That is fucking brilliant. That would make an awsome sig.
Just can’t admit you’re wrong, can you? What’s the matter? Afraid of the fall from the High Horse you talked yourself onto?
“Shoots the next person who cuts me off” are words of your invention, not mine; and it’s what you want to believe about me, not based upon anything I actually said, but upon your interpretation of what you think I said.
I merely said today’s events were the catalyst of a decision; you made up words I never said, or attempted to inaccurately paraphrase words I did say, and somehow tried to portray me as a person who would now retaliate preemptively anyone who ever did something similar to me again, or worse, anyone who just makes me mad.
I reject that characterization; I resent it, and call on you to withdraw it as unfounded by what I actually posted, now, or before, here on the Straight Dope, and in any form of human communication.
awesome even.
ExTank, I get that this is your place to vent and rage. Knock yourself out. Better to do it here than in real life. But – oh, wait. I need to do the standard disclaimers.
I am not your attorney. You are not my client. I believe that we are both, probably, pretty grateful for that. What follows is not legal advice. After all, I am not licensed in your jurisdiction. We now return to your regularly scheduled dousing-of-cold-water-on-your-fun. Frankly, it’s what we lawyers live for.
I will confine myself to statements you have made in this thread, because you have expressed significant anger at the posts that seem to rephrase you, rather than quote you.
No. In Missouri (I assume that is your location, but, frankly, the law of self-defense is pretty much the same nationwide in the broad strokes), self-defense has four elements:
Thus, as others have pointed out, if you have any available means other than killing the driver of the vehicle to save your life, you may not kill the other person and claim self-defense. (Thus, in the incident detailed in the OP, because you successfully made an attempt to do all within your power, consistent with your personal safety, to avoid the danger, self-defense would not justify killing her. Moreover, please note that “consistent with his personal safety” does not mean “unscathed.”)
Now, the prosecutor will likely argue, as others have here, that the fact that you could control the motorcycle while shooting indicates that the situation was not as dire as you suggest. Moreover, to the extent that the shooting occurs after the danger has passed, self-defense is unavailable as an affirmative defense. Moreover, as others have pointed out, your statements on this message board are excluded from hearsay as (a) admissions of a party-opponent; and (b) statements against penal interest. Therefore, the prosecutor likely will have a field day with the prosecution of a person whose response to being cut off in traffic is to open fire, and your posts will provide quite nifty visual aids for the jury. Particularly when one compares the vitriol in the OP (posted at 5:21pm, more than an hour after the incident) to the vitriol in your most recent post, more than eight hours after the incident.
Me, personally? This is the post I’d blow up and shove in the jury’s face:
Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this was retaliation, pure and simple. Not self-defense, not protecting his life: it was revenge.
Now, I would like to simplify things for you, should you care to respond to this post. I am female. Consequently, I expect your response to this post to eschew insults like “limp-dick” and “motherfucking cocksucker” as inaccurate. Bitch, tit, etc., are fine, or perhaps some of the gender neutral insults, like douchebag. But please don’t use cunt. I really don’t like that one.
Incidentally, I think that people here would have responded better to your rant had you, even once, indicated that you were not seriously considering carrying a weapon and shooting someone who cuts you off in traffic. (I know, I know: cutting you off in traffic is wrong. Nevertheless, it happens. I’m sorry to hear it happens more frequently to you than, apparently, the rest of us, but them’s the breaks. Oh, and to the extent you still believe that a rational reading of your OP does not inexorably lead to the conclusion, as VegemiteMoose and Stranger On A Train have pointed out, that you did mean to shoot the next person who cuts you off in traffic, please remember your Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, to remain silent and to counsel.)
I lived in Texas for fifteen years asswipe, only coming to Missouri to assist a family member with cancer, who died from treatments, and to handle affairs of saod family member’s estate, which were left somewhat intestate. I had intended to move back *home[/i to Texas before I was run over and off the road last year and had to spend months recuperating.
Hmm, that sucks. I’ll bet it hurt.
At any rate, I can’t speak for the whole state of Texas, but myself and everyone that lives in my house (yes, we are all over here laughing at your ass) would appreciate you not moving here and shooting people.
Ride safe, fuck stain.
I really don’t want to. Swear to Og. My viewpoint on gun ownership and use thereof has been meaningfully swayed towards responsible ownership rather than banning, by reading this messageboard. I would be lying however if I said that things like ExTanks rant didn’t hit me in the gut and reinforce the exact stereotypes I’m trying to overcome in my mind.
P.S. ExTank please refute actual arguments at this point rather than reiterating that this is the Pit and you should just be able to just vent without opposition.
Since you didn’t insult me directly or by making silly-assed statements, I’ll return the courtesy.
Did you not catch, or deliberately ignore, the part where I said “at least?” While IANAL, my point #1:
coincides nicely with your point #2:
My point #2:
is a fairly reasonable lay-person’s parapharase of your point #3:
Again, I never said I was going to shoot the next person who cut me off in traffic, or even slightly annoyed me. I said I’d feel free to shoot the next person who decided I was going to be their “speedbump,” meaning they were goign to, threatening to, and about to hit/sideswipe/run over me, none of which SAT did today, but which happened to me last year.
And that it was mostly because the cops like the one described in post #1, not the SAT who swopped and squatted in front of me.
Cops like the one who wrote up the report of my accident last year; who took one witness statement, (from the guy whose car me and my bike bounced off the back of, who never knew anything was wrong until me and my bike bounced off the back of his car), the cop who never once interviewed me, either in the hospital when I revived, or after I was discharged; the cop who decided on the basis of one witness statement, and with no indication from my driving record that I was a habitual speeder or reckless driver (I have a spotless driving record), that I, out-of-the-blue and for no sane reason, decided to drop my bike at 65 mph on a clear, sunny day, with a dry road in good condition. The cop who, even after his report was throughly blasted to shreds by my insurance agent, nonetheless stuck to his “version” of events.
Mea culpa.
Laugh away, chucklehead.
For that, I’m moving home to Dallas next year.
ExTank do you understand that other reasonable people DO see it as you are threatening to shoot the next person who pisses you off in traffic?
This is a YES or NO question. Just like it may be if you are on the witness stand.
Sweet. Thanks for the heads up. But if you’ve lived here before, then you should already know people who ride big motorcycles, carry guns, shoot motorists for no reason other than they’re pissed they have to go through life with a needle dick are a dime a dozen around here.
You’ll blend right back into the fold, I’m sure.
Darling, you’re going to ruin your credibility by being rational, polite and gentlemanly in the Pit. I’ll point out one last thing (p’raps two, but then I’m a lawyer, so no one believes anything I say anyway).
Remember that, to claim self-defense, the defendant must be able to prove (i.e., the defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence) all four elements of the defense. The quoted statement can be read, reasonably, as saying that your first attempt to protect yourself will be to shoot, rather than to take defensive action. Were I prosecuting you (i.e., were we down a rabbit hole), I’d argue that point. And I think I’d win.
I’m sorry that you’ve been through this before. It makes it all the more real to you, when someone cuts you off. More than most people, you know what the consequences are when someone makes an unsafe maneuver in traffic. Nevertheless, it is one of the things we simply must accept as a part of living in our society. Your rant was great – as I said, the only problem is that some thought you were serious. I suspect you’re not – you know all too well the dangers of traffic, and shooting the driver of a vehicle can create havoc in rush hour.
As to the cops, well, like plumbers, teachers, and presidents, some are better than others. Again, sorry you got stuck with one whose investigation wasn’t satisfactory. As to the cop you spoke with after the incident in the OP, I don’t really know what he could have done. He certainly could not have issued a citation, because he didn’t witness the incident. Her statements were not, as someone suggested, “perjury,” because they were not given under oath. The best circumstance would have been if the cop had lectured the driver on safety. I suspect that you were quite hot under the collar and, as has been suggested, the driver was concerned about her safety. Under those circumstances, the cop may have felt that defusing the situation by having both of you return to your respective corners was the best solution.
Incidentally, and appropos of nothing, “Sgt. Doughnut” is not really accurate, at least in my neck of the woods. It’s “Sgt. Starbuck’s” if you please.
NO, I reject the interpretation. I stated one specific instace in which I would take some form of action; I said
That clearly indicates that it is them attempting to hit/run over me.
Any other conclusion is the product of a febrile imagination. Assuming I will now blaze away at the merest annoyance is your (and other’s) unfounded conclusion. But, in the eventuality that I might ever actually shoot someone, I know enough about self-defense to make sure that it will be reasonably justified, based upon their actions, and on painfull personal experience.
Over 4 1/2 years of practically lurking, and you decide to come out for me? Gosh.
Save your energy, wallflower, and sink back down into the Teeming Masses.
OK do you understand that your rejection does not change the fact that someone else interpreted your claim that way?
So what does it take?
“I ran over a baby?”
“I have Crack in my pocket?”
“I exposed myself at the Elementary School?”
She openly admitted to swerving in front of me because she was in a hurry; coupled with my statement of the versions of events, which she partially corroborated with her utterance, what more did the cop need? A signed confession in triplicate from her stating “I hate bikers and I tried to kill him?”
And I was rational and collected, not raving and threatening, although my hair was probably a fright; St. Louis was a sauna today, and the helmet didn’t help things in that regard either, but I’m not riding to win beauty pageants, unless I’m running in the “Frankenstein” category, 'cause of the scars.
Yours are obviously better paid than ours, where it’s more apt to be “Sgt. QT.”
I say “Blue;” they hear “Red.” I can’t help their faulty comprehension beyond repeating “Blue” until I’m blue, or they hear “Blue.”
That they interpreted “Blue” as “Red” is a fact; that interpretation does not change “Blue” into “Red,” no matter how many times O’Brien ramps up the juice and tells Winston that 1+1=3.
Hey, you’re the one who decided to ramble on into the pit your particular brand of lunacy. If you’re so fucking stupid that you can’t figure out that if follow through with your ideas you will be commiting murder and would either be sent to prison or executed, especially here in Texas, then you’re too stupid to bother with.
And another thing. It doesn’t sound like you ride a bike worth a shit. You’ve got a fucked up arm and went through what sounded like quite a bit of pain. This lady today cut you off to the point that you almost ran into her. People are always fucking with you on your bike. You know what? The only common thing here is you, fuck knuckle. I’ve been riding bikes for years; never had a problem. You just sound like you don’t have a fucking clue what in the hell you’re doing.
Yeah, yeah…I know. It’s always someone else’s fault.
I’m bored of you now. Goodnight.
Well actually I was just trying to get a literal Yes or No answer from you at the simplest level before addressing other things. Like your amazing ability to selectively read posts. Or not answer pertinent questions.
By the way, while I know that don’t post while drunk is a guideline not a rule perhaps we should both refrain from posting at this point. I’m outta beer and I’m tired. Yes I’m implying that you’re drunk too. I certainly hope you are.
ExTank, people in this thread have been mostly commiserative about your shitty NDE on the bike. When I first read it, I too thought you were still shakey and full of adrenaline, just having an over-the-top vent about the nastiness that you had experienced.
But it’s gone beyond that now, and you are being an arsehole to the very people who could help you get through this with some sort of sanity. You’re posts are the rantings of a madman. A madman who reckons that people who cut him off in traffic deserve to be shot. You named this thread “…You self absorbed twat”, but you are spouting as if the twat had some sort of malicious intent towards you instead of just another careless and carefree driver (which she was from all accounts).
I echo the earlier suggestions of getting the hell out of here and having a hot bath and a calming glass of something numbing until you have stopped frothing at the mouth.
And take it easy as well, ya great shithead.