One reason to "not go off" on a driver.

Well, in this case, it doesn't really matter what "we" decide to call him. If a man is on a bicycle, he is a cyclist. Just like if Westboro Baptist calls themselves Christians, they get that label whether or not I, or any sane person, say "hey, we're not with them." 

Whatever he was, he was angry and now he is no longer breathing. If that article is accurate, the driver will likely cite self-defense, and depending on the jurisdiction, jury, and testimony, it may very well be determined that it was. 

"when the cyclist disregarded a "Do Not Walk" light"

Are cyclists really suppose to obey a "Do Not Walk" light?  100% of my riding is in the country, I don't see these fancy signs very often.

If on a sidewalk you follow the sign.  If on the road, you follow the signal.  

If driver is proved not at fault, she may be charged with carrying a weapon (if no permit).  If it's her fault, then her life is forever changed.  

Based on the brief story in the OP.  The driver is probably ok.  Cyclist was at fault then assaulted the driver.  It could be considered self defense in some cases...  Could be tough to prove that the driver felt their life was in dager though.

No matter what the situation was...If somebody was punching me through my window and I was bound in a seatbelt...I would also do whatever it took to defend myself.  At that point the Cyclist|Biker was no longer a pedestrian.  They were an attacker.

Oh, I didn't know you were a lawyer.  So it's not tough to prove?  Good to know.  I guess we can shoot anyone that punches us!  Nice!

When I was attending my gun safety classes and CC classes in Colorado, they said that you had to convince a jury you felt your life was in actual danger OR if you were a woman, you can also see if you felt you were going to get raped.

There was even a "joke" that if you shot someone in your house, put a knife in their hand to make the case.

So if you can kill someone that punches you, or INTENDS to punch you, that really makes it easier to dispatch people.  Good to know.

Nevermind...just re-read so my comments made no sense whatsoever

In FLa, as everyone knows, we have the Stand Your Ground law; HOWEVER, you can only meet force with force and can only use DEADLY force if you are in imminent threat of your life.  You can't bring a gun to a fist fight etc.  Sounds like things escalated pretty quickly and i'm sure we only have part of the facts, but this is not a clean "self-defense" situation.

Depends - if the car had a clear avenue of escape the driver could have just driven off, but she was boxed in and being punched I don't blame her for shooting the guy. 

I get what you are saying, but her life is changed forever no matter what.  I believe in conceal and carry and the right to defend yourself but I don't carry because I don't want to know what it is like to kill someone, whether it is justified or not.  Or have that moment in the heat of things I think it is justified and then have that doubt after it happens.  It is just not worth it to me.  She will forever have it in her head that she took someone's life, justified or not.

I already looked up your links...  and I know there are cases.  So the whole "if you cared to look" - fail

So, ARE YOU A LAWYER?  Or have experience in these types of cases?  I said "it could be tough to prove they felt their life was in danger" and you argued "NOT REALLY."

Is your response FACT?  It's not tough?  Do you have sources saying that shooting someone that punched you is not tough to defend?  Cut and dry?

I'm not arguing that people died from punches.  I'm arguing if that's an easy aruguement for self defense and to get equited.  You say yes.  What are your sources?

Are you sure enough about your arguement that you would be willing to shoot someone dead if they punched you or inteneded to punch you knowing it easy to prove you felt your life was in danger?

BTW, it was sarcasm.  Not snotty.

Thank you.  There may be a case, there many not.  No one here knows all the details.  It's not a cut and dry case and easy to get off.

meet force with force - same as Colorado.

Regardless of who is at fault - the driver of the car should be ok (of course if it goes to trial it's always a toss up, but irregardless).

Unless it's proven that the driver intentionally tried to hit the cyclists (which doesn't seem to be the case), then the cyclist is 100% in the wrong.

You have two situations here.  A traffic ACCIDENT (regardless of whose fault it was - the cyclist or the driver) and an ASSAULT with self defense.

Let's say the old driver was 100% at fault for negligence in the ACCIDENT.  That doesn't give the cyclist the right to start ASSAULTING the driver through the window.  Once the assault began - the driver had every right to defend himself.  The argument that he felt his life was in danger with a lunatic punching him through the window of his car is a legitimate one.  Once you factor in the (assumingly) in shape cyclist beating the crap out of the old man - and it becomes a case that doesn't need a jury because no jury would ever convict an old man who shot someone while getting the crap beaten out of him.

Usually, in cases like this - the traffic charge gets thrown out the window because it means little in the big picture.

I realize there are a ton of people on here who get offended whenever anyone talks trash about cyclists - but let's face it - the behavior described in the article is, while a bit extreme, VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY common with cyclists on the road today.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did go to and complete law school (I have my JD).

It seems pretty cut and dry to me, going off of the details given in the original article.

Maybe it is...

I guess I'm not going to go blasting away people that punch me and trust my fate to a couple laywers and 12 jurors.

Now if the guy was in my home?  Had a weapon?  I was clearly outnumbered?  I could feel more confident I could convince 12 people I felt my life was in danger and I would drop him.

Getting punched with through a window of a steel car door?  Willing to take that chance that it's cut and dry?

I can already see the arguement that if there was any way to escape, or if the driver of the car had the presence of mind to pull a gun, why not put the car in drive and go, that there leaves enough doubt they had no choice.

Honestly, I don't mind that much the jerk is gone.  I think anyone that resorts to violence has problems (again, save for self defense).  The guy might have gotten exactly what he deserved.  Not arguing if the shooting is justified, but the statment that it's not TOUGH to prove it was justified.

You want them to leave the scene of the accident?  Isn't that illegal in most (all?) states?

Yes, it does offer them another avenue for stopping the attack, making it murkier.

From what I've seen from contemporary journalism I'd say we have some information, but not necessarily facts and certainly not sworn testimony.  If it goes to trial more details may come forth.  Without a traffic cam or other witnesses it may be a moot point though.  Only one survived to testify; history is written by the victor.