Are you allowed to get of your car and beat the shit of a man attacking you and your car with a bicycle ? Could I just pull out a gun and shoot him as soon as the window smashed ?
Most States prohibit using a gun to combat a less-deadly weapon.
A bicycle is obviously less dangerous of a weapon than a gun.
So, no, you wouldn't have a right to shoot him in 99% of cases.
At this point, however, and also depending on the State, you do have a right to detain him through citizen's arrest and call the police for them to process him. It's all on camera. A police officer right then and there with the video in hand has the authority to book him in a heartbeat.
He could get assault with a deadly weapon, because vehicles (bicycle sometimes included) count as deadly weapons.
Other than that, he could get battery and assault. Because he committed battery and assault and attempted theft of the megaphone.
He's in for a lot, actually, if they file charges. If he had been a tad more violent they could put out a warrant for his arrest. Typically, they would anyways, but as busy and lazy people have been, I doubt they are gonna put forth the effort to do that.
At the very least, the owners of the vehicle have every right to file charges in a civil court to demand he pay for damages.
You've got this all wrong fren. there is no "less dangerous of a weapon" rule in any red state. ALL that matters is whether the weapon is capable of doing serious bodily harm - which a bicycle certainly is. Once this single determining factor is satisfied, lethal force is in fact legal.
Reference Kyle Rittenhouse case- he shot a kid who hit him with a skateboard and the Jury determined it was self defense. He also shot an unarmed man who simply tried to grab his gun. Self Defense.
The person in this instance is attacking the vehicle, not the passenger. At least, it can be argued as such.
It's indeterminate that the intended target was the passenger, so arguing self-defense (requiring a reasonable sense of threat to one's life) is essentially bunk. It's actually easier to argue the assailant was attacking the vehicle because most of his strikes were on the side of the van further away from the passenger. On top of that, as soon as the assailant did significant damage to the van he did back off. It's too easy to claim that his intent was to attack the vehicle, not the passenger.
So, we now only have a question of defense of personal property.
In which case, a gun would not be a suitable defensive weapon for the property in question.
If someone were to attack my backpack with a knife, for example, shooting them for the destruction of my property would be an unreasonable response.
If they turn the knife on me, however, then things can change. Even so, some States still will not offer lenience when pulling a gun on someone with a knife unless you can offer some reason to believe they intended to use the knife on you to take your life. They could just be posturing, in which case you are obligated to try and diffuse the situation before pulling your own weapon.
Then, if they do continue their assault, and you pull the gun it is advisable to tell them you are feeling threatened and they must back off or you will shoot -- in some cases even before you aim the gun directly at them. Just showing them the gun would be the first step, and even then some States will say you haven't a right to do so.
I'm not saying I agree with the law, just that in this particular case, just pulling a gun would in almost all States be a bad idea. All I've said above is essential for a lawful defense. Otherwise, it would be grounds for a jury to decide, which you don't want to happen in the first place.
I didn't say the argument isn't stupid, but in a court of "innocent until proven guilty" the prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that he was targeting the individual instead of the vehicle.
Had the window not been there, would he have continued his assault?
Only the defendant can answer that, and he will obviously say that he wouldn't have attacked him directly with the bicycle and only lunged the wheel toward him because he knew the glass was in the way.
Prosecutors can't prove what he did or didn't know or think at the time, so they cannot show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended great bodily harm against the passenger.
Thems the rules, I didn't make them, and yes, I agree, they are stupid and don't account for proper context.
"It is not indeterminate wether the attacker was targeting the vehicle or the man.
It shows clearly the attacker was targeting the man at the onset of the attack and only began to attack the vehicle as it was shielding the intended target.
The evidence is clear in the first 5 seconds of the video in which attacker clearly runs to attack the man, shouting "Shut the fuck up", making direct eye contact and raising his hand to swing against the man, but being deflected by the megaphone device.
It is clearly evident the attacker intended to target the man but simply failed to strike him."
Attacker to the stand
"Mr attacker was it your intent to strike the man with the megaphone."
"No, I was only trying to hit the vehicle"
Attacker to watch a slowed down replay of the first 8 seconds of footage.
"Mr attacker, you seemed to have attempted to strike the man through the window here."
You think science and logic matters in a court of law?
The truth of the situation doesn't matter in court, only how you spin it to a judge or a jury.
The attorneys for the goober with the bike will claim he was attacking the vehicle and hope to get off with damage to property and maybe battery.
Even what you claim is still just reckless endangerment and nowhere near attempted murder.
Common Sense =/= Court Sense.
I know you want to find any excuse to pull a gun on guys like this, I'm with you as well, but I'm telling you right now that no matter how this whole attack could have/would have gone down, pulling a gun would immediately made you in the wrong, for either side.
The person to escalate the situation is usually the one at fault, and it sucks that's the case of the court system, but you have to understand that the court system is not fair and just anymore; it is predatory and looking for every excuse to drain both sides of as much money as they can and then ruin the life of the victim so they learn the lesson to stay at home and never confront anyone and anything that goes against the elites in charge.
I never said a gun should definitely be pulled out, I just stated that a bike can indeed kill someone just as a gun can. Of course, laws and logic don't always overlap, as you stated.
LOL. In Red America the glock would have been out when he reached in the car and two hollowpoints downrange when he started trying to shove that bicycle in the window.
I wonder if part of the reason why the new Matrix movie was so loaded up with all sorts of globalist insane crazy is because they didn't like that the message of the first one was freedom and escape. Ringing too true for people looking around and seeing the prison walls for the first time.
Lots of option here. Best option is open up the trunk monkey and let the monkey deal with the idiot.
Those are on backorder.
Are you allowed to get of your car and beat the shit of a man attacking you and your car with a bicycle ? Could I just pull out a gun and shoot him as soon as the window smashed ?
Asking for a fren.
Most States prohibit using a gun to combat a less-deadly weapon.
A bicycle is obviously less dangerous of a weapon than a gun.
So, no, you wouldn't have a right to shoot him in 99% of cases.
At this point, however, and also depending on the State, you do have a right to detain him through citizen's arrest and call the police for them to process him. It's all on camera. A police officer right then and there with the video in hand has the authority to book him in a heartbeat.
He could get assault with a deadly weapon, because vehicles (bicycle sometimes included) count as deadly weapons.
Other than that, he could get battery and assault. Because he committed battery and assault and attempted theft of the megaphone.
He's in for a lot, actually, if they file charges. If he had been a tad more violent they could put out a warrant for his arrest. Typically, they would anyways, but as busy and lazy people have been, I doubt they are gonna put forth the effort to do that.
At the very least, the owners of the vehicle have every right to file charges in a civil court to demand he pay for damages.
You've got this all wrong fren. there is no "less dangerous of a weapon" rule in any red state. ALL that matters is whether the weapon is capable of doing serious bodily harm - which a bicycle certainly is. Once this single determining factor is satisfied, lethal force is in fact legal.
Reference Kyle Rittenhouse case- he shot a kid who hit him with a skateboard and the Jury determined it was self defense. He also shot an unarmed man who simply tried to grab his gun. Self Defense.
The person in this instance is attacking the vehicle, not the passenger. At least, it can be argued as such.
It's indeterminate that the intended target was the passenger, so arguing self-defense (requiring a reasonable sense of threat to one's life) is essentially bunk. It's actually easier to argue the assailant was attacking the vehicle because most of his strikes were on the side of the van further away from the passenger. On top of that, as soon as the assailant did significant damage to the van he did back off. It's too easy to claim that his intent was to attack the vehicle, not the passenger.
So, we now only have a question of defense of personal property.
In which case, a gun would not be a suitable defensive weapon for the property in question.
If someone were to attack my backpack with a knife, for example, shooting them for the destruction of my property would be an unreasonable response.
If they turn the knife on me, however, then things can change. Even so, some States still will not offer lenience when pulling a gun on someone with a knife unless you can offer some reason to believe they intended to use the knife on you to take your life. They could just be posturing, in which case you are obligated to try and diffuse the situation before pulling your own weapon.
Then, if they do continue their assault, and you pull the gun it is advisable to tell them you are feeling threatened and they must back off or you will shoot -- in some cases even before you aim the gun directly at them. Just showing them the gun would be the first step, and even then some States will say you haven't a right to do so.
I'm not saying I agree with the law, just that in this particular case, just pulling a gun would in almost all States be a bad idea. All I've said above is essential for a lawful defense. Otherwise, it would be grounds for a jury to decide, which you don't want to happen in the first place.
Thats stupid, the vehicle was between the idiot and his target. You should be an ambulance chaser.
I didn't say the argument isn't stupid, but in a court of "innocent until proven guilty" the prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that he was targeting the individual instead of the vehicle.
Had the window not been there, would he have continued his assault?
Only the defendant can answer that, and he will obviously say that he wouldn't have attacked him directly with the bicycle and only lunged the wheel toward him because he knew the glass was in the way.
Prosecutors can't prove what he did or didn't know or think at the time, so they cannot show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he intended great bodily harm against the passenger.
Thems the rules, I didn't make them, and yes, I agree, they are stupid and don't account for proper context.
the first time the bike came against the window its an attack on the person, not vehicle.
Yeah - I'm not a lawyer but..
OBJECTION!
"It is not indeterminate wether the attacker was targeting the vehicle or the man.
It shows clearly the attacker was targeting the man at the onset of the attack and only began to attack the vehicle as it was shielding the intended target.
The evidence is clear in the first 5 seconds of the video in which attacker clearly runs to attack the man, shouting "Shut the fuck up", making direct eye contact and raising his hand to swing against the man, but being deflected by the megaphone device.
It is clearly evident the attacker intended to target the man but simply failed to strike him."
Attacker to the stand
"Mr attacker was it your intent to strike the man with the megaphone."
"No, I was only trying to hit the vehicle"
Attacker to watch a slowed down replay of the first 8 seconds of footage.
"Mr attacker, you seemed to have attempted to strike the man through the window here."
If any part of the frame hits the dude in the head and he dies, then a bike has potentially the exact same danger as a gun.
You think science and logic matters in a court of law?
The truth of the situation doesn't matter in court, only how you spin it to a judge or a jury.
The attorneys for the goober with the bike will claim he was attacking the vehicle and hope to get off with damage to property and maybe battery.
Even what you claim is still just reckless endangerment and nowhere near attempted murder.
Common Sense =/= Court Sense.
I know you want to find any excuse to pull a gun on guys like this, I'm with you as well, but I'm telling you right now that no matter how this whole attack could have/would have gone down, pulling a gun would immediately made you in the wrong, for either side.
The person to escalate the situation is usually the one at fault, and it sucks that's the case of the court system, but you have to understand that the court system is not fair and just anymore; it is predatory and looking for every excuse to drain both sides of as much money as they can and then ruin the life of the victim so they learn the lesson to stay at home and never confront anyone and anything that goes against the elites in charge.
I never said a gun should definitely be pulled out, I just stated that a bike can indeed kill someone just as a gun can. Of course, laws and logic don't always overlap, as you stated.
That bullhorn would have been a allowable weapon against a crazy wimp with a bicycle.
depends where you are, in some states yes, but in blue states no.
I don't see why not.
You've been psy opped, brother
"JUST SHUT UP AND LED ME DIE IN PEACE, ALREADY!!"
LOL. In Red America the glock would have been out when he reached in the car and two hollowpoints downrange when he started trying to shove that bicycle in the window.
This is from some months back FYI.
Dude needed a step up knee to the sternum and then a head kick while he's bent over wondering how that just happened.
I was trying to find more info! Hadn't seen it before
I remember seeing this a long while back, still good though
It's all good. Still a worthy post. I can't remember exactly when, if I was to guess around 6 months or so.
Some people are not ready to be unplugged..
I wonder if part of the reason why the new Matrix movie was so loaded up with all sorts of globalist insane crazy is because they didn't like that the message of the first one was freedom and escape. Ringing too true for people looking around and seeing the prison walls for the first time.