YouTube idiots

Mark_Mark

Retrogamer wrote: »

I'm not saying the cyclists behavior was what i was do, but strictly speaking the situation happened after the Audi driver broke the law. That is the event that instigated the cyclists confrontation and was what initiated the whole situation. If the driver hadn't done that, the cyclist would have had no reason to approach the vehicle.

The cyclist wasn't breaking any laws. The motorist was up to that point.
That's the point i was getting at.
What if the cyclist was an undercover police officer trying to uphold the law?
Would it still all be their fault?

I ride motorcycles, bicycles and drive cars as well btw.

He wasn't and if he was he should have identified himself as such.

Retrogamer

Mark_Mark wrote: »

He wasn't and if he was he should have identified himself as such.

I wasn't suggesting the cyclist wasn.
I was asking a hypothetical question and still am.

If a police officer was on that bicycle and was trying to enforce the law and this is how it developed, would the police officer still be the primary cause of the incident?

sinbad182

If the police officer didnt identify himself properly, then yes.

He'd be putting himself at risk and escalating the situation by not identifying himself.

arcon5

What if the cyclist was an undercover police officer trying to uphold the law?

Then god help us all. A police offer should act with professionalism, even in tough situations. This guy acted without dignity and certainly not professionally.

Mark_Mark

Retrogamer wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting the cyclist wasn.
I was asking a hypothetical question and still am.

If a police officer was on that bicycle and was trying to enforce the law and this is how it developed, would the police officer still be the primary cause of the incident?

Do you really need to ask that?

A police officer can enforce the law and stop any vehicle to do so as long as he is identifiable as a police officer.

Read up on Kenny Noyes didn't he kill one?

Retrogamer

Mark_Mark wrote: »

Do you really need to ask that?

A police officer can enforce the law and stop any vehicle to do so as long as he is identifiable as a police officer.

Read up on Kenny Noyes didn't he kill one?

The reason i mentioned it. is because people seem to be asserting it's ok to physically assault someone if they shout abuse at you, even if you just injured them.

It's also apparently ok to drive over people if they stand too close to the vehicle, even if it's just to tell the vehicle driver they're breaking the law.

This (lack of) reasoning only appears to apply to civillians though and not if it was a police officer.

Mark_Mark

Retrogamer wrote: »

The reason i mentioned it. is because people seem to be asserting it's ok to physically assault someone if they shout abuse at you, even if you just injured them.

It's also apparently ok to drive over people if they stand too close to the vehicle, even if it's just to tell the vehicle driver they're breaking the law.

This (lack of) reasoning only appears to apply to civillians though and not if it was a police officer.

He wasn't riding like someone had driven over his foot. If that happened maybe sky should try it next season.

Someone coming up to a car as aggressively as the cyclist did maybe the assault was reasonable. Reasonable force to protect himself and the other occupants of the car.

londonTiger

Norman_Castle wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfdvIfT8H5c#t=32

Cyclists can dish it out but they can't take it. Notice how all these videos have comments blocks. Clearly cyclist was in the wrong here, going out to look for trouble.

What a !!!!!!!, I bet he won't try that any more.

Just look at how biased the title is. Title should be Cyclist provocation results in physical altercation.

londonTiger

Retrogamer wrote: »

Right, so the cyclist is the bad one for not getting the way out of the vehicle driving illegally? The motorist driving illegally and running over people's feet is obviously the victim. Is that right?

b!!!!!!t, if his foot was driven over he would drop on the floor and be whincing. he looks like he was riding at tour de france by the looks of it. Cyclist wasn't mad about the alleged safety at all (which was made up to justify chasing after him). Cyclist was mad because Audi driver just blanked him and drove on mid sentence. Which made him get rage. That would get any self rightous idiot's tits up. They hate being ignored the most.

legalities aside if someone screams at someone YOU !!!!ING TIT.. lays right into your face. Your reptillian brian is just going to flip and you will get into a flight or fight scenario.

Do that do a police officer if you want to test it. Go and scream YOU !!!!ING TIT!!! into a police officers face. If noones looking they'll probably rugby tackle you to the ground and give you a few smacks as they cuff you.

londonTiger

Retrogamer wrote: »

The reason i mentioned it. is because people seem to be asserting it's ok to physically assault someone if they shout abuse at you, even if you just injured them.

It's also apparently ok to drive over people if they stand too close to the vehicle, even if it's just to tell the vehicle driver they're breaking the law.

This (lack of) reasoning only appears to apply to civillians though and not if it was a police officer.

You lost the arguement when you post one assumptions after another after another.

This wasnt just abuse. abuse is when someone shouts w*****r at you from across the road. Intimidation and provocation is when someone screams at you while standing over you just 12 inches away.

There was no injury and anyone sensible can see that.

The law is to be enforced by authorities, not vigilantes.