Driver intentionally hits motorcyclist and doesn't care

[Phoenix86]

Wow. So if someone is speeding I have the right to hit them with my car? Or if someone is jaywalking I have the right to plow right through them?

That's fucking hilarious we both used the exact same examples.

 

[purbeast0]

That's fucking hilarious we both used the exact same examples.

i used it first!

 

[Humpy]

neither of them are a threat to the guy who swerved into the wrong side of traffic.

Motorcycles swerving in and out of traffic are a danger/threat to the safety of other drivers. I'm guessing that's why it's illegal.

Obviously, deliberately driving into a motorcycle is far more dangerous. I just don't like the idea that the douchebag motorcycle guy has zero culpability.

 

[SKORPI0]

link to video ->https://www.facebook.com/eric.sanders.585/videos/10206338559935597/

 

[ALIVE]

they both break the law they both need to face the consequences of their actions

if someone in the road break a law it does not give me the right to kill the intentional
if they break the law and i kill them because i could do nothing thats another thing it is called an accident and i get not punished

thats why we have serious accidents
because of the mentality he broke the law first i i can do what ever i want now


it reminds me 2 cars hit each other. i think the second was complaining that the first stooped suddenly.
but the fun was they got down they yelled
then the second enter his card go back and accelerate ans smashed the card

then drive the car in the side of the street and said now we can talk lol

 

[purbeast0]

Motorcycles swerving in and out of traffic are a danger/threat to the safety of other drivers. I'm guessing that's why it's illegal.

Obviously, deliberately driving into a motorcycle is far more dangerous. I just don't like the idea that the douchebag motorcycle guy has zero culpability.

no one was swerving in and out of traffic. passing people != swerving in and out of traffic.

it's illegal to cross double lines because typically double lines are in places where you can't see far enough in the opposite direction's lane to know if you have enough space to pass.

no one is saying the motorcycle driver didnt break the law either, not sure why you even are bringing that up. it even says in the article that he broke the law.

 

[Phoenix86]

i used it first!

I wore it better you ratchet whore.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

That's just not how civilized society works.

Jaywalking does not justify driving over someone because they were in your way.
Speeding doesn't justify shooting out their tires to slow them down.

The order in which the laws are broken is irrelevant. It just means more than one law was broken and punishment should be delivered to both, by those authorized to deliver it.

So ticket the cyclist and put the old man in jail for attempted murder/assault with a deadly weapon.

I never said that's how civilized society works and I never said the driver was right or justified. I said that I have no sympathy for the biker because HE BROKE THE LAW FIRST and his injuries are a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of that action. If you can't read and understand, have the common courtesy to shut up.

Simple question here, ignore the actions of the driver for a moment. Would the cyclist have been hurt if he had not INTENTIONALLY broken the law and endangered other people using that road? Yes or no. If the answer is no, and nobody in this thread is possibly stupid enough to argue otherwise, then why should I or anyone else care that he got hurt? I don't care one little bit. I don't approve of the actions of the driver and I don't approve of the actions of the cyclist. My sympathy is reserved for innocent victims.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

they both break the law they both need to face the consequences of their actions

Exactly. Driver was wrong and should be prosecuted. Cyclist was wrong and should be prosecuted. Easy-peasy. I don't give a shit about either one of them and I hope they both get screwed because they both deserve to get screwed.

 

[Raizinman]

The motorcyclist tried to DOUBLE PASS on a road where there was a double yellow line. Not to mention speeding and driving recklessly. That's a quadruple no no. But, it is obvious that the driver of the car INTENTIONALLY tried to hit the motorcycle driver. So in the end, both would be penalized in a court of law.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Drivers are murderous irresponsible swine.

They drink, drive and kill innocent people.

They run into pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, other drivers, buildings, bridges, rivers and anything that gets in their way. This pig's attitude does not surprise me.

 

[Phoenix86]

I never said that's how civilized society works and I never said the driver was right or justified. I said that I have no sympathy for the biker because HE BROKE THE LAW FIRST and his injuries are a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of that action. If you can't read and understand, have the common courtesy to shut up.

I don't think you understand what that word means. He was injured as a DIRECT result of the driver swerving, because if they driver didn't swerve he wouldn't have been injured.

He was INDIRECTLY injured as a result of illegally passing, which you plainly state in the rest of your drivel.

NEITHER MATTERS because there's no pass for attempted murder for a DRIVING VIOLATION. I can use caps too.

I don't think anyone thinks the cyclist was in the right for passing. We probably all agree it's illegal. It's your incomprehension of what justifies attempted murder everyone is snapping at you for, and rightly so.

You keep on with order of operations or something, like it matters. It doesn't. This isn't a civil court argument where you assign % of responsibility (where order might matter). It's criminal.

They both broke the law, like I said, and both should see punishment. If you can't understand that, shut your damn pie hole about what happened first.

 

[Greenman]

Motorcycles swerving in and out of traffic are a danger/threat to the safety of other drivers. I'm guessing that's why it's illegal.

Obviously, deliberately driving into a motorcycle is far more dangerous. I just don't like the idea that the douchebag motorcycle guy has zero culpability.

Attempted murder is not justified by a minor moving volition. The driver of the car knowingly forced the bike to crash. Motorcycle rider should receive a ticket, car driver should go to prison. Motorcycle rider should also sue the driver in civil court and strip him clean.

Saying attempted murder is justified by a minor infraction is world class stupid. Should we be hunting jaywalkers? Perhaps start executing people who roll through a stop sign at 5 mph? What about the scofflaws that double park? 10, maybe 15 years of hard labor?

 

[Bubbleawsome]

So ticket the cyclist and put the old man in jail for attempted murder/assault with a deadly weapon.

This

 

[Humpy]

It doesn't matter what the motorcyclist was doing, it means zero...

It doesn't really matter what the biker was doing...

no one is saying the motorcycle driver didnt break the law either, not sure why you even are bringing that up. it even says in the article that he broke the law.

I'm bringing it up because I think I saw some posts saying it didn't matter that the motorcycle guy was acting like a dick. Maybe I was wrong?

The motorcyclist is absolutely a contributor to what happened. Cautious, considerate people rarely put themselves in situations where shit like this happens. Idiots do it all the time and we've all seen it.

 

[disappoint]

So ticket the cyclist and put the old man in jail for attempted murder/assault with a deadly weapon.

Yup.

 

[Phoenix86]

I'm bringing it up because I think I saw some posts saying it didn't matter that the motorcycle guy was acting like a dick. Maybe I was wrong?

The motorcyclist is absolutely a contributor to what happened. Cautious, considerate people rarely put themselves in situations where shit like this happens. Idiots do it all the time and we've all seen it.

He's saying it doesn't matter because it doesn't justify the driver's actions, not that it doesn't matter because the passing was legal/safe.

edit: if you read the rest of what he wrote, instead of cutting out part of a statement and taking it as a whole statement, he says exactly that.

 

[waggy]

while the motorcyclist was wrong to pass on a double yellow that is no way justifies what the driver of teh car did.

The driver should be arrested and charged for it. and the motorycycle ticketed.

 

[Humpy]

Attempted murder is not justified by a minor moving volition.

No shit?

Saying attempted murder is justified by a minor infraction is world class stupid.

I'm glad I didn't say that then. :|

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I don't think you understand what that word means. He was injured as a DIRECT result of the driver swerving, because if they driver didn't swerve he wouldn't have been injured.

He was INDIRECTLY injured as a result of illegally passing, which you plainly state in the rest of your drivel.

NEITHER MATTERS because there's no pass for attempted murder for a DRIVING VIOLATION. I can use caps too.

I don't think anyone thinks the cyclist was in the right for passing. We probably all agree it's illegal. It's your incomprehension of what justifies attempted murder everyone is snapping at you for, and rightly so.

You keep on with order of operations or something, like it matters. It doesn't. This isn't a civil court argument where you assign % of responsibility (where order might matter). It's criminal.

They both broke the law, like I said, and both should see punishment. If you can't understand that, shut your damn pie hole about what happened first.

You can use caps? Goody!! Your mommy must be so proud. Now work on getting the brain in gear and maybe somebody will actually be impressed.

The motorcyclist was injured during the commission of a crime. Can you argue that point? Yes or no, c'mon, no caps, just fire up your brain for once and try to come up with a single intelligent answer to a simple question. Was the cyclist committing a crime when he got injured? Yes or no? You can do it, I have at least a tiny shred of confidence that you can handle something that idiot-proof.

That's why he gets no sympathy from me. I don't care if a criminal slips on a wet floor while shoplifting or gets nailed by a vigilante driver. If you intentionally break a law and get hurt doing it, GOOD! Now please explain why you think criminals who get injured while committing crimes have your panties in such a bunch that you so zealously try to side with them. That could be an interesting discussion.

 

[Bubbleawsome]

You can use caps? Goody!! Your mommy must be so proud. Now work on getting the brain in gear and maybe somebody will actually be impressed.

The motorcyclist was injured during the commission of a crime. Can you argue that point? Yes or no, c'mon, no caps, just fire up your brain for once and try to come up with a single intelligent answer to a simple question. Was the cyclist committing a crime when he got injured? Yes or no? You can do it, I have at least a tiny shred of confidence that you can handle something that idiot-proof.

That's why he gets no sympathy from me. I don't care if a criminal slips on a wet floor while shoplifting or gets nailed by a vigilante driver. If you intentionally break a law and get hurt doing it, GOOD! Now please explain why you think criminals who get injured while committing crimes have your panties in such a bunch that you so zealously try to side with them. That could be an interesting discussion.

So road ragers are in the right? Just because someone cut you off (on purpose or not, you can't tell) go ahead and escalate to attempted murder. That's cool?

 

[Phoenix86]

The motorcyclist was injured during the commission of a crime. Can you argue that point? Yes or no, c'mon, no caps, just fire up your brain for once and try to come up with a single intelligent answer to a simple question. Was the cyclist committing a crime when he got injured? Yes or no? You can do it, I have at least a tiny shred of confidence that you can handle something that idiot-proof.

You're still citing civil standards not criminal ones.

Committing the crime of illegally passing does not justify attempted murder.

That's why he gets no sympathy from me. I don't care if a criminal slips on a wet floor while shoplifting or gets nailed by a vigilante driver. If you intentionally break a law and get hurt doing it, GOOD! Now please explain why you think criminals who get injured while committing crimes have your panties in such a bunch that you so zealously try to side with them. That could be an interesting discussion.

Oh another civil action example! You do realize tort law and criminal law are different, right?

 

[Humpy]

If the car driver wasn't such a raging moron he would have just said "Oops! Wasn't expecting you to pass there and didn't see you buddy! I thought I might have missed my turn. Hope your bike's OK!".

LOL at attempted murder. You guys are a little dramatic today.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Also, with such support for the driver, I wonder how his fans feel about overzealous cops doing something like that?

Yeah, thought so.

 

[Phoenix86]

If the car driver wasn't such a raging moron he would have just said "Oops! Wasn't expecting you to pass there and didn't see you buddy! I thought I might have missed my turn. Hope your bike's OK!".

LOL at attempted murder. You guys are a little dramatic today.

It probably wouldn't hold to that standard, close, but I doubt a good case could be made.

There's definitely intent to injure and a deadly weapon, but you'd have a hard time proving intent to kill. It'd most likely be assault with a deadly weapon, or one of the operating a vehicle while causing bodily harm type laws, depending on how the state defines them.