Motorcyclist apparently purposely wrecked by guy in cage

People don't need reasons to act out. Emotions take over and they just do it. Or drugs or alcohol.

A friend of mine dropped his son off at school (a Catholic Parochial school, btw) and then drove forward a bit and pulled across the opposite lane of traffic into a driveway to wait for a space so he could make his U-turn. The oncoming car stopped, blocking his exit and the suit jumped out and ran toward my friend's car. He saw the guy coming, got out and faced him. Without stopping ( much like the video) this guy ran up to my friend and threw a punch. My buddy sidestepped around behind the guy and executed a smooth takedown. The attacker looked up at the sky, shook his head, got up and brushed himself off and went back to his car and drove away.

My friend showed us what he did at a party. (He also admitted that he might have cut the other driver off.) One second we were upright and attacking, the next we were on our back looking up without so much as a bump. The lesson is clear. Study martial arts for 20 or 30 years so you can defend yourself without injuring your opponent. Or drive in a manner than does not offend anyone (is that possible?).

SMSW said:

Or drive in a manner than does not offend anyone (is that possible?).

Click to expand...

unicorn ...

SMSW said:

Study martial arts for 20 or 30 years so you can defend yourself without injuring your opponent.

Click to expand...

A calculated risk to pass in a no-passing zone. Driver was also obviously at fault and I heard has since been arrested. Regardless, as my Dad used to say "two wrongs don't make a right" and it certainly won't make the pain any less.

As the military would say: there is a chain of events leading up to a mishap, breaking any link may prevent the mishap. Head on a swivel and ride like everybody is out to get you! Also, I like to pass with as much space between me and the vehicle, using all the lane to my advantage. Just a thought.

Ride safe!

LibertyDeath76 said:

The other recent video of a guy who took offense to a motorcycle riding technique.
https://youtu.be/_ZueHaDP4hU

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Can you post a link to this video? I would like to be able to view it full-screen. Thanks

Just my thoughts,I think the old guy would have cut them off in a legal zone also.

I have been riding with a dash cam on my wing for a year now... decided to do that after a driver almost took me out making a left turn across my path in a remote area. Video evidence could work for you or against you. Ride safe!

I use a bullet camera mounted under the headlight. It comes on with the ignition so I don't need to worry about it. It also has loop recording so it overwrites the oldest data.

Having the camera does mean that I generally keep to the speed limits and ride in a safe and sane manner*. This is because, if I have an accident, I want the Police who view the footage to see a "professional style of riding" from me.


* I was taught to ride by a Police Motorcyclist so I tend to use the UK Police System of riding - see Motorcycle Roadcraft for more info.

Don B said:

Can you post a link to this video? I would like to be able to view it full-screen. Thanks

Click to expand...

If you click on the you tube icon in the player it will open it on a new tab directly from youtube and you can then full screen the video.

BluOval said:

...it takes him almost 3 minutes to go check on them!!...
We've all been taught (in Cali anyway, I've never driven in other states so....) that when in an accident, do not move the car unless it's blocking traffic because it's evidence.

Click to expand...

JimGregory said:

...even the camera guy just waltzed right past...

Click to expand...

Well, who of us "recreational riders" would be capable of maintaining/focusing on the proper first-responder/professional procedures/protocol in a stressful situation/scenery like this?
Especially if you're injured (thus in shock) yourself (like the crashed rider)... adrenalin pumping and that...

st11ray said:

He should be charged with attempted murder!

Click to expand...

If he's going to be charged as such he should at least be allowed to commit the crime. The prosecution probably won't be able to prove ag assault as it is let alone a crime he didn't commit. If he doesn't let the driver plead out he could get the convictions but by convincing the jury not proving the case.

ST Gui said:

If he's going to be charged as such he should at least be allowed to commit the crime. The prosecution probably won't be able to prove ag assault as it is let alone a crime he didn't commit. If he doesn't let the driver plead out he could get the convictions but by convincing the jury not proving the case.

Click to expand...

I would say that purposely ramming your car into a motorcycle at speed is committing a crime of attempted murder, aggravated assault at the least. If someone was intentionally trying to run me down while walking on the sidewalk I would be justified in shooting them. If they just hit me and didn't kill me on the sidewalk they have committed no crime? I don't think so. They may not be able to "prove" that he did it on purpose but you, I and the rest of the world can easily see that it was.YVMV?

st11ray said:

I would say

Click to expand...

A person's actions have to meet the elements of law based on factual evidence.

So first what proof do you have that the driver purposely rammed the motorcyclist? The video shows a collision. It doesn't show Why. It doesn't prove Why. It only shows What and Who. You don't know Why not from the video. Was he stung by a insect? Did he drift into the lane? The driver had three different stories as to what happened. It could have been any one of them. No one was in the car with him.

Every state has definitions of a crime which must be met to charge and convict someone of a crime. Murder requires specific intent of elements or it's not murder. In your hypothetical example you specify as a given that the car is trying to run you down. In a court the prosecution would be required to prove that intent. It's just not enough to say "you know he did it" regardless of what you think you know. It has to be proven.

In point of fact it could be any one of the driver's three stories was true. It could be that the old man saw the bike approaching and was just going to block him and show him "hey you can do that". Misjudging the speed and distance he collided with the bike. In my example the move was the deliberate the collision was accidental and the intent of murder absent. No murder charges. Even aggravated assault requires intent. So in my example there's no ag assault. This is only based on the video presented not any actual investigation. Somebody said the DA has charged him with two counts of ag assault (rider and passenger).

Despite your claim that everybody "knows" whatever the prosecution has to prove the charges based on evidence. I don't see it in the video. So it has to be found in an investigation where facts are gathered and examined for relevance. Barring that the prosecution has to convince the jury (assuming there's no plea but I think there may be) elements have been met by conclusion. A process of elimination.

You're walking down the street a car rolls up the driver gets out and shoots you dead before you can even draw or even think "WT-??" It's captured on high-quality video clear as day with plenty of solid eye-witness testimony (often the weakest kind of evidence). The video alone would show that all the elements of murder have been met. Even if you were mistakenly made a target. Prosecution defines the elements of murder to the jury (you'd be surprised at how many people have no clue as to what constitutes murder) shows that the defendant met those elements. Boom: conviction now get the rope and find a tree. Observation of committing a crime vs conclusion.

Unless the driver gets a really good lawyer and/or is offered a plea he'll be convicted of ag assault as charged. But it will be because the jury is convinced of and not shown his guilt. The law should be "Guilt is what I can prove" but is often "Guilt is what I can make the jury believe". There's a difference.

st11ray said:

They may not be able to "prove" that he did it on purpose

Click to expand...

My point exactly.

st11ray said:

I and the rest of the world can easily see that it was.

Click to expand...

There's the problem. You can't. Nobody can from the video. You can assume it was. You can believe it was. Still not the same as knowing. Believing really really hard still isn't knowing. At best the video may show negligent operation. I don't know that it would even meet the standard of criminal negligence. Fortunately the other rider got to the old man before he could formulate an "excuse" and stick to it. Even the utterance "He shouldn't have been there" or whatever isn't evidence of criminal activity.

Now I believe he deliberately moved into the lane. I believe it was to block the driver and not collide with him. I don't believe he was trying to murder the rider. But as he did collide he needs to be held responsible for that action. Now if an investigation shows that he once wore a mini-skirt into a biker bar he might the prosecution might just get more than ag assault convictions.

I want this guy convicted and not out on appeal while the conviction gets overturned because of shoddy prosecution.

Lawyers will take the Obvious and confuse the issue. He stated his intentions with "I don't care!" Guilty. Period. Does he deserve punishment or correction, that is the only issue to resolve.

Doesn't strike me as the correctable sort.

I say they roll this bloke down the road on a bike and cross check him with a car, twice, and see how he makes out. If he lives, it might just knock enough sense into him to garner correctable perspective.

Pops is lucky that it wasn't a 1% club passing him! He would have gotten the justice he deserved right then and there!

ArTravlR said:

He stated his intentions with "I don't care!"

Click to expand...

That doesn't establish intent by any means. No way that translates to "I deliberately swerved into the motorcycle". Anybody who gets confused listening to lawyers in court probably doesn't belong on a jury. I can't prove that but I believe it. There is some latitude in that belief though.

st11ray said:

Pops is lucky that it wasn't a 1% club passing him! He would have gotten the justice he deserved right then and there!

Click to expand...

That's probably true though we may disagree on 'justice'.

As is often demonstrated there's very often a difference in what we know and what we believe. I believe in due process. If that were our brother or father in the car we'd certainly want them to answer for any mistake made or crime committed. At least I'd like to think we would. I'm equally certain we wouldn't want them to pay for a crime or mistake they didn't make.

Everyone's got the right to their opinion. But there are times when actions should be based on facts and standards and the applying law is one of those times.

The problem is that in the US and the UK facts aren't always admissible...

ST Gui said:

That doesn't establish intent by any means. No way that translates to "I deliberately swerved into the motorcycle". Anybody who gets confused listening to lawyers in court probably doesn't belong on a jury. I can't prove that but I believe it. There is some latitude in that belief though.




That's probably true though we may disagree on 'justice'.

As is often demonstrated there's very often a difference in what we know and what we believe. I believe in due process. If that were our brother or father in the car we'd certainly want them to answer for any mistake made or crime committed. At least I'd like to think we would. I'm equally certain we wouldn't want them to pay for a crime or mistake they didn't make.

Everyone's got the right to their opinion. But there are times when actions should be based on facts and standards and the applying law is one of those times.

Click to expand...

I believe in due process also. I also believe in personal responsibility. You know as well as I do that this guy intentionally swerved into the path of the bike. Did he mean to hit him? Maybe not. Did he care that he did hit the bike? Definitely, he did not care one bit! You can use all the legalese you want to rationalize if he actually did what he did or not but I believe he most definitely made a huge mistake and most likely committed a crime. If I was on the jury, pops would be getting the guilty vote from me. Now, had pops come straight out of the car jumping around swatting at a bug and asking if he had been part of the accident I might actually believe his story. But, when the first thing you say after you calmly get out of the car and someone tells you you just hit a bike is, "I don't care", then you aren't getting much sympathy from me.

I believe he stated his intent, lack of remorse and then tried to lie about it. I believe anyone on a jury that actually listens to a lawyer, shouldn't be there to render justice.