Re: Vehicle assault

Dang, Bob, you take ALL the fun out of our outraged discussions!

Bob said:

If you want to predict the criminal justice outcome just examine those
facts not in dispute. A 51 year old female driver is tailgated by a 36
year old male bicyclist as they both proceed down a hill. During that
descent his bicycle strikes her car from the rear twice. At the bottom
of that hill she is verbally accosted at a stop sign by the male. The
verbal confrontation ends when she drives off with him in proximity
(the beginning of the "he says, she says" dispute over facts) to her
car pounding on her window. She leaves. He calls the police. He has
minor injuries but refuses medical treatment.
My prediction? At best, a leaving the scene of an accident charge on
her with at least a 50/50 chance of a not guilty verdict. Since the
victim's actions immediately prior to that occurring unquestionably
helped create the danger I'd be very surprised if any felony assault
charges were filed.

Best outcome: small fine. At worst, though, the driver could be
hassled enough that maybe, just maybe, the thought that what she did
was wrong and unacceptable would seep through her skull. (If the idea
pierced the SUV thought armor, of course!)

Quoted message said:

As for the mistaken idea that his damaged footwear is somehow
dispositive, whether he was snagged on the car and trying to free
himself (my own guess) or holding onto the car in an attempt to stop it
so he could attack the driver (undoubtedly the defense stance), the
damage to his shoes will be exactly the same.

Are you seriously predicting the defense might claim the cyclist was
trying to stop the car by hanging on to it? Isn't this taking
Superman to heart just a bit much?? (Or James Bond, but that was Jaws
holding up the van...)

Pat

Email address works as is.

Patrick Lamb said:

Dang, Bob, you take ALL the fun out of our outraged discussions!

Bob said:

If you want to predict the criminal justice outcome just examine

those

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

facts not in dispute. A 51 year old female driver is tailgated by a

36

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

year old male bicyclist as they both proceed down a hill. During

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

descent his bicycle strikes her car from the rear twice. At the

bottom

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of that hill she is verbally accosted at a stop sign by the male.

The

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

verbal confrontation ends when she drives off with him in proximity
(the beginning of the "he says, she says" dispute over facts) to her
car pounding on her window. She leaves. He calls the police. He has
minor injuries but refuses medical treatment.
My prediction? At best, a leaving the scene of an accident charge on
her with at least a 50/50 chance of a not guilty verdict. Since the
victim's actions immediately prior to that occurring unquestionably
helped create the danger I'd be very surprised if any felony assault
charges were filed.

Best outcome: small fine. At worst, though, the driver could be
hassled enough that maybe, just maybe, the thought that what she did
was wrong and unacceptable would seep through her skull. (If the

idea

Quoted message said:

pierced the SUV thought armor, of course!)

Quoted message said:

As for the mistaken idea that his damaged footwear is somehow
dispositive, whether he was snagged on the car and trying to free
himself (my own guess) or holding onto the car in an attempt to stop

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

so he could attack the driver (undoubtedly the defense stance), the
damage to his shoes will be exactly the same.

Are you seriously predicting the defense might claim the cyclist was
trying to stop the car by hanging on to it? Isn't this taking
Superman to heart just a bit much?? (Or James Bond, but that was

Jaws

Quoted message said:

holding up the van...)

Pat

Email address works as is.

A defense lawyer's argument doesn't have to be believable or even
reasonable, just obfuscatory. BTW, I'm not predicting that argument
*might* be raised. I am seriously predicting that if it actually goes
to trial the driver's defense attorney *will* say in cross examining
the complainant something like, "Isn't it true that you *held* onto my
client's vehicle in a vain attempt to force her to stop so you could
continue assaulting her?". In his or her closing argument they'll then
say something like, "Members of the jury- doesn't it tell you just how
out of control the so-called victim was that he tried to physically
stop an automobile by hanging on to it? The true victim here is that
poor 51 yr old woman sitting at the defense table. She was being
terrorized by the complainant, the 36 year old male athlete you heard
admit to striking her vehicle not once but twice and then assaulting
her."

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Question:

Quoted message said:

I am seriously predicting that if it
actually goes to trial the driver's defense attorney *will* say in
cross examining the complainant something like, "Isn't it true
that you *held* onto my client's vehicle in a vain attempt to
force her to stop so you could continue assaulting her?".

Answer: No.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:04:42 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, Mike

Latondresse mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca said:

"Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Question:

Quoted message said:

I am seriously predicting that if it
actually goes to trial the driver's defense attorney *will* say in
cross examining the complainant something like, "Isn't it true
that you *held* onto my client's vehicle in a vain attempt to
force her to stop so you could continue assaulting her?".

Answer: No.

No, the DA would "Object!", judge would chide defense & instruct
jury to disregard, defense attorney would rephrase question.

I don't know what you think a prosecutor would base that objection upon
but I've seen and heard questions like that asked hundreds if not
thousands of times in state court in Illinois as well as in the
Northern District of Illinois federal courts. Heck, I've been asked
questions very similiar to that scores of times while in the witness'
chair.

Regards,
Bob Hunt