|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jailed for road rage attack
A Calgary cyclist has been convicted of viciously assaulting a 70-year-old
man after the senior nearly struck him while exiting a driveway onto a busy street. The judge sentenced the cyclist to 30 days jail followed by a year of probation. She also ordered the 46 yr old to take counselling including anger management. "You lost your temper and attacked an old man while he was sitting in his car. You entered into a violent rage as a result of your losing control of your bicycle. You acted in an inappropriate and violent manner. This was unprovoked road rage." The July 9, 2004, road rage incident occurred when Richard Cuell pulled out from a commercial driveway on Southland Drive near Fairmont Drive. Cuell testified that just as he entered the street, Michael David Ensign, 45, bolted on his bike like "a bat out of hell," forcing him to stop his car abruptly. Ensign swerved, but crashed on the curb. The driver opened his car door to render assistance, but was met by an enraged Ensign, whom he said "karate jump-kicked" his back left window, yelled obscenities and attacked him. "The accused committed a number of assaults upon the victim," provincial court Judge Cheryl Daniel said in convicting Ensign. "First, he tried to punch at the victim. Then he kicked at him and connected with the victim's legs and effected a glancing blow to the victim's chin. "After that, he pulled and twisted the victim's left leg and then removed the victim's right shoe and threw it at him, hitting him directly on the nose." The judge noted the initial assault was observed by two witnesses, who corroborated the victim's story and confirmed Ensign was the aggressor. "The events were recalled so vividly because of the stark and shocking aggressiveness and violence exhibited by the accused," said the judge. "Even when he was ostensibly apologizing to the victim, the accused lost his temper and made as if to assault the victim again. Only police intervention stopped it." She also said Ensign was lying when he testified Cuell intentionally and recklessly hit him as he passed in front of the car; that the victim threatened in vulgar language to run him over the next time; and that he was only riding his bike slowly and was prepared to dismount to go around the car. "I find as fact that he was riding his bike very quickly," said Daniel, and that the victim did not even have time to react. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jailed for road rage attack
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:48:12 GMT, "graham" wrote:
A Calgary cyclist has been convicted of viciously assaulting a 70-year-old man after the senior nearly struck him while exiting a driveway onto a busy street. The judge sentenced the cyclist to 30 days jail followed by a year of probation. She also ordered the 46 yr old to take counselling including anger management. "You lost your temper and attacked an old man while he was sitting in his car. You entered into a violent rage as a result of your losing control of your bicycle. You acted in an inappropriate and violent manner. This was unprovoked road rage." If, as the defendent claims, he was knocked off his bike, it was clearly wrong to attack the driver, but hardly unprovoked. However, the judge believed that the defendent had deliberately cycled quickly thus caused his own crash with the kerb. I am not convinced. The July 9, 2004, road rage incident occurred when Richard Cuell pulled out from a commercial driveway on Southland Drive near Fairmont Drive. Cuell testified that just as he entered the street, Michael David Ensign, 45, bolted on his bike like "a bat out of hell," forcing him to stop his car abruptly. Ensign swerved, but crashed on the curb. The driver opened his car door to render assistance, but was met by an enraged Ensign, whom he said "karate jump-kicked" his back left window, yelled obscenities and attacked him. "The accused committed a number of assaults upon the victim," provincial court Judge Cheryl Daniel said in convicting Ensign. "First, he tried to punch at the victim. Then he kicked at him and connected with the victim's legs and effected a glancing blow to the victim's chin. "After that, he pulled and twisted the victim's left leg and then removed the victim's right shoe and threw it at him, hitting him directly on the nose." The judge noted the initial assault was observed by two witnesses, who corroborated the victim's story and confirmed Ensign was the aggressor. "The events were recalled so vividly because of the stark and shocking aggressiveness and violence exhibited by the accused," said the judge. "Even when he was ostensibly apologizing to the victim, the accused lost his temper and made as if to assault the victim again. Only police intervention stopped it." She also said Ensign was lying when he testified Cuell intentionally and recklessly hit him as he passed in front of the car; that the victim threatened in vulgar language to run him over the next time; and that he was only riding his bike slowly and was prepared to dismount to go around the car. "I find as fact that he was riding his bike very quickly," said Daniel, and that the victim did not even have time to react. -- Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club to ride a stationary bicycle. - Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jailed for road rage attack
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:48:12 GMT, "graham" wrote: A Calgary cyclist has been convicted of viciously assaulting a 70-year-old man after the senior nearly struck him while exiting a driveway onto a busy street. The judge sentenced the cyclist to 30 days jail followed by a year of probation. She also ordered the 46 yr old to take counselling including anger management. "You lost your temper and attacked an old man while he was sitting in his car. You entered into a violent rage as a result of your losing control of your bicycle. You acted in an inappropriate and violent manner. This was unprovoked road rage." If, as the defendent claims, he was knocked off his bike, it was clearly wrong to attack the driver, but hardly unprovoked. However, the judge believed that the defendent had deliberately cycled quickly thus caused his own crash with the kerb. I am not convinced. The fact that you are not convinced has precious little to do with the matter. There were two independent witnesses to the collision/incident who gave evidence. There would also have been the statements of the Police officers who dealt with the incident. The guy was wrong, he acted like a bully because he knew he could do so as his victim was substantially older than himself and unable to fight back. His actions could have had serious consequences which could easily have led to the victim becoming hospitalised, housebound, crippled or dead from secondary causes. He is lower than the lowest scum on the bottom of a fish tank and got off lightly in my opinion. Nothing in the original posting gave him the right or justification to act in this way even had he been a victim of the drivers poor driving which those with the access to the full facts say he was not. To claim provocation is to claim a deliberate act on the part of one party to another to bring about a singular reaction which again was not the case. The judge found him to be a lying toe-rag, the witnesses testified to his previous manner of cycling and consequent behaviour. I therefore submit that there are in the world a number of people who ride bikes who are not what we would refer to as cyclists and who display all the characteristics of their counterparts in the motorised world I.E. are bigoted, self important bullies. Sniper8052 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jailed for road rage attack
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:50:12 GMT, "Sniper8052(L96A1)"
wrote: Tom Crispin wrote: On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:48:12 GMT, "graham" wrote: A Calgary cyclist has been convicted of viciously assaulting a 70-year-old man after the senior nearly struck him while exiting a driveway onto a busy street. The judge sentenced the cyclist to 30 days jail followed by a year of probation. She also ordered the 46 yr old to take counselling including anger management. "You lost your temper and attacked an old man while he was sitting in his car. You entered into a violent rage as a result of your losing control of your bicycle. You acted in an inappropriate and violent manner. This was unprovoked road rage." If, as the defendent claims, he was knocked off his bike, it was clearly wrong to attack the driver, but hardly unprovoked. However, the judge believed that the defendent had deliberately cycled quickly thus caused his own crash with the kerb. I am not convinced. The fact that you are not convinced has precious little to do with the matter. There were two independent witnesses to the collision/incident who gave evidence. There would also have been the statements of the Police officers who dealt with the incident. The guy was wrong, he acted like a bully because he knew he could do so as his victim was substantially older than himself and unable to fight back. His actions could have had serious consequences which could easily have led to the victim becoming hospitalised, housebound, crippled or dead from secondary causes. He is lower than the lowest scum on the bottom of a fish tank and got off lightly in my opinion. Nothing in the original posting gave him the right or justification to act in this way even had he been a victim of the drivers poor driving which those with the access to the full facts say he was not. To claim provocation is to claim a deliberate act on the part of one party to another to bring about a singular reaction which again was not the case. The judge found him to be a lying toe-rag, the witnesses testified to his previous manner of cycling and consequent behaviour. I therefore submit that there are in the world a number of people who ride bikes who are not what we would refer to as cyclists and who display all the characteristics of their counterparts in the motorised world I.E. are bigoted, self important bullies. I reamin unconvinced that the cyclist deliberately cycled quickly to cause his own crash. However, I agree with the essence of what you write. -- Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club to ride a stationary bicycle. - Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jailed for road rage attack
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:50:12 GMT, "Sniper8052(L96A1)" wrote: Tom Crispin wrote: On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:48:12 GMT, "graham" wrote: A Calgary cyclist has been convicted of viciously assaulting a 70-year-old man after the senior nearly struck him while exiting a driveway onto a busy street. The judge sentenced the cyclist to 30 days jail followed by a year of probation. She also ordered the 46 yr old to take counselling including anger management. "You lost your temper and attacked an old man while he was sitting in his car. You entered into a violent rage as a result of your losing control of your bicycle. You acted in an inappropriate and violent manner. This was unprovoked road rage." If, as the defendent claims, he was knocked off his bike, it was clearly wrong to attack the driver, but hardly unprovoked. However, the judge believed that the defendent had deliberately cycled quickly thus caused his own crash with the kerb. I am not convinced. The fact that you are not convinced has precious little to do with the matter. There were two independent witnesses to the collision/incident who gave evidence. There would also have been the statements of the Police officers who dealt with the incident. The guy was wrong, he acted like a bully because he knew he could do so as his victim was substantially older than himself and unable to fight back. His actions could have had serious consequences which could easily have led to the victim becoming hospitalised, housebound, crippled or dead from secondary causes. He is lower than the lowest scum on the bottom of a fish tank and got off lightly in my opinion. Nothing in the original posting gave him the right or justification to act in this way even had he been a victim of the drivers poor driving which those with the access to the full facts say he was not. To claim provocation is to claim a deliberate act on the part of one party to another to bring about a singular reaction which again was not the case. The judge found him to be a lying toe-rag, the witnesses testified to his previous manner of cycling and consequent behaviour. I therefore submit that there are in the world a number of people who ride bikes who are not what we would refer to as cyclists and who display all the characteristics of their counterparts in the motorised world I.E. are bigoted, self important bullies. I reamin unconvinced that the cyclist deliberately cycled quickly to cause his own crash. However, I agree with the essence of what you write. -- Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club to ride a stationary bicycle. - Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon) Fair enough. Sniper8052 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jailed for road rage attack
"Tom Crispin" wrote in message ... On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 09:50:12 GMT, "Sniper8052(L96A1)" wrote: Tom Crispin wrote: On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:48:12 GMT, "graham" wrote: A Calgary cyclist has been convicted of viciously assaulting a 70-year-old man after the senior nearly struck him while exiting a driveway onto a busy street. The judge sentenced the cyclist to 30 days jail followed by a year of probation. She also ordered the 46 yr old to take counselling including anger management. "You lost your temper and attacked an old man while he was sitting in his car. You entered into a violent rage as a result of your losing control of your bicycle. You acted in an inappropriate and violent manner. This was unprovoked road rage." If, as the defendent claims, he was knocked off his bike, it was clearly wrong to attack the driver, but hardly unprovoked. However, the judge believed that the defendent had deliberately cycled quickly thus caused his own crash with the kerb. I am not convinced. The fact that you are not convinced has precious little to do with the matter. There were two independent witnesses to the collision/incident who gave evidence. There would also have been the statements of the Police officers who dealt with the incident. The guy was wrong, he acted like a bully because he knew he could do so as his victim was substantially older than himself and unable to fight back. His actions could have had serious consequences which could easily have led to the victim becoming hospitalised, housebound, crippled or dead from secondary causes. He is lower than the lowest scum on the bottom of a fish tank and got off lightly in my opinion. Nothing in the original posting gave him the right or justification to act in this way even had he been a victim of the drivers poor driving which those with the access to the full facts say he was not. To claim provocation is to claim a deliberate act on the part of one party to another to bring about a singular reaction which again was not the case. The judge found him to be a lying toe-rag, the witnesses testified to his previous manner of cycling and consequent behaviour. I therefore submit that there are in the world a number of people who ride bikes who are not what we would refer to as cyclists and who display all the characteristics of their counterparts in the motorised world I.E. are bigoted, self important bullies. I reamin unconvinced that the cyclist deliberately cycled quickly to cause his own crash. What gave you the idea that idea? The sod was going "like a bat out of hell" and LOST CONTROL. His subsequent behaviour was in no way justified. Graham |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jailed for road rage attack
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 15:23:23 GMT, "graham" wrote:
What gave you the idea that idea? The sod was going "like a bat out of hell" and LOST CONTROL. His subsequent behaviour was in no way justified. The assault victim claimed the cyclist was going "like a bat out of hell". The cyclist claims to have been riding his bike "quite slowly". I expect the truth lies somewhere between. As the cyclist crashed, it is clear that he lost control. The cyclist claims he lost control as a result of being hit by the car pulling out. The court found that he lost control as a result of "cycling very quickly" and the driver had no time to react. Whatever the truth, from the cyclists perspective, he was cycling along a road when a driver pulled out from a driveway, causing him to swerve around, or make contact with, the car then lose control and crash. The cyclist's later behaviour was certainly "inappropriate and violent", but I am unconvinced that the crash was deliberate. If the motorist had not pulled out into the road the crash is unlikely to have occurred. -- Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club to ride a stationary bicycle. - Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jailed for road rage attack
"Tom Crispin" wrote in message ... On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 15:23:23 GMT, "graham" wrote: What gave you the idea that idea? The sod was going "like a bat out of hell" and LOST CONTROL. His subsequent behaviour was in no way justified. The assault victim claimed the cyclist was going "like a bat out of hell". The cyclist claims to have been riding his bike "quite slowly". I expect the truth lies somewhere between. Fer chrissakes! There were witnesses! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jailed for road rage attack
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:48:12 GMT someone who may be "graham"
wrote this:- "I find as fact that he was riding his bike very quickly," So what? What does she consider to be very quickly and how does this compare to what a cyclist would think of as very quickly? Was he riding more quickly then motorists drive in the same place? said Daniel, and that the victim did not even have time to react. React to what? A vehicle coming along the road, which the driver failed to stop for? I wonder if the judge would have said the same thing if the vehicle on the main road was a car? None of this justifies physical violence on the driver, but these remarks by the judge are rather stupid. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist jailed for road rage attack
David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:48:12 GMT someone who may be "graham" wrote this:- "I find as fact that he was riding his bike very quickly," So what? What does she consider to be very quickly and how does this compare to what a cyclist would think of as very quickly? Was he riding more quickly then motorists drive in the same place? The so what is that there were two contradictory statements claimed as fact, the cyclist claimed "he was only riding his bike slowly and was prepared to dismount to go around the car." The "finding of fact" was the refuting of the cyclist's statement. pk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 | Mike Iglesias | General | 4 | October 29th 04 07:11 AM |
Diary of a Mountain Biker in Twickenham | Maximus2 | UK | 0 | October 11th 04 09:31 PM |
Cyclist vs Motorist: Court find Both At Fault | K.A. Moylan | Australia | 14 | June 19th 04 12:15 PM |
Cyclist Jailed For Tire Slashings | B. Lafferty | Racing | 8 | April 19th 04 01:14 PM |
Jailed for violent attack on cyclist | Wallace Shackleton | UK | 18 | September 16th 03 01:43 AM |