Reminder: Sometimes "those" drivers have machetes
 

Easy to get aggressive, just don't. In My Fair City, a dad and expressed his ire to a driver over a traffic infraction...and got a bit more of a reaction than he and his son expected.


Woman arrested for terroristic threats after pulling out knife | 911 News | journalstar.com

And how does another motorist (commenter) think?
Maybe Sarah should learn that if the cyclist can reach out and slap your car, then Sarah is passing the cyclist way too close.

Worked out in the end. The motorist is in jail.

All I can say is I'm glad I cycle in Australia :innocent:

"Terroristic threats"? Seriously?

It's gotten to the point where it's not even reported....

-mr. bill

Glad to see the Bike Forums is not in thrall to the really very much extremely lying media. We get the straight goods!

Anyhow, a knife with a 6" blade is not a machete.

Some would say that's not a knife.

-mr. bill

Whenever I encounter a motorist behaving aggressively, like that. I certainly won't slap the person's vehicle.

Just depends; if I can see the window is up, I'm not going to risk hurting my hand.

Agreed. I'm not so concerned that they might have a knife (or machete), but that vehicle they are driving makes a pretty effective weapon. I'm not opposed to confronting someone if the situation warrants it, but mostly I do my best to avoid direct conflict.

I'll certainly report any aggression or attempted assaults, but fortunately that's incredibly rare in my city.

In Dallas, on a local walk/bike path, about 2-3 years ago, a deranged former high school football player attacked a runner on that path and cut his head off with a machete. I'm glad I was not biking that fateful morning. His wife some weeks later committed suicide due to the grief. Sad story.

That's what it used to be called in my state until a number of years ago it was changed to "criminal threat." I think the term "criminal threat" covers a bit more than just one person terrorizing another.

But basically, criminal threat would be something like telling another person that you're going to kill them and making them have reasonable belief that you will carry it out. Telling someone that while holding a 12" knife gives someone a reasonable fear. Telling them that while holding a banana doesn't.

That's not a knoife. That's a knoife.

I'd say that myself, but I've done it twice and it was sort of an unconscious defensive reaction both times.

Once I was crossing the street in the crosswalk (with the light), and some kids zoomed past me way too close in a souped up Honda, just behind me. I actually didn't make contact with the car, but I swiped backward towards it. They got out and chased me down the block, I told them to get the hell out of my neighborhood. They talked tough but didn't do anything.

Another time I was biking along and a car quickly started pulling out of a space to my right. I slapped the fender hard instinctively and he hit the brakes. He didn't follow me or do anything afterward.

I guess I wouldn't do it if I had the time to think about it, but I didn't, it was just a reaction.

Interesting. Maybe the word "terroristic" has morphed in meaning. Our similar offences are "uttering threats" or "threatening death with a weapon".

What do you mean by "those drivers?"

Yes, either a misquote or serious charge inflation. This isn't terrorism in any form, it's simple ADW.

Wow, the "experts" here in A&S never fail to impress me.

So, from the several words in the article, how did you come to this conclusion? I am guessing here, but you also clearly feel that State v. Winkler was in error. How?

-mr. bill

The "terroristic threat" laws were mostly passed after 9/11 and intended to cover terrorism or the threats thereof, ie. phoning in a bomb threat at a school.

Simple person to person, or face to face threats of individual violence were traditionally described as assault or assault with a deadly weapon (ADW).

Of course prosecutors can apply the newer law if they choose to, but IMO this would be charge inflation, on a parallel to hunting deer with assault rifles.

We can debate this, but it would take the thread in a P&A direction, so let's just leave it that I posted my opinion, and folks can agree, disagree, ignore it, or decide I'm off the wall, whatever they may think, and leave it at that.

If you are referring to September 11, 2001, Nebraska passed their law in 1986, which on my calendar is before.

Perhaps there is "alternative" timeline though. The sci-fi term not the Conway term.

But do carry on my wayward son....


-mr. bill

As I said, "generally" passed after 9/11. But in any case, Nebraska has an older felony assault law, which (IMO) would be more appropriate to this case. But we have both posted on this, and I've made my opinion clear, so we can leave it here, or you can have the last word, at your option.

I'm always happy to let those who read my posts draw their own inferences.

I am not opposed to confronting an aggressive driver. But I do it with my voice, instead of my fist.
When someone suddenly pulls out of a parallel parking space. I 'poor on the gas' and swerve into the 'inside' lane and pass them.

You actually said "MOSTLY" [emphasis mine].

To summarize.

You don't know the facts of the case.
You don't know the laws of the state.

But you have an opinion.

-mr. bill

What would you call it if someone pulls a huge knife on you and threatens you?