Fu*king Cyclists

[SumJongGuy]

Who else here things Rittenhouse and this punk are essentially the same level of sociopath? Amirite? Or, convince me otherwise..

[::: :::]

Who else here things Rittenhouse and this punk are essentially the same level of sociopath? Amirite? Or, convince me otherwise..

no
just educated in a manner inconsistent with ethical treatment of others

totally fixable if we can convince society that people are valuable

[SumJongGuy]

no
just educated in a manner inconsistent with ethical treatment of others

totally fixable if we can convince society that people are valuable

So not killing people is "ethical treatment" OK...

[californiagrown]

Who else here things Rittenhouse and this punk are essentially the same level of sociopath? Amirite? Or, convince me otherwise..

One chose to intimidate with their deadly weapon from a position of safety where there where ZERO expected consequences, and (likely) no intention to kill. The deadly weapon was likely not viewed as deadly by the kid, and it doesnt seem like he was out specifically to intimidate cyclists that day. Seems removed from destruction the way you are in a video-game and i bet he was legit not expecting to do anything other than roll coal and post a vid on Youtube.

The other chose to intimidate in the thick of an explosive situation with a very real and expected chance to engage with their deadly weapon. That deadly weapon is used for a single thing- killing people, nothing else. No other reason to have it around. He wasnt just cruising around with it. A handgun would have been far more appropriate for simple protection as it wouldnt immediately draw attention from the very volatile crowd. Instead, guy illegally borrowed a straight up assault rifle, threw on his finest gravy seal costume, and congregated with a bunch of other gravy seals to create a vigilante show of force and intimidate people knowing full well the likelyhood of a violent engagement would be high doing so.

[old goat]

There are entire YouTube compilations of trucks rolling coal on bikes and online communities who think this rolling coal and buzzing bikes and pedestrians behavior is funny.

I’m all for making an example.

Whatever happened to deliberately driving through puddles to spray walkers?

[SumJongGuy]

One chose to intimidate with their deadly weapon from a position of safety where there where ZERO expected consequences, and (likely) no intention to kill. The deadly weapon was likely not viewed as deadly by the kid, and it doesnt seem like he was out specifically to intimidate cyclists that day. Seems removed from destruction the way you are in a video-game and i bet he was legit not expecting to do anything other than roll coal and post a vid on Youtube.

Agree up to the bold part.. yet in the aftermath he's not owning up to the results if his actions.. He's expressed zero remorse or responsibility for his actions. That's sociopathic behavior.. Instead they are trying to find legal loopholes to absolve him of responsibility for his actions and the damage done.. That's the same thing Rittenhouse and his goons are doing too..

[SumJongGuy]

Grand Jury is making a statement here. Six felony counts of assault with a deadly weapon..

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...ehp&li=BBnb7Kz

[californiagrown]

Agree up to the bold part.. yet in the aftermath he's not owning up to the results if his actions.. He's expressed zero remorse or responsibility for his actions. That's sociopathic behavior.. Instead they are trying to find legal loopholes to absolve him of responsibility for his actions and the damage done.. That's the same thing Rittenhouse and his goons are doing too..

Pure supposition on my part, but what he intended to do (roll coal) is the same thing as what countless teen skiers and snowboarders do all winter long- spray someone with snow. Classic teenage dickhead move. But instead of losing his edge on some ice and crashing into a guy, he hit a group of people with a massive speeding hunk of metal. Prank was the same, but the way it was carried out had far more dire consequences for fucking up... but when have teenage boys been known to accurately assess risk and think of consequences?

No one in their right mind makes an outright admission of guilt when 40+ years in the penitentiary is on the table. No fucking way. Lawyer up, let the lawyer handle everything and you stay out of it. It will almost certainly lead to him pleading out, making individual apologies, working his ass off doing community service driver safety outreach. Him and his parents staying utterly silent and heads down is the right thing to do here... at least until a verdict comes down. Him or his parents making public apologies does nothing to benefit the victims and just makes his situation worse.

Rittenhouse is fucking being celebrated, and celebrating himself. He, at the behest of the millions of Alt-right fuckheads, is making light of the situation and proud of his despicable actions. He is a celebrated cult hero amongst many. He wasnt pulling a typical teenage dickhead prank gone horribly wrong. He kitted up for combat, brought a goddamn assault rifle to where people he despised were gathered, and then dared them to attack.

[altasnob]

The reason attorneys recommend people be silent and request an attorney is your request for an attorney, and your silence, will (most likely) not be used against you at trial. Then, when the prosecution, who goes first, rests their case at trial, for the first time, the defendant can decide, tactically, if they should testify about their side of the case. To the jury, they have no idea that the defendant did not say anything at the scene of the crime and is speaking, for the first time, at trial (any questions asking that would not be permitted).

There could be a situation where a defendant being apologetic and taking responsibility right from the get go could be tactically smart, if you think it will help persuade a prosecutor to give you leniency. But again, probably better to consult an attorney first before you go this route, as the prosecutor could use your statements to throw the book at you. Just because someone declines to make any statements does not necessarily mean they are not apologetic and taking responsibility for their actions.

Also, even if the defendant wanted to have their insurance immediately pay restitution they have no power to make this happen. The insurance company will hire the defendant an attorney to represent the defendant's interests in the civil case. But there is a conflict of interest at play because even though the attorney is supposed to only represent the defendant in the civil case, the insurance company picks the attorney and the attorney will want the insurance company to continue to pick them for future cases (so they have allegiance to the insurance company as well, which is improper, but occurs in essentially all cases involving insurance companies). So you can end up in a situation where roll coal guy wants to settle the civil claim quickly but his attorney wants to drag it out.

[SumJongGuy]

Pure supposition on my part, but what he intended to do (roll coal) is the same thing as what countless teen skiers and snowboarders do all winter long- spray someone with snow. Classic teenage dickhead move. But instead of losing his edge on some ice and crashing into a guy, he hit a group of people with a massive speeding hunk of metal. Prank was the same, but the way it was carried out had far more dire consequences for fucking up... but when have teenage boys been known to accurately assess risk and think of consequences?

No one in their right mind makes an outright admission of guilt when 40+ years in the penitentiary is on the table. No fucking way. Lawyer up, let the lawyer handle everything and you stay out of it. It will almost certainly lead to him pleading out, making individual apologies, working his ass off doing community service driver safety outreach. Him and his parents staying utterly silent and heads down is the right thing to do here... at least until a verdict comes down. Him or his parents making public apologies does nothing to benefit the victims and just makes his situation worse.

Rittenhouse is fucking being celebrated, and celebrating himself. He, at the behest of the millions of Alt-right fuckheads, is making light of the situation and proud of his despicable actions. He is a celebrated cult hero amongst many. He wasnt pulling a typical teenage dickhead prank gone horribly wrong. He kitted up for combat, brought a goddamn assault rifle to where people he despised were gathered, and then dared them to attack.

So you're thinking the grand jury did him a favor with the harsh felony attempted murder charges???.. i.e. thinking the jury won't convict of that. Had they done involuntary manslaughter i.e. an accident that wasn't seen as the possible outcome when the act was launched he'd be more likely to be convicted??

[altasnob]

A prosecutor can always charge lesser included charges, below what the grand jury approves of. For instance, if the grand jury says Theft 2nd Degree (more than $750), the prosecutor can, strategically, chose to charge both Theft 2nd and Theft 3rd (less than $750), or just Theft 3rd. They would do this if there some doubt the theft is above $750. That way they at least get something. But this is all trial strategy. Prosecutors normally go for broke because they don't want to allow jurors to split the baby. A great example of the prosecutor going for broke and having it backfire is the Ammon Bundy trial where he took over the wildlife refuge (he was aquitted when he most certainly committed some uncharged, federal offenses).

[californiagrown]

So you're thinking the grand jury did him a favor with the harsh felony attempted murder charges???.. i.e. thinking the jury won't convict of that. Had they done involuntary manslaughter i.e. an accident that wasn't seen as the possible outcome when the act was launched he'd be more likely to be convicted??

IDK. Probably... unless there is gopro/dashcam evidence showing him intimidating and then fully in control taking them all out. Its tough to prove intent. If i meant to ski spray you but lost my edge, took you out and you died, is that attempted murder? Or manslaughter, negligent homicide, or whatever lesser charge? But, im no lawyer... i just married and impregnated one.

[spanghew]

"I didn't mean to" isn't a defense of having killed someone, even when combined with the ever-potent "I'm just a teenager." "and male."

CAgroin seems to think those make everything all right, though.

[dan_pdx]

IDK. Probably... unless there is gopro/dashcam evidence showing him intimidating and then fully in control taking them all out. Its tough to prove intent. If i meant to ski spray you but lost my edge, took you out and you died, is that attempted murder? Or manslaughter, negligent homicide, or whatever lesser charge? But, im no lawyer... i just married and impregnated one.

Look out! You might be on the hook for child support

[SumJongGuy]

IDK. Probably... unless there is gopro/dashcam evidence showing him intimidating and then fully in control taking them all out. Its tough to prove intent. If i meant to ski spray you but lost my edge, took you out and you died, is that attempted murder? Or manslaughter, negligent homicide, or whatever lesser charge? But, im no lawyer... i just married and impregnated one.

Spraying your friends with cold water versus spraying complete strangers with poisonous gas are not the same thing. Add in that those strangers are being sprayed with poisonous gas because they are participating in an activity that virtue signals a polar opposite political position of those who set up their vehicles to roll coal and do so..

There's even a legit argument that rolling coal and spraying noxious fumes on strangers who you see as the political enemy is domestic terrorism.. Same as walking in to a demonstration you disagree with while armed with weapons likely to intimidate those protestors.

[californiagrown]

Spraying your friends with cold water versus spraying complete strangers with poisonous gas are not the same thing. Add in that those strangers are being sprayed with poisonous gas because they are participating in an activity that virtue signals a polar opposite political position of those who set up their vehicles to roll coal and do so..

There's even a legit argument that rolling coal and spraying noxious fumes on strangers who you see as the political enemy is domestic terrorism.. Same as walking in to a demonstration you disagree with while armed with weapons likely to intimidate those protestors.

I was thinking of spraying random gapers with snow FWIW, not necessarily friends and family (i did nearly take out my mother some years back actually). And in the land of freedom and oil that is Texas, youd have a hard time convincing people that breathing in 15 seconds of dense exhaust fumes is truly poisonous and/or amounts to terrorism.

I just think that, due to the level and duration of planning, chain of conscious decisions each kid undertook, and the celebrity one of them seems to now enjoy, combined with the different weapons that were used (everyday car vs assault rifle made to look combat ready), the Rittenhouse homicides seems so much worse to me. Also, people didnt die in the Texas incident.


This is a true psychopath ten driver: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/tee...BKWPMROEINPLQ/

[old goat]

"I didn't mean to" isn't a defense of having killed someone, even when combined with the ever-potent "I'm just a teenager." "and male."

CAgroin seems to think those make everything all right, though.

Based on my heavy consumption of law shows on TV and the occasional glance at Google, it is my understanding that intent is the main difference between the various degrees of homicide.

[jono]

Sure, but intent to assault is pretty well established. Escalation was likely enough to make the assault more effective. Hell, look at our obtuse friend here always talking up the dangers.

Fire off a gun and accidentally kill someone while robbing a store and those law shows will put you away for life.

[gravitylover]

When a drivers license is bestowed upon us we are given a very serious responsibility. We are expected to work through our childish urges and to make mature decisions as to how we handle ourselves. This guy didn't follow through and broke that social contract. He purposely modified the truck beyond any reasonable need with the implied purpose of negatively affecting his fellow citizens. Then when he was controlling this illegally modified machine he made a bad decision and executed it poorly. For this he should receive a punishment equal to what anyone else over the age of consent would, his age shouldn't be a factor.

If you were one of these unnecessarily injured riders and you found out that the driver that ruined your world was going to be allowed to move on with his life while yours was on hold would you be ok with it? I'm pretty sure that if it was me I'd end up bitter and looking for retribution. It's different than if I fuck myself up doing any of the high risk things I do but if someone else takes me out through ignorance and carelessness I would make sure the payback is commensurate.

[californiagrown]

this illegally modified machine

Is it illegal? maybe in some places, but i bet not in Texas. Not to mention any deisel car can "roll coal".

One of the funnier things ive seen is a VW TDI on a freeway on-ramp being tailgated by a lifted Ram truck with a big CUMMINGS decal on the back. IDK if the VW driver did it intentionally, but he tried to speed up and must have been in the wrong gear because he rolled coal super hard on that Ram truck haha. it was great.

[spanghew]

Based on my heavy consumption of law shows on TV and the occasional glance at Google, it is my understanding that intent is the main difference between the various degrees of homicide.

back on the 00s when I was patrolling, there were so many ugly collisions resulting in injuries that we were supposed to get the person who had run into the injured party to accompany us to the patrol room to fil out a formal statement about the incident pending potential lawsuits or police involvement. The person responsible for the collision tended to be young and male and almost always said something like "I didn't mean to run into the old lady," said old lady writhing on the snow in pain nearby. I doubt many of these incidents were a 'spray the gaper' frolic spoken of with such reminiscent fondness by the upstream poster, but were more the out-of-control, reckless solipsist action also shrugged off as 'who hasn't done that . . .'

One more mature skier decided he could tuck a fairly steep run to get up enough speed to ski uphill to the bottom of the nearby chair, rather than skiing to the bottom and riding a chair high enough to ski down to that chair. The schusser had to intersect a milk run to the bottom of the chair he should have been going to, and while trying to make his big uphill turn, he ran into a man with enough force to burst the man's aorta and kill him on the spot.

The cops were called to that incident and reported that the guy who had killed the other guy was in the hospital with serious injuries of his own, which he thought would get him off the hook for killing the other guy.

IO wasn't privy to any legal results of these numerous incidents, but I responded to enough of them to get very tired of hearing the excuses and the tone of privilege they were spoken in.

[californiagrown]

back on the 00s when I was patrolling, there were so many ugly collisions resulting in injuries that we were supposed to get the person who had run into the injured party to accompany us to the patrol room to fil out a formal statement about the incident pending potential lawsuits or police involvement. The person responsible for the collision tended to be young and male and almost always said something like "I didn't mean to run into the old lady," said old lady writhing on the snow in pain nearby. I doubt many of these incidents were a 'spray the gaper' frolic spoken of with such reminiscent fondness by the upstream poster, but were more the out-of-control, reckless solipsist action also shrugged off as 'who hasn't done that . . .'

One more mature skier decided he could tuck a fairly steep run to get up enough speed to ski uphill to the bottom of the nearby chair, rather than skiing to the bottom and riding a chair high enough to ski down to that chair. The schusser had to intersect a milk run to the bottom of the chair he should have been going to, and while trying to make his big uphill turn, he ran into a man with enough force to burst the man's aorta and kill him on the spot.

The cops were called to that incident and reported that the guy who had killed the other guy was in the hospital with serious injuries of his own, which he thought would get him off the hook for killing the other guy.

IO wasn't privy to any legal results of these numerous incidents, but I responded to enough of them to get very tired of hearing the excuses and the tone of privilege they were spoken in.

The law does care about intent.

The victim likely doesnt care about intent.

Intent is usually the difference between an evil MFer and a dumb/selfish/ignorant/naive MFer. The later of which pretty well describes teenagers.

[::: :::]

isn't "I didn't mean to...!" basically the excuse for 99% of "accidents"?

it seems irrelevant to assigning responsibility, if that's what justice is supposed to determine

[Dantheman]

If you were one of these unnecessarily injured riders and you found out that the driver that ruined your world was going to be allowed to move on with his life while yours was on hold would you be ok with it? I'm pretty sure that if it was me I'd end up bitter and looking for retribution. It's different than if I fuck myself up doing any of the high risk things I do but if someone else takes me out through ignorance and carelessness I would make sure the payback is commensurate.

Something like this would be an appropriate alternative to prison:

[old goat]

Sure, but intent to assault is pretty well established. Escalation was likely enough to make the assault more effective. Hell, look at our obtuse friend here always talking up the dangers.

Fire off a gun and accidentally kill someone while robbing a store and those law shows will put you away for life.

A lot of states, including TX, have felony murder and misdemeanor manslaughter laws, which specifically say that if you commit or try to commit a felony and someone dies it's automatically murder, and if you commit or try to commit a misdemeanor it's manslaughter. So is harassing road bikers by rolling coal or driving too close a felony or misdemeanor in TX? Damn, I should be the judge on this case. But he can call me if he has any questions.