Advocacy & Safety - Cyclist shoot motorist

http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1439644.html

http://wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=7113700


Milwaukee bicyclist shoots motorist after near-collision, police say

Associated Press

Last update: September 22, 2007 – 1:16 PM

MILWAUKEE — A bicyclist shot a motorist after the man's car nearly hit the bike on Friday night, police said.

The 28-year-old driver of the car stopped to check on the bicyclist, who had fallen to the pavement around 10:45 p.m., police said.

The bicyclist got up, fired three shots and hit the driver once in the shoulder, police said.

The motorist drove to the house of a friend, who then took him to a hospital. He was treated and released.

Police said they were looking for the bicyclist on Saturday. No other details were released.

I guess car drivers should watch their backs.

WOW...what a weight penalty lugging a gun on your ride.

"The bicyclist got up, fired three shots and hit the driver once in the shoulder, police said."


Someone needs target practice.

I bet that cyclist thought he was doing a great favor to the cycling community.

Sounds to me like a disturbed CM'er. True, the motorist may have been at fault, but at least he was kind enough to stop and see that the cyclist was all right. No reason for gunplay, let alone violence.

And we thought wrong-way cyclists gave us a bad name...

-Kurt

A guy on a bicycle shot a guy in a car. I detect no agenda from this news story.

A young gangbanger might be on a bike and have a gun, and would certainly be inclined to use it as described.

A mental health outpatient might conceivably ride a bike, have a gun and shoot under such conditions.

An inebriated offduty police officer who's recently been busted down to bike squad WOULD NEVER be able to do such a thing, however.

Sounds to me like a disturbed CM'er.
Do you know anyone who rides Critical Mass? The majority of them tend to favor making gun ownership illegal. For the most part, they are not the sort to be owning guns. I've got plenty of criticism for CM myself, but please - if you're going to generalize, at least try for some accuracy.

This cracks me up. I know plenty of us have entertained the fantasy of getting some sort of violent revenge on bad drivers. The irony in this case is the driver actually had the courtesy to stop and check on the cyclist and was then attacked. In my world, I'd reserve the bazookas for the Hit and Runs, thank you very much.

Also, flying attack squadrons of africanized honey bees for people who fail to yield, mace for slow pedestrians, and a bag of **** on the doorstep of every legislator.

Oh oh oh and also

Might Have Been Roid Rage!!!

Hey, anyone got a place i can hide for a while... this is completly non related...

...kidding

I live in milwaukee and I didnt even hear about this until just now.

"The bicyclist got up, fired three shots and hit the driver once in the shoulder, police said."


Someone needs target practice.

+10

Reminds me of the news articles of shoot outs... "125 rounds were fired, but nobody was injured"

WHAT????


Note: This post is in no way meant to endorse the cyclist shooting at the motorist... just making fun of the shooter for being such a lousy shot.

I bet that cyclist thought he was doing a great favor to the cycling community. Bull$hit.

Sounds to me like a disturbed CM'er. True, the motorist may have been at fault, but at least he was kind enough to stop and see that the cyclist was all right. No reason for gunplay, let alone violence.

And we thought wrong-way cyclists gave us a bad name...

-Kurt

This incident is unrelated to cycling. The guy just happened to have a bike. Plenty of people have bikes, even criminals.

EDIT: wait, nevermind... it's slightly related. I didn't notice the cyclist fell because the car passed him closely. I thought he was just lying on the ground.. makes more sense now.

This incident is unrelated to cycling. The guy just happened to have a bike. Plenty of people have bikes, even criminals.

criminals steal bikes. the bike was probably stolen.

Sometimes the news gives out the name and location of the victim. They didn't in this case. I guess they figure the guy on the bike is still pretty mad. You know, not to give any leads and make it too easy. Oh well... anyway, I bet that motorist will think twice about passing too close to a bicycle again though.

+10

Reminds me of the news articles of shoot outs... "125 rounds were fired, but nobody was injured"

WHAT????


Note: This post is in no way meant to endorse the cyclist shooting at the motorist... just making fun of the shooter for being such a lousy shot.

My all time favorite was not too ong ago, when asked why the suspect was shot 65(?) times, the police officer replied 'we ran out of bullets'

I'm not gung-ho on shooting people, but I do believe in defending myself.

Ken.

Who knows the whole story, the motorist might have been going back to steal the biker's wallet. There was a story here a couple of years ago where some guys would run motorcyclists off some rural roads and then go back to steal thier wallets, so I wouldn't put it past them.

Az

I can't come to any conclusions about this story until I have more details.

But from what I've read on these forums plenty of folks seem to support cyclists carrying guns so who knows...

Well I have been here in Indiana all day, I did go for a ride eairler but I went no where near milwaukee.

Does anyone else find it odd that the motorist ALMOST hit the cyclist but did not; yet the cyclist fell down anyway.

Clearly the story is from the motorist viewpoint.

The other side of the story might be:
Motorist road rages on cyclist for delaying him by 10 seconds, when the motorist is able to pass, he pulls along side the cyclist and swerves into the cyclist forcing him into a ditch causing the cyclist to crash. The road rager gets out of his car with a tire iron, screaming at the cyclist as he runs towards him. The cyclist yells stay away, but the motorist keeps coming. The cyclist then fires 2 warning shoots but the motorist does not stop, so the cyclist shoots the motorist in the shoulder (to injure but not kill) in self defense, . When the motorist goes back to his car, the cyclist rides off to a side road in fear the motorist will chase him down and run him over. The cyclist does not go to police, because when he was run off the road before, the cops told him there was nothing they could do about it since it was his word against the motorist.

Does anyone else find it odd that the motorist ALMOST hit the cyclist but did not; yet the cyclist fell down anyway.

Clearly the story is from the motorist viewpoint.

The other side of the story might be:
Motorist road rages on cyclist for delaying him by 10 seconds, when the motorist is able to pass, he pulls along side the cyclist and swerves into the cyclist forcing him into a ditch causing the cyclist to crash. The road rager gets out of his car with a tire iron, screaming at the cyclist as he runs towards him. The cyclist yells stay away, but the motorist keeps coming. The cyclist then fires 2 warning shoots but the motorist does not stop, so the cyclist shoots the motorist in the shoulder (to injure but not kill) in self defense, . When the motorist goes back to his car, the cyclist rides off to a side road in fear the motorist will chase him down and run him over. The cyclist does not go to police, because when he was run off the road before, the cops told him there was nothing they could do about it since it was his word against the motorist.
Are you serious? This is the biggest stretch I've ever seen. Is it somehow inconceivable that the cyclist got really pissed because he crashed after a close-call with a car? And that in this rage, he shot the guy who stopped?

I have real doubts that the guy would have stopped if he purposely caused the cyclist to crash. Wouldn't that be counter productive to someone in a hurry? Wouldn't making the guy crash be more than enough to suffice for being in the way for a few seconds? Your little scenario here seems incredibly unlikely, and the "motorist side" of the story makes more sense. If the cyclist wasn't in the wrong for shooting the guy, he probably wouldn't have ran. Gun crimes are serious things, and nothing adds up the way you want it to.

If the driver was malicious, he most likely wouldn't have stopped. If the cyclist didn't escalate to road rage and shoot the guy in the wrong, he wouldn't have ran.

Might Have Been Roid Rage!!!

Hemorrhoids, perhaps.

Are you serious? This is the biggest stretch I've ever seen. Is it somehow inconceivable that the cyclist got really pissed because he crashed after a close-call with a car? And that in this rage, he shot the guy who stopped?

I have real doubts that the guy would have stopped if he purposely caused the cyclist to crash. Wouldn't that be counter productive to someone in a hurry? Wouldn't making the guy crash be more than enough to suffice for being in the way for a few seconds? Your little scenario here seems incredibly unlikely, and the "motorist side" of the story makes more sense. If the cyclist wasn't in the wrong for shooting the guy, he probably wouldn't have ran. Gun crimes are serious things, and nothing adds up the way you want it to.

If the driver was malicious, he most likely wouldn't have stopped. If the cyclist didn't escalate to road rage and shoot the guy in the wrong, he wouldn't have ran.

No more unlikely than the motorist story. So the real truth likely is somewhere in the middle, is it not?

I had a motorist intentionally squeeze me off the road after long honks and revving of the engine. When I caught up to him, I spat on his back window. Half a mile later, he had pulled onto a side road, walked into the traffic lane and tried to push me off my bike into traffic. I stopped and put a foot down, he came at me again to push me off. I was ready and used the power of my down leg, shoulder and arm to shove him back five yards. He then understood he would not when a fight.

After I called the cops, what do you think his story was? "The bicyclist spit on my car for no reason, after I stopped to talk to him, the bicyclist assaulted me."

So yes, the story I presented is plausible. Just as the gang banger story is plausible. I just presented the other possible scenario.

Have you not had motorist that where in a big hurry suddenly have all the time in the world to tell you what the motorist thinks the laws are, or pace you to tell you to get on the sidewalk, etc.

The difference is that the guy stopped with the intention to help (allegedly, I guess, because he's a motorist and has to be lying right?), was shot, and the cyclist fled. If the cyclist was in real danger and in the right, he would have had no reason to run. But he did. This leads me to believe he either realized he was out of line for shooting the guy or he wasn't allowed to have a gun/gun was stolen/something.

What would you say if a motorist shot a cyclist who violated his or her right of way, resulting in a crash? The cyclist stops to see if the driver is okay, and is greeted with bullets. I'm sure that would be completely unacceptable, and rightfully so. It's insane.

So why are we making up implausible theories that ignore the facts to protect a cyclist who shot a guy who violated his right of way, but was actually decent enough to stop?

Are you serious? This is the biggest stretch I've ever seen. Is it somehow inconceivable that the cyclist got really pissed because he crashed after a close-call with a car? And that in this rage, he shot the guy who stopped?

I have real doubts that the guy would have stopped if he purposely caused the cyclist to crash. Wouldn't that be counter productive to someone in a hurry? Wouldn't making the guy crash be more than enough to suffice for being in the way for a few seconds? Your little scenario here seems incredibly unlikely, and the "motorist side" of the story makes more sense. If the cyclist wasn't in the wrong for shooting the guy, he probably wouldn't have ran. Gun crimes are serious things, and nothing adds up the way you want it to.

If the driver was malicious, he most likely wouldn't have stopped. If the cyclist didn't escalate to road rage and shoot the guy in the wrong, he wouldn't have ran.

Neither scenario is too far fetched to possibly be true. People do some crazy stuff. Like the guy that jumped out of his car and chased me down the sidewalk (Leaving his car in the intersection) because I flipped him off after he intentionally pulled in front of me when he had a red light. He was pissed off that I was riding on the sidewalk (Bike path) ....

The difference is that the guy stopped with the intention to help (allegedly...

So why are we making up implausible theories that ignore the facts to protect a cyclist who shot a guy who violated his right of way, but was actually decent enough to stop?


A true story about another guy who "stopped with the intention to help (allegedly":

Christmas eve 1991, a motorist (Albert Ian Schweitzer) hit a female bicyclist (Dana Ireland) and seriously injured her. He and his 2 passenger (Shawn Schweitzer and Franklin Pauline Jr.) stopped, got out of the car and dragged her onto a dirt road. They raped her and then Pauline struck Ireland in the head with a tire iron because he wanted to make sure she would die. They threw her into some bushes and drove off leaving Ireland to bleed to death.

“Pauline showed no emotion as court clerk Linda Mende read the jury's verdict: guilty of second-degree murder, kidnapping and first-degree sex assault.”

So which story is less likely, mine or this real life story?

Any guesses on what the story was when police first questioned them?

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_site=honoluluadvertiser&f_site=honoluluadvertiser&f_sitename=Honolulu+Advertiser%2C+The+%28HI%29&p_theme=gannett&p_product=HNAB&p_action=search&p_field_base-0=&p_text_base-0=dana+ireland&Search=Search&p_perpage=10&p_maxdocs=200&p_queryname=700&s_search_type=keyword&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0=

From what I have seen on the streets and MUPs (and stories I have read on these forums too, btw) I am surprised there isn't more reports of Bike Rage. Anyone who doesn't think there are about an equal percentage of nut jobs riding bikes as there are nut jobs driving cars is, I think, wearing rose colored biking goggles.

There is nothing magical about getting on a bike that makes someone a better person.

So which story is less likely, mine or this real life story?

Your story is fine except it overlooks a major, and probably, the critical fact of this case: the cyclist ran after shooting the guy. If he wasn't guilty of anything, why'd he run and fail to contact the police himself? Because at the very least he shot the guy wrongfully in a fury over the crash.

That story you linked, while appalling, is really in no way similar to this is except the guy also said he stopped to help. You still haven't told me why our cycling hero here fled the scene after shooting his "attacker". If it was self defense, he should have had no reason to run. And even if he did, he should have contacted the police about the incident after fleeing to safety/getting medical attention/whatever. He didn't. I'm really surprised you're still defending a guy who pretty clearly tried to murder someone over a traffic incident.

This is why I STOPPED carrying a gun on my bike. I may very well get a beatdown from some hillbilly, but I'm not going to toss any salads at the State Penn either. :eek: It's just not worth it.

... Brad

I own guns (including concealed carry license for pistols)...

I own bikes.

i keep them separate. motorists dont bother me but there would be a lot of dead dogs. if you cant chain your dog up securely in a leash-law area, dont bother owning one.

i bet that guy will pay more attention when he drives now. what do you guys think?

some people shouldnt be allowed to breed, let alone have sex.

This actually happened just a few blocks from my house, its not a very bike friendly area and it is a fairly gang heavy area so i would assume as its been previously stated that it was just some gang banger who cant afford a car that had either stolen (ive had about 8 bikes stolen from my house) or bought a cheap bike.
People get shot/stabbed in my part of town almost daily so i'd say its more coincidental that he was on a bike than that he had a gun.

i pretty sure we should have the license to shoot motorists when we deem it fit.

i pretty sure we should have the license to shoot motorists when we deem it fit.
Guns won't do you a whole lot of good when you've got a bunch of broken bones, cuts, and internal trauma after being flattened by the turbo-diesel pickup you pointed the thing at.

Guns won't do you a whole lot of good when you've got a bunch of broken bones, cuts, and internal trauma after being flattened by the turbo-diesel pickup you pointed the thing at.

Maybe some kind of impact-triggered explosive device would be better. Hit a biker, get blowed up reel good.

Guns won't do you a whole lot of good when you've got a bunch of broken bones, cuts, and internal trauma after being flattened by the turbo-diesel pickup you pointed the thing at.

"It's better to have a gun & not need a gun, than to need a gun & not have a gun."

Guns won't do you a whole lot of good when you've got a bunch of broken bones, cuts, and internal trauma after being flattened by the turbo-diesel pickup you pointed the thing at.

That is why you shoot early and often. Take em with ya'. Shoot a couple and the rest are much eaiser to get along with.

I wonder if they make wicking holsters?

Your story is fine except it overlooks a major, and probably, the critical fact of this case: the cyclist ran after shooting the guy. If he wasn't guilty of anything, why'd he run and fail to contact the police himself? Because at the very least he shot the guy wrongfully in a fury over the crash.

That story you linked, while appalling, is really in no way similar to this is except the guy also said he stopped to help. You still haven't told me why our cycling hero here fled the scene after shooting his "attacker". If it was self defense, he should have had no reason to run. And even if he did, he should have contacted the police about the incident after fleeing to safety/getting medical attention/whatever. He didn't. I'm really surprised you're still defending a guy who pretty clearly tried to murder someone over a traffic incident.

You must have a reading comprehension problem. As I wrote in my plausible scenario: “ When the motorist goes back to his car, the cyclist rides off to a side road in fear the motorist will chase him down and run him over. The cyclist does not go to police, because when he was run off the road before, the cops told him there was nothing they could do about it since it was his word against the motorist.”


You are lucky if you have never had to put up with cop BS of “it is your word against his” when all you want the cops to do is explain the laws to the motorist that ran you off the road. Cops is some areas are not cyclist friendly.

The cyclist may be a good guy or a bad guy; at least I am not presuming he is either without hearing the other side of the story. Sad that you and others here instantly condemn the cyclist without knowing his side.

Another story:
Honolulu Police arrested a guy here for murder. A meth head came to the door of his apartment and banged on the door demanding to be let in and threatening the guy and his girl friend. The guy called the cops and the meth head took off. The guy filled out a police report, the cops left without even looking for the meth head in the area. The meth head comes back about 30 minutes later and breaks a window and reaches in to open the front door while threatening to kill them. The guy grabs the arm of the meth head before he can unlock the door while the girl friend calls the cops. Meth head again takes off. The guy filled out a second police report, the cops left, again without even looking for the meth head in the area. While the guy and his girl friend are cleaning up the broken glass, the meth head returns, charges the girl friend, knocks her down to the ground through the front door and chokes her near death. The guy grabs a kitchen knife and stabs meth head to death inside his apartment while meth head is still choking his girl friend. The guy calls the cops. The cops arrive and arrest the guy on second degree murder. Now the guy has to live the rest of his life with a murder arrest, simply for saving his girl friends life in their own apartment.

See how some people might not trust the cops. I have defended myself twice from motorist who got out of their cars and began assaulting me. Both times the cops threatened to arrest me if I filed a report; since I would be admitting to pushing or striking back at the motorist, rather than simply dropping my bike and running away. Some cops here would arrest the cyclist and let the motorist go. How do you know when you call 911 if you will get one of the good cops or one of the stupid cops. Now explain to me why I would call the cops if I again had to defend myself against a motorist. If I simply leave, the cops here will not spend any time looking for me. If I call 911, I am more likely to be the one arrested.

Some college kids should gain a little more life experience before they think they know it all.;)

Some college kids should gain a little more life experience before they think they know it all.;)
Yeah, see, I'm not claiming to know it all though. But I do know you're not really living in any reality I've ever seen. The police are not the gestapo, waiting to crack down on any cyclist who dares report a motorist. I'm not trying to comment on your experience with the police, but as a general rule, when you shoot people and then run away AND hide, that's a crime. That's not my opinion, that's pretty much the law. Go ahead and keep defending the guy if you want; I don't particularly care. You're either incredibly biased in favor of cyclists or you can't grasp the fact shooting people and running away is criminal behavior.

Like I said earlier, would we argue in favor of a motorist who shot a cyclist who did something to cause him to crash? No, we wouldn't. Most likely you wouldn't because he drives a car, but the correct response actually is because it's criminal behavior. It's no different in this case either, except our cyclist is the gunman. But he's somehow oppressed and terrorized to the point he had to shoot a guy and run for fear of being jailed for self defense.

The facts don't support your heavily biased theory at all. :rolleyes:

You really do have a reading comprehension problem. As I stated before:

"The cyclist may be a good guy or a bad guy; at least I am not presuming he is either without hearing the other side of the story. Sad that you and others here instantly condemn the cyclist without knowing his side."


but as a general rule, when you shoot people and then run away AND hide, that's a crime. That's not my opinion, that's pretty much the law.
Please cite the Milwaukee or State law that mandates a person who engaged in self defense must turn themselves into the police.

Also, how do you know the cyclist is hiding? The article does not even say the cyclist left the scene before the motorist drove off.


The facts don't support your heavily biased theory at all. :rolleyes:

What facts, the police have a single statement from the motorist and the bullet in his shoulder. And you are ready to convict the cyclist.

Anyone who knows what my sig means, knows where I stand on the subject of carrying a gun on a bike. But without more details, I can't say whether or not this was a justifiable case of self-defense.
Either way, the cyclist doesn't help his case by not going to the PD immediately. That's the first thing a responsible person ought to do.

Anyone who knows what my sig means, knows where I stand on the subject of carrying a gun on a bike. But without more details, I can't say whether or not this was a justifiable case of self-defense.
Either way, the cyclist doesn't help his case by not going to the PD immediately. That's the first thing a responsible person ought to do.

True, but the responsible Honolulu man I cited, now has an arrest record for murder. Try getting a job with that on your record.

Updated stuff, http://www.cbs58.com/index.php?aid=406

There are some witnesses.

You really do have a reading comprehension problem.

I don't think anyone has a reading comprehension problem, it's more an issue of trying to digest your inane scenarios and conjectures.

Please cite the Milwaukee or State law that mandates a person who engaged in self defense must turn themselves into the police.

I'd be extremely surprised if it's not illegal to discharge a firearm at someone and then leave the scene, just like a hit and run. You might want to checkout 941 and 167 of the state code. If it's not there it must be in county code.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/Statutes.html

Laws, we dont need no stinkin laws

I joke about this stuff, but you have to use your head for something other than to strap a cool helmet to. I would only shoot someone to protcet my or someone else's life. It is never justified to shoot someone for revenge, or becasue they pissed you off. If the car is bearing down on you and you cant get away, and he is actively trying to cathch you and run you over, ok, that might be justified to shoot him. The instant he is no longer a threat, You cannot shoot him. If someone is threating your life and you are in fear of losing said life, who cares what the laws are? Shoot till you are out of rounds.

Wooooooooo!!! Chalk one up for cyclists!!!!

There's a big difference between "a cyclist" and some random guy "riding a bike"

Since you are so concerned with semantics, I'll retool the statement.

Wooooooooo!!! Chalk one up for cyclists!!!! AND/OR some random guy "riding a bike"!!!!!!