Driver intentionally hits motorcyclist and doesn't care

[TechBoyJK]

My position isn't really different than anyone else. To me the video appears to show a car swiping at a passing motorcycle.

The reason I posted is because I disagreed with the all the various conclusions that other posters came to based just on the video.

The video shows two vehicles improperly using the road, a motorcycle crashing, an old man vaguely stating he didn't care, and some various people. That's it.

From there a bunch of wanna-be detectives from anywhere on Earth chimed in with "obvious" findings of murder and other stupid shit. I get that this is a place to post opinions and the video looks cut and dried. I just wish for a little more skepticism about this stuff and less jumping to conclusions. I try to do that with the cop hate threads too but I'm sure there are examples where I didn't. 🙂

It doesn't take a detective to see this stuff.

If you think it takes a detective to do basic critical thinking, your bar is set to low!

 

[Humpy]

It doesn't take a detective to see this stuff.

If you think it takes a detective to do basic critical thinking, your bar is set to low!

You are welcome to create any story you would like that fits your interpretation of the video. I prefer evidence and facts over dramatic fiction. 🙂

 

[Phoenix86]

He pulled over. He was aware there was an 'accident'.There were many people rushing to the aid of cyclist. The guy filming pointed out that he caused an accident.

Which tends to prove he didn't even intend to hit the guy, just scare him. Once he realized he hit him he knew he was in trouble and stopped. Everyone claiming attempted murder (my initial reaction too) needs to calm down. Best case scenario he only meant to scare him, worse case he meant to injure but exceedingly unlikely meant to kill. It's not like he threw it in reverse and tried to back over him.

 

[CZroe]

If this were a cop who was driving the car then your and Humpy's positions and arguments would be exactly switched. It's like bizarro world.

You only think that because you are so anti-cop that you can't believe I am rational and would only support a cop where the support was warranted.

You have proven your own bias.

Point to the part where "injuries" was part of the conversation with the old man.

"You HIT him!"

My position isn't really different than anyone else. To me the video appears to show a car swiping at a passing motorcycle.

The reason I posted is because I disagreed with the all the various conclusions that other posters came to based just on the video.

The video shows two vehicles improperly using the road, a motorcycle crashing, an old man vaguely stating he didn't care, and some various people. That's it.

From there a bunch of wanna-be detectives from anywhere on Earth chimed in with "obvious" findings of murder and other stupid shit. I get that this is a place to post opinions and the video looks cut and dried. I just wish for a little more skepticism about this stuff and less jumping to conclusions. I try to do that with the cop hate threads too but I'm sure there are examples where I didn't. 🙂

There was nothing "vague" about it. It was stated that he "hit them" and he responded that he "does not care [that he hit them]." That was a confrontational response. If he was being defensive then it stands to reason that he would have responded with WHY it happened (his bee/wasp excuse). The key word there is "reason." Reasonable people would come to the same conclusion. The law only requires that you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is something you seem incapable of understanding.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Yeah, the bike rider didn't look to have much skill or experience and a more experienced rider should have been able to avoid contact or falling.

That said, no matter what the traffic violation was it doesn't warrant attempted murder.

And, for all those here making a huge deal of the rider passing on the double yellow line and implying he's as much responsible as the fuck in the car -- do you consider driving 5mph over the speed limit a justification to kill them?

In the end it looks like the police are doing the right thing -- citing the rider and arresting the old fuck.


Brian

 

[Humpy]

"You HIT him!"



There was nothing "vague" about it. It was stated that he "hit them" and he responded that he "does not care [that he hit them]." That was a confrontational response. If he was being defensive then it stands to reason that he would have responded with WHY it happened (his bee/wasp excuse). The key word there is "reason." Reasonable people would come to the same conclusion. The law only requires that you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is something you seem incapable of understanding.

"I don't care (that you are telling me I hit him, it was an accident for fucks sake!!!!)"

We can make up all sorts of cool stories to put in the parenthesis.

 

[Wreckem]

Yeah, the bike rider didn't look to have much skill or experience and a more experienced rider should have been able to avoid contact or falling.

That said, no matter what the traffic violation was it doesn't warrant attempted murder.

And, for all those here making a huge deal of the rider passing on the double yellow line and implying he's as much responsible as the fuck in the car -- do you consider driving 5mph over the speed limit a justification to kill them?

In the end it looks like the police are doing the right thing -- citing the rider and arresting the old fuck.


Brian

What people are also failing to grasp is, the biker rider and his girlfriend will bear their own expenses. Why? The old guy's insurance will NOT payout for an intentional act.

 

[CZroe]

"I don't care (that you are telling me I hit him, it was an accident for fucks sake!!!!)"

We can make up all sorts of cool stories to put in the parenthesis.

Brackets, but your understanding is limited in more basic ways that need to be addressed. When I say "Drop and give me 20!," the subject, [you], is understood: "[You], drop and give me 20!" Although I did not specify what I wanted 20 of, in certain contexts, the [what?] is also understood. For example, if I made this statement right after you asked how many push-ups I wanted. "[You] drop and give me 20 [push-ups]!" See how this works?

When I quoted him as saying "I don't care [that I hit him]," the content in the brackets was NOT made up. It was obtained from the CONTEXT of their conversation and directly from the mouth of the person he was responding to. NO ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL. It is a way to clarify what the person speaking was referring to after removing it from context. Professional writers do it all the time.

In that conversation the recording rider said "You hit him!" and the car driver responded "I don't care." You wouldn't say "I don't care" and neglect to say what it is you don't care about unless it was obvious from the context, meaning that even the car driver expects your dumb a** to know that [that I hit him] is an assumed part of the dialog.

This isn't an opinion. You fail at BASIC understanding of the English language.

Edit: I'll also state again that being an accident, fault or no fault, it doesn't make sense that the person would not care. Occam's Razor shoots down your ridiculous made-up parenthetical statement.

 

[CZroe]

What people are also failing to grasp is, the biker rider and his girlfriend will bear their own expenses. Why? The old guy's insurance will NOT payout for an intentional act.

I'm sure it varies by state, but even with liability-only coverage they often have to cover it if the owner/operator can't. They can then sue the owner/operator to recoup the costs because it was intentional and violated their policy agreement. Obviously, they will drop him as a client while they are at it.

 

[JulesMaximus]

My position isn't really different than anyone else. To me the video appears to show a car swiping at a passing motorcycle.

The reason I posted is because I disagreed with the all the various conclusions that other posters came to based just on the video.

The video shows two vehicles improperly using the road, a motorcycle crashing, an old man vaguely stating he didn't care, and some various people. That's it.

From there a bunch of wanna-be detectives from anywhere on Earth chimed in with "obvious" findings of murder and other stupid shit. I get that this is a place to post opinions and the video looks cut and dried. I just wish for a little more skepticism about this stuff and less jumping to conclusions. I try to do that with the cop hate threads too but I'm sure there are examples where I didn't. 🙂

Police arrested him on 2 charges of aggravated assault so apparently they don't believe his bullshit story either.

Then there's this:

The driver initially blames his swerving on the fact that the rider tried to pass him over double-yellow lines, which Sanders later admitted to in a clarification post on Facebook. Then he turns around to say that he was “stung by a wasp,” intertwined with several more “I don’t care” statements while the filming motorcyclist snaps a picture of his license plate.

 

[JulesMaximus]

What people are also failing to grasp is, the biker rider and his girlfriend will bear their own expenses. Why? The old guy's insurance will NOT payout for an intentional act.

Why not? They covered him. They should pay out.

 

[TechBoyJK]

"I don't care (that you are telling me I hit him, it was an accident for fucks sake!!!!)"

We can make up all sorts of cool stories to put in the parenthesis.

wtf

 

[Humpy]

Brackets, but your understanding is limited in more basic ways that need to be addressed. When I say "Drop and give me 20!," the subject, [you], is understood: "[You], drop and give me 20!" Although I did not specify what I wanted 20 of, in certain contexts, the [what?] is also understood. For example, if I made this statement right after you asked how many push-ups I wanted. "[You] drop and give me 20 [push-ups]!" See how this works?

When I quoted him as saying "I don't care [that I hit him]," the content in the brackets was NOT made up. It was obtained from the CONTEXT of their conversation and directly from the mouth of the person he was responding to. NO ASSUMPTIONS AT ALL. It is a way to clarify what the person speaking was referring to after removing it from context. Professional writers do it all the time.

In that conversation the recording rider said "You hit him!" and the car driver responded "I don't care." You wouldn't say "I don't care" and neglect to say what it is you don't care about unless it was obvious from the context, meaning that even the car driver expects your dumb a** to know that [that I hit him] is an assumed part of the dialog.

This isn't an opinion. You fail at BASIC understanding of the English language.

Edit: I'll also state again that being an accident, fault or no fault, it doesn't make sense that the person would not care. Occam's Razor shoots down your ridiculous made-up parenthetical statement.

I disagree with all of that. 🙂

For some reason you believe you have an understanding of the "context" of the conversations and events based on the short video. You don't. Far more occurred on scene than what was shown, so you have created fantasy to fill in the gaps. Due to your lack of factual information your argument instead centers around an unrelated hypothetical, semantics, and critique of the opposing argument's use of language.

And stop saying Occam's Razor. I don't care.

 

[Childs]

So the motorcyclist intentionally ignoring the laws and endangering everyone else on the road means nothing to you?


See how that works? Let me ask you, which person broke the law first? And would that person have been in a position to be hit if he didn't make the decision to intentionally break the law?

The person in the white car crossed the double yellow as well...

 

[CZroe]

I disagree with all of that. 🙂

For some reason you believe you have an understanding of the "context" of the conversations and events based on the short video. You don't. Far more occurred on scene than what was shown, so you have created fantasy to fill in the gaps. Due to your lack of factual information your argument instead centers around an unrelated hypothetical, semantics, and critique of the opposing argument's use of language.

Here's the context for anyone too stupid to understand what that means:
Biker said something
Driver responded
Driver's response required the context of the biker's statement for the driver to even expect it to be understood.

THE CONTEXT IS NOT IN QUESTION. IT IS KNOWN AND FULLY UNDERSTOOD EVEN IF YOU CONTINUE TO PLAY DUMB.

And stop saying Occam's Razor. I don't care.

It figures that you would want to ignore a core principle of critical and logical thinking. I'm not taking requests when I call you out for that tripe you pretend is logic and reason.

 

[Childs]

It figures that you would want to ignore a core principle of critical and logical thinking. I'm not taking requests when I call you out for that tripe you pretend is logic and reason.

Admit it, you wouldnt know what Occam's Razor was if it wasnt for Contact. :biggrin:

 

[CZroe]

Admit it, you wouldnt know what Occam's Razor was if it wasnt for Contact. :biggrin:

I would: House M.D. 😉

 

[Humpy]

Here's the context for anyone too stupid to understand what that means:
Biker said something
Driver responded
Driver's response required the context of the biker's statement for the driver to even expect it to be understood.

THE CONTEXT IS NOT IN QUESTION. IT IS KNOWN AND FULLY UNDERSTOOD EVEN IF YOU CONTINUE TO PLAY DUMB.
It figures that you would want to ignore a core principle of critical and logical thinking. I'm not taking requests when I call you out for that tripe you pretend is logic and reason.

LOL You're are hyper focusing on a narrow interpretation of a single word as the backbone of whatever it is that you are talking about because you have little else to go on.

Here, let's argue like retards about context for a while because apparently it's relevant.

Context:
noun 1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.


2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.


Based on the above, do you see any reason why I might disagree with your posts?

How about you look back at the recent post of mine you quoted and see if you can find the part where I wrote "For some reason you believe you have an understanding of the "context" of the conversations and events based on the short video. You don't." Notice the wording I used? Notice how you ignored the broader meaning?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

The person in the white car crossed the double yellow as well...

Indeed he did. And maybe he's just an asshole who thinks that traffic laws don't apply to him like the asshole on the bike and the asshole doing the filming. Pretty much everybody was over the yellow line, they all should be cited for being assholes. And that's why nobody gets any sympathy. Asshole collides with asshole, GOOD. That's far better than asshole colliding with non-asshole.

 

[eng2d2]

I think the old guy thought the motorcycle was a wasp which could easily be misconstrued because of the motorcycle buzzing.

 

[CZroe]

LOL You're are hyper focusing on a narrow interpretation of a single word as the backbone of whatever it is that you are talking about because you have little else to go on.

Here, let's argue like retards about context for a while because apparently it's relevant.

Context:
noun 1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.


2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.


Based on the above, do you see any reason why I might disagree with your posts?

How about you look back at the recent post of mine you quoted and see if you can find the part where I wrote "For some reason you believe you have an understanding of the "context" of the conversations and events based on the short video. You don't." Notice the wording I used? Notice how you ignored the broader meaning?

There is no way you could be that dense. It says EXACTLY what I said. The context of "I don't care" was that it was preceded by and in direct response to the biker saying "You hit him!" Therefore, considering the context, the meaning was "I don't care [that I hit him]." There is no other interpretation. Thanks for proving my point with your own quoted definition.

http://youtu.be/Jlulw8U4Ynk

This was never about alternate definitions for the word "context." This was about where the meaning conveyed within the brackets was inferred from. You have explained this BEAUTIFULLY.

 

[Childs]

I would: House M.D. 😉

I guess I'm showing my age...touche.

 

[JBT]

My guess is the car intentionally swerved to scare the rider, but in the process clipped him. Dick thing to do, but seeing anyone pass on a solid double lane is quite infuriating. The car should be charged for attempted man slaughter, the bike should be charged for what ever passing on a double line is.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Dick thing to do, but seeing anyone pass on a solid double lane is quite infuriating.

I bet you drive a truck or an SUV.

 

[JBT]

I bet you drive a truck or an SUV.

Nah VW GLI Autobahn. I think its irresponsible to put others in danger. I'm cool with driving 10-15 mph over the speed limit when its "safe", but passing on a double line when there is clearly traffic heading in the other direction is just asking for trouble.
I don't trust anyone else on the road, so if there is a chance for another person to make a big mistake I expect it to happen and drive accordingly.