PDA

View Full Version : Bicycle Carry


mete
January 26, 2012, 08:54 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092073/Man-shoots-dead-teenager-knocked-bicycle.html

Even carrying on a bicycle can be a good idea. The article didn't have very much in detail and the headline should have read 'attacked by three teenagers'. BTW those of us who are seasoned citizens should be aware that we are targets for crime !! Old , not physically strong -an easy target !

ChuckS
January 26, 2012, 09:27 AM
Even carrying on a bicycle can be a good idea. ...BTW those of us who are seasoned citizens should be aware that we are targets for crime !!...

Cycling leaves you open and vulnerable and as often the case, like this gentleman, far from home and alone. This was my exact incentive to get my original carry license about twenty years ago.

Glad it turned out well for him.

spacecoast
January 26, 2012, 09:57 AM
I always carry when biking, either my LCP or my 637-2 in a front or back pocket.

kraigwy
January 26, 2012, 10:16 AM
I don't ride bicycles but I do ride motorcycles. I don't vary my carry methods when I'm on a bike.

I do most of my practice one handed so that's not an issue.

My wife and grandduaghter play at Mounted CB Action shooting. We have a roping arena we use for practice.

I don't PLAN on having to shoot from my Sporster, but it is a lot of fun playing with it, shooting wify's MCBAS baloons.

Just another shooting sport.

doofus47
January 26, 2012, 11:44 AM
Hey kraigwy: is it harder to hit a moving target or to be a moving shooter?
I never thought I'd ever ask that question, but you seem to be one of the few to be able to answer.

Glad it turned out okay for the old guy.

kraigwy
January 26, 2012, 11:52 AM
Personally I think its harder to shoot while you're moving then to shoot a moving target but that's just me.

I think it might have more to do with the idea that I practice shooting movers more then I practice shooting from a horse or bike.

Shooting as in Run 'n Gun doesn't matter that much to me, I don't move that fast any more. More like slow motion even if I'm going as fast as I can.

I think it has to do more with which one you practice the most.

briandg
January 26, 2012, 02:38 PM
I brought this subject up a while back. A point I tried to make was that people on bikes just seem to be natural targets. a pedestrian can step out into an intersection, and be given right of way, but when a cyclist interferes with traffic, you can count on some jackass in a car to brush him off the road.

This guy may or may not pack a gun when he is out shopping, but he packs when he is on his bike, simply because this is probably not the only time that he's been assaulted while biking, either by drivers or people on foot.

I don't know if it has been reported here, but there is a new "game" making the rounds. Groups of kids target an old person, then beat that person down, while recording the video on a phone. The video is posted to the internet. People have been killed; locally, a guy spent weeks in a coma, and has serious brain damage after an attack.

It is highly probable that the third was hanging back from the attack because his role was "photojournalist," and if this was the case, according to what I have read, this guy probably had only a 25% chance of escaping with his life. Most of the vicitms do wind up with some sort of permanent injury.

kraigwy
January 26, 2012, 03:16 PM
A 65 year old man shot two teens when three of them knocked him off his bike that then tried to attack him. One was killed, one wouldnt and the thrid sent to a youth center.

The 65 year old was released without charges.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46143485/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

I often wondered if an old man, lets say, he had a bad ticker, would be required to take a Butt Whipping from an much younger, stronger guy, instead of using his hand gun to protect himself.

C0untZer0
January 26, 2012, 03:37 PM
I have a pouch that attaches to my bike that would be perfect for carrying a gun, and I know it's easier for me to retreive a gun from it than for me to reach to my hip.

But the high probability of being knocked off the bike during an attack makes it a bad choice.

Another thread where these issues were discussed:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=466511&highlight=bike

pax
January 26, 2012, 10:31 PM
I often wondered if an old man, lets say, he had a bad ticker, would be required to take a Butt Whipping from an much younger, stronger guy, instead of using his hand gun to protect himself.

Kraig,

Civil law has a concept called the "eggshell skull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull)" doctrine, which basically says an attacker takes the victim as he finds him -- that when someone commits a negligent act that leads to another person getting injured, then that person is culpable for the entire extent of the injury even if the victim had some pre existing condition that turned what should have been a minor problem into a major one.

In criminal law, a similar doctrine applies in self defense. The attacker doesn't have to know he is putting you in legitimate & reasonable fear for your life. You simply have to know it and be able to articulate your reasonable belief that (for example) someone about to punch you in the head was actually about to use deadly force against you whether he fully realized it or not. A man with a known issue such as a "bad ticker" would almost certainly find relief in such a rule.

See http://www.useofforce.us/ for a really good overview.

(Disclaimer: IANAL, simply a firearms instructor who's also an autodidact with a wickedly obsessive reading habit.)

pax

9ballbilly
January 26, 2012, 10:35 PM
I always carry when my son and I are out mountain biking. For me it's either a Ruger speed-six .38 or a S&W 4006 .40 in a fanny pack.

I'd also like to take just a moment to thank the members here. My best friend and shooting partner passed away in 2003. Since then I've bounced many ideas off you guys and always appreciated the feedback both positive and negative.

Thank you, Bill (formorly HFPD#16)

Buzzard Bait
January 26, 2012, 11:05 PM
In Texas I can carry a gun in my car without a licence would my bicicle count like my car or as on my person like I was walking?

kraigwy
January 26, 2012, 11:47 PM
Thanks PAX

Stevie-Ray
January 27, 2012, 12:01 AM
My Glock 26 is my biking gun, as I shoot it best one-handed and equally well with each. It's only cover is a safety vest, and it rides OWB in a Michaels of Oregon Kydex at 3:00. Biking is one of the few times I change from my EDC.

Alaska444
January 27, 2012, 12:49 AM
Dear Pax,

Thank you for that example. I am a hemodialysis patient and have a blood access in my left upper arm which could easily be damaged in a fight of any sort let alone if they had a knife or something. Any damage to my blood access could end in fatal complications or require surgery and other types of procedures to stay alive on dialysis.

In addition, I heal much slower than normal so cuts and scrapes and even bruises could be devastating. I have assumed that my medical condition could be a justification for use of my weapon in the event of a single attacker larger than me. I am only 5' 6" inches since I have shrunk in my "old age" of 53.

In addition, even though I am still fairly muscular, I have very little sustained exercise tolerance at high levels for more than a little bit of time. Quite a complicated explanation dealing with oxygen utilization differences in dialysis patients, but once again, I won't have as much fight in me as someone without this medical condition even though I still have a fair amount of my strength.

I haven't seen it written anywhere before, but I have asked folks if this a viable defense against a single person who is hell bent on doing harm. I hope I never have to put it to a test, but it is something that I have thought about in the disparity of force argument of self defense. Simply put, after a very short burst, I would not have the oxygen carrying capacity to sustain a full fighting potential compared to someone else with my weight and muscle mass at my age.

If you have some case law that goes into that in detail, that would be very helpful to know in advance.

Thank you,

By the way, if you live long enough, you will become as decrepit as I already am.

Hook686
January 27, 2012, 03:22 AM
All that said, I suspect the DA will not take your word for all that. Doctors statements, lab tests, medical records I think would all need come into play. Ultimately I think it is a jury that decides if ones action was reasonable. If a DA wants to press it, I suppose he could. The DA is not out of any pocket expenses. However the same might not be true for you. No matter how rational, reasonable, or justifiable you believe your actions would be, I doubt that your fate depends upon them.

Frank Ettin
January 27, 2012, 03:33 AM
...In criminal law, a similar doctrine applies in self defense. The attacker doesn't have to know he is putting you in legitimate & reasonable fear for your life. You simply have to know it and be able to articulate your reasonable belief that (for example) someone about to punch you in the head was actually about to use deadly force against you whether he fully realized it or not...I'd say that's correct. The key is that one be able to articulate why a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances (including having the same medical indisposition) would conclude that the attacker had the ability to wield force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily injury. So medical issues get factored in.

...I suspect the DA will not take your word for all that. Doctors statements, lab tests, medical records I think would all need come into play...And I think that's correct too.

If you're going to claim that you are particularly fragile and thus reasonably feared death in circumstance in which a more robust person might not, you may need to establish a sound basis for your belief.

zincwarrior
January 27, 2012, 07:25 AM
In Texas I can carry a gun in my car without a licence would my bicicle count like my car or as on my person like I was walking?
No. The vehicle exemption is specific.

Stevie-Ray
January 27, 2012, 06:22 PM
I'd say that's correct. The key is that one be able to articulate why a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances (including having the same medical indisposition) would conclude that the attacker had the ability to wield force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily injury. So medical issues get factored in.I had a friend that had had 2 skull fractures, one when he was little, another in a horriffic motorcycle accident where he was thrown headfirst into a tree. The second was enough that the Doctors told him he could take no more blows to the head. He asked, "You mean like if somebody punches me in the face...." and the doctor finished, "It could very well kill you." I always wondered if he ever applied for a CW permit or even if he changed his life. Haven't talked to him in many years, but I would consider him a prime example that medical conditions would indeed be factored in.

Alaska444
January 28, 2012, 04:03 PM
Proving my medical condition would be as simple as rolling up my sleaves and quoting medical studies on what an injury to my fistula would entail, or quoting medical studies on oxygen usage in dialysis patients compared to those with kidney disease. Lots of pictures and other issues. So that wasn't really what I was asking.

I would really like to know if there is any actual case law where that was brought to force as a successful defense proving the disparity of force issue. Documenting my medical condition would not take long and I could do that myself as an expert witness since I have testified as an expert medical witness in the past. The question, is, is there any case law where this was used as a successful defense.

Of course, you must have the elements of jeopardy, imminant threat of grave bodily harm or death, opportunity and ability. The disparity of force issue goes into the ability portion of the self defense criteria. For myself, there are many issues where I would not tolerate a beating as others might. Platelet dysfunction in renal disease promotes easier bleeding, poor wound healing, the need for continued dialylsis which after bodily injury is subject to the need to anti-coagulate the blood during dialysis or risk clots, blood loss when I am already 20% lower levels of blood than normal people, fragile bones from the mineral bone disease of secondary hyperparathyroidism, i.e. we break bones easier and could be disabled in a fight quicker.

That is just a partial list of physiologic changes from renal disease that would be very easy to document. But once again, that is not the question. The question if anyone has it, is physical disability a known and proven case law to show that a single attacker equals disparity of force for someone in my condition. I am interested in the actual case law history of this type of self defense. I asked one CCW instructor, he did not have a specific answer, but felt by opinion that it would be a reasonable disparity of force documentation. Once again, this goes to the ABILITY aspect of a lawful self defense.

Thank you,

Alaska

Frank Ettin
January 28, 2012, 04:22 PM
Proving my medical condition would be as simple as rolling up my sleaves and quoting medical studies ...No one said that it necessarily had to be difficult to do, but you will still need to show that you're at greater risk than someone without your medical condition.

It might be pretty easy to do that in some cases, and it might be harder in other cases. But it will still need to be done.

Alaska444
January 28, 2012, 04:35 PM
Dear Fiddletown, I truly don't question the ability to prove my disability. That is truly a given. Once again, the question is case law and precedent from other cases. The prior post hinted that is the case. I am simply asking for specifics on an issue that I have wondered for quite some time without any specific answer to date.

Am I at higher risk of grave bodily injury and or death from what others would take as a survivable but severe beating? Absolutely. That would not be an issue to prove whatsoever. The question I have deals with case law and historical references to specific cases where the courts recognized this in a successful self defense case.

Thank you,

Alaska444

Alaska444
January 28, 2012, 04:44 PM
I guess I will try to answer my own question on disparity of force which is what the victim of the bike attack had by multiple attackers although apparently unarmed.

Here is one case:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_154_25/ai_77824400/?tag=content;col1

Frank Ettin
January 28, 2012, 04:48 PM
...the question is case law and precedent from other cases. The prior post hinted that is the case. I am simply asking for specifics on an issue...The general legal principles are as pax and I have outlined. Looking for case law, especially specific to dialysis patients, would entail many hours of research. I'm not planning to do that.

Alaska444
January 28, 2012, 05:03 PM
January 26, 2012, 07:31 PM #10
pax
Staff

Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 5,748
Quote:
I often wondered if an old man, lets say, he had a bad ticker, would be required to take a Butt Whipping from an much younger, stronger guy, instead of using his hand gun to protect himself.
Kraig,

Civil law has a concept called the "eggshell skull" doctrine, which basically says an attacker takes the victim as he finds him -- that when someone commits a negligent act that leads to another person getting injured, then that person is culpable for the entire extent of the injury even if the victim had some pre existing condition that turned what should have been a minor problem into a major one.

In criminal law, a similar doctrine applies in self defense. The attacker doesn't have to know he is putting you in legitimate & reasonable fear for your life. You simply have to know it and be able to articulate your reasonable belief that (for example) someone about to punch you in the head was actually about to use deadly force against you whether he fully realized it or not. A man with a known issue such as a "bad ticker" would almost certainly find relief in such a rule.

See http://www.useofforce.us/ for a really good overview.

(Disclaimer: IANAL, simply a firearms instructor who's also an autodidact with a wickedly obsessive reading habit.)

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
Managing Editor, Concealed Carry Magazine
My personal website: Cornered Cat

Let's go back to post #10 where I entered due to the "egg shell skull" doctrine in civil courts. I am not looking for a dialysis specific case, but the issue of disability of the victim raising the level of concern over grave bodily injury or death as a disparity of force justification. I have no doubt that a single blow by fist to my dialysis access could absolutely cause grave bodily injury or death if it ruptured the access. Not an issue to prove the disability whatsoever to a court or a jury. Not my concern.

Once again, what disability related disparity of force issues are part of case law already. Is it state by state, or are there general parameters already settled case law. Going back to Pax and the egg shell skull theory, I have yet to see a direct application of that sort of thinking to any specific self defense cases. That is the question, not simply for dialysis patients. In other words, as it would apply to the disparity of force issue which I know is settled law. How does a proven disability, (I am certified as 100% disabled legally right now) apply to the disparity of force issue?

Thank you,

Alaska444

Frank Ettin
January 29, 2012, 01:26 AM
...Once again, what disability related disparity of force issues are part of case law already. Is it state by state, or are there general parameters already settled case law. Going back to Pax and the egg shell skull theory, I have yet to see a direct application of that sort of thinking to any specific self defense cases. That is the question, not simply for dialysis patients. In other words, as it would apply to the disparity of force issue which I know is settled law. How does a proven disability, (I am certified as 100% disabled legally right now) apply to the disparity of force issue?...What you want is an extensive, fully researched legal opinion. I've certainly done that sort of thing in the course of my practice. Doing a thorough and proper job, which if I undertook the the job I'd be ethically obliged to do, would involve a great many hours of careful research.

At my normal consulting rates, it would be a fairly expensive project. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do it here, for free. If you really must have a definitive answer, you will probably need to hire a local lawyer who is familiar with these sorts of issues and pay him for a well researched opinion.

dyl
January 30, 2012, 04:57 PM
No specifics to give to you (no cases). But I am just having a difficult time thinking of a scenario when the situation would be so ambiguous that the defining key would be that you are a dialysis patient. Attacker/s approach at night, recieves verbal warnings, defender moves off line /retreats yet attacker follows/pursues and shows intent, defender's weapon drawn, attacker ignores further warning. Crosses personal deciding line and fire. Call 911 and describe, establish case with police. That's the most ambiguous I can think of right now and without any verbal response or anyone laying hands on the defender. More interaction would make things even less ambiguous as to intent / justification at least in my mind. And the above scenario would seem realistic to me (although I am not the judge or jury) for someone without ESRD - who is in fear for their life or grievous bodily injury. Maybe you are worried that your appearance would throw a judge/jury into thinking there was no reason to fear for your life or that there really was no disparity of force.

If there is no case law regarding this does that mean you will take a few blows before drawing? Or wait until someone grabs you before you draw?

KC Rob
January 30, 2012, 05:06 PM
Maybe you could rig up something like this on your bike, should act as a pretty good deterrent:

http://amazingdata.com/mediadata12/Image/amazing_fun_weird_cool_3418510286_aeb7c34296_200907231854231848.jpg

Alaska444
January 31, 2012, 04:18 AM
Yesterday, 01:57 PM #27
dyl
Senior Member

Join Date: October 31, 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 284
No specifics to give to you (no cases). But I am just having a difficult time thinking of a scenario when the situation would be so ambiguous that the defining key would be that you are a dialysis patient. Attacker/s approach at night, recieves verbal warnings, defender moves off line /retreats yet attacker follows/pursues and shows intent, defender's weapon drawn, attacker ignores further warning. Crosses personal deciding line and fire. Call 911 and describe, establish case with police. That's the most ambiguous I can think of right now and without any verbal response or anyone laying hands on the defender. More interaction would make things even less ambiguous as to intent / justification at least in my mind. And the above scenario would seem realistic to me (although I am not the judge or jury) for someone without ESRD - who is in fear for their life or grievous bodily injury. Maybe you are worried that your appearance would throw a judge/jury into thinking there was no reason to fear for your life or that there really was no disparity of force.

If there is no case law regarding this does that mean you will take a few blows before drawing? Or wait until someone grabs you before you draw?


Good summary. Yes, going by my appearance, I am actually about 200 pounds, 5'6" and still fairly muscular. I don't look like the usual dialysis patient since I do home daily. I still look like I can handle myself and I still have a fair amount of my strength, but very little endurance. The biggest issue is the superficial nature of my access and a single blow to the biceps where it is located could cause irreparable harm. Rupture would result in a very quick death with nearly 2L of blood a minute through this access.

Thank you for the information. It all depends on the basics in many ways and following the proper training. We were trained to back up if possible yelling stop, I will shoot. I understand the no retreat laws, just the preference of the CCW instructor making easier to defend backing up.

I hope I never get to put the issue to any test. Thanks for looking.