JTR
Well-known member
Alot of people die from heroin too, they should probably ban that stuff.... wait
biker shoots cager
- Thread starter stevie t
- Start date
Riceburner
Well-known member
Well....drugs are self inflicting...guns are other inflicting? 
Hm...I'll respond to two separate issues.
First, we have no idea whether or not he would've pummeled her to death and we'll never know because as it currently stands, he's dead.
Had a gun not been in that scenario, the likelihood of both surviving would be far higher. Yes, the woman may have suffered more, possibly have broken bones, maybe end up brain dead, but the likelihood of both being alive rises much higher without a gun in the picture.
Second, what I was arguing for was either the removal of xyz that causes some really ****** situations (guns in this case), or the amplification of the ****** situation by removing all rules and therefore letting things sort themselves out...which is loosely related to the direction the thread was going.
Earlier you made an assumption that "because there is a licensing system with xyz rules, violation of rules and policy won't happen." This is simply not true. Using myself as an example: why do I think it's okay to go 3x the speed limit even though our licensing test would instantly fail someone who did so or they'd get their vehicle impounded? Because the option is there, because I believe the system is broken and we should be able to use judgment to decide where and when to speed, because I'm paying for the roads, etc. etc.
Easiest solution to stop me from speeding? Either make manual operation of cars illegal/impossible or remove the entire ability to go above 120km/h (not by a software lock but a hardware design.)
When you apply the above to guns....you should easily see why allowing easy possession of a gun is never a good idea. Humanity is smart, we're also all unique ********.
Last edited:
PLau
Well-known member
They both stopped, and a physical dispute ensued. We don't know who really started it or presumably the first punch (if there was one).
He wasn't on top of her pummeling her, she was pinned against the median (concrete barrier). Now what would they classify as beating? Smacking her helmet around? Punching her in the gut? Kicking her knee caps out? There were no specifics, no pictures, and no injuries reported (and we know that the media loves to dig to report the types of injuries..).
For all we know, they could have pulled over, and she pulled a gun on him which would have prompted him to try pinning her down.
It seems to me that she chose to pull over for a physical altercation because she knew she could resort to her gun.
Even here, people are more ballsy and act more aggressive when they carry baseball bats and crowbars in their cars for "self-defense" where they'd never use it for self-defense just because it's there and they're mad.
It's clear that people don't think clearly in road rage situations. Why allow them to wield a firearm within arms reach?
Opening a huge can of worms with this: Would people be able to accept a scenario where a woman was beating a man in a fit of road rage was shot in self-defense? (Yes, there are many women that can whoop a guys ***).
Last edited:
From what I read, she didn't pull over in order to have an altercation. A traffic jam formed, traffic stopped in front of her, so she stopped. He then pulled up behind her and got out and started coming at her. She had no idea he was even after her until she saw him get out of his car and come at her, and she barely had enough time to get off her bike. Then they started pushing and grappling. Apparently he was mad because she had been weaving between cars and so he started chasing her but she had no idea he was chasing her until he get out of his car. At least this is what I read, I have no idea how accurate this account is.
PLau
Well-known member
Wondering where you read this?
My statements were made off of:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/crime/article199219419.html
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/crime/article199285554.html
and post #2 with pics of a claimed witness.
As a motorcyclist, if the rage ensued from weaving between traffic, and I realized someone got out of their car and started coming after me, why not just continue weaving out of there..? There wouldn't be any way for the person in the car to "chase" her in traffic...
Last edited:
Riding off and getting away may not always be possible. Maybe she was stopped too close behind another car and didn't have time to back up and ride off, or her path was somehow blocked by other cars.
I know if I'm sitting on my bike and I see someone get out of his car and come at me, I'm putting my kickstand down and getting off my bike. It's the safest thing to do. I feel MUCH more confident in my chances in a fist fight than if he were to chase after me and ram me with his 4000 lb car.
There was a story a few years ago of a guy who tried to ride away after a road rage incident with some woman and she chased him and rammed hiim and he died. http://fox5sandiego.com/2017/04/14/driver-gets-6-years-for-road-rage-crash-that-killed-navy-sailor/
Also keep in mind this was February in the Seattle area (not much warmer than Toronto) so her tires probably barely had any grip, not ideal conditions for making a speedy getaway.
PLau
Well-known member
Giving the benefit of the doubt that she couldn't run away even though she could have used the shoulder, I would side on you with this. The further I read into the thread, IMO, the scales were tipping in her favor until....
She has since deleted FB/Social Media.
That being said, road/tire temperatures is not a valid argument of not trying to get away. Assuming she had some experience on the bike, she could have easily weaved to the other side of traffic away from the guy the same way she presumably weaved to piss him off. She could have gone 20km/h and gotten away in traffic - it's not like she's running away at deep lean angles.
Last edited:
Of course, lets just jump to the conclusion you find logical since it fits your argument.
It's also entirely possible it could have been nothing more than a pushing match, or a punch in the face, at which point someone else may have stepped in (or the guy decided he'd crossed a line) and it was all over...like happens with road rage incidents here where everyone doesn't have a hand-cannon in their pocket, or in their glovebox.
I've witnessed what happens when 2 unarmed people get their panties in a twist and decide to road rage. More often than not it's a bunch of chest thumping and everyone goes their own way, and in the situations where it goes south it may be a fist fight at worst.
Fist fights are seldom lethal for either party, and after the hormones have settled, all parties are still around to realize how petty the whole situation was, fighting because someone 'wronged' you in traffic. Yeah, petty.
So tell us all again how guns are so glorious?
ddusseld
Well-known member
So you jump to conclusions to support your ideology? Priceless...
Except one is based on actual real world realities, not envisioned possibilities.
Big difference.
Hack
Well-known member
Lots of armchair quater backing here...
What some don't seem to grasp is I bet within the jurisdiction where this incident occurred there is no duty to retreat. And to heck with all the wouldda, shouldda, couldda,... The only thing that mattered was the perception of the people involved... at the time.
If the shooter believed she was going to suffer grievous bodily harm... She is justified in using deadly force.
Full stop.
That's just how it is in some places.
Of course here, you're expected to just take your beating and hope you survive so your aggressor can sue you in court for breaking his hand with your face.
What some don't seem to grasp is I bet within the jurisdiction where this incident occurred there is no duty to retreat. And to heck with all the wouldda, shouldda, couldda,... The only thing that mattered was the perception of the people involved... at the time.
If the shooter believed she was going to suffer grievous bodily harm... She is justified in using deadly force.
Full stop.
That's just how it is in some places.
Of course here, you're expected to just take your beating and hope you survive so your aggressor can sue you in court for breaking his hand with your face.
I bolded your statement that's proven my point entirely. What happens when the shooter misjudges the situation and fires? Can't say "I'm so sorry I misunderstood" to a dead person! Oh wait, a dead person can't say "I didn't mean to" either!
Yeah, no, lets not have guns. Ever. Any of you guys who are pro gun...go down south, shoot up a school or something. I like boring Canada.
......****, look what I found after Googling: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...after-shooting-florida-high-school/338217002/
'murica never disappoints. Rest in peace to those who never had a choice in where to live and were simply born there.
Last edited:
JTR
Well-known member
If it were only so easy. Maybe some day in a future where a deal is struck to move all of the liberals from the US to socialist, nanny state Canada, and all of the conservatives who would appreciate the constitution and the republic for which it stands, to the free United States of America. That would be grand indeed.油井緋色;2547443 said:
Correct, and that perception is altered by excessively liberal firearm regulations. It's all fed by the notion that society is a Darwinian dog-eat-dog world, and the only way to survive is by overpowering your fellow citizens. A common trope in the US is you're either a wolf or you're a sheep.
Some may label me a pinko socialist, but I'm not the one who named an organization of people a 'society'. Or I may be labeled a wealth-redistributing commie but I didn't invent the term 'commonwealth'. If everyone is after everyone else and you have to fight them all, or merely just present a risk of imminent death to them all, you can't call that a nation. It's savagery. And then people wonder why the US is so f*d up.
Roadghost
Well-known member
Even in Canada if you fear for your life you are justified in using whatever force is necessary to stop the threat. If it is deadly force so be it. Lots of situations like this have ended badly for the victim (in this case it was the girl who was attacked) and I don't buy the bleeding-heart liberal rationale that she should have taken it because people *usually* survive it all. You let your hormones get the best of you and get shot dead doing it you won't get any sympathy from me. Keep yourself under control.
I don’t wonder why the US is so f*d up. It’s pretty obvious.
