Don't bring a bike to a gun fight

He did nothing wrong except kill someone...

i guess i just don't see where it's necessary to shoot someone in the chest because they punched me.

It is not clear that he did not obey the traffic laws:

 "The pedestrian light was red. He wasn't supposed to be crossing and ran into the side of the truck,"said witness Michelle Noffsinger

The way I read that, he was riding his bike on the road, following the traffic light. At least here, bicycles are expected to follow the same signals as cars. So if I was riding my bike along the road, and the traffic light was green, even if the "do not cross" signal was now on, I can and should continue to ride my bike across the intersection. If the driver was turning right, and rode into me, I would not be at fault (though I might be injured). And I would probably be pretty mad that he did so.

Why didn't the driver at least roll up his window during the time it took for the cyclist to do this:  "He jumped up, he got up, and he ran around the front of the truck to the driver's side and he just started pounding on this guy. "? Why did he shoot the cyclist instead of driving further down the road?

Given that neither of us was at the scene, and the photos do not clarify if the driver was turning right (although, given where the dent on the truck is, that would appear to be the case) into him, I would not be so quick to jump to the conclusions you apparently reached. Especially in light of how the police in the Travin Martin case got excoriated for releasing the shooter so quickly.

powerman - 2012-08-30 11:53 AM At leas the hit his target and not 6 bystanders.

Is this going to be another "gun control" argument?

Proper practice prevents poor performance.

All we know for sure is we do not know for sure what happened. One eye witness who said the pedestrian light was red... completely irrelevant. If the rider was acting as a pedestrian then the pedestrian always has the right of way.... I mean cars just don't run people down because the don't walk sign was red.

I have no idea what the shooters options were. I wasn't there. I would like to think that if I was in my car that I would just hit the gas. Who know if someone was in front of him. If you try to leave that is hit and run, so you would have to answer what your intentions were... then you would say the guy was punching me and your actions would be picked apart for that too.

I would like to believe that I could find another option, but I wasn't there. What is a fact is the people of the State have already set justifiable shooting standards and self defense is one. And that you do not have to be on deaths doorstep before you know you are in danger. If you are attacked, the people have already authorized deadly force. It does not matter what someone's opinion on the internet is.

Around here, all the "Do Not Cross" signals are pedestrian signals. Otherwise, for vehicles, there is a red light with a green arrow for directing traffic to turn (usually left at a busy intersection); or a "Left turn signal", if you can only turn left with the arrow. Given that the eyewitness referred to it as the "pedestrian light", I still think it is a stretch to say definitively that the cyclist disobeyed the traffic laws.

And surely you are not saying that the police must understand that bikes generally are expected to operate under the motor vehicle codes as vehicles, not pedestrians? While they SHOULD, there are certainly lots of examples of them NOT doing so.

I am not saying one side is wrong or right but I do believe never hit someone unless you are ready for the repercussions. Now to say shooting the guy was a valid response I don't know I wasn't there but if I started to hit a guy and he then pulled out a gun and shot me I personally couldn't be that shocked. I after all was the one that started hitting the guy. On the other side of the coin I would like to think I could have drove off or done something different than having to shoot someone.

But you also have to factor in that the driver is still being held.  That makes me think it's not a black and white situation, and the police are at least thinking about charging the driver with something.  I'm sure there's a bit more to the story than what little the AP decides was news-worthy.

I'm sure if you were bound in your seatbelt being punched through your window, you would do whatever it takes to defend yourself.  It is not a crime to own or carry a gun, and it is not a crime to shoot somebody who is punching you.  As soon as the cyclist reached through the window, they no longer were an innocent cyclist.  They were an attacker.

I would vote to have people stop calling him a "Cyclist" for sympathy votes and call him what he is:  an assailant. Whether it is a "homeless man", "CEO", "Banker"...it doesn't matter.  He lost those sympathy votes when he made his choice.

Was he riding the bike in the road?

Was he walking the bike in the crosswalk?

Was he riding the bike in the crosswalk?

If he was riding the bike in a driving lane as a vehicle, I don't see what the "do not cross" has to do with it?

I don't argue one bit about shooting someone to protect yourself or someone else.  BUT, as a last resort.  I like guns, own guns, and know how to use them.

BUT, do find it somewhat disturbing that people go to that as a early choice, rather than a last resort.  If you have the wherewithall to grab a gun from under the seat, or out of a holster, or from the glove compartment, you probably have the ability to put the car in drive and leave...

In EVERY class I have attended, they ALWAYS tell you to get out of the situation first if you can - not draw down.

Again, we do not know what happened, but the first strike was the the truck hitting the cyclist. If you got hit by a vehicle, and the driver tried to drive away (That's happened to me - and I was too stunned and bloodied to respond at the time), would you consider trying to stop the driver? Which might entail reaching into the window. 

The only thing I would say we know is that the driver shot and killed the cyclist. And maybe that the driver had more "overkill" all the way (car versus bike, gun versus fist)...

 ----------------------------------------------------------------

The witness said the cyclist was "pounding" the driver. The fact that was a cyclist is irrelevant in my mind. If two cars got into a crash and one got out and started hitting the other and then got shot it's the same thing.

Again I do think the guy should have drove away but just because it's a cyclist and it was a crash involved doesn't make his reaction ok.

Looks like you are counteracting yourself aren't you? "we do not know what happened" "the truck hitting the cyclist"

Who struck who and who was obeying the law and who was breaking the law?

Was the truck proceeding through the intersection legally?

Was the cyclists riding his bike on the sidewalk, riding into the pedestrian crosswalk that had the "do not cross".

Who struck who, did the bike hit the side of the vehicle, if not how did the big dent get into the truck on the side?