LittleBigMan

To shoot anybody requires the immediate threat of bodily harm. The cyclist had already fallen, the motorist had done the right thing to stop and try to help. Unless the motorist had a weapon, the cyclist will have to face serious questions if he's found.

Lambo

I wonder is the "cyclist" who fired the gun is merely someone on a bike because they have to be or
if because they want to be.
I see plenty of people riding bikes, especially on sidewalks, who I wouldn't consider "cyclists".

Not being classist or racist, just trying to make a distinction.
Probably not too well.

bdinger

Ding ding ding, I was thinking precisely the same thing. There is most definitely two sides to the story, and I get a little curious by some of the statements in the article. "Near miss" and "laying on the ground". "Got out to help" and "went to a friend's house after being shot".

Yeah, I hate to say it, but I'm really torn on this one.

Second big point.. if someone almost killed me once, at night, then stopped to get out... I'm not sure I'd be so trusting either.

Zero_Enigma

Correction, handguns are /NOT/ banned in Canada. They are legal to own if you own a 'restricted' firearms licence which covers pretty much all, if not all, handguns and some long arms. For example a AR-15 (to make it easy for others just think the American M-16 rifle or the rifle used by the soldiers in Vietnam) is such a rifle that is classed under the 'restricted' firearms licence.

Now before people think you can quickly and easily get a restricted licence for handguns it's not as easy as people think. I may not be fully up to the new laws and criteras needed but I did look into this before a long time ago (few years but most of the process is the same to my understanding). In order to aquire a restricted licence one must aquire a non-restricted licence called a PAL (Possession Aquisition Licence) which is nothing more then a updated look on the original FAC (Firearms Aquisition Licence). One must pay $250, pass a safety course, criminal background check, fingerprinted, and pass the exam to get such a licence. The FAC covers long arms (rifles, shotguns).

For the restricted-licence, or as I like to call it FAC-R (or PAL-R) you need to have a FAC first then drop another $250, take a seperate course for the FAC-R to handle the handguns, pass the safety course, and pass the exam and you have the licence.

To own handguns in Canada you need a FAC-R and you can only own them (to my understanding) if you're part of a handgun club at a shooting range. If you're not a member of the club then you can't own the handguns but still have the licence. I forgot the mm size but I think any handgun under 110mm is classed 'prohibited' which means you can not own. Automatic firearms are classed 'prohibited' and no way you can get such a licence in Canada unless the gun was legally owned by a family member and grandfathered down then that is the only way you can get a special licence upgrade otherwise it's nearly 99% impossible to get such a licence.

Airguns under 500FPS at muzzle are legal to own without a licence in Canada in any caliber (popular is 4.5mm/.177 or 5.5mm/.22). I do know that any airgun over 500FPS requires by law you own a FAC and subjected to thr transportation guns of 'firearms' then. Guns are nothing more then tools. The right tool for the right job. If/when the tool is used in a crime then the tool becomes a weapon.


I to have mixed feelings over the OP's news report. I agree with some other posters that you 'feel' like to do what the rider in the story did. The cellphone, video camera, or quick access mic with voice recorder each time you're riding is your most powerful tool. Quickly getting the info the best you can of the 'suspect' vehicle plates, description, time/date, area, witnesses, etc can aid in getting the suspected driver caught and perhaps correct thier wrong if not punish them.

Zero_Enigma

That;'s correct. I agree. However the vehicle could be claimed as the weapon but I was not there andI'd have to see what the witness statements say and any video cameras at the area that saw that to help me come up with my conclusion.

littlewaywelt

I'd be willing to guess that the cyclist doesn't get one of these slap on the pinkie finger sentences that motorists who kill cyclists get, regardless of what precipitated the shooting.

jyossarian

The cyclist should've yelled, "He's coming right at me!" first before shooting.

Zero_Enigma

I totally agree. I would not be so trusting either but with extreme caution. If someone just nearly tried to kill me and steps out of the vehicle to check on me well it could be a PR thing to make them look good and not at fault or it could be to help you realizing thier error in judgement or to check if you got/logged thier info or to check your condition and finish you off by rolling over you again.

It's one of those things where to gun'nify it I'd have the gun out but with the safety on, finger off the trigger, but the sights aligned on the ball to check the target and motive.

lil brown bat

Um, so what's a "cyclist" then?

Quickbeam

I would agree with some others who've said we don't know enough to pass judgement. If it was a pure accident and the motorist was truly coming to see if the cyclist was okay, the cyclist was in no way justified. But if the motorist had been deliberately trying to hit the cyclist or run them off the road, finally succeeded, and then got out and was coming at the cyclist with a tire iron to finish them off, maybe the cyclist was justified in opening fire. That might be an unlikely scenario but I'm just trying to make a point. We don't know. I'll wait to form an opinion until I know the whole story.

LittleBigMan

I'm not a big fan of aggressive motorists. But a motorist that stops to help me after hurting me will get a huge piece of my mind--not a few rounds of ammo.

I'm a worse fan of trigger-happy people, cyclists or not.

SSP

The "cyclist" in this story might be a teenage gang-banger, or may have been intoxicated or stoned.

10:45 pm on a Friday night? Not the time most recreational cyclists, or commuters, or errand running cyclists are out and about.

And, according to the reports, the driver didn't actually hit the cyclist. Shooting a motorist who stops after a "near miss" seems like something only a stupid punk would do.

Plosive

Yeah, but did he give him "The Look" first?

gcl8a

That's why he should go with the text-messaging defense! It's like a $50 fine when you kill someone.

genec

Wait, I thought that TM defense "discount" only applied if you were in a car... does it count if you kill while on a bike too?

I am pretty sure those death "discounts" only apply to drivers of cars.

oh well, who knows...

AEO

Story never said "help" the cyclist. It only says he got out to check on him.
Why would he stop and get out of the car?
A: check to see if he looks okay
B: check to see if he is okay and offer help
C: finish him off
D: check the damage to your car.
Basically there can't be that many reasons to get out of a car after you hit someone.

It's hard to make conclusions with this amount of detail.

MMACH 5

News video:
https://www.cbs58.com/index.php?aid=406

They mention that this is their "Top story." Slow news day, I guess.

AGGRO

So the driver gets quizzed by the police and that's his story. What if the real story was he stopped to beat the guy with a bat and the rider happened to be armed.


We'll never know.

MMACH 5

Unless they catch the cyclist.

And IF the police are really looking for the guy, why don't they give some sort of description of the rider or his bike? There seemed to be several "witnesses."

Just sayin'

Phantoj

The incident occurred around 11:45pm, and the cyclist was a teenager. My guess is that the trigger-happy teen was riding without lights, possibly even on the sidewalk. It would be quite possible for a car driver to accidently "cut off" the rider. I think you're making a mistake if you assume the driver was a maniac forcing the cyclist off the road and coming back to finish him off.

unhookt

Hmmm: what should this guy have done?

https://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=346879

Schwinnrider

Because you never know WHEN you'll need it. If I absolutely knew I was going to be faced with a life or death situation when I left the house----I wouldn't leave the house. Or, at a minimum, I would bring something more effective than a handgun. I'll never, ever, understand the argument you make. It's suggesting that people who carry firearms are actively LOOKING for trouble. That's wrong. A firearm is an insurance policy, no more, no less.

I_bRAD

Yeah, an insurance policy that's likely to end up with someone dead over something stupid.

SSP

Intellectually, that may be true.

But, psychologically, it's a well-established fact that possession of a firearm can make a small man feel like a big man, and can escalate a simple dispute into a deadly confrontation...especially when combined with things like anger, depression, drugs and alcohol.

DXchulo

If the cyclist is innocent, then why are police still looking for him? If he did nothing wrong, wouldn't he have turned himself in?