Are you serious? Maybe the cyclist lost his head in this dispute, but how in the world are you justified to shoot him??
“Are you serious? Maybe the cyclist lost his head in this dispute, but how in the world are you justified to shoot him??”
Self Defense!
Are you serious? Maybe the cyclist lost his head in this dispute, but how in the world are you justified to shoot him??
= = =
He is climbing into the car. What will he do next?
Castle Doctrine
Did you read the part where the bicyclist opened the passenger door and made a threatening move toward the driver?
“Are you serious? Maybe the cyclist lost his head in this dispute, but how in the world are you justified to shoot him??”
I guess you didn’t read the whole story. The dumb ass forced the door open and tried to enter an occupied vehicle. Or you’re a good little Democrat who thinks the bad guy should be able to beat you to death and get off scott free.
You jerk the door open on my truck when I am stopped at a traffic light and you will get shot for sure.
I don’t know who you are and I certainly don’t know what your intentions are.
You could be a violent carjacker or just psycho looking to see some spilled blood.
If the first, you deserve to get shot, if the second I guarandamntee it will be your blood.
>> how in the world are you justified to shoot him?
Did you bother to read the article, dumfuque?
HE JERKED OPEN THE DOOR OF THE SHOOTER’S CAR.
“Megill forcefully flung the front passenger door of the vehicle open and moved toward the interior of the vehicle...” immediately prior to getting his stupid cyclist ass SHOT.
Another typical raged-out entitled cyclist jerk.
(Are you one of those too, by chance?)
Maybe the driver lost his head in this dispute, decided not to guess what was about to happen, and used his weapon to inflict a non-lethal wound which ended the dispute.
Was the driver justified?
Are you one of those people who act irrationally and then excuse themselves by saying, "I just got angry and lost my temper", as if that justifies what you have done?
Self defense. How much of an attack should a person have to accept before they can protect their self? I don’t see how old the person is or their sex etc. I’m glad the selfish prick got shot. Where there hell does he get off thinking he can yank open a car door and attack the person inside? What exactly are they supposed to do?
My guess is he planned to assault the driver. Why else would you race up to a car that honked at you and pull open the door? If you were pissed, you could have just ridden up alongside the car and yelled at the guy. He was looking for trouble. That was why he was blocking traffic in the first place.
It’s the same as breaking into your home and you don’t have time to determine if the intruder has a dangerous weapon on him or not. They are yelling and lunging at you. That’s intent to harm in my book.
When the cyclist opened the door of the car the driver had a reasonable fear that the cyclist was about to commit a forcible felony on his person. Hence the justification for the use of lethal force. I would have shot the a$$hole too.
I think to use word “cyclist” to describe someone trying to get in you car is a little off the mark.
Actions by aggressor indistinguishable from attempted carjacking. Use of force to defend self reasonable imo.
Dude, the bike rider broke into the occupied car as it waited at a stop light. The driver had every right to assume the worst of intentions and acted appropriately. End of story. Next.
He was on a bike for starters. I hope other 2 wheel homos get the message.
By being in fear for your life or personal safety...
Try to get in my car like that when you're that angry and I'll give you a clear explanation.
“Are you serious? Maybe the cyclist lost his head in this dispute, but how in the world are you justified to shoot him??”
Are you for real - if an angry man busts into your car with you in it, it’s no different than a hood breaking in through a window or kicking in the door to your home - you have to assume he means you harm.
Stop drinking the “Tolerance Kool-Aid”... and maybe move over to a Dem site...
Please NEVER move to Pennsylvania; people like you are why so many people spend life in prison for just trying to defend themselves against violent savages. A rational person who has been in violent confrontations like this is the only one who understands that when someone assaults you, you can’t wait for them to cause permanent injury or kill you to act— it is a split second decision. When they attempt to open your car door, attempt to break your car window, or rush or swing at you, you can shoot them. If a group of them surrounds you, start pushing you, or knock you down, for example in a river where you may drown, it doesn’t matter how weird you acted, you now have a right to defend yourself UNTIL THE THREAT IS NEUTRALIZED. That means killing all of them. Likewise, if they are armed, and begin to witdraw, you don’t know if they are taking up covered positions to begin shooting again, so you can keep shooting until they are no longer a threat. Have you ever been violently assaulted, especially by a group of people who pulled out weapons after the assault began to swing out of their favor? If not, you should never even be allowed on a self-defense jury in my opinion. Things happen fast, and the guy you just knocked out oold, is now up and has pulled out a knife and is coming at you from behind. I have lived in some horrible neighborhoods when getting my education and had to deal with all the situations described here; I am lucky to be alive, and even luckier to not be in prison as I no doubt would with jurors like those today who live pampered life and never encounter violent people who want to end their lives.