driver was not charged for running over the bikers. The bikers, including one off duty cop, were convicted and sent to prison. The number of bikers involved is irrelevant. You have a right to defend yourself against one person, or a hundred. So there is legal precedent for using your car to defend yourself against an attack.
The number of bikers is absolutely relevant. Disparity in numbers, especially the large numbers in the video, is most certainly a justification for the use of deadly force.
I posed the following question, and you avoided it. Care to take another crack at it?
Quote:
Since you believe it would be an easy acquittal, why don't you tell us all about how a kick to your vehicle by a motorcyclist would place you in imminent danger of death or grave bodily injury.
I can see it now. . . "Your Honor, the guy on the motorcycle kicked my car, and I thought that would seriously hurt or kill me. But when it didn't, I killed him so that he couldn't kick my car again."
Or how about this. . . "Your Honor, the motorcyclist damaged my car, so I used my car to ram him into the median."
The guy on the motorcycle is an idiot. Doesn't matter who started what. When a car and a motorcycle collide - the car wins.
The motorcycle guy won't be around much longer if this is how he drives.
The guy on the motorcycle also committed a felony on video. He intentionally damaged someone else's personal property and the $ amount of the damage would make his actions a felony. Despite what many posters here seem to think, there is no "self defense" type exception in the law for a motorcycle rider that gets a case of road rage and decides to kick a vehicle.
I don't know California law, but in some states the motorcycle rider would be in big trouble from a criminal law point of view. If someone is injured, even by accident like in this case as a result of actions caused by a person in the commission of a felony crime, they are criminally liable for the injuries and/or death despite not being directly responsible. What the motorcycle rider did is very similar to a getaway driver in a robbery causing an accident even though they were not "part" of the accident.
The witness that filmed the crash said that the motorcyclist came very close to their vehicle while passing them in the space between the left lane and the HOV lane before the incident with the driver that crashed took place. The witness also said that the motorcycle rider displayed a knife.
If you are driving on a freeway and you have a man on a motorcycle that is weaving around your car, kicking it on both the passenger and driver sides that is possibly armed and brandishing a weapon, fear of death or injury on the driver's part is very reasonable.
The video that I saw doesn't support what you describe here. Is there other credible evidence that does support it, or are you simply creating a narrative that you hope will justify a position?
The video that I saw doesn't support what you describe here. Is there other credible evidence that does support it, or are you simply creating a narrative that you hope will justify a position?
WTF, why would I give a chit about creating a narrative? I have no personal stake in this either way. Just stating my opinion like everyone else on this forum. However, I do see a lot of people trying to justify their opinion that riding a motorcycle gives you some type of divine right to road rage and kick cars anytime you want.
WTF, why would I give a chit about creating a narrative? I have no personal stake in this either way. Just stating my opinion like everyone else on this forum. However, I do see a lot of people trying to justify their opinion that riding a motorcycle gives you some type of divine right to road rage and kick cars anytime you want.
"The CHP is handling the investigation and did not cite the driver of the sedan. Investigators need to interview the motorcyclist to get the whole story before any decisions are made, officials said. The case is now considered a hit-and-run."
"The CHP is handling the investigation and did not cite the driver of the sedan. Investigators need to interview the motorcyclist to get the whole story before any decisions are made, officials said. The case is now considered a hit-and-run."
I would think what they are really saying is they cannot deal with the criminal case without the motorcyclist. Or at a minimum choose not too. Sounds rational. Though the civil case from the pickup truck driver will certainly go on. And we may well end up with an interesting case where the key witness is not present.
Couple of years of entertainment coming up. But if the driver has no assets the insurance company will simply settle for the policy limit and we will never know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
