Bike rage in New Zealand

Status
Not open for further replies.
We_are_Stevo":1jjanmou said:
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...'
Click to expand...

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.
 
thecannibal":27qj3p9v said:
We_are_Stevo":27qj3p9v said:
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...'
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Have I missed something, or is this a new courtship ritual?
 
Groundoggy":29kg1cgr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree.
 
thecannibal":26zgrjdr said:
We_are_Stevo":26zgrjdr said:
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...'
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
highlandsflyer":v4nsba61 said:
Provocation is very much a defence.
Click to expand...
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":v4nsba61 said:
Unprovoked attacks usually attract more serious charges and heavier penalties than those where the lines are blurred.

Threatening someone certainly blurs the lines.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Neil":1x6qq05c said:
highlandsflyer":1x6qq05c said:
Provocation is very much a defence.
Click to expand...
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":1x6qq05c said:
Unprovoked attacks usually attract more serious charges and heavier penalties than those where the lines are blurred.

Threatening someone certainly blurs the lines.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
...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:
 
highlandsflyer":21oi0kqm said:
Neil":21oi0kqm said:
highlandsflyer":21oi0kqm said:
Provocation is very much a defence.
Click to expand...
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":21oi0kqm said:
Unprovoked attacks usually attract more serious charges and heavier penalties than those where the lines are blurred.

Threatening someone certainly blurs the lines.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
13":2xyvncmk said:
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?
.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Wanted Moby Ringle Seat Post - Cradle Clamps Parts
Replies
1
Views
263
Star12
Star12
clubby
Sold Brand new KS Rage i 170mm dropper 30.9
Replies
0
Views
520
clubby
clubby
H
Hello. My Klein.
Replies
7
Views
480
Hardly Hardy
H
S
New member here from the USA with a couple bikes from the UK
2 3
Replies
20
Views
845
sd5782
S
I
For Sale Kooka Cranks 175mm
Replies
5
Views
1K
IndyFab1
I

Latest posts

Back
Top