Should Fleeing Motorcylists in High-Speed Chases Be Shot By Police ?

[WinterBorn]

I don't care one iota about the conversation going my way or any other way. I asked the question > "Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?

And neither you or anyone else I recall in this thread, has yet answered it. Burden is on YOU to come up with an answer. So far, you haven't.

Absolute nonsense! The burden is not on the people who require a trial before execution. The burden is on you to show that there is impending danger to anyone. Is there a chance that lives could be lost? Sure. Is there any certainty that lives will be lost if they do not execute the biker? Absolutely not.

Lets run with his example, though. He believes the rider should be shot because he MIGHT endanger someone's life. Fair enough. Lets play with that.

Someone driving at one mile over the speed limit should be shot, while in their car, because they MIGHT endanger a life.

Someone walking down the street carrying their gun (which they may be legally allowed to do) should be shot because they MIGHT be planning on going on a shooting spree.

Someone who buys a set of steak knives should be shot because who knows, they might start stabbing people.

Protectionist could well be planning to endanger lives, yet no one is going to shoot him because of what he MIGHT do.

He's an ass.

Thank you.

 

[WinterBorn]

Protectionist, you have repeatedly tried to compare shooting in self defense with shooting a fleeing motorcyclist. That is absolute bullshit.

Here is why your logic fails.

If I am standing in a crowd and aim my gun at someone. I am presenting a clear and impending danger to them. It is clear that my intent is to kill someone.

If I am standing in a crowd and pointing my gun straight up, there is an increased danger but there is no clear and impending danger.


The motorcyclist does present an increased danger, even if it is mostly to themselves. But it is not an impending danger nor is there any intent to harm anyone.

So there is absolutely no justification for their execution. And yes, I use the word execution. A motorcycle accident at a high rate of speed can be expected to cause the death of the rider. And that does not even include the gun fire.

 

[Iceweasel]

Motorcyclists don't generally kill car drivers. They put big dents in vehicles or scuff up trees or stain asphalt. I'm a two wheel guy and dislike the crotch rocket guys as much as anyone but the Harley guys with the loud pipes piss me off more. Car drivers can't get away with that loud an exhaust, why do they?

"Generally ?" If you or someone you care about happens to be THE ONE who gets killed because of the crotch rocket guys, suddenly "generally" won't carry too much weight, will it ?

I agree with you about the loud pipes.

It was an understatement. Lost on you, of course. We don't kill people for what they might do unless there is a high probability that they will others, like swing a sword around downtown, for example. Drunk drivers kill many orders of magnitude times the amount a motorcyclist does (do you even know of a case?). Why does one matter to you and the other not?

 

[WinterBorn]

Motorcyclists don't generally kill car drivers. They put big dents in vehicles or scuff up trees or stain asphalt. I'm a two wheel guy and dislike the crotch rocket guys as much as anyone but the Harley guys with the loud pipes piss me off more. Car drivers can't get away with that loud an exhaust, why do they?

"Generally ?" If you or someone you care about happens to be THE ONE who gets killed because of the crotch rocket guys, suddenly "generally" won't carry too much weight, will it ?

I agree with you about the loud pipes.

It was an understatement. Lost on you, of course. We don't kill people for what they might do unless there is a high probability that they will others, like swing a sword around downtown, for example. Drunk drivers kill many orders of magnitude times the amount a motorcyclist does (do you even know of a case?). Why does one matter to you and the other not?

I think a lot of us are annoyed by the crazy crotch-rocket riders. The issue is that most of us understand we do not execute people for being annoying.

 

[Iceweasel]

I think a lot of us are annoyed by the crazy crotch-rocket riders. The issue is that most of us understand we do not execute people for being annoying.

Yep, he is probably just jerking people around though.

I'm equally annoyed at the hyper-miler that does 50 on the freeway to try to squeeze 60 miles per gallon out of the tank. That creates havoc on the roadway with people trying to get on with their lives.

 

[protectionist]

"Generally ?" If you or someone you care about happens to be THE ONE who gets killed because of the crotch rocket guys, suddenly "generally" won't carry too much weight, will it ?

I agree with you about the loud pipes.

It was an understatement. Lost on you, of course. We don't kill people for what they might do unless there is a high probability that they will others, like swing a sword around downtown, for example. Drunk drivers kill many orders of magnitude times the amount a motorcyclist does (do you even know of a case?). Why does one matter to you and the other not?

I think a lot of us are annoyed by the crazy crotch-rocket riders. The issue is that most of us understand we do not execute people for being annoying.

And nobody said we did, which you already know, unless you're dumber than a box of rocks.

PS - Since my last post about 14 hours ago, you've posted here 12 times. Are you making this your full time job ?

 

[protectionist]

Motorcyclists don't generally kill car drivers. They put big dents in vehicles or scuff up trees or stain asphalt. I'm a two wheel guy and dislike the crotch rocket guys as much as anyone but the Harley guys with the loud pipes piss me off more. Car drivers can't get away with that loud an exhaust, why do they?

"Generally ?" If you or someone you care about happens to be THE ONE who gets killed because of the crotch rocket guys, suddenly "generally" won't carry too much weight, will it ?

I agree with you about the loud pipes.

It was an understatement. Lost on you, of course. We don't kill people for what they might do unless there is a high probability that they will others, like swing a sword around downtown, for example. Drunk drivers kill many orders of magnitude times the amount a motorcyclist does (do you even know of a case?). Why does one matter to you and the other not?

Got a source link to back up that claim, or ar ewe just supposed to to take from you on faith ?

EARTH TO IW: OF COURSE, We don't kill people for what they might do unless there is a high probability that they will others, but that is exactly what we're talking about. Get it ?

 

[protectionist]

I don't care one iota about the conversation going my way or any other way. I asked the question > "Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?

And neither you or anyone else I recall in this thread, has yet answered it. Burden is on YOU to come up with an answer. So far, you haven't.

Absolute nonsense! The burden is not on the people who require a trial before execution. The burden is on you to show that there is impending danger to anyone. Is there a chance that lives could be lost? Sure. Is there any certainty that lives will be lost if they do not execute the biker? Absolutely not.

Lets run with his example, though. He believes the rider should be shot because he MIGHT endanger someone's life. Fair enough. Lets play with that.

Someone driving at one mile over the speed limit should be shot, while in their car, because they MIGHT endanger a life.

Someone walking down the street carrying their gun (which they may be legally allowed to do) should be shot because they MIGHT be planning on going on a shooting spree.

Someone who buys a set of steak knives should be shot because who knows, they might start stabbing people.

Protectionist could well be planning to endanger lives, yet no one is going to shoot him because of what he MIGHT do.

He's an ass.

Cool tactic. CHANGE my ideas and then attack the change (as if it was mine).

"the rider should be shot because he MIGHT endanger someone's life."??? "Fair enough."??? "Lets play with that." ????

NO we WON'T play with that, because NO, it's NOT fair enough, because that's not what I've been saying. It's only what YOU'VE said. I've said the mc rider WILL kill innocent motorists on the road up ahead. And just like a criminal who pulls a gun on a cop, that cop shoots him in self-defense.

Interesting how I'm saying this over and over, and you all pretend like you haven't heard it . Well it proves one thing. You're all full of shit. Especially you Noomi. Why don't you tell everybody here that you're just pissed off at me, and calling me an "ass" because you know that I exposed you in another thread for being the biggest ASS, and doing the most ASSININE thing any human being could ever do >> Being a non-Muslim woman, and converting to Islam. How are your beatings coming along ?? number 1 ASSCLOWN!

 

[protectionist]

Because you're nuttier than a sack of cashews!

Welcome to the growing list of airheads with no answer to the question >> "Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?"

Ho Hum. Yawn **********

Care to show that there is any factual evidence that someone will die unless the cops act??

Here are some FACTS for you.

There are 7 million motorcycles registered in the US. There were a little over 5,000 motorcycle related traffic fatalities in 2012.

So only 0.071% of motorcycles are involved in fatal traffic accidents. And since the overwhelming majority of those fatalities will be the motorcyclists themselves, the burden is on YOU to show the need to execute bikers for speeding.

1. Your post lacks a source link. (disqualified right there)

2. Even if it had one, we aren't compelled to accept ti as accurate. And even if we did accept its accuracy, I suspect that "accuracy" only pertains to those accidents where a motorcycle was damaged and identified, whereas in many, possibly most cases, the mc causes the accident, but never is involved physically, scooting off and leaving the wreckage behind, and thus not part of the statistic. Hey, nice try though. E for effort.

3. Burden is on me to show need to execute bikers for speeding ? Burden is on YOU to answer this question >> ""Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?"
(which you've been hiding from long enough)

 

[protectionist]

I live in the real world, child. No more and no less. I drive for a living & spend every day on the road. (I do 40-50,000 miles/year.)

All the more reason why you should be concerned about being protected from speeding, reckless motorcyclists. On the other hand, if you get killed by one of these screwballs, you could have somebody read off a statement at your funeral, that you're glad that no harm came to the motorcyclist who caused your death.

If he drives for a living, I am betting he is not in some tiny Smartcar or Prius. Other than the tiniest of minicars, a motorcycle is unlikely to kill the driver. It might mess up his vehicle, but won't kill him.

As someone who has put 50k miles a year on my work truck, I feel no threat from crotch-rockets. I have driven by or seen many, many accidents. I do not recall a single one involving a motorcyclist who killed a car driver.

I do recall having had numerous near misses from idiots texting or doing something else stupid and not paying attention. How about the cops just shoot them?

I've already addressed that question, and that cigar will kill you just as dead as any motorcycle. Might even kill some of the people around you, if they are unfortunate enough to be there.

 

[protectionist]

You have never fired a gun from a moving vehicle in your life and have no idea what you are blathering about! You have watched too many bad movies.



You clearly do not understand the YAWNING CHASM the between performance of a bike and a car. Even a medium-sized (600-750cc) sportbike has performance that will equal a supercar. A true superbike (1000+cc) will dust ANY street car, period, end of discussion. A GSXR1300 will hit 100MPH before a new Corvette hits 60. It will run a 1/4 mile before a Mustang GT runs an 1/8 mile.

"Obstructions" will HELP a motorcyclist get away--it's much easier to slip through a work zone, a flock of geese, or past a disabled vehicle on a bike than in a car!

Fool post! A number of variables can cause a mc to have to slow down (just as I said-you haven't refuted a thing I said) You're just trying (obviously) to twist the discussion to how you think you can win (which is dumb)

As for what never has occured, you have never known if I have ever fired a gun from a moving vehicle, and YOU have no idea what you are blathering about! Actually, I've fired guns from moving vehicles quite a few times, both when I was in the US Army AND when I was in the Army National Guard.

You just canceled out any credibility you might have had. Be advised: never make assumptions on what you don't have the foggiest idea about.

And this whole discussion about firing at a motorcycle is idiocy. You point a pistol or a shotgun and you shoot. Nothing hard about it at all. The cop car could pull up right behind the mc, or even right alongside it. This doesn't even have to be discussed at all. What needs to be addressed is THIS >> "Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?"

...and nothing else.

Please tell us all what reason you had for shooting a gun from a moving car?

I would call that reckless and would say you endangered lives doing it.

Oh, and you still have not shown any evidence that the biker is going to harm anyone else. The chances are increased, but not to the point to allow execution for speeding.

I won't please do anything until you answer my question, which has been here since the OP >> ""Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?"

 

[protectionist]

Protectionist, you have repeatedly tried to compare shooting in self defense with shooting a fleeing motorcyclist. That is absolute bullshit.

Here is why your logic fails.

If I am standing in a crowd and aim my gun at someone. I am presenting a clear and impending danger to them. It is clear that my intent is to kill someone.

If I am standing in a crowd and pointing my gun straight up, there is an increased danger but there is no clear and impending danger.


The motorcyclist does present an increased danger, even if it is mostly to themselves. But it is not an impending danger nor is there any intent to harm anyone.

So there is absolutely no justification for their execution. And yes, I use the word execution. A motorcycle accident at a high rate of speed can be expected to cause the death of the rider. And that does not even include the gun fire.

It most certainly IS an impending danger, and whether the motorcyclist intends to kill anyone or that he will kill someone without intent, is irrelevant. Will the innocent motorist who this loon kills, be brought back to life just because the motorcyclist didn't intend to kill ?

 

[Smilebong]

Fool post! A number of variables can cause a mc to have to slow down (just as I said-you haven't refuted a thing I said) You're just trying (obviously) to twist the discussion to how you think you can win (which is dumb)

As for what never has occured, you have never known if I have ever fired a gun from a moving vehicle, and YOU have no idea what you are blathering about! Actually, I've fired guns from moving vehicles quite a few times, both when I was in the US Army AND when I was in the Army National Guard.

You just canceled out any credibility you might have had. Be advised: never make assumptions on what you don't have the foggiest idea about.

And this whole discussion about firing at a motorcycle is idiocy. You point a pistol or a shotgun and you shoot. Nothing hard about it at all. The cop car could pull up right behind the mc, or even right alongside it. This doesn't even have to be discussed at all. What needs to be addressed is THIS >> "Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?"

...and nothing else.

Please tell us all what reason you had for shooting a gun from a moving car?

I would call that reckless and would say you endangered lives doing it.

Oh, and you still have not shown any evidence that the biker is going to harm anyone else. The chances are increased, but not to the point to allow execution for speeding.

I won't please do anything until you answer my question, which has been here since the OP >> ""Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?"

Obsessed much. They aren't ever going to shoot speeders, so drop it.

 

[WinterBorn]

It was an understatement. Lost on you, of course. We don't kill people for what they might do unless there is a high probability that they will others, like swing a sword around downtown, for example. Drunk drivers kill many orders of magnitude times the amount a motorcyclist does (do you even know of a case?). Why does one matter to you and the other not?

I think a lot of us are annoyed by the crazy crotch-rocket riders. The issue is that most of us understand we do not execute people for being annoying.

And nobody said we did, which you already know, unless you're dumber than a box of rocks.

PS - Since my last post about 14 hours ago, you've posted here 12 times. Are you making this your full time job ?

You want them shot for speeding. That is pretty close to the same thing.

I answered your posts this morning. I posted 12 times? Hmm, thanks for noticing. Having a fan is always flattering. Oh, and all but one post was before 7am. I get up early and have no problem responding to stupid posts quickly.

 

[WinterBorn]

Welcome to the growing list of airheads with no answer to the question >> "Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?"

Ho Hum. Yawn **********

Care to show that there is any factual evidence that someone will die unless the cops act??

Here are some FACTS for you.

There are 7 million motorcycles registered in the US. There were a little over 5,000 motorcycle related traffic fatalities in 2012.

So only 0.071% of motorcycles are involved in fatal traffic accidents. And since the overwhelming majority of those fatalities will be the motorcyclists themselves, the burden is on YOU to show the need to execute bikers for speeding.

1. Your post lacks a source link. )disqualified right there)

2. Even if it had one, we aren't compelled to accept ti as accurate. And even if we did accept its accuracy, I suspect that "accuracy" only pertains to those accidents where a motorcycle was damaged and identified, whereas in many, possibly most cases, the mc causes the accident, but never is involved physically, scooting off and leaving the wreckage behind, and thus not part of the statistic. Hey, nice try though. E for effort.

3. Burden is on me to show need to execute bikers for speeding ? Burden is on YOU to answer this question >> ""Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?"
(which you've been hiding from long enough)

Sorry, you have failed to show that these types of motorcycles present a clear danger that jeopardizes anyone's lives except on rare occasions.

You have shown no evidence that there is a serious danger. What you are doing is advocating executing someone for something that MIGHT happen.

 

[WinterBorn]

Protectionist, you have repeatedly tried to compare shooting in self defense with shooting a fleeing motorcyclist. That is absolute bullshit.

Here is why your logic fails.

If I am standing in a crowd and aim my gun at someone. I am presenting a clear and impending danger to them. It is clear that my intent is to kill someone.

If I am standing in a crowd and pointing my gun straight up, there is an increased danger but there is no clear and impending danger.


The motorcyclist does present an increased danger, even if it is mostly to themselves. But it is not an impending danger nor is there any intent to harm anyone.

So there is absolutely no justification for their execution. And yes, I use the word execution. A motorcycle accident at a high rate of speed can be expected to cause the death of the rider. And that does not even include the gun fire.

It most certainly IS an impending danger, and whether the motorcyclist intends to kill anyone or that he will kill someone without intent, is irrelevant. Will the innocent motorist who this loon kills, be brought back to life just because the motorcyclist didn't intend to kill ?

Got any evidence to back that up?

How many fatalities are caused by motorcycles in a given year? If you want the cops to start shooting bikers, you need to have some actual facts. So far you don't.

 

[protectionist]

Protectionist, you have repeatedly tried to compare shooting in self defense with shooting a fleeing motorcyclist. That is absolute bullshit.

Here is why your logic fails.

If I am standing in a crowd and aim my gun at someone. I am presenting a clear and impending danger to them. It is clear that my intent is to kill someone.

If I am standing in a crowd and pointing my gun straight up, there is an increased danger but there is no clear and impending danger.


The motorcyclist does present an increased danger, even if it is mostly to themselves. But it is not an impending danger nor is there any intent to harm anyone.

So there is absolutely no justification for their execution. And yes, I use the word execution. A motorcycle accident at a high rate of speed can be expected to cause the death of the rider. And that does not even include the gun fire.

It most certainly IS an impending danger, and whether the motorcyclist intends to kill anyone or that he will kill someone without intent, is irrelevant. Will the innocent motorist who this loon kills, be brought back to life just because the motorcyclist didn't intend to kill ?

Got any evidence to back that up?

How many fatalities are caused by motorcycles in a given year? If you want the cops to start shooting bikers, you need to have some actual facts. So far you don't.

You want them to NOT shoot motorcyclists who endanger motorists. You want them to not shoot people who endanger other people. That would include criminals with a gun. So you want the cops to not shoot them ? You got any evidence about that ?

PS -since this last post was posted by you yesterday, we have no way of knowing if you have survived another day, puffing on that stupid cigar of yours, so if you're still alive, you should show up here and say so. And remember, this is your full time job, so don't be late.

PS - do you know how many people lives you are endangering, with that second hand smoke ?

 

[Iceweasel]

]It was an understatement. Lost on you, of course. We don't kill people for what they might do unless there is a high probability that they will others, like swing a sword around downtown, for example. Drunk drivers kill many orders of magnitude times the amount a motorcyclist does (do you even know of a case?). Why does one matter to you and the other not?

Got a source link to back up that claim, or ar ewe just supposed to to take from you on faith ?

EARTH TO IW: OF COURSE, We don't kill people for what they might do unless there is a high probability that they will others, but that is exactly what we're talking about. Get it ?

Yes, I get it. You are certifiable. I pointed out that it's very rare for a speeding biker to kill anyone but himself, if he does crash. I asked if you even knew of a case, where's your link? I need a link to prove to you that drunk drivers kill more than speeding bikers? You're a trolling fool.

 

[protectionist]

]It was an understatement. Lost on you, of course. We don't kill people for what they might do unless there is a high probability that they will others, like swing a sword around downtown, for example. Drunk drivers kill many orders of magnitude times the amount a motorcyclist does (do you even know of a case?). Why does one matter to you and the other not?

Got a source link to back up that claim, or ar ewe just supposed to to take from you on faith ?

EARTH TO IW: OF COURSE, We don't kill people for what they might do unless there is a high probability that they will others, but that is exactly what we're talking about. Get it ?

Yes, I get it. You are certifiable. I pointed out that it's very rare for a speeding biker to kill anyone but himself, if he does crash. I asked if you even knew of a case, where's your link? I need a link to prove to you that drunk drivers kill more than speeding bikers? You're a trolling fool.

Where's YOUR link ? AGAIN."Got a source link to back up that claim, or are we just supposed to to take from you on faith ?" You're a trolling fool, same as the other loons in this thread. (except that I'll guess you're not as much of a fool as Noomi, who is a WOMAN who converted TO Islam. Nothing could be more foolish than that)

 

[protectionist]

He claims to be 68 but that has to be his IQ because nobody except a moron would go to such lengths to advocate executing a kid on a motorcycle for speeding. Protectionist is the kind of nut case we read about in the news.

So you would not advise a cop to shoot (and maybe "executing" to use your word) a criminal who pulls a gun on him ? So you'd rather have dead cops killed by criminals ? And you'd rather have dead motorists killed by a speeding, reckless motorcyclist ? Who would advocate THAT ? (other than a moron with an IQ of 68 maybe ?)

"Pulls a gun"? When did your hypothetical motorcyclist become a gun-wielding cop killer too?

I still haven't decided if I think you are really this stupid or not. Nah, You couldn't be. Could you ?