Well, that may have been the first time he's had a guy go into his read end, but hopefully it won't be the last.

He was probably on his cellphone at the time

Thompson is charged with one felony count of reckless driving causing injury and two felony counts of battery with serious injury, two counts of causing "great bodily injury" to the cyclists while attempting to commit a felony and one count of mayhem for other severe injuries to one of the cyclists. He also faces one count of misdemeanor reckless driving causing injury in an incident with another cyclist on the same road in March.

Our law is long past ridiculous. He did one thing: assault. That should be one crime: assault.

Call it battery if you like, or aggravated nose-picking, or driving while pretentious, but treat it as a single act.

one count of mayhem...and creating a nuisance.

ZAZ: Our law is long past ridiculous. He did one thing: assault. That should be one crime: assault.

Call it battery if you like, or aggravated nose-picking, or driving while pretentious, but treat it as a single act

I completely agree. I'm sick of people getting slapped with umpteen charges for what should be treated as a single crime. Particularly "conspiracy". I can see where charging someone with just "conspiracy to commit X" might be appropriate, but charging someone with "X" and "conspiracy to commit X" is just a stupid excuse to pile on the charges (and years). Ditto for the kind of bullshiat here, where he's being charged with lesser offenses that should be included in the greater offense. IANAL, but I believe there's a legal procedure/terminology for that idea. "Lesser included offenses" or something to that effect, but iirc that dealt specifically with the jury.

Fact is, everyone single one of us would be in prison if the gigantic clusterfark that is our body of laws were really enforced. The problem with prison overpopulation in this country has never been too many criminals- we have an excess of laws. Don't hurt anyone, don't take their stuff, and keep up your agreed-to obligations. It should be as simple as that.

Fark him. The article fails to mention it but this is not his first time trying to injure cyclists because he didn't want them on his road. It was just the first time this trick worked so well. He is a psychopath.

sullyman: ark him. The article fails to mention it but this is not his first time trying to injure cyclists because he didn't want them on his road.

Source for this?

Eddie Adams from Torrance: one count of mayhem...and creating a nuisance.

[Comes back, shakes Eddie Adams' hand and takes a seat on the Group W bench.]

/Joggercrasher?
/In my day we stuck to Motherrapin', fatherstabbin, fatherrapin'...
/Ya know, the basics...

vicejay: sullyman: ark him. The article fails to mention it but this is not his first time trying to injure cyclists because he didn't want them on his road.

Source for this?

Link (new window) (Towards the end of the article)

Four months earlier, another cyclist got into a scuffle with Thompson, the prosecutor alleged.

Patrick Watson testified that he and a friend were cycling down Mandeville Canyon Road in March when they heard a fast-approaching car behind them. Watson said he moved in front of his friend to get out of the way.

"The car was so close to me I had to jump the curb. I thought it was going to hit me."

Watson said he veered back onto the road to avoid a drain, and then the car's driver "slammed on his brakes . . . directly in front" of him and his friend. Both cyclists avoided running into the car.

vicejay: sullyman: ark him. The article fails to mention it but this is not his first time trying to injure cyclists because he didn't want them on his road.

Source for this?

Link (new window)

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Amy. D. Hogue ordered that Thompson stand trial. He faces one felony count of reckless driving causing injury and two felony counts of battery with serious injury in the July 4 incident. He also faces one count of misdemeanor reckless driving causing injury in an incident with another cyclist on the same road in March.

ZAZ: Thompson is charged with one felony count of reckless driving causing injury and two felony counts of battery with serious injury, two counts of causing "great bodily injury" to the cyclists while attempting to commit a felony and one count of mayhem for other severe injuries to one of the cyclists. He also faces one count of misdemeanor reckless driving causing injury in an incident with another cyclist on the same road in March.

Our law is long past ridiculous. He did one thing: assault. That should be one crime: assault.

Call it battery if you like, or aggravated nose-picking, or driving while pretentious, but treat it as a single act.

You know they do that to boost conviction numbers, right? The idea is that most juries will not convict the guy of the most serious charge is he's justified in some manner so, they throw in the "lesser" charges just to make sure he gets something and the DA can continue to look "tough on crime".

Did it look like this?

evildick: You know they do that to boost conviction numbers, right? The idea is that most juries will not convict the guy of the most serious charge is he's justified in some manner so, they throw in the "lesser" charges just to make sure he gets something and the DA can continue to look "tough on crime".

So, is that like when you're playing roulette, when you bet on both red and black?.

Jesus, what an asshat. I sure wouldn't want this guy as my doctor!

evildick: ZAZ: Thompson is charged with one felony count of reckless driving causing injury and two felony counts of battery with serious injury, two counts of causing "great bodily injury" to the cyclists while attempting to commit a felony and one count of mayhem for other severe injuries to one of the cyclists. He also faces one count of misdemeanor reckless driving causing injury in an incident with another cyclist on the same road in March.

Our law is long past ridiculous. He did one thing: assault. That should be one crime: assault.

Call it battery if you like, or aggravated nose-picking, or driving while pretentious, but treat it as a single act.

You know they do that to boost conviction numbers, right? The idea is that most juries will not convict the guy of the most serious charge is he's justified in some manner so, they throw in the "lesser" charges just to make sure he gets something and the DA can continue to look "tough on crime".

That's the way it works... You give the jury options, and they can settle on the correct outcome.

/failing to see the problem with juries arriving at the most correct verdict

CygnusDarius: So, is that like when you're playing roulette, when you bet on both red and black?.

Pretty much, except that you're betting with someone else's money.

Before he goes to jail, the doctor should be forced to ride two beyond caterogy climbs in the alps, with a bike that does not have a seat... just the seat post.

Knowing how smug and superior most cyclists act towards motorists, I'm suprised the asshat of a Cyclist didn't draw some kind of charge from his actions. The majority of them I encounter in Memphis are either ignorant of traffic laws, or ignore them completely. They believe they have absolute right of way. We even had a group of them not yield to our unit running Lights/Sirens to a scene one day. I've never wanted to take a baseball bat more to someones face.

Memphis was voted "Worst" in the nation for Cyclists by a magazine, but in reality, the hatred of motorists towards them has been earned by their assinine attitudes towards "I'm better than those big pollution machines!"

/Thinks that a cyclist should always keep in mind the Kinesthetics of Trauma: That car is bigger, faster, and harder hitting than you going splat will be.

Not guilty to a crime he admitted that he did?!

Looks like he picked up that tip from the cops doing the same in their own trials.

"His" street, huh?
The proliferation of assholes like that was why I moved out of SoCal almost 30 years ago.

If I was following a car that suddenly stopped in front of me (for any reason) and I hit it, I would be charged with following too closely. How is this different? No snark required; just askin.

Ugh, whenever 'mayhem' shows up in legal docs I always feel a little queasy. 'Assault' is broad, but 'mayhem' usually means someone lost a body part. (This varies in different jurisdictions, and a quick google shows it might not be required, but since I first heard it in a case with a lost eye, it always squicks me and makes me think of it.)

If they were in a car, Thompson could have sued them for rear-ending him... but since they're on bicycles, it's perfectly fine to tailgate someone?

Not saying what Thompson did was right, but they would have had to have been pretty freaking close to the back of his car to impact it that hard from him slamming on his brakes. Bicycles don't exactly have marshmallows for brakes, much less the thousand-dollar bikes yuppie-cyclists ride.

dave2198: That's the way it works... You give the jury options, and they can settle on the correct outcome.

/failing to see the problem with juries arriving at the most correct verdict

The problem is the "let's throw things at the wall and see what sticks approach". For example, if you believe you have the evidence to build a case for manslaughter, don't charge with with murder, manslaughter and peeing on the sidewalk just to make sure you get something.

This practice just seems like a way for the DA to get around the provisions of the 5th amendment for double-jeopardy (can't try someone twice for the same crime).

I hope they charge the bicyclists with tailgating too.

Bike/car rage thread!

Didn't take long for the fatass Farkers who can barely see their own toes (let alone touch them) crawled their way to their keyboards to share their wisdom about bicyclists being "smug" and "douchebags" who deserve to be assaulted by road raging idiots.

The bikes hit him. He didnt hit them.

evildick: Pretty much, except that you're betting with someone else's money.

I call that "can I borrow fifty bucks?".

LOL to teach them a lesson? WTF he should have gotten OFF the vehicle and punched them in the face.

not run dem ova lolz

What a farking idiot. All he had to do was say that he slammed on his brakes because a squirrel ran into the road and he'd be in the clear. Why where the farktard cyclists so close that they ran into the car? It is always the fault of the trailing vehicle in accidents like these because they should have been far enough back to avoid a collision.

After reading the comments in the article, sounds like cyclists in the neighbourhood are pricks.
Don't pick a fight with a car when your vehicle weighs a lot less than the other. Much like those pedestrians who step onto the the road without looking simply because they have the right away...do they want to get hit by the car, so they can get up and pick a fight about it? Good luck with broken knees.
People are farking dumb.

What a douchebag. I've been run over once and hit 5-6 times while walking or cycling. While that's bad enough, here's the worst incident I ever experienced from a road-raging jackass like this turd.

I was in the bike lane at an intersection waiting for the light to go green. Suddenly this asshat in a car comes up behind me and stats bumping me while screaming, "Get out of the way, this is my road, arrrrggghhh, screeeeeech, get off the road." The guy was actually furious and red faced and screaming. Completely nuts. I got off my bike, threw it to the sidewalk, whipped out my knife and approached the driver's side. When he saw the knife he rolled his window up very very fast but I got to him and showed him REAL crazy. I was even more pissed than he and he calmed down right quick. As he drove off I kicked his precious car with a steel-toed boot, leaving quite a dent.

I see this behavior every day too. I've had cans and bottles thrown at me for instance. Drivers are psychos for some reason and absolutely hate cyclists. And I ride on the sidewalk or in the bike lane, not even remotely in their way. They won't let you use crosswalks, twice when I got hit I could see the driver staring right at me and aim to nail me. If you have to be on the right side of the road it's really dangerous as not one driver, ever, looks both ways -- they always have their heads to the left.

Basically anyone can get a license to drive these days. The states don't care about safety or skill, they want those taxes and fees. Add to that you can just bribe a DMV employee and get a license. It happens a lot.

So cyclists, be careful out there. It's dangerous.

/ Hell on Wheels

Aren't they at fault here? I know he sort of changed the game when he made all those idiotic comments, but say this happened and he just kept his mouth shut. Aren't bikes on the road supposed to be following the same laws as automobiles?

evildick: Pretty much, except that you're betting with someone else's money.

Obviously you haven't taken a look at a roulette wheel in a while, nor are you familiar with odds. There's these two spots on the wheel called "0" and "00" that give the house all the advantage it needs. Plus, without those two spots, you'd be just as well playing the quarter changer machine.

stoppit: If I was following a car that suddenly stopped in front of me (for any reason) and I hit it, I would be charged with following too closely. How is this different? No snark required; just askin.

If I'm understanding the whole thing correctly, he cut in front of them and then slammed on the brakes. If a car did that to you, they'd have broken the law. (Whether a cop would go go the trouble to figure that out in a no-fault insurance state is a different issue.)

Trying to cause an accident is a crime (or at least it used to be when I was in CA). And that's what he was doing.

lostcat: Didn't take long for the fatass Farkers who can barely see their own toes (let alone touch them) crawled their way to their keyboards to share their wisdom about bicyclists being "smug" and "douchebags" who deserve to be assaulted by road raging idiots.

When you say something like that, can you blame us for thinking you're all smug tools who ignore the rules of the road?

dave2198: That's the way it works... You give the jury options, and they can settle on the correct outcome.

/failing to see the problem with juries arriving at the most correct verdict

Juries job: convict or release.
Judges job: sentencing.

You aren't giving juries options here, you are using anchoring bias and letting them weasel out of their obligation to convict or not convict.

Toss him into Gen Pop and throw away the key. I hope he rots.

This wouldn't even be a discussion if it was some thug getting his kicks by beating random people on the street.

hardinparamedic:
/Thinks that a cyclist should always keep in mind the Kinesthetics of Trauma: That car is bigger, faster, and harder hitting than you going splat will be.

You want to try that again?

I'd love to see him do that with a Kenworth.

the_be_sharps: evildick: Pretty much, except that you're betting with someone else's money.

Obviously you haven't taken a look at a roulette wheel in a while, nor are you familiar with odds. There's these two spots on the wheel called "0" and "00" that give the house all the advantage it needs. Plus, without those two spots, you'd be just as well playing the quarter changer machine.



You did get that it was a metaphor, right?

In the doctor's defense, "hypocrisy" sounds a lot like "Hippocrates." He might have heard it wrong when he took the oath.

MIguy:

What a farking idiot. All he had to do was say that he slammed on his brakes because a squirrel ran into the road and he'd be in the clear. Why where the farktard cyclists so close that they ran into the car? It is always the fault of the trailing vehicle in accidents like these because they should have been far enough back to avoid a collision.

Because the doctor pulled in front of them and then slammed the breaks... Road bikes do not stop on a dime... especially when you don't anticipate a car jumping in front of you and then slamming the breaks on purpose...

Hey Hubert - I don't get that from the article but if thats the case, he's a waste of skin and needs to do some jail time. If the bikes were following too close when he hit the brakes, it seems to me that they should be deemed to be at fault.

Klivian: lostcat: Didn't take long for the fatass Farkers who can barely see their own toes (let alone touch them) crawled their way to their keyboards to share their wisdom about bicyclists being "smug" and "douchebags" who deserve to be assaulted by road raging idiots.

When you say something like that, can you blame us for thinking you're all smug tools who ignore the rules of the road?

You don't know arrogant entitled douchebag cyclists who decide what laws do and don't apply to them till you've dealt with SoCal ones. They're even worse than NoCal ones, and that's saying something.

And they *still* don't deserve what this guy did.

soze: Toss him into Gen Pop and throw away the key. I hope he rots.

This wouldn't even be a discussion if it was some thug getting his kicks by beating random people on the street.

QFT

Fark 'em.

Even if the cyclists where wearing bright pink clothes and ringing bells, they didn't deserve this.

Harming another human being because you are tired of them is an indicator that this person is dangerous and should be removed from the public for good. He's going to kill someone.

hugram: Because the doctor pulled in front of them and then slammed the breaks.

The article doesn't say that. If that's what happened, then the cyclists are in the clear. If they were tailing the guy, they deserve what they got.

It's one thing to consider cyclists asshat tools, it's another thing to run them off the road with malice aforethought. It's like saying, "Well, that guy needed a stabbing!" or "She was dressed like a whore, she had it coming to her!"

Having been a cyclist, and one who always was mindful of the murderous intent of eye-twitching psychopaths safe inside their two-ton boxes of obliviousness, I would say that drivers need to lay off that third cappuccino.