You have no idea what happened. All ANYONE knows is that someone died, and someone left the scene. All we know for sure so far is that the only crime that was committed was the act of leaving the scene. There could be a million other things that happened, and to jump to murder just because he left the scene is a bit ridiculous. Had he stayed, it couldve just been a tragic accident that wasnt preventable (we dont know), but given how youve been acting, its clear that some would attempt to make this guy burn for it.
murderer and weapon found!
- Thread starter jmb
- Start date
You have no idea what happened. All ANYONE knows is that someone died, and someone left the scene. All we know for sure so far is that the only crime that was committed was the act of leaving the scene. There could be a million other things that happened, and to jump to murder just because he left the scene is a bit ridiculous. Had he stayed, it couldve just been a tragic accident that wasnt preventable (we dont know), but given how youve been acting, its clear that some would attempt to make this guy burn for it.
For intent to apply in this instance, the driver of the truck would have had to have gotten in the truck and went looking for a bicyclist to kill - with the intention of killing him or her.
Unless that is the case (it could be...I'd say it's rather unlikely, but it could be), this is not murder.
look, i understand that there are legal definitons etc between the various levels of outcome from reckless, careless, accidental behavior.
You are right not all facts are out-and they never will be because the victim is DEAD, the driver has had the luxury of time to cleanup the crime, weapon, and come up with a story.
I definitley have an agenda...less deaths to those on bikes. I am sick of cyclists getting killed, then hearing how somehow it is the cyclists fault because______________; when the fact pattern doesn't match the story.
Again, I am the first to say that cyclists cause some of their own problems...particularly as it pertains to interacting with traffic unsafely. But to say that there isn't a crime...is simply wrong.
i think youre confusing murder with homicide.
also, have they said anything about him stopping to alter the scene? As far as ive seen its like he just kept going... like he may not have even known he hit him. I think the problem here again, is you are jumping to conclusions in so many different ways, just because the driver did not stay at the scene. You have to remember these are 2 separate acts, and that leaving the scene does not make the incident any more, or any less, a murder.
i know definitions of both. i also think drinking and driving is worthy of a charge of attempted murder...instead of DUI. I am very rigid as it pertains to the duty and responsibilty of vehichle operation. I am not going to convince anyone here of my opinion...there are a few things that I am pretty passionate this is one of them.
And those legal definitions are key in defining the seriousness of the crime.
I'm all for less deaths to those on bikes too. Sensationalizing a crime - which at this point the only clear charge based on the actual facts as they are known to the public is a hit and run - will do little to advance your agenda, IMO.
You can speculate about why the driver kept driving, or why he hit him, or why he didn't report himself, but we just don't know at the moment.
If the driver had stayed at the scene and the bicyclist had died there, there might well have been no crime committed at all.
If you can't tell that you hit a man, and a piece of solid equipment like a road bicycle - you have no business behind the wheel.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
It doesn't. He's using it as another example of something that he's passionate enough about to take a harder line than others, in his opinion.
Here's what I'm getting a bit of a kick out of.
There's alot of apologizing and excuse making going on in regards to the driver here. And alot of talk about what type of impediment bicycles on roads are.
I'm 6'4" and about 245. I am an imposing figure on a 60cm bike. About 1/3 as wide, but taller than most cars. How you wouldn't see a person like that is unimaginable.
We always seem to assume that he was going a much lower rate of speed. Farm machinary and such. Does anyone know where he was? For all any of you know he could've been on a downhill slope doing 30+. Meaning if you're doing the speed limit, your closing speed is about of driving on a residential street (most of us don't drive that slow even on said streets). Disclaimer: He may have been struggling up hill, I don't know - but I don't think anyone else does either.
Sun in his eyes, medical condition, poor eye-sight. Every excuse bandied about.
How about " **** this, I'm not moving over for any god damn biker. They don't belong on MY roads anyway".
Judging from this thread - find that an EXTREMELY plausible scenario.
There's alot of apologizing and excuse making going on in regards to the driver here. And alot of talk about what type of impediment bicycles on roads are.
I'm 6'4" and about 245. I am an imposing figure on a 60cm bike. About 1/3 as wide, but taller than most cars. How you wouldn't see a person like that is unimaginable.
We always seem to assume that he was going a much lower rate of speed. Farm machinary and such. Does anyone know where he was? For all any of you know he could've been on a downhill slope doing 30+. Meaning if you're doing the speed limit, your closing speed is about of driving on a residential street (most of us don't drive that slow even on said streets). Disclaimer: He may have been struggling up hill, I don't know - but I don't think anyone else does either.
Sun in his eyes, medical condition, poor eye-sight. Every excuse bandied about.
How about " **** this, I'm not moving over for any god damn biker. They don't belong on MY roads anyway".
Judging from this thread - find that an EXTREMELY plausible scenario.
Last edited:
also is the word that should make it clear for you....seems like Erik was able to dial it in.
No person in a normal state of mind wants to kill anyone.
I blame the driver for leaving the scene of the accident, for that he needs to be punished.
I don't see any intent to hit the bicycle rider, it was an accident.
no. theres no apologizing for WHAT WE KNOW the driver did. (Him leaving the scene was awful, and unless there was some other circumstance we dont know, he should face punishment under that statute) And all that we KNOW is that there was a collision (circumstances unknown) between vehicle and bike, and that he left the scene. We know NOTHING more.
What you call apologizing and excuse making is some of us saying not to jump to conclusions (such as that it was 'murder') until we know the full story.
