MrCjolsen

It's very very tragic and sad.

However, I have some issues with the way the article was written. He was not actually bicycling at the time of the crime. What happened could have just as easily taken place at a gas station or in a parking lot had he been driving his car.

It's always been my contention that a person less likely to become a victim of violent crime during the course of a bicycle trip rather than a car trip. The problem is that crime statistics against bicyclists usually include "road rage" type incidents that are somewhat avoidable on the part of the cyclist.

First of all, a bicyclist is not usually in possession of tens of thousands of dollars worth of valuable property as they go down the road. Motorists are. If a criminal is going to take the risks associated with an armed robbery, they're more likely to put a gun in someone's face in order to steal their $30,000 car rather than their $300 bicycle. My most expensive bike might fetch $500 for a thief. That's if he's lucky. The truth is that bikes are actually pretty hard to sell.

But the same thief could carjack my Honda Accord and open the hood and easily find thousands of dollars worth of valuable parts that would net many times what my bicycle is worth. Moreover, if a thief really wanted my bike, all they really need to do is wait until I lock it someplace and get some really good bolt cutters and it's theirs. Not true with modern automobiles, which are getting harder and harder to steal. Hence the rise in violent carjackings.

But the biggest thing that probably makes cycling more safe than driving these days can be summed up in two words: parking lots.

Anytime you drive to your workplace, the mall, or the grocery store, you park your car a fair distance from the entrance to the building. Then you open the door and walk to the building through an area that has limitless places for a potential kidnapper, ******, or robber to hide. Then, you do the same thing again when you return to your car. Except this time, the criminal knows exactly where you are going and can be right there waiting for you. Or they can sneak up from behind you. Either way, a motorist has very little control over their own safety when they make a trip by car.

With a bike, on the other hand, you have the luxury of riding right up to the lighted area near the entrance to the building and locking your bike. If you ask real nice, many stores will even let you take your bike inside. When you leave, as soon as you enter the parking lot, your traveling at a speed that's usually faster than most criminals can run. This gives you a big advantage because most random, violent attackers prefer to attack from behind.

If an assailant wants to lay in wait for you, then they need to be able to predict your route. Attacking a cyclist from behind is impossible, and jumping out in front of one is risky. Sure, they might knock you off your bike. But they also might end up seriously injured and on one of those "stupidest criminal" shows. There is one place, however, where it's somewhat common for criminals to lay in wait for bicyclists and that's why I generally avoid bike paths at night.

Now, suppose they do knock me off my bike and take my wallet and my bike. What then? Well, at least they can't take me. In self defense classes, one thing they always tell you is never, ever get into a car with an assailant, no matter what. Most often, attackers who intend to murder their victims prefer to kidnap them first and take them someplace of their own choosing. Most often, the victim's own car is the getaway vehicle. Well, one more nice thing about a bike is that it makes a very lousy getaway vehicle for a violent criminal. It's slow and only carries one person.

The bottom line is that a bicyclist is a rather difficult target for a violent attacker because of high risks and a rather low payoff.

Old Dirt Hill

Wow, that was really well said. Thank you for taking the time to post that.

rocksnroads7

Interesting discussion. I don't carry because I have no experience with handguns, and I would likely do something stupid with the piece. Does anyone know the progress on the investigation of the case? Can we support the "bringing to justice" of the shooter in the Toledo incident?

CritEastwood

Holy Toledo!

Ride fast and be aware out there.

bkwentz

If you ever make it to Topeka KS, IM me for a free trip to the pistol range if you are game.

PunkMartyr

Sounds like a road rage incident that escalated to someone getting killed.

squirtdad

This is interesting, from all the various viewpoints.

I grew up shooting rifles (dad did not like handguns at all) and was good enough to get sharpshooter rifle and expert handgun ratings in Coast Guard Boot camp. I support peoples right to own firearms, with reasonable (to me) restrictions....like there is no reason to own an full on machine gun or assault rifle (though having shot m16 on auto and 50 caliber machine guns, I totally understand the rock and roll fun element of shooting them).

I believe that the effectiveness of handguns as effective self defense tools is overrated and may give a false sense of security.

Stopping power is one aspect, many here have talked about .380....but even with a hollow point there is not a lot of stopping power there. From what I remember hard core handgun self defence advocates push for something more like a .45. Certainly the concept that single shot will stop a person is not allways accurate (and if the person is on meth or similar look out) and recent new reports indicate the the .223/5.56 mm rifle used by our military does not have enough stopping power for urban warfare as experience in Iraq.

There is also the situational aspect....... many shooters who can shoot accurately in a range situation cannot shoot at the same degree of accuracy in a moving, stress situation.

But this is opinion. There are number of Law Enforcement officers on the forum and as they are the most likely to have the best training and seen the most reality, it would be really interesting to get their input based on experience. How often are civilians succesful in handgun selfdefence? How often are the results negative for the civilians? How often, when police have to resort to weapon use are there misses? How often does stopping require multiple shots?

I know this is not totally on topic, but all in all this has been an amazingly civil discussion considering subject matter, and thought the Law enforcement perspective would add value

Fribley

Most people really arent educated on the use of a fire arm as a defensive tool. Its rather easy to sit down at a table at a range and put some holes in the center of a target. Defensive shooting is very different. Your target (at least in the course i took) was a regular sheet of printer paper representing the center of mass of the assailent. Put your bullets anywhere on the paper and you have "stopped the threat". In a defensive shooting course you also learn to shoot from behind cover (doorways/walls/furniture/cars), from different concealment positions such as crouching and prone (laying down). Multiple shots to stop the threat are quite common, and actually encouraged and instructed in defensive shooting classes. The "double-tap" procedure is quite common, this is where you aim at center of mass and fire your first round and as fast as possible fire a second round right after the first. Again this may sound dangerous and scary but if you practice this technique you can safely but your second round roughly 2-4 inchs above your first aimed round (and usually slightly to the right for most shooters). I dont have any idea about the success rates of citizens with CCWs i would bet a large number go unreported (as in no shots fired and perp flees), but i do know that if you are properly trained in the use of a firearm as defensive tool it is quite safe. I am not a Law Enforcement officer, i am a corrections officer, my job does not invlove me carrying a firearm for day to day duties but there are occasions when i may have make a transport outside of the jail where i will end up with a gun. I also think the vast majority of police offer's dont train with their firearms enough. They pull them out for annual/semi-annual qualifaction and thats about it. I beleive if you carry a weapon it is your duty to make sure you are skilled in its use, if you cant devote the time and money it takes to get proficient with your firearm then you have no business carrying one.

As a civilian if you ever are invloved in a situation where you have to take the life of someone no matter how defendable it was you should expect to go to jail, for at the very least 24 hours, you should expect a civil lawsuit and possible criminal charges. That being said you better be sure of your actions before you ever even draw your weapon. As i stated earlier the majority of people with a concealed weapons permit dread the day they will ever have to use it, but if that situation ever does arise very few options will be available and a concealed weapon might be the only thing that is going to get you out of it alive.

shundaroni

Everyone has their anecdotes.

The bottom line: if you want to carry, do it. If you don't, don't.

There really isn't room for debate here. You might as well argue the merit/detriment of purchasing that extra insurance on rental cars. To each his own.

I will note, however, that the geekiest post of the thread goes to the guy who "parries" with assailants. Martial arts references always win...hahahaha.

PunkMartyr

The less you have to lose, the more likely you are to risk what you do have in an unconscionable action. This is a sad fact of life and something people don't talk about, but from a logic standpoint its really that simple. If you stand to lose a nice home, a nice job, and your wife of 20 years / kids, chances are the gun stays in its holster.

SheepFugue

+1

amckimmey

That is sick, I could cry.

Schwinnrider

Fanny pack works great. Not something I'd wear if I was on a club ride, but it doesn't look out of place with my commuting outfit of MTB shorts and a plain jersey.

nick95673

It(.380) makes a noise that scares people. I am banking on the fact that the suspect doesn't really want to kill Nick, he just wants to do harm to that guy over there. So when faced with the sight of a gun hopefully he will run. I will fire a warning shot if given the chance. Hopefully the sound will make him flee. If I shoot him I have a lot to worry about. The real weapon to have is a tazer that shoots the darts. It inflicts the most pain. From talking to inmates who have had every weapon used on them in terms of pain it goes Tazer>knife>(OC(only the immediate effect)=gun)>batton>less than lethal rounds

However the gun scares them the most. It represents the chance that it can all be over if they continue. I like it for the idea that I only need 1 for multiple attackers, it doesn't actually need to be used to be effective.

As far as numbers go it would be anecdotal for me to say. It is hard to tell because a lot of people who say they are innocent bystanders, actually are very guilty. It is rare that a good person has a crime directed directly towards them. Normally you must do something to instigate an attack. They do happen but not as often. I do know that you are twice as likely to intentionally kill yourself with a gun than you are to use it in self defense. It is almost 2 to 1 in the number of gun related suicides to any gun related death.

The results are always negative. In one way or another. A partner of mine was robbed at an ATM he pulled out a snub nose and dropped the suspect. He was arrested and sent to prison where he sued my partner. The stress destroyed his marriage. Had he killed the suspect his family could have sued. This is why given the chance I will fire a round in to the dirt or water and give them a chance to run or cuff up.

mesasone

Nearly 50% of marriages in the US result in divorce. I don't see what's terribly surprising about a 49 year old man with two kids being engaged. Maybe you should get off your high horse and not be so quick to judge people.

Fribley

I am not trying to call you out by any means, i just think you bring up alot of interesting points. Most departments have strict "no warning-shot" policys. The weapon that one carries must always remain a defensive weapon (only fired in the defense of life), by firing "warning shots" or trying to scare or force submission you turn it into an offensive weapon, therefore opening yourself up to lots of legal issues. Use your verbal commands as attempts to scare or force submission, but never fire a warning shot. Not to mention that shooting dirt is an incredibly dangerous practice as you can never garuntee where that bullet is going to end up. If your gun is out of your holster and pointed anywhere toward another individual you better intend on killing that person in defense of a deadly force assualt.

As far as tazers go, they are a great tool. They are quick and shocking (pun intended) yet leave little lasting symptoms. They are genereally looked upon as cruel and unnessasery by the public. However they do exactly what they were designed for, to quickly stun and incapcitate. They work very well in law enforcement applications because of the situations. Officers carry hand handcuffs, and can call back up. As a citizen i doubt thier effectiveness, the Tazer lasts for a 5 second cycle then after which an officer has a small (2-3 second) window to restrain and cuff. As a citizen without cuffs or training or back up when those 5 seconds are up then what? (they are trying to make it so anyone with a CCW permit in MI can carry a tazer, i am avidly opposed to this) As someone who has been tazed (volunteer) i can say that it is significantly painful but when the cycle is up you are back to almost full ability instantly. There is no lasting incapicitation effect. However a tazer being a less then lethel option can be used to scare or force submission (its amazing how fast people comply when you pull out and spark test your tazer in front of them).

Lastly about being sued, its going to happen. Its going to happen weather the incident invloves a gun or not. I have seen many officers end up in court becuase they were simply doing their job, any type of
"use of force" situation weather it be just physical controls (wristlocks/joint locks), or something more serious (batons/tazers) all they way up to deadly force (certian punchs/chops, baton strikes, firearms) will most likely be hovered over by attorneys. Make sure you are making the right choice and you will be fine.
My father used to be a security guard for some rich peoples houses. He was checking one of them and an intruder opened fire on him when we walked into the kitchen, the guy fired 6 shots. My dad ducked behind a island counter and wasnt hit. He then popped up and fired two shots at the intruder and hit him in the shoulder. The guy ended up losing his arm and sued my dad and the company he worked for. In court the guys attorney asked my dad if he intended to maim the intruder:

"Well, no i wasnt intending to maim him, i was intending to kill him. I was aiming for his heart and i guess hes pretty lucky i missed".

The judge dismissed the case.

ipguy225

One thing I have learned from this thread is that those who are disinclined to carry, whatever the reason, should NOT carry a firearm. The anti-gun folks are concerned that they will shoot themselves or hurt someone else, or that their own brandishment of a firearm will escalate the situation, or that their firearm will be taken from them by the thug and used against them.

If that is truly how you feel, then it is best that you remained unarmed and let nature take its course. Perhaps a close call or two will change your mind someday, but until that happens, you are more likely to mishandle the firearm and become the subject of a news article that frankly makes it harder on those of us who do carry. We respect your right to remain unarmed and use alternative means of self-defense. We all assume different risks. Your decision not to carry assumes certain risks, and our decision to carry also assumes certain risks. You simply draw a different conclusion from the risk calculus. Although we feel strongly that our personal decision is best for us, we will not ridicule you as irresponsible, as wimps, or use other derogatory terms to denigrate you or your decision. But, we who choose to carry would like the same consideration, i.e. refrain from the "cowboy", "redneck", "macho" and other phallic-compensation comments.

The debate over whether to carry a firearm while on a bike is an interesting one, although academic for those of us who carry consistently. We have a firearm in our car, at home, in the mall, or maybe even at work, so the bike is no different. It just presents its own challenges, i.e. weight, location, ease of access, etc., and that's why you see most of the threads on this.

Artkansas 

It's possible. According to WTOL
"Toledo police tell AMW that the shooter is believed to be a black male, approximately 6' to 6'6" tall, and he may have been wearing a black sweat suit. Witnesses say they saw him running across Western Ave. towards South Ave. right after the shooting."

It's possible that the shooter was a jogger, who, like others in this thread packed heat while jogging and that perhaps Mr. Babcock, a newbie cyclist, came too close in a crossing. The only thing taken from Mr. Babcock were his keys. A mugger would have taken the wallet. It's very sad. Here are several stories about it.

America's Most Wanted

WTOL

Toledo Blade


Bicycle commuting doesn't get worse than that.

cg1985

It's a simple matter of what Can occur and what Can't occur in certain situations and what causes situations to become unstable.

With or without a firearm you cannot control the situation. Without a gun, you are less likely to aggravate a situation in which there is a chance you could get away uninjured. Pulling a gun can only escalate a situation. Not diffuse it. You take the next step. That could mean he runs, it could mean you misfire and kill them, it could mean his friends around the corner are strapped. Nothing changes when you have a gun except the ability to cause more harm then necessary.

Most criminals will only attack you if they want something. Your car, your wallet, whatever. In those situations, you give them what they want. Pulling a gun on them escalates the situation. Always. Does that mean it can't ward off an assailant? Of course it can, but you cannot foresee the outcome of the situation.

There are people who are out there to just hurt you, it's rarer, and in that situation it's not as cut and dry as just pulling a gun and ending the conflict.

I mean, in which situation is it "acceptable to draw a gun." If the assailant is unarmed, and trying to steal from you? If the assailant is armed with a knife and is trying to steal from you? If the assailant is armed with a Gun and is trying to steal from you? If the assailant is unarmed and attacking you? If the assailant is armed with a knife and attacking you? If he his armed with a gun and attacking you?

Any of those situations where you can Run?

Any of those situations where you can't run?

People with guns die just as easily as people without.

Any situation where someone is trying to steal from you via intimidation, presenting the threat and then demanding, there is no reason to draw a gun.

Any situation you can run from, there is no reason to draw a gun. In a physical struggle a gun can be used against you, or you may kill the assailant.

The few situations where a gun is "acceptable" to draw is rare.

What if the gun is stolen from you? It can happen. Then there is one more gun on the street. Having a gun on you serves only as a temptation and a tool of escalation. Guns on the street are more a negative impact on society then a positive one.

At the time of the Bill of writes drafting, there was a threat of invasion. The right to bare arms was created to allow local militia to defend their home and country. No such threat exists in this age at this time.

Does this mean everyone should turn in their guns? No, I have no problem with having a rifle, for hunting, or home defense. Hand guns are not necessary for the private sector. Carrying a gun is not necessary for the private sector.

ipguy225

CG1985,

How old are you? "Bill of Writes"? Right to "bare" arms? You're so completely wrong. You said that "pulling a gun can only escalate a situation. Not diffuse it." What a crock of BS. You really need to read the "Armed Citizen" from the American Rifleman magazines. These are not NRA ginned-up stories; they are directly pulled from news articles around the country in which brandishment or discharge of a firearm DIRECTLY resulted in the saving of human lives. You question when it is "acceptable" to draw a gun, as if there never exist circumstances when it is absolutely necessary, responsible, and moral to do so. Do you have ESP to know whether a thug will use a gun or knife on you in order to assess, immediately, whether you need to pull out the gun and possibly fire it to defend yourself? Good luck with all that... My choice is to have it, and if I am in reasonable fear of danger of losing my life or of sustaining great bodily harm from a thug, the gun is being pulled out and will likely be used. That is the law of self-defense as it exists in most states, and it's difficult to understand why some folks would deliberately allow a thug to control the situation when they have the means and the right to prevent harm to themselves or others by the use of deadly force.

squirtdad

These are only the "happy stories" from an NRA perspective. What you don't get from these (and I used to read them) are the cases whre there is tragedy, such as family members being killed becuase someone thought they were an intruder. My guess is the unhappy stories are many times higher in volume

surveyor

Lots of misinformation here, along with a fair amount of hystrionics and emotional hot-air blowing. I certainly did not mean to start up such a fuss.

Self-defense is a natural right. How you choose to defend yourself is no one's business but your own. Legally, you must check your state's laws and ensure that you are conforming with them no matter what you decide. Not only must you understand what defense options you have, you must understand when you are legally able to use them - and the likely consequences of your doing so. (Case in point: here in Texas, if you are in a self-defense slaying that was declared a justifiable homicide, you CANNOT be sued in civil court for damages. So to those bringing up the lawsuit issue, it varies from state to state. Know your laws.)

If it is not already painfully obvious, I support individuals carrying firearms for their own protection should they desire to do so. Please obtain as much training as you possibly can, for your sake. Defensive pistol, as has been said already, is a whole different ballgame from plinking at paper targets.

For a group that I have found tends to lean heavily towards supporting individual rights, there are an awful lot of people here who seem to think that they should be the ones who decide what is "OK" and "reasonable" without obtaining even passing knowledge of the subject.

sumguy

Accused killer of bicyclist being held on $500,000 bond

Suspect arraigned in bicyclist’s slaying

Szczuldo

all I have to say is that the punishments for crimes are too lenient in the states, and pretty much everywhere else in the world as well.

"Three months before he turned 18, Jones was arrested after he punched a 60-year-old man and stole his bicycle.

He was found guilty of robbery and sentenced to 90 days at the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio, Stryker, Mr. Pompa said."

90 days is nothing, especially for a guy who has spent plenty of time in jail already. For a crime like that you should have both hards removed and cauterized without anesthetics and then just sent back into society. If they manage to commit another crime then remove an entire leg and opposite arm. America's prisons are filled pretty much and someone needs to find a better way to deal with morons like this guy. Time in jail doesn't do anything since those who come out of jail pretty much go back to jail.

545h4

Perhaps we need an amendment to the Bill of Rights such as:

"The right of citizens of the United States to commute shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of mode of transportation.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

And when some Americans hide behind the 2nd Amendment, we can hide behind this one...