genec

They tend to attract people intent on stealing firearms, and they instantly raise the aggression level to "gun;" no point in showing up with a club or knife. This is why concealed carry is better, BTW.

This is also why "open carry unloaded" is so incredibly dumb (as was practiced by some in CA a couple of years ago...). Basically in that "open carry unloaded" situation you are saying "I am Barney Fife, come take my gun, it is unloaded."

turbo1889

Thug-ish type people, and people who hate guns, take open carry as a challenge and it can make the difference between a non-issue and an escalation that need not even have occurred in the first place. I'm extra careful and cautious when I open carry and have been challenged verbally more then once even in very firearms friendly areas. So far no one has yet tried to make a grab for my sidearm (one of my greatest worries when carrying visibly) but there was one that looked very much like that was about to happen and she might have tried it if I hadn't been as alert and watching her as well as I was.

I do not recommend open carry for most people for those reasons. Yes, it may be legal and I agree its your right, but if you must carry if at all possible get a whole lot of training and a CWP from your local law enforcement and carry out of visible sight and do not take it out unless you absolutely have to use it and hopefully if and when that day comes it will be a four legged predator on the receiving end, so far that's all I've had to deal with and the legal and mental repercussions are far less then I believe it would be with a two legged one.

A day I hope never comes for me, although unfortunately it may since for some reason the great galactic Karma seems to have decreed that I shalt be a sh*t magnet.

The way things work for me if some deranged nut sicko ever goes nuts and goes into a restaurant intent on a mass killing in my general area I'll probably be eating in that restaurant when it happens, just how life has been for me every since I was just a kid and I've kind of just learned to expect and accept it and just deal with it as best I can. Basically when sh*t is going to happen around me the odds are way more then they should be by mere chance alone that I'll be in the spray zone when the turd hits the fan.

My religious relatives keep saying that God never gives anyone more trouble then they can handle. My response back for some years now is that apparently how He manages to do that is to give those of us who have learned how to handle trouble all the troubles everyone else can't handle.

rydabent

On this forum and others we have outlandish reports of cyclist being run over on the shoulder, and even on sidewalks. Then the drivers ge a slap on the wrist. These cases are NO accident they are a case of irresponsible murder with an auto.

The biggest excuse I have read here so far is the fact that cars are everwhere. Big deal. It remains that almost everwhere bikes are afforded all the rights to the road as a car, and I believe that there are actually more bikes in the country than cars.

Lastly IMO anyone that drunk drives and kills someone should be jailed for at least 25 years WITHOUT the posibility of parole. No judge, jury, or whining defense att should be able to get the killer out of the 25 years.

dynodonn 

There probably is, due to bikes being more affordable than a motor vehicle, of course, the number of miles ridden in the US falls considerably short when compared to the number of miles driven.

turbo1889

I really hate to say this since it makes me sound like someone else on this forum who has the fat cat avatar, but I think it's a reality check that needs to be said so here goes:

Are you implying there is such a thing as "responsible murder"?

I understand your grief, and your fear, and your anger about these sort of incidents. But at the same time lets not get carried away and try to push the scales of justice too far the other direction out of fervent passionate and understandable outrage at how they have been unequally weighted to the advantage of the perps. in these cases. Negligent homicide is not murder which requires willful intent.

I do not argue against the fact that at least some of these incidents are not acts of negligence but rather willful intentional assaults using automobile vehicles as weapons and I agree that in such cases they should be prosecuted as such. And I would certainly agree that those situations which are acts of negligence in the operation of a known to be dangerous machine should be dealt with as such under the criminal negligence statutes same as any other form of criminal negligence that results in serious injury or death.

But lets not get all bent totally out of shape, and go too far the other direction, that isn't right or true justice either and makes a bad argument. If you want to convince others of the worthiness and justness of your cause "going off the deep end" will only hurt you in the long run.

I-Like-To-Bike

That definitely sounds like the sage advice that usually emanates from the wise old cat. Often to howls of denial from the spewers of hot head rhetoric and crazy house lunacy.

bluegoatwoods

Well.....I guess I'll bite.

What in the world is 'crazy house lunacy'?



It sounds a bit like our partying days when we were twenty-somethings.

DX-MAN

Turbo, calm down, dude. I'm just calling it as I see it.

I don't carry. Not a good idea for me. Partly for the reason you illustrate -- where I live, there'd be an "OK Corral" about every week. So I get it, I feel your pain.

BTW, I gotta do this: I feel your pain about religious relatives, too -- guess that's just our cross to bear.

walrus1

I smell a lock coming soon.

Jimi77

Killing isn't just killing. Our legal system makes distinctions as do most individuals. Running over a cyclist because your tire blew out is different from running them over because you were drunk as a skunk and stabbing somebody to death is an entirely different matter.

As for drivers appearing to get off lightly; I have no data to compare it against, so maybe the court system is actually hammering drivers (for all I know).

B. Carfree

It must be nice where you live. Here in my little corner of America, it doesn't work that way. The "standing" of the victim relative to the drunk will dramatically affect both the charges and the sentence. For example, last year a small business owner went out to a strip bar, spent several hundred dollars and got rip-roaring drunk. On his way home, he splattered a homeless pedestrian all over the road for several hundred feet. The drunk then drove another quarter-mile and promptly fell asleep on the freeway on-ramp.

He wasn't even charged with the hit-and-run. His sentence was one month, suspended. The judge pretty much acknowledged that social standing was a factor in the sentence by claiming it wasn't (without any prompting, as in "she doth protest too much").

Now tell me that anyone could kill another person with anything but a car and get that kind of sentence. By the way, it probably won't surprise you that this neck of the woods has twice the rate of death due to alcohol, mostly drunk driving related, as the national average. (Our consumption of alcohol is only about 10% over the national average.)

turbo1889

As far as DUI is concerned (which I personally do not consider any greater form of negligence then other forms of willful gross negligence when it comes to operating a dangerous machine, just one of many options available for those who choose to be negligent in their responsibility) my state has actually finally started to clean up its act over the last few years.

In fact this year is the first on record where the largest single group of felons behind bars in our state were multiple DUI offenders, which I consider a good sign that they are finally starting to take it seriously and actually lock those jokers up to keep them from driving drunk again (suspended licenses doesn't seem to work very well, they just drive drunk without a license.)

B. Carfree

I'm glad your state is starting to take DUI seriously. Here in OR, your first drunk driving earns you a free pass. Well, not entirely free since you do have to pay for a classroom experience. However, it does wipe the conviction from your record and there isn't even an insurance rate increase.

It's so bad our local prosecutor, the guy who is supposed to prosecute our local drunk drivers, just got convicted of drunk driving and is taking the diversion option. While he did lose his job, he is getting his substantial severance pay because his crime didn't involve any moral turpitude, at least that's how our city manager viewed it. We've also had two cops convicted of drunk driving this year. Both are still on the job without repercussions.

Foxes are in charge of the hen house.

howsteepisit

The DUI/suspended license issue is really interesting to me. After i returned to College in 2009 I worked in a convenience store in Montana, and the number of people driving in and buying beer with no drivers licenses (used state issued ID cards) was huge. How do you stop those convicted DUI drivers from just driving sans license? The disincentives are clearly not strong enough, and while I am pretty much against locking them all behind bars, it may be the only way to keep multiply convicted DUI drivers from driving is to lock them up for the length of time they lose their licenses for.


EDIT oh yes, they drive sober after they lose their licenses also, and thats gotta stop too.

B. Carfree

Well, well, sometimes, if all the stars align properly (over-the-top motorist behavior like purposely running into/over a cyclist who is stopped in a bike lane, witnesses who are outraged enough to stick around, etc), motorists can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Look what just appeared in the news: https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/...st-4895883.php

So, if you're going to attack a cyclist, don't be obvious. Don't honk your horn or curse them out first. Just run them down and stick around to tell the cops what a horrible accident it is. Same formula for pedestrians.

genec

Remember to use the magic words... "the cyclist swerved." Also suitable: "I just didn't see the cyclist."

All basic get out of jail free cards.

dynodonn 

Other than not being struck by a car, sounds like a similar incident that tipped the balance towards me in purchasing video cameras, and videoing all my commutes. The vast majority of my reported incidents, there haven't been any witnesses outraged enough to come forward.


Pretty much.....one teen was killed while crossing a street at night, the motorist wasn't speeding or DUI or being reckless in their driving manner....no ticket was issued, no charges filed by law enforcement or by the legal system.....basically a free pass. The case has gone to civil court, but seeing the outcomes of other civil trials in our locale, not much justice can be expected going in that direction.

rydabent

Just read some the the bike forums. They all have incidents listed that killing with a car, even drunk driving with a car that kills a cyclist gets little more than a wink a nod and usually a slap on the wrist. This is just not right.

turbo1889

Agreed, pedestrians in cross walks suffer similar as do motorcyclists as well.

Something does need to be done about it, but at the same time lets not go completely off the deep end and start calling acts of negligence that result in a death "murder". Murder requires malice intent and is dealt with significantly more severely then deaths that are the result of negligence without malice.

Now there are indeed cases that certainly aren't negligence but rather are acts of malice and those should indeed be treated as what they are.

Treat criminal gross negligence in the operation of known dangerous and potential lethal machine around other innocent people as exactly what it is ~ No free passes because the dangerous machine in question being operated was an automobile.

Treat malicious criminal threatening and harassment while in the possession and control of a deadly weapon as exactly what it is. Treat assault with a deadly weapon as exactly what it is. Treat battery with a deadly weapon as exactly what it is. Treat murder or attempted murder as exactly what it is both in the 1st and 2nd degree. Treat hate crimes perpetrated against specific classes or groups of other people just because they are in that class or group as exactly what they are. No free passes because of your choice of deadly weapon, especially if your preferred choice of deadly weapon is an automobile. Also, no free passes because of your choice of which group to commit hate crimes against, including if the group you hate and commit hate crimes against is "bicyclists who ride in the road".

That is a logical and very simple and understandable solution, and is the demand we should be making. Screaming our heads off like lunatics crying "bloody murder" when someone is negligent and this results in someone else being killed only makes us look foolish. On the other hand demanding that there be serious consequences for someone who's negligence with a dangerous lethal machine has resulted in a death, and that the first and most important consequence being that such an individual should never again be allowed to operate such a dangerous lethal machine around other innocent people looks a whole lot better. Now when it is indeed actual malicious deliberate murder, then that is the time to start crying "bloody murder", but don't cry that unless that is actually what it is.

It's the whole "Boy who cried wolf" thing. Only cry wolf if it is a wolf. If its something other then a wolf then call it what it is.








Edit, Add-On:

As to "hate crimes" before someone starts going into all the technical on that (which I already know) as it being limited to only a select named groups, etc, etc . . .

That is something I think needs to be changed in our legal system. Namely that the legal definition of a hate crime should be a crime where both the motive and the premeditation take the form of a deep hatred towards any group or class including those who are a member of a group just by engaging in any legal activity. So long as they aren't doing anything illegal you can't hate them for it and commit crimes against them out of your hatred.

For example if a person of one skin color murdered a person of another skin color and the defense tried to argue non-premeditation and get the charges lowered from 1st down to 2nd degree murder because there was no motive for premeditation. The prosecution need only legally prove by evidence that prior to the incident the murderer hated people of the other skin color and this hatred is sufficient to fulfill the legal requirements for a 1st degree conviction of both motive and premeditation. Basically a "hate crime" would then legally be just a legal way of proving both motive and premeditation if sufficient evidence of such hatred could be demonstrated.

Then you wouldn't have to worry about classes or protected groups and who is a protected group and who isn't (which creates many social friction issues in our society, as well as sometimes being used to stifle legitimate free speech where no crime is commited) but rather just say so long as someone else isn't doing anything illegal you can't hate them for it. And if you do and act on that hatred, proof of that hatred alone is sufficient to demonstrate both motive and premeditation for your crime so you can't wiggle out with anything less then the 1st degree on any type of crime you commit based on your deep seated hatred and your going to get the book thrown at you.

gcottay

From the simple perspective of an owner and user, I'll suggest that firearms, like most weapons, are more easily used for offense than for defense. If you want to do me harm and see I am carrying you are encouraged to attack with sudden overwhelming force. If I'm carrying concealed you might be lulled into a false sense of security that allows me time to take defensive action.

dynodonn 

Nice thought, but 108,000 people were cited (just by our highway patrol alone) for driving either unlicensed or on a suspended license in our state in 2012, along with the state no longer having a motorist's car impounded if caught with suspended license or unlicensed

turbo1889

That's why its a demand (as in: "not currently how it is but rather how it should be, trying to get what is changed to how it should be").

Also, I never said that anyone who is ever negligent should be barred from driving an automobile vehicle on the public roadways again. I do quite often say those who, with an automobile on the public roadways, have committed "gross negligence resulting in the death of an innocent" (may not always have used that exact wording) should be barred from driving an automobile vehicle on the public roadway in the future.

As to those who just drive anyway with a suspended license, the only way to deal with that is to come down like the proverbial bag of hammers on those who do. I do not deny that, and have even at publicly stated more then once that in some cases some people should be barred from engaging in certain actives where they have already been negligent and got other people killed and have demonstrated the "clear and present lethal danger" they represent and under the threat of a death penalty if they ever do such again. I don't care if its cars or guns, some people that is the only way to deal with them and still have a half way civilized society and not have them destroy it. I certainly don't think that extreme of a measure is necessary in all cases by any means, and I don't think it should ever go to that level unless people are already dead as a result of that particular perp. and its beyond question that they can't be trusted and they have demonstrated that by means of dead bodies already. But with some of these nuts its unfortunately necessary including actually following through when necessary and it not just being an empty threat.

I'm not a proponent of "gun control" or "car control". I strongly believe in "nut control", we have got to start dealing with the psychopaths in or society who treat the property, health, and very lives of others as so cheap as to not even be worthy of the slightest consideration otherwise they tend to multiply !!!!!!!!!!!

I-Like-To-Bike

I can understand how some people could get a warped and bizarre sense of reality if their idea of Truth and Facts comes mainly from reading some of the Bike Forums without many grains of salt and a great deal of skepticism. Cherry picking the Bike Forum posts that confirm your own opinion and prejudices also is helpful in confirming/reinforcing such beliefs.

dynodonn 

Nice thought as well, but as long as our state is in the process of jail/prison population reduction, the motorist generally ends up being cited and released, and back to driving on the roads in short order.

genec

Seems to me that taking possession of the vehicle being driven and then selling it at a state auction would both prevent the offender from driving that vehicle again, AND make some money for the state. Sooner or later the offender will not be able to borrow or afford another car. I would guess that this is perhaps less expensive than jailing the individual, and does not increase the prison population. Perhaps the state can issue a year long bus pass as a suggestion as to how the individual should transport themselves. (the cost of the pass of course coming out of the revenue of the sale of the vehicle).