Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:08 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:18 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11108
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
We_are_Stevo wrote:
It's funny but I'm bigger than most people, and my so called 'arrogance' is born of confidence in my own abilities, but I would be plain embarrassed if I was spoiling someone elses day out because they were clearly better than me at a shared pastime...

...in the same circumstances I would have slowed on one of the many 'side trails' in evidence to allow the guy past, then made an undoubtably vain attempt to keep up with him :oops:

As for all the nob-defenders, a very basic rule of law is 'Provocation is no defence...'


I would have slowed too, but we don't actually know when Fat Man heard the guy. It was only half a minute into it when Cam Boy started to go on about accidents, etc. I just back up if people are not giving way, especially if they are not crawling slow. Waiting a minute and then carrying on would have been my choice once I realised the guy was not listening to me.

I don't consider Fat Man as having acted reasonably if he truly assaulted Cam Boy, but we don't really know the whole story.

Provocation is very much a defence.

Unprovoked attacks usually attract more serious charges and heavier penalties than those where the lines are blurred.

Threatening someone certainly blurs the lines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:34 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
thecannibal wrote:
We_are_Stevo wrote:
It's funny but I'm bigger than most people, and my so called 'arrogance' is born of confidence in my own abilities, but I would be plain embarrassed if I was spoiling someone elses day out because they were clearly better than me at a shared pastime...

...in the same circumstances I would have slowed on one of the many 'side trails' in evidence to allow the guy past, then made an undoubtably vain attempt to keep up with him :oops:

As for all the nob-defenders, a very basic rule of law is 'Provocation is no defence...'

Just imagine how likeable you could be if you didn't add totally irrelevant expressions of physical dominance to the start of your posts! People might even stop calling you arrogant - it could be the start of a beautiful new life.

Have I missed something, or is this a new courtship ritual?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:38 pm 
King of the DuckBoard
King of the DuckBoard

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:30 pm
Posts: 21466
Groundoggy wrote:
I think the guy who got popped actually did just about everything he could to provoke the 'attacker'. He immediately got on his ass and started yapping at him.

The guy eventually DOES pull over to let this douche bag past and then the douche bag decides to take a route that brings him right back on the ass of the rider who just let him pass.

If somebody starts following me and yapping in my ear for 2 minutes straight he might get a fist in the mouth. Just sayin'. This wussy who is feigning total shock at getting punched for being an annoying weenie twit knew damn well what he was doing. He WANTED it on video. The fact he immediately says 'I got it on video' makes me think he has done it before (logic the weenie used to accuse the attacker of being some sort of experienced serial killer).

I realize this comes across as justifying a random beating - but when somebody is intentionally annoying you they shouldn't be surprised when they end up with a fat lip.


Agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:38 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11108
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
thecannibal wrote:
We_are_Stevo wrote:
It's funny but I'm bigger than most people, and my so called 'arrogance' is born of confidence in my own abilities, but I would be plain embarrassed if I was spoiling someone elses day out because they were clearly better than me at a shared pastime...

...in the same circumstances I would have slowed on one of the many 'side trails' in evidence to allow the guy past, then made an undoubtably vain attempt to keep up with him :oops:

As for all the nob-defenders, a very basic rule of law is 'Provocation is no defence...'


Just imagine how likeable you could be if you didn't add totally irrelevant expressions of physical dominance to the start of your posts! People might even stop calling you arrogant - it could be the start of a beautiful new life.


To be fair, it is relevant to some extent.

I am a big lad too, and it is most often the case when a third party observes an altercation between others they assume the larger built to be the aggressor.

Some manipulate this.

I will just take the opportunity to pick up on the idea that having to slow down a little or stop on a downhill section hardly constitutes the spoiling of a day out. The trails I ride have numerous hill-walkers most times, this interferes not one jot with my enjoyment. If Cam Boy wanted to set a record on that section, he should have waited longer before setting off in order it should be clear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:41 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
highlandsflyer wrote:
Provocation is very much a defence.

Depends. ($ to me)

Not as much as some may think - I suspect there's some very limited circumstances where you'd have much of a defence with that tack.

In this instance, all he'd really had was whiny mithering, he walked over to camera guy TWICE, for what we can only assume is some physical altercation.

I feel it hard to buy into provocation THAT much, here, when he was already walking away, and Mr-Whiny just carried on whining.
highlandsflyer wrote:
Unprovoked attacks usually attract more serious charges and heavier penalties than those where the lines are blurred.

Threatening someone certainly blurs the lines.

This is just me - and it's not the booze talking, nor the drugs - but I would have found it hard to feel threatened or intimidated by Mr Whiny-I'll-mither-you-to-death. Irritated, annoyed, yes, but hardly threatened.

Yes I get the comments about crashing into him, but honestly - camera guy sounded more dweeb with a toy lightsabre, than any true threat.

And watch the video - does it look like Mr Rock Shox looked threatened when he stomped over - or did he look more angry and incensed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:04 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11108
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
Neil wrote:
highlandsflyer wrote:
Provocation is very much a defence.

Depends. ($ to me)

Not as much as some may think - I suspect there's some very limited circumstances where you'd have much of a defence with that tack.

In this instance, all he'd really had was whiny mithering, he walked over to camera guy TWICE, for what we can only assume is some physical altercation.

I feel it hard to buy into provocation THAT much, here, when he was already walking away, and Mr-Whiny just carried on whining.
highlandsflyer wrote:
Unprovoked attacks usually attract more serious charges and heavier penalties than those where the lines are blurred.

Threatening someone certainly blurs the lines.

This is just me - and it's not the booze talking, nor the drugs - but I would have found it hard to feel threatened or intimidated by Mr Whiny-I'll-mither-you-to-death. Irritated, annoyed, yes, but hardly threatened.

Yes I get the comments about crashing into him, but honestly - camera guy sounded more dweeb with a toy lightsabre, than any true threat.

And watch the video - does it look like Mr Rock Shox looked threatened when he stomped over - or did he look more angry and incensed.


It is a general point about provocation.

I am not putting myself in Mr. Fat's shoes. Just thinking towards how it might play in court.

The Police investigating will submit the case to the prosecutors if they feel there is a case to answer.

The prosecutors will likely look at some kind of breach of the peace option rather than assault, (or affray, as it is perfectly possible both may end up charged).

Only if there is third party evidence or an admission will they go for assault, and only if they feel they have a chance of conviction.

The provocation of threatening harm is certainly going to sway a prosecutor away from taking it further as an assault.

It is not important how 'serious' the threat was in Cam Boy's mind. It is how it will sound to a jury, that someone tailgating you on a high mountain trail threatened to run you off it.

Looking at the terrain forcing someone to crash off could potentially cause severe injury. The defence would certainly argue that Mr. Fat could reasonably fear severe injury as a result of that threat.

That then is considered to have affected his state of mind when he responded as he did at the end. This will not be taken out of context in a court case.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:10 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:10 am
Posts: 4756
Location: Heathfield, East Sussex
...and of course, all the people criticising 'Camera Guy' have never, ever, ever, not in a million years, ever, no Sir, ever driven up the arse of a slow moving car on the roads, muttering and cursing because they're preventing them getting where they want to be in a hurry, huh? :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:13 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
highlandsflyer wrote:
Neil wrote:
highlandsflyer wrote:
Provocation is very much a defence.

Depends. ($ to me)

Not as much as some may think - I suspect there's some very limited circumstances where you'd have much of a defence with that tack.

In this instance, all he'd really had was whiny mithering, he walked over to camera guy TWICE, for what we can only assume is some physical altercation.

I feel it hard to buy into provocation THAT much, here, when he was already walking away, and Mr-Whiny just carried on whining.
highlandsflyer wrote:
Unprovoked attacks usually attract more serious charges and heavier penalties than those where the lines are blurred.

Threatening someone certainly blurs the lines.

This is just me - and it's not the booze talking, nor the drugs - but I would have found it hard to feel threatened or intimidated by Mr Whiny-I'll-mither-you-to-death. Irritated, annoyed, yes, but hardly threatened.

Yes I get the comments about crashing into him, but honestly - camera guy sounded more dweeb with a toy lightsabre, than any true threat.

And watch the video - does it look like Mr Rock Shox looked threatened when he stomped over - or did he look more angry and incensed.


It is a general point about provocation.

I am not putting myself in Mr. Fat's shoes. Just thinking towards how it might play in court.

The Police investigating will submit the case to the prosecutors if they feel there is a case to answer.

The prosecutors will likely look at some kind of breach of the peace option rather than assault, (or affray, as it is perfectly possible both may end up charged).

Only if there is third party evidence or an admission will they go for assault, and only if they feel they have a chance of conviction.

The provocation of threatening harm is certainly going to sway a prosecutor away from taking it further as an assault.

It is not important how 'serious' the threat was in Cam Boy's mind. It is how it will sound to a jury, that someone tailgating you on a high mountain trail threatened to run you off it.

Looking at the terrain forcing someone to crash off could potentially cause severe injury. The defence would certainly argue that Mr. Fat could reasonably fear severe injury as a result of that threat.

That then is considered to have affected his state of mind when he responded as he did at the end. This will not be taken out of context in a court case.

You're always going to have a problem with provocation as some kind of defence or mitigation, when actually walking back to Mr-Whiny, after he's just said more whiny things. He was in the process of walking away, then turned back - that's the problem with provocation at that point.

It's like chasing after a burglar to whale on them, then saying you were provoked - it doesn't wash in court.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:01 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:45 pm
Posts: 5261
Location: Birmingham
13 wrote:
Having spent a lot of my mtb life riding DH the etiquette on single track if you come up behind a slower rider is to stop wait a few minutes and then head off again. This clears the track for you and is safer for the rider in front. (these guys are riding dh, on flat or uphill yea let faster riders pass) "tailgating" is dangerous for the rider in front as it puts extra stress on them to go faster. I would think a guy on a long travel trail bike tailgating a guy on an old ridgid had no chance of crashing and what was the big rush?
.


I like this , have been in similar situations myself, Im happy to let people by just let me find a safe place to do it. Dont pick fights you cant finish either.

And he did scream like a girl .

Fat rock shox guy rocks IMO, yeah!!! grumpy fat retroguys 1. Modern full bouncy tossers 0.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:48 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11108
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
What most seem to be focussing on here is what happened at the bottom of the section.

What the court would focus on is the entire incident, from the moment Cam Boy arrived at Fat Man's rear.

The prosecution would put Cam Boy's remark (sarcasm?) about running Mr. Fat off the trail in the context of a silly remark, provoked by Mr. Fat's behaviour.

The defence would claim Cam Boy's remark (threat!) in the context of causing fear in Mr. Fat, and argue that Fat's subsequent actions were a direct response to that fear, for which he could not be expected to take full responsibility. If you like, Mr. Fat's actions will be seen as 'heat of the previous moment'.

They will look at Mr. Fat's record of course, if there is a history of unprovoked aggression that won't work for him, but in this case I reckon it will come to nothing.

Mind that wee loon that was thrown off the train not long ago?

That was a proper full on one sided physical confrontation captured on film.

I reckon the Big Man got away with that one.

On this occasion there is far less to go on to suggest any real assault took place.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group