News, Doctor gets 5 years for road rage against cyclists. (felony, gun, Arizona)

[Jill61]

Originally Posted by zox

With all due respect, that isn't what happened. The cyclists were going downhill and riding side by side. The driver was behind them and wanted to pass. They wouldn't allow him to do that so he swerved around them and as he was passing them he yelled to them to ride single file. The bicyclists then made a "hand gesture" and cursed at the driver. As the driver then pulled in front of them, he slammed his brakes to injure the cyclists. The driver was not justified to injure these bicyclists but I understand the point zimbochick made.

With all due respect, your version of events doesn't appear to match any of the information in any of the articles I've read about this incident. Care to provide a cite that they refused to move over and that he had to swerve around them? It sounds like you're just making things up to support your argument.

"Peterson and Stoehr said that they were starting their descent toward Sunset Boulevard when a fellow cyclist crashed into another rider's bike and was injured. The two stayed to help. After paramedics arrived and loaded the injured cyclist into an ambulance, Peterson and Stoehr said, they continued to descend, riding side by side at about 30 mph.

"Peterson said he pulled in front of Stoehr after a driver behind them honked. The car passed them, missing their handlebars by less than a foot, Peterson said.

Peterson said that Thompson "yelled out some profanity and, 'Ride single-file!' " Peterson said he then screamed an expletive at Thompson, who he said veered in front of the riders and "slammed on his brakes as hard as he could.""

A jury of 12 people heard all the evidence and found this version of events to be truthful insofar as they sentenced the doctor to 5 years in prison.

Originally Posted by zox

Do you believe these cyclists would have been injured if they let the driver pass and didn't make gestures and curse at him? I personally don't think anything would have happened to them if they ignored him.

They did let the driver pass. He came within a foot of them as he did so, yelled and cursed at them as he passed, then swerved in front of them and slammed on his brakes "to teach them a lesson" and you think the lack of a finger gesture would have prevented this jerk from doing exactly what he had done on TWO PREVIOUS occasions, wherein there is no evidence whatsoever that the cyclists in those incidents used finger gestures? You think the lesson he was trying to teach them was, "don't flip people off when they pass you"? Or is it more like he wanted to "teach them a lesson" about riding in front of him at all, since that's apparently all the provocation this guy needed to become enraged enough to use his car as a weapon.

Originally Posted by zox

Just because someone is rude, it doesn't mean you have to retaliate especially knowing the consequences could be far worse. Maybe these cyclists were within their right to ride side by side, I don't really know how those laws pertain, but its generally considered polite to allow faster drivers to pass. If the driver wanted to pass, why didn't they ride single file so that he could pass?

No one here has said you "have to retaliate" when someone is rude to you. But it's not the least bit surprising that someone might feel compelled to flip you off if you intentionally terrify them with your car (coming within a foot when passing), yell at them and curse at them. I mean come on, are you saying if someone pulled that crap on you that you wouldn't want to flip them the bird?

[gallowsCalibrator]

Originally Posted by zox

My response would be nothing. I would just think he is an idiot who is having some road rage. I don't want to provoke him.

Then you and I are much different people. Someone salutes and/or greets me, and I'll greet them back.

Originally Posted by zox

Question: If you were driving slow in the left lane and were unaware of your speed because you were on the phone or listening intently on the radio and someone passed you and cursed at you, what would you do? Would you say something back or realize that it was your mistake that you were driving too slow?

Me? Slow? You must be confused with somebody else.

But in any case, if I was cruising and somebody honked their horn at me and forced me onto the shoulder to pass - then proceeded to yell at me? My response would be to salute them back with a "*something for* you and the horse you rode in on" and continue on with my day.

And even, if by some chance, I was actually going the speed limit (or lower), the response would be the same.

No rage, just a "return the favor" salutation.

Originally Posted by zox

Which is even more reason why you should be a defensive driver and not provoke strangers because you don't know who you may encounter on the roads

Seeing as how I would return the favor, I have no disparaging thoughts that the bikers, who were forced off the road by a several-thousand pound vehicle on their hindparts, would use a few "f-bombs" or give the "You're #1" salute.

[zox]

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

Then you and I are much different people. Someone salutes and/or greets me, and I'll greet them back.

There is a time and place for everything. I played football in high school and got into several fights on the field. I'm not afraid of confrontation but when it comes to driving, it's a different situation and it's too dangerous.

Seeing as how I would return the favor, I have no disparaging thoughts that the bikers, who were forced off the road by a several-thousand pound vehicle on their hindparts, would use a few "f-bombs" or give the "You're #1" salute.

Well remember, they did that before the driver braked and injured them. They had the opportunity to ignore him. All he was doing at that point was swerving around them and telling them to ride single file.

[Jill61]

Originally Posted by zox

All he was doing at that point was swerving around them and telling them to ride single file.

You make it sound so polite. No acknowledgment that he was yelling profanities at them while coming within a foot of their handlebars.

[zox]

Originally Posted by Jill61

With all due respect, your version of events doesn't appear to match any of the information in any of the articles I've read about this incident. Care to provide a cite that they refused to move over and that he had to swerve around them? It sounds like you're just making things up to support your argument.

Sure, here is an article from the LA Times that goes into greater detail about this event. Here is a quote from the article "During cross-examination, Swarth suggested that Stoehr and Peterson were angered by the doctor honking the horn to urge the cyclists to give way, and may not have pulled adequately far enough over to the curb so the car could pass by." "A police officer testified that Thompson told him soon after the accident that the cyclists had cursed at him and flipped him off, so he slammed on his brakes 'to teach them a lesson.' " "Prosecutors alleged that Thompson stopped his car after passing the two cyclists and shouting at them to ride single file. The cyclists testified that they began maneuvering to ride one after the other when they noticed Thompson's car approaching fast behind them but that the driver passed dangerously close before abruptly stopping." Cyclist testifies that doctor deliberately caused Brentwood accident - Los Angeles Times Physician accused of deliberately injuring two bicyclists is convicted - Los Angeles Times A lot of this is he said she said. I guess it comes down to what each of us personally believes. I personally don't believe the cyclists immediately pulled over to ride single file. It doesn't make sense to me why he would honk and be so angry if they immediately rode single file in response to his car.

[zox]

Originally Posted by Jill61

You make it sound so polite.

I will agree that he was yelling profanities but it doesn't change the fact that they chose to respond in kind. They had a choice. They could have ignored him. They chose to give him the bird and curse at him. I guess where we disagree is your belief that the bicyclists would have been hit regardless of what they did because of the driver's previous history. I don't agree with that notion. I think the cyclists could have avoided being hit had not cursed at him and given him the bird. I also don't believe the cyclists' story when they claimed to have immediately rode single file. I think they probably ignored the driver initially until he honked and got hostile. I can't speak on behalf of you or others but I would have handled it differently. I would pulled over and rode single file immediately and if he still drove close to me and cursed at me, I would have ignored him. My parents taught me to drive defensively so retaliating isn't an option that I would ever consider especially if he is in a car and I'm on a bicycle.

[Jill61]

Originally Posted by zox

Sure, here is an article from the LA Times that goes into greater detail about this event. Here is a quote from the article "During cross-examination, Swarth suggested that Stoehr and Peterson were angered by the doctor honking the horn to urge the cyclists to give way, and may not have pulled adequately far enough over to the curb so the car could pass by."

That article doesn't even come close to proving the claim you made, which was that the cyclists refused to pull single file. All you've provided is an unsupported allegation by the defendant's attorney who alleged on cross examination that the cyclists may not have moves adequately over. So even the guy's attorney acknowledges that they did, in fact, move over to allow him to pass.

Originally Posted by zos

A lot of this is he said she said. I guess it comes down to what each of us personally believes. I personally don't believe the cyclists immediately pulled over to ride single file. It doesn't make sense to me why he would honk and be so angry if they immediately rode single file in response to his car.

Why are you so willing to believe the allegations by the defendant's attorney, and the doctor with the history of intentionally running cyclists off the road and slamming on his brakes, over the findings of the JURY?

And it makes sense that he would be so angry even if they moved over right away when he honked at them, when you follow the whole story and learn that this guy hated cyclists on the canyon road he lived off of, because he found their presence and slowing of traffic to be a nuisance.

You don't seem to be basing your "beliefs" on anything but your desire to believe whatever you want, regardless of the evidence. I find that, well, odd.

Originally Posted by zox

I will agree that he was yelling profanities but it doesn't change the fact that they chose to respond in kind. They had a choice. They could have ignored him. They chose to give him the bird and curse at him. I guess where we disagree is your belief that the bicyclists would have been hit regardless of what they did because of the driver's previous history. I don't agree with that notion. I think the cyclists could have avoided being hit had not cursed at him and given him the bird. I also don't believe the cyclists' story when they claimed to have immediately rode single file. I think they probably ignored the driver initially until he honked and got hostile. I can't speak on behalf of you or others but I would have handled it differently. I would pulled over and rode single file immediately and if he still drove close to me and cursed at me, I would have ignored him. My parents taught me to drive defensively so retaliating isn't an option that I would ever consider especially if he is in a car and I'm on a bicycle.

Again, this is all purely speculation without a single shred of evidence to support it. And in fact, all the evidence, including the cross-examination of the cyclists by the defendant's attorney, points to the fact that the men fell into single file as soon as they were signaled to do so, by the guy honking at them.

[fractured_kidult]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

I think it's a waste. What he did was terrible, but why not require him to do community service for five years instead? Is it really a good use of our tax dollars to go toward supporting a doctor while he sits in jail?

In addition to community service, they should have required him to give free medical care to anyone injured in a bicycle accident.

Nope even better, make him ride a bike to work from then on...for the rest of his life or walk. Yep, take away his driving privileges.

[odinloki1]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

Yes, I think a person's skills and talents should be taken into consideration. If they can be put to better use than they would be while sitting in a jail, they should be.

I think five years is way too long. Maybe a year plus four years of community service would have been better.

Given how much money is spent on providing health care for prisoners, just have him work there while he's serving time, plus the patient population is more difficult with prisoners. Much more deserving.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Jill61

That article doesn't even come close to proving the claim you made, which was that the cyclists refused to pull single file. All you've provided is an unsupported allegation by the defendant's attorney who alleged on cross examination that the cyclists may not have moves adequately over. So even the guy's attorney acknowledges that they did, in fact, move over to allow him to pass. Why are you so willing to believe the allegations by the defendant's attorney, and the doctor with the history of intentionally running cyclists off the road and slamming on his brakes, over the findings of the JURY?


You don't seem to be basing your "beliefs" on anything but your desire to believe whatever you want, regardless of the evidence. I find that, well, odd. Again, this is all purely speculation without a single shred of evidence to support it. And in fact, all the evidence, including the cross-examination of the cyclists by the defendant's attorney, points to the fact that the men fell into single file as soon as they were signaled to do so, by the guy honking at them.

What evidence is there confirming the plaintiff's accounts? There was no camera recording the incident. The plaintiffs gave their version of events and the doctor gave his version of events. The jury believed the plaintiff's version because the doctor had a history of similar events in the past and he acknowledged to the police officer that he was trying to teach them a lesson by braking. However, there is no evidence that proves the cyclists immediately gave way and rode single file aside from the plaintiff's testimony that they did. Yes, they pulled over but when...after a point at which the driver had to honk and was already irritated? The cyclists claim they did so immediately but that isn't proof. You just pasted the plaintiff's quotes and cited that as evidence. Sorry dear but that isn't evidence, that's the plaintiff's account of events. Zox and other posters are perfectly entitled to form their own opinions based on the events that occurred. You are just insulting anyone who disagrees with your opinion on this issue.

And it makes sense that he would be so angry even if they moved over right away when he honked at them, when you follow the whole story and learn that this guy hated cyclists on the canyon road he lived off of, because he found their presence and slowing of traffic to be a nuisance.

Sorry that doesn't make sense. If he lived near there then it makes sense that he encountered these cyclists on a fairly regular occasion. So why doesn't he injure cyclists every time he encounters them then? Why did he choose that particular occassion? Oh maybe it had something to do with the fact that these cyclists flipped him off and yelled profanities at him. I'm amazed that you are naive enough to believe the cyclist's cursing and flipping them off had nothing to do with this particular event....unbelievable! It's obvious you don't want to acknowledge the cyclists had any responsibility in this because that would require you to save face and you would rather argue weak points than acknowledge that.