Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Diez case

"Bikelaw" has the most detail about what actually happened.

http://www.bicyclelaw.com/news/n.cfm/former-asheville-fireman-gets-4-months-for-shooting-at-cyclist

==================

http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/11/23/charles-diez-gets-120-days-for-shooting-cyclist-in-the-head/

The preliminary reports (like the following) were vague and lacking in important detail.

http://www.wyff4.com/news/20187786/detail.html#

Seems like a light sentence.....in general, not just bicycle related, looking at the sentencing guidlines overall it seems light.

I would have liked to seen a ban from firearm ownership as part of the sentence as Mr. Diez showed no responsibility in that area.

Definitely a slap on the wrist.

And why all the 'mitigating factors'? Someone in his (former) profession is pretty much EXPECTED to have a higher standard of ethics/morals/whatever you want to call it than the average retail clerk, for example. They have chosen a profession in which they regularly put their lives on the line for others; if they violate that standard of ethics like this bonehead did, how can they even consider mitigation? Oh, he provides for his family -- WHEW! GLAD OF THAT! I'd hate to think a public safety 'officer' would be a deadbeat to his blood kin.

I'm a veteran myself, and I cringe at the idea that his service should make the consequences of this act easier for him. First, he lost his 'military bearing' (self-control, for all you civvies out there, lol), and then he took a coward's shot! He's an affront to all the REAL vets out there, who would do it all again without a qualm.

As much as it's true that prison IS the punishment, and not just the venue FOR it, I think being a 'Bubbette' would just be listed under the heading of 'collateral damage'.

I think the case is more directly related to the "carring a weapon for self-defense" discussion.

It puzzles me that somebody who is so worried about stuff that they have to carry a gun would yell at other people.
It also seems imprudent to argue with a person in a place where it's reasonably likely that that person is carrying a weapon.

It's a lottery with a bad prize. The gun owner in a case like this would feel a touch empowered, but no less subliminally inadequate; the other person would likely not think about the possibility... until after the first time it actually happened.

Both of the two in THIS case will be a LOT less confrontational in the future.

As I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I can't fault the fireman for carrying, just for his appalling lack of judgment and intelligence in pulling it (and AFTER the confrontation was over) and using it! The cyclist was no threat.

I also understand that there are aggravating factors -- mental imbalance, felony conviction -- to prevent gun ownership. There are a LOT of people, however, who are lucky as hell there's not an IQ test involved, too! Sometimes, I think there needs to be -- not just for guns, but for cars, too.

As I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I can't fault the fireman for carrying, just for his appalling lack of judgment and intelligence in pulling it
I don't have a problem with gun ownership. I do think it's possible that the "protection" motivation doesn't work as well as some people think.


(and AFTER the confrontation was over) and using it! The cyclist was no threat.
It's not at all clear that this describes what happened accurately. Some reports say "walking away" and some say "turning". Note that the later report is very different than the first reports, which indicates that the details might not be exactly clear.

Personally, I think it's highly unlikely that the shot was fired after the confrontation. But, since we don't know exactly what happened, I am cautious about passing any specific judgement. (I do think there wasn't any reason for this to have happened.)

Anyway, it's an odd, very-rare (fortunately) case.

It isn't reasonable (as some other people, not you, have) to present this one situation as representative of general attitudes in a state towards bicyclists or as related to the lack of a FRAP law. It could have happened in nearly any state. This case isn't really related to bicyclist's rights. It's dishonest or careless to suggest that it is.

It's more related to a concern for "child safety" and even more related to hotheads arguing about crap. One problem with "advocacy/fanaticism" is it can encourage people to "bend" the truth to their cause. Bek's use of this freakish case to support a pro-FRAP stance is inexcusable.

In contrast, the "California doctor" case was directly related to bicyclist's rights and occurred in a state with a FRAP law.