BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Best part:

-According to a criminal complaint, Bush told police, "I didn't want to kill him. After I shot him, I made sure he was alive."-

Yeah the shooter is such a nice compassionate guy.

what a winner.

the fender-bender that started it was so significant that he has to shoot the other guy. But then the fender-bender is insignificant compared to being arrested for shooting a man over it, so he runs (from his car, which started this mess, and which the cops now have). so they have to tase him. apparently he's also not brilliant enough to stay quiet, providing fantastic quotes admitting guilt to the police and news paper.

In the words of the sageacious Bangles, "Just another manic monday."

If the NRA had their way the victim would have had a gun and we would have a wild west shoot out.

Glad the victim is alive.

hey now, rsprake, guns don't kill people, people kill people. people with guns.

(please note sarcasm, and that doesn't mean I'm anti-gun, I'm anti idiot)

Geez, neither of these gents should have cars or guns.

^^ Along with millions of others…

I need to remember this. My mouth is going to get me shot in traffic one day.

Not as worried about getting shot as run over. At least people usually get in some trouble for the former which is a deterrent. If this guy was smart he would have just run the other guy over and claimed it was an accident.

My mouth is going to get me shot in traffic one day.

Me too. The very next day I got into it with a dude who passed me downhill in a school zone.

The single greatest skill I've acquired in my 12 or so years of commuting via bicycle is keeping my mouth shut during perceived slights by other road users (this includes cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians).

On the other hand, maybe if a few more people get shot, we'll see some attention paid to taking the aggressive people off the roads. Maybe.

@Lyle: my guess is, the NRA will use this as an example of why more people should carry weapons. Is it that hard to imagine the argument they'd make: "if the victim had a gun, he would have been able to protect himself... yada-yada-yada..."

Eh. The NRA likes rampage shootings for that, where there is little doubt that the victims are entirely innocent. They also like white female and child victims. They are NEVER going to argue that a black man in a car should be armed to protect himself from other black men in cars.

NEVER? Really... I wouldn't put it past the NRA.

I agree with Lyle. The NRA doesn't play it tremendously hard, but they do use the idea that white folks "need" guns to be protected from black people.

Bumper sticker: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidently shoot their children.

http://www.nraam.org/

How aobut a gun free ride that weekend?

For those so inclined to "get into it" with drivers, this might not be a good time as there will be a few more out of towners driving that will be packing heat.

man i should have done the nyc ride too. i guess i'm just going to hide in my house with my dogs instead of going out.

Oh damn, I'm going to do my best to stay out of this discussion, I cause enough trubble.

I would love to have one of those that could shoot a flame exactly 3 feet sideways. If I think someone is too close, hit the button and let the flames tell the truth.

A great idea in theory, but people get run over and beat for a lot less.. Victor Lapaglia of Laco Demolition and Excavation threatened to "bust me in the fucking mouth" because he passed me with a gap of less than zero feet, and I made contact with his car. Can you imagine his rage if I shot his blue minivan with a flame?

depends on how big of a flame we're talking about...

Survival Research Labs, circa 1990.

Wow, http://www.nraam.org/ is so American. Eagles, guns! Freedomz!

Watched "Still Bill" last night (Great documentary about the musician Bill Withers). There was a nice still in the film with him teaching his kids how to ride bicycles. Tried unsuccessfully to find it to post, and stumbled on this horror instead:

that doc is great. bill withers ftw.

M'eh. Flamethrowers just incite an arms race.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDrzMGdYWZc

(!) You win with that, Ka-Jun!.

That's Charlton Heston, late "voice of the NRA" above, btw.

He's no Bill Withers.

I used to have a shirt like that. No hat though. The boots are damn near fashionable now.

Man I hope no one actually got them confused.

Follow-up: this guy was out on bail, and shot by the SWAT team in a stand-off last night following a domestic dispute.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11153/1150867-53.stm

He sounds like a real winner.

And we release these people why?

Because the jails are full.

I don't have a problem with putting down a dog with rabies... just say'n.

headloss, please avoid making such analogies. As a community, I think we've agreed it is not appropriate for this board.

Ironically Dwillen, weren't you calling for a dog to be put down about a year ago to examine whether or not it had rabies?

Bush faces charges of aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person and carrying a firearm without a license.

this is slightly misleading, you don't need a license to carry a gun. you DO need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. i suspect this guy would have been rejected for a concealed weapon permit.

i don't know what the nra would say, they generally favor a right to carry a concealed weapon. its important to note here that allegheny county has one of the highest rates of concealed weapon permit holders in the nation. i have to disagree with the nra that this fact alone deters crime. however, if the money from permits went to fund an advertisement campaign its pretty certain that people would think twice before mugging or getting into fights. maybe a giant billboard with something like this on it: "1 out of 5 county residents is carrying a concealed gun, are you feeling lucky?"

You need a license to shorten a shotgun, at least below a certain minimum (18", I think)

You do not need a license to shorten a shotgun, you need a tax stamp. You pay $200 to the ATF, they take their sweet ass time to approve it and if all goes well you can legally own that serial numbered item in a particular configuration. This is of course to do it legally.

ETA: As for what the NRA would say, I am not up to speed with exactly what they would say, but I must ask what difference does it make? I carry a gun everywhere I go. EVERYWHERE legal of course, and I have been in the car and on a bike and royally pissed off, never once did the gun jump out and shoot anyone. What most sane gun owners who carry would do is GTFO. If you have the proper mindset you find yourself avoiding stupid places, stupid people, and stupid things. A street argument puts all 3 together...

I did at no time compare a human to a dog. And at no time did I liken rabies to any other issue. If you recall, doing that in the past had negative connotations in relation to sensitive socioeconomic and racial issues. These comparisons are insulting, and in no way relate to cycling. They don't belong here and I believe as a community we agreed upon that. Please correct me if I'm mistaken on that point. I don't think it is ironic whatsoever.

Furthermore, I believe we hashed out our differences in your thread a while back, Pierce. You believe animals and humans are equal, most other people, including me, don't. It would be nice if you just revived that if you wish to relive that discussion, instead of twisting your views into every random thread that has the most remote connection to animals, especially when doing so would undermine an otherwise important and valid message.

It's ironic from my perspective for you to call for one being to be killed for potentially having rabies and ask that another not make an analogy to somebody being killed for having rabies.

From your perspective, where the killing is distinguishable, I can see how you don't find it ironic.

If you recall, I also thought the previous analogies were inappropriate.

I don't believe humans and nonhuman animals are equal persae, but I do believe they're equally deserving of the right not to be treated as property. But as you said, I could hash that out in another thread

A society that tolerates violence towards others shouldn't be that surprised when the violence turns towards one another. Hit and runs, road rage, killing for one's pleasure, I think it's all related

While I don't agree with it, I did not take issue with the killing of a person. That is my own personal opinion and I recognize that. I don't need to berate people with it.

As much as I hate to spell it out here, I took issue with comparing the person to a dog with rabies. The person killed did not have rabies, and was not a dog. Such a comparison is not appropriate, other issues aside. There is no irony in me asking for such a comparison not to be made.

I didn't think he was killed either, just ICUed.

Somehow seeing a history (as opposed to the road rage as an isolated event) just makes me very sad. This guy has been making similar decisions since he was 18, and at no point since then has anything happened to influence him to become less self (and other) destructive? I can't imagine how bad life would have to be for how long that waving a sawed off shotgun at a bunch of SWAT and snipers seems like the BEST option at the time.

Just really sad.

crowded jails are a big problem when it comes to guys like this who have a pattern of violent conduct. not that the jails need to be bigger, the problem being more that deterrence and rehabilitation aren't happening.

he's not dead. he just had surgery and is handcuffed to his bed at Presby.

The problem is many criminals are just wired different and that behavior won't change, history shows us this.

I never said this person was dead. The conversation went like this:

"And we release these people why?"

"Because the jails are full."

"I don't have a problem with putting down a dog with rabies... just say'n."

This suggests to me, and other readers, that we should kill people instead of release them from jail (this person or others?), or perhaps solve our overcrowded jails issue by killing people. Personally, I disagree with this, but if you all want to discuss it, then so be it. The line of discussion, unfortunately, also likened this person or other people in jail to a dog (with rabies), which is what I actually took issue with and tried to point out.

I've been googling "overcrowding allegheny county jail" and "daily population allegheny county jail." I haven't been able to find anything with useful information or even analysis. Can anyone present information substantiating the "The jails are full" claim? I hadn't heard that was a problem here.

According to here, Pittsburgh has 107% of its total capacity, and PA averages 116% of its total capacity. So, they're a little overcrowded, although they're certainly not as bad as they could be.

Thanks, Rich. As handy as the Google machine can be, if you're searching something that is not sponsored, or key-word friendly or whatever, it's hard to find anything actually useful.

So, wait a minute, though. The initial event happened two months ago. Had that case been tried? Or was he out on bail awaiting trial? He would have been in County jail, not the state DOC, right? Any criminal attorneys out there? (I don't mean to nit pick any of this, its really just a curiosity.)

You have to put this in perspective: if they had kept this guy in jail, they might have had to release a marijuana smoker.

1) You are innocent until proven guilty

2) The wheels of justuce turn slowly

3) Evidence from non-tried-and convicted cases is usually deemed unadmissable

4) see 1, 2 and 3 and you know why rap sheets are soo long

Holy sh*t.

Just read the PG story. So he has a rap sheet dating to 1991 and littered with violent and gun offenses. And then the shooting that launched this thread a few months ago. And he was out on $50,000 bail?

Wow. That's not about overcrowding. He came up with $50,000 straight bail.

come on mick, everyone knows that smoking dope turns you into a murderous psychopath - you need to keep people like that locked up!

I wonder how many people are actually in jail for smoking marijuana. Probably very few. Likely a few more in jail for buying marijuana, a few for growing it, a bunch more for selling it. Any real stats, Mick?

@Mick: they let him out because he posted the bail.

Criminals are people who are charged and convicted of breaking the law, and near as I've been able to tell that seems to be the only thing that ties them all universally to each other. Generalizing that they're wired differently just excuses treating them poorly or differently than one would treat a non-criminal. Yes, punishment is by default treating them different from a non-criminal, but in many prisons that punishment goes beyond segregation from society to include treatment and conditions I personally wouldn't wish on another living being regardless of their conviction.

Isn't there some quote that one can measure a society by how they treat their criminals or some such?

The 50k straight bail he came up with indicates that society (or at least the society he keeps) has somehow rewarded his past behavior with the means to continue it. That's even weirder to me.

@ejwme: Totally. I mean, who has $50K laying around? And if you do have $50K around, and you have his history, what's the likelihood that $50K represents ill-gotten gains?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UGC2nLnaes

even when ill-gotten, $50k is a difficult sum to achieve. I wonder if he or a loved one put up the deed to a house assessed at more than that rather than actual cash. I don't know if that's possible.

Seriously, volatile behavior isn't typically rewarded at that level by any enterprise, legit or not. Or maybe that's just my wishfull thinking.

I probably have no business posting about this, as I don't do criminal law and don't want to suggest that I know the nuts and bolts of it.

I believe the bond system here works something like this. Typically with an amount this size, the person would use a bail bondsman, since as has been pointed out, he doesn't have cash lying around and probably no one he knows has either. So I'll confine the post to that version.

The bail bondsman has a agreement with the county that indicates he has a standing line of credit with some financial institution, which he can access for the purpose of posting bond for those arrested.

The bondsman typically charges 10% of the required bond for his services in using his line of credit to post the bond that gets the accused out of jail.

The accused has to come up with that 10% from somewhere (himself, family, friends), which the bondsman takes as his fee before he will tap into his line of credit and draw the funds from it to post the bond and get the accused out of jail.

If the accused stays around and goes to trial or plea bargains, then the bondsman gets back the sum he advanced on his line of credit.

Of course, if the accused skips town, the bondsman loses the money he put up through his line of credit and he owes the money back to whomever his line of credit is with.

To avoid that, the bondsman will often take a pledge or mortgage against property of the person who paid him the 10% commission. This gives the accused some incentive not to flee since he will still have to deal with the person who put up the 10%. This is usually a family member so he can't avoid them forever.

ALternatively, he has the authority to go chase the person himself, arrest him, and bring him back for trial, therby getting his line of credit funds back. Or he can hire Dog the Bounty Hunter to do it for him.

Point of it is, we're probably talking only about $5000 here. And it's most likely been advanced by someone other than the accused.

PG article indicated he paid straight bail.

From the Google machine: "Straight bail means that a person has to post the entire amount of the bail in order to be released."

@ALMKLM -- I don't think your definition is necessarily inconsistent with my explanation. In it the full amount of the bond gets posted -- it's just posted by a third party on behalf of the accused instead of by the accused himself. The accused could do it himself if he had the funds. The county doesn't care where they get the funds as long as thry get them before they let him out.

It's certainly possible that the guy did put up his own money. Like others on the thread, it seemed to me less likely that he had a cool $50K sitting around that he could grab than he didn't and used a bail bondsman to get it.

More on prison overcrowding: Inmates sent to Michigan brought back to Pa. prisons

heh... the Stephanie Plum novels explain it just like cdavey does, but with more explosions and funny characters and binge eating.

So does that mean that the people who don't have to post straight bail can post 10% of it, which they can post through a bondsman theoretically by providing only 10% of that - resulting in people only having to have access to 1% of the "bail" amount... until they skip at least? Doesn't seem like much of a point - the amount to get out is so tiny and the amount owed upon skipping is so unfathomable in comparison it's like it's play money and can't be taken seriously.

Being a criminal who gets caught sounds too confusing for me, I think I'll stick with my day job.