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.
"Nobody cares". Yeah, that seems to be your mantra. Nobody cares about the witness' statements, nobody cares about whether you have the mental capacity to actually carry out your civic duty, nobody cares about the facts, nobody cares about the law. Nobody cares.
It's a wonder, then, that you spend so much time spouting nonsense on this topic while keeping your mind as closed as possible. I guess you're one of the few who do care. Ironic, isn't it?
I see reading is not your strong suit, same as your vision obviously. I said nobody cares about your assessment of my fitness to be a juror. Cause your delusional assessment is irrelevant as we can see from your postings, that you have very poor comprehension on everything you are writing about, and since one of the things you are speaking about is the law we know you aren't picking jurors.
You are holding yourself out to be some kind of expert on this issue when everyone reading this can see you have no idea what you are talking about and that your total dismissal of the driver culpability in the accident is a total joke.
I see reading is not your strong suit, same as your vision obviously. I said nobody cares about your assessment of my fitness to be a juror. Cause your delusional assessment is irrelevant as we can see from your postings, that you have very poor comprehension on everything you are writing about, and since one of the things you are speaking about is the law we know you aren't picking jurors.
You are holding yourself out to be some kind of expert on this issue when everyone reading this can see you have no idea what you are talking about and that your total dismissal of the driver culpability in the accident is a total joke.
I haven't totally dismissed the driver of culpability. But I also understand that there is more evidence against the biker from that one video than there is against the driver of the car. You see nothing from the driver that shows an intent to injure the biker. All you see is the car swerving after the biker kicks it. That, in and of itself, IS NOT enough evidence to come to a conclusion that the driver 'attempted to murder' the biker. It's not even enough evidence of reckless driving. You see, that's the way the law works. You actually have to PROVE that the driver intended to do something like that. The biker, on the other hand, you can clearly see from his actions that he was escalating the situation with his kicking of the car and from the witness statements. Unlike you, my assessment is actually based on basic legal principles such as the burden of proof and the necessity of proving all elements of the crime (those belong to the prosecutor by the way). If you believe that the driver would be convicted of a crime simply because you think it's 'crystal clear', you're just showing your extraordinary ignorance. Again, that's not the way the law works.
Am I an 'expert' in hit and runs or car crashes? No. But I have more knowledge of the law than most of the people in this thread, I'm sure. Maybe if I didn't actually have a law degree and hadn't actually passed the Bar Exam, I would be seeing the situation like you and a handful of other people here. But you should consider doing some research into how you would prove your conclusion that the driver 'intentionally hit' the biker if you were an actual prosecutor and see how far you get. Because if you walked into a court with the argument that 'it's crystal clear' and nothing else (because you have nothing else), not only would you be laughed out of court, you'd be fired.
The reason you despise me using the juror illustration is that it exposes just how lacking in simple rational reasoning and how closed-minded you are. If you were the person on trial, I doubt you would want any of the people judging your case to come to the determination that 'it's crystal clear' and refusing to consider any other possibility. That would be the death of our judicial system. Which, again, is why I say, correctly, that you would be a terrible juror.
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.
While I can appreciate the sentiment, using deadly force in that situation isn't justified, and will very likely land you in serious legal trouble. Lose your freedom for many years kind of legal trouble.
While I can appreciate the sentiment, using deadly force in that situation isn't justified, and will very likely land you in serious legal trouble. Lose your freedom for many years kind of legal trouble.
Nope, it's 100% self-defence. I would never be charged, but if for some reason I was, it would be an easy acquittal.
Hope they both get hammered by the law because they BOTH put others in danger. The pickup truck flipped due to their ignorant selfish aggression. I feel bad for the guy in that pickup, but when you drive those things they are quite dangerous since they don't do anything well except haul stuff and can flip over so easily.
So what are the yellow lines for on the Highway in CA? Why was the car crossing them? I believe the cycle has some flexibility but not as much as to cross over double yellow lines.
Is it legal to hit (with fist or hand or foot) another moving vehicle? If it isn't then at most the biker gets a ticket. If there is no law against it then it is all on the driver of the car.
The driver of the automobile at the least should be cited for failure to maintain control. The intent to injure the biker would be impossible to pursue and win in court. Likely an illegal lane change ticket for this bucket head too.
Why do I have to keep explaining what the person who shot the video said? Why don't you just go read it for yourself? I've posted the link 3 times already. You're asking why we don't see the other kicks on the video. The witness who shot the video said, VERY CLEARLY, that he started recording AFTER the initial collision and AFTER the biker 'started kicking' the car.
Nope, it's 100% self-defence. I would never be charged, but if for some reason I was, it would be an easy acquittal.
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.
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.
