Advocacy & Safety - K.C. Area Driver Runs Down Cyclist He Thought Was a Child Molester

Local articles involving bicycle incidents catch my eye, but this one is odd:

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/27/3836978/blue-springs-driver-charged-with.html

Some people are totally crazy. Nothing surprises me.

My lord, luckily an officer witnessed it and the victim got prompt medical treatment while the perp was taken off the streets.

Hopefully the victim is recovering, the article says he 'was' treated at a hospital, so maybe released and was not in critical condition.

For some reason this reminded me of the nutjob who shot a cyclist in the back with a shotgun here some years ago.

Never know about strangers, be safe out there.

Odd indeed.

Although, not really an anti-cycling issue. Meyers didn't run him down because he was a cyclist, rather it was mistaken identity.

I'm not condoning running anyone down, pedophile or not, this is why vigilantism is frowned upon by police. Ya could get hurt or hurt an innocent.

Odd indeed.

Although, not really an anti-cycling issue. Meyers didn't run him down because he was a cyclist, rather it was mistaken identity.

I'm not condoning running anyone down, pedofile or not, this is why vigilantism is frowned upon by police. Ya could get hurt or hurt an innocent.

...or he got caught intentionally running over the cyclist and he made up a novel excuse.

...or he got caught intentionally running over the cyclist and he made up a novel excuse.

Good point. Fast thinker though.

The article does say, "rider had been accused of molesting a child that Myers knew, according to court records."

So it does seem there was a child molested, and that Meyers knew this child. Otherwise, wouldn't the court records state that the whole thing was fabricated by Meyers? That there was no molested child that Meyers knew?

Regardless if Meyers fabricated it or not, I doubt he would be let off the hook even if the cyclist was a pedophile.

Good point. Fast thinker though.

The article does say, "rider had been accused of molesting a child that Myers knew, according to court records."

So it does seem there was a child molested, and that Meyers knew this child. Otherwise, wouldn't the court records state that the whole thing was fabricated by Meyers? That there was no molested child that Meyers knew?

Regardless if Meyers fabricated it or not, I doubt he would be let off the hook even if the cyclist was a pedophile.

You may be right. Not a well written article though. I read it a different way at first.

You may be right. Not a well written article though. I read it a different way at first.

Not much information. Assumptions will be made, people will be hung. :)

Assumptions will be made, people will be hung. :)

Surely not. Hanged, yes

Surely not. Hanged, yes

Notice the smiley face laddie.

Notice the smiley face laddie.

He was picking on your grammar. The proper past tense for hanging someone is hanged. If you were hanging clothes on a hanger, it would be hung. :)

He was picking on your grammar. The proper past tense for hanging someone is hanged. If you were hanging clothes on a hanger, it would be hung. :)

Yes, I know. That's why the smiley face.

Here is what the article plainly states (underline & italics added) "Myers later told police that he circled his truck once he spotted the victim and ran over him because he believed the rider had been accused of molesting a child that Myers knew, according to court records. The records also said the victim is not a suspect in the molestation case."

The judge should ask the driver what the punishment should be for someone that we know tried to gruesomely murder another individual because he believed (wrongly) that the person had done something wrong. Death penalty for someone we believe? How 'bout if we know for sure because it was witnessed by a police officer?

...or he got caught intentionally running over the cyclist and he made up a novel excuse.As far as excuses go, that's one that will make things much worse.

If he ran over the cyclist because "he didn't see him" or "he came out of nowhere" or the old "single witness suicide swerve" then the police will likely treat it as any other roadway collision in the absence of any other data. Likely result? A moving violation at most.

BUT if the guy says he did it intentionally, because he knew the guy was molesting children, then it's now attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. I'm not sure if "vigilanteism" is a explicitly illegal, but if so, it's that too. Either way, the guy should be on the hook for what could be several felonies. (Looks like the police are being much more kind to the guy than that. Let's hope the DA adds some more charges.)

And the best part of all this? It doesn't even matter if the guy is guilty of molesting children or not -- the law frowns on people intentionally trying to kill other people, even if the other person needed killin'.

The old adage "if you want to kill somebody and get away with it, get them on a bike and run over them with your car" only works if you tell the police it was an accident.