Vehicle assault

wrote in message
ups.com...

I understand there may be possible downsides to having a word with the
driver; but I hate to see society moving toward a state where nobody
ever says anything to the yahoos, for fear of possible retribution.
When that happens, the yahoos will have won - to an even greater degree
that they already have.

I agree. This is true for more than just within the environment of cycling.
I was at the mall and some teens were goofing off with the mini antique
merry-go-round. It is designed for little kids, and has signs on it saying
not to stand on it, push it, or be over 100 pounds on it. These boys were
being/doing all of these things, while parents with tots were sitting on the
benches around them, not saying or doing anything. In a way and tone that I
hope was friendly, I came up to them and told them to get off and knock it
off and let the little ones get a chance, since the thing was really
designed for kids much younger.

They weren't upset at all, and took off. Maybe young males are supposed to
be intimidating. Yes, there's some gang activity in the neighborhood, but
that doesn't mean that every group of young men (even a group of young men
of color) are going to shoot you when you confront them. And I think it's
the responsibility of every adult to guide young people into civilized
behavior -- in fact, I think they secretly like it.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky

Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

If you want to predict the criminal justice outcome just examine those
facts not in dispute. A 51 year old female driver is tailgated by a 36
year old male bicyclist as they both proceed down a hill. During that
descent his bicycle strikes her car from the rear twice. At the bottom
of that hill she is verbally accosted at a stop sign by the male. The
verbal confrontation ends when she drives off with him in proximity
(the beginning of the "he says, she says" dispute over facts) to her
car pounding on her window. She leaves. He calls the police. He has
minor injuries but refuses medical treatment.
My prediction? At best, a leaving the scene of an accident charge on
her with at least a 50/50 chance of a not guilty verdict. Since the
victim's actions immediately prior to that occurring unquestionably
helped create the danger I'd be very surprised if any felony assault
charges were filed.
As for the mistaken idea that his damaged footwear is somehow
dispositive, whether he was snagged on the car and trying to free
himself (my own guess) or holding onto the car in an attempt to stop it
so he could attack the driver (undoubtedly the defense stance), the
damage to his shoes will be exactly the same.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Dang, Bob, you take ALL the fun out of our outraged discussions!

On 15 Apr 2005 09:16:58 -0700, "Bob" wrote:

If you want to predict the criminal justice outcome just examine those
facts not in dispute. A 51 year old female driver is tailgated by a 36
year old male bicyclist as they both proceed down a hill. During that
descent his bicycle strikes her car from the rear twice. At the bottom
of that hill she is verbally accosted at a stop sign by the male. The
verbal confrontation ends when she drives off with him in proximity
(the beginning of the "he says, she says" dispute over facts) to her
car pounding on her window. She leaves. He calls the police. He has
minor injuries but refuses medical treatment.
My prediction? At best, a leaving the scene of an accident charge on
her with at least a 50/50 chance of a not guilty verdict. Since the
victim's actions immediately prior to that occurring unquestionably
helped create the danger I'd be very surprised if any felony assault
charges were filed.

Best outcome: small fine. At worst, though, the driver could be
hassled enough that maybe, just maybe, the thought that what she did
was wrong and unacceptable would seep through her skull. (If the idea
pierced the SUV thought armor, of course!)

As for the mistaken idea that his damaged footwear is somehow
dispositive, whether he was snagged on the car and trying to free
himself (my own guess) or holding onto the car in an attempt to stop it
so he could attack the driver (undoubtedly the defense stance), the
damage to his shoes will be exactly the same.

Are you seriously predicting the defense might claim the cyclist was
trying to stop the car by hanging on to it? Isn't this taking
Superman to heart just a bit much?? (Or James Bond, but that was Jaws
holding up the van...)

Pat

Email address works as is.

Patrick Lamb wrote:
Dang, Bob, you take ALL the fun out of our outraged discussions!

On 15 Apr 2005 09:16:58 -0700, "Bob" wrote:

If you want to predict the criminal justice outcome just examine
those
facts not in dispute. A 51 year old female driver is tailgated by a
36
year old male bicyclist as they both proceed down a hill. During
that
descent his bicycle strikes her car from the rear twice. At the
bottom
of that hill she is verbally accosted at a stop sign by the male.
The
verbal confrontation ends when she drives off with him in proximity
(the beginning of the "he says, she says" dispute over facts) to her
car pounding on her window. She leaves. He calls the police. He has
minor injuries but refuses medical treatment.
My prediction? At best, a leaving the scene of an accident charge on
her with at least a 50/50 chance of a not guilty verdict. Since the
victim's actions immediately prior to that occurring unquestionably
helped create the danger I'd be very surprised if any felony assault
charges were filed.

Best outcome: small fine. At worst, though, the driver could be
hassled enough that maybe, just maybe, the thought that what she did
was wrong and unacceptable would seep through her skull. (If the
idea
pierced the SUV thought armor, of course!)

As for the mistaken idea that his damaged footwear is somehow
dispositive, whether he was snagged on the car and trying to free
himself (my own guess) or holding onto the car in an attempt to stop
it
so he could attack the driver (undoubtedly the defense stance), the
damage to his shoes will be exactly the same.

Are you seriously predicting the defense might claim the cyclist was
trying to stop the car by hanging on to it? Isn't this taking
Superman to heart just a bit much?? (Or James Bond, but that was
Jaws
holding up the van...)

Pat

Email address works as is.

A defense lawyer's argument doesn't have to be believable or even
reasonable, just obfuscatory. BTW, I'm not predicting that argument
*might* be raised. I am seriously predicting that if it actually goes
to trial the driver's defense attorney *will* say in cross examining
the complainant something like, "Isn't it true that you *held* onto my
client's vehicle in a vain attempt to force her to stop so you could
continue assaulting her?". In his or her closing argument they'll then
say something like, "Members of the jury- doesn't it tell you just how
out of control the so-called victim was that he tried to physically
stop an automobile by hanging on to it? The true victim here is that
poor 51 yr old woman sitting at the defense table. She was being
terrorized by the complainant, the 36 year old male athlete you heard
admit to striking her vehicle not once but twice and then assaulting
her."

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"Bob" wrote in
ups.com:

Question:
I am seriously predicting that if it
actually goes to trial the driver's defense attorney *will* say in
cross examining the complainant something like, "Isn't it true
that you *held* onto my client's vehicle in a vain attempt to
force her to stop so you could continue assaulting her?".

Answer: No.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:04:42 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, Mike
Latondresse wrote:

"Bob" wrote in
ups.com:

Question:
I am seriously predicting that if it
actually goes to trial the driver's defense attorney *will* say in
cross examining the complainant something like, "Isn't it true
that you *held* onto my client's vehicle in a vain attempt to
force her to stop so you could continue assaulting her?".

Answer: No.

No, the DA would "Object!", judge would chide defense & instruct
jury to disregard, defense attorney would rephrase question.

I don't know what you think a prosecutor would base that objection upon
but I've seen and heard questions like that asked hundreds if not
thousands of times in state court in Illinois as well as in the
Northern District of Illinois federal courts. Heck, I've been asked
questions very similiar to that scores of times while in the witness'
chair.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

In article et,
says...

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote
Yep, that's what I always do when a car does something bad. Jump onto the
hood as it speeds away, dragging my feet on the ground in an attempt to
stop
it. That's why Sidi shoes have replaceable heel pads.
Even if her version were correct, which seem very unlikely, isn't it some
sort of actionable crime to drive down the road with someone on the hood of
your car? Something like an attack with a deadly weapon with intent to harm.

It is would be very easy to prove/disprove here account. If you jump on
someones hood you will leave dents on the hood of the car. If there are no
dents, then you know the woman was lying.
--------------
Alex