You be the judge, motorist kills bicylist - You know the facts - render your decision

[tboy]

..... If someone swings at you with their fists, you don't have the right to shoot them. You don't have to sit there and take it, but if your life is not in danger you don't have the automatic right to put their life in danger.

And the only reason anyone's life was in danger was because the driver's foot was firmly planted on the gas pedal.

The cyclist's history doesn't matter. The driver's history doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what could have been done to prevent loss of life.

You're wrong, each party's history DOES come into play to determine how they reacted to the situation. For eg: a drunk volatile pissed off criminal with a history of being antagonistic explains how he reacted in THIS incident.

As for "automatically putting their life in danger". See, you still don't get it. Bryant never put ANYONE'S life in danger. The actions of the cyclist put the cyclist's life in danger. Bryant never forced him to grab onto the car, Bryant never hung on to him to prevent him from detaching himself from the speeding car, you just don't get it.....

In addition, and I know I'm talking to a brick, but while if someone ONLY puts up his fists you don't have the automatic right to shoot him but if he puts up his fists, moves to hit you, moves to prevent you from escaping, you DO have the right to defend yourself and if he doesn't take the hint and stop? You DO have the right to blow the mother effer into the next world.....

 

[Sammy the Bull]

Ask yourself this people??? Would we be having this conservation if Bryant were dirt-poor??!!
My guess is no, not even close

That should tell you how far left this loser-city has gone.
And if Bryant gets convicted without a fair trial you might as well pack your bags to Cuba!!

Cheers

BTW......I love Habana!!! Sweeet Rum....yummy...yummy

 

[fuji]

Not so.

The law does not measure in that way the extent of the force used in defence if the belief of a real threat, a real danger, was reasonable.

If someone comes at you with a sword shouting he is going to kill you, you are under no obligation to try to find a sword to defend yourself. If you have a gun, you can shoot him: if he dies, he dies! [ ]

Perry

That's pretty far from anything I wrote, re-read my post. I agree with your example but can't see how it's relevant as a reply to my post.

I wrote that you must meet a higher standard to kill someone wilfully than to injure them inadvertently while fleeing. For one thing the law specifically calls out that one precondition of using lethal force is that escape must not be a reasonable option. There are other conditions too that apply to the use of lethal force that do not apply to inadvertently harming someone while preserving your own safety.

In this case the issue is that it looks like Bryant killed the guy AFTER the threat had passed. It'll depend on what facts come out of course, but if the guy was clinging to the car for his life and already essentially down and out, then going on to bash him into objects at the edge of the road was not self defense.

 

[fuji]

This turned from a shouting match to a physical assault. Bryant was totally justified in his attempt to flee and use whatever means at his disposal to assure his and his wife's safety.....

Even if the cyclists was within his rights to place him under citizens arrest?

Jesus, how can ANYONE deny his right to escape?

You don't have a right to flee the scene of an accident. Maybe the cyclist was attempting to prevent Bryant from fleeing the accident?

I guess all you naysayers agree that he should just have allowed himself to be choked to death.....

Haven't seen any proof anywhere that he was choked. I have heard that the cyclist reached into his car--probably to prevent him from fleeing the scene of an accident.

 

[flubadub]

In typical fashion you re-write the facts to make an ass out of yourself.

He wasn't "threatening", he was ACTING. He was already aggressive by slamming his backpack on the car then the action of reaching into the car was NOT a threat, but a direct attack.

Wow, I already have a typical fashion. And it makes an ass out of myself. So much for being a fashion god.

Once again, the facts are not clear. Bryant 'acted' in an aggressive manner by 'slamming' his car into Sheppard's bike. Whether or not Sheppard reached into Bryant's car is still not clear, as is whether he attempted to choke Bryant.

My point is not that Bryant initiated, as I don't know who started it, but that both acted aggressively and escalated a scene well past where it should have gone. Both should be guilty, but since only one still lives, that one should be brought to justice.

Look at it like this. If Bryant walked into a bar and pushed someone over, and that person came back and threatened him, would Bryant be legally justified in shooting him in the face?

 

[Moraff]

Once again, the facts are not clear. Bryant 'acted' in an aggressive manner by 'slamming' his car into Sheppard's bike.

He didn't 'slam' into the bike.... if he had the bike would have been damaged... the bike was not visibly damaged ergo he did not slam into it.

 

[Perry Mason]

C'mon guys, give it a rest!!!!

You don't even know, as yet, what the facts are with any degree of accuracy and so many of you are ready to convict or acquit...

Perry

 

[Sammy the Bull]

C'mon guys, give it a rest!!!!

You don't even know, as yet, what the facts are with any degree of accuracy and so many of you are ready to convict or acquit...

Perry

Thats for sure

Perry, any chance his court case will be on CourtTV???
Or televised on any other channel??

 

[tboy]

Even if the cyclists was within his rights to place him under citizens arrest?



You don't have a right to flee the scene of an accident. Maybe the cyclist was attempting to prevent Bryant from fleeing the accident?



Haven't seen any proof anywhere that he was choked. I have heard that the cyclist reached into his car--probably to prevent him from fleeing the scene of an accident.

Fuji: you yourself have stated that one cannot use extraordinary means to place anyone under citizen's arrest and that includes detaining them physically. So know you're contradicting yourself by saying he CAN use physical force to detain someone...so which is it?

Do you know for a FACT it was an accident? There was NO damage to the saab and NO damage to the bike. The witnesses said there MAY have been contact.

Sorry, you're delusional if you think slamming a backpack onto the hood of a car and yelling at someone and then reaching INTO a car is a DEFENSIVE move in any way shape or form. OF COURSE HE WAS TRYING TO STOP HIM, that isn't in question. The REASON why IS the question. I can guarantee you that it wasn't to calmly talk about potpourri and oregami and flower arranging. The cyclist was pissed off before bryant even came onto the scene, he aggressively attacked bryant's car, and he aggressively reached INTO the car (and it wasn't to straighten Bryant's tie) and he aggressively grabbed onto the car.

How can anyone without a great deal of creative writing NOT see that all the cyclist's actions were of an aggressive/antagonistic nature?

How can you even THING that slamming a backpack onto the hood of a car is ANYTHING but AGGRESSIVE?

As stated over and over and over again, IF THE CYCLIST HAD CAUSE HE COULD HAVE SAFELY WRITTEN DOWN THE LICENCE NUMBER OF THE CAR AND STILL BE ALIVE TODAY.

there is NO argument against that. The cyclist's actions directly led to his death. END OF STORY.

 

[tboy]

Bryant 'acted' in an aggressive manner by 'slamming' his car into Sheppard's bike.

Once again, creative writing 101.......it is physically impossible to slam a 3000 lbs hunk of steel into a 35 lb bike and not totally obliterate it. Yet oddly enough, all pictures and video of the bike show it in pristine condition....

WOW the bike repair fairies were on the ball that night! to magically repair the bike in seconds after it was slammed into by a car...wow....I wish they'd be around more often!!!

 

[dirkstoned]

Even if the cyclists was within his rights to place him under citizens arrest?



You don't have a right to flee the scene of an accident. Maybe the cyclist was attempting to prevent Bryant from fleeing the accident?



Haven't seen any proof anywhere that he was choked. I have heard that the cyclist reached into his car--probably to prevent him from fleeing the scene of an accident.

Hey fuji. There is a banned poster here named Thorbax. I think you and he would get along pretty well.

 

[tboy]

Hey fuji. There is a banned poster here named Thorbax. I think you and he would get along pretty well.

Did thorbax get banned? Why? for shear stupidity? lol

He was entertaining to say the least lol......

 

[Brill]

Is that why tboy was previously banned, for shear (sic) stupidity or just being unable to let go of an argument?

 

[dirkstoned]

Did thorbax get banned? Why? for shear stupidity? lol

He was entertaining to say the least lol......

I see banned by his name now. I think he was the difference between entertaining and seriously fucked up from his "ordeal". But he was the only other one to see it fuji's way.

 

[guelph]

Even if the cyclists was within his rights to place him under citizens arrest?



You don't have a right to flee the scene of an accident. Maybe the cyclist was attempting to prevent Bryant from fleeing the accident?

cyclist did not have right to make a citizen's arrest nor does he the authority or right to stop Bryant from leaving especially after the cyclist attackey Bryant's property and threatened harm to Bryant

 

[fuji]

He didn't 'slam' into the bike.... if he had the bike would have been damaged... the bike was not visibly damaged ergo he did not slam into it.

Actually, apparently the bike was visibly damaged.

 

[fuji]

cyclist did not have right to make a citizen's arrest nor does he the authority or right to stop Bryant from leaving especially after the cyclist attackey Bryant's property and threatened harm to Bryant

Any citizen has a right to make a citizen's arrest if they catch someone committing an indictable offense, or if the person commints a crime on or around their property. I don't know if either of those would apply here. If "property" extends to "bicycle" it does, although I suspect "property" is meant to mean just "real estate". In that case it comes down to whether the driver's actions amount to an indictable offense.

If Bryant intentionally rear-ended the cyclist during the earlier confrontation that would amount to assualt, which is indictable, in which case the cyclist would have been well within his rights to place Bryant under citizens arrest and use force to prevent him leaving the scene. Whether that is what happened or not I don't know--neither do any of you.

The video footage is out now and here's what it looks like:

1. Driver either isn't paying attention and accidentally rear ends a cyclist, or else is angry and does it intentionally. This causes significant damage to the cyclist's property, his bicycle.

2. Cyclist goes to speak with the driver, obviously angry, gesturing, slams the hood of the car (does this cause any damage or is it just loud?)

3. Driver attempts to flee the scene (illegally? while under citizens arrest? or in self defense?)

4. Cyclist attempts to prevent driver from fleeing (lawful use of force? or attempted assault?)

5. Cyclist gets killed by driver

That's what I see when I watch the footage anyway. If the driver was simply absent minded in hitting the cyclist then no the cyclist is probably not entitled to make a citizens arrest, if the driver was yelling and hit the cyclist on purpose then the driver committed assault and battery and the cyclist was WELL within his rights to use whatever force necessary to prevent the driver from leaving until the police arrived.

 

[dirkstoned]

Actually, apparently the bike was visibly damaged.

Finf thorbax fuji. You guys are soulmates

 

[fuji]

As I see it there are two avenues by which Bryant can be convicted of a crime here, depending on what facts come out:

1. If Bryant assaulted the cyclist earlier by hitting his bicycle intentionally then the cyclist had him lawfully under citizens arrest and was entitled to use force to prevent him from leaving. Bryant is in serious shit in this case.

2. If at the time of his death the cyclist posed no threat whatsoever to Bryant, say because he was clinging to his life to the side of the vehicle and was already essentially "down and out", then Bryant cannot claim self defense and is again in serious shit.

On the other hand if Bryant committed no assault or other indictable offense against the cyclist, and the cyclist really did pose a reasonable threat to Bryant at the time of his death (as opposed to at some earlier moment) then Bryant can claim self defense and walk.

 

[fuji]

The security footage is on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFISP_PrhFo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufM7zvX3-tM

Draw your own conclusions. It really depends on what was being said, what was intentional, what was by accident.