Man Gets 120 Days for Shooting Cyclist in the Head

This whole episode doesn't add up.

I don't think we have the whole story. Something else is going on here and it smells.

reply to post by C0bzz


shooting a bicyclist? he should have gotten off scott free for doing a public service.

I'll be right back. I'm going to go get in an argument with a bicyclist about how he's raising his OWN child and then once I'm thoroughly pissed I'll shoot towards his head. Do you guys think that the fact I'm not a fireman and former serviceman will be overlooked when it's time for sentencing?? I mean I'm not actually going to kill anybody, just come really close to it. I might though if I'm unlucky and his helmet isn't of quality kill him. Wish me luck.

Ironically,
As this perp faces the "Wowsome" 120 days for "attempted Murder", As I see it,

Another "perp" faces an Astonishing 90 days for helping the homeless.
Info at this ATS Thread

Can you imagine?

This belongs in the US Poolitical Madness Board for sure.

It is an ongoing problem here in America.

Chastize and incarcerate those who bend over backwards to help their fellow human brothers and sisters, as well as sentencing those convicted of simple possession of such plants as hemp to extraordinarily harsh terms, typically akin to a 1st degree capital felony, while the real felons and those who plague society with endangerment using strong-arm tactics and weapons against fellow citizens more and more often are briefly held and even let out early in lotteries and for behaving while in the joint.

This trend and the trend of rewarding big corp failure, fraud and those corrupt individuals who testify in seeming sincerity while slitting throats from their offices down the hall with feverish rapidity.

All the while, constituants demanding changes in the Rockefellorian drug laws and in a overwhelming united voice demand representatives to negate the beggings for bailouts and threats should they not comply, are completely disenfranchised in treasonous fashion, without even being allowed redress on such matters.

To put it in perspective, let me draw a comparison that can be broken down to one basic word.

Here, an article on climate,
Very Bad News on Climate Front
Purports that a study

reconstructs the accumulation of industrial carbon in the oceans year by year, from 1765 to 2008

What is the result of the study?

Today, the oceans hold about 150 billion tons of industrial carbon, the researchers estimate--a third more than in the mid-1990s."

What steps were taken to arrive at this estimate?

Khatiwala and his co-researchers developed techniques to infer quantities of industrial carbon in the oceans

What were the techniques developed?
Well, this information is conveniently left out of the report.

But the interesting admission is that the developed techniques (and I quote) "infer".

Regarding this usage of a word that may often be skimmed over without much thought of it's use, and this type of serrogate diction may be thoughtfully placed by purposed intent, negating the inclusive skullduggery of blatant fictive fein.

Let's define this key word that makes this study sound convincingly authentic, as if peer reviewed with precise notes, data and real science were behind the conclusions announced resulting from the study.

Then we will give a couple examples of it's usage.
First the definition(s):

[1913 Webster]

2. To offer, as violence. [Obs.] --Spenser.
[1913 Webster]

3. To bring forward, or employ as an argument; to adduce; to
allege; to offer. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]

Full well hath Clifford played the orator,
Inferring arguments of mighty force. --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

4. To derive by deduction or by induction; to conclude or
surmise from facts or premises; to accept or derive, as a
consequence, conclusion, or probability; as, I inferred
his determination from his silence.
[1913 Webster]

Now to see it's usage applied:

To infer is nothing but by virtue of one proposition
laid down as true, to draw in another as true.
--Locke.

The first part is not the proof of the second, but
rather contrariwise, the second inferreth well the
first. --Sir T. More.
[1913 Webster]

Source:

As we see, to "infer" is to deduce, surmise, basically to hypothize a notion as if it were the truth, whether scientific, mathematical or other device known to repetitively end with the same results.
But, rather than opposing or contrary to insanity, which could be the case if this were an actual verifiable scientific result, this word describes or should I say, defines exaclty what it is supposed to define.

Simply put, it is a round-about way of saying "we pretended that our techniques were accurate, but in reality, we are merely guessing; assuming; imagining; selling Sh*t in a brown paper bag.

Now then,
If we associate, corrolate or note simularities between this type of "research" and the ass-backwards way that these courts sentence crimes, which, rather than a sentence befitting the criminal act, judgement is heavily applied to non-violent and IMHO innocent behavior that has been lobbied into a crime of some sinister porportion while true justice is thrown out the window allowing real, violent and truly disturbing crimes against society is whitewashed with punishments more of the nature of what you may expect from a gross misdemeaner than a class A felony.

This wacky inverted trend is deafening and becoming louder and louder each passing day. The Courts are replacing Judges with Jesters and the few good judges left are a dying breed worthy of our appreciation.

The rest are....well...the two afore mentioned sentences speak volumes on the down-spiralling of our once healthy jurisprudence and Nation.

You see, Our Nation, founded on Christian principles, is now but a current day sodom, soon to end if we do not arrive at the crossroads and change the path we are taking.

It may take the dismissal of the entire Congress toabout-face and stop the insanity, or, it may take but a few good men and women.

It certainly doesn't help that shooting a person is a 4 month jailable offense and helping 30 humans in desperate need is a 3 month jailable offense.

We need some good old fashioned regulators. Some young guns who dish out justice with integrity and common sense for the good of the people. Maybe the Sheen family will ride again.

Originally posted by michial
He is very lucky. I have seen no mention in either the original article or here of the affect on the 3 year old child. If I were the judge that fact alone would have caused me to hand out a much stiffer penalty.

You would have him shower with buff, sexually deprived life sentence prisoners, then?

[edit on 27-11-2009 by Whine Flu]

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Goathief

 

Wow maybe you should lighten up a bit before condoning my driving. I have yet to have an accident, and I have been driving for quite some time. As far as your hairpin turns and flying off the road goes maybe it is you that is driving too fast. If you have your vehicle equipped right it can take that corner at 60.

No, it's physically impossible to take certain corners where I live at 60mph, even in a WRC car or something similar. I don't believe you have been driving for a lengthy amount of time, you are demonstrating youthful ignorance quite nicely. As for assuming what car I drive, well again you've just proved my point as mine is far from standard and definitely far from slow, the difference is I have respect for it and other people. I have also undertaken advanced driving lessons (including high-speed road handling) and own a track licence, suggesting I am somehow not qualified is literally laughable. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that you'd be in the wrong if you hit a cyclist because you were driving too fast for the road conditions.

Well at least the fire department had the sense to fire him.

The Department tells us Charles Alexander Diez was “separated from employment” on August 10th.

www2.wspa.com...

I don't understand though how the grand jury takes a charge of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and changes it to a felony assault. Sounds like maybe some money changed hands. That charge and the sentence are utter BS. We had a case years ago where a guy threw his ex girlfriend in front of an el train, luckily she survived, but he wasn't charged with attempted murder, he was charged with assault. That's why so many of these people get away with these things because or justice system reduces the charges to something they can walk away from

I don't mean to go off topic here, and by saying this, I don't imply that I think ill of the following individual, because I don't at all, and I hold a neutral to friendly stance with them but...

Raist got served!

reply to post by Goathief

What are the laws concerning cyclists over there?

Here in Chicago the law states that anyone over the age of twelve must ride their bike in the street, but they must follow the same rules of the road as someone driving a car.

Problem is they don't follow the rules of the road and they put not only theirselves at risk but others. Far too many of them blow red lights, and stop signs, they ride on the wrong side off the road, weave in and out of traffic, and don't stay inside of the bike lanes. There are many that follow the rules of the road, and there are many that don't, however the ones that don't are starting to exceed the ones that do, and they put many people at risk.

reply to post by chise61


I agree that there are a number of cyclists (here too) that ignore many of the laws that they should be following, however most of the issues raised are related exclusively to towns and cities and not riding along country roads.

More importantly, even if a cyclist does do wrong it does not mean that they should be acceptable road kill as it were. However much they can frustrate drivers who wish to be going faster/dangerously, you cannot justify the shooter's actions on that alone. That is and always has been my point. The death penalty for cycling along a road is insanity, I don't see how you can cut it any other way.

Even though cyclists annoy me, I have to say the sentence is ridiculous. Even drawing his gun and pointing it at the guys head for no good reason should result in a long jail term. Pulling the trigger (with no good reason) should result in a very lengthy jail term.

reply to post by Goathief


I think you may have misunderstood my reply to you. I don't justify shooting that man at all (read my 1st post), nor do I think they should be road kill. I was just answering your question about the laws pertaining to cyclists here.

Originally posted by chise61
reply to post by Goathief

 

I think you may have misunderstood my reply to you. I don't justify shooting that man at all (read my 1st post), nor do I think they should be road kill. I was just answering your question about the laws pertaining to cyclists here.

I am aware of that and my reply wasn't directed at you alone. Sorry for the confusion.

reply to post by Goathief


Well the “youthful ignorance” you say I show is simply your opinion. I can assure you I have been driving for more than a short period of time. My driving experience in fact is very equal to what you explained. Care to assume more because I can always assume you are lying at this point.

As for the cornering your corners must be ultra tight. I have taken corners comparable to the 30 MPH ones at speeds above 60 and still maintained control. The difference is that of not having to worry about some fool not following the rules as I stated in the post that you totally ignored. Maybe you missed the point that they are supposed to vary their lane due to the visibility? In case you did please go back and read it again. They do not follow the rules here. Meaning they are not playing the game of equality to cars on the road. They are not doing what it takes to be riding on the rural roads.

As for cars you can go to my profile and see a link to my car. I don’t have to defend its ability on speed as anyone who knows what it is knows what it is capable of.

Again I could drive the entire roadway at 30 MPH and stop on a dime. That does not excuse some morons who do not follow the rules. So once again I say unless you are dealing with them and seeing what they do you really have no room to comment on it. If they obeyed the rules given them it would not be an issue as they would not be in danger, but they do not.

Basically it is like crossing the street without looking first. I have seen a number of people do that because they “have right of way”. When in fact they are being complete morons. The law does not justify being stupid.

Also show me again where I might be justifying the shooters actions?

Raist


[edit on 11/27/09 by Raist]