nottyboi said:
At the very least he is guilty of the "leaving the scene" charge. No way he can duck that one. In considering the seriousness of the accident, he should get NAILED for that one. Appaling...never thought too much of him while he was in office.
Actually if he can make a convincing case that he believed that the cyclist was threatening his & his passenger's safety then he CAN avoid getting charged with leaving the scene..... because under the law that will NOT be considered what happened.
If he can prove/convince the court that the cyclist was threatening him & that he shook him off the car because he had genuine fear for his safety, then he is performing his "duty to retreat" under the circumstances.... If he can prove this then he was NOT leaving the scene of an accident...
If it can be proven that the cyclist was clinging to the car & threatening him, making him think that the cyclist was about to climb into his vehicle & cause him imminent harm, then YES he had the legal right to accelerate & shake him off.....
If some punk reaches into my window & tries to carjack me then I CAN floor it & shake his ass off. If he has a weapon all the better... If he is still holding a weapon or I can prove that a Reasonable person might THINK that he still does then I can slam his ass between my car & a brick wall to preserve my safety & as long as I make a good case it won't get past the inquiry stage....
Considering his status & what the extenuating circumstances are he could very possibly be given a great deal of leeway as to what he reasonably believed was happening & his resulting actions....
Like tboy I think I'll wait until we get all the facts available before I crucify the guy...